AN
EXAMINATTON
OF THE ALLEGED
DISCREPANCIES OF TIE BIBLE.
~By
JOHN W. HALEY, M.A.
WITH
AN INTRODUCTION
BY
ALVAH  HOVEY, D.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.
CHICAGO:
W. G. HOLMES, PUBLISHtER,
79 MADISON STRErT.
ANDOVER: W. F. DRAPER. BOSTON: ESTES AND LAURIAT.
1875.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, byWARREN F. DRAPER,
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washingtoi.
ANDOVER: PRINTED BY WARREN P. DRAPER,
PRESS, RAND, AVERY & CO.




INTRODUCTIONI.
HAVING read attentively the entire manuscript of the following 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 language 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.
MiIoreover, the statements of the author appear to be unusuiii




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. This 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 investigation 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.




PREFACE.
Is 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
public mind by scattering broadcast, in the cars and upon steamboats, 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, I
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 Commentaries, but, for the most part, quite incidentally.  Works
exclusively devoted to the topic in question are few in number
V




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. I know of no
work, ancient or modern, which covers the whole ground,
treating the subject comprehensively yet concisely, and whMch 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 publishing 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, tie
author's object will have been attained.
Not proposing a discussion of all the difficult questions which




PREFACE.                         vii
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 "discrepancies" 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 whatever seemed pertinent and satisfactory.2
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 important 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
1 The whole number of cases treated is nearly nine hundred.
2 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 given throughout the work.




Viii                     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 L 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 people; 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 authorities, which occur upon nearly every page.
1 ife of Our Lord, p. xvi.




PREFACE.                      ix
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.
On 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, whenever 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 exemption from what Porson terms " the common lot of authorship." 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 encouragement, 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. Tovey, 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 bibliography 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 pertaining 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 in this volume; to Rev.




X                       PREFACE.
Selah 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 progress
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.
Mloreover, 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 conviction that every difficulty and discrepancy in the scriptures
is, and will yet be seen to be, capable of a fair and reasonable
solution.
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 tbeir very
names are forgotten, the sacred volume will be, as it has beeil
during the centuries past, the guide and solace of unnumbered
millions of our race.
J. W. H.
ANDOVER, MASS., June, 1874.




CONTENTS.
rAGO
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 II.
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 III.
RESULTS OF THE DISCREPANCIES,                          41-54
1. Text of Bible not unsettled,...           41
2. Moral influence of the Bible not impaired,.      50




xii                    CONTENTS.
PART  II.
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 II.
ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES,....    219-311
I. Duty of Man to God,...... 219
II. Duty of Man to himself,.....  245
III. Duty of Man to his fellow-men,.        255
CHAPTER III.
HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES,..... 312-436
I. Pertaining to Persons,...... 312
II. Pertaining to Places,......        363
III. Pertaining to Numbers,......380
IV. Pertaining to Time,              3. 92
V. Miscellaneous,....... 427
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX,... 43.7
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS,..         445
GENERAL INDEX,....                               462




DISCREPANCIES OF TI-E BIBLE.
P A 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 difficulties 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 "C discrepancies," that its statements, taken prima facie, not infrequently conflict with or
contradict one another, may safely be presumed. This fact
1 Life of Christ, Preface to first edition.




2             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
has been more or less recognized by Christian scholars in all
ages.
Of the early writers, Origen' declares that if any one should
carefully examine the Gospels in respect to their historic
disagreement, he would grow dizzy-headed, and, attaching himself to one of them, he would desist from  the attempt to establish all as true, or else he would regard the four as true, yet
not in their external forms.
Chrysostom 2 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,
_M!oses Stuart,4 whose candor was commensurate with his erudition, 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." 5
To much the same effect, Archbishop Whately6 observes:
"That the apparent contradictions of scripture are numerous —
that the instruction conveyed by them, if they be indeed designed for such a purpose, is furnished in abundance -is too
notorious to need being much insisted on."
Similarly says Dr. Charles Hodge: z "It would require not a
volume, but volumes, to discuss all the cases of alleged discrepancies."
Such being the concessions made by Christian scholars, it
can occasion no surprise to find sceptical authors expatiating
upon the "glaring inconsistencies," "self-contradictions," and
2 Comm. in Evangelium Joannis, Vol. i. p. 279, Lommatzsch's edition.
2 Warington on Inspiration, p. 36.
2 See Rabus in appended Bibliography.
Crit. Hist. and Defence of O. T. Canon, p. 193. Revised ed. p. 179.
When we consider the marked progress of sacred philology and allied
sciences during the last quarter of a century, we cannot donbt that the
Proflessor would, were he now living, essentially modify this opinion.
On Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul; Essay 7, Sect. 4.'Theology, Vol. i., p. 169.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                 3
"manifest discrepancies" 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 copyists, abound
with arguments of this character.
Of the importance of our theme, little need be said. Clearly
it bears a close and vital relation 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 inspired.  We see, therefore, the
need of a patient and impartial examination of alleged falsehoods 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 difficulties, they are therefore insoluble.
This inference —to which minds of a certain temper are peculiarly liable —savors so strongly of egotism and dogmatism
as to be utterly repugnant to the spirit 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 thoroughness 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 attributable 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 phraseology.
Numerous illustrations of this principle will be found 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." 1 Taking these texts out of their connection,
and, with characteristic fairness, making no mention of the interval 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, his "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 circumstances may perfectly explain apparent discrepancies, and
remove every vestige of contradiction.
MIay 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 occasionally 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" 2 make the revelation of human duty in much the
same way- not as with the lightning's blinding flash, but like
the morning upon the mountains, with a slow and gradual
illumination? 3
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 passed by. - Those "times
1 Gen. i. 31 and ri. 6.           2 Heb. i. 1, so Alford.
3 See Bernard, Progress of Docte in New Test., passim.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                  5
of ignorance" God "winked at"' -" over-looked." Acts committed 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 Arnold2 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,3
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." 4
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
1 " In this word lie treasures of mercy for those who lived in the times
of i-norancc."- Alford on Acts xvii. 30.
2 Miscellaneous Works, pp. 149, 150 (N. Y. edition).' History of Old'rest. Canon, p. 415. Revised ed. pp. 3887, 388.
4 See further, under Ethical Discrepancies, "Enemies cursed."
1*




6            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.1
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." 2  When 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 discrepancy needs.
With regard to utterances clearly referable to inspired
sources, yet which apparently disagree, several things 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
sufficiently 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 does not destroy the individuality of the
1Distinguite tempora," says Augustine, " et concordabunt scripturae";
" Distinguish as to times, and the scriptures will harmonize."
2 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, allowing him,
generally, to clothe them in his own language. In this way his
individuality is preserved, and his 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 divergences 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 principle relieves the apparent discrepancies between the phraseology 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 they
were actually false; for half the truth will very often amount
to absolute falsehood." 2
Often, in looking from different positions, or at different
objects, we follow lines of thought, or employ language, which
seems inconsistent with something elsewhere propounded by
us; yet there may be no real inconsistency in the case. Thus
1See several striking cases under " Scriptures, - Quotations."
2 Future State, Lect. VI., p. 120 (Phila. edition).




8             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
we say, in the same breath, "1Man 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 immortal. So one may say: "The people of this country are
rulers," and, " The American people are ruled." In the sense
intended, both assertions may be perfectly correct.
In the " Christian 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, yet is a continual fighter, and is an
irreconcilable enemy.
"He is -often in prison, yet always at liberty; a freeman,
though a servant.
"l Ie 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.  Sometimes these aspects or relations may seem inconsistent or
incompatible 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 THE DISCREPANCIES.                9
It is scarcely needful to add, that in studying the sacred
writings, 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 apt, 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 hesitation 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 wandering 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 himself responsible in any degree for the conduct
described by him. When he drops 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 ethics 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 slightest
degree responsible for that misconduct.  Yet many persons,
who would not think 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
narrating and indorsing an act.
4. Many other apparent discrepancies, of a historical character, are occasioned by the adoption, by the several authors,
of defferernt principles and methods of arrangement.   One
writer follows the strict chronological order; another disposes
1 Chips from a German Workshop, i. 133 (Am. edition).




10           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE,
his 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 biography; 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 find
a proper biography of Socrates, but we see various points in
his life and character set forth by anecdotes rejpecting him
and by reports of his discussions. These are " thrown together
in the manner best suited to illustrate the different topics, without
regard to the order of time in which the transactions or conversations 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,1 " 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 which he passed." A similar and intentional disregard
of chronological order and sequence is seen, to a greater or less
degree, in the three remaining Gospels, and in other historical
portions of the Bible.
The methods of the several authors being thus different, it
cannot but be that their narratives, when compared, will present
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 precisely the
same fulness or brevity, we do them great violence and injustice. We should let each follow his own method of arrangement, 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 of Books of Bible, pp. 153, 154.




ORIGIN OF 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
phraseology, involving a historical inaccuracy, yet not be
chargeable with falsehood, inasmuch as he does not intend to
teach anything in reference to the matter. For example, a
historian might incidentally speak of the "battle of Bunker
I-ill," while he knows perfectly well that the battle was fought
on Breed's hill. It is an author's privilege to accommodate
himself in this manner, to prevalent 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 computation, 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 simple and easilysettled 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 Washlington's mother, asserts
that he was born "ye 11th day of February, 1731."  On the
other hand, a recent biography 1 of Washington gives the date
as "' the 22d of February, 1732, New Style."  To those who understand the difference between "6 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 different 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."'
"LThe ancient Egyptians, Chaldeans, Persians, Syrians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians eacb 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 different 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 tile Great, the civil year
began with September 1, and the ecclesiastical sometimes with
March 21, and sometimes with April 1." 2 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 computation, may be perfectly correct. When, in the Fahrenheit
thermometer, the mercury stands at 212 degrees, in the Reaumnur
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 fractional years were counted for whole ones. Lightfoot 3 says
that, according to the rabbins, "the very first day of a year
may stand in computation for that year." Aben Ezra, on Lev.
R. S. Poole, in Smith's Bib. Dict., Art. " Year."
2 Appleton's Cyclopaedia; Article " Calendar."
8 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 foregoing year is reckoned a whole year. A child born 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 F[Aarch] 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,2
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 Abralham, 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 generation 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 proceeds 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 our own,' this is a fact which no student nor
interpreter of scripture can afford to overlook.
1 Conciliator, i., 126-129.  2 MIan in Genesis and in Geology, pp. 104-105.
3 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 OF 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. The peculiarities of the Oriental idiom are another prolific
source of discrepancies.  The people of the East are fervid
and impassioned in their modes of thought and expression.
They think and speak in poetry.' Bold metaphors and startling
hyperboles abound in their writings and conversation.  "The
(Arabic Grammar, p. 211), both these languages permit one to write first
the units, then the tens, hundreds' and thousands, in their order; or he may
reverse the method, writing the highest denomination first, and ending
with the lowest.
Rev. Dr. C. S. Robinson, in the Christian Weekly, 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 preposterous.
" 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 Bethshemesh,'of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men' (1 Sam.
vi. 19). Now, one cannot help thinking that there was no tonn in all those
borders so large as this assumes. Fifty thousand men besides women and
children, would populate one of our larger modern 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."
Dr. 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, Heb. Gram., Sect. 97,
Par. 3). Besides, " fifties " may as well denote ten fifties as two fifties.
1 A learned writer observes of Arabian literature: "A poetic spirit pervades all their works. Even treatises in the abstract sciences, geographi



ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                   15
shepherd," says Eichhorn,1 " 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:2,, I do not, and would not, summon them
[the books of scripture] before the tribunal of Occidental criticism.  Asia is one world; Europe and America, another.  Let
an Asiatic be tried before his own tribunal. To pass just
sentence upon him, 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,3 on Metaphors: "The Orientals are attached to this
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 Orientals, more especially in the Hebrews."
cal and medical works, have a poetic cast. All their literary productions,
from 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." -- See 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. 1S7. Revised ed. p. 174.
8 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, pp. 51, 47 (Stowe's edition).




16           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Dr. Samuel Davidson:l "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 hyperbolical 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: 2  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 bridegroom
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 overlap and collide with one another; that we find David,3 for
example, at one time calling Godc a rock, and elsewhere
speaking of his wings and feathers.  Such bold and free
imagery, when properly interpreted, develops a felicitous meaning,; but when expounded according to literalistic, matter-offact methodsj it yields discrepancies in abundance. To the
interpreter of scripture, no two qualifications are more indis,
pensable than common sense and honesty.
1 Introduction to Old Test., ii. 409, 310.  I 2 Bib. Sacra, xix. 170, 171.
a Ps. xlii. 9, and xci. 4.




ORIGIN OF TIEE 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," 500 for " lion,"
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.2  There are at least eighteen
Hebrew words used to express different kinds of prickly shrubs
or weeds which occur in the Hebrew scriptures.3 Gesenius
gives some eight different Hebrew terms for " counsel," twelve
for " darkness," thirty-two for " destruction," ten for " law," and
twenty-three for "wealth." 4
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 further 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. 48. Also, Biblical Repository for October,
1836, pp. 433, 434.
2 Taylor's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, p. 91 (Gowans' edition).
a Tristram's Natural History of the Bible, p. 423 (London edition).
4 Potter's English-Hebrew Lexicon, sub vocibus.
5 Bush, Notes on Genesis xvii. 5.
2*




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 unlike, - Aeneas Sylvius becoming Pius II.
Often, in 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.  Keeping in mind
the great latitude allowed by the Orientals in the use of names,
we see the ready solution of many difficulties in the biblical
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 "btrak" is used
in the opposite senses of to bless and to curse.  So " yarash"
means both to possess and to dispossess; "ndikar," to know and
not to kcnow; "s iqal," to pelt with stones and to free from
stones; " shibar," 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,l and in the early English literature,2 the word "let" is employed with the contradictory meanings, to permit and to hinder.  In common parlance, 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.3
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; 2 Thess. ii. 7.
2 Two Gent. of Verona, iii. 1; Hamlet, i. 4; Romeo and Juliet, ii. 2.
3 See Roget's Thesaurus of English Words, Introd. p. 23.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.               19
Frequently discrepancies appear in our version, when none
exist in the original. This 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 consider that the term in Luke should have been rendered' "agonize." Of course, all such discrepancies are to be attributed to
tile 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 "I signifying to anticipate or precede;
" thought"  2 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 mnanuscripts; these errors being occasioned by
the similarity of the alphabetical characters to one another, and
by the consequent blunders of transcribers. 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: inevitably occur. The
most carefully printed book is not entirely free from typograplhical errors; the most carefully written manuscript will
exhibit defects of some kind. "God might," says an eminent
critic,3 " have so guided the hand or fixed the devout attention
of copyists, during the long space of fourteen hundred 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 Thess. iv. 15.       2 Matt. vi. 25.
3 Scrivener, Criticism of New Test., p. 8.




20            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
tained by nothing short of a continuous, unceasing miracle —
by miaking 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 examples in point.
" Several letters," says Professor Stuart,2 "bear a great
resemblance to each other." As illustrations, he mentions:
Beth: and Kaph t; Daleth -; and Resh 1; Daleth' and final
Kaph'I; Vav' and Yod; Vav 7 and Nun final 1; Heth nr
and He,; Heth ri and Tav rn.  He might have added, Pe r
and Kaph Z. The reader will observe that, if the left hand
perpendicular line of He be accidentally omitted or blurred, we
have Daleth left, thus, L, A; so Tav and Resh, thus, n,n; also
Pe and Kaph, A,:.  "At one time," says Herbert Marsh,3
"the whole difference consists in the acuteness or obtuseness
of an angle; at other times, either on the length or the straightness 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 often 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 " chief," "thier " for" their," and the like.  Now, if
such errors occur, in the most carefully corrected print, what are
1 Hebrew Grammar, i. 8.   2 Hebrew Grammar, Sec. 17 (ed. of 1821).
3 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 Theodore Parker 1 says, " it is to be remembered that formerly the IIebrew 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 Hebrew 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 miracle2 could have
prevented such mistakes.
We are now ready to add that, in thte ancient Hebrew, 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
hundred and eleven."
"The Rabbinical writers," says Nordheimer:3 "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 4 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. 8311.
2 In the words of Dr. Bentley, " That in millions of copies transcribed in
so many ages and nations, all the notaries and writers, who made it their
trade and livelihood should be infallible and impeccable; that their pens
should spontaneously write true, or be supernaturally guided, thougrh the
scribes were nodding or dreaming; would not this exceed all the miracles
of both Old and New Testament?" Yet the same scholarly critic elsewhere 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.
3Hebrew Grammar, Vol. i. pp. 265, 266, note.
4On 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 determining in favor of one number rather than another, where the
copy is blotted or faded, increases the chance of error, and thus
it happens that in almost all ancient works the numbers are
found to be deserving of very little reliance."
Mr. Warington:1 "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 numerical value:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 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 appending certain marks or points to the units."
Mr. Phillott:2 " Like most Oriental nations, it is probable that
the Hebrews in their written calculations made use of the letters
of the alphabet.  That they did so in post-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 assumption
that letters were used as numerals, also explains many differences in numbers, and many statements of excessive and incredible 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 alphabet."
De Wette,4 speaking of the mistakes of copyists: "They
confouncldel 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."
1On Inspiration, pp. 204, 205.  2 Smith's Bib. Diet., " Number.'t
a Introd. to Old Test., ii. 297 and 85. 4 Introd. to Old Test., i. 810.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                  23
Dr. Kennicott: 1, "That the Jewish transcribers did frequently
express ile Bible numbers in the original by single letters is
well known to the learned."
This author also cites the learned Scaliger, and an ancient
Hebrew  Grammar, printed with the Complutensian Bible in
1515, to the same effect.
Dr. Samuel Davidson:2 " Wherever numerous proper names
occur, there is greater liability to err.  So with regard to numbers; for letters alike in shape being used as numerals, were
easily interchanged."
Again, "Letters having been used as numerals in ancient
times, one letter was often mistaken for another by transcribers,
and hence many corruptions got into the text."
W~iner: "8, In expressing numbers, the Jews, in the post-exile
period, as is evident from the incriptions of the so-called Samaritan 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, expressed, from the earliest ages, numbers by letters."
"From the confounding of similarly-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 4 expresses himself in very similar language, adduces
examples illustrative of the above hypothesis, and pronounces
it "certainly probable" (allerdings wahrscheinlich).
Glassius 5 also decides in favor of the hypothesis, and discusses
the subject with no little skill and ability.
On Printed Hebrew Text, i. 96.
2 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 108, 112.
3 LRcal-Wrtcrbuch,   Art. " Zahlen."
4 Geschichte der I-Ieb. Sprache und Schrift, pp. 17.3, 174.
5 Philologia Sacra, Tom. ii. pp. 188-195 (Dathe and Bauer's edition).
See, also, J. M. Faber's " Literas olihm  pro vocibus in numerando a scrip
toribus V.T. esse adhibitas." - Onoldi, 1775.




24            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Isaac Taylor:l "The frequent use of contractions in writing was a very common source of errors; for many of these abbreviations 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 upon any statement of numbers in ancient
writers, unless some correlative computation confirms the reading 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 2
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,3 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.4
I Transmission of Ancient Books, pp. 24, 25.
2 Glassius observes, " Modo enim numeros invenimus,quli omnem modum
excedunt, modo si eadem res in duobus libris narratur, in altero numerus
adfertur, cui alter contradlicit." - Phil. Sacra, De Caussis Corrupt. ~ 23.
3 In the Sinaitic MS., " numerals are represented by letters, with a straight
line placed over them." - Scrivener's Criticism of New Test., p. 75.
4 Either, as Tischendorf also writes, X`s', or else xtra'. AlfordWrites,
in full, aoldioL &oi eKorTa`. - See Rev. xiii. 18.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                   25
We thus see how mistakes in respect to numbers have originated.
It hardly need be added that errors as to nManmes have arisen
in the same way, - from the similarity of certain letters. Thus
we find HIadadezer and Hadarezer,l a Daleth  i being mistaken
for a Resh n -  and many like cases.
The key thus furnished, will unlock many difficulties during
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 this 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 connection 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 unfairness in their handling
of the scriptures.2
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 their school,
12 Sam. viii. 3; 1 Chron. xviii. 3.
2 See, under " Ethical Discrepancies, - Enemies treated," an instance
firom Baur, relative to Rom. xii. 20; also, one from De Wette, under " Historical Discrepancies, - Anak's Sons' Fate."
It may be added that De Wcette, as is generally admitted, during his
latter years approximated to orthodoxy. On the contrary, Dr. Davidson's
tendencies may be gathered fiom a comparison of the discussion of the
Discrepancies, in his " Sacred Hernmeneutics," pp. 516-611, with his treatment of the same, in Horne's Introduction (tenth edition), Vol. ii. pp. 50355,3. See; also,. Dr, Davidson's Introduction to the Old Test., throughout.
3




26            DISCREPANCIES OF THIE 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 discrepancy, or I will make one" -  Aut
inveniam discrepantianm, autfaciam.
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 solutions as " gratuitous assumptions."
c" Pertness and ignorance," says Bishop Horne,1 " 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 against his will,
Is of the same opinion still."
A  favorite exegetical principle adopted by some of these
critics appears to be, that simzilar events are necessarily identical.
Hence, when they read that Abraham twice equivocated concerning his wife; 2 that Isaac imitated his example; 3 that David
was twice in peril in a certain wilderness,4 and twice spared
Saul's life in a cave,5 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
example, the case of the two Presidents Edwards, father and
son. Both were named Jonathan Edwards, and were the grandlsons 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
1  orks, i. 392 (London edition, 4 vols. 1831)
Gen. xii. 19: xx. 2.    3 Gen. xxvi. 7.   41 Sam. xxiii. 19; xxvi. 1.
1 Sam. xxiv. 6; xxvi, 9.




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                 27
settled in the ministry as successors to their maternal grandfathers, were dismissed on account of their religious opinions,
and were again settled in retired country towns, over congregations singularly attached to them, where they had leisure to
pursue their favorite studies, and to prepare and publish their
valuable 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.' "1
Now, let these circumstances be submitted for the consideration 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, history, they would
justly incur the ridicule of all well-informed persons.  Ml~en
clamor for the treatment of the Bible like any other book, yet
treat it as they dare 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 by 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 great admirer of Voltaire,' was not honorable."' " Our modern critics," continues Hengstenberg,2 " 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 above cases bears, in respect to points of coincidence, worthy comparison with this unquestioned instance in modern
times.
2 Genuineness of Pent. i. 47.




28            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
We cannot but concur in the judgment couched in this and
the following quotations.
Prof. Henry Rogers,l 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 perverted ingenuity has imagined, in the four evangelists."
Again, alluding to Strauss's objections, "The paraded discrepancies are frequently assumed; sometimes even manufactured." This criticism is supported by several illustrations from
the German author, and is as applicable to his " New Life of
Jesus," as to his earlier work.
The learned translator of Bleek 2 severely, yet fitly, designates 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 determined 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 which, as Canon
Wordsworth 3 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  characterizing that Christianity which seeks to disparage its own sacred
books, and to undermine its own foundation.
Such are the spirit and methods of much of the sceptical
criticism —even of the so-called "higher criticism " —of our
day.
1 Reason and Faith, pp. 424, 427 (Boston edition).
2 Preface to Introduction to Old Test.
8 Preface to Greek Four Gospels, p, viii,




ORIGIN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.             29
A careful and protracted examination of the works of numerous authors, who from various positions and under various
pretences assail the Bible, warrants, as neither unjust nor
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.
WVe 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 incompatible, is a fact too familiar to need illustration.
lJohn xxi. 25.
3*X




CHAPTER II.
DESIGN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.
WRY were the discrepancies permitted to exist? What good
end do they contemplate?
1. They were doubtless intended as a stimuluzs to the hlman
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 this has
elicited. "l No book, not nature itself, has ever waked up intellectual activity like the Bible. On the battle-field of truth, it
has ever been round this that the conflict has raged. WVhat
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 intellect. Why do we not see the same amount of active intellect
coming up, and dashing and roaring around the Koran? "1
The discrepancies of the sacred volume have played no insignificant part in this incitement of mental action. Though but a
subordinate characteristic, they have prompted men to "search
the scriptures," and to ask: How are these difficulties to be resolved?  Things which are " hard to be understood," present
special attractions to the inquiring mind. Professor Park 2 observes, in an admirable essay on the choice of Texts, "Sometimes a deeper interest is awakened by examining two or more
1President Hopkins, Evidences of Christianity, p. 144.
2 Bib. Sacra, Oct. 1873. pp. 717, 718.
80




DESIGN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.              31
passages which appear to contradict each other than by examining two or more which resemble each other. Mlen 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 text after the first part, yet in the same hour with 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. WVhen 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 I says: "The seeming contradictions in 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 furnishing 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: "Instructions 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."'On Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul, Essay vii. Sec. 4.




82            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Again, illustrating, as beautifully as suggestively, by the
case of the mariner who steers midway between certain landmarks, 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 calculated 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 ingeniously
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 rabbies 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 discrepancies 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 observes: " 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." 2
Says Professor Stuart: 3,: 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
1 Rashi, ref'rring 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 thllirteen thousand camels."
2 Evidences of Christianity, p. 354.
3 History of Old Test. Canon, p. 18. Revised ed. p. 16.




DESIGN OF 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 scattered to the winds nearly all these doubts."
In this manner, the difficulties of scripture often keenly stimulate and richly reward intellectual effort.
2. They were meant to be illustrative of the analogy between
the Bible and nature, and so to evince their 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 sunshine, 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 tell thousand accidents,
are doing their deadly work upon our fellow-creatures. All
this fearful devastation is going on in a world created and
governed by infinite wisdom, power, and love.  MSilton's terrible
picture  too often finds its counterpart.  Nowhere in the Bible
"Immnediately a place
Before his eyes appeared, sad, noisome, dark,
A lazar-house it seemed, wherein were laid
Numbers 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 explain 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 ButlerI 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 in appearance seriously involve and militate against the character and attributes of God. Nevertheless,
nature is confessedly his work. Now, we find the Bible claiming the same supernatural origin, and exhibiting, among other
features of resemblance, similar, though far less important,
discrepancies; hence these latter afford a valid presumption in
favor of its claim.
Nearly in the same line of thought, says Dr. Charles Hodge:2
"The universe teems with evidences of design, so manifold, so
And moon-struck madness, pining atrophy,
lMarasmus, and wide-wasting pestilence,
Dropsies and asthmas, and joint-racking 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.
1 Introduction to Analogy, p. 70 (Malcom's edition).
2 Theology, i. 170.




DESIGN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.               35
diverse, so wonderful as to overwhelm the mind with the conviction 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 higher walks of
science are not free from " stumbling-blocks."  Kant, Hamilton,
and 3ansel teach that our reason, that the necessary laws of
thought which govern our mental operations, lead to absolute
contradictions.1 Mlansel2 observes, "TlThe 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 conjunction 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 contradiction 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 personal; 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 our 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,"'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," 1 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 grand stumbling-block in the case.  In a word, the signatures agreed too well.
Now, had the biblical writers agreed in all particulars, even
the minutest, had there been no discrepancies in their 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 reaching 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,"2 in the manuscripts of the New
1See American Law Review, July, 1870, pp. 625-663.
This term denotes differences in the spelling, choice, and arrpngement
of words in the Greek text.




DESIGN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.               37
Testament, Wordsworthl 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 designs
that they have not been tampered with by any religious 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 Testament has come down to us, to all intents and purposes, unimpaired. Each of the five hundred manuscripts, with its slight
variations in the orthography, selection, and collocation of words,
is an independent witness to this fact.
The disagreements of the sacred writers effectually bar the
charge of "i 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 accidents.  Mlany things point in the same direction.  For example,
we have no portrait of Jesus, no authentic description of his person. 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




h38t          DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
been conducted for its possession.. It would have ensanguined
and darkened the whole history of the Christian religion.  MIen
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 inquirer. Both alike put his sincerity and firmness to full proof.
Hence, as Grotius 1 has fitly said, the Gospel becomes a touchstone 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 understand.2 When he said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," 3 he intentionally used such phraseology as would be repugnant to
insincere and squeamish hearers.  He thus tested and disclosed'De Veritate Religionis Christianae, lib. ii, ~ 19.  2 Mark iv. 12.
3sJohn vi. 53




DESIGN OF THE DISCREPANCIES.               89
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 him." 1 The seeming harshness and
obscurity of his 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." 2  Our treatment of the external no less than that
of the internal difficulties of scripture bears an intimate relation
- to our moral character.
Those who are disposed to cavil do, in the wise arrangement
of God, find opportunities for caviling. 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 throughout it, furnishes to an astute and frigid critical faculty, a thousand
and one instances over which to proclaim a petty triumph."
Or, as Pascal 4 has beautifully expressed it, God " willing to be
revealed to those who seek him with their whole heart, and hidden
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 him, and obscure to those who seek
1John vi. 66.              2 Butler's Analogy, Part ii. chap. vi,
Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, preface.
Thoughts, chap. xiii. Sec. 1 and 2 (Andover edition).




40           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 intended, moreover,
to serve a penal end seems by no means improbable. Those
persons who cherish a cavilling spirit, who are bent upon misapprehending the truth, and urging captious and frivolous objections, find in the inspired 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 appointed." 1 Upon the wilful votaries
of error God sends "strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie,"2 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 backslidings,' and'give us the reward of our own hands.' Our
presumption and our irreverence will be the instruments of
our punishment." 3  In the divine government of this world, sin
not infrequently carries its reward in its own bosom.
When the difficulties of scripture are approached 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.
1 f Pet. ii. 8.                  2 2 Thess. ii. 11.
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 involved 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 tragedies 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:2 "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 nothing in any wise
sufficient to discredit the general narrative."
That the text of the Old Testament has been transmitted to
1 History of Transmission of Ancient Books, pp. 169- 170.
2 Analogy, p. 288 (Malcom's edition).
4*                 41.




42            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
us substantially intact, is a conceded point. In all but a few
animportant cases, the genuine reading is settled beyond dispute.
The candid and scholarly Bleekl asserts that "the Hebrew
manuscripts have been preserved unaltered generally; and this
in a measure of which we find no second example in other
works which have been multiplied and circulated by numerous
manuscripts."
Keil:2 "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 repeated 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
faithlessness 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,3 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 tile 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 significant concession from one of the leaders of modern rationalism.
Gesenius 4 says, " To state here in few words my creed, as to
the condition of the Hebrew text in a critical respect.  It can-' Introd. to Old Test., ii. 365.  2 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 294, 295.
3 Introd. to Old Test., i. 23 (Parker's edition).
4 Biblical Repository, iii. 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,1 " that have
been examined, some eight hundched thousand various readings
actually occur, as to the Hebrew consonants.  How many as
to the vowel-points 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 history. A great proportion, indeed the mass, of variations in Hebrew manuscripts, when minutely scanned, amount
to nothing more than the difference in spelling a multitude of
English words. What matters it as to the meaning, 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." 2
Keil3 remarks that the Masora, a rabbinic critical work
upon 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,4 in De Wette, gives, from  Bishop Walton, a list of
the number of times which each H-Iebrew letter occurs in the
Old Testament.  The same list may be found in Menasseh ben
Israel's Conciliator.'
1 HIistorv of Old Test. Canon, p. 192. Revised ed. p. 178.
2 Blcelk's Introduction to Old Test., ii. 451, 452.
Introd. to Old Test., ii. 316.
Introduction to Old Test., i. 357.     6 Vol. i. p. 250.




44           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Bishop Herbert Marsh' has the following very just inference: " 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 translator2 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 "vqrious readings," the text of the New Testament is better establishecl than that of any other ancient book. No one of the
so-called "classics," not Homer nor Herodotus, compares favorably, in this respect, with the New Testament.  Says Prof.
Stowe,3 "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
Mlontfaucon assigns to the tenth century, and one in the library
of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, England, which may possibly
1 Lectures on Criticism and Interpretation, p. 57.
2 John Allen, in Modern Judaism, pp. 6, 7 (Second edition).
3 Origin and History of Books of Bible, p. 60.




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. 490.2  Other scholars substantially concur in these
dates, though Alford 3 and Scrivener 4 assign the Alexandrian
manuscript to the fifth century; that is, A.D. 400-500.
Here, then, we find five manuscripts of the Greek New
Testament, the youngest of which is about fourteenz hundred
years old; and all of which may have been prepared by persons
wh]o had studied the original manuscripts written by the apostles t/hemselves.
So far, therefore, as an authenticated and settled text is
concerned, the classics are very far behind the New Testament.5
"There is not," says Tregelles,G "such a mass of transmissional
evidence in favor of any classical work.  The existing manuscripts of I-Ierodotus and Thucydides are modern enough when
compared with some of those of the New Testament."
I Taylor's History of Transmission of Ancient Books, pp. 276-278; compare Stowe, p. 59.
2 Stowe, pp. 65-77. See, also, Alford, Prolecgomena to Greek Four Gospels, pp. 107-116; and Scrivener, Criticism of New Test., pp. 76-103.
3 Prolegromena to Four Gospels, p. 107.
4 Criticism of New Test., p. 82.
5 Dr. Bentley, in his annihilating reply to Collins, speaking of the manuscript copies of Terence, the oldest and best of which, now in the Vatican
library, has "hundreds of errors," observes, " I myself have collated several, 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
TNew 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. See. 32,
o New Testament Historic Evidence, p. 74.




46           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
In the fitting words of Scrivener,' "As the New Testament
far surpasses all other remains of antiquity in value and interest, 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 considerable 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 Nlew Testament.  These last present us with a
vast and almost inexhaustible supply of materials-for tracing the
history, and upholding (at least within certain limits) the purity
of the sacred text; every copy, if used diligently and with judgment, will contribute somewhat to these ends.  So far is the
copiousness of our stores from causing doubt or perplexity to
the genuine student of holy scripture, that it leads him to recognize the more fully its general integrity in the midst of
partial variation."
With equal felicity and truthfulness, Isaac Taylor,2 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 principles of evidence are applicable to all questions relating to the
genuineness of ancient books, it is highly desirable that the proof
1Criticism of Ncw Test., pp. 3, 4.
2 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 argument, which
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 this light, it
will be seen that the integrity of the records of the Christian
faith is substantiated by evidence in a tenfold proportioz nzore
various, copious, and conclusive I than that which can be adduced
in support of any other ancient writings.  If, therefore, the
question had no other importance belonging to it than what
may attach to a purely literary inquiry, or if only the strict
justice of the case were regarded, the authenticity of the Jewish
and Christian scriptures could never come to be controverted,
till the entire body of classical literature had been proved to be
spurious.".. t
INor does the Bible suffer by comparison with books of later
date.  For the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence
less than two hundred and fifty years, is " far more uncertain
and corrupt than that of the New Testamentt, now over eighteen
centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in
manuscript.  The industry of collators and commentators indeed 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 which also seriously affect the sense, is so small that they may almost be
counted upon the fingers. WVith 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 meaning must relate rather to the interpretation of the words, than to any doubts respecting the
words themselves.  But in every one of Shakespeare's thirtyseven plays, there are probably a hundred readings still in
1 The- italics are our own.




48            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
dispute, a large proportion of which materially affect the meaning of the passages in which they occur."l
The probability that trivial variations would be found in
considerable numbers will be seen when we reflect that, according to Prof. Norton's2 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"3 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,4 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 manuscript 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 perverted 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, "M Sake 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 genuine. 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."
1 North American Review, quoted in Stowe's Origin and History of Books
of Bible, p. 82.
2 Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 50-53.
8 See as to the probable number, Scrivener's Criticism of New Test., p. 8
G, Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking, Part i, See 82,.




RESULTS OF THE DISCREPANCIES.                49
WVhen 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 nothing 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,2 "These apparent discrepancies, although numerous, are for the most part trivial; relating 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 unaccountable 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 Hopkins,3 "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 Griesbach's
edition of the New Testament, as many as one hundred alndl
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.
8 Evidences of Christianity, p. 289.
5




50           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 manuscripts, no fact, no doctrine, no duty prescribed, in our authorized version, is rendered either obscure or doubtful."
2. Moreover, as the text of scripture is not vitiated, so its
moral inf.luence 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 origin, 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 individuals and upon society in general,- its effect upon mankind.
WVe 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 self-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 mel n" 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 ever seen. It would be superfluous to
name Milton and Dante; Bacon, Newton, and Leibnitz; Boyle,
Locke, and Butler; HIale and Grotius; Pascal and Faraday;
Washington and WVilberforce.
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 proof of the power 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 Spain. 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
precepts of international and municipal law; to enforce the
observance of prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude; and
to improve all the relations of social and domestic life."
It was well affirmed by John Locke, " That the holy scriptures are one of the greatest blessings which God bestows upon
the sons of men, is generally acknowledged by all who know
anything 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 diminish its wonderful
and beneficent moral power.
Nor does infidelity furnish any substitute for the Bible. It




5-2          DISCREPANCIES OF 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 dcie.
A celebrated infidel is said to have exclaimed in his last
moments, " lam 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,l " 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 cliarnel-house where
highest faculties and noblest feelings lie crushed with the animal 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 scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy," and to exhibit
"more sure marks of authenticity than any profane history
whatsoever."
In considering the solutions hereafter proposed, the legitimate force of a hypothesis should be kept in mind. If a'Dr. Rorison, in Replies to Essays and Reviewa, pp. 340, 341 (2d edition.).
Ps. cxixi 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 favor.l  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 disagreement." lNow, unless 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.
Tihe solutions proposed in the following-pages are hypothetical;
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 explanations 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 unimpaired.
The Discrepancies of Scripture may, perhaps, be most suitably arranged under three heads:2 the Doctrinal, including
1 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 a possible case is quite sufficient for the purpose) which would
ncltralize 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 argumeont. But to say so, is only to betray an utter ignorance of what the
argument is. If an objection l)e founded on the alleged absolute contra(liction 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 linow, however, of many." - Reason and Faith, pp. 401403 (Boston edition).
2 For other methods of classification, see Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 520.




54           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
questions of theology; the Ethical, pertaining 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 which 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.
If anything has been lost in scientific precision and nicety,
it is believed that much has been gained in simplicity, convenience, and practical utility, by abandoning the attempt at a
complex, logical classification, and grouping the discrepancies
under a few characteristic heads.




PAI R T II.
CHAPTER I.
DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.
L. GOD.- Omnipotence.
God can do all things.          Can not do some things.
Behold, I am the LORD, the God of  And the LORD 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, WVith men this is impossible, but had chariots of iron. Judg. i. 19.
with God all things are possible. Matt.  It swas imposssible for God to lie.
xix. 26.                         Heb. vi. 18.
Omnipotence does not imply the power to do every conceivable 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 impossibility, -  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 weary.
In six days the LORD made heaven   The everlasting God, the LORD, the
and earth, and on the seventh day he Creator of the 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."  Maimonides says that the word used in the parallel text, Ex. xx. 11,
properly means " ceased." With this explanation the Septuagint agrees.
Murphy:2 "'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 knows all things.         Tries to find out some things.
Thou knowest my downsitting and   Now I know that thou fearest God,
mine uprising, thou understandest my seeing thou hast not withheld thy son,
thoughllt afar off. Thou compassest my thine only son from me. Gen. xxii. 12.
path and my lying down, and art ac-   The LonRD thy God led thee these
quainted with all my ways. For there forty years in the wilderness, to hlumis not a word in my tongue, tbt, lo, O ble thee, and to prove thee, to know
LORD, thou knowestit altogether. Ps. what was in thy heart, whether thou
cxxxix. 2-4.                       wouldest keep his commandments, or
I the LoRD search the heart, Itry 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 vmen. Acts i. 24.           of dreams; for the LORD your God
All things are naked and opened unto proveth you, to know whether ye love
the eyes of him with whom we have to the LouD your God with all your heart,
do. fIeb. 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
IMan in Genesis and in Geology, p. 114.
2 In the subsequent pages, 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, "N(' ow I know that," etc.,
are equivalent to saying, Now I have established by actual
experiment that which I previously knew.  I have demonstrated, made manifest by evident proof, my knowledge of thy
character.
Murphy: " The original I ]have known denotes an eventual
knowing, a discovering by actual experiment; and this observable 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 him; he hath put thee to as severe a test as
would be requisite for discovering the secrets of thine heart.
Such is the interpretation which men would give to his treatment of thee.
Forgets not his saints.      Temporarily forgot Noah.
Yea, 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 forgotten him.  He then " put forth a token of his remembrance."
Does sot sleep.              Sometimes sleeps.
Behold he that keepeth Israel shall  Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord?
neither slumber nor sleep. Ps. cxxi. 4. arise, cast ils not off for ever, Ps. xliv 23.
Sometimes God, in wisdom,. defers the punishment of the




58              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 indifference or lack of knowledge on his part.t
Omnipresence.
God everyowhere present.             Nlot in some places.
Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?   Adam and his wife hid themselves
or whither shall I flee from thy pres- from the presence of the Lorno God
eonce? If 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. /I'I takethe wings   Ancl 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; even there shall   And the LORD came down to see the
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand city and the tower, which the children
shall hold me. Is. cxxxix. 7-10.    of men builded. Gen. xi. 5.
Thus saith the LonD, The heaven is   And the LORD said, Because the cry
my throne, and the earth is my foot- of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and
stool. Isa. lxvi. 1.                because their sinl is very grievous; I
_Ai7 I a God at hand saith the LOID, 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 Lor.D. Do not I fill and if not I will know G;en. xviii. 20, 21.
heaven and earth? saith the Lor.D. Jer.   Tile LorD ).assed by, and a great and
xxiii. 23,24.                       strong wind rent the mounltains, and
Though they dig into hell, tlhence brake in pieces the rocks before the
shall my hand take them; though they  LOlDn; but the LoRaD sas not in the
climb up to heaven, thence will I bring wind: and after the wind ani earththem  down: And though they hide quake; bist the LoRnD  eas not in the
themselves in the top of Carulel, I will earthquake: and after the earthquake
search and take them out thence; and a lire; bsst the LorD teas not in the lire:
though they be hid fi'om my sight in and after the fire a still small voice.
the 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 LorAD. Jonah
i. 3.
The "presence of the Lord," from  which Adam  hid himself,
and Cain and Jonah fled, was the visible and special manifestation of God to them  at the time; or else it denotes the place
where that manifestation was made.
According. to Henderson,2 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 9" not in all their thoughts."   He took the sword of justice
and " came down" into the snhere of their consciousness, in a
signal and terrible manner.
See Ps. 1. 21 and lxxiii. 11.
2 On Minor Prophets, p. 202 (Andover edition).




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                59
Rabbi Schelomno 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 s" 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 2 acutely suggests that, since the word " ascend"
is properly applied to the mind when it contemplates noble
and elevated objects, and "descendc" when it turns toward
things of a low and unworthy character, it follows that when
the M3ost 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 affairs, 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 speak 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
everything by stormy violence, the gentle movements of God's
providence, and to exhibit the mildness and longsuffering, of
which, the voice spoke to Moses.4  Hence the beautiful change
in the phenomena of the vision."
1 See Note to Lan^ge on Genesis, p. 364 (American edition).
2 3Morel Nevochim. MIunk'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.              Ihis 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 Paran. Hab. iii. 3.
earth and'the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God.
is. xc. 2.
The second text has, singularly enough, been adduced as
teaching that God originated 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;l 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." 2
Unity.
God is One.                 Plnurality of Divine Beings.
Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is   And God said, Let us make man in
one LORD. Deut. vi. 4.             our image after our likeness. Gen. i. 26.
See now that I even I axm  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 Lor-D 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, iMy 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 are 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-emi1 So Abarbanel, Aben Ezra, Eichhqrn, Ewald, Henderson, Herder, Lowth,
Michaelis, the Targum, etc.
2 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 1 takes it as denoting "intense fulness," and Hengstenberg 2 says, " it calls attention to the infinite riches and the inexhaustible fulness contained in the one divine being."
Ewald:3 "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";
~Mlaimonidces4 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 "- superhuman beings in the form of man, — the patriarch appeared'Introduction to Genesis, pp. 111, 112 (English translation).
2 Genuineness of Pent. i. 2738.
3 History of Israel, ii. 38 (Martineau's edition).
4 See Lange on Genesis, p. 173, note.
6




62           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
to single out one as pre-eminent 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 distinguished 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. 28.1  Alexander and Hengstenberg
explain it as meaning " false gods "; Delitzsch, as " the superhuman powers deified by the heathen." The Syriac Peshito
reads, " all ye his angels." 2
Isa. xlviii. 16 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, Bleek, Scrivener, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Wordsworth, and most modern
critics.3
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 truthsare fairly explicable in harmony with the former class.
In the I-Iebrew, verses 7, 8, and 27.
2 Oliver's Translation of Syriac Psalter.
8 See Orme's Mem. of Controv. on 1 John v. 7 (New York, 1866).




DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.                          63
Immateriality.
God, a Spirit.              IHas a material body and organs.
A spirit hath not flesh and bones.   Tab]es 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.
Is. xci. 4.
HIe had horns coming out of his hand.
Hab. iii. 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, Noyes, and Cowles agree substantially
in rendering  HIab. iii. 4, " Rays streamed from  his hand";   a
decided improvement upon our version.
iTnnmutability.
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 the son of man, that he should for thou  art a stiffnecked people: lest I
repent: hath he said, and shall he not consume thee in the way. And he said
do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he unto hiim, If thy presence go not woith
not make it good? Num. xxiii. 19. m. e, 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 lie is not a man, thing also that thou hast spoken: 1My
that he should repent. 1 Sam. xv. 29.   presence shall go with thee, and I will
I the Lor.D 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, covcerling which I sware to make
will I repent. Ezek. xxiv. 14.       you dwell therein. Num. xiv. 80.
For I anz the LorD, I change not.   The LoRD God of Israel saith, I said
MIal. iii 6.                         indeed that thy house, and the house of
The Father of lights, with whom is thy father, should walk before me forno variableness, neither shadow of turn- ever: but now the LouD saith, B1e it far
ing. Jas. i. 17.                     from me;..... Behold the days come,
that I will cut off thine armn, and the
arm of thy father's house., that there
shall not be an old man in thine house.
1 Sanm. ii. 30, 31.
Then came the word of the Lorn)
unto Samuel, saying: It repenteth me
that I have set up Saul to be king: for
he is turned back from  followilg me.
and hath not performed my commandments. 1 Sarn. xv. 10, 11.
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto
1 See Deut. xxxii 11.




64              DISCREPANCIES OF T HE BIBLE.
God, unchangeable.           Repents, and changes his plans.
death. And the prophet Isaiah the son
of Amoz came to him, and said unto
him, Thus saith the LoP. ), Set thine
house in order; for thou shlalt die, and
not live. Then lie 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 LoanD came to him,
saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekialh
the captain of my people, Thus saith
the LoRD, the God of David thy father,
I have heard thy prayer, I have seen
thy tears: behold, I will lheal thee: on
the third day thou shalt go up unto the
house of the LoRD. And 1 will add
unto thy days fifteen years. 2K ings
xx. 1, 4, 5, 6.
Thou hast forsaken me, saith the
LoRD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out mny Iancl against
tl-lee,and destroy thee; I 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 lie
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 unconditional; 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 pronounced, 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." 1  Here is brought clearly to view the uncderlyiang
condition, which, if not expressed, is implied, in God's promises
I 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 individual whom God threatened. He sustains 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 while, 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,l "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."
WVollaston: "The respect or relation which lies between
i Rhetoric, Part i. chap. 3. Sec. 8.  2 Religion of Nature, pp. 115,116.
6*




66            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
him and us." 1  To sum up, if man changes, the very imnmutability of God's character requires that his feelings should change
toward the changed man.
Mlurphy:2 "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.
-laving completed, he surveys 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
hadc 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 different from that
of G to  I — q; and yet G remains unaltered."
2 Commentary on Genesis, vi. 6.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                 67
what he had previously said or done."  Such is the construction
we should naturally put 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:'2 " God, in order to address himself impressively 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 Jn literal terms, or with anything like the
effect produced by metaphorical language."
Prof. Mansel:  "The representations of God which scripture 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 unquestionably conditional. As Scott says, "such declarations rather
express 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 offending 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 sinfulness of that branch.  So far as Eli and his sons were
concerned, the Lord would now cut off the arm of Aaron's house.
1Sacred I-Termencutics, p. 527.            2 Works, i. 669.
3 Linits of Religious Thought, p. 64 (American edition).




538            DISCREPANCIES OF 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
specially the high-priesthood; and: the descendants of Phinehas
meantime retained the ordinary priesthood.
When Abiathar, the last high-priest - Eli being the first —
of the line of Ithamar, was deposed by Solomon,2 tle office of
high-priest was restored to the line of Phinehas and Eleazar.3
In the case of Hezekiah, the divine declaration was clearly a
conditional one.  Yet, as Vitringa happily suggests, "the condition was not expressed, because God would draw it from him
as a voluntary act."
God satisfied with his works.      Dissatisfied iwith t7em.
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.
This case has already been explained.4
Will destroy.                WTill not destroy.
And the LorD said, I will destroy   NTeither vill 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, the'Num. xxv. 11-13.
21 Kings ii. 27. See Balhr in Lange, and Rawlinson in Bible Commen.
tary, on this passae.
1 Chron. xxiv. 3-6.               4 See p. 4 of present work.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                  69
fortieth. If they should confess their iniquity, the Lord's "-abhorrence" of them  would be changed into mercy toward them.
The whole context of these passages is hypothetical.
Permission granted.           Permission withheld.
And God came unto Balaam at night,  And Balaam rose up in the norning,
and said unto him if the men come to and saddled his ass. and wrnt with the
call thee, rise up, and go with them; but princes of MNoab. And God's anger was
yet the word which I shall say unto thee, kindled because lie ewent. 1N um. xxii.
that shalt thou do.  Num. xxii. 20.   21, 22.
The permission given to Balaam  was conditional;" If the
men come to call thee," etc.  Ilalaam, 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 1 observes that Balaam " immediately
availed himself of the permission of God to go with the Moabites, which he could only do with the secret purpose to avoid
the condition which had thereby been imposed upon him,'The word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.'"
Again, " since God's anger was directed against Balaam's going
wit/h a definite intention, it involves no contradiction, when
afterwards his going was permitted."
Keil thinks that God's anger was not kindled till near the
close of Balaam's journey, and then by the feelinzgs he was
cherishing.  A " longing for wagas and honor " caused him to
set out, and " the nearer he came to his destination, under the
guidance of the distinguished Mloabitish 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 dclanger of casting to the winds the condition which
had been imposed upon him by God."  Hence the divine anger
was awakened.
Aben Ezra and Bechayai2 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,
1 History of Balaam and his Prophecies, pp. 845, 872.
2 Menasseh ben Israel's Conciliator, i, 205,




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.''
Inaccessibility.
God approachable.                   Not accessible.
God is our refuge and strength, a very   Why standest thou afar off, O LOPD?
present help in trouble. P's. xlvi. 1.   why hidest thou thyselj' in times of
It is good tor me to draw near to trouble? Ps x. 1.
God. Ps. ]xxiii. 28.                Verily thou art a God that hidest thyThe 1.ORD is nigh unto all them that self, 0 God of Israel, the Saviour. Isa.
call upon him, to all that call upon him  xlv. 15.
ill truth. Ps. cxlv. 18.            Thou hast covered thyself with a
Draw nigh to God and he will draw  cloud, that our prayer should not pass
nigh to you. Jas. iv. 8.          through. Lam. iii. 44.
Are ye come to inquire of me! As I
live, saitll the LoPID God, I -will not be
inquired of by you. Ezek. xx. 3.
lWhlo only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can
approach unto. 1 Tinm. 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 " draw nigh " to him,
in a figurative sense, by prayer and- devout meditation, by
engaging in spiritual communion with him.
Ps. x. I 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 humlan 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. 16, " Dwelling in light unapproachable," is a statement of the unquestionable truth, that no mortal can literally
approach God, endure the ineffable splendor of his presences
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 seelkers find.                Some do not find.
If thou seek him, he will be found of  Seek ye the LORD lwhile lie may be
thee; but if thou forsake him, he will found, call ye upon him while he is near.
cast tlee off for ever. 1 Chron. xxviii.  sa. v.. 6.
I said not unto the seed of Jacob. Seek   Strive to enter inl at the straight gate;
ye me in vain. Isa. xlv. 19.      for many, I say unto you, wvill seelk to
I am sought of them tflat asked not/for enter in, and shall not be able. Luke
me; I iun found of thent that sought me xiii. 24.
not. lsa. lxv. 1.                   Ye shall seek me, and shall not find
lie that seeketh findeth, and to him  ane: and where I am, thither ye cannot
that knockethit shallbe opened. aIntt. 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
clay.....  Every one tlhat seeketh mercy in the name of Jesus,
while the door is open succeeds; but he that seelieth 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: "MI y bodily presence will be withdrawn from  you; I
shall be personally in a place inaccessible to you."
These texts contain  nothing 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. Prov. viii. 17.               shall not find me. l'rov. 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.  Zclkler2 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."  Iin
1 Works, i, 6t76.                     In Lange on Prov. i. 28.




[2 -           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
this opinion, many critics substantially concur.l On this hypothesis, 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 2 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.         They are unsearchable.
The heavens declare the glory of God;  Canst thou by searching find out God?
and the firmament sheweth his handy canst thou find out the Almighty unto
work.'s. xix. 1.                  perfection? Job. xi. 7.
For the invisible things of him from    His greatness is 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; evren his eternal power power: his understanding is infinite.
and ( odhead; so that they are without Ps. cxlvii. 5.
excuse. lRom. i. 20.                There is no searching of his understanding. 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. Rom. 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 benevolence of the Creator.  They thus declare his glory.
Rom. i. 20 merely implies that the invisible attributes of
1 So B. Davidson, Noyes, PasrkhUwst, Umbreit, Opitius, Stockius, Moore,
and Frey.
2 See verses 22, 29, and 30.




DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.                          73
God, particularly his eternal power and divinity, are clearly
revealed in his works.  Aristotle has a strikingly similar observation, " 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."
IIis wonders?recounted.                   Innumnerable.
That I may publish with the voice of   Which doeth great thin rs past findthanksgivinig, and tell of all thy won- ing out; yea, and wonders without
drous works. P's. xxvi. 7            number. Job. is. 10.
Hitherlto have I declared thy won-   Many, 0 Lonl my God, are thy wondrous works. Ps lxxi. 17.            dcrful works stzic/t thou hast done. and
I 11ave put my trust in the Lord GOD, thy thouTghts zJwhich  are to uts-mard:
that I may declare all thy works. l's. they canlnot be reckoned tip in order
lxxiii. 28.                           unllllto thee: if I would declare adcl speak
o' fltem7, they are more tllan can be
numbered. l's. xl. 5.
These affirmative passages are not to be rigidly interpreted.
It is idle  to explain  the lanlge of emotion according to a
strict literalism.  David neither asserts nor implies his ability
to enumerate andc 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.  None of the foregoing texts
impinge upon the unsearchableness of God, as to his essence
and mode of existence.
Invisibility.
God seen many times.                    Not seen by 7man.
And Jacob called the name of the   And lie said thou canst not see my
place Peniel: for I have seen God face face; for there shall no man see me,
to face, and my life is preserved. Gen. and live. Ex xxxiii. 20.
xxxii. 30.                             Take ye therefore good heed unto
Then went up Moses and Aaron, Na- yourselves; for ye saw no manner of
dab and Abihlu, and seventy of the similitude on the day thfat the LorD
elders of Israel: and they saw the God spake unto you in tioreb, out of the
of Israel. Ex. xxiv. 9, 10.          midst of the fire. Deut. iv. 15.
And the LORu  spake unto MIoses face   No man hath seen God at any time.
to face, as a man speaketh unto his John i. 18.
friend.... And I will take away mine   Ye have neither heard his voice at
hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: any time, nor seen his shape. John
but my face shall not be seen. Ex. v. 37.
xxxiii. 11, 23.                        The King eternal, immort.l, invisAnd Manoah said unto his wife, WVe ible. 1 Tim. i. 17.
shall surely die, because we have seen   W\hom no man hath seen nor can
God. Judcl. xiii. 22.                see. 1 Tim. vi. 16.
In the year that king Uzziah died, I
saw also the Lord sittingi upon a thro!e,
hihli  and lifted up, and his train filled
the temple. Isa. vi. 1.
1 beheld tilt the thrones were cast
down, and the Ancient of days did sit,
7




74            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
God seen many times.              Not seen by man.
whose garment was white as snow, and
the hair of his head like the pure wool:
his throne was li/e the fiery flame, ancd
his wheels cas burnin flire. Dan. vii. 9.
Some of the cases 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, something more real and objective seems to be intended.  In some
cases, it is said merely that "Godl" 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 lie is in
himself, -  is never visible to men.  In what sense, then, may
he be said to have been " seen"?
1. He milght 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
HenglstenbergI says, God appears "under a light vesture of
corporeity, in a transiently-assumed human form."  This seems
in some instances the best solution.
2. I-le might be seen, as we may say, by proxy, — in hia
accredited represeutatiNve.  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 mentioned as the Person appearing, even where this is the case in
the Jewish text, but always an Angel.2  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 " representative Angel" claims for himself divine honors and purposes, and
accepts divine worship.3  Respecting the nature and rank of
this celestial messenger, opinion is divided.4
1 Genuineness of Pent. ii. 370. 2 Bleek, Introduction to Old Test., ii. 393.
3 See Genesis xviii. 10, 14; xxii. 12; xxxi. 11, 13; Acts vii. 30,32.' Lango on Genesisj pp; 380-g91.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                7b
Augustine, Jerome, the Romish theologians, tie Socinians,
Hofmann, Tholuck, Delitzsch, Kurtz, and ot:hers, hold that lihe
was a " created angel" who personated Jehovahll, acted as his
proxy or nuncius.  We -know that it is not uncommon for a
monarch to depute some nobleman to act as his proxy or representative for the time being with all needful powers and
privileges.
The early church, the old Protestant theologians, B.sli,
H-Iengstenberg, Keil, Hiivernick, Lange, WVordsworth, 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 ihis person," the "King
eternal, immortal, invisible" has often been seen.
Little need be said concerning the specific cases above mentioned. The Lord spale with his servant Moses " face to face,"
that is, familiarly.  Two men may speak face to face, in darkness, 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 Mloses saw only
the back, and not the face of Jehovah."
Andrew Fuller:l: "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 manifestations of the divine glory; in the other, of a fulness of knowledge
of.this go ry, which is incompatible with our mortal state, if not
with our capacity as creatures.
Murphy: "11 jAface is my direct, immediate, intrinsic, self....
1 Works, i- 674 (edition in 8 vblsl)




76             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
_y1/i back 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 lozoer degree of
disclosure could be made to him, a  igher could not."  An important 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 peculliar
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 simnilitude visible.
The similitude of the Lor.D shall he   And the LorD spake unto you out of
behold. 1um. 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 5Moses, the second to the people in
general.   He saw  certain manifestations of God which they
were not permitted to see.
Keil thinks that the similitude which MIoses 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 which was an adequate representation of the divine
nature.
HI-oliness.
God the Author of evil.           Not the Aut -hor of evil.
I form the light, and create darkness:   A God of truth and without iniquity,
I make peace. and create evil: I the just and right is hie. I)eoit. xxxii. 4.
LonuD do all these things. Isa. xlv. 7.    For thou art not a God tllat hath
Thus saith the Lor.n; Behold, I frame pleasure in wickedness: neither shall
evil against you, and( devise a device evil dwell with thee. l's. v 4.
against you. Jer. xviii. 11.        ForI know the thoughlts that I think
Out of the mouth of the MIost High toward you, saith the LorD, thoughts
proceedel', not evil and good? Lam. of peace, and not of evil. Jer. xxix.
iii. 38.                          11.
1See Gen, iii, 8; Ex. xix. 19; Deut. v, 2:; JOb xxxviii 1.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                   77
God the Author of evil.        Not the Authotr of evil.
Wherefore I gave them also statutes   For God is not the Cmtlhorof confusion,
that were not good, and judgments but of peace. 1 Cor. xiv. 33.
whereby they should not live. Ezek.
xx. 25.
shall there be evil in a city, and the
LoRnD hathl 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 overthrown
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, ancd Halvernick 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.l
Fairbairn: " The polluted customs and observances of heathenism." Wordsworth: " These evil practices are called'statutes'
and'judgments,' in verse 18, like the'statutes of Omri' in
Mlicah vi. 16." 2  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 (;f those to
whom they were addressedcl?  Are not Paul's words, " And the
commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto
death," 3 explanatory of the text under consideration?
Compare Ps. lxxxi. 12; Rom. i. 24, 25; S Thess. ii. 11.
2 Compare " statutes of the heathen," 2 Kings xvii. 8.
8 Rom. vii. 10.




DISCREPANCIES OF 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 Mioses 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 different.  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 people of Athens, replied, " I have given them the best
that thev were able to bear."
"When divine wisdom," observes M1[ontesquieu,2 "said to tile
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
in the law of IMioses."
Whichever interpretation may be adopted, none of the above
texts, nor any others when properly explained, sanction the
revolting proposition that God is the author of sin.
God jealous.                   Free from jealousy.
I the LORD thy God cat a jealous God.   The Lor.D 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 LoeD 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.
For they provoked him to anger with   For jealousy is the rage of a man:
their higoi places, and moved him to therefore lie ill not spare in the day of
jealousy with their graven images. Ps. vengeance. Prov. vi. 34.
lxxviii. 58.                         Wrath is cruel, and anger is otitraTherefole thus saith the Lord GOD; geous; but who is able to stand before
Surely in the fire of my jealousy lhave jealousy.: l'rov. xxvii. 4.
I spoken against the residue of the   Jealousy is cruel as the grave: the
heathen. Ezek. xxxvi. 5.           coals thereof are coals of fire, whicih
God is jealous, and the LORD reveng- hath a most vehement flame. Cantic.
eth. I ahuni i. 2.                 viii. 6.
The words "jealous" and  " jealousy" are each used in a
good and a bad sense.4  Applied to God, they denote that he
1 Commentary on Laws of Ancient Hebrews, p. 119.
2 Spirit of' Laws, B. 19, c. 21.
3 Zdcklcr says the original word denotes here, not " envy," but plainly
" jealousy."
4 In the Hebrew, jealousy, envy, zeal, and anger may be expressed by a
single term, jnup.; 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 sensitiveness to everything that threatens to trench upon the honor,
reverence, and esteem that he knows to be clue 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,l the phraseology
brings 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 h(. is tempted,
things, that God did tempt Abraham. I am tempted of God: for God cannot
Gen. xxii. 1.                    be tempted with evil, neither tempteth
And again the anger of the LOPoD he any man. James i. 13.
was kindled against Israel, and lie
moved David against them to say, Go,
number Israel and Judah. 2 Sam.
xxiv. 1.
And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil. Matt. vi. 13.
The Ilebrewv  word "nissiih," tempt, in the first text, means as
Gesenius says, "to try, to prove any one, to put him 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.2  The meaning therefore is, as in the old Genevan version, "God did
prove Allbraham."
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 I-Iervey,3
the passage should read, "For one moved David against them."
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:4 4 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.
The 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.   21 Kings x 1.    3 In Bible Commentary.
i Commentary on 1 Sam. xxvi. 19




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       81
"Lead us not into temptation," either " Do not scff~er us to
be tempted to sin; or, if " temptation " here means trial, affliction, " 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
incl-;cements 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 great God, a mighty, and a terrible,
and to his offering. But unto Cain and which regardeth not persons, nor taketh
to his offering he had not respect. Gen. reward. Deut. x 17.
iv. 4, 5.             h'Iesre is no iniquity with the LORD
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. xix. 7.
Ex. ii. 25.                          Then Peter opened his mouth, and
For I will have respect unto you, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is
make you fruitfutl, and multiply you, no respecter of persons. Acts x. 34.
and establish my covenant with you.   For there is no iespect of persons
Lev. xxvi. 9.                      with Cod.  om.. 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.                          is there respect of persons with him.
Though the LOPRD be high, yet hath  Eph. vi. 9.
he respect unto the lowly: hut the proud   The Father, who without respect of
he knoweth afar off.'s. 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, " nisii p:tnim," 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 with pcartiality."   In both of the above texts, the
connection makes it clear that this is the correct interpretation.
The corresponding Greek term " prosopolepsia," expressing concretely the same idea,1 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 iackett on Acts x. 34.




82              DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
texts, inasmuch  as they refer to widely different kinds  of
"respect."
God, an angry being.                  Not angry.
God is angry vith the qwicked every   The LoRn God, merciful and gracious,
day. P's. vii. 11.                 longsuffering, and abundant in goodCome, my people, enter thou into thy ness and truth, keeping mercy for thoLchambers, 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 indignation be over- merciful, slow to anger, and of great
past. Isa. xxvi. 20.               kindness. Nell. ix. 17.
The fierce anger of the LORD is not   Great are thy tender mercies, O
turned back froml us. Jer. iv. S.  LoRD. Ps. cxix. 155.
The LORD revengeth, and is furious;   Fury is not in me. Isa. xxvii. 4.
the LoanD will take vengfeance on his
adversaries, and lie reserveth owr ath for
his enemies. iSah. 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 inzflnitely 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 1 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 his. 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 Ari HOLY,' can without risk represent God as angry, jealous,
mourning, repenting.  Scrupulosity, under such circumstances,
is the sign of an evil conscience." 2
God, susceptible of temptation.         Cannot be tempted.
Ye shall not tempt the LorD your   God cannot be tempted with evil
God, as ye tempted hiss in Massal. Jas. i. 13.
D)eut. vi. 16.
They that tempt God are even delivered. MSal. iii. 15.
1 In Lange on Genesis, p. 288.
2 Hengstenberg, Genuineness of Pent. ii. 327.




DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.                      83
God, susceptible of temptation.         Cannot be 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 disciples. Acts xv. 10.
3Men 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." 1
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.2
Justice.
God is just.                        Unij2ust.
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 abunwicked: and that the righteous should dance: 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 hsath. Matt. xiii. 12.
right? Gen. xviii. 25.              (For the children being not yet born,
All his ways are 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 Iim that calleth:) It was said unto
and there is no unrighteousness in him. her,  The elder shall serve the younger.
Ps. xcii. 15.                      As it is written, Jacob have I loved,
Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not but Esau have 1 hated. Rom. ix. 11-13.
my way equal? are not your ways unequal? Ezek. xviii. 25.
As to Alatt. 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."
Alford: "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
1 Alford on Acts xv. 10.
2 On supposed sanction of Human Sacrifices, see under Ethical Dis.
crepancies.




84             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLF.
desire nor meetness to receive the engraftecl 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 bewildlered and
darkened by this simple teaching, into the depths of which he
cannot penetrate so far as even 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 privileges 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: " Ie 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 unrighteousness with God?"  If this fact constitutes an objection
against the justice of this world's Governor, it is an objection
which 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 father of Canaan,  The fathers shall not be put to death
saw the nakedness of his father, and for the children, neither shall the chiltold 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 younger son had done unto own sin. Deut. xxiv. 16.
him. And he said, Cursed be ('anaan;   Behold, 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. Gen. ix. 22, 24, 25.  the son is mine: the soul that sinneth,
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers it shall die. The son shall not bear the
upon the children unto the third and iniquity of the tather, neither shall the
fourth f/lenaeratio   of them that hate father bear the iniquity of the son; the
me. Ex. xx. 5.                    righteousness of the righteous shall be
And Joshua, and all Israel with him, upon him, and the wickedness of the
took Achan the son of Zerah, and the wicked shall be upon him. Ezek. xviii.
silver, and the garment, and the wedge 4, 20.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       85
P2unishes for others' sins.         Does not thus punish.
of gold, and his sons, and his daulghters,   The righteous judgment of God:
and his oxen, and his asses, and his Who wvill render to every man accordsheep, and his tent, and all that he ing to his deeds. Rom. ii. 5, 6.
had: and they broaght tlhem unto the
valley of Achor. And all israel stoned
him witll stones, and burned tl:em with
fire, after they had stoned them with
stones. And they raised over him a
great heap of stones unto this day. So
the Loanl) turned from the fierceness of
his anger. Josh. vii. 24-26.
What mean ye, that ye use this
proverb concerning the land of Israel,
saying, The father's 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 contemptuous deportment toward his aged parent became, "under
the prompting of inspiration, a suggesting occasion of the curse
now  pronounced.... 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 whiclb they already displayed,
the germinal commencement of the future course of their posterity, 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,'l in which  Noah discerned, through tile
gift of prophecy, a significant omen; a supposition decidedl;y
favored by the analogy of the blessing pronounced upon Japhet,2
which is also founded upon the name."
Lange thinks that Noah's malediction is " only to be explained on the ground that, in the prophetic spirit, he saw into
1 That is, "the submissive one "; Keil.
2 " Widely spreading," so Gesenius.
8




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,1 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.
Lewis2 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 youcngest 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 descendants 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 stffer in consequence of the sins of the former.
1 See Conciliator, i. 33.  2 In Lange on Genesis, p. 838.




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 offspring.  The drunkard bequeaths to his
children poverty, shame, wretchedness, impaired health, and not
infrequently a burning thirst for strong drinl. The licentious
mall 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 chargeal)le 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 puenishmnent, yet the language, "unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me," indicates children who
are sinful like their parents. Hengstenterg:1 "The threatening
is directed against those children whq 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 sills of those parents.  Bush: "The tokens of the
divine displeasure were to flow along the line of those who continued the haters of God."
As to the case of Achan's sons and daughters, Canon
Browne2 says: " The sanguinary severity of Oriental nations,
fronm which the Jewish people were by no means free, has in
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 sovereignty, and his consequent right to send death at any time and
in any form he pleases.
KIeil and others hold that Achan's sons and daughters were
I On Gen. of Pent. ii. 448.    2 In Smlith's Bib. Dict., Art. "Achan."




88             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
accomplices in his 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
have 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 zuicked.   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, lie 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 amn 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 from thee done them, he shall surely live. Ezek.
the righteous and the wicked. Seeing xviii. 9, 19.
thenl that I will cut off from thee the   But if the wicked turn fiom  his
righteous and the wicked,therefore shall wickedness, and do that which is lawmy sword go forth out of his sheath ful and right, lie shall live thereby.
against all flesh from the south to the Ezek. xxxiii. 19.
north. Ezek. xxi. 3, 4.             Now tile 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
tley 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 removed 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 entirely different, there is
no collision between them.
Isaiah lvii. 1, 2.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                         89
Benevolence.
God iwitholds his blessings.           Bestows them freely.
And when ye spread forth your   For every one that asketh receiveth;
hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: and he that seeketh findeth; and to
yea, when ye make many prayers, I him that knocketh it shall be opened.
will not hear: your hands are full of Luke xi. 10.
blood. Isa. i. 15.                    If any of you lack wisdom, let him
Then shall they cry unto the LorD, ask of God, that giveth to all men liberbut he will not hear them: he will even ally, and upbraideth not: and it shall
hide his face from them at that time, be given him. James i. 5.
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
your 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 enunciated: " If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth
us."2   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."'
IHardens men's hearts.         They hardenz their own hearts.
And the LonD hardened the heart of   But when Pharaoh saw that there
Pharaoh, and lie hearkened not unto was respite, lie hardened his heart, and
them. Ex. ix. 12.                   hearkened not unto tiem.... And l'haAnd the LoRD said unto Moses, Go raoh hardened his heart at this time
in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened also, neither would he let the people
his heart., and the heart of his servants, go. Ex. viii. 15, 32.
that I might shew these my signs be-   And when'haraoh saw that the rain
fore him. Ex. x. 1.                 and the hail and the thunders were
And Moses and Aaron did all these  ceased, he sinned yet more, and harwonders before Pharaoh: and the LorD  dened his heart, he and his servants.
hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he Ex. ix. 34.
would not let the children of Israel go   Wherefore then do ye harden your
out of his land. Ex. xi. 10.        hearts, as the Egyptians and P'haraoh
But Sillon king of lHeshbon would hardened their hearts? 1 Sam. vi. 6.
not let us pass by him: for the LOonD   And he also rebelled against king
thy God hardened his spirit, and made Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him
his heart obstinate, that lie might de- swear by 6 od: but he stifdened his nock,
liver him into thy hand, as appeareth and hardened his heart from tur2ing
this day. Deut. ii. 30.             unto the LoRD God of Islael. 2 Chron.
For it was of the LonD to harden xxxvi. 13.
their hearts, that they should come:Happy is the man that feareth alway:
1 See James i. 6.                        21 John v. 14
8*




90             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Ilardezns m.en's hearcts.    They harden their own hearts.
against Israel in battle, that lie might but he that hardeneth his heart shall
destroy them  utterly, acd that they fall into mischief. Prov. xxviii. 14.
mihllt hav-e no favor, but that he   Harden not your hearts, as in the
might destroy them, as the Loiru corn- provocation, in the day of temptation
mandcled Moses. Josh. xi. 20.     in the wilderness. Heb. iii. 8.
O LORD, why hast thou made us to
err fiom thy ways, and hardened our
heart from thy fear? lsa. lxiii. 17.
Hle hatl blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not
see with their eyes, nor understand lwith
thein heart, and be converted, and 1
should heal them. John xii. 40.
Therefore hath hlie mercy on whom
he will have imercy, and whom he will
he hardeneth. Rom. 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, indirectly "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.  WVhen he saw that there was respite, 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:2 "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, which reaches to
all, some receive good and others evil; some are softened, and
others ha-rdened."
Stuart,3  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:4," This does not mean that he infused positive
1 See Ex. viii. 15 and ix. 34.        2 Qnaest. 12 in Ex.
8 Corn. on Romans, Excursus xi. p. 483.' Sacred IHermen., 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 withdrew his grace, allowed the heart of Pharaoh to take its natural
course, and thus to become harder and harder. He permitted
it to be hardened."
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
drive 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. This is what we find in the case
of Pharaoh."
As to Sihon, Deut. ii. 30, God providentially arranged circumstances so that the malignant wickedness of his heart should
develop and culminate in " hardness" and " obstinacy," bringing
upon him merited destruction.
Bush, 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. lxiii. 17, remarks: "'Vhen men have
scornfully and obstinately rejected the grace of God, he withdraws 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 leardeneth whom he will, lies also in tlhe
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 peacefdl.
The LoRD is a man of war: the LORD   Now the God of peace be with you
is his name. Ex. xv. 3.            all. Rtom. xv. 33.
The LOUD of hosts is his name. Isa.   For God is not the author of confuii. 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 twofold aspect —
in his attitude toward sin and incorrigible sinners, 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 lawabiding citizens is a peaceful one, while in respect to evil-doers
he "beareth not the sword in vain." 1
lfercy.
Unmerciful arndferocious.            Merciful and kind.
And thou shalt consume all the peo-   O give thanks unto the LORD; for he
ple which the LORD thy God shall de- is good; for his mercy enzdreth for
liver thee: thine eye shall have no pity ever. 1 Chron. xvi. 34.
upon them. Dent. vii. 16.          Thle LORD is good to all; and his
And he smote the men of Beth-she- tender mercies are over all his works.
mesh. because they had looked into the Ps. cxlv. 9.
ark of the LORD, even he smote of the   It is of the LoRD's mercies that we
people fifty thousand and three score are not consumed, because his compasand ten men. 1 Sam. vi. 19.        sions fail not. Lain. iii. 22.
Thus saith the LouRD of hosts, I re-   The Lord is very pitiful and of ten.
member that which Amalek did to der mercy. Jas. v. 11.
Israel, how he laid wait for him in the   God is love. 1 John iv. 16.
way, when he came up from Efgypt.
N ow go and smite Amalek, and utterly
1 See Rom. xiii. 8, 4.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     93
Unmerccful and ferocious.          3Merciful 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 Samn. xv. 2, 3.
And I will dcash them one against
another, even the fathers and the sons
together, saith the LorD: I will not
pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, buat
destroy them. Jer. xiii. 14.
For our God is a consuming fire.
fIeb. xii. 29.
As to the injunction to slay the Canaanites, in Deut. vii., see
the discussion elsewhere.l
In respect to the Bethshemites, there is, in all probability, a
mistake in the number specified.  " Seventy men" is the true
reading, with which Josephus2 agrees.  Copyists 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.3  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 difficulty 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, explicit, 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
1 Ethical Discrepancies; "Enemies, treatment."
2 Antiq. vi. 1, 4.
3 Lord Arthur Hervey, in Bible Commentary, expresses the opinion that
the error arose from the use of numeral-letters; Ayin (V) denoting 70
being mistaken for dotted Sun (~) representing 50000,




94           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE,
they die."2  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 things and of approaching Jehovah.
The reason for the command in 1 Sam. xv. is as follows:
When the HI-ebrews were toiling along on their weary pilgrimage 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 tile main body.  The
following is the artless language of the sacred historian: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were
come forth out of Egypt; how he 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 pasture 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 guerrillas. It seemed best to the Almighty to extirpate 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." 3 In pursuance of this object, he
was ordered to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
It is objected that this command proves God to be "cruel."
If so, the fact that in numberless cases he slays tender babes,
innocent little ones, by painful diseases, famine, pestilence,
earthquakes, hurricanes, and the like, militates equally agaiust
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.
z Num, iv. 15 and 20i.   Ieut. xxv, 17,  181  Sam. xv; 1I




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     95
Besides, had the women and children been spared, there
would soon have been a fresh crop of adult Amalekites, precisely 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 undesirable and
pernicious element in the nation.  It was, doubtless, on the
whole, the best thing for the world 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 tlreatening  above mentioned was a
conditional one. They might have repented, and escaped. They
would not reform, hence the 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 earthly 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 enzdureth but a moment.
be turned away from Israel. Num. Ps. xxx. 5.
xxv. 4,                            The LORD is merciful and gracious,
And lthe LoRD's anger 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.'s. ciii.
all the generation, that lihad done evil 8, 9.
in the sig, ht of tile LORD, was consumed.
INum. xxxii. 13.
Wilt thou be'angry with us for ever?
wilt thou draw ou/t thine anger to all
generations? rs. lxxxv. 5.
The "fierce anger" of the Lord is his intense and iqftnite
I SeW Jer. xiii. 15-1~.




96             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
displeasure at everything unholy and evil.  He is "slow  to
anger"; for though he feels an infinite abhorrence of sin, yet
he bears long with  the sinner, before giving  punitive expression 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
in his anger, a (whole) life in his favor,' that is, the former
endures only for a moment, the latter, the whole life of a
man11.
The anger of God ceases upon the repentance of the sinner.
In relation to a certain class of persons, that anger is fierce and
lasting, but with respect to a different class, it is slow and brief.
Flearftul to fall into his hands.       NAot.fearful.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the   And David said unto Gad, I am in a
hands of the living 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 incorrigible 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 overthrow.        Has no pleasutre 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:
Frov. 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 comments as follows: "I shall henceforth treat you as enemies
who deserve contempt.... The intensity of the tropical language here makes the expression exceedingly strong. Laughing
at and mocking are expressions of the highest and most contemptuous 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.
Ile is the Rock, his work is perfect:  The LoRD your God is gracious and
for all his ways are judgment: a God merciful, and will not turn arway his
of truth and without iniquity, just and face from you, if ye return unto him.
right is he. Dent. xxxii. 4.     2 Chron. 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 circumstances may warrant. The following
is a striking passage: " Unto thee, O  Lord, belongeth mercy;
for thou rendsWrest to every man according to his work." I From
this text it would seem that, in the Psalmist's view, mercy and
justice are so far from being incompatible, that the one attribute is dependent upon the other.  " Thou art merciful, for
thou art just."  HIengstenberg: " He must have loving-kindness, inasmuch as it is involved in the very idea of God as the
righteous One, th-at he recompense every one according to his
work, and therefore manifest himself as compassionate to the
righteous, while he desi oys 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 LouD: yet I loved Jacob, and I
hated Esau. Mal. i. 2, 3.
The word " hate" is used here, al3 ~lien in scripture,' in the
sense of to love less. If core person was preferred to another,
the former was said to be " loved," the latter " hated."  Henderson observes: "As the opposite of love is hatred, when
Ps. lxii. 12.
2See Gen. xxix. 30, 31; Prov. xiii. 24; also Luke xiv. 26, compared with
Matt. x. 87.




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.              Sendsforth lying spirits.
The Strength of Israel will not lie.  And he said, Hear thou therefore the
I Sam. xv. 29.                    word of the LORD; I saw the LORD
That 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
HIeb. vi. 18.                     hand and on his left. And the LoRD
said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that
he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner,
and another said on that manner. And
there came forth a spirit, and stood
before the LonD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto
him, Wherewith? And he said, I will
go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in
the month of all his prophets. And he
said, Thou shalt persuade hi7m, and prevail also; go forth, and do so. Now
therefore, behold, the LORD hath put
a lying spirit in the 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.  Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist of
the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered
Ahab to be fatally deceived.  Bihr: " Because Ahab, who had
abandoned God and hardened his heart, desired to use prophecy
for his 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 permission of God to deceive thy prJphets, 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
for his. There is as much of the judicial hand of God in a
1 Works, Vol. i. p. 620.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       99
lying spirit having misled thy prophets 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 upon 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 worling of God in
the deception practised upon Ahab by his prophets.... Jehovah
has ordained that Ahab, being led astray by a prediction 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 be the deceiver, which hath in   And Samuel said, How can I go? if
his flock a male, and voweth and sacri- Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the
ficeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing. LORD said, Take an heifer with thee,
Mal. i. 14.                        and say, I am come to sacrifice to the
Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan LoraD. 1 Sam. xvi. 2.
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy   O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and
Ghost, and to keep back part of the I was deceived: thou art stronger than
price of the land? Acts v. 3.      I, and hast prevailed. Jer. xx. 7.
And if the prophet be deceived when
he hath spoken a thing, I the LorD
have deceived that prophet, and I will
stretch out my hand upon him, and
will destroy him from the midst of my
people Israel. Ezek. xiv. 9.
Erens 7t7him whose coming is after the
working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in
them that perish; because they received
not the love of the truth, that they
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 unrighteousness. 2 Thess. ii. 9-12.
On the text from  1 Samuel, Calvin says: "There was no
dissimulation or falsehood in this, since God really wished his
prophet to find safety under the pretext of the sacrifice.  A
sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was protected 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 conduct 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 concealment 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
belicve, would make a bad use of it.  Lord Arthur Hervey 1
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 ill
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 Davidson2 thus: "0 Lord, thou
hast constrained me, and I was constrained."
Henderson: "' Thou didst persuade me, 0 Jehovah, and I
was persuaded.' The prophet alludes to his reluctance to
accept the prophetical office, which it required powerful inducements 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 "deceivableness 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.    9 Introd. to Old Test., Vol. ii. p. 438,




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.l
Alford': " 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 development 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 Lis
offers and calls of mercy."
1Habitation of God.
Dwells in light.               Dwells in darkness.
Who only hath immortality, dwell-  Then spake Solomon, The LOPrD said
ing in the light whlich no man can ap. that he would dwell in the thick darkproach unto. 1 Tim. vi. 16.      ness. 1 Kings viii. 12.
He made darkness his secret place;
his pavilion round about himl iwere
dark waters a??d 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 unsearchableness of
God in relation to his creatures. This is the point whichl ia
the present instance, the sacred writers intended to illustrate,
and beyond this their language should not be pressed.
1 See South's Sermon on Falsehood and Lying, Works, i. pp. 192-203.
Also, Miller, Doctrine of Sin, ii. pp. 413-415 (second edition).
9*




102            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Dwells in- chosen Temples.         Does not dwell there.
And the LonD appeared to Solomon   Thus saith the LoRD, The heaven is
by night, and said unto him, I have my throne, and the earth is my footheard thy prayer. and have chosen this stool: Awhere is the house that ye build
place to myself for an house of sacri- unto me? and where is the place of my
fice. For now have I chosen and sane- rest? Isa. lxvi. 1.
tifled this house, that my name may be   Howbeit, 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.  Hle 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?" 1 The promise that the name, heart, and eyes of Jehovah
should be there, meant simply 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 conditional, 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." 2 As the conditions were not complied with, the
promise 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.
X2'habits eternity.               Dwells with 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. lvii. 15.      xxix. 45.
I dwell in the high and holy place,
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. lvii. 15.
2 Chron. ii. 6.
2 2 Chron. vii,. 19, 20. Kimchi and Rashi give this explanation of the
case.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     103
Inhabits eternity.                Dwells with 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 them; and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people. 2
Cor. vi. 16.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of
God is with men, and he will dwell
with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them, and be their God. Rev. xxi. 3.
An omnipresent Being may do both-dwell in eternity, and
with men too.  The " omnipresence" of God ishis 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  dwelleth in Zion. Ps. ix. 11.
cxxiii. 1.                          In Salem also is his tabernacle, and
his dwelling-place in Zion. Ps. lxxvi. 2.
To a mind capable of comprehending the meaning of the
term n" omnipresence" these texts are seen to be in perfect harmony. Most simply, yet sublimely, is the idea expressed by
the inspired prophet: " Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith
the Lord." 
jPosition  God assumes.
One Position.                   A different one.
There will I sit to judge all the hea-  The LORD 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  1"standeth" represents him  as in the act of
executing his judgments.
1 Jer. xxiii. 24.




104             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Law of God.
A lazw 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. Gal. 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 5Mosaic law, with its
complicated and burdensome ritual.  This gendered to bondage.
Ellicott comments thus: "'IBearing  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.
Lazo 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.
Observance 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 stathe shall live in them: I ant the LORD. utes, and had polluted my sabbaths,
Lev. xviii. 5.                     and their eyes were after their fathers';or Moses describeth the righteous- idols. Wherefore I gave them  also
ness which is of the law, That the man statutes that were not good, and judgwhich doeth these things. shall live by meats whereby they should not live;
them. Rom. x. 5.                   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 I am the
LORD. Ezek. xx. 24-26.
1 Acts xv. 10.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                 105
Observance tends to life.          Tends to death.
And the commandment, which teas
ordainedl to life, I found to be unto
death. Rom. vii. 10.
If there had been a law given which
could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Gal.
iii. 21.
The first two texts affirm the general principle that obedience
secures felicity, 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
Kimchil 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 punishment of their
sins.2
The commandment which was fitted and intended to secure
life, Saul, through transgression, 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 circumstances, "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. No law, as
Menasseh ben Israel's Conciliator, Vol. i. p. 229.
2 See further, 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 implies 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.
JI. 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
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, righteousness, by that man whom he
O God, is for ever and ever. Ileb. i. 8. hath 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 "; 1 on the other, he was
man, as having taken upon him human nature.
Oze wzith the Fatlher.            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 world, 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 be one,
even as we are one." 2 Here the petition is, not that the disciples 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 planteth
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.
I So Alford, on John i, 1.  2 John xvii. 22.    31 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 personally one, but essentially."
Equal to the Father.               Inferior to him.
Christ Jesus: who, being in the form   If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, beof 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 Christ's 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, De Wette,
Tholuck, Stuart, and Alford, with  other critics and  commentators."l This exposition is in perfect keeping with the
context.
7The Son is God.             Thle 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 conversation received by tradition from
your 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, "klurios,"
1 Says an eminent Unitarian divine, Rev. Dr. E. H. Sears: " For a mortal 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 OF THE BIBLE.
Lord.  Alford, WVordsworth, Mill, and others adopt the former;
Griesbach, Lachmann, 3Meyer, 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,
" the only true God," Barnes observes: "The only God in opposition to all false gods. WVhat 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 inconceivable."
Ch7rist, the Son of God.             Son of snan.
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath  WVhen Jesus came into the coasts of
sanctified, and sent into the world, Caesarea Philippi, lhe asked his disciThou blasphemest; because I said, I ples saying, WThom do men say that I
am the Son of God? John x. 36.   the Son of man am? M3att. xvi. 13.
And Philip 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 3Messiah -  the Son of God manifested in the flesh of man
- -the second Adam. And tQ it belong all those conditions
of humiliation, suffering, and exaltation, which it behooves the
Son of man to go through." From the following passage," IHereafter 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?,"2
1 This verse is retained by Bornemann, Wordsworth, and the Arabic,
Armenian, Syriac, and Vulgate versions. Itis omitted by Alford, Hackett,
Meyer, Tischendorf, and most other modern critics.
2 Luke xxii. 69, 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 thl lonag-expected Messiah.
The only Son of God.            M3en also sons of God.
The only begotten Son, which is in   For as many as are led by the Spirit
the bosom of the Father, he hath de- of God, they are the sons of God. Romn.
clared himin. John i. 18.        viii. 14.
In this was manifested the love of  Beloved, now are we the sons of God.
God toward us, because that God sent 1 John iii. 2.
his only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through him. i
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 being who sustains that peculiar relation to the
Father, which is implied in the term " begotten."
One class of theologians hold that, while men may become
soIlS of God by adoption,l Jesus is son by generation, and consequent participation  in  the divine essence and  attributes.
Such was the view of the Nicene trinitarians.   By analogical
reasoning, they maintained 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. According 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,8 " 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,4 Prof. Stuart,5 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
1 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. 87-40.
4 See Works, v. 232-258 (edition in 7 vols.).
6 Letters to Dr. Miller on Eternal Generation, Letter viii.
10




110            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
as the 1Messiah,-  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 analogous to birth  or generation.  The last-named  theologian1
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 appellations are respectively used with very different
significations.
Omnipotence.
hIad 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 them 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 theam. Mark
vi. 5.
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 this 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 ability is not absolute, but relative.
The same voice which could still the tempest, could anywhere
1 MS. Lectures.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     111
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 off having
unto them, because he knew all men, leaves, he came, if haply he might find
and needed 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 figs was not yet. Mark xi.13.
Nf ow are we sure that thou knowest   But of that day and that hour knowall things, and needest not that any eth no man, no, not the angels which
man should aslk 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. Col.   Wherefore in all things it behooved
ii. 3.                             him to be made like unto his brethren.
Heb. ii. 17.'a
Obviously, 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," 1 the humanity is placed in the foreground;
when he claims to have existed "before Abraham  was,"2 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 3 observes: " Even the highest 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 4 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 Lulke ii. 52.     2 John viii. 58' Life of Christ, p. 340O
4 On Pentateuch, Part i. p. xxxi.




112           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 grcdual 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 improbable, 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.1 In a somewhat analogous way, a man
says, " Irejoice at it," and, at another time, " I 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 interpretation 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.2
As to the case of the fig-tree, Jesus wished to teach his disDr. 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 mnoment
intensely happy, and suffering intensely. Yet this involved no contradiction. The language had respect to different relations, or to different
departments of being. See Payson's'Memoir, by Cummings, p. 476.
2 See Phil. ii. 7, 8; Greek iavTrmbv E'K'cre, 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, Augustine 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 determine 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:l "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, assumed 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."
Alford: "In the course of humiliation undertaken by the
Son, in which he increased in wisdom (Luke ii. 52), learned
Works, ii. 163 (Oxford edition, 1856).
o10*




114             DISCREPANCIES OP THE BIBLE.
obedience (Heb. v. 8), uttered  desires in  prayer (Luke vi.
12, etc.) -this matter was hidden from  him."
Omnipresence.
Everywhere 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. Luke xxiv. 15.
Jesus had conveyed himself away, a
multitude being in that place. John
v. 13.
And I am glad for your sakes that I
was not there, to the intent ye may believe; 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.
Holinzess.
He is holy.                          Is sin.
He had done no violence, neither   For he hath made him to be sin for
wsas 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. Ileb. iv. 15.
Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate
from sinners. leb. vii. 26.
The word "sin," in tbe latter text, doubtless means "sinoffering."  In this view concur Augustine, Ambrose, Erasmus,
Lightfoot, Macdnight, Stuart, Whitby, and many other commentators.
Chrysostom  says, " Him who knew no sin, who was righteousness itself, 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,
&apa7pLa, as "peccattm, etiam poena peccati, et sacrificium  piaculare."
Bicl gives, also, " sacrificium pro peccato."  Examples of the secondary
signification are Ezek xliii. 22; xliv. 29; xlv. 22. According to Gesenius,
the corresponding Hebrew term t,'Yr,  with. two kindred words, means
both sin and sin-offering. Fuerst says rRi- denotes sin in 1 Sam. xx, 1;
Psalm lix. 4; Job xiii. 23; and sin-qffering 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 singular obliquity of mind and heart, F. W. Newman   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 " conviction," that " in consistency of goodness Jesus fell far below
vast numbers of his unhonored disciples."
What 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 atrocious 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. lxxii. 17.                   one that hangeth on a tree. Gal. iii. 13.
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain
to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 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 repugnant to our feelings.
Conybeare renders: " He became accursed for our sakes."
Ellicott 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 explained, a " curse " for us.
1 Phases of Faith, chap. vii. (third edition).




116            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Mercy.
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 thesm. of him that sitteth on the throne, and
Luke ix. 56.                      from the wrath of the Lamb. IRev.
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. Rev. xix. 11.
And he was 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 winepress of the fierceness and wrath of
Almighty God. Rev. xix. 15.
De Wettel 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 virtue, and to punish and exterminate rice.  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,"2 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."3
Introd. to New Test., p. 376.  2 Matt. xi. 28.   8 Matt. xxiii. 33.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                   l17
Courage and Fortitude.
Shruznk at death.               Met it composedly.
Now is my soul troubled; and what  lie humbled himself, and became obeshall 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.
W~ho in the days of his flesh, when
he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears
unto him that was able to save him
from 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 hour?"  This interpretation  makes good
sense, and accords well with the context.
Heb. v. 7 may be rendered: "He was heard on account ofj
his pious resignation," - or, " because of his reverence." So,
in substance, Alford, Barnes, Bleek, Conybeare, Delitzsch,
Luther, Robinson, 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.l Either interpretation dispels the difficulty.
Feracity.
His witness true.                  Not true.
Though I bear record of myself, yet  If I bear witness of myself my witmy record is true: for I know whence ness is not true. John v. 31.
1came 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 common version be retained, the meaning is, If I alone bear witness
of myself."  The Mosaic law required at least two witnesses.2
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.'Luke xxii. 43.                          Doub. xiX 1.




[118            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Andrew Fuller:1 " The first passage sets forth his testimony
as it was in itself; the second as it was in the account of
men..... Admitting their laws or rules of evidence, his testimony 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 his Father's name, which
amounted to a testimony from  the Father."
Alford: The assertion in chapter v. was, that his own unsupported witness (supposing that possible) would not be trustworthy, 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 testimony 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 I say that ye
beginning. John xv. 27.           might be saved. John v. 34.
"I receive not," etc.; that is, the " testimony " of which I
have spoken is not derived from human sources. It is infinitely
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 his government and peace there shall peace on earth; I came not to send
be no end. Isa. ix. 6. 7.         peace, but a sword. For I am come to
Peace I leave with you, my peace I set a man at variance against his father,
give unto you. John xiv. 27.       and the daughter agaihst lher mother,
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.
l Works, i. 629.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       119
A religion of inherent, radical purity could not be promulgated 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, ultimate, 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 the Gentiles,and
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my sal- into any city of the Samaritans enter
vation unto the end of the earth. Isa. ye 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   I 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 chiefly 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 Jorlage of the Samaritans to make ready dan. Matt. xix. 1.
for him. Luke ix. 52.                (The woman was a Greek, a SyroAnd it came to pass as he went to phenician by nation,) and she besought
Jerusalem, that he passed through the him that hlie would cast forth the devil
midst of Samaria and Galilee. Luke out of her daughter. But Jesus said
xvii. 11.                           unto her, Let the children first be filled:
Hle 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 unto the dogs.
through Samaria John iv. 3, 4.      Mark vii. 26, 27.
So when the Samaritans were come
unto him they besouglht him that he
would tarry with them: and he abode
there two days. And many more believed because of his own word. 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,2 or that he actually tarried two whole days in Sychar,
does not, in the slightest, militate against the certainty that his
personal ministry was among the children of Israel.
1 Straussa and. Rena, p,; 77       2.- Lkoe xvii. 16 and x., 88a-7.




120            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
To fu7fil the law.            To redeem from its curse.
Think not that I 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. M3att.
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, penitent sinners from the " curse," the penalty of the law.
To judge the world.                  Not to judge.
For the Father judgeth no man; but   For God sent not his Son into the
hath committed all judgment 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 iii. 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. 89.    believe not, I judge him not: for I
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 process of judgment, the condemnation of some will be a certain,
although incidental, 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."
Mliracles.
Proof of divine mission.               lNot a proof.
And Israel saw that great work which   Then Pharaoh also called the wise
the LoRD did upon the Egyptians: and men, and the sorcerers: now the mathe people feared the LORD, and be- gicians of Egypt, they also did in like
lieved the LoRD, and his servant Moses. manner with their enchantments: for
lx. xiv. 31.                      they cast down every man his rod, and
Art thou he that should come, or they 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, Go and enchantments, and brought up frogs
shew John again those things which upon the land of Egypt. Ex. viii. 7.
ye do hear and see: the blind receive   If there arise among you a prophet,
their sight, and the lame walk, the or a dreamer of dreamsi and givethi




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       121
Proof of divine mission.                 Not a proof.
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign
the dead are raised up. Matt. xi. 3-5.  or the wonder come to pass, whereof lie
Rabbi, we know that thou art a spake unto thee, saying, Let its go after
teacher come from God: for no man other gods which thou hast not known,
can do these miracles that thou doest, and let us serve them; thou shalt not
except God be with him. John iii. 2.  hearken unto the words of that proThe works which the Father hath phet, or that dreamer of dreams: for
given me to finish, the same works that the LoPrD your God provetrl you, to
I do, bear witness of me, that the know whether yelove the Lots)t your
Father hath sent me. John v. 33.    God with all your heart and with all
God also bearing thets witness, both your soul. Deut. xii. 1-3.
with signs and wonders, and with di-.  For there shall arise talse (hlrists,
vers miracles, and gifts of the Holy and false prophets, and shall shew
Ghost, according to his own will. lHeb. great signs and wonders; insomuch
ii. 4.                              that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. MIatt. 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 hint, whose coming is after the
working of Satan, with all power and
signs and lying wonders. 2 Thess. ii. 9.
And he doeth great wonders, so that
he maketh fire come down from heaven
on the earth in the sight of men, and
deceiveth them that dwell on the earth
by the mleanzs qf those miracles. Rev.
xiii. 13, 14.
On this general subject, we may 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 doctrine he propounds, must be taken
into the account.  There are two or three preliminary questions
which must be considered before we proceed further.
1. What constitutes a miracle?  We give various answers.
Dr. Charles HIodoge:L " 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-:1 "c A miracle is a violation of the laws of matter
and of finite mind in their established method of operating."
Or, more specifically, "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:2 "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."
Bleek3 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." Gerhard: 4 4 The doctrine is the title-deed, and is essential to the
significance of the seal attached to it. The miracle is the seal,' MS. Lectures. See, also, Smith's Bib. Dict., Art. "Miracles," appendix by Professor Park.' Notes on Miracles, p. 18.
3 Introd. to New Test., i. 221.
4 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: 1  When a man presents himself as a messenger
of God, whether he is to be received as such or not depends, fire t,
on the doctrines which he teaches, and, secondly, upon the works
which he performs. If he not only teaches doctrines conformed
to the nature of God and consistent with 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: 2 "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 essential 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 character 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: 3 ", 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:4 "Though the common experience and the
ordinary course of things have justly a mighty influence on tile
1 Theology, i. 636.
2 Life, ii. 202 (Popular edition, Boston, 1871).
3 On Miracles, p. 27.
4 On Human Understanding, BoolWiv,, chap. xviLsoct. 13.




124          DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
minds 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 supernatural 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 the
proper case of miracles, which, well attested, do not only find
credit themselves, but give it also to other truths, which need
such confirmation."
Dr. Thomas Brown:1 "A miracle is not a violation of any
law of nature. It involves, therefore, primarily, no contradiction 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 supposition, 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 incredible performances of certain jugglers, contemplating no
On Relation of Cause and Effect, pp. 224, 2o0.




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 wrought
with fire,' in the Midclle Ages, which men then regarded as
miracles, we now see to have been mere tricks, utterly -unworthy 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 highest 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 own world to ends of grace and wisdom and love,
but evil permitted to intrude into the hidden springs 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."
Alford: "Miracles, as such, are no test of truth, but have
been permitted to, and prophesied of, false religions and teachers."  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 jugglers.3  Many commentators, however, seem disposed to recognize the supernatural character of the feats ascribed to the
magicians.
Keil: "With 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,
7 See Brewster's Letters on Natural Magic, Letter 12.
- Notes on Miracles, pp. 25-27.
3 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."
-Iengstenberg:l "The object to which all of these occurrences 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 definitely 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 miracleworker should inculcate "idolatry," — which had been most
strictly and explicitly forbidden by Jehovah, - this single circumstance 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 suffered 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 hominzem.
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 wonders,' not because in themselves frauds and illusions, but
because they are wrought to support the kingdom of lies." Or,
1Egypt 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."
MIuch the same may be said with reference to the text in
Revelation, which Alford interprets as delineating one characteristic of the Papal church, the claim  to work "miracles" 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 HAim.
Despised.                        Honorable.
He is despised and rejected of men;  Unto you therefore which believe he
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with is precious.l 1 Pet. ii. 7.
grief: and we hid as it were our faces
from him; he was despised, and we esteemed 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 glory of the Messiah; the other those who are
still in the darkness and blindiness of sin.
Uncomely.                          Lovely.
As a root out of a dry ground: he   My beloved is white and ruddy, the
hath no form 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 altowe should desire him. Isa. liii. 2.  gether lovely. This is my beloved, and
this is my friend. Cantic. v. 10, 16.
There is no proof that these last texts refer to the Messiah.
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,
Rev. 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;2  the lamb
was an emblem of innocence, and was usually offered in sacrifice.
1 The original word properly means an honor.  2 See Gen. xlix. 9.




128             DISCREPANCIES OF THE  BIBLE.
High Priest.                          A sacrifice.
We have such a high priest, who is  Ile appeared to put awray sin by the
set on the right hand of the throne of sacrifice of himself.... Chist was once
the Majesty in the heavens. Heb. viii. 1. offered 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 victim. On the term "high
priest," Alford says, " the propitiatory, sacerdotal representative
of men before God."
A vine.                             A stone.
I am the vine, ye are the branches: he   Jesus Christ himself being the chief
that abideth in me, and I in him, the corner-stosie. 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. even to them which stumble
xv. 5.                              at the word, being disobedient. 1 let.
ii. 8.
The figure of the "vine" and "branches" sets forth  the
intimate, vital union of Christ and his people, together with
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 which 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 shearJohn x. 11.                         er, so he opened not his mouth. Acts
Our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd viii. 32.
of the sheep. Heb. xiii. 20.          Washed their robes, and made them
The shepherd and Bishop of your white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev.
souls. 1 Pet. ii. 25.               vii. 14.
The first figure represents his tender, watchful care and oversight 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.
I am the door: by me if any man   I am the living bread which came
ei, ter in, he shall be saved, and shall go down front ]eaven: if any man eat of
in and out and find pasture. John this bread, he shall live for ever: and
x. 9.                               the bread that I will give is my flesh,
whlich I 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 his aid,




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                   129
and through his atonement, we come to God.  The second text
implies that as material bread must be eaten, digested, and
assimilated by us, for the maintenance of physical life, so
Christ's spirit and teachings must be received into our hearts
and incorporated in our lives, in order to our spiritual vitality.
Thle Light of the world.              Men are lights.
Thtat was the true Light, which light-  Ye are the light of the world. Matt.
eth every man that cometh into the v. 14.
world. John i. 9.                  He was a burning and a shining light.
As long as I am 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. Phil. ii. 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 reflecting his light, may be designated as the
" light of the world."
7The 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 Christ
1 Cor. iii. 11.                  himself being the chief corner-stonse.
Eph. ii. 20.
The church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth. And
without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. 1 Tins. 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"l
means the Spirit's sword.  Meyer, Ellicott, Stier, and others
say, " the foundation which the apostles and prophets have laid."
Alford and Bucer: "the apostles' and prophet's foundationthat upon which they as well as yourselves are built."
On tie last quoted text, Ellicott says that "pillar" and
"grouncld," designating the church, are " only simple, metaphorical expressions of the stability and permanence of the support,"
and adds, "were there no chIurch, there would be no witness,
no guardian of archives, no basis, nothing whereon acknowledged
truth could rest."  Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tholuck, Iuther,
Calvin, Beza, Grotius, De Wette, HI-uther, Alford, and WordsSee Eph. vi. 17.




130             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
worth concur in this view, deeming the church "the element
in which, Cand medium  by which, the truth is conserved and
upheld."  But if we admit that, in this secondary sense, the
church is the " ground" or basis of the truth, it must be remembered that C/hrist is, after all, the deep substructure, the foundation, 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.... When 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. Rom. v. 8. 10
friends. John xv. 13.
Hie 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 properly, and in the depths of the divine
counsel, for those who are his sheep."   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 down his own life.              Jews murdered him.
I lay down my life, that I might take   Him, being delivered by the determiit again. No man taketh it from me, nate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
but I lay it down of myself. I have ye have taken, and by wicked hands
power to lay it down, and I have power have crucified and slain  Acts ii. 23.
to take it again. John x. 17, 18.   And killed the Prince of life. Acts
iii. 15.
The Just One; of whom ye have been
now the betrayers and murde.ers.
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 surrendered himself into their hands; whereupon they "with malice
aforethought and prepense," took his life.  He laid down his
own life, and they killed him.
Ilntercession.
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 pray for as we ought: but the
Spirit itself maketh intercession for us,
with groanings which cannot be uttered. Rom. viii. 26.
The last text when properly translated, does not assert that
the Holy Spirit 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 infirmities." Stuart: Prayer or supplication 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 zworld.         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 rightgiven me; for they are thine. John eous. 1 John ii. 1.
xvii. 9.
As the connection evinces, the first text is equivalent to,'b 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.
Comiing.
In humble guise.                   With regal state.
Behold thy King cometh unto thee:   Behold, one like the Son of man came
he is 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 near before him. And there was
given him dominion, and glory, and a
kingdom. Dan. vii. 13, 14.




132           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
These passages refer to entirely different events.  The first
was fulfilled when our 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."'
Sui.cceeds overthrow of Jerusa7em.  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 be fulfilled.... And then shall
ened.... And then shall appear 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 " tribulation"; 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 circumstantially 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 hidden 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 2 says, " Intervening periods were
mostly concealed from the sight of the seer."  Bleek' says that
in respect to time, 1" the prophecies are usually so framed that
they have a perspective character, great developments and
catastrophes, occurring at considerable intervals of time, appearing to be brought close together, or to be quite intermixed."
Lange:4," 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
I Compare Matt. xxi. 1-11 and xxiv. 30.   2 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 481
8 Introd,. to Old Test., ii. 32.     4 Corn. 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 prominent signs."
Wordsworth: Our Lord's prophecy has a double reference,to the judgment of Jerusalem, and to that of which this judgment 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, while, 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 catastrophe, that it will be at once swift, surpassingly sudden, and following upon a development seemingly slow and gradual. Thus,
throughout the whole course of history, the swift epochs follow
the slow process of the periods."  Owen: 1"lay 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 1 shows
us that the'tribulation' includes'wrath upon this people,'
whitclh is yet being inflicted; and the treading down of Jerusalem
by the Gentiles still going on; and immediately after that
tribulation 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 qff.
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 ally means. 2Thess.
We which are alive and remain unto ii. 2, 3.
the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 1 Thess.
iv. 15.
But the end of all things is at hand.
1 Pet. 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. I, etc., is completely in the spirit of primitive Christianity."
Similarly, Dr. Davidson,2 on 1 Cor. xv. 52: "The expression
we means such Christians as shall then be alive; all believers
then living are grouped together."
On I 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 succeeding one; and in John vi. 32, a succeeding generation is employed
to represent a past one."
Andrew  Fuller: 3 "Everything with  respect to degrees is
what it is by comparison. Taking into consideration the whole
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 writers considered themselves as
having passed the meridian of time, and entered into the afternoon of the world, as we may say.  Such appears to be the
Introd. to New Test., p. 2,7.   2 Introd. to New Test., ii. 458, 465-66.
3 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 people."
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, fice ye into another: for verily I be preached in all the world, for a witsay 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  persecutors, 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."
W~ordsworth: "In a primary sense, you will not have completed your missionary work in Judea before I come to judge
Jerusalem. In 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."
1 See New Life of Jesus, i. 325.




136            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Alford maintains that our Lord's prophecies respecting his
coming have an i'mmediate, literal and a distant, foreshadowed
fulfilnent.  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."
HIe calls attention to the " wide import of scripture prophecy,
which speaks very generally, not so much of events themselves,
points of time, as of procession's 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 outpouring 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."  Lightfoot: " 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.
Kingdjomn.
YVot of this world.  iWithin the Pharisees.
When Jesus therefore perceived that  And when he was demanded of the
they would come and take him by force, Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
to make him a king, lie departed again should come, he answered them and
into a mountain himself alone. John said, The kingdom of God comethl not
vi. 15.                          with observation. Neither shall they
Jesus answered, Mly kingdom is not say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behlold,
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.
fight. 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.  nModern 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." Alford:
" The kingdom  of God was beguen among them, and continues
thus making its way in the world, without observation of men."
It has no end.                     Will terminate.
And there was given him dominion,  Then conseth the end, when he shall
and glory, and a kingdom, that all peo- have delivered up the kingdom to God,
ple, nations, and languages should serve even the Father; when he shall have
him; 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 hie hath
and his kingdom that which shall not put all enemies under his feet.... An d
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 lie saith, Thy throne, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28.
O God, is for ever and ever. lteb. 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 will
no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God,
while his headship over his people is to continue forever."
Dr. Davidson 1 holds that Christ's kingdom  has two departments or brancles, -  one relating to his saints, the other to his
enemies.  When the purposes of the latter department are fulfilled, he will deliver it up to the Father; the former he will
retain forever.
Andrew Fuller; 2 "The end of which Paul speaks does not
mean the end of Christ's kingdom, but of the world, and tl:e
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 Christ over this world, in  its
1 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 571.                2 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
continue.  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 Flio, Filius Patri"; All things will be subordinate to the Son, the Son to the Father.
Namne.
He bears the Divine Name.              A city bears it.
In his days 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 LoUD our Righteousness. Jer. called, The LORD our Righteousness.
xxiii. 6.                        Jer. xxxiii. 16.
Naegelsbach, in Lange, maintains that the word " he," in the
expression, " this is his 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 otherwise, we see nothing improbable in the supposition that the redeemed nation should be called after the name of its Redeemer
and King.
NOTE. - The foregoing are - not indeed all the cases adduced by infidel
writers, -but all which seem worthy of notice, and to ccrne properly
under this head. A considerable number of apparent contradictions pertaining to various events in the life of Christ, are referable to the " historical" department, and will be discussed in a subsequent part of this
volume.




DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.                       139
ITi. tHOL Y SPIRTT.- Personality.
Ile is an Intelligence.                It is an Influence.
Whosoever speakefll against the Holy   The Spirit of God moved upon the
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, face of the waters. Gen. i. 2.
neither in this world, neither in the   Mine elect, in whom my soul delightworld to come. MfNatt. xii. 32.      eth; I have put my Spirit upon him.
But the Comforter, which is the HIoly  Isa. xlii. 1.
Ghost, whom the Father will send in   I send the promise of my Father upon
my name, he shall teach you all things, you; but tarry ye in the city of Jeruand bring all things to your remem- salem, until ye be endued with power
brance, whatsoever I have said unto from on high. Luke xxiv. 49.
you. John xiv. 26.                     God giveth not the Spirit by measure
When he the Spirit of truth is come, znto him. John iii. 34.
he will guide you into all truth: for he   Ye shall be baptized with the Holy
shall not speak of himself; but what- Ghost not many da.ys hence. Acts i. 5.
soever lie shall hear, that shall he speak:   Saith God, I will pour out of my
and he will show you things to come. Spirit upon all flesh.... And on my
He shall glorify me: for he shall re- servants and on my hand-maidens, I
ceive of mine, and shall show it unto will pour out in those days of my Spirit.
you. John xvi. 13, 14.               Acts ii. 17, 18.
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go   Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said
near and join thyself to this chariot. unto them. Acts iv. 8.
Acts viii. 29.                         God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
The Spirit of the Lord caught away the Holy Ghost and with power....
Philip, that the eunuch saw him no The Holy Ghost fell on all them which
more. Acts viii. 39.                 heard the word. Acts x. 38, 44.
The Holy Ghost said, Separate me   Quench not the Spirit. 1 Thess. v. 19.
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Acts xiii. 2.
For it seemed good to the HLoly 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. Acts
xvi. 7.
The flock over the which the Holy
Ghost lath made you overseers. Acts
xx. 28.
Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias
the prophet unto our fathers. Acts
xxviii. 25
And lie that searcheth the hearts
knowetli what is the mind of the Spirit,
because he maketh intercession for the
saints, according to the will of God.
toem. 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 selfsanm  Spirit, dividing, to every man
severally as lie will. 1 Cor. xii. 8, 11.
And grieve not the holy Spirit of
God. Eph. iv. 30.
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." 1
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, think that in certain cases, the
term "spirit of God" is a synonyme for the "power of God;" or
that the name is put by metonymy for the effect of the Spirit.
Clearly, several texts of the second series must, upon any
theory of interpretation, be regarded as figurative.  The expressions a "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."2 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 Peabody, Lectures on Christian Doctrine, p. 116.
2 Compare Acts i. 5 with ii. 4.  3 See Luke xxii. 3; Acts v. 8.




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 spiritual 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 account
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 expressions are figures setting forth certain aspects of the truth.
The methods of interpretation adopted by those who do not
admit the personality of the Holy Spirit, are exemplified as
follows.  Prof. Peabody,1 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 Clhristian, 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 spirit could be said to "intercede " for him, the
reader must judge.
Divinity.
He is God.                    He is subordinate.
Peter said, Anlanias, why hath Satan   I will pray the Father, and he shall
filled thine heart to lie to the Holy give you another Comforter. John
Ghost,.. thou hast not lied unto men, xiv. 16.
but unto God. Acts v. 3, 4.       When the Comforter is come, whom
I will send unto you firom the Father,
even the Spirit of truth wlich proceedeth 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 OF 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 properly divine.  Dr. Hodge 1 terms the
Spirit " the executive of the Godhead," and says, " he is subordinate 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 substance or essence.
Fruits.2
Love and Gentleness.               Vengeance and Fury.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,   The Philistines shouted against him:
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, good- and the Spirit of the LOeD came mighness, faith, meekness, temperance. Gal. tily upon him, and the cords that were
v. 22, 23.                        upon his arms became as flax that was
burnt with fire, and his bands loosed
fiom off his hands. And he found a
new jaw-bone of an ass, and put forth
his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith. Judges xv. 14,15.'Ihe evil spirit from God came upon
Saul.... And there was a javelin in
Saul's hand. An d Saul cast the javelin;
for he said, I will smite David, even to
the wall with 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 powers to
an unwonted pitch of energy," and thus " enabling him to perform 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 "an evil spirit from God."  It is
said to be " from  God," says Keil,3 "because Jehovah had sent
it as a punishment."
1 Theology, i. 529.
2 On Bestowment of Holy Spirit, see Historical Discrepancies, " Time."
8 On 1 Sam. 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 purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil.
IV. 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. vYi.
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,
Ellicott, 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 guidance 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,
Oosterzee, Wordsworth, Dr. Hodge apparently, and others, we
read: " Is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable," thle
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 expressing my permission."  If we. adopt this very natural interpretation, the passage does- not touch the question of inspiration.
The meaning of the 12th verse may, perhaps, be thus expressed: "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 Spirits  ":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,l 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 example of the Lord."  That is, I am constrained
to an apparent departure from that example. 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, however, really contrary to our Lord's example, because it originated, 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 Inspiration.
MIoral Pur7ity.
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, 1. Many of the expressions which are
I Miscellaneous Works, p. 287 (Appleton's editiou).




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.               145
deemed objectionable, are found in the Mlosaic Law.  Every
intelligent person is aware that law-books must be very specific
and explicit in their phraseology.  An examination of any compilation of statutes, or of any standard work on medical jurisprudence, will be conclusive on this point.  It is not surprising,
then, that the Jewish code of laws contains some expressions
that seem coarse. Without great minuteness and perspicuity
these statutes would have failed to answer the designed end.
2. We must bear in mind the great 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 written
by Eastern authors, and bears traces of its origin among a
people whose customs and habits of thought were widely different 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,l speaking of certain expressions 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 attention to the fact that women are excluded, in the East, from
public association with men, being kept in seclusion.  Htence
greater freedom of speech was allowable than in our mixed
society.  Besides, as Prof. Cowles 2 suggests, the nzode 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. iM.
Thomson 3 says: " While the face is veiled, the bosom is exposed
in a way not at all in accordance with our ideas of propriety."
Hist. of Old Test. Canon, pp. 377, 378 (Revised edition, p. 853).
2 Introd. to Com. on Canticles.     3 Land and Book, is 174:
18




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.
StuartI 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 apprehension. It were easy to exhibit particulars which would
justify this statement."
Isaac Taylor: 2 ", 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. XV. H. Green  says: "There is not the slightest taint
of impurity or immodesty to be found in any portion of this
elegant lyric." And we think that no one who carefully reads
the  elegant translations of Zdckler, Withington, Cowles, or
Ginsburg, 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 intervately, saying, Tell us, when shall these pretation: for the prophecy came not
things be? and what shall 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 were
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 determining its precise signification here.  That, however, it has
any reference to attempts to explain the scriptures in private,
is maintained by no scholar.
WVe subjoin various renderings of this passage.  The Syriac
Peshito: " No prophecy is an exposition of its own text."
I Hist. of Old Test. Canon, p. 382 (Revised edition, p. 357).
2 Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, pp. 184, 185 (London edition).
a Translation of Zdckler, in Lange, p. 102, note.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.              147
Bishop Horsley: "Not any prophecy of scripture is of selfinterpretation, 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 terminating 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 interpretation of the will of God by the understanding of man,
that is, of the prophets themselves."
Dr. Adam Clarke: "' Of any private interpretation'- proceeds 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
\ot even know the meaning of what they themselves wrote."
Archbishop Whately: "Prophecy is not to be 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 interpretation of the
will of God by the prophets themselves."
Dr. Samuel Davidson: " No prophecy admits of a solution
proper to its utterer."
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."
Upon any reasonable interpretation, the passage no more
precludes explanations of prophecy given in private than those
made in public.




148             DISCREPANCIES OF THE  BIBLE.
Prophecy sure.                   Not always fulfilled.
And if thou say in thy heart, How    And Jonah began to enter into the
shall we know the word which the city a day's journey, and he cried, and
LORD hath not spoken? When a proph- said, Yet forty days, and ANineveh shall
et speaketh in the name of the LoRD, if be overthrown. So the people of Ninthe the thing follow not, nor come to eveh believed God, and proclaimed a
pass, that is the thing which the LORD fast, and put on sackcloth, from the
hath not spoken, but the prophet hath greatest of them even to the least of
spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt them... And God saw their works,
not be afraid of him. Deut. xviii. 21, 22. that they turned from their evil way;
We have also a more sure word of and God repented of the evil that he
prophecy: whereunto ye do well that had said that he would do unto them;
ye take heed, as unto a light that shin- and he did it not. Jonah iii. 4, 5, 10.
eth in a dark place. 2 Pet. i. 19.
A passage previously cited (Jer. xviii. 7-10) 1 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, "However absolute the right of God to deal with mankind agreeably
to his own good pleasure, his conduct is always in strict accordance with the manner in which they behave toward him.
Neither his promises nor his threatenings are unconditional."
Divine promise absolute.. It was conditional.
In that same day the LORD made a   And the LORD said unto Moses, Becovenant with Abram, saying, Unto hold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers,
thy seed have I given this land, from  and this people will rise up, and go a
the river of Egypt unto the great river, whoring after the gods of the strangers
the river Euphrates. Gen. xv. 18.   of the land, whither they go to be among
And I will establish my covenant them and will forsake me, and break my
between me and thee, and thy seed after covenant which I have made with tllelm.
thee, in their generations, for an ever- Then my anger shall be kindled against
lasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, them in that day, and I will forsake
andto thyseed afterthee. Gen.xvii. 7. them, and I will hide my face from
them, and they shall be devoured.
Deut. xxxi. 16, 17.
When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he
commanded you, and have gone and
served other gods, and bowed yourselves 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 fulfilment: a
partial one to his 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.
The 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 man 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
"Shiloh" 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 religious centre. On this hypothesis, the
sense is, "Till he, or one, come to Shiloh." That is, Judah
should be the leader of the tribes during their march through
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, REdiger, Teller, and Tuch, with
others.2
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," "Tranquilizer,"   Rest," "Peace," " Peacemaker," " Prince of Peace."
To this class may be referred Bush, Deutsch, Gesenius finally,
1 Compare Gal. iii. 29; iv. 28; Heb. xi. 16, 89, 40.
2 See Article " Shiloh," in Smith's Bib. Dict., Vol. iv. pp. 2997-2999.
13*




150            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
I-Iengstenberg, Hofmann, I(eil, Knobel, Kurtz, Lange, Luther,
Rosenmiiller, Schroder, Yater, and the Grand Rabbin Wogue.
These all, with slight differences, agree in the above interpretation of the term " Shiloh."
It is to be added that nearly all the ancient Jewish commentators, 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.l  After the death of Joshua, Judah
by divine direction opened the war upon  the  Canaanites;2
and the first judge, Othniel, came of that tribe.3 Then, in
David and Solomon, the same. tribe gained undisputed preeminence. In further proof, it may be added that, later, this
tribe gave the name " Jews " to the whole people; " Jehudim"
from "Jehfidah," Judah.4  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 Shiloh, that
tribe maintained an easy pre-eminence.
Any one of the foregoing interpretations obviates the alleged
discrepancy.
Qu otattXio.
Original passages.                Quoted incorrectly.
The Spirit of the Lord GoD is upon   The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
me: because the LORD 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 heal the broken-hearted, to preach
broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to deliverance to the captives, and recovthe 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
l Num. ii. 2, 3: vii. 12; x. 14.
2 Judges i. 1-19.
a Joshua xv. 13; Judges iii. 9.
4 Compare Turner's Companion to the Book of Genesis, pp. 371-3888
Also, Speaker's (or Bible) Commentary, i. 232, 233 (English edition).
6 Heb. vii. 14.




DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.                      151
Orzginal 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. lxi. 1, 2.                       Behold, I send my messenger before
Behold, I will send my messenger, thy face, which shall prepare thy way
and he shall prepare the way before before thee. Mark i, 2.
me. Mal. 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.
Original passage.                      Condensed.
Nevertheless the dimness shall not be   That it might be fulfilled which was
such as was in her vexation, when at spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
the first he lightly afflicted the land of The land of Zabulon, and the land of
Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beafterward did more grievously afflict yond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
her by the way of the sea, beyond Jor- the people which sat in darkness saw
dan, in Galilee of the nations. The great light; and to them which sat in
people that walked in darkness have the region and shadow of death light is
seen a great light: they that dwell in sprung up. ]Matt. iv. 14-16.
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.
The following is an example of substantial agreement amid
slight circumstantial variations.
Forms of statement.                     Expanded.
And he said, Go into the city to such   And he sent Peter and John, saying,
a man, and say unto him, The Master Go and prepare us the passover, that
saith, My time is at hand; I will keep we may eat.... Behold, when ye are
the passover at thy house with my dis- entered into the city, there shall a man
ciples. Mati. xxvi. 18.             meet you, bearing a pitcher of water.
And he sendeth forth two of his dis- follow him into the house where he
ciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into entereth in. And ye shall say unto the
the city, and there shall meet you a goodman of the house, The Master saith
man bearing a pitcher of water: follow  unto thee, Where is the guest-chamber,
him. And wheresoever he shall go in, where l shall eat the passover with my
say ye to the goodman of the house, disciples? Luke xxii. 8, 10, 11.
The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover
with my disciples? Mark xiv. 13, 14.' 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 offering thou didst not  Wherefore, when he cometh into the
desire; mine ears hast thou opened: world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering
burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou
not required. Ps. xl. 6.        prepared me: In burnt-offirings and
sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 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: Why 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,2 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 fundamental
idea, the obedience of the Messiah, is preserved.  Therefore, in
this deeper view, there is no dissonance between fhese passages.
Such heing the case, Paul was at liberty to employ the paraphrastic rendering; especially since this seemed more appropriate to his purpose,s as setting forth more fitly than did the
1 See Alford, on Heb. x. 5.                 Corn. on Ps. xl. 6.
3 Warington on Inspiration, p. 95.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                      153
original utterance the incarnation of the Lord Jesus and his
obedience unto death.l
Original.                      Wrongly referred.
And I said unto them, If ye think   Then was fulfilled that which was
good, give nze my price: and if not, spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
forbear. So they weighed for my price And they took the thirty pieces of' silthirtypieces of silver. And the LORD ver, the price of him that was valued,
said unto meo, 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 potthem. And I took the thirty pieces of ter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
silver, and cast them to the potter in Matt. xxvii. 9, 10.
the house of' the LonD. Zech. xi. 12, 13.
Here is obviously 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 unprecisely.  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 quoting this
book, may have quoted it under the name which stood first in
it; that is, instead 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 in
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 riss. have simply, " by the prophet."
In Henderson's 2 opinion, the Greek text of the above passage
has been corrupted.
Formns of report.                     Different.
This is my beloved Son, in whom I   Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased. Matt. iii. 17.    am well pleased. Mark i. 11.
Thou 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? Luke viii. 25.
faith'? Matt. viii. 26
WVhy 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. MBatt. ix. 2.          ii. 5.
Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Luke v. 20.
1 See Bib. Sacra, Vol. xxx. p. 309.    2 Minor Prophets, pp. 418, 419.




154             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Forms of report.                      Different.
This is Jesus 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 explanations.  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 pyosr journey, neibrass in your purses, nor scrip, for your ther staves nor scrip, neither bread,
journey, neither two coats, neither neither money; neither have two coats
shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman apiece. Luke ix. 3.
is worthy of his meat. Matt x. 9, 10.
And commanded them that they
should take nothing for their 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 substantial
agreement.  WVhen 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.
1 Greek Crcadotau, to get for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise. Robinson, Lexicon to New Test.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                      155
and bound on with thongs.l   Thus the supposed discrepancy
utterly falls away.
Go into the village over against you,   Go your way into the village over
and straightway ye shall find an ass against you: and as soon as ye be entied, and a colt with her: loose them, tered into it, ye shall find a colt tied,
and bring them unto me. And if any whereon never man sat; loose him, and
man say aught unto you, ye shall say, bring hine. And if any man say unto
The Lord hath need of them; and you, Why do ve this? say ye that the
straightway he will send them. Matt. Lord hath need of him; and straightxxi. 2. 3.                         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
hine hither. And if any man ask you,
Why do ye loose hime? thus shall ye say
unto him, Because the Lord hath need
of him. Luke xix. 30, 31.
This is simply an example of three independent veracious
witnesses, each  telling  his  story in his own way.  And we
cannot feel the least respect for that infinitessimal criticism
which cavils and demurs at a case of this kind.
A wicked and adulterous generation   Why doth this generation seek after
seeketh after a sign; and there shall no a signi? Verily, I say unto you, There
sign be given unto it, but the sign of shall no sign be given to this generathe prophet Jonas. Matt. xvi. 4.   tion. Mark viii. 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 kind 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   Till they see the kingdom of God.
in his kingdom. Matt. xvi. 28.     Luke ix. 27.
Till they have seen the kingdom of
God come with power. Mark ix. 1.
Let no fruit grow on thee hencefor-  No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for
ward for ever. Matt. xxi. 19.      ever. Mark xi. 14.
For in the resurrection they neither   But they which shall be accounted
marry, nor are given in marriage, but worthy to obtain that world, and the
are as the angels of God in heaven. resurrection fromt the dead, neither
Miatt. xxii. 30.                   marry, nor are given in marriage: neiF'or when they shall rise from the ther can they die any more: for they
dead, they neither marry, nor are given are equal unto the angels; and are the
in marriage, but are as the angels which  children of God, being the children of
are in heaven. Mark xii. 25.       the'resurrection. Luke xx. 35, 36.
But as touching the resurrection of  Now that the dead are raised, even
the dead, have ye not read that which Moses showed at the bush, when he
was spoken unto you by God, saying, I calleth the Lord the God of Abraham,
1 So Robinson's New Test. Lexicon.




156             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
am the God of Abraham, and the God of and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is Jacob. For heis nota Godofthe dead,
not the God of the dead, but of the but of the living: for all live unto him.
living. Matt. xxii. 31, 32.         Luke xx. -37, 38.
And as touching the dead, that they
rise: have ye not read in the book of
Moses, how in the bush God spake unto
him; saying, I ceam the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob? I-e is not the God of the dead,
but the God of the living. Mark xii.
26, 27.
But Jesus perceived their wickedness,   But he perceived their craftiness, and
and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypo- said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
elites? Shew me the tribute money. Shew me a penny. Luke xx. 23, 24.
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.   And Jesus said, [ am. Mark xiv. 62.
Matt. xxvi. 64.
When ye therefore shall see the   But when ye shall see the abominaabomination of desolation, spoken of tion of desolation, spoken of by Daniel
by Daniel the prophet, stand in the the prophet, standing where it ought
holy place (whoso readeth, let him un- not (let him that readeth understand),
derstand), Then let them which be in then let them that be in Judaea flee to
Judaea flee into the mountains. Matt. the mountains. Mark xiii. 14.
xxiv. 15, 16.                        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, notwithstanding the variations of phraseology, carefully and
distinctly preserved, these and similar instances furnish no real
difficulty whatever.2 In 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,
1 See under Historical Discrepancies, - Persons.
2 Compare Journal of Sacred Literature (April, 1854), pp. 71-110.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                157
and adapt it to the object which they respectively contemplated.
As is observed by Prof. Barrows,1 "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,
which 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,2 speaking of certain cases in the New
Testament, says, " We may plainly 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 1" trifling inaccuracies as to an insignificant 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. Warington  who, however, concedes much more than is necessary.
Dean Alford4 says, "There are certain minor points of
accuracy or inaccuracy'-of which human 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.
2 Future State, appendix to Lecture xi.
3 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:' 1  Everything
which 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 Mlelita, or whether Paul was
under the guidance of the Spirit in directing 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 necessary 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.
MV.  VlAN, in relation to the Present. - Creation.
Like God by creation.          This likeness acquired.
So God created man in his own image,  For God doth know that 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 shall be as gods, knowIn the day that God created man, in ing good and evil.... And the LonD
the likeness of God made he him. Gen. God said, Behold, the man is become as
v. I.                           one of us, to know good and evil. (ien.
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 his 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 contemplates 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 understanding; created male and female
in respect to corporeal composition."
SMade like God.                    Nlone 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 equality. We may resemble God in certain respects without
being equal to him.
Sinfulness.
No man without sin.                    Some are sinless.
There is no man that sinneth not.   Noah was a just man and perfect in
1 Kings viii. 46.                   his generations, and Noah walked with
The LoRD 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.
andl seek God. They 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 Lorn? or who shall stand in his holy
one. Ps. xiv. 2, 3.                 place? Hie 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 deceitxx. 9.                              fully. Ps. xxiv. 3, 4.
For there is not a just man upon   Preserve my soul; for I am holy. Ps.
earth, that doeth good, and sinneth  lxxxvi 2.
not. Eccl. vii. 20.                   A good man out of the good treasure
Why callest thou me good? 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   Whosoever abideth in him sinneth
of the glory of God. Rom. iii. 18, 23.   not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen
If we say that we have no sin, we him, neither known him..... Whosodeceive ourselves, and the truth is not ever is born of God doth not cornmitsin;
in us. 1 John i. 8.                 for his seed remaineth in him; and he
cannot sin, because lie is born of God.
1 John iii. 6, 9.
The first series of passages contemnplates 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 the 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 I1 John
iii., refer to men possessing the relative goodness just mentioned.  The texts excepted are interpreted in the following
manner: " TWhosoever sinneth."  Doddridge says, "WVho habitually and avowedly sinneth."  "Doth not commit sin."
According to Mlr. Barnes, the interpretation should be: "Is not
wilfblly and del'iberately 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. We have here a fresh illustration of
that moral impossibility which has been already mentioned
more than once.
Andrew Fuller:l  "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 himself 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. Davidson2 calls attention to the form  of expression in
1 Works, i. 682.            2 Sacred IIermeneutics, p. 579.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                      161
the original, 1 John iii. 9, and observes: " There is an emphasis
in the verb'poieo.'  It denotes the habitual working of sin."
Diisterdieckl 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 itself in godlike righteousness, is present and abides in them.
In a word, the texts just mentioned are descriptions of the
ideal Christian.
Made zupright.                    -Made sinful.
God hath made man upright. EccI.   Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
vii. 29.                           and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ps. 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 2
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.
Born sinful.                   Infants are sinless.
For vain man would be wise, though   Moreover, your little ones, which ye
man be born like a wild ass's colt. Job said should be a prey, and your chilxi. 12.                            dren, which in that day had no knowlWho 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? and he which is born ofa woman, he may know to refuse the evil, and
that lie should be righteous? Job xv.14. 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. lviii. 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 OF THE BIBLE.
Born 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
spirit. John iii. 6.             little child, the same is greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. Matt. xviii. 3, 4.
Suffer little children to come unto
me, and forbid them 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. 16, 17.
For the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil.
Rom. 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 "prooftexts" 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. lviii. 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 lies," 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. What1 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 Spirit.  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 sin 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 children "- 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
alive,2 had " done neither good nor evil."  Now, since sin is
the "transgression of the law," these chilclren, having violated
no law, could not possibly be sinners. [Nor do we discover
anything in the accident of birth which could fix the stain of
1The origilal 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 OF 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 this 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. ii. 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 written in their hearts. Rom. ii. 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. Iodge: "' By nature,' in virtue of their internal constitution, not by external instruction."  Riickert: " We were born
clhildren 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."
Suicerl renders the word "phusis," in Eph. ii. 3, "truly,
incontestably."  The Syriac Peshito reads: "And were altogether the children of wrath." Dr. Adam Clarke and Bishop
Ellicott doubt whether there is in this text any direct assertion
of the doctrine of original sin.
We take the sense to be, "And were, in our unregenerate
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
1Thesaurus, Vol. ii., col. 1475.  Similarly Grotius and several early
writers. Compare the German "natiirlich."




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     165
necessarily born 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 caine upon all men unto
so death passed upon all men, for that justification of life. For as by one man's
all have sinned.... Therefore, as by the disobedience many were made sinners,
offence of one judlgent canme upon all so by the obedience of one shall many?men to condemnation. Rom. v. 12, 18.  be made righteous. Iom. 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,
iln 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. HIodge 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 common term  of quantity is found for both; the one extending
to its largest numerical interpretation; the other restricted to
its smallest. In either view, there is no discrepancy.
Repentance.
Mlan's own act.                      God's gift.
Repert ye, and believe the gospel.  To give repentance to Israel, and forMark 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. Acts
N'ow comma-ndeth all men every xi. 18.
where to repent. Acts xvii. 30.     If God peradventure will give them
repentance to the acknowledging of the
truth. 2 Tim. 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."
Begqeneration.
Man active.                         Passive.
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of  And the LORD thy God will circumyour heart, and be no more stiff-necked. cise thy heart, and the heart of thy
Deut. x. 16.                       seed, to love the LORD thy God 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 inimine eyes. Isa. i. 16.             quity, and cleanse me from my sin.
O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from  1Ps. li. 2.
wickedness, that thou mayest be saved.  Then will I sprinkle clean water upon
How longf shall thy vain thioughlts lodge you, and ye shall be clean: from all
within thee? Jer. iv. 14.          your filthiness, and from all your idols,
Make you a new heart and a new  will I cleanse you. A new heart also will
spirit: for why will ye die, O house of I give you, and a new spirit will I put
Israel? Ezek. xviii. 31.           within you. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26.
Turn ye unto me  Zech. i. 3.       Turn thou us unto thee, O LoruD, and
Awake. thou that sleepest, and arise we shall be turned. Lam. 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 eus 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.
Phelps1 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-operative 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.... INot 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."
This 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."
Juistification.
By Faith.                        By Works.
Therefore by the deeds of the law,   For not the hearers of the law are
there shall no flesh be justified in his just before God, but the doers of the
sight,... We conclude, that a man is law shall be justified. tom. ii. 13.
justified by faith without the deeds of  What loth it profit, my brethren,
the law. Rom. iii. 20, 28          though a man say he hath faith, and
For if Abraham were justified by have not works? can faith save him?...
works, he hath whereof to glory, but not Faith, if it hath not works, is dead,
before God. Rom. iv. 2.            being alone.... W~as not Abraham our
Knowipg that a man is not justified father justified by works, when he had
by the works of the law, but by the offered Isaac his son upon the altar?..
faith of Jesus Christ. Gal. ii. 16.  Seest thou how faith wrought with his
But that no man is justified by the works, and by works was faith made
law in the sight of God, it is evident: perfect?... Ye see then how that by
for, The just shall live by 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 withthat doeth them shall live in them. Gal. out the spirit is dead, so faith without
iii. 11, 12.                       works is dead also. Jas. 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 workcs; 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 rela1 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 believed, or when he was ungodly; according to St. James, to his
state after he believed, or when faith wrought with his works."
WVhately: "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."
Alford 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 Christ.
Sanctification.
Through the truth.           Through the Spirit.
Sanctify them through thy truth.  Elect according to the fore-knowlJohn xvii. 17.                 edge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit. 1 Pet. i. 2.
They were sanctified by 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 sanctifying takes place. As to




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     169
the second text, the word " spirit " may refer either to the believer'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,l "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.2
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.
Fiinat l  erseverance.
Impossible tofallfrom 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 committeth
shall any pluck them out of my hand. iniquity, aud doeth according to all the
John x. 28.                        abominations that the wicked mTan
For whom he did foreknow, he also doeth, shall he live? All his righteousdid predestinate to be conformed to the ness that he hath done shall not be'2 Thess. ii. 13.
2 Comp. Luke xiii. 32; where the Peshito reads " shall be consummated."
15



].70            DISCREPANCIES  OF THE  BIBLE.
Impossible to fall from grace.         Some do fall fromn grace.
image of his Son, that he might be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath
the first-born among many brethren. trespassed, and in his sin that he hath
Moreover, whom he did predestinate, sinned, in them shall he die. Ezek.
them  he also called: and whom  he xviii. 24.
called, them  lie also justified: and   Those that thou gavest me I have
whom he justified, them he also glori- kept, and none of them is lost, but the
fled.... For I am  persuaded, that son of perdition. John xvii. 12.
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor   For it is impossible for those who
principalities, nor powers, nor things were once enlightened, and have tasted
present. nor things to come, nor height, of the heavenly gift, and were made
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have
be able to separate us from the love of tasted the good word of God, and the
God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. powers of the world to come, if they
Rom. viii. 29, 30, 38, 39.          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 wilfiully after that we
have received the knowledge of the
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law,
died without mercy under two or three
witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, 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.  1eb. 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 it, to turnfrom the holy commandment delivered
unto them. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 22.
The first series does not teach the impossibility of falling
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; "will any pluck them  out,"
" will be able to separate us," etc.
The second series may be taken as mere hypotheses -  suppositions  introduced  for  argument's  sake.  Such  figures  of
speech are very common.  Thus, in Gal. i. 8, Paul introduces
this hypothesis': "But though 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 shall surely live;
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";1 and that nothing more is meant here.
The quotations from  Hebrews2 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 would 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 considerably 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 discrepancy is easily removed by either
method of interpretation.
x Acts i. 25.
2 Schoettgen gives a peculiar turn to Heb. vi. 6. See Horae Hebrairae,
pp. 954-956.




172             DISCREPANCIES OF THE  BIBLE.
Christians not destroyed.            May be 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. Rom. xiv. 15.
And through thy knowledge shall the
weak brother perish, for whom Christ
died? I Cor. viii. 11.
These cautions and admonitions of the apostle are one of
the effective means which God uses in preventing the destruction of weak believers.
The " 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 glorified. Rom. viii. 80.
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.
Righteouts, -  earthly lot.
No evil befalls the Godly.             Evil befalls them.
There shall no evil happen to the   So went Satan forth from the presjust. Prov. xii. 21.               ence of the LORD, and smote Job with
And who is 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 Pet. iii. 13.                      For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, 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 thank God for the trials
and sufferings of this earthly life, as for blessings in disguise.
Worldly good and prosperity.      Worldly mi3ery and destitution.
And the LORD was with Joseph, and   There be just men, unto whom it haphe was a prosperous man. Gen. xxxix.2. peneth according to the work of the
So the LORD blessed the latter end of wicked. Eccl. viii. 14.
Job more than his beginning. Job xlii.   And ye shall be hated of all nzen for
12.                                my name's sake. Luke xxi. 17.
1Compare 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
i. 3.                            the sword: they wandered about in
They that seek the LORD shall not sheep-skins, and goat-skins; being deswant any good thing. Ps. 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. Rev. vii. 14.
thou shalt be fed. Ps. xxxvii. 3.
The first texts lay down the general principle that righteousness has a tendency to ensure prosperity in worldly matters;
yet they do not assert that this result invariably follows.  We
say, "H-onesty 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, industry, 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 persecution 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
HI-engstenberg 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 normally to secure earthly prosperity; yet, in certain cases, this
tendency is temporarily interrupted by certain disturbing influences.
15*




174             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Worldly prosperity, 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. is, there will your heartbe also. Mat:.
Then shalt thou lay up gold as dust, vi. 19, 21.
and the gold of Ophir as the stones of   Blessed be 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, wreep and
treasure. Prov. xv. 6.             howl for your miseries that shall comle
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 shall eat your flesh as
it were fire. James v. 1-3.
As to the quotation from Job, the best critics agree substantially 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 cherishing 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, ZDckler: "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," shows
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;' anti 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.
1See Matt. v. 8.          2 Compare Mark x. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 17.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     175
Poverty a blessing.    Riches a blessing.     Neither desirable.
Children, how hard is  So the Lonl blessed the   Remove far from  me
it for them that trust in latter end of Job more vanity and lies; give me
riches to enter into the than his beginning; for neither poverty Ilor richkingdom of God. It is he had fourteen thousand es; feed Ine with food
easier for a camel to go sheep, and six thousand convenient for me: lest I
through the eye of a nee- camels, and a thousand be full and deny thee, and
dle, than for a rich man yoke of oxen, and a thou- say, Who is the lonL)?
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 God chosen   The rich man's wealth of my God in vain. Prov.
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. Prov. x. 15.
The " rich man " 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.l The turn
in Job's affairs has its lesson.  Mr. Cook, in Smith's Biblical
Dictionary: " The restoration of his external prosperity, which
is an inevitable result of God's personal manifestation, symbolizes 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.  Zickler: "Naturally the author is here thinking of
wealth well earned by practical wisdom; and this at the same
time a means in the further efforts of wisdom; and again, of a
deserved poverty which while the consequence of foolish con1 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 Agricultural Society," the lecturer mentioned a farmer in California who owns
100,000 sheep, and another with 135,000; also, a certain farm which produced 40,000 bushels of wheat, and another upon which 2,500 cows are
kept. (See " Congregationalist," May 4, 1871). Yet infidels adduce the
later wealth of Job as a thing 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 certainly 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.
Wisdom, -source of happiness.          Cause of sorrow.
Happy is the man that findeth wis-  For in much wisdom is much grief:
dom, and the man that getteth under- and he that increaseth knowledge instanding... 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 hapProv. iii. 13, 17.               peneth to the fool, so it happeneth even
For wisdom is better than rubies; to me; and why was I 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 this 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 disappointment 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 necessarily 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 principle to popularity. Those ministers whose preaching offends no one, of whom " all men speak well," who prophesy




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     177
"smooth things,"' and " daub with untempered mortar,"2 are
in the direct line of the wo denounced by our Lord.
Righteous lnotfound begging.         Some righteous beg.
I have been young, and now am old;   And there was a certain beggar named
yet have I not seen the righteous for- Lazarus.... And it came to pass, that
saken, nor his seed begging bread. I's. 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 iinto a future state of being, on that account unfolded
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. Mlatt. v. 5.   sojourners, as swere all our fathers: our
days on the earth are as a shadow, and
there is none abiding. 1Chron. xxix.
15.
For here have we no continuing
city, but we seek one to come. Heb.
xiii. 14.
Mr. Barnes thinks that the first text is a proverbial expression employed by the Jews to denote any great blessing; 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.
Isa. xxx. 10; Jer. xxiii. 31.        2 Ezek. xiii 10-16; xxii. 28.




178             DISCREPANCIES OF THE  BIBLE.
Pilgrims and strangers.         Nlot pilgrims and strangers.
And confessed that they were stran-  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Heb. gers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens
xi. 13.                            with the saints, and of the household
Dearly beloved, 1 beseech you, as of God. Eph. ii. 19.
strangers and pilgrims, abstain from
fleshly lusts, which war against the
soul. 1 Pet. ii. 11.
The first texts refer to Christians in their relation to the
present 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 brotjherhood,
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.
They surely live.                  Some of them die.
But if a man be just, and do that   For he seeth that wise men die. Ps.
which is lawful and right,.. hath xlix. 10.
walked in my statutes, and hath kept  There is a just man that perisheth in
my judgments, to deal truly; he is 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 physical or temporal death, which all alike, good and bad,
undergo.
Menasseh ben Israell 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 suffer persecution.. 2 Tim. he maketh even his enemies to be at
iii. 12.                           peace with him. Prov. xvi. 7.
Andrew Fuller2: "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; arid
the latter to the divine control over it. IMan's wrath shall be
let loose in a degree; but farther than what is necessary for
the praise of God it shall not go."
Handled roughly.                  Nlot 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. 1 John v. 18.
xxii. a.
The first text does not say that Satan actually gained possession 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 ye 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 chastburden 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 sons.
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.   Hence  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. lv. 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 beingahundredyears old days, which are as a shadow. Eccl.
shall be accursed. Isa. lxv. 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 principle, and says that some of the wicked do live, become old, and
mighty in power.   Yet he evidently regards these as exceptional 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
grim 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 desoJob xii. 6.                         late. Ps. xxxiv. 21.
Men of the world, which have their   Evil pursueth sinners. Prov. xiii. 21.
portion in this life, and whose belly
thou fillest with thy hid treasere. Ps.
xvii. 14.
Their eyes stand out with fatness:
they have more than heart could wish.
Behold, these are the ungodly, who
prosper in the world; they increase in
riches. Ps. lxxiii. 7, 12
W herefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? swherefore are all they
happy that deal very treacberously?
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 punishment of the wicked, either that they may repent, or to reward
them in this life for some good action they may have performed, or for some secret reason known only to his consummate 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, and all flesh shall see it to- deal unjustly, and will not behold the
gether. Isa. xl. 5.              majesty of the LORD. Isa. xxvi. 10.
The wicked will not voluntarily recognize the "majesty "the sovereignty and glory —of the Lord; but he will eventually 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 zowith impunity.             Promptly punished.
Their houses are safe from fear,  The worm shall feed sweetly on him;
neither is 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 impartial view of the case -  as infinite wisdom sees it -  they are
punished promptly, that is, at exactly the right time.
1 See Ps, lxxiii. 16-18.        2 Translation of De Wette, ii. 557.
16




182             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Their punishment denied.                  ffirmed.
Behold, as wild asses in the desert,  This is the portion of a wicked man
go they forth to their work; rising be- with God, and the heritage of oppresstimes for a prey: the wilderness yield- ors, which they shall receive of the
eth food for them and for their children. Almighty. If his children be multiThey reap every one his corn in the plied, it is for the sword: and his offfield.... Men groan from out of the city, spring shall not be satisfied with bread.
and the soul of the wounded crieth... For God shall cast upon him, and
out: yet God layeth not folly to them. not spare: he would fain flee out of his
Job xxiv. 5, 6, 12.               hband. Job xxvii. 13, 14, 22.
Hirzel:'  "While  Job's  opponents wished  to  prove  this
proposition against him, that'the transgressor did not escape
punishment in his life,' and charged it upon Job himself that,
since every transgressor was miserable, 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
permanent 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 difficulty by referring the " apparent contradiction" to the different
relations in which Job speaks.
Nor, on the hypothesis that Job was not inspired as a religious 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 the glory of his Father, with his angels;
wicked and the sinner. Prov. 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 God; and the books were
opened: and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead
were judged out of those things which
were written in the books, according to
their works. Rev. xx. 12.
It is not asserted, in the first text, that either the righteous'Quoted by De Wette, ii. 561.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     183
or wicked receive full recompense ill 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, Bishop Hall, 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 transgression."  That is, the argument 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 affirmed that full
and final retribution is administered in this world.
VI. M2lAN,28  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 prevent them which are asleep.... The
dead in Christ shall rise first. Then
we which are alive anad 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. tRev. 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 Christ'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 can."




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 hope and happiness,
and an exclusion from all which is worthy of the name " life."
Lazarus not to die.                   Ile did die.
Therefore his sist-rs 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 Je;us 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.
Mlan 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 rebefallt th 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 preeminence 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 powerless to prevent it; the physical phenomena, 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. Davidson2  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 tntrod. 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 this
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  It 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.
1" 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.
Alford: " 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 kill the   The King of 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," 1 as dei vI We use this term, instead of "Thnetopsychites," the name employed
by John Damascenus (see Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, i. 221), to
16*




186            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
ing immortality to all beings except God. I-ence it would follow
that the angels, - Gabriel, and M3lichael 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 possesses the given attribute, inherently and znderivedly.  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 passage collide
with the derived and dependent immortality of man.
Men kcil the soul.                  Cannot kill it.
Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it  And fear not them which kill the
with the edge of the sword, and the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
king thereof he utterly dlestroyed, 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.                     MIatt. x. 28.
And they smote all the souls that
were therein with the edge of the sword,
utterly destroying thelm: 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 synonymous with "person."  This secondary meaning of the word
may have arisen from the fact that it is the soul of man which
gives him personality. 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 consciousness to the soul in the interval between death and the resurrection. Apparently the first attempt to introduce Thnetopsychism 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, mizd;
also a man, person.
In view- of this 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 "6 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 characteristic sophism, it is sufficient to reply that, as every scholar is
aware, the Greek word used here is not " athanasia," immortality, but " aphtharsia," incorruption,1  and  points to that
exemption from moral corruption which the saints are "seeking"
1 See Eph. vi. 24, where the same word is translated "sincerity."




188            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 it not; and they are brought pain, and his soul within him shall
low, but he perceiveth it not of them. mourn. Job xiv. 22.
Job xiv. 21.                       The rich man also died, and was
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, buried. And in hell he lifted up his
do it 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.1
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.' " 2
Dr. Davidson 3 thus sets forth the Hebrew view of the conProfessor 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 disputes and doubts about religious matters." - History of Old Test. Canon,
p. 409 (Revised edition, p. 382).
2 Future State, p. 150.
3 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 represented as shut up in a land of forgetfulness — 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 rationalistic 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 revelation 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.  HIengstenberg: " 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 gospel 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 friom 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'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 simply 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. IHofmann: " The pain of his own flesh, the sadness of his own soul alone engage him.  I-Ie 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 conforming himself to the ordinary language current on these
l 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 narrative; but they also constitute its very life and essence.
The dead, asleep.                     Awake.
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
Then said his disciples, Lord, if he were disobedient. 1 Pet. iii. 18-20.
sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus   I saw under the altar the souls of
spake of his 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, Hlow 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'! Iev. vi. 9, 10.
The language which represents death as a "' sleep" is figurative, and is founded upon a certain resemblance of external
phenomena.  But this application of the term  does not necessitate the unconsciousness of the " sleeper;" for, as even
Whately2 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 interruption, with
t See Matt. xv. 5, 6.                    2 Future State, p. 82.




192            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 excitement 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 majority 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 disembodied spirits of those who refused to obey the voice of
God when the judgment of the flood was hanging over them."
Prof. Tayler Lewis:l " 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,2 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.
1 In Lange on Eccl., p. 130. Compare Bib. Sacra, Vol. iv. 708; xvi. 3809;
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. Dietelmair, 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.               Possess knowledge.
For in death there is no remembrance   And he said, For I will go down into
of thee: in the grave who shall give the grave unto my son mourning. Gen.
thee thanks? Ps. vi. 5.            xxxvii. 35.
The dead know not any thing, neither   And Samuel said to Saul, Wlhy hast
have they any more a reward: for the thou disquieted me, to bring me up?...
memory of them is forgotten. Also And the LoRD hath done to him, as he
their love, and their hatred, and their spake by me: for the Lor.D hath rent
envy, is now perished; neither have the kingdom out of thy hand, and given
they any more a portion for ever in any it to thy neighhour, even7 to David.....
thing that is done under the sun. Eccl. Moreover, the LORD will also deliver
ix. 5, 6.                          Israel with thee into the hand of the
For. the grave cannot praise thee, Philistines: and to-morrow shalt thou
death cannot celebrate thee: they that and thy sons be with me: the LOrlD almso
go down into the pit cannot hope for shall deliver the host of Israel into the
thy truth. Isa. xxxviii. 18.       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.
I pray thee therefore, father, that
thou wouldest send him to my father's
house: For I 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 Pet. 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 reward."   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, 1" The dead know not any thing."
17




194           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
The true explanation of this and kindred texts is the following:
Zdckler: "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."
HI-erder: 2 "Abraham was gathered to his fathers,3 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 prophet was permitted to
return from  sheol, and announce to the terrified Saul his im-' In Lanige on Genesis, p. 585.
2 Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, i. 179.
3 Alger, commenting on this expression, after citing the cases of Abraham and Isaac, of whom language similar is used, adds: " These instances
night be 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 Fut. Life,' p. 152.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                   195
pending destruction. The reproof and the prediction are exactly
in keeping with the character of Samuel, and show that he knew
whereof he affirmed.  He had not, therefore, in death parted
with his knowledge.
KIeil: "'The modern orthodox commentators are unanimous
in the opinion that the deceased prophet did really appear, and
announce 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 reasonable explanation.  Saul's sin of " necromancy "1 was thus made
the occasion and commencement of his punishment.
WTe 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 mentalpowers.             Do exercise them.
The dead praise not the LORD, neither   Dead things are formed from under
any that go down into silence. Ps. cxv. the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.
17.                              Job xxvi. 5.
His breath goeth forth, he returneth   Hell friom beneath is moved for thee
to his earth; in that very day his to meet thee 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 of
his decease which he should accomplish
at Jerusalem. Luke ix. 30. 31.
For he is not a God of the dead, ltut
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.
In the second text, the " thoughts that perish " are the wicked
i 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."1
In the case of the rich fool,2 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: m" 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 HIenderson, 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." 3
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 identity must have
been lost at death; and that for him-  the original self-same
Moses- there could be no after life.
1In 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. According to literalistic principles, this passage amounts to an exhortation to
stop thinking!
2 See Luke xii. 16-20.
3 Professor Conant, in Smith's Bib. Diet., Article " Dead," says the term
means "disembodied spirits separated from the body at death, and continuing to live in a separate existence." Fuerst: "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 administrative agency of God. Gesenius: " The shades, manes, dwelling in hades,
whom the Hebrews supposed to be destitute of blood and animal life,
but yet not wholly without some faculties of mind." See, also, Boettcher,
"De Inferis," pp. 94-100.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                    197
Luke xx. 38; H-e 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.1
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 conscious activity of departed souls.
In darkness and silence.        In glory and blessedness.
There the prisoners rest together;  Thou shalt guide me with thy counthey hear not the voice of the oppressor. sel, and afterward receive me to glory.
Job iii. 18.                     Ps. lxxiii. 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. Prov. 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? Ps. is gain. Phil. i. 21.
lxxxviii. 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 possible 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. Nor
would Paul lying unconscious in the grave be "present with
Consult Alford's significant, but concise, comment on this text.
17*




198            DISCREPANCIES OF 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, particularly those of later and more enlightened times.
Lightfoot:1 "It was universally believed amongst the Jews,
that pure and holy souls when they left this body went into
happiness, to Abraham."
Dr. Jahn:2 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 I say to you. John xiii. me in paradise. Luke xxiii. 43.
33.                                Stephen, calling upon God, and sayFor David is not ascended into the ing, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Acts
heavens. Acts ii. 34.            vii. 59.
We are confident, I say. and willing
rather to be absent 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 first 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 then 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 " disem1 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.
Together in one place.              Inz different places.
The 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-morrow shalt thou 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 lie
might go to his own place. Acts i. 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, Isay, 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 literalistic 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,
thel  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 expression 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 6" in the bosom of Abraham," in paradise, joyfully
awaiting those rewards.
-Resurrection.
Dead 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 mnore. 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
Moses shewed at the bush. Luke xx 37. awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.
For since by man came death, by man Job xiv. 12.
came also the resurrection of the dead.   They 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 Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth;
and, Tile manner of Beer-sheba liveth;
even they shall fall, and never rise up
again. Amos viii. 14.
aine quotations from Job express the opinion, or perhaps, the
temporary doubts, of a good, but uninspired, man. They cannot counterbalance the express statements of inspiration.
Isaiah asserts that certain foreign powers, the Assyrians,
Babylonians, etc., who had oppressed the Israelites, were deceased 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 idolaters, 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 shall hearhis 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 crowds or masses.
Calvin: "The 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
in the contemplation of the great hosts who would thus come
forth."




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                       201
Jesus raised first.              Others raised previously.
That Christ should suffer, and that   And the LoRD heard the voice of
he should be the first that should rise Elijah; and the soul of the child came
from the dead. Acts xxvi. 23.       into him again, and lse revived. 1 Kings
Now is Christ risen from the dead, xvii. 22.
and become the first-fruits of them that   And they cast the man into the sepslept. 1 Cor. xv. 20.               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.
Rlomans 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.
hinal Judygnent.
Ascribed to God.                       To Christ.
Shall not the Judge of all the earth   For the Father judgeth no man, but
do right? Gen. xviii. 25.           hath committed all judgment unto the
The heavens shall declare his right- Son. John v. 22.
eousness: for God is judge himself.   We shall all stand before the judgPs. 1. 6.                           ment-seat of Christ. Rom. xiv. 10.
God will judge the world by Jesus Christ.l
Attributed to Christ.               Disclaimed by Him.
When the Son of manl shall come in   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, I 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
I Acts xvii. 31; Rom. ii. 16.




202            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the
gospel." 1
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 incidentalresult 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 throne of his glory, ye
opened. Rev. xx. 12.             also shall sit upon twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Mlatt. xix. 28.
That ye may eat and drink at my
table in my 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 ye
not that weshall judge angels? 1 c(or.
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 1" 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
AMatt. 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 perfidiousness of the world shall be condemned."
Whately:2 1" Not that he meant, or was ever understood to
1 2 Thess. i. 8.                  2 Future State, pp. 133-138.




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                     203
mean, that these persons would themselves take a share in 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 with
the Corinthian Christians (or saints); who, by embracing the
gospel, judged (in this sense) their unbelieving neighbors, to
whom it had been proposed, and who rejected it."
This interpretation relieves 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 which the saints exercise is all derived
from  God, the work of judgment may properly be attributed
wholly to him.
Future Punishment, - Its Nature,
Continued misery.                 End of consciousness.
So shall it be at the end of the world:   For lo, thine enemies O LORD, for lo,
the angels shall come forth, and sever thine enemies shall perish. Ps. xcii. 9.
the wicked from among the just, and   Alld he shall bring upon them their
shall cast them into the furnace of fire. own iniquity, and shall cut thenl off in
Miatt. xiii. 49, 50.              their own wickedness. Ps. xciv. 23.
And shall cut him asunder, and ap-   All the wicked will lhe destroy  Ps.
point him his portion with the hypo- cxlv. 20.
crites. Mlatt. xxiv. 51.            They that forsake the LORD shall be
And 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.
xxv. 30.                            Who shall be punished with everThe 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. 2 Pet. iii. 7.
indignation; and hie shall be tormented
with fire and brimstone in the presence
of the holy angels, and in the presence
of the Larnb: And the smoke of their
torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:
and they have no rest day nor night.
Rev. xiv. 10, 11.
According.to the received view, the texts, at the right, while
implying ruin, irremediable overthrow, do not mean annihilation
or extinction.  MIortal-soulists, or "annihilationists" as they




204            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 2 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.
The 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. lvii. 1.
Ile that speaketh lies shall perish.  The good man is perished out of the
Prov. xix. 9.                     earth. 3Micah vii. 2.
In all these cases, the same Hebrew term, " ibadh," is used.
iNow, if this term, in the first series of texts, necessarily implies 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.
Sinners annihilated.          Annihilated objects, existing.
Likewise the fool and the brutish   And with all lost things of thy brothperson perish. Ps. xlix. 10 (11).3  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. lxxiii. 27.     xxii. 3.
A false 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.      2 Bible Doctrine of the Soul, p. 42.
B 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 annihilation, in the latter
cases, could hardly have  been fatal to  the existence of the
objects mentioned, for they are afterwards " found."
Wicked cut off.                   The Messiah cut off.
For evil doers shall be cut off....   And after threescore and two weeks
When the wicked are cut off, 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.  IMy people are destroyed for lack of
cxlv. 20.                           knowledge. Hosea iv. 6.
And he shall destroy the sinners   O Israel thou 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,... I'nowest 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.    Am I 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 destroyed;... take balm for her pain, if so
be she may be healed. Jer. li. 8.
And shouldest destroy them which
destroy the earth. Rev. xi. 18.
It need not be said that in these cases, the literalistic interpretation of the terms " destroy " and " destruction" would land
us in the grossest exegetical absurdities.l
1An 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 OF THE BIBLE.
Evil doers consumed.          Things without life consumed.
Let the sinners be consumed out of  There shall be an overflowing shower
the earth. Ps. civ. 35.           in mine anger, and great hailstones in
They that forsake the LORD shall be nmy 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 all thy blasphemies
xxix. 20.                          which thou hast spoken against the
mountains of Israel, saying, They are
laid desolate, they are given us to consume. 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. Ps. 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 youl. 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.        Widows' houses devoured.
Judgment and fiery indignation,   Beware of the scribes,... which dewhich shall devour the adversaries. yourwidows' houses. Mark xii. 38,40.
Heb. x. 27.
The reader will observe that the Greek verb of the first text
occurs in the second in a strengthened form.2   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 righteous. The folly of taking such language literally need not be
pointed out.
See Heb. xi. 5.
"2 Oao " in Heb. x. 27, " KaCrE0oW " 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
shall 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.               Righteous likewise.
Thy right hand, 0 LORD, hath dashed   He teareth nze in his wrath;... lihe
in pieces the enemy. Ex. xv. 6.     hath broken me asunder: he hath also
The adversaries of the LORD shall be taken me by my neck, and shaken me
broken to pieces. 1 Sam. ii. 10.    to pieces;.. he cleaveth my reins
Thou shalt break them with a rod of asunder, and doth not spare; lie pouriron; thou shalt dash them in pieces eth out my gall upon the ground. He
like a potter's vessel. Ps. ii. 9.  breaketh me with breach upon breach.
Consider this, ye that forget God, lest Job xvi. 9, 12, 13, 14.
I tear you in pieces, Ps. I. 22.      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 in pieces. Isa. spirit: a broken and a contrite heart.
viii. 9.                            Ps. Ii. 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." 1
Wicked blotted out.             Things blotted out, yet existing
And the LORD said, I will destroy   I will utterly put out the rememman whom I have created from the brance of Amalek from under heaven.
face of the earth: both man and beast, Ex. xvii. 14.
and the creeping thin. (Gen vi. 7.    lIot out all mine iniquities. Ps. Ii.
Whosoever hath sinned against me, 9 (11).,im will I blot out of my book. Ex.   I have blotted out, as a thick cloud,
xxxii. 33.                          thy transgressions. isa. xliv. 22.
Let them be blotted out of the book  BIlotting out the hand-writing of orof the living. Ps. lxix. 28 (29).   dinances that was against us.  Col.
ii 14.
lProfessor Bartlett, "Life anti Death Eternal," p. 98.




208            DISCREPANCIES OP THE BIBLE.
In all the cases cited here from  the Old Testament the expressions "destroy," "blot out," "utterly put out," are translations of the Hebrew term "msichaih."
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 inoperative.  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 remembrance.
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
iWhose end is destruction. Phil. iii. xlii. 12
19.                                For the end of that man is peace.
Ps. xxxvii. 37.
Does the word " 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 quickenzed, who were   Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to
dead in trespasses and sins. Eph. ii. 1. be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
But she that liveth in pleasure is dead God. Rom. 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.
Rev. 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 annihilationists, and we reach the following results:
1 Our present limits allow only a hasty glance at the subject. The autnor




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," consume,   cut off," t  off ie," " destroy," "devour," "perish," and the
like, neither in the original terms, nor in their English equivalents, 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 annihilated themselves there was still "help" for them; with all
manner of similar absurdities.
Instruments.
Shame and disgrace.                   A whirlwvind.
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 whirlPs. lxxxiii. 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 hitler, 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 tem46, 48).                          pest. Ps. xi. 6.
So persecute them with thy tempest,
and make them afraid with thy storm.
Ps. lxxxiii. 15.
contemplates publishing hereafter a work in which the history of Thnetopsychism, and the arguments adduced in its favor, will be more fully
investigated.
18*




210             DISCREPANCIES  OF THE  BIBLE.
Darkness.                              Fire.
But the children of the kingdom shall   The Son of man shall send forth his
be cast out into outer darkness: there angels, and they shall gather out of his
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. kingdom all things that offend, and
Matt. viii. 12.                     them which do iniquity; And shall
Bind him hand and foot, and take cast them into a furnace of fire. Matt.
him away, and cast him into outer dark- xiii. 41, 42.
ness. Matt. xxii. 13.                 Depart from me, ye cursed, into everAnd cast ye the unprofitable servant lasting fire, prepared for the devil and
into outer darkness. Matt. xxv. 30.   his angels. Matt xxv. 41.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the
lake of fire. Rev. xx. 15.
"Darkness" is, in one respect, and " fire" in another respect,
a fit emblem of the punishment.
Dr. J. P. Thompson  1 " 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.                    Different gradations.
And when they came that were hired   It shall be more tolerable for theland
about the eleventh hour, they received of Sodom and Gomorrah, in the day of
every man a penny. But when the first judgment, than for that city. Matt. x.15.
came, they supposed that they should   It shall be more tolerable for Tyre
have received more; and they likewise and Sidon at the day of judgment, than
received every man a penny. And for you. Matt. xi. 22.
when they had received it, they mur-   And that servant which knew his
mured against the good man of the lord's will, and prepared not himself,
house: saying, These last have wrought neither did according to his will, shall
butone hour, and thou hast made them  be beaten with many stripes. But, he
equal unto us, which have borne the that knew not, and did commit things
burden and heat of the day. Matt. xx. worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with
9-12.                               few stripes. Luke xii. 47, 48.
Then shall he say also unto them on   Who will render to every man accord.
the left hand, Depart from  me, ye ing to his deeds.. Rom. ii. 6
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared   That every one may receive the things
for the devil and his angels.  Matt. dosce in his body, according to that he
xxv. 41.                            hath done, whether it be good or bad.
And whosoever was not found writ- 2 Cor. v. 10.
ten in the book of life was cast into the   And death and hell delivered up the
lake of fire. Rev. xx. 15.          dead which were in them: and they
were judged every man according to
their works. Rev. xx. 13.
The first series of passages sets forth the general fact of
I 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 punishments.  Trench
interprets it better, as intended to "rebuke the spirit of selfexalting 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 disposition 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 1 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
he will burn up the chaff with un- every knee shall bow, every tongue
quenchable fire. Matt. iii. 12.     shall swear. Isa. xlv. 23.
Whosoever speaketh against the -loly   And thou be cast into prison. Verily
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means
neither 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,... and /that every tongue
into life eternal. Matt. xxv. 46.   should confess that Jesus Christ is
But he that shall blaspheme against Lord. Phil. ii. 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 he shall be tormented with fire
Future State, p. 171.
2 Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Meyer apparently, read " eternal sin."  This reading, sustained as it is by the best
critical authorities, affords a very strong incidental proof of the endless
duration of future punishment. 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!" 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 torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:
and they have no rest day nor night.
Rev. xiv. 10, 11.
And the devil that deceived them
was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet are, and shall be tormented
day and night for ever and ever. Rev.
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 expressions as "unquenchable' fire," "not forgiven, neither in this
world, neither in the world to come," "everlasting punishment,"2
1 The Greek term 6i6rE6T7os is defined by Liddell and Scott thus: "Unquenched, inextinguishable, endless, ceaseless."  Upon this point annihilationist writers assert that the fire will be "unquenchable" until it
has consumed the chaff, and will then go out, of itself!  We refrain
from  comment. The argument derived by annihilationists from  Matt.
iii. 12, is peculiarly suicidal. From the fact that the wicked are symbolized by " chaff," it is inferred that they will be 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 I
2 In Matt. xxv. 46, the same Greek adjective, al&cLzos, is applied both
to "punishment" and to "life."  Hence it seems a reasonable inference
that the " punishment," and the life are of parallel duration. As to the
words aicu and ahlivos, which, in their various modifications and combinations, are, in our version, rendered "eternal," "everlasting," "forever,"
" forever and ever," a very interesting discussion may be found in Professor Stuart's Essay on Future Punishment, pp. 56, 66 (new edition).
He, following Knapp's Greek text, finds aci&'i ninety-four times in the
New Testament. In fifty-five of these instances, he says the word " certainly means an unlimited period of durationi either future or past, ever,
always." 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 alcvios 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 miscellaneous 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
"in 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 eternity 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, whenever 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." 1  All of the
Concordance, latest edition, gives aicv one hundred and six times, and
ativios 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."
] 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 God hath spoken by the and all the nations that forget God.
mouth of all his holy prophets. Acts Ps. ix. 17.
iii. 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. Rom. 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. 1 Cor. the wicked. Isa. lvii. 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 shall burn them up, saith
knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim. ii 3, 4. the LoRD of hosts. Mal. 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, which do iniquity.  And shall
salvation hath appeared to all men. cast them 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. iii. 9.                        But the fearful. and unbelieving, and
the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall 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.   Hackett,
with iMeyer 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."
MNurdock's version of the Syriac gives the passage a different
turn, thus: " 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 predictions of the prophets."
Adam  Clarke, [Barnes, Dr. Jonathan  Edwards,l and others
concur in this latter explanation. Obviously, neither this nor
the former one implies the salvation of all men.
On  tRom. xi. 32 Alford says that it brings to view  God's
act, and not man's.  The ultimate difference between the "all
l Works, i. 284.




DOCTRINAL 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 dll
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 be saved. For some things which
would be pleasing to God, agreeable to his will,, do not takoe
place.  For example, he "now  commandeth all men everywhere 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, while
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 " isforced upon them.
It is clear that none of the foregoing texts, fairly interpreted,
support the doctrine of universal salvation.
Earth, - Destruction.
Indestructible.                Will be destroyed.
The earth which he hath established   Of old hast thou laid the foundation
for ever. Ps. lxxviii. 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 thein
Ps. civ. 5.                    shall wax old like a garment Ps. 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
Rev. xx. 11.
As to the first texts, the Hebrew  word "oltim" 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 comparison 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 tke great globe itself" will be subjected to the action of
firte. 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
x See Wetstein, on 2 Pet. iii. V'




DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES.                  217
hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." So we,
speaking of the secrets of the future world, should very naturally 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.
Alford applies, however, the words "hath ascended" to
Christ's " exaltation to be a Prince and a Saviour."
The former explanation 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. iHeb. 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
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor-extortioners, shall inherit 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 saxed, 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. Rev. 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.1
DUTY OF MAN.- Toward God.
Blessing gained.
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 believed. 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 requiring sight as the ground of faith, which Thomas did, and
obtaining 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 traditions 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 Le1The reader need not be reminded that no rigid 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 "pour out."'  A part of the blood was disposed of in one way and the rest in another.  Smith's Bib. Dict.
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:2  " 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 imposed 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,3 we learn that it was not permitted
the high-priest even to assemble a sanhedrim without the consent
of the Roman procurator.
Covenant basis.
Religious laws.                       Civil laws
Ali he said, Behold I make a cove-  Moses came and told the people all
nant.... Write thou these words: for the words of the LORD, and all the
after the tenor of these words I have judgments.... The covenant, which
made a covenant with thee, and with the LORD hath made with you concernIsrael. Ex. xxxiv. 10-27.       ing all these words. Ex. xxiv. 3-8.
1 Fuerst says the word means, to moisten, to wet.
2 On Sacrifices, chap. xvi.                    Antiq. xx. 9, 1.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                    221
The discrepancy which a late writer finds here, has no existence, except in his imagination. The first passage clearly
makes the decalogue the foundation of the " covenant." 1 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 is   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 first 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 maketh acny   And God spake all these words, saygraven or molten image, an abomina- ing, I am 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 place: 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 Michaelis.
Davied s conduct.
Strayedfrom 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
1 See Ex. xxxiv. 28, last clause.
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 le
LornD his God, as the heart of David had numbered the people. And David
his father. Because David did that said unto the LORD, I have sinned
w7ich was right in theeyes of the LoD. greatly in that I 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.
Uriah the Hittite. 1 Kings xv. 3, 5.
I have found David the son of Jesse,
a man after mine own heart, which
shall fulfil all my will. Acts xiii. 22.
The quotation from Acts refers to David early in l'fe,1l
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:2 " 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 3
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 outward
details of a life, if the inner secret of it, the remorse, temptations,'See 1 Sam. xiii. 14.                2 On Acts xiii. 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 baffledsore 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.... bement; 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 eighth day he,sent the people away. 1
it be 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 people 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 twentysecond of the month; closing with a "holy convocation " the
"' eighth day,"1 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 "C day
Lev, xxiii. 33-39.




224            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
of atonement," being itself a religious solemnity of high importance, 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.'
Bihr: " Old commentators say that the dedication rendered
it unusually solemn; others, that, as it was a fast-day, its observance was for the time omitted."
First-born 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.2
Firstling animals.
Redeemable.                   lVot 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 convenience' 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.
The firstling of unclean beasts shalt  The firstling of an ass thou shalt rethlou redeem.... According to thine deem with a lamb; and if thou redeem
estimation, for the money of five she- him 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
1Conciliator, i. 285.                     2 Num. iii. 12, 13.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                       225
servants."  Money would be more serviceable than numerous
animals, by way of commutation.
Sanctified.                       Not sanctlcfied.
All the firstling males that come of  The firstling of the beasts, which
thy herd and of thy flock thou shalt should be the LORnD'S firstling, no man
sanctify unto the LORD 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, worshipped.                Other beings adored.
Thou shalt have no other gods before   God, before whom my fathers Abrame....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  miy 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  threefold 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." 1 Gesenius: " This honor
was paid not only to superiors, as to kings and princes, but
also to equals." 2  There is, then, no idolatry in either case.
Capitally punished.              Punishment undesired.
If there be found among you,.. man   For I have no pleasure in the death
or'wronan that hath wrought wicked- of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD
ness in the sight cf the LoRD thy God, Ezek. xviii. 32.
in transgressing his cov'lnant. 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. xvii. 2, 3, 7.3
2 Sam. ix. 6; xiv. 33.   2 Gen. xxiii. 7; Ex. xviii. 7; 1 Kings ii. 19
8 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 theocracy, 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.
M3ichaelis1:'  As the only true God was the civil legislator
of the people of Israel, and accepted by them  as their Kintg,
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. Jahn2: "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 sedition.  Therefore death was justly awarded as the punishment
of idolatry and its kindred arts, magic, necromancy, and soothsaying; and also of inciting to idolatry."
Imnage making.
Sanctioned.                       Forbidden.
And thou shalt make two cherubim   Thou shalt not make unto thee any
of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make graven image, or any likeness qf alny
them, in the two ends of the mercy- thing.... Thou shalt not bow down
seat.... 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, with their God, which he made with you, anai
knops and their flowers. Ex,- xxv. make you a graven image, or the like18, 20, 34.                       ness of any thing which the LonR) 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 miaketh ant
pole. Num. xxi. 8.                graven or molten image, an abomninaThe throne had six steps... And tion unto the LoRD, the work of the
twelve lions stood there on the one hands of the craftsman, and putteth it
side and on the other upon the six in a secret place. Deut. xxvii. 15.
steps: there was not the like made in
any kingdom. 1 Iings x. 19, 20.
l Commentary on Laws of Moses, iv. 11.
2 History of Hebrew Commonwealth, p. 19 (English edition).




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                   227
Some interpret the prohibitions as referring to images intended to represent the Divine Being.
Michaelis 1: It is evident that images of the Deity are alone
spoken of in all these passages, and that, if we infer the prohibition 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 wev are never to raise our eyes to heaven,
and contemplate the sun, moon, and stars, but rather to walk
upon all fours forever.
Josephus 2 and AIenasseh ben Israel3 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:4 The cherubim is a representative of creation
in its highest grade, an ideal creature. The vital powers communicated to the most elevated existences in the visible creation
are collected and individualized in it.
In  this view  Josephus, Bochart, Stuart,5 and  Fairbairn6
substantially agree. Thus it is clear that neither the making
of the cherubim  nor the other cases of sculpture or imagemaking 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 transgiression.
Ineradicable.                  To be 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 mayest be saved.
iquity is marked befbre me. Jer. ii. 22. How long shall thy vain thoughts
lodge witliin thee? Jer. iv. 14.
Com. on Laws of Moses, iv. 52.   2 Antiq. iii. v. 5.
3 Conciliator, i. 154-157.     4 Egypt and Books of Moses, 168.
6 On Rev. iv. 6-8.              6 Typology, i. 261, 262 (4th edition).




228            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Abarbanel: " Although you wash and cleanse yourself outwardly, 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
Glorious things are spoken of thee, O fury from the day that they built it,
city of God. Ps. lxxxvii. 2, 3.  even unto this day; that I should reFor 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 oft the earth." Jeremiah riefers 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 controversy 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,Crtain accusation, yet not sinless in respect to his whole life.
Just nan's life.
By faith.                        By deeds.
The just shall live by his faith. Hab.  If a man be just, and do that whic'. is
ii. 4.                           lawful and right,... he shall surely live,
saith the Lord GOD. Ezek xviii. 5, 9.
1 The Jewish expositors ulnderstood Saul to be meant; others say Shimei.




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 incompatible 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 unand shalt possess it, and shalt dwell to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of
therein. and shalt say, 1 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 pot rejected thee,
about me; thou shalt in any wise set but they have rejected me, that I 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 1,ORD, 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 contemplated  and provided for in the law, yet was afterwards
declared to be offensive in the sight of God.  To this objection
Jewish interpreters 1 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.  MIaimonides and Nachmanides: In making their demand in the shape of a complaint, as if they were tired of Samuel's administration, and
wished to be rid of him.  The Cabalists: In acting prematurely, 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, I will set," etc.
Professor Keil finds the wrong in their overlooking their
own misconduct, and in distrusting God and his guidance.  "In
1 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 be 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-offering, 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."
Abarbanell: " 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."
Leyrer2 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 schoolmaster 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
rb' could not effect for himself."
Pauls moral state.
Nothing good in him.             Christ dwelt in him.
For I know that in me (that is, in   I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth
my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. in me. Gal. ii. 20.
Iom. vii. 18.
1 On Lev. xii.; quoted in Outram on Sacrifices, p. 145.  2 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 higher, 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.
-Piety 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 kingxii. 3.                             dom of heaven. Matt. vii. 21.
And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and
do not the things which I say? Luke
vi. 46.
The word 1" say," in the first text, does not imply the mere
utterance of the words, but the hearty and spontaneous confession of belief in the Messiahship of Jesus.  In the last texts
the calling of him  " Lord," " Lord," is mere lip-service.
Prayer.
May be in public.                 Should be 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 lings iv. 33.
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, Ile 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 his God, as he when thou prayest, enter into thy
did 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 hlouosetop to
pray, about the sixth hour. Acts x 9.
It is not publicity, but ostentation in prayer, which is prohibited; 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 interpretcation of MIatt. vi. 6.




232            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Incessant.                           Brief.
Because of his importunity he will   When ye pray, use not vain repetirise and give him as many as he need- tions as the heathen do; for they think
eth. Luke xi. 8                   that they shall be heard for their much
MIen 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. AMatt. vi. 7. 8.
There are abundant examples of the "vain  repetitions"
which Jesus prohibits. Lightfoot adduces a Jewish maxim,
" ie who multiplies prayer 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." 1 Another instance is that of the
mob at Ephesus, who for about two hours cried out," Great
is Diana of the Ephesians." 2
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.3
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, empty " repetitions" as the above which the
Greek  term  " battalogeo " designates, and which Christ condemns, and not fervent, importunate supplication.
-Repentaince.
Esau unable to repent.            Ought to have repented.
fle 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 Alford, Bleek, Delitzsch, De Wette,
1 K1 ings xviii. 26-29.
2 Acts xix. 34.
a Hackett 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 circumstances, be taken off."  He might secure the salvation:f his
soul; but he could not regain the forfeited birthright, nor
secure the revocation of the blessing pronounced prophetically
upon Jacob.
Bighteoutsness.
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.
Zdckler, 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.
Sabbath.
Sanctioned.                      Repudiated.
Remember 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. lvi. 2.            another: another esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded 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-days. 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
20*




234            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 I 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 hear-   And remember that thou wast a seren 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 freedmen 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 emancipation by President Lincoln," there would be no discrepancy.
Sabbath desecration.
Prohibited.                     Countenanced.
Whosoever doeth any work in the   At that time Jesus went on the sabsabbath-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.
1"The Sabbath," pp. 303-313. See, also, Justin Edwards's "Sabbath
Manual," pp. 117-127.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                      235
Prohibited.                        Countenanced.
all the congregation brought him with-   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 corn- he had done these things on the sabmanded Moses. Num. 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 Sabbath.  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.                          Disavowed.
Thou shalt burn the whole ram upon   Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink
the altar: it is a burnt-offering unto  the blood of goats? Offer unto God
the LonD.... And thou shalt offer every thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto
day a bullock for a sin-offering for thile  ost 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. l's. li. 16.
To what purpose is the multitude of
your sacrifices unto me? saith the
LORD: I am fiull 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 acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.
Jer. vi. 20.
For I 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
sacrifices: but this thing commanded I
them, saying, Obey my voice, and I
will be your God, and ye shall be my
people. Jer. vii. 22, 23.
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more
than burnt-offerings. HIos. 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
obefiei-ice in default of which all sacrifices are worthless.  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 upon mere sacrifices in comparison
with true obedience. This explanation is given by Calvin and
Stuart, also by Dr. Priestley and Prof. Norton.2  This interpretation is in harmony with Hos. vi. 6, also with Samuel's
language to Saul: "CHath the Lord as great delight in burntofferings 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." 3
Secondly. The quotation may mean, "I gave the command
relative to obedience previous to that concerning sacrifices."
This interpretation, propounded by the Jewish critics, agrees
with the facts in the case. The command respecting obedience
was given at Marah,4 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 sacrifices offered aright.  Heartless offerings are ever rejected.
Expiatory.                      Not expiatory.
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.... The same sacrifices which can
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 for a sin-offering, to make an atonement for you.
Num. xxix. 5.
Dr. Davidson 6 says that sin and trespass offerings "were
1 Magee on Atonement, pp. 146, 147 (Bohn's edition).
2 Evidences of Genuineness of Gospels, ii. Note D. p. zxl.
3 1 Sam. xv. 22.
4 Ex. xv. 25, 26.
6 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 1: "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 propitiation."
Outram  also regards them merely as a "condition of pardon."
These sacrifices, being 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 sill of the world."
Human sacrifices sanctioned.         Stringently prohibited.
Take now thy son, thine only son   And thou shalt not let any of thy
Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee seed pass through the fire to Molech.
into the land of Moriah; and offer him  Lev. xviii. 21.
there for a burnt-offering. 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, and the silver, in Israel, that giveth any 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 burned
them with fire, after they had stoned
tlen-i with stones. Josh. vii. 24, 25.
And Jephthahl 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 chilOn Leviticus. Part i. pp. 192, 193.




238            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
HIuman sacrifices sanctioned.        Stringently prohibited.
dren of Ammon, shall surely be the
LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a
burnt-offering.... Behold his daughter
came out to meet him with timbrels
and with d; c-es: and she was his only
child.... Her father, 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 Rizpalh,... and the five sons of Michal the
daughter of Saul.... And he delivered
them into the hands of the Gibeonites,
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." Hengstenberg2:
"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,3 Bush, Wordsworth, and other authorities.
Kurtz 4 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. 16,
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
1 Miscel. Works, p. 150 (N.Y. edition).   2 Genuineness of Pent. ii. 114,
3 Corn. on Genesis, pp. 79, 80.      4 Hist. of Old. Cov. 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 be proved that he did offer her
as a burnt-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
6pinion 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 Kimclhis, 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 forbidden in the Mosaic law; and Jephthah was doubtless fully
aware of this fact.
(b) The Hebrew of Jephthah's vow may be correctly translated," Shall surely be the Lord's,2 or I will offer it up for a
burnt-offering." Dr. Davidson 3:' 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. Kimchi,
1 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 prevent 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 perpetual virginity would preclude him from all hope of posterity,
-in the estimation of a Jew, 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 expresses 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," intimates strongly that the men whom  a recent writer pathetically
deplores as "innocent grandchildren" were really participants
in  the  crime  of their depar ted  progenitor.  IHe  had  gone
beyond the reach  of earthly justice; hence the penalty fell
upon his surviving partners in  treachery and blood.  David
Kimchil tentatively, and  Dr. Jahn 2 confidently pr6pose t;lis
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 fear, 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 againstthe 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 this 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. Rom. v. 20.            H-Ioly Ghost 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 no means assert that every sin,
wherever and  by whomsoever committed, will be forgiven.
The general rule is that sins repented of will be jbrgivens.
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, then the congre- without the knowledge of the congregation shall offer a young bullock for gation, that all the congregation sllall
the sin.. When a ruler hath sinned, offer one young bullock for a burnt-... if his sin wherein he hath sinned, offrlin_,..and one kid of the goats for
come to his knowledge; he shall bring a sin-offering. Num. 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 ruler 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 forserved their graven images. 2 Rings mer manners: they fear not the LORD.
xvii. 41.                           2 Kings xvii. 34.
An instructive example of the use of the same word in different senses.
Staves of ark.
To remain.                      Might be 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."   Similarly Bush, Nachmanides, Abarbanel, and Rashi.  Bible Commentary, "i Put the staves thereof in order."
Swearing and oaths.
Countenanced.                         Prohibited.
And Abraham  said, I will swear.   By swearing, and lying, and killing,
Gen- xxi. 24.                       and stealing. Hos. iv. 2.
And Jacob s-ware by the Fear of his  It hath been said by them  of old
father Isaac. Ger. xxxi. 53.        time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, but shalt perform unto the Lord tliine
and serve him, and shalt swear by his oaths; but I say unto you, Swear not
name. Deut. vi. 13.                 at all; neither by heaven; for it is
I adjure thee by the living God, that God's throne: nor by the earth; for it
thou tell us whether thou be the Christ. is his footstool: neither by J erusalem;
Matt. xxvi. 63.                     for it is the city of the great King.
1 say the truth in Christ, I lie not, Neither shalt 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. Rom. ix. 1.   white or black. But let your commuWhen God made promise to Abra- nication be Yea, yea: Nay, nay: for
ham, because he could swear by no whatsoever is more than these cometlh
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. Rev. x. oath: but let your yea be yea, and your
6, 6.                            nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James v. 12.
The context puts it beyond doubt that Hosea speaks of 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
MIatt. 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 books 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 2 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 conversation'logos,' be yea, yea; nay, nay."  "D Io not attempt
to bolster up your veracity by frivolous oaths."
Secondly. So faxl from  condemning judicial oaths, Jesus
1 Quoted by Lightfoot, Hr. I-Ieb., p. 280 (Carpzov's edition).
2 Commentaries on Laws of Moses, iv. 357.




244           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 swearin  by the
name of God2 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.
Timnes observed.
SMay be observed.            Must not be observed.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth  There shall not be found among you
it unto the Lord. Rom. 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  up."  Hence the meaning would be, "to practise
enchantment covertly or secretly."  Keil,3 with certain rabbies,
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 different classes of persons.  Andrew Fuller 4 says that the former
text refers to Jewish converts, who, having from their youth
ICompare Gen. xxi. 23, 24; 1 Sam. xx. 42; Heb. vi. 17,18; Rev. x. 5, 6.
2 Of course, for judicial purposes only.
3 On Lev. xix. 26.
4 Works, 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,1 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  lie shall bring a ram... for a tresthe LonRD 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.
SI. D UTY OF -MAN. - To hiinself.
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. Prov. xxii. 24.
Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry:
for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
Eccl. vii. 9.
Slow to wrath: for the wrath of man
worketh not the righteousness of God.
Jas i. 19, 20.
Paul, says Alford, "speaks of anger which is an infirmity,
but by being cherished may become a sin."
Bishop Butler2: "The first text is by no means to be understood 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 indulged without sin.  This emotion is to be distinguished
from those furious and unreasonable ebullitions of wrath which
characterize a passionate man.
1See Gal. iv. 8-11.                      2 Sermon viii.
21*




246             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Animal Food.
Use unrestricted.                     Restricted.
Every moving thing that liveth shall   Nevertheless these ye shall not eat, of
be meat for you. Gen. ix. 3.       them that chew the cud, or of them
There is nothing unclean of itself. that divide the cloven hoof... They
IRom. xiv. 14.                     are unclean unto you. Deut. xiv. 7.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,
that eat, asking no question for conscience' sake. 1 Cor. x. 25.
The first three passages refer to men not under the Mosaic
law. I)eut. xiv. was addressed to the Israelites whom God,
for wise reasons, wished to keep a distinct race.
Dr. Davidsonl: "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 preserved 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 depositaries of the knowledge of God, and exposed on every side
to polytheistic tribes." 
Certain animals forbidden.               Sanze 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 all four,
eaten. Deut. xiv. 19.              which have legs above their feet, to
leap withal upon the earth. But all
other flying creeping things, which have
four feet, shall be an abomination unto
you. Lev. xi. 21, 23.
Keil: " The edible kinds of locusts are passed over, in Deut.
1 Introd. to Old Test., i. 258.
2 Difference of national customs furnishes the solution of several allegred
"discrepancies." For example, the wearing of long hair by men is allowed
in Num. vi. 5, and repudiated in 1 Cor. xi. 14. But, then, the first passage
refers to Jews, the second is addressed to Greeks at Corinth. Among the
former, the wearing of long hair was counted honorable, even ornamental,
rather than otherwise; among the latter, it indicated effeminacy and the
indulgence of unnatural vices. See Stuart, Hist. of Canon of Old Test.,
p. 3875 (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. Prov. xxvii. 2.
which was with me. 1 Cor. xv. 10.    That no flesh should glory in his
That which I speak, I 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
which impelled Paul to "6 boast" or "glory."
Andrew  Fuller,1  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."   His 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 I am the least of the apostles,
hind the very chiefest apostles. 2 Cor. that am not meet to be called an aposxi. 5.                             tie, because I persecuted the church of
For he that wrought effectually in God. 1 Cor. 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 the
unsearchable 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 primes inter pares, first
among his equals of the apostolic rank.  But he, unlike the
other apostles, had been, before his conversion, a fierce and
I Works, i. 676.




248            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
bloody enemy  of Christianity, who "beyond  measure persecuted the church of God and wasted it."l 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.
3Moses' self-praise.            Self-praise unworthy.
Moreover, the -man Moses was very  It is not good to eat much honey: so
great in the land of Egypt, in the sight for mens to search their own glory is not
of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight glory. Prov. xxv. 27.
of the people. Ex. xi. 3.
Now the man Moses was very meek,
above all the men which weere upon the
face of the earth. Nium. 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 self"; 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 faui;lts and sins 2 with the same fidelity
and impartiality.  It is remarked by Calnmet: "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 prophesy. 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 willeth,
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 " running"-  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.
Idol-meats.
lVon-essentil.                     To be avoided.
But meat commendeth us not to God:   The things which the Gentiles sacrifor neither if we eat. are we the better; fice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to
neither if we eat not, are we the worse, God: and I would not that ye should
1 ('or. 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: ve cannot be partakers of
fice to idols is any thing? 1 Cor. x. 19. the Lord's table, and of the table of
devils. 1 Cor. x. 20, 21.
In the first series, Paul concedes that meat is not affected
by being offered in sacrifice to idols, and that the eating of it is
in itself, a matter of indifference.  But he argues, in the eighth
chapter,1 that Christians should refrain from  this food, because
1 See verses 9-13.




250             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
their participation would be misconstrued by other persons;
and in  the tenth  chapter,l  because the participant shares, to
some extent, in the sin of idolatry.
Andrew   Fuller 2: 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 partaker of that act.
Laughter.
Commended.                           Condemned.
A merry heart doeth good lilke a med-   I said of laughter, 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 namde better. The heart of the
I commended mirth, because a man wise is in the hous'e 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 taketh from you. John xvi. 22.
The first texts speak approvingly of a cheerful spirit or a
seasonable and rational merriment; the second condemn senseless and riotous hilarity.  Hengstenberg: "3Mirth considered
as the highest good, as the end of life, and the too great eagerness displayed in its pursuit."   Not laughter in the abstract,
but laughter under certain circumstances, is condemned.
Man's owtu, way.
Must not be followed.                 May be 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 thiae 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, ITengstenberg, and Zdckler 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.
1 Verses 20, 21.                      2 Works, i. 683, 684.




ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.                       251iourning.q. 
Commended.                         Discountenanced.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they   Rejoice in the Lord always: and again
shall be comforted. Matt. v. 4.     I say, Rejoice. Phil. 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 1 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
lxxiv. 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 cooperate to a certain extent.2
Stronyi drink.
Use recomnmended.                    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. Dent. xiv. 26.      Who hath wo? who hath sorrow?
And the vine said unto them, Should  who hath contentions? who hath babI leave my wine, whichl cheereth God bling?  who hath  wounds without
and man. Judg. ix. 13.              cause? who hath redness of eyes?'Ihey
Wine that 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 cup, swhen it
be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, moveth itself arighlt.  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
M ine 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 extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of
God 1( 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
1 See pp. 144-146.      2 Compare pp. 166, 167 of present work.




252            DISCREPANCIES OF 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,2 there is nothing in the act of
our Saviour, nor in the circumstances of the case, which goes
to sanction drunkenness.
Certain authors maintain, with some plausibility, that in all
cases where strong drinks are coupled with terms of commendation, the original word properly means either unfermented 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 literature of the subject.3
In the quotation from Deuteronomy the words rendered
" wine " and " strong drink " 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 which 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
1 Gen ix. 21.
2 John ii 1-11.
3 Compare Smrith's Bib. Dict., " Wine"; also, Lees and Burns' "Temperance Bible Commentary" (American edition, New York, 1870). A
writer in Fairbairn's Imperial Bible Dict. says, that t5'lng] properly means
vintage fruit, a solid, instead of a liquid; that -:rl means syrup from
various fruits not intoxicating when new. Fuerst takes r]n with r.
Jer. xl. 10, as denotillg bunches of grapes. Cassell's Bible Dict. says that
with the exception of r.l_, Lm., and perhaps of H, the other original
terms are not used in connection with drunkenness. But see inq'iF in
lIos. iv. 11, above.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                      253
drink. HIengstenberg: "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 [ZSckler:' who is on the point of perishing, who is just expiring'], and
wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."  The language indicates 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 conclusion is that the sacred writers are not apologists for drunkenness, and neither directly nor indirectly countenance it.
rTesmptation.
Desirable.                        Undesirable.
1y brethren, count it all joy wilen ye   Lead us not into temptation. Matt.
fall into divers temptations. Jas. i. 2. vi. 13.
The word rendered " temptations," says Alford, 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 inculcates " 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.
prices of the things thVat were sold, and
laid thert down at the apostles' feet.
Acts iv. 34, 35.
They that will be rich fall into temptation, 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 OF THE BIBLE.
The young ruler's was an exceptional case. His "great
possessions " were his idol; love of money was his great sil
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 "will1 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.
IFVisdom.
Unprofitable.                    Of great value.
For in much wisdom is much grief:   Wisdom excelleth folly, as far as
and he that increaseth knowledge in- light excelleth darkness. Eccl. ii. 13.
creaseth sorrow. Eccl. i. 18.       Happy is. the man that findeth wisAs it happeneth to the fool so it hap- dom, and the man that getteth underpeneth even to me: and why was I 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.            l'rov. 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.
1Alford brings out the force of the original word, thus: "T'hey who
wish to be rich."




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                     255
IIS. DUTY OPF  fiWAN. — To his fellow-men.
Adutltery.
Tolerated.                        Prohibited.
All the women children... keep   Thou shalt not commit adultery. Ex.
alive for yourselves. Nurm. xxxi. 18.  xx. 14.
The LORD said to Hosea, Go, take   WThoremongers and adulterers God
unto thee a wnife of whoredoms, and will judge. Heb. xiii. 4.
children of whoredoms, for the land
hath committed great whoredom, departing firom 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 H-Iosea, 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 addressed to him."  In this view concur Bleekl,2 Davidson,3
Hengstenberg, Kimchi, and Knobel; the first of whom  dwells
upon  the unsuitableness of the outward  acts  to make the
desired moral impression, while the last pronounces these acts
peculiarly inconsistent with a character so severely moral as
that of Hosea.  3Moreover, 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.4
Assassination.
Sanctionred.                      Forbidden.
Ehud said, I have a message from   IThou 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 Ehliud 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 into his temples, and
fastened it into the ground: for he was
fast asleep, and weary. So he died.
Judg. iv. 21.
See Num. xxv. 1-3.                  2 Intlod. to Old Test., ii. 124.
Introd. to Old Test., iii. 2387.      Compare p. 79, present workl




256          D1ISCREPANCIES OF 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. Shinei
was guilty of aggravated treason and rebellion.  Being reprieved upon a certain condition, lie wilfully violated that
condition, and met the consequences of his temerity.
Assassination is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible.
Avetnting 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. iN um. xxxv. 19.
The practice of blood-revenge, being one of long standing,
and founded upon " an imaginary sense of honor," 2 was tolerated
by Moses; but he took measures to prevent its abuse.
According to the original custom, as Burckhardt3 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 maty seem, such competent witnesses as
Burclhardt, Mr. Layard,4 and Prof. Palmer 5 bear unequivocal
1 1 Kings ii. 5-9.
2 Michaelis, Com. on Mosaic Laws, i. 15, 16.
3 Quoted by Macdonald, Introd. to Pent. ii. 323, 324.
i Nineveh and Babylon, p. 260 (New York edition).
6 Desert of the Exodus, p. 75 (Harpers' edition),




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                    257
testimony 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 "bloodrevenge" of Numbers is the recognized punishment of that crime.
Baptism.
Enjoined.                          Neglected.
Go ye therefore and teach all nations,  I thank God that I baptized none of
baptizing 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. Mlatt. xxviii. 19.         preach the gospel. 1 Cor. i. 14. i7.
Obviously, "Christ sent me not so much to baptize, as to
preach the gospel."  Paul did not neglect or undervalue baptism, but gave himself to the work of teaching, leaving his
associates to administer baptism.
Burfdens.
Must bear others' burdens.          Bear our own burdens.
Bear ye one another's burdens, and   For every man shall bear his own
so 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 " Fathaer. ~"
Forbidden.                        Exemplified.
And call no man your father upon the   And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My
earth: for one is your Father. which is father, my father. 2 Kings ii. 12.
in heaven. lNeither be ye called mas-  Yet have yle 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.
Alford: "The prohibition is against loving, and, in any re
ligious matter, using such titles, signifying dominion over the
faith of others."
22*




i58            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 I can bear. Gen. iv. 12, 13.
By some unaccountable freak of exegesis, a well.known
critic makes the first text the prohibition of capital punishment.
Instead, it is a most explicit command, sanctioning it.
The case of Cain occurred some fifteen hundred years befolre
this command was given to Noah.
Captives.
To be 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 theefor an inheritance, thou shalt save
unto all the cities which 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 LorD 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.1
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 occarael,... If 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, 1" 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
1 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 bearing 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.1 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  proverbial expression, intimating that they would now be reduced
to a condition in which the men of this world resort to such
means of defence.  Alford: " The saying is both a description
to them of their altered situation with reference to the world
without, and a declaration that self-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 give, as one definition, a knife for surgical, 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 OF 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.
seed 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 people that were born in the
that soul shall be cut off from his peo- wilderness by the way as they came
ple; he hath broken my covenant. forth out of Egypt,... them  Joshua
Gen. xvii. 14.                     circumcised: for they were uncircumcised) because they had not circumcised them by the way. Josh. v. 5, 7.
Mr. Perowne, in Smith's Bible Dictionary, maintains that
"4 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 Hengstenberg,1 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.... Him would Paul 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, 3.                         which 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 necessary to salvation; in the former, it was performed as a voluntary 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 tesdeath: but he shall be surely put to tified to his owner, and he hath not
death. Num. 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 moDey, 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. Rom. xv. strive. 2Tim. 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 yost that ye should iii. 16.
earnestly contend for the faith. J ude 3.
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."
Conversion of meng.
Man converts his fellow.              Converts himself.
In doing 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. 16.                            with their heart, 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 whlich 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.
Distrust.
E1njoined.                         Precluded.
Take ye heed every one of his neigh-  Beareth all things, 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 be the man that trusteth in
man, and maketh flesh his arm, and
whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Jer. xvii. 5.
Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not
contidence in a guide. Alicalh vii. 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, but 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 from  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 LORD,
that thou wouldest have her to thy the God of Israel, saith, that he hateth
wife. Then thou shalt bring her home putting away. tMal. ii. 15, 16.
to thy house,... And after that, thou   Whosoever shall put away his wife,
shalt 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. Deut. 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 find no favor in his eyes, because put her away?  Ile saith unto them,
he hath found some uncleanness in her; Mloses, 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. Miatt. 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 marrietil her
that is put away from her husband,
committeth adultery. Luke xvi. 18.
Between these two series of announcements a period of some
fifteen hundred years intervened.
God, in the early ages of the Jewish nation, and with a view
te 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. Ginsburgl 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.2
1 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 OF THE BIBLE.
Enemies, - treatment.
Ammonites tortured.                Crueltly prohibited.
And he brought forth the people that  But love ye your 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 unhe unto all the cities of the children of thankful and to the evil. Be ye thereAmmon. 2Sam. xii. 81.            fore merciful, as your Father also is
And he brought out the people that merciful..uake 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.1  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 MIoabites,2
because they had treacherously murdered his parents who had
been confided' to their care.3 Wahner, however, gives three
explanations " according to which none of the vanquished
Moabites were put to death."4
Tile probability  s 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,5 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 l"vayyiisar," "he sawed," in Chronicles,
may be a mere copyist's blunder for "vayyiisem," " he put," as
1 Comp. 1 Sam. xi. 2; Amos i. 13. 2 2 Sam. viii. 2.
8 1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4.          4 See Michaelis, Mos. Laws, i. 334, 35.
6 Life of David, ii. 227-238 (Oxford, 1858).




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                   265
in Samuel. The latter word is found in seven of the Mss. collated 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 Keil 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.
Baal's 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 towreache ry  tohe 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 complete 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 Christ condemned in his own
disciples, in Luke ix. 55, 56."
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."
Canacanites extirpatedE.          Killing forbidden.
But of the cities of these people,  Thou shalt not kill. Deut. v. 17.
which the LORD thy God doth give
theefor an inheritance, thou shalt save
alive nothing that breatheth; but thou
shalt utterly destroy/them; -naaely, the
28




266           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Canaanites extirpated.            Killing forbidden.
ilittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and
the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God
hath commanded thee: that they teach
you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their
gods; so should ye sin against the LORD
your God. Deut. xx. 16-18.
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 horrible " abominations " of which they were guilty.  They burned
their children in honor of their gods;  they practised sodomy,
bestiality, and all loathsome vices.2  Such was their unmitigated
depravity, that the land is represented as " vomiting out her
inhabitants," and " spewing them  forth," as the stomach disgorges a deadly poison.3 On account of their loathsome vileness 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.4  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 al've nothing that breatheth."  Absolute
extermination of the idolaters was the only safeguard of the
Hebrews. Any of the former who should be spared, would,
owing to their perverse proclivities, prove a most undesirable
and intractable element in the Hebrew  theocracy.6  It was
better for all concerned, that these idolatrous tribes should be
1 Lev. xviii. 21.   2 Lev. xviii. 22-24; xx. 23. 3 Lev. xviii. 25, 28.
4 Deut. vii. 1-4.   6 Num. xxv. 1-3.     6 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 themselvesI of
their extermination of the Canaanites, Prof. Nortonl 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 fiebrews the " exceeding sinfulness" of sin, together with God's abhorrence2 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 Canaanites, they could. not but hear the
solemn warning, " These are the consequences of sin. Behold
how Jehovah hates iniquity."
This view of the case is vigorously presented by Dr. Fairbairn,3 in words like the following: " What could be conceived
so thoroughly fitted to implant in their hearts an abiding conviction 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.       2 Lev. xx. 23.
3 Typology, ii. 465-471.




268          DISCREPANCIES OF 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 1 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 commissioned 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,2 - has the following emphatic defence
of the Israelites, and of their warfare of extermination:
" And if we are inclined 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
1Cromwell's 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 possible, 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 3Mfessiah 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 welfare....
Still they did God's work; still they preserved unhurt the
seed of eternal life, and were the ministers of blessing. to all
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. Arnold 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 great 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 newlywakened energy of unanimous trust in Divine power." And Dr.
Davidson 2: " In a certain sense, the Spirit of God is a spirit of
revenge, casting down and destroying everything opposed to
1 Hist. of Israel, ii. 237.      2 Introd. to Old Test., i. 444.
23*




270            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
the progress of man's education in the knowledge and fear of
the Lord."
Children slain.                   Same loved.
And he went up from thence unto   And they brought young children, to
Beth-el; and as he was going up by the him, that he should touch them; and
way, there came forth little children his disciples rebuked those that brought
out of the city, and mocked him, and them. But when Jesus saw it, he was
said unto him, Go up, thou bald-head; much displeased, and said unto them,
go up, thou bald-head. And he turned Suffer the little children to come untc
back, and looked on 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 came 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 " neirim," 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 qiiton," is applied to Solomonl 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 "6 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
11 Kings iii. 7. See also the word All 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 irreligion; and that, as
above intimated, the wicked parents were punished by deprivation of offspring.
Edomite hated.                     Not to be hated.
He slew of Edom in the valley of Salt   Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for
ten thousand.... And he did that which he is thy brother. Deut. xxiii. 7.
was right 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 every
act of Amaziah's life is commended above.  Ie 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 necessarily " abhorred " them.
Enemies cursed.                   Should be loved.
Let their way be dark and slippery:   Love your enemies, bless them that
and let the angel of the LORD persecute curse you, do good to them that hate
them.... Let destruction come upon you, and prlay for them which despitehim at unawares; and let his net that fully use you, and persecute you. Matt.
he hath hid catch himself: into that v. 44.
very destruction let him fall. Ps. xxxv.   Then said Jesus, Father, forgive
6, 8.                              them: for they know not what they do.
Let death seize upon them, and let Luke xxiii. 34.
them go down quick into hell. Ps. lv.15.   And he kneeled down and cried,with
Pour out thine indignation upon a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to
them, and let thy wrathfull anger take their charge. Acts vii. 60.
hold of them... Add iniquity unto
theiriniquity: and let them not come
into thy righteousness. Ps. lxix. 24, 27.
Let them be confounded and troubled
for ever: yea, let them be put to shame,
and perish. Ps. lxxxiii. 17.
Set thou a wicked man over him:
and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be
condemned: and let his priayer become
sin. Let his days be few; and let
another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, 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 generation 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 owhich covereth him, and
for a girdle wherewith he is girded con.
tinually. Ps. cix. 18, 19.




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.
Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9.
If any man love not the Lord Jesus
Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha. 1 Cor. xvi. 22.
Some critics take these impr~ecatory 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 acquiescence 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 confidence 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 explanation is adopted by several eminent authors.  Richard Baxter 
speaks very strongly on this point.  So does Mr. Cooper,2 who
says of the Israelitish worthies, " these great and good men
1 Quoted by Davidson, Introd. to Old Test., ii. 306.
2 " 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."
A-r. Warington,l 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 regarded as a sufficient explanation for the precept given.
Dr. Thomas Arnold 2 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, 3 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 intercourse and freed them on every side."
Prof. Moses Stuart 4: " The Old Testament morality, in respect to some points of relative duty, is behind that of the Gospel.  Why then shoulld we regard the Old Testament as exhibiting an absolute model of perfection, in its precepts and its
doctrines?  In some respects, most plainly this is not true."
On Inspiration, p. 2t5.
2 Miscel. Works, pp. 151, 288 (Appleton's edition).
3 On 1 Cor. xiii, and alluding to Ps. cxxxix. 22.
4 On History of Old Test. Canon, pp. 416, 409 (Revised edition, 389, 382),
Compare his remarks, pp. 404, 405 (Revised edition, 377, 378).




27(4         DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Elsewhere, he says, "The Psalms that breathe forth imprecations are appealed to by some as justifying the spirit of vengeance 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 thefull spirit offorgiveness."
These last are very pregnant words.
It remains to be observed that the imprecatory texts are explicable on the hypothesis of their full inspiration. The following 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 objectionable.
2. The Psalmist merges his own private griefs in the wrongs
inflicted upon the people of God, - counts the Lord's enemies
as enemies to himself. Hie cries out, "Do not I hate them, 0
Lord, which hate thee?  I count them mine enemies." He identified 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
in giving voice to their indignation, horror, and detestation at
the crimes perpetrated by traitors and rebels.
Prof. B. B. Edwardsl says in substance, that resentment
against evil-doers is so far from being sinful, that we find it exemplified 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," i Cor. xvi. 22); or say of his own enemy, Alexander 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.
10)?
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.2
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. IRom. xii. 20.
Rom. xii. 20.
Baur asserts that in the latter clause Paul's former persecuting 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 thline enemy thou shalt excite in him
Euch pain of conscience as shall lead him  to repentance and
reformation." The expression is a proverbial one. The Arabs'See Bib. Sacra (February, 1844).
2 ee Professor Park in Bib. Sacra, Vol. xix. pp. 165-210. Also, Smith's
Bible Diet., iii. 2625-2628.




276             DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
say, conveying similar ideas, "lHe 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 conversion 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 good to them that hate
aloud: for he is a god: either he is talk- you, and pray for them which despiteiiing, or lie is pursuing, or he is in a jour- fully use you, and persecute you. Matt.
ney, or peradventure he sleepeth, and v. 44.
must be awaked.   I ings xviii. 27.  Bless them which persecute you; bless,
And the king said unto him, 3icaiah, and curse not. R1io  xii. 14.
shall we go against Ramotll-gileadc to   Who, when he was reviled, reviled
battle, or shall we forbear? And he nolt again; when he suffered, hetthreatanswered him, Go, and prosper: forthe ened not. I Fet. ii 23.
LORD shall deliver st 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 biing yoou to the
man whom ye seek. But he led them
to Samaria. 2 Rings 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 3Micaiah; Richter, Keil, Bertheau, and A.
Fuller2 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.
Biihr, however, takes the language as a reproof for the king's
hypocritical question, thus: " How camest 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.
l See Stuart on Rom. xii. 20.                 2 Works, i. 619.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                    277
It is to be remembered, also, that Elisha's motive was a benevolent one, for lhe 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 untruth 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 Bihr
has observed, Elisha took the blinded Syrians under his protection, repaid evil with good, and by this very means showed
them  the man whom  they were  seeking.
Some regard the prophet's language as mere irony.
Epithets of opprobriumzt.
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, 0 fools, and
v. 22.                            slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets have spoken. Luke xxiv. 25.
Thaot fool, that which thou sowest is
not quickened except it die. 1 Cor, xv.
36.
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched 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. IIe
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 malevolenzt contempt.  This
obvious principle relieves the whole difficulty.
Fear of persecutorss.
Forbidden.                            empsn lited.
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 after 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 ac24




278            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
complished, be met death with fortitude and composure. To
die before the time would have measurably defeated his great
purpose.
Folly, - treatment.
Folly remediable.                   Remediless.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of  Though thou shouldest bray a fool in
a child, bat the rod of correction shall a mortar among wheat with a pestle,
drive it far from him. Prov. xxii. 15. yet will not his foolishness depart from
him. Prov. xxvii. 22.
These passages refer to entirely different persons.  "Foolishness," 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 grown-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.
Prov. xxvi. 4.                   Prov. 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 band, should you undeitake to argue with him, he,
failing to appreciate your reasoning, will think himself unanswerable, and so become more obtrusive and offensive than ever."
Or, the two texts may refer to different cases, thus: In certain 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
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.2
Moses answered folly in a foolish manner; Job answered it,
not in kind, but in the manner it deserved.
Fruit trees deisposed of.
Spared.                            Destroyed.
When thou shalt besiege a city a long   And this is but a light 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 field is man's life) to employ mar every good piece of land with
thems in the siege. Deut. xx. 19.   stones. 2 Kings iii. 18, 19.
Hengstenberg' and Keil 4 say that the injunction in Deuteronomy was applicable only in the case of Canaanitish cities, which
the Israelites were afterward to inhabit. Rawlinson thinks that
the text from  Deuteronomy really prohibits "only the using
of the fruit-trees for timber in siege-works;" and applies only
to those countries which the Israelites intended to occupy.
GCoosd works.
To be seen by men..                Not to be 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: otherand 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 difference lies in the motive. It is right to do that which men may
see and must see, but not for the sake of being seen by them."
lHeretics dealt with.
With severity.                    WT;ith gentleness.
Simon son of Jonas. lovest thou me?   Inl meekness instructing those that
He said unto him, Yea, Lord: thou oppose themselves; if God peradven.
knowest that I love thee. He saith unto ture will give them repentance to the
him, Feed my sheep. John xxi. 16.   acknlowledging of the truth. 2 Tim.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, ii. 25.
Peter; kill, and eat. Acts x. 13.'Num. xx. 0.                               2 Job 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 advance a step further, and infer the duty of cannibalism  from
the same text.  The language is certainly very explicit: " Rise,
Peter, kill, and eat!"
mpngrovidence.
Sanctioned.                    Discouraged.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures   A good man 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 and specially for those of his own house,
shall put on.... Take therefore no he hath denied the faith, and is worse
thought for the morrow: for the mor- thau 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 tkhem not again.... But love
ye 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. Rom. xiii 14.
If the texts at the left be carefully examined in their connection 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 upon them.
The word " thought," in the next two texts, as in our early
English literature, means solicitude, anxious care.  Thus Bacon 2 mentions an alderman of London who 1" dyed with thought
and anguish."  Hence the precept is: 1" 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.
l See Horne's Introduction, ii. 632 (Seventh edition).
2 Eastwood and Wright, " Bible Word-Book," p. 488.




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";I
Rebekah's mother and brother say  to her, "Thou  art our
sister"2; Jacob speaks of himself as his uncle's "brother" 3;
Dinah is styled by her brothers, " our daughter."4
It is thus clear that the term "' sister" makes Sarah a near
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,5 the Talmud, the Targum of Jonathan, and
Rashi, with Jewish writers generally.6 These authors take
Sarah, who was but ten years younger than Abraham,7 to be
identical with Iscah.8
All we are warranted in saying is, that Sarah was nearly
Gen. xiv. 12, 16.           2 Gen. xxiv. 55, 60.
3 Gen. xxix. 12.             4 Gen. xxxiv. 14, 17.
5 Antiq. I. vi. 5.           6 Macdonald, Introd. to Pent. i. 70.
7 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 unhappy 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 casel
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 neighart 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.
Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and firom 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.
Michaelis2 and Dr. Jahn hold that Palestine had from time
immemorial been a land of Hebrew herdsmen; and the Israelites, who had never abandoned their right to it, claimed it again
of the Canaanites as unlawful possessors.
Ewald3 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 Lange, Com. on Genesis, p. 81 (American edition).
2 Commentary on Mosaic Laws, i. 153.
8 Die Composition der Genesis, pp. 276-278. See Davidson's Introd. i. 487.




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 Canaanites 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 himself.
Hengstenberg; " The Israelites had no human right whatever 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.2 It is the prerogative of him  who hath "determined the times before appointed, 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 degraded idolators, and gave it to the Hebrews.
Dr. Davidson' well says: "When a nation becomes corrupt
and weak, it must give place, in the providence of God, fo a
stronger.  Those that have grown old in superstition and
idolatry make way for such as have a more spiritual vitality."
Jewess' marriage.
Restricted to her tribe.          Not thus restricted.
And every daughter, that possesseth  If the priest's daughter also be mar.
an inheritance in any tribe of the chii- ried unto a stranger, she may not eat
Genuineness of Pent. ii. 387-417.  2 Ps. xliv. 1-3; lxxviii. 55.
a Introd. to Old Test., i. 444. Compare Fairbairn'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 fathers. Num. 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.                           Allowed.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.   Judge not according to the appearFor with what judgment ye judge, ye ance, but judge righteous judgment.
shall be judged: and with what measure John vii. 24.
ye mete, it shall be measured to you   For what have I to do to judge them
again. Matt vii. 1, 2.             also that are without? do not ye judge
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: them that are within? 1 Cor. v. 12.
condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned. 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," "condemn not," indicates the kind of judgment prohibited.
Justice admniistered.
By one judge.                        By several.
Moses sat to judge the people; and   And thou shalt come unto the priests
the people stood by Moses from the the Levites, and unto the judge that
morning unto the evening. Ex. xviii. shall be in those days, and inquire; and
13.                                they shall shew thee 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 elders 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, occasioned the other modifications of earlier laws, which are dis



ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                     285
coverable in Deuteronomy.  In the words of Dr. Davidson,1
"Should any say that the altered circumstances of the Israelites
in Palestine called for these changes; that is true."
Michaelis 2 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 XMen.
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 hi-n 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 Israel, But every man his sword by his
side, avid 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 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar,
the sonL 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
wolan. 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 aggravated 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 Hebrews had fallen  into the licentious idolatry of Baal Peor,' Introd. to Old Test., i. 33.' Mosaic Laws, i. 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. His zeal in this respect was
properly commended.
Kindred, howu  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.... Let every one of you
and his 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 reverence 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." 
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 reproached 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.                 Treated disrespectfully.
Honor thy father and thy mother;   And call no man your father upon
that thy days may be long upon the the earth: for one is your Father which
land which the LORD thy God giveth is in heaven. Matt. xxiii. 9.
thee. Ex. xx. 12.                    And he said unto another, Follow
Children, obey yousr parents in all me. But he said, lord, suffer me first
things: for this is well-pleasing unto to go and bury my father. Jesus said
the Lord. Col. iii. 20.             unto him, Let the d(lead 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  authoritative,
infallible guide in matters of religion." It does not prohibit
our 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, Jesas may have foreseen that he would live
for a considerable time, so that delay was needless.
Alford2: 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.                Tenderly treated.
If a man have a stubborn and rebel-   And, ye fathers, provoke not your
lious son, which will not obey the voice children to wrath: but bring them up
of his father, or the voice of his mother, in the nurture and admonition of the
and that, when they have chastened Lord. Eph. vi. 4.
him, will not hearken unto them.   Fathers, provoke not your children
Then shall his father and his mother to anger, lest they be discouraged. Col.
lay hold on him, and bring him out iii. 21.
unto the elders of his city, and unto the
gate of his place. And they shall say
unto the elders of his city, This our
son is 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.
1 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:
I. 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 investigation 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 thyself that thou forthey 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.
Mar. 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
Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1640.         Hist. of Israel, ii. 309. 81&.




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 with mendicants.
I have given the children of Levi all  At the end of three years thou shalt
the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, bring forth all the tithe of thine infor their service which they serve, even crease 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 inheritdren of Israel, which they offer as a ance with thee,) and the stranger, and
heave-offering unto the LORD, I have the fatherless, and the widow, which
given to the levites to inherit. Num. a-re within thy gates, shall come, and
xviii. 21, 24.                   shall eat and be satisfied. Dent. xiv.
28, 29.
Mr. Plumptre 1 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 maintenance for the priests and Levites, but to promote charity and
brotherly feeling, and to gather the religious life and associations of the people around the sanctuary.2  In a word, the Levite 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.    2 Bible Com., Introd. to Deut. Sec. v.
2o




290            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Lyjing.
Countenanced.                       Prohibited.
And the king of Egypt 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
the men-children alive? And the mid- LoRD. Prov. xii 22.
wives said unto Pharaoh, Because the   Wherefore putting away lying, speak
Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian every man truth with his neighbor: for
women: for they are lively, and 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 woman 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 fire and brimwhence they were. And it came to stone: which is the second death. Rev.
pass about the timne of shutting of the xxi. 8.
gate, when it was dark, that the men
went out: whither the men went, I wot
not. Josh. ii. 4, 5.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot 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 falsehood. The king seems to have accepted their explanation of the
case, which rested upon a well-known physiological fact.
Macdonald: 1  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, 2 is even more emphatic as to the immunity from pain, enjoyed in certain circumstances 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 falsehood.
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
1Introd. to Pent. i. 886.      2 Illustrations of Genesis, ii. 60.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                     291
overthrow of the city, would be to place the victors under previous 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.
_Miarriage.
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: I woman.... I say therefore to the unwill make him a help meet for him. married and widows, It is good for
Gen. ii. 18.                      them if they abide even as 1.... I supWhoso findeth a wife, findeth a good pose therefore that this is good for the
thing, and obtaineth favor of the LORD. present distress, I 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? seeknotawife.... Hethat
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, carLet 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. 1 (or. vii. 2.           that giveth her 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 impending calamity and persecution which was threatening the
Corinthian church, and knowing that the formation of new ties
of affection would expose men 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."'  Alford2 says that the language was
addressed  to the Corinthians "as advising  them  under  circumstances 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.
1 Conybeare's translation.                2 Vol. ii. p. 519.




292             DISCREPANCIES OF THE  BIBLE.
With a brother's widow, enjoined.    -      The same prohibited.
If brethren dwell together, and one   And if a man shall take his brother's
of them die and have no child, the wife wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath
of the dead shall not marry without uncovered his brother's nakedness;
unto a stranger: her husband's brother they shall be childless. Lev. xx. 21.
shall go 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 preclude her marriage with a brother of her recent husband? This
seems quite possible.
Keil, 2 however, maintains that the prohibition in Leviticus
only refers to cases in which the deceased brother had left children; 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, Michaelis, 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.
Due to rulers.                 Sometimes to be withheld.
I counsel thee to keep the king's cornm   But the midwives feared God, and
mandment, and that in regard of the did not as the king of Egypt comoath of God. Eccl. viii. 2.         manded them.... Therefore God dealt
Let every soul be subject unto the well with the midwives. Ex. i. 17, 20.
higher powers. For there is no power   Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,
but of God: the powers that be, are or- answered and said to the king, O Nedained of God. Whosoever therefore buchadnezzar, we are not careful to
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi- answer thee in this matter.... Be it
nance of God: and they that resist shall known unto thee, O king, that we will
receive to themselves damnation.... not serve thy gods, nor worship the
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, golden image which thou hast set up.
not only for wrath, but also for con- Dan. iii. 16,18
science' sake. Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 5.    Daniel, which is of the children of
Submit yourselves to every ordinance the captivity of Judah, regardeth not
of man for the Lord's sake: whether it thee, 0 king, nor the decree that thou
be to the king, as supreme; or unto hast signed, but maketh his petition
governors, as unto them that are sent three tintes a day. Dan. vi. 13.
by him for the punishment of evil-   But Peter and John answered and
doers, and for the praise of them that said unto them, Whether it be right in
do well. 1 Pet. ii. 13,14.          the sight of God to hearken unto you
more than unto God, judge ye. Acts
iv. 19.
We ought to obey Gdd rather than
man. Acts v. 29.
3 Deut. xxiv. 1, 2.                    2 On Lev. xviii. 10.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                      293
The 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-obligatory, commands, 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 shalt thou serve. Matt.
eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in sin- iv. 10.
gleness of heart, fearing God. Col. iii.   One is your Master, even Christ; and
22.                                all ye are 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.
li. 18.
The first series refers to civil obedience, or obedience in secular matters; the last relates to worship and religious service.
Rendered to the scribes.             They must be shunned.
The scribes and the Pharisees sit in   Beware of the scribes, which love +o
Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever go in long clothing, and love salutations
they bid you observe, that observe and in the market-places.... 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 accupass against thee, go and tell him his sation, but before two or three witfault 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.
Alford, 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 public 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.                       C Condemned.
Let every one of us please his neigh-   For do I now persuade men, or God?
bor for his good to edification. 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.
might 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 nzenz in all things,   Even so we speak; not as pleasing
not seeking mine own profit, but the men, but God, which trieth our hearts.
profit of many, that they may be saved. 1 Thess. ii. 4.
Cor. x. 33.
In the first texts, we see that Christian gentleness and selfforgetfulness 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: 1 "; 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 inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self.
importance-  The latter is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature, of which flatterers and deceivers have
1 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 prohibited.
But unto the sons of the concubines   Let thy fountain be blessed; and rewhich 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 aman have two wives, one beloved,   Yet is she thy companion, and the
and another hated. Deut. xxi. 15.  wife of thy covenant. And did not he
And unto David were sons horn 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. Mal. ii. 14,15.
Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the   For this cause shall a man leave his
son of Abital. And the sixth, Ithreamn, 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 every man have his own wife, and
concubines. 1 Kings xi. 1-3.       let every woman have her own husband. I 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." 1 And, as
previously intimated, the patriarchs must be judged by the
degree of light which they possessed. Too, it must be remembered that their polygamy differed materially from  the "freelove " systems of other times. In polygamy, each wife of the
"much-married" man was nevertheless his wife, and, together
with her offspring, entitled to be cared for and maintained by
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 2 says: "Although  this connection was, in fact, a marriage, and a legitimnate one, it was
not, nevertheless, celebrated and confirmed by the ceremonies
above related."   So hMr. Newman 3: " A  concubine, in ancient
Matt. xix. 8.                          2 Bib. Archaeol. Sec. 155.
3 Hist. of Heb. Monarchy, pp. 102, 127.




296             DISCREPANCIES OF THIE  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 surrounding heathen nations, and tributary to
him. This is a reasonable suggestion.
_Poo' faavored.
Might be favored.                Must not be favored.
Blessed is he that considereth the   Neither shalt thou countenance a
poor. Ps. xli. 1.                   poor man in his cause. Ex. xxiii. 3.
He that hath mercy on the poor,
happy is he. Prov. 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 offer of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds
unto the LonD, them have I given thee. or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows
Anrid whatsoever is first ripe in the land, which thou vowest, nor thy free-willwhich they shall bring unto the LORD, offerings, or heave-offering of thine
shall be thine.... iEvery thing that hand. But thou must eat them before
openeth the matrix in all flesh, which the LORD thy God in the place which
they bring unto the LORD, whether it be the LORD thy God shall choose, thou,
of men or beasts, shall be thine....  and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy
All the heave-offerings of the holy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and
things, which the children of Israel the Levite that is within thy gates.
offer unto the LOPrD, have I given thee, Deut. xii. 17, 18.
and thy sons and thy daughters with   Thou shalt do no work with the firstthee, by a statute for ever. lNum. xviii. ling of thy bullock, nor shear the first12, 13, 15, 19.                     ling of thy sheep. Thou shalt eat it
before the LORD thy God year by year
in the place which the LORD shall
choose, thou and thy household. Deut.
xv. 19, 20.
Michaelisl  says there were two kinds of "firstlings"; the
fi.st 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 hims~!f and his guests.  He
a Mosaic Laws, iii. 146-149.




ETHICAL DISCREPANCIES.                      297
defines the second firstling as that which immediately succeeded
the proper firstling.
Davidson 1 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 sacerdotal salary.  Hence the firstlings referred to were additional
to such as appear in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers."
Similarly Dr. Jahn.2   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 sacrificial meals, or handing 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 owner and his family.
And six years thou shalt sow thy   But in the seventh year shall be a
land, and shalt gather in the fruits sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabthereof. But 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.
poor 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, assd with thy olive- undressed: 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 maid, and for
thy hired servants, and for thy stranger
that sojourneth with thee. Lev. xxv.
4-6.
The first quotation, with its context, teaches that the spontaneous 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.3  From the
second quotation we learn that the "sabbath of the land " was to
maintain the owner and his family, with the flocks and herds.
Tn 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 thereof," -and not the mere spontaneous produce of the year of
1 Introd. to Old Test., i. 353.     2 Bib. Archaeol. Sec. 388, 889.
3 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 during 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 belong to the
poor and needy, but the owner was not forbidden to partake of
it also, so that here is no discrepancy.
Property iAt aanr.
One man owns another.                All men are brethren.
And if a man smite his servant, or   And hath made of one blood all nahis 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
Notwithstanding, 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 inheritance for your children 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 contemporaries.  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."
Resistance..Exemplified.                        Interdicted.
Then said lie unto them, But now, he   But I say unto you, T'hat ye resist not
that hath a purse, let him take it, and evil: but whosoever shall smite tihee on
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no thy right cheek, turn to him the other
sword, let him sell his garment, and also. MIatt. v. 39.
buy one. Luke xxii. 36.              Then said Jesus unto him, Put up
And when he had made a scourge of again thy sword into his place: for all
small cords, he drove them all out of they that take the sword shall perish
the temple, and the sheep, and the with the sword. Matt. xxvi. 52.
oxen; and poured out the changers'
money, and overthrew the tables. John
ii. 15.
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 necessary."  The passage sanctions self-defense but not aggression.
Alford says the next passage should read, " I-e drove all out
of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen."  The " scourge"
was applied to the brutes, 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.
Retaliation.
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 haind, 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 one cheek offer also the
other; and him that taketh away thy
cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
Luke vi 27-29.
Michaelis' and Jahn 2 think that the law of Moses addresses
the perpetrator of the wrong, admonishing him of the satisfaction 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 fuiJils 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 3 says, "On what principle are cases of this kind
to be explained? Surely by regarding such laws as having
Mosaic Laws, iii. 473, 474.           2 Bib. Archael. Sec. 256.
" On Inspiration, p. 252.




300            DISCREPANCIES OF 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.                       Countenanced.
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. But every woman shall
not again. Ps. xxxvii. 21.        borrow of her neighbor, and of her that
That no mzan go beyond and defraud sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver,
his brother in any matter: because that and jewels of gold, and raiment: and
the Lord is the avenger of all such. ye shall put thenz 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 according to the word of Moses: and they
borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of
silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment.
And the LoRn gave the people favor in
the sight of the Egyptians, so that they
lent unto them such thiIngs as they requiredl: 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 recent 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, Augustine,1 Hengstenberg,2 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 entire departure of Israel from  the land.  The
1 Q.uaest. 13 in En.               2 Gen. of Pent., ii. 417-432.




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 entered into for their final departure.  It should be observed that
Moses' demand increased in the same proportion as Pharaoh's
hardening. 1 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." 2 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.
Michaelis3 has a peculiar explanation of the "borrowing."
Hie 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 "contraband of war."
H-lence, he concludes that the act of the Israelites was no
robbery of the Egyptians, but simply a detention of their properly after t/he breachz of peace with the Israelites.
Ewald4 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
1 See Ex. viii. 1, 27; x. 25, 26.  2 Compare Ex. xi. 1; xii. 31-33.
8 Corn. on Mosaic Laws, iii. 45-47.  4 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
oppression."
But there is another view of the case.  The Hebrew word,
shbial, 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. 1 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 Rosenmiiller, 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 2 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 neighborly intimacy with them." This explanation relieves the
entire difficulty.
Slavery and oppression.
Ordained.                        Forbidden.
And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a   And he that stealeth a man, and sellservant of servants shall he be unto his eth him, or if he be found in his hand,
brethren. Gen. ix. 25.           he shall surely be put to death. Ex.
Both thy bond-nmen, and thy bond- xxi. 16.
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be   Thou shalt neither vex a stranger,
of the heathen that are round about nor oppress him: for ye were strangers
you; of them shall ye buy bond-men in the land of Egypt. Ex. xxii. 21.
and bond-maids. Lev. xxv. 44.      To undo the heavy burdens, and to
And I will sell your sons and your let the oppressed go free, and that ye
daughters into the hand of the children break every yoke? Isa. lviii. 6.
of Judah, and they shall sell them to
the Sabeans. Joel iii. 8.
1 Ex. xi. 3.             2 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 probably the very one indicated as guilty of some unnamed indignity
to the sleeping patriarch, 1 and hence was deservedly punished
for his crime.
Leviticus refers to a mild form of servitude among the Israelites.  Joel threatens captivity as a punishment for sin.
Exodus denounces the  kidnapping and oppressing of free
persons, foreigners or otherwise.2 Isaiah admonishes against
illegal oppression, 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   And if thy brother that dwelleth by 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.
anld 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, prohibit 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.s  A gentile slave could be
held for life-long service.
Emancipation in the seventh year.           In the ftftieth year.
BAnsd 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...  lie sihall he with thee, ctntd
the seventh year thou shalt let him go shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee.
free from thee. Deut. xv. 12.      And these shall he depart from thee.
Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 41
That is, his servitude would cease at the end of the six years,
or at the end of the jubilee-period, whichever was nearest.  Fol
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
S x years' time.
1 Gen. ix. 24.        2 Dent. xxiv. 7.          a Lcv. xxv. 47-54.




304            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Maid-servant emancipated.              Not emancipated.
And if thy 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 nfoney. Ex. xxi.
7, 11.
3Michaelis 1 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.  Hengstenberg2 thinks the case specified in
Exodus, was an exception to the general rule. It would seldom
occur 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 3 says she did
not go out unconditionally as the man-servant did.  HIe 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.
Saalschiitz4 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 previously 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 for the first-born, by giving
for the son of this bondwoman shall him a double portion of all that he
not be heir with my son, evens with hath: for he is the beginning of his
Isaac. Gen. xxi. 10.              strength; the right of the first-born is
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. ii. p. 180.                   2 Gen. of Pent. ii. 861.
s Conciliator, i. 178.              4 See in Bib. Sacra, xix. 82-75,




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 exception of some "gifts" to his half-brothers.1  Joseph virtually
enjoyed the rights of primogeniture; for his two sons were
reckcned among his father's heirs, and on precisely the same
footing with them.2
Stranger, - treatment.
Loved as a brother.                Not thus loved.
Buet the stranger that dwelleth with   Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it
you shall be unto you as one born again: but that 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 absolutely 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
journeth 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 any of these abominations; nseither 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, foreignborn 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.
1 Gen. xxv. 5, 6.
2 Compare Gen. xlviii. 5; Num. i. 10; 1 Chron. v. 1, 2; Ezek. xlvii. 13;
xlviii. 4, 5.
26*




306            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Usury exacted.
Of no poor man.                     Of no Hebrew.
If thou lend money to any of my peo-  Thou shalt not lend upon usury to
ple 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." Jahn2 thinks that a difficulty arose in determining 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.
Davidson3 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 I grieved with good. Luke vi. 35.
those that rise up against thee? I hate   Bless them  which persecute you:
them with perfect hatred: I 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 expressing 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 iinproperly.            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 unboth are abomination to the LOaD. godly, his faith is counted for righteousProv. xvii. 15.                   ness. Rom. iv. 5.
He that saith unto the wicked, Thou
art righteous; him shall the people
curse. Prov. xxiv. 24.
Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil. Which justify the wicked for reward. Isa. v. 20, 23.
1Vol. ii. p. 338.                   2 Bib. Archaeol. Sec. 251.
3 Introd. to Old Test., i. 345.




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.
WVitchcraft, - treatmentS
Punished.                        Contemned.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live   But refuse profane and old wives'
Lx. xxii. 18.                    fables, and exercise thyself rather 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 andl vain babblings. 1 Tim. vi. 20.
A critic whom we have quoted often, objects to the Pentateuch, 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," C" 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 deceiving 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
witchcraft 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 Oldl
Testament resolves itself into a trafficking 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,2 Mr. Denham,3  and Mr. R. S. Poole.4  The latter
1 " Letters on Demonolofy and Witchcraft; "' Letter 2.
2 Lect. on Pent. i. 190 (Second edition).
8 Kitto, iii. 1120 (Alexander's edition).
Smith's Bib. Diet., Art.' "Magic."




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 "superstition," was entirely unknown to the early Hebrews.  Witchcraft
with them and throughout the Scriptures, was a species of idolatry.' So that the critic's objection above quoted, falls pointless
to the ground.
Woman, - 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, she judged Israel at that
The head of the woman is the man. time..... And the children of Israel
I Cor. xi. 3. -                    came up to her for judgment. And'They are connmmanded to be under obe- Deborah said unto Barak, Up, for this
dience, as also saith the law. I Cor. is the day in which the LORD hath dexiv. 34.                          livered Sisera into thy hand: is not the
Wives, submit yourselves unto your LORD gone out before thee?... So Barak
own0 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 Pet. 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 TI eocracy.
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 relaxation 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.                       809
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 keep silence.                May prophesy and teach.
Let your women keep silence in the   Miriam the prophetess, the sister of
churcl-les: for it is not permitted unto Aaron. Ex. xv. 20.
tliem to speak; but they are commanded   And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
to be under obedience, as also saith the of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that
law. And if they willi learn anything, time. Judges iv. 4.
let them ask their husbands at home:   Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam and
for it is a shame for women to speak in Achbor and Shaphan and Asahiah,
the church. 1. Cor. xiv. 34, 35.    went unto Huldah the prophetess....
Let the woman learn in silence with And she said unto them, thus saith the
allsubjection. Butl suffer not a woman LORD God of Israel. 2 Kings xxii.
to teach, nor to usurp authority over 14,15.
the man, but to be in silence. 1 Tim.   And there was one Anna a prophetii. 11, 12.                         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. 86, 37, 38.
And on my servants and on my handmaidens 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 daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. Acts
xxi. 9.
Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who
labor in the Lord. Salute the beloved
Persis, which labored much in the
Lord. Rom. xvi. 12.
But every woman that prayeth or
prophesiethl with her head uncovered
dishonoreth her head: for that is even
all one as if she were shaven. 1 Cor.
xi. 5.
Help those women which labored
with me in the gospel. Phil. 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, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Neander, Conybeare, Schaff, Mieyer,l and Huther, apparently take this view
1 This author in his last edition, concedes that the prohibition does not




310           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 surroundings 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 1 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 Corinthianize' 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 forgotten 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 unchacste. 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 2 thinks that, in 1 Cor. xi. Paul merely refers for
example to what was going on in the Corinthian church, reserving his denunciation of it, to the proper place in chapter xiv.
apply to the smaller religious assemblies of the church, which, he thinks,
might fall under the head of " churches in the house," lacusgemzeinden.
Compare Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. See his Com. on 1 Cor. xi. 4.
1 Life and Epistles of St. Paul, Vol. ii. pp. 27, 31 (American edition).
2 Planting and Training, p. 150. 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 expression 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 assemblies. 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 missionary 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.




CHIAPTER III.
HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.
I. CONCERNINiG PERSONS. -N ames, etc. 
WE, have elsewhere 1 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 "l3Mebunnai"; in 1 Chron. xi. 29, the name
" Sibbecai"; both referring to the same person. Now compare
these names in the Hebrew, %=M and:a"=, 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; rk73i and
nr~.  Also " Zabdi," Josh. vii. 1, and " Zimri," 1 Chron. ii.
6, are written thus: ~q:7 and Ems. No reasonable man can
look at cases like these -which may be multiplied to an indefinite extent, - and wonder that we find variations among the
proper names occurring in the Bible.
Comparing the first eight chapters of 1 Chronicles with corresponding passages in Genesis, numerous discrepancies, like
the following, appear: Hadad for Hadar, I confounded with
1; Aliah for Alvah, Ebal for Obal, Hemam for Homam, Pai
for Pau, Shephi for Sheplio, Zephi for Zepho, in all which
cases, either by design or otherwise,` is substituted for I. Elsewhere we find " Caleb" and " Chelubai," the consonants being
See pp. 19-25 of present work.
812




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                31]3
the same in both words; " Bath-sheba" and "Bath-shua,": being
exchanged for 1; "Achar " and, "Achan," k being interchanged
with; " Akan" and "Jakan," d prefixed in the latter case;
"Bani" and "Binnui,",   inserted in the second form  of the
name.  In like manner, "  uram " and " HIiram," "'Araunah"
and "'Ornan," "Michaiah" and "'Mi aachah," "Absalom" and
"Abishalom," "Shealtiel" and " Salathiel," "Abijah " and " Abijam' are mere variations of names.  So Gesenius deems
"Uzziah" a popular phonetic corruption of "Azariab," zz being
pronounced for zr.
Dr. Davidson' gives a list, taken chiefly from the first eleven
chapters of Chronicles, comprising some one hundred and fourteen 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 miracle, 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 treatment to which proper names were subjected among the i-Tebrews,
is that of the not uncommon transposition of letters.  Thus we
have "Amiel " and "Eliam," "Jehoiachin " and " Jeconia  "
"Ahaziah" and "Jehoahaz," 2 " Harhas" and "Hasrah."  In
each of these cases the difference arises from exchanging the
Introd. to Old Test., ii. 108-112.
2Kennicott illustrates this case thus, ahaz-ihu
ihu-ahaz, the upper word representing the name "Ahaziahl" in the Hebrew, the lower word representin(r the
name " Jchoahaz," as it stands in the original. - See Kennicott's Dissertations, ii. 489; also, passim.
2T




314          DISCREPANCIES OF 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 " Timnatbh-heres," the name
of the city in which Joshua was buried.
We have in another place, 1 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 "M lephibosheth."  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, Ezekiel and Ezekias, Isaiah and Esaias, Hosea 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.2 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.  2 See Bissell's Historic Origin of Bible, p. 384.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 315
verse 18, on account of her surrender of her maid to Jacob.
But it should be 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."   I[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. Gen. he hath supplanted me these two times.
xxv. 26.                        Gen. xxvii. 36.
According to the first passage, the name " Jacob" comes from
"iqab" to seize the heel, and denotes, as Ewald says, "heelgrasper." According to Esau's insinuation in the second text,
the name means " supplanter."  Now the truth is, that the word
" tqab" has the closely connected secondary signification, to outwit, 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. 24.2
According to the first text, the name would seem to be derived
from  "&saph," to take away; according to the second, from
"yiisaph," 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 "taking 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 Nabal's name, 1 Sam. xxv. 25.
2 In this and many following cases, where the language of scripture presents no peculiarity, we have for brevity's sake given simple references
instead of qu6tatsns.




316           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
derived from  the Hebrew verb, mashlh, 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.
Haivernick, Kurtz, and Dean Stanley regard the name as a
foreign word Hebraized.  The Alexandrian Jews, with Josephus 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," 1 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 " mashih" " 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 exceedingly near to, or exactly represented, the Egyptian." Thus
the difficulty vanishes.
Zebulun denotes a " cwelling."             A " dowry."
Gen. xxx. 20.                Gen. xxx. 20.
The name " Zebulun" is derived from zaibal," to dwell;2 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, Nahash.                     Jesse..    2 Sam. xvii. 25.               1 Chron. ii. 13, 16.
The rabbies say that both names belonged to the same person; Ewald and Keil, that Abigail's mother had a former husband, Nahash, previous to her marriage with Jesse.
See Bible Commentary, i. 482 —484 (American edition).
2 This is one of the numerous cases in which the old maxim applies;
nomen'habet omen.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                317
Abijah's mother, daughter of Abishalom.       Of Uriel.
1 uKings xv. 2.    2 Chron. xiii. 2.
Absalom's daughter, Tamar, probably married Uriel, and
became the mother of Maachah or Michaiah.  This agrees with
Josephus' statement.' Hence, in the first text, as often elsewhere, " daughter " denotes " granddaughter": and, in the tenth
verse, the "mother" of Asa was, strictly speaking, his "grandmother."
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 simply that 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 elsewhere2 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 king of Egypt.  The two cases were evidently quite distinct.
In the first instance, Sarah was some sixty-five years of age; 3
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 age. She had escaped thehardships of maternity, and being i' 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
1 Antiq. viii. 10, 1.         2 See pp. 26, 27 of present work.
3 Compare Gen. xii. 4; xvii. 17.
27




318            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
some ninety years of age, nothing is said as to her beauty.
Abimelech was influenced, not by Sarah's personal charms, but
simply by a desire to "ally himself with Abraham, the rich
nomad prince." 1
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 " Abimelech," common to the two cases, proves
nothing; for, as Keil remarks, it was " the standing official name
of the kings of Gerar." 2
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 again Abraham took a wife,
and laughed, and said in his heart, and her name was keturah. And she
Shall a child be born unto him that is a bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and
hundred years old? Gen. xvii. 17.    Medan, and MIidian, and Ishbak, and
Therefore sprang there even of one, Shuah. Gen. xxv. 1, 2.
and him as good 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 become the father of Isaac, was continued for some years after.
Abraham weak, and in fear.            Possessed a large 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
1 So Delitzsch.                    2 See Ps. xxxiv. title.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                319
(1) three-hundred and eighteen servants are hardly an " immense band."  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,l
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.2
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.3  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 restrictions 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.
Biihr, Movers, and Ewald say that the word rendered " brethren " 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,4 could have had forty-two
1 See Gen. xiv. 13, 24.
2 Compare 2 Kings xvi. 10-16.
2 Kings xvi. 9; 2 Chron. xxviii. 20, 21.
4 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, Onmri.                Ahab.
2 Kings viii. 26.              2 Kings viii. 18.
". Daughter," in the first text, means simply " female descendant."  In the twenty-seventh verse, Ahaziah is styled "the sonin-law of the house of Ahab."
Ahimelech, high-priest.         Ahiah.           Abiathar.
1 Sam. 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 Ahimelech 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 Ahimelech, 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, since 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.    Jether 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 "Jether" 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 Syrians of Beth-rehob, and the   Chariots and horsemen out of MesoSyrians of Zoba, twenty thousand foot- potamia, and out of Syria-maachah, and
men, and of king Maacah a thousand out of Zobah. So they hired thirty and
men, and of Ish-tob twelve thousand two thousand chariots, and the king. of
men. 2 Sam. x. 6.                 Maachah and his people. I Chron. xix.
6, 7.
11 Chron. xviii. 16. Ewald, "simply a transcriber's error."
2 See Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae, on Luke iii. 2 (Carpzov's edition).




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                   321
Beth-rehob 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),  [1,0.00]
338,000                    883,000
But one passage names "footmen," the other "chariots."
Keil speaks of copyist's errors, and Rawlinson thinks that in
the seventh verse, at the right, the words " and horsemen " have
dropped out after " chariots."  Dr. Davidson 1 cites approvingly
Brown of Haddington's explanation, that the Hebrew term rendered " 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, commonly employed in fighting on horse-back or in chariots, but
sometimes as foot-soldiers.
Anah, a Hittite.              Horite.               Hivite.
Gen. xxvi. 84.2       Gen. xxxvi. 20.    Gen. xxxvi. 2.
Lange thinks that the term "Hittite" defines the race, "Hivite " the tribe, and " Horite" (" cave-dweller ") the habitation
of Anah.  There were at least two Anahs, the brother and
the son, of Zibeon.3
Or, since the three names differ in the Hebrew by one letter only, we may with Michaelis and Bertheau ascribe the disagreement to an error of transcription.
Anak's sons were slain.            They were expelled.
And Judahl went against the Canaan-  And Caleb drove thence the three
ites that dwelt in HIebron: (now the sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman,
name of Hebron before was Kiirjath- and Talmai. Joshl. xv 14.
arba:) and they slew Shleshai, and Ahi-  And they gave 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 4 strangely asserts that the children of Judah " slew
Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 552.       2 Beeri = Anah.
8 Compare Gen. xxxvi. 20 and 24.    4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 174.




322.         DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
the same three Analim - Sheshai, Ahiman, 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 expedition.  Moreover, the verb " yarash" employed, in the texts
at the right, means, not only to drive out, to expel, but also according to Fuerst and Gesenius, to destroy.' Thus the discrepancy vanishes.  Caleb expelled the three Anakim from Hebron,
and from among the living.
2. Or, with Koinig and others, 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.2 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 namned.    Second list.    Third list.    Fourth list.
Matt. x. 2-4.   Mark iii. 16-19.   Luke vi. 18-16.   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, Thaddeus, and Judas the brother of James, were one and the same
person.  Simon Zelotes and Simon the Canaanite were identical; "Zelotes " being the Greek form of the Hebrew term rendered " Canaanite."   As the name "Bartholomew" (son of
Numn. xiv. 12 is cited as an example.    2 Josh. xi. 21, 22.
3 Sec 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 "N athanael," 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, adopted
Amytis, or Mandane as his mother.  Mr. Newman 1 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.2
Asa removed the high-ptaces.      Left them undisturbed.
2 Chron. xiv. 3, 5.             1 King s xv. 14.
Bihr, Thenius, Bertheau, and others say that the high places
dedicated to idols were destroyed; while those dedicated to Jehovah were allowed to remain, since his true servants, having
been long accustomed to them,' 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,4 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,;'  for jazz.
Caleb's father, Jephunneh.  Hur.           Hezron.
Josh. xiv. 6.     1 Chron. ii. 50.   1 Chron. ii. 18.
Hist. of Heb. Monarchy, p. 150, 151.  2 1 Kings xv. 13.
1 Kings iii. 2, 3.                 4 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 Bertheau 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 szbsiclized.
Josh. x. 4-0; xi. 14, 15.      Judg. i. 28, 80, 33, 35.
It is to be noted that the texts at the left are couched in
general terms, and refer particularly to the southern part of
Palestine.
Masius 1 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.  From 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 drinkc of one kind.        Of a diferent kind.
They gave him  vinegar to drink,  And they gave him to drink, wine
mingled with gall: and when he had mingled with myrrh: but he received
tasted thereqf, lie 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
first 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.1
The word rendered "vinegar" means, according to Grotius,
Robinson, Davidson,2 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.3
Christ's genealogy,- one form.            A diverseform.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband   And Jesus himself began to be about
of IMary, of whom was born Jesus, who thirty years of age, being (as was supis called Christ. Matt. i. 16.    posed) the son of Joseph, which was
tihe soss of Heli. 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 fbrth in Lord Arthur Hervey's
work 4upon the subject, to which the reader is referred.
2. That held by Auberlen, Ebrard, Greswell, Klurtz, Lange,
i See John xix. 29, 30.
2 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 561.
In the Septuarint it stands for wormwood, Prov. v. 4; for poppy, Denut.
xxix. (17) 18.
4 " 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




0,26          DISCREPANCIES OF THIE BIBLE.
Lightfoot, Michaelis, Neander, Robinson, Surenhusius, Wieseler,
and others - that Matthew gives Joseph's, and Luke, Mary's,
genealogy.  Although the alleged discrepancies may be removed 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. Lightfoot 2 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.3 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, 7fiary was the daughter of Hell;
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, arid 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 M3ary'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 elsewhere.
1 See Kitto, ii. 92-94, 547.  2 Horae Hebraicae on Luke iii. 238.
8 " Suspensam per glandulas mammarum," etc.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 327
Christ's last tour, - one account.   A different statement.
MIatt. xix. 1; xx. 17, 29; xxi. 1.    John x. 40; xi. 17, 54; xii.1.
These two series of texts seem to represent Jesus' journeyings
somewhat differently. But, as Ebrard,1 Robinson,2 Gardiner,3
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 Jerusalem, whence he retired to " Ephraim," where he tarried a
little,4 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 Christ was likely to be conveyed without a right conception
of his person and doctrine, there he suffered not the report to
be carried.5  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 Mlessiab, and even of producing disorder.
Christ's resurrection, - certain narratives.  Diferent 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 chronological sequence, they present sonme difficulties and apparent
Gospel History, sections 79-85.   2 Enfglish Harmony, sections 81-111.
3 Greek Harmony, sections 76-112. 4 John xi. 54.
6 See Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1853.




328            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
discrepancies. There is, however, not the least doubt that, if
we knew all the circumstances of the case, those which we now
know would be seen to fit perfectly into their appropriate places
in the narrative.1  Moreover, it is to be remarked that no one
of the sacred writers gives, or intended to give, all the circumstances. Each selects those particulars which seemed to him
most important, passing by intermediate incidents.
The following summary of the case is given by Robinson,2
"At early dawn on the first day of the week, the women who
had attended on Jesus, viz. M]ary 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
1 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 Pfiiffikon on the occasion 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.; anotber 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 rmung in P.; a third related that two messengers had been
sent.nn horseback to P.; and a fourth that N. had sent two men on horseback 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 fiom P., who reported the outbreak of the riot; that he
turned back with them to Ziirich, where he immediately procured horses
for threm, and sent them back to qnuiet 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 Bibliotheca Sacra for Feb. 1845, pp. 187, 188.
3 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.l  The rest remain in the tomb, and immediately two angels appear, who announce unto them that Jesus 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 entering 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 solemn charge for his disciples."
It will be seen that this summary comprises nearly every incident mentioned by the four evangelists.  Ebrard2 concurs
substantially in the view here given.
As to the fact that according to Mark the women said nothing to any man, while according to Matthew they ran to carry
the tidings to the disciples, Ebrard thinks that the women actually 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
1 Peter and John appear to have 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.
2 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 Magdalene to touch him, but permitted the other women to embrace
his feet,l it is to be noted that different Greek words are employed 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,2 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 back by him.
All things that I have heard of my  I have yet many things to say unto
Father, I have made known unto you. you, but ye cannot bear them now.
John xv. 15.                  John xvi. 12.
n!May not the first text mean, "All things that I have heard
from my Father, whzich 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
1Compare John xx. 17 and Matt. xxviii. 9.
2 Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1380.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 331
second text, are what was taught by the Saviour after his
resurrection,' and by the -Ioly Spirit at a subsequent time.
Christ's use of parables utnvarying.    Parables somnetimes omitted.
Matt. xiii. 34.             Matt. v.-vii.
Ebrard 2 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 unnoticed.
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.      Nlot 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 Bethand he became his armor-bearer. I lehem. 1 Sam. 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 ten armor-bearers,3 Saul
probably had at least 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 permanent employ by Saul.
David forbidden to build temple, - one reason.  A different reason.
I Chron. xvii. 4-6, 12.  1 Chron. xxviii. 3.
Here is not, as De Wette 4 imagines, a contradiction, but two
concurrent reasons for the same thing, neither of which ex1 See Luke xxiv. 27; Acts i. 8.  2 Gospel History, pp. 245, 246.
a See 2 Sam. xviii. 15.           4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 297.




832           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. 28-26.
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 Abiathar 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.
I 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"2 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.            Eliada.            Beeliada.
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.'i Beeliada"
1 Comp. Bible Commentary on 2 Sam. viii. 17.   2 See Ps. xxxiv. title



HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                   333
is a different form  of " Eliada" — compounded with  Baal,
instead of El.  One " Eliphelet," or "Elpalet," together with
" Nogah," as Rawlinson 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 transcriber'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 performing service."  So Fuerst, Keil, Movers, and Saalscliitz.
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,2 that David and his sons may have been admitted to
" an honorary, titular priesthood."
David tempted by the Lord.3            Tempted by Satan.
The anger of the LORD was kindled   And Satan stood up against 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 siffers 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 "siatin "4
when used, as in the second text, without the article, denotes
IHistory of Israel, iii. 183, 200.
2 Smith's Bible Diet., iii. 2576.
3 See pp. 79-81 iRfra. Also Stanley, History of Jewish Church, p. 52
4 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,l and
Hervey2 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 warriors, - one list.           A cdifferent 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.3
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 Hachmonite, the chief of the captains, he swung his spear over
eight hundred slain at once."  So Hervey, Keil, Kennicott,4
Gesenius,5 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,
" he lifted up, swung, or brandished his spear"; so that the
italic words in the English version are unnecessary.
1Introd. to Old Test., ii. 88.
2 Bible Commentary on 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.
3 See Rawlinson in Bible Commentary on 1 Chron. xi. 26.
4 Dissertations, i. 71-128.
6Thesaurus, pp. 994, 995.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 335
Edomites obstructed Israel's passage.        Permitted it.
Num. xx. 18-21; JictgT. xi. 17, 18.        Dent. 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.'
E'domites refused supplies.               Furnished them.
Num. xx. 19, 20.                  Dent. 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 2 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 corrected his sons.               Did not correct them.
1 Sam. ii. 23 24.                      1 Sam. iii. 13.
That is, he reproved them  either too lepiently, or not till
they had become hardened and ungovernable. His attempts
-at discipline amounted to nothing.
Eliakim succeeded Josiah.             Succeeded Jehoahaz.
2 Kings xxiii. 34.             2 Chron. 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, 36.
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 himself married into the tribe of
Judah.l
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! Most critics, Michaelis, Thenius, Dathe,
Movers, Winer, Keil, Deutsch,2 Grove,5 IHervey, and others,
maintain, however, that the Hebrew expression in Samuel is
defective, and that Chronicles gives the true reading.  Dr.
Kennicott 4 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 wives, - one list.         A different statement.
Judith the daughter of Beeri the   Adah the daughter of Elon the HitHittite, and Bashemath the daughter tite, and Aholibamah the daughter of
of Elon the Hittite. Gen. xxvi. 34.   Anah the daughter of Zibeon the HlvMahalath the daughter of Ishmael, ite. And Bashemath, Ishmael's daughAbraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth. ter, sister of Nebajoth. Gen. xxxvi.
Gen. xxviii. 9.                  2, 3.
Some critics think Esau had six wives; others, five; others,
thfree.  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., i. 697, See, on the other side, Ewald's History of
Israel, iii. 70, and note.
4 Dissertations, i. 78-82.
6 See similar case of the " Levite of Bethlehem-Judah," Judges xvii. 9.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 337
Hlengstenberg,1 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 [graffd-]
daughter of Zibeon the JHivite, is identical with Judith,2 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.3  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,4
of whom, though "dead," Christ said, " She is not dead, but
sleepeth," the very obvious explanation is, that, relatively to his
power, 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.            Ano ther 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 inhabitants, 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.
4 Luke viii. 52 5.3:
29




338           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
grandfathers, or other near relatives.l  This is Keil's view.
On the other hand, Bertheau, Movers, and Rawlinson maintain 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 2 says that the variations between the lists should
not be pronounced " corruptions," unless it could be shown that
they refer to exactly the same time.  The catalogue in Nehemiah 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, I 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 resulting from the idolatry of his grandson.'  Libni and Laadan
are, probably, mere variations of the same name.
Gibeonites were Hivites.            Remnant 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.4 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.
1 See intimation in Luke i. 61. Also see numerous striking examples
cited in Hervey's " Genealogies of our Lord," pp. 141-159.
2 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 137.
3 So Rashi, Kimchi, and the critics.
4 Compare Gen. xv. 16, and Num. xiii. 29; Deut. i. 20, 21.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                  339
Hiram's mother a Naphtalite.                 A Danite.
1 Kings vii. 14.               2 Chron. ii. 14.
Bahr, Blunt,l and Thenius say that she was of the neighboring city "Dan," in the tribe of iNaphtali, bordering upon
Tyre, hence she married a man of the latter country.
Joseph's purchasers nMidianites.         Ishmaelites.
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 similarily of
their customs and mode of life. Lange suggests that Ishmaelites may have been the proprietors of the caravan, which
was made up mostly of Mlidianites.
Moses' wife a Midianite woman.              An Ethiopian.
Ex. ii. 16, 21.                 Num. xii. 1.
Possibly " Cushite" and "Midianite" may be used interchangeably (see Hab. iii. 7). A better solution is that Zipporah
had died, and Moses was married to a woman of Ethiopian
origin.  Ewald2 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.
Obed-edom a Gittite.                  A Levite.
2 Sam. vi. 10.                  1 Chron. xv. 17,18, 21.
He was called ", Gathite," or "c Gittite," because born in the
Levitical city of Gath-rimmon (Keil), or living at Moreshethgath (Ewald).I
Woman a Canaanite.                       A Syro-phenician.
MSatt. 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
Jew4 (see Rom. ii. 9, 10).
We now return from our digression.
Hazael and Jehu anointed by Elijah.       By Elisha.
1 Kings xix. 15, 16.  2 Kings viii. 7-15; ix. 1-10.
The word " anoint," in the first passage, is used figuratively,
Coinci lences, pp. 117,118 (Am. ed.).   2 Hist. of Israel, ii. 178, note.
8 History of Israel, iii. 127.   4 Smith's Bib. Dict., ii. 967, and iv, 8149.




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 " magnified in the
sight of all nations." 1 Thus his fortunes were fully retrieved.
Iezekiah'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.2
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,3 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,4 together with their flocks and herds, finding the
needful sustenance during their wanderings in the desert, it is
1 2 Chron. xxxii. 23, 27-29.
2 Compare 2 Chron. xxx. 2, 8,17-20, and xxxv. 18.
3 Deut. viii. 3, 15.
Ewald says, " about two millions," History of Israel, ii. 196.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                841
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
travellers and scholars assign, for believing that that territory
was far more productive than at present, the following reasons.
Ewald 1: i" 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 inhabitants, which is indisputable in this case."
Stanley,2 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 Niebuhr3 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 4 speaks of the " colonies, chapels, churches, hospices,
convents, bishoprics, and Christian 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 6 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 Ewald6 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).
3Bible Commentary, i. 246.
4 Geography of Palestine and Sinaitic Peninsula, i. 10, 11 (Gage's trans.
lation.
5 Page 29.
6Page 197.
29*




342           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 enjoyed by the Israelites during the forty years' sojourn in the
desert:
1. The miracle of the manna, continued throughout.  Ex.
xvi. 35.
2. The milk and flesh of their flocks 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 yearsand that within the compass of a few hundred miles." It is
altogether probable that, during the thirty-eight years2 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 territory, and engaging somewhat in the cultivation of the soil.
Dr. Davidson3 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. 326, 827. As to stations of Israelites, see under
"c 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 flocks and herds, these found sufficient pasturage
in 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 passage 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.2  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 abominations: 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
oJ the series may simply assert that, so far from imitating the
heathen, the Israelites had gone far beyond them in corruption.
pp. 196, 197.         2 Green's Pentateuch Vindicated, pp 69, 70.
3 See Jer. ii. 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 since instant deliverance 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 adherence 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.
I 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 concerning Pharaoh-nechoh, 2 Kings xxiv. 7; Jer. xxxvii. 5; and
concerning the Syrians, 2 Kings vi. 23, 24.
Israelites resistless.             Not irresistible.
Deut. xi. 25.                Josh. vii. 4; Judg. 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." l
1 Compare Deut. x. 22.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 345
Jacob brought out of Egypt.             lie died in Egypt.
Gen. xlvi. 4.                  Gen. xlix. 83.
The words, " I will there make of thee a great nation," 1 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
Egypt, 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; " trespass," 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. 32.2  In like
manner, the reasons named for Saul's rejection, —" unlawful
sacrifice," 1 Sam. xiii. 12, 13; " disobedience," 1 Sam. xxviii.
18; 6" consulting the necromancer," 1 Chron. x. 13.
Jacob purchased the birthright.    Obtained it by deception.
Gen. xxv. 31-38.             Gen. xxvii. 1-29
This " discrepancy" confounds two things which are entirely distinct - the " birthright " and the " blessing." 3  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. 381.             Heb. xi. 21.
From  the fact that the latter passage speaks of Jacob as'i l ing," 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.
2 In both cases, only males above twenty years of age were reclkoned.
See Ex. xxx. 12-14. The second reckoning, Num. i., was probably based
on the former one. This would account for the agreementin the sum-total.
6 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 " mittih," denotes a bed, 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 Salathiel.      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.
Matt. viii. 5.             Luke vii. 3.
Alford and Ebrard think that Matthew, writing in a condensed style, speaks of the centurion as himself doing that




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                347
which he really accomplished by 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, AMatt. 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,2
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 Elias.              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
was the Elias of his day.  Our Saviour's words, " If ye will
receive it" (if ye can comprehend the meaning of the prophecy),
Compare the obvious meaning of a.m.. in Job iii. 10.
2 Delitzsch on Job, Vol. ii. p. 416.




348           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
" this is Elias which was to come," 1 show that a literal fulfilment
was not intended.
Joseph bound in the prison.             He was not bound.
Gen. xxxix. 20; xl. 8.            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,"2 in whose care Joseph was
placed, many critics, Delitzsch, Keil, Kurtz, Lange, and others
think that he was a subordinate official, to whom  Potiphar intrusted 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 Ishmaelites (xxxvii. 28).
Joshtua 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. xxxiv. 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 twelfth year, began
to overthrow  idolatry, he needed to do the whole work over
again.  The statement that Josiah destroyed the altars which
"JMfanasseh had made"4 is explained by the fact that these
altars had been not "destroyed," but " cast out of the city," by
1MVanasseh,' and were restored by his successor Amon; hence
1 Matt. xi. 14.    2 Gen. xxxix. 21.    3 $mith's Bib. Dict., ii. 146f5.
4 2 Kings xxiii. 12.                2 Chro0i, xxxiii. 15.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANICIES.                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), MatJehoiakim. the third Zedekiah, the taniah (Zedekiah). 2 Kingsxxiii. 30,34;
fourth Shallum. 1 Chron. iii. 15.  xxiv. 17.
Jehoahaz is called Shallum in Jer. xxii. 11.  Bleek 1 thinks
that Shallum assumed the name " Jehoahaz " at his coronation.
In  Rawlinson'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 hleadlong, lie burst asunin the temple, and departed, and went der in the midst, and all his bowels
and hanged himself. Matt. xxvii. 5.  gushed out. Acts i. 18.
Neither of these statements excludes the other.  1M\atthew
does not deny that Judas, ajfter 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 himself from a tree on the brink
of the precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom, and the
limb or the rope giving way, he fell, and was mangled as
described in Acts.
Prof. Hackett,2 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.
TIe 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,
nor how far decomposition was advanced when he fell.
Introd. to Old Test., ii. 67.  2 Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 275, 276.
80




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; Dent. i. 15.              Dent. i. 9-18.
Jethro suggested the appointment to Moses; and the latter,
after obtaining the consent of Jehovah,2 referred the matter to
the people; and the men whom the people nominated he admitted to share his authority, as subordinate judges.8 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
KSster style a "contradiction," Stihelin 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.
1i, 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 inauguration of Joash, 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-20; omitted, 2 Kings
i Theopneusty, p. 117 (Kirk's translation).    2 See Ex. xviii. 23, 24.
3 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 1Midian,
Ex. xviii 2-6; the sending back omitted, Ex. iv. 20; Moses'
fast at his first 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 Abiel.              The son of NVer.
1 Sam. ix. 1; xiv. 50, 51.     1 Chron. viii. 33; ix. 39.
There were probably two men named Ner - one the grandfather, the other the brother of Kish.  Hence the genealogy
would stand thus:
Ner.
Abiel.
Kish.                          Ner.
Saul.                          Abner.
Hervey renders 1 Sam. xiv. 50, 51 thus: "And Kish the
father of Saul, and INer 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 "' apparent 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 16; AMahol's sons, 1 Kings iv. 31 and 1 Ch;roJn. ii. 6;
1 Smith's Bible Dict., iv. 2853, makes Abiel the father of Ner.




352           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Salah's father, Gen. xi. 12 and Luke iii. 35, 36; Samuel's
first-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 I 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; Zerubbabel's father, 1 Chron. iii. 19 and
Ezra iii. 2; Neh. xii. 1.
As to the differences,l some twenty-seven in number, between
the two lists of names, Ezra ii. 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 by 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. Graves2 has a very ingenious argument
in defence of this hypothesis, which is also supported by
Boothroyd, Bush, Geddes, Hervey,3 Josephus,4 and the Samaritan version. But Num. xxvi. 10 seems fatal to this theory.
(2) That, as the passage just named implies, Korah was engulfed, together with Dathan and Abiram.  Ewald,5 Keil,
Kurtz,6 and Knobel adopt the latter view.
The following would seem to have been the circumstances
of the case. Dathan and Abiram, being brothers and Reubenites, probably had tents near together, and with their tribe,
on the south side of the encampment.7  Korah, as a Kohathite,
would pitch his tent "on the side of the tabernacle southward."8
This would bring the three ringleaders into such contiguity
that they could conveniently take counsel together.9
See more than a hundred similar cases collected by Davidson, Introd.
to Old Test., ii. 108-112.
2 On Pentateuch, i. 119, 120.  3 Smith's Bib. Dict., ii. 1576.
4 Antiq. iv. 3, 4.            5 History of Israel, ii. 180.
6 History of Old Covenant, iii. 296. 7 Num. ii. 10.
8 Num. iii. 29.               9 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 fifty 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,l and some of David's
musicians belonged to the same family.2  So that the expression, "all the men that appertained unto Korah" 3 (literally,
"' all unto Korah ") denotes simply his adherents - his servants
and retainers, with, possibly, the adult males of his family.
Lazarus 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
l 1 Chron. vi. 22-28.  2 1 Chron. vi. 31, 83; 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. 80.
The second passage, 1" 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 man," 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 powers well preserved.
And he said unto them, I am a 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 go out and come in: also eye was not dim, nor his natural force
the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt abated. Deut. xxxiv. 7.
not go over this Jordan. Dent. xxxi. 2.
The fact that Moses' eyesight and physical vigor were unimpaired 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.  Reuel or Raguel.    Hobab.
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 " excellency," and about equivalent to the Arabic " Imam."  So
I So Macknight, Paxton, and others.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                355
Aben Ezra, Ewald, Gesenius, Keil, Kimchi, Knobel, 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 remained with the Israelites when his father Jethro returned to
his own land, and to have settled among them.l So Josephus,
Bertheau, and Keil. As to Num. x. 29, the original is ambiguous, 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 "chothdn"
means properly "a relative by marriage," 2 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 fatherin-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.
Dent. xxxiv. 10-12.   1 K. xvii. 22; 2 K. i. 10; ii. 14; iv. &1.
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,
Mboses has never been equalled. In this respect he has no
human peer.
Moses' veil worn in addressing the people.   Not worn at such times.
Ex. xxxiv. 383-35.       2 Cor. iii. 7, 13,
The best commentators agree that the citation from Exodus
Compare Elx. xviii. 27; Num. x. 29-82; 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.




'356          DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
should be rendered, " And when Moses had done speaking with
them, he put a veil," etc.
Naboth's sons slain with him.  Their slaughter not mentioned.
2 Kings ix. 26.                1 Kings 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, Rosenmiiller, 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.    Dent. 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 is
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 Deuteronomy 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.1
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. the 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 Mr. 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 renewed the purchase made by his grandfather. Of this consecrated 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.    Deunt. i. 6, 9, 14; v. 2, 5; xi. 2, 7.
That the congregation which remained after the death of the
1 ee Bible Corn., i. 797, 798.  2 Smith's Bib. Diet., iv. 3114, 3115.
8 Gen. xii. 6, 7.




358            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
rebels might 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 remembered 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.2  Here, then, were
three 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 knew Christ.               They knew 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.
Alforl 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 blindness 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 Bleek3 replies that
Luke is speaking of a certain Samaritan village, while John
refers to a city in the land of Samaria.
Samucel visited Saul no more.   Saul prophesied before hins.
1 Sam. xv. 35.                 1 Sam. xix. 24.
De Wette 4: "It is said that Samuel did not see Saul again
1 Compare Num. i. 2, 3, 45, 46.    2 Num. i. 3, 45, 49.
3 Introd, to New Test., ii 220.    4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 22Q.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 359
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.
Saul's 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 distint
meanings, to perceive sound, and to understand.2  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 be fixed, to be rooted to the spot.  Hence the sense may be,
not that they stood erect, but that they were rendered motionless, 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.3
Saul chosen king by lot.   Chosen by the Lord.   Demanded by people.
1 Sam. 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.4
Saul's death, - one manner.            A different manner.
I 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 doubtless colored by its author to suit the supposed occasion.
Saul inquired of the Lord.           Did not thus inquire.
1 Sam. xxviii. 6.                 1 Chron. x. 14.
See Gesenius, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 951, Rem. g.
2 On use of aKcovC with different cases, see Winer's Grammar of N. T.
Idiom, pp. 199, 200 (Thayer's edition); also, Buttmann's Grammar, pp.
165, 166.
3 Compare Hackett, Commentary on Acts ix. 7.
4 Ewald's History of Israel, iii. 25.




3g 0          DISCREPANCIES OF 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 sunk in the depths of sin and shame.
Saul's family died with him.     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.l Houbigant, Kennicott,2 Michaelis, Eichhorn, Dathe,
and Bertheau, on this account, deem  these verses "interpolations." But such critics as De Wette, Thenius, Ewald,3
1 Davidson on Hebrew Text, pp. 57, 58.    2 Dissertations, ii. 418-430
a History of Israel, iii., 71, note.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                  361
Bleek, Styhelin, 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 ir"-'Gauent
occasions),2 and nothing whatever as to his family c.llneccln...
Saul's ignorance of the young hero may be ac oounlted for
upon some one or more of the following consid(erations:
1. Possible anticipation of events, or transposition of passages. Orientalhistorians sometimes pursue the leading idea of
the narrative to its result, and then return to fill up the omitted
details.3  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.4
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 Abarbanel and Bertholdt.
5. Ignorance of Saul, not as to David himself, but as to his
family,5 of which, as we have seen, Abner might well be
Introd. to Old Test., i. 580.
2 See p. 331 infra, " David's detention."
3 See Bible Commentary on 1 Sam. xvi. 21.
4 Thomson (Land and Book, ii. 866, American edition), speaking of the
sudden chanre of bloys in such cases, says: " They not only spring into
full-grt wn manhood as if by magic, but all their former beauty disappears;
tteir 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 I
without difficulty recognize them." Mr. Thomson thinks that David, having returned to shepherd life, had probably undergone a change like that
abcve described, hence was not recognized by Saul.
K So KIutz in Herzog's Real-Encykllopiidie, iiiM. g00.
81




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, val:ant
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
"stripling" denotes, says Gesenius, "a youth, young man of
marriageable age." Fuerst, c" properly, a strong one."
Satan under restraint.      Siffered to roam at liberty.
2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude vi.   Job i. 6, 7; 1Pet. v. 8; Rev. xii. 12.
While 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 suffered
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 2 thinks
that " chains of darkness " signify metaphorically misery, obdurateness 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 en.slave them.
1 Kings 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 oppressive to the people in general. Enforced service, even though
it be paid service, is commonly deemed distasteful and burdensome.
1 See chap. xvii. 25.        2 Introd. to New Test., iii. 438.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.             363
Zedekiah carried to Babylon.      Did not see Babylon.
Jer. xxxiv. 8.    2 Kings xxv. 7; Ezek. xii. 13.
The first passage does not assert that Zedekiah should actually 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 headquarters 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; receivers of Moses' book, Deut. xxxi. 9 and 25, 26; reception
of promises, HIeb. xi. 13, 39, and 33; remover of stone, Gen.
xxix. 2 and 4; speaker in a given case, Miatt. 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 popular modes of thought
and speech, common to all ages and countries —will furnish
difficulty to persons possessed of candor and common sensetwo qualities which the Bible invariably demands and presupposes in its readers.
II. CO.NCERi NIG   -PLACES.
Aaron died upon Mount Hor.            Died 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 1 thinks Mosera was the general name of the district in
which Mount Hor is situated.
1 Kitto, iii. 221.




364{           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Abraham's destination Canaan.               Unknown to him.
Gen. xii. 5.                       Heb. xi. 8.
At first, the name of the country was not revealed to him.L
It is designated simply as a "land that I will show thee" (Gen.
xii. 1).  Even if the name " Canaan" had been mentioned to
Abrahanl 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.
I Kings xxi. 1, 19.                  1 Kings xxii. 37, 38.
Gerlach, Keil, Rawlinson, and others think  that the prediction 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.2 Bihr maintains that the
word "place," 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 sepullchres.
2 Kings xvi. 20.              2 Chron. xxviii. 27.
If Ahaz lwas 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 him to Jehu: and when
him, and said, Smite him also in the they had slain him, they buried him.
chariot. Alnd they did so at the going 2 Chron. xxii. 9.
up to Gur, which is by Ibleam. And
he fled to iMegiddo, and died there.
2 Kings ix. 27.
1 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 condensed, and is supplementary to the other. The closing words,
"and when they had slain him, they buried him," indirectly
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.2
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."3 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."4  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 occurred.  The Amalekites and Canaanites "came down" from
the heights above to this 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
MIloses the Israelites were not permitted to appropriate.  But
the Amorites had, at some time in the past, overpowered the
Ammonlites, and wrested from them a large portion of their
See 2 Kings ix. 28.
2 Smith's Bible Diet., i. 48.
8 Compare Bible Commentary on 2 Kings ix. 27.'Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, under "emek," p.2, p. 476.




366           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
territory.  This tract — Sihon being its king and Heshbon its
capital -was reconquered, and (apparently with the tacit consent 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.
Rasbi, 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 tile midst of the encampment.2  Abarbanel, Nachmanides, 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,3 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,4 Kurtz,5 and Winer, the
Hebrew  word rendered "returned" means to turn away, or
to turn back; and the attainment of the object is not included
in the word itself.  Hence we may read, with Keil, "went
and turned towards his place."
Ewald, History of Israel, ii. 204, 205, 295.
2 Conciliator, i. 246, 247; Prideaux, Connections, i. 310, 311 ((harlestown,
Mass. 1815).
3 Josh. iii. 3-6.
4 History of Balaam and his prophecies, pp. 508, 509.
6 History of O. C., iii. 458,




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 367
Beasts slxin at door of tabernacle.      Slain elsewhere.
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.l
Benjamin born 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 bad 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 2 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 appearances 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 History, p. 335, 336.
2 History of Old Covenant, i. 376, 377.




368           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 different occasions.  Stanley2 says that the words in Luke should
be rendered " a level place,"3 and not "the plain."  He describes 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 Judah.           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 inadequate,4 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 sometimes to Dan.' The statement in Judges xviii. 1, that " the inheritance 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,
11 Cor. xv. 6.                    2 Sinai and Palestine, p. 360.
8 Greek eTrl T 4rou 7rE&vwo.      4 Josh. xix. 47.
5 Compare Keil on Josh. xix. 40-48.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 369
Keil, Kimchi, and Rashi take the words as meaning, " no adequate 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.l Differences in the names are due to copyists.
Country of the Gergesenes.         Country of the Gadarenes.
Matt. viii. 28.                      Mark v. 1.
A general geographical designation applying to the territory
in which Gadara and Gergesa were situated.2
David took Metheg-ammah.                   Captured Gat7~.
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. HIivernick: 3,, David took the
rein of dominion out of the hand of the Philistines."  Ewald: 4
"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 Jerusalem," 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,5 Hervey, and Stanley6 think that " the wood
1 Josh. xix. 1, 9.
- See Smith's Bible Dict., Art. "' Gadara." Some of the best critics,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, etc., give a different reading in the first passage,
agreeing with that of the second.
3 Introd. to Old Test., p. 208.  V4 ol. iii. 148.
5 Vol. ii. 821, 322; iii. 186, note.  Sinai and Palestine, pp. 822, 3823.




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 Ephraimites long before in that vicinity.l
Forces stationed in certain places.    In different places.
2 Kings 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." 2 Keil
maintains 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 prominently 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 thresholds" (Chronicles).  Here is no discrepancy.
Goliath's armor put in David's tent.      Carried to Nlob.
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 3 sees here, Ewald 4
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 wise reasons, and for a brief time only, Paul was not
1 See Judg. xii. 1-6.                2 See 2 Kings xi. 3-5.
8 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 216.     4 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 1 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; anid
that they doubtless were spread over a large extent of territory,
in quest of water and pasturage for their flocks and herds.
Prof. Porter2 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 territory; and that when they moved, it was, as Prof, Palmer 3 says,
" in Bedawin order, subdivided into numerous encampments,
and spread over an immense surface of country."
Many critics agree with Kurtz 4 that the stations mentioned
in Num. xxxiii. 19-36 are simply the places successively occupied 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. 19-36 must be regarded in the light of a circuit,
which was made through the desert by Moses and the tabernacle."  Prof. J. L. Porter,5 Dieterici,6 Davidson,7 and Messrs.
Espin8 and Cook take a similar view.  Dr. Robinson9 also
maintains that " the stations as enumerated refer to the headquarters of Moses and the elders, with a portion of the people
who kept near them; while other portions preceded or followed
1See p. 842 infra.           2 Kitto's Cyclopedia, iii. 1075.
3 Desert of Exodus, p. 433.  4 History of Old Covenant, iii. 301.
5 Kitto, iii. 1079.          6 See in Kurtz, iii. 90.
7 Introd. to Old Test., i. 326, 37. 8 Bible Commentary, i. 654, 720.
9 Bib. Researches, i. 106 (1st edition).




372          DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
them at various distances as the convenience of water and pas.
turage might dictate."  Prof. Porter thinks that the number of'" marshal]ed 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 2 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.  HIence,
Num. xxi. 11 -xxii. 1, seven places are mentioned between
Ije-abarim and the plains of Moab; in iNum. xxxiii. 44-48,
only three places.
In Num. xxxiii. 30-33, we find the names Moseroth, Benejaakan, Hor-hagidgad, and Jotbathah; in Deut. x. 6, 7 they
stand thus: Beeroth3 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.4
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. 826, and Keil on Num. xxi. 16-20.
2 History of Old Covenant, iii. 384.
3 That is, "wells of Bene-jaakan" = Bene-jaakan in the other passage.
4 See Hengstenberg, Gen. of Pent. ii. 355-357; Kurtz, Hist. of Old Coy.,
iii. 254, 255.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.              373
Kurtz I 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, Dent. iii. 27; from  Nebo, Deut. xxxiv. 1.
Simeon's cities and towns, one list, Josh. xix. 2-6; a varying
list, 1 Chron. 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, respectively, as above. So Reland, Rabbi Schwarz, and Stanley2
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,3
Mr. Hayman,4 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.5  It is the opinion of Fries, Hengstenberg, Keil,
]Kurtz, Raumer, Robinson, and others that the Israelites were
twice at Kadcesh -once in the second year, and again in the
fortieth year of their wanderings.6 Ewald thinks that "Kadesh
See authorities cited, History of Old Covenant, iii. 220.
2 Sinai and Palestine, pp. 93, 94, notes.
3 Desert of Exodus, p. 420.
4 Smith's Bible Dict., ii. 1519.
6 See Smith's Bible Diet., Art. " Paran."
e Kurtz iii. 246, 247, 305-309.
82




374            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
was only the resting-place of Moses and the tabernacle, and the
meeting-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 MIoses and Aaron transgressed, an(l
offended Jehovah.
Israel's boundary the Euphrates.         A different limit.
Gen. xv. 18; Dent. xi. 24; 2 Sam.viii. 3. Num. xxxiv. 10-12; Josh. xiii.9-12.
Keil suggests that these different passages give the limitsthe 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,2 Hervey, and Newman s 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 Jerusalem.
Against him came up Nebuchad-   So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers.
nezzar king 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 te
the frost, Jer. xxxvi. 30.
Bertheau, Hasse, and Mlovers think that the Hebrew of tile
first passage implies that Jehoiakim  was not actually carried
to Babylon. Bleek4 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. 188.            2 History of Israel, iii. 150, note.
8 History of Hebrew Monarchy, p. 80. 4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 72, 73.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 375
carrying him 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 burialplace, so that, ultimately, the unhappy prince " slept with his
fathers."  Winer1 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 2 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 mentioned.
Jeroboam's residence Shec7em.        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. B]ihr suggests that Tirzah may have been
merely a summer residence of this monarch.
Jerusalem in Judah.                  In land of Beijamin,
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,8 so that it
might be popularly assigned to either tribe.  Stanley,4 indeed,
maintains that the Jebusite fortress stood upon "neutral ground
in the very meeting-point of the two tribes"; and Lightfoot5
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. sxxv.14; Deut. i.1; Josh. i.14. Josh. xii.7; xxii.7; lChron. xxvi. 30.
The expression "this side Jordan," like its Hebrew  equivblent,6 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 Fu.erst, Gesenius, and
others.
1 Real-Worterbuch, i. 595.  " Replies to Essays and Reviews, p. 434.
3 Smith's Bible Dict, ii. 1273.  4 Sinai and Palestine, p. 175.
6 Prospect of Temple, chap. 1. 6 See different senses, Num. xxxii.19, 82.




376            DISCREPANCIES OF 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 conquered 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. All 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.
chariotdeadifrom Megiddoand brought and lie 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.'
Latw 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 4 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,6 Robinson, Palmer,7 Rbdiger, Ritter, Kurtz, Dr.
J. P. Thompson,8 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.
1Sacred Hermeneut., p. 551.   2 See use in Gen. xx. 3.
3 Compare Zech. xii. 11.      4 Sinai and Palestine, 31, note.
6 History of Israel, ii. 43, note.    6 Gen. of Pent., ii. 327.
Desert of Exodus, p. 103.    8 Smith's Bible Diet., iv. 8054.




HISTORICAL 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 Kings 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, fromn 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 cdmmon 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 1 thinks
that the words "in the place which the Lord thy God shall
choose" 2 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. 8.    Josh. xxiv. 1, 26.
Masius, Michaelis, and other critics say that'miqdiish,"
1 History of Old Covenant, iii. 218.    2 In Deut. 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.2  This place,
however, was different from  the "sanctuary" proper, where
the ark had its seat.  Hengstenberg3 has clearly shown that
the phrase " before God " does not invariably imply the presence
of the sacred ark or tabernacle.
Solomon's ships went to Ophir.  They went to Tarshish.
1 Kings ix. 26-28.   1 Kings x. 22; 2 Chron. ix. 21.
Rawlinson thinks that different fleets are intended; also
that the name c" 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 establishments 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.
Bihr, Bleek,5 Davidson,6 DeWette, Ewald, Gesenius, Havernick, Movers, Winer, and Mr. Twistleton,7 however, take the
expression " ships of Tarshish," not as denoting that these vessels
actually went to Tarshish, but that they were of the kind ordinarily.employed in commerce with that place. That is, " Tarshishships," like our term " East-Indiamen," would loosely indicate
the larger class of merchant vessels. On this hypothesis, the
chronicler 8 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.
1 See Geln. xii. 6, 7.           2 Gen. xxxiii. 19; xxxv. 2, 4
a Gen. of Pent. ii. 32-46.       4 1 Kings x. 22.
5 Introd. to Old Test., i. 441.  6 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 90.
7 Smith's Bible Dict., iv. 3178-3181. See references, p. 8180.
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 1 finds, in 1 KIings 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 2 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 " 51on tabor," rendered plain of Tabor
in vs. 3, means, according to Fuerst, Gesenius, and the Septuagint, oak of Tabor.  Keil and Ewald3 say, the " terebinth of
Tabor "; the latter adding that " Tabor" is certainly only "a
dialectic variation" for "Deborah," and, with Thenius, maintaining that the tree in question was that under which Deborah
was buried.4  There is not the least proof that Mount Tabor is
here intended.
1 See in Davidson's Introd. to Old Test., ii. 36, 87.
2 In Davidson, Vol. i. 515.
3 History of Israel, iii. 21, and note.
4 Gen. xxxv. 8.




380           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
III. CONCERNING 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.2  These
two facts indicate at once the cause and the solution of the
numerical discrepancies of scripture. For, when = denotes 2;
=, 20; 3, 50; and A, 80; when - stands for 4, ei for 4000,'
for 200, and r 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 3 employs
the term " monogenes," only-begotten, in this latter sense.
Absalom had three sons.                 He had no sons.
2 Sam. 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-five.  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.  2 See pp. 21-24, infra.
8 See Antiq. i. 13, 1, and xx. 2, 1.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                381
The other cases, some twenty in number, which appear from
a comparison of Ezra ii. 6-65, 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 follows:
Ezra, ii. 69.               Nehemiah, vii. 70-72.
Gold, 61000 drams (a copyist's mis- Gold, from Tirshatha, 1,000 drams
take).                            from chief fathers, 20,000  "
" people,    20,000  "
41,000
Silver, 5000 lbs. (a round number).  Silver, from Tirshatha,    500 lbs
" chief fathers, 2,000"
"  people,     2,000",4,7(00"
Garments, 100 (a round number).    Garments, given by Tirshatha,  80
"    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;
iNehemiah'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 +
494 - 31583. If from the whole amount, 42360, given by
both authors, we deduct 31583, the remainder will be 10777;
"' omitted," says Davidson,2 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 men.
Josh. viii. 3-9.              Josh. viii. 12.
The Jewish interpreters 3 maintain that there were two ambuscades. 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, 832. Compare Bib. Comment. in loc.
2 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 554.
8Conciliator, ii. 11.




382           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Septuagint;1 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, 7', 30000,
for in, 5000.
Upon the same hypothesis, that of the confounding of similar
numeral letters, may be explained all such cases as the following: Chapiter's length, 5 cubits, i Kings vii. 16; 3 cubits,
2 Kings xxv. 17.  Deaths by plague, 24000, Num. xxv. 9;
23000, 1 Cor. x. 8 (Paul2 may have intended to include only
those who fell " in one day "). Edomites slain, 18000, 2 Sam.
viii. 13 and 1 Chron. xviii. 12; 12000,3 Ps. lx. title (the slaughter
is attributed to king David, to his general-in-chief, and to a
subordinate, according to a common figure of speech).  Foreskins, 200, 1 Sam. xviii. 25, 27; 100, 2 Sam. iii. 14. Hdrsemen, 700, 2 Sam. viii. 4; 7000, 1 Chron. xviii. 4 (Nun final,
], mistaken for dotted Zayin, i).4 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 different 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.5  Or, with Bathr
and Keil, we may say that ~, 2000, has been confounded with
5, 3000).  Officers, - chief, 550, 1 Kings 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 slight slip" of Paul's pen.
3 Ewald says (iii. 157, note), "a clerical error."
4 Davidson, Sacred Hermenenutics, p. 544.
5 So Rawlinson; also, Taylor's Calmet.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                383
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).2  Pomegranates,
200, 1 Kings vii. 20; 400, 1 Kings vii. 42 and 2 Chron. iv.
13; 100, Jer. lii. 23; 96 on a side, Jer. lii. 23 (if the two
pillars had each two rows, with 100 pomegranates in a row,
the first three numbers are accounted for. Biihr 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 (t, the initial letter of the Hebrew
words for three and eight, being used as an abbreviat;ion, a
mistake arose).3  Persons slain, 5, 2 Kings, xxv. 19; 7, Jer.
lii. 25 (n, 5, confounded with I, 7).  Stalls, 40000, 1 Kings iv.
26; 4000, 2 Chron. ix. 25"'(Ewald 4: Hebrew terms for four
and forty confounded). Talents, 420, 1 Kings ix. 28; 450,
2 Chron. viii. 18 (:, 20, confounded with,. 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).5 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.
2 Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 548, 549.
3 Kennicott, Dissertations, i. 95, 96.
4 History of Israel, iii. 170, note. See another solution, Davidson's
Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 548.
5 Keil, 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, Davidsonl 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, Winer2 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 15. Reviling malefactors, M3att. 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).3
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,4 as well as
Josephus, Keil, Kurtz, and others,5 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 collision. Upon the same theory of reference to different occasions
or times, we may readily solve cases like the following: Benjamin's sons, Gen. xlvi. 21, and Num. xxvi. 38, 40; 1 Chroln.
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).6 Captives, 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16
1 Introd. to New Test., i. 86.   2 Grammar of New Test. Idiom, p. 175.
3 Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 562.   Conciliator, i. 233.
5 See Bible Commentary on Lev. xxiii.
6 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, lNum. xxxv. 13: Josh. xx. 7, 8 and Deut. iv.
41 (Moses himself appointed three cities, and Joshua subsequently confirmed this appointment, and added three 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 " IHavoth"
were properly "villages" or "small hamlets," it might be
difficult to fix their number exactly.  According to Keil and
Bertheau,2 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 sons who died early). 3Michal'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."
Ewald3 and De Wette 4 say, with the greatest probability, that
Michal, in the first passage, is a copyist's mistake for Jerab).
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). Simeonites, Num.. i. 23 and Num. xxvi. 14 (here may be a numerical error; or, since Zimri, one of the ringleaders, was a
Simeonite, the 24000 who died in the matter of Baal-Peor5
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.   2 Die Biicher der Chronik, pp. 16,17.
3 Vol. iii. 74, note; also p. 136.  4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 219.
~ Num. xxv. 6-14.         6 Sacred Hermeneutico, p. 548




386           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
the articles intended for Hiram's household; the second, those
for his workmen).
Angels seen, one seated.     Twvo standing..    Two seated.
Matt. xxviii. 2, 5; Mark xvi. 5.   Luke xxiv. 4.  John xx. 12.
Ebrard,1 with other critics, has made it clear that these passages relate to different 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,
mary 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.; I 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, Mlatt. xx. 30 and Mark x. 46; Luke xviii. 35, 38
(some think there were three 2 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.3  Others give to the Greek
verb in Luke the sense to be nigh or near,4 and take the
iassage as meaning simply that Jesus was still near the city;
Mark and Luke mentioning only the better known of the two
Gospel History, pp. 447, 448, 452.
2 So Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 558, 559.
3 See Ebrard, pp. 362-366.
See eyyt[C 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 Kings xi. 32, 36 and xii. 21 (of the two contiguous 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, 8.
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.l Abarbanel 2 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, twenty-nine.   Thirty-eight in number.
Josh. xv. 32.                       Josh. xv. 21-382.
Rashi, Kimchi, and MIenasseh ben Israel3 call attention to
1 Bible Commentary, in loc.               2 Conciliator, i. 87.'Conciliator, ii. 22, 28.




388           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 occupied 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 therefore 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.
fMr. Espin 2 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  Jechonias to Christ, inclusive in each case. So Alford, Robinson,
1 See some eight solutions in Kitto, ii. 828-825.
2 Bible Commentary, in loc.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 389
Gardiner, and others.  Ebrard1 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 Lightfoot, that certain kings are omitted by Matthew
because of their great wickedness, and their intermarriage
with, or descent from, heathen women.2 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" (Jehoiachin); and there is no deficiency.
Jacob's family, seventy persons.        Seventy-five persons.
Gen. xlvi. 27.                 Acts vii. 14.
Jacob's  children, grandchildren, and  great-grandchildren
amounted to sixty-six.4  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.5
People, - number.                    A different statement.
2 Sam. xxiv. 9.                       1 Chron. xx'. 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 public records.
1 Gospel History, pp. 149, 150. As the pedigree is "juridical, and not
strictly genealogical," he reckons Mary herself as one of the third series.
2 See Denut. vii. 2-4; Ezra ix. 1, 2.
3 On Mythical Interpretation of Gospels, pp. 150-161.
4 Gen. xlvi. 8-26.    5 Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, pp, 582, 583.
833*




390           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Or there may be copyist's errors in one or both cases. An
elaborate explanation based upon the supposition that the difference is due to the inclusion or exclusion of the standing
army may be seen in Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics.l
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 Ornan 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 Ornan 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, " miqom," - 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 Newman2 thinks, held merely as hostages, —made
up the one thousand.  Ginsburg, Kleuker, Miagnus, and Rosenmuller take the expression in Canticles as a poetical one,
denoting simply a large number. Zdckler 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; Deut. x. 5; 1 Kings viii. 9.
We have previously seen that the " book of the law" was
1 Pp. 546, 547. Also, Bib. Comrn. on 1 Chron. xxi. 5.   2 See p. 296 infra.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                391
not put into, but by the side of, the ark.l  The text from
Hebrews, which asserts that the " pot of manna " and "Aaron's
rod " were in the ark, probably refers to the original arrangement.  Later the two were removed.
Unclean birds, twenty.             Twenty-one mentioned.
Lev. xi. 13-19.                    Dent. xiv. 12-18.
The Hebrew terms "ddiaih" and "raiih," translated, in the
first and second passages, respectively, vulture and glede, differ
only in their initial letters b and'.  Critics generally assume
a slight error of transcription in the case. On this hypothesis,
if we drop the superfluous word 1"dayyah" (omitted in the
Samaritan version, the Septuagint, and several riss.2) rendered
vulture in the second passage, the discrepancy vanishes. Or,
with Aben Ezra and Keil, we may take the term "riirih," in
the second passage, as the name of the genus which includes
the several species, some of which are subsequently named.3
Visitors at the sepulchre.        Different statements.
One woman. John xx. 1.        Three women. Mark xvi. 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 everywhere 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
l Deut. xxxi. 26.          2 Daviclson, on Hebrew Text, p. 37.
3 Ben Gershon thinks that:tm keen-sighted, and nt;  (jIn} another
form of the same. word) swiftfy/'ing, both denote the same bird. See
Conciliator, i. 225. Also, compare Wood's Bible Animals, p. 360.




392           DISCREPANCIES OF 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 parties2
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 Magdalene 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 difficulty as to the time of the visit to the tomb.'
IV. 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,4 - the
use of different methods of reckoning time, and the grouping
of events not chronologically, but upon the principle of association, -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,
See Robinson's English Harmony, p. 181.  2 See Kitto, ii. 582, 585.
8 Comp. pp. 327-330 infra.           4 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 oldl' 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,2 Keil, Kurtz,3
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 4 observes, "We are not told from what point of
time the forty years are reckoned." But Josephus,5 followed
by Ewald,6 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: I, 3, mistaken
for T, 7). Jerusalem burned, 2 Kings xxv. 8 and Jer. lii. 12
(Bahr: t, 7, confounded with b, 10). Jerusalem captured, Jer.
xxxvi. 9 and Dan. i. 1 (Pusey7 thinks that the bare mention
that Jehoiakim was captured implies that the city was not then
captured.  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 spiritually dead —"dead in
trespasses and sins";8 "alienated from  the life of God."9
Also, in a physical point of view, death began then to prey
l Davidson, Sacred Hlermeneutics, p. 528; also, Hackett on Acts.
2 Vol. i. 325, note.: Vol. i. 204, 205.
4 Introd. to Old Test., ii. 212. 5 Ant. vii. 9, 1.
6 Vol. iii. 170, note.  7 Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, p. 399.
8 Eph. ii. 1.           9 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 following: 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," 2 as
being the first that assailed Israel, or as pre-eminent3 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
that now known as Jiljilia or Jiljuflieh;4 the site of the other
is not determined).  Hebrews, -land, Gen. xl. 15 and Josh.
i. 11 (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," 5 although the latter had not as yet taken possession
of it. Besides, Joseph doubtless knew very well that, according'Num. xxiv. 2,16.
2 See Num. xxiv. 20.
3 See same Hebrew expression in Amos vi. 1.
4 Robinson, Later Bib. Res., pp. 138, 139
5 This name seems to mean " trans-Euzphratics," that is, those who had
come across the Euphrates. See Josh. xxiv. 14; also Kurtz, i. 167-169,
and Gesenius, Thesaurus, 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 the original name was Hebron;
afterwards Kirjath-arba was substituted; then the old name
Hebron was revived.  Quite similar has been the fate of Jerusalem. 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 "2Elia Capitolina."  Not till the reign of Constantine 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,2 in which case Num. xiii. 16 should be rendered, "And
Moses had called Oshea,Y" etc.).  Kings in Israel, Gen. xxxvi.
31 and I 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 4
to Abraham and Jacob that kings should spring from them).
Levites' land, Lev. xxv. 32-34; INum. 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).5 Ophir, Gen. x. 29 and 1 Kings 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 Palmer, pp. 54, 55; also, Smith's Bible Diet., ii. 1309.
2 Ex. xvii. 9.
3 So Rosenmiller, Eichhorn, and Kanne; and substantially Hengstenberg
and Ranke.
4 Gen. xvii. 6, 16; xxxv. 11.
6 See Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1699, 1700.




396           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
is recorded previous to the giving of the law at Sinai).  Tabernacle, 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,'"mishklin," 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 Cler, and Rosenmiiller. Otherwise, it may have been
Mioses' own tent, set apart for this temporary purpose.  So
the Septuagint, Syriac, Aben Ezra, Rashi, Keil, Kurtz, and
Wogue).  Temple, 1 Sam. i. 9; iii. 3, and 1 Kings vi. 14 (the
Hebrew word "' hekil," 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"). Templemount, 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).2   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).
Ahab died in 19th year of Jehoshaphat.    In his 17th 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.               2 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 2 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 Bdhr.  Taking these facts into account,
together with the use of round numbers, and of different and
sometimes obscure eras of computation,s 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 be judged by
their own standards, not by 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., i. 439; also, compare pp. 11-14 infra, where;ha subject is discussed more fully.
2 Conciliator, ii. 86.
3 Browne, " Ordo Saeclorum," p. 221-248, maintains that some of the
reigns 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 explanation adopted by Gesenius' and most critics is, that the
copyist mistook one numeral letter for another --, 20, for I, 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,2 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, I 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). Amaziah's reign began in the fourth year of Joash, 2 Kings xii. 1;
xiii. 10; in the second year, 2 Kings xiv. 1 (Rawliuson 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.3 Baasha, beginning
in Asa's third year, reigned twenty-four years.4  Asa's ten
years of peace may have occurred after Baasha's death.  Or,
possibly, there may have been ten years of their contemporaneity, during which, though there was "war" i.e. unreI He says, "Geschichte der HIeb. Sprache und Schrift," p. 174, " Nach
2 KRin. viii. 26 ist offenbar zu lesen 22 (~M fMir =M)."  Lightfoot and Ben
Gershon think that, in Chronicles, the whole reign of the house of Omri
is reckoned in, to malke the forty-two; thus, Omri 6 + Ahab 22 + Alhaziahl
2 + Joram 12 = 42. It is a singular fact that this peculiarly rabbinic
method of computation will, in a considerable number of cases, remove
apparent discrepancies. - See Conciliator, passim.
2 2 Chron. xxi.. 18, 19.
31 Kings xv. 10.
4 1 Kings xv. 88.




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-partnership with his father, but the sixteenth since he began to reign
alone.  The best critics maintain that in, 27, has been confounded with 7, 15).2  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 principle 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 rabbies"  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. Browne5 admits
an interregnum, or a period of anarchy, lasting eight years).
I See Browne's Ordo Saeclortm, pp. 231-234.
2 Compare the translator's note in Biihr, p. 151.
3 Davidson, Vol. ii. p. 22, and Ewald, Vol. iv. 167, with the Septuagint,
Syriac, and Arabic of 2 Chron. xxviii. 1, make Ahaz twenty-five years old
at his accession.
4 Conciliator, ii. 98, 99.
Ordo Saeclorum, p. 242. He thinks hat. Isa. ix. 17-21 refers to this
period of anarchy.




400           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE,
Ishbosheth's reign two years, 2 Sam. ii. 10; apparently some
seven years, 2 Sam. ii. 11; v. a (Ewald I and Keil maintain
that, after Saul's death, five years were spent in warfare
against the Philistines, before Ishbosheth was anointed king
over Israel).
Jeloahaz's reign begun in the twenty-third year of Joash,
2 Kings xiii. 1; about the nineteenth year, 2 Kings x. 36; x:ii.
1 (Biihr thinks that ~=, 23, has been substituted, in the first
text, for Em, 21).2  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 a, 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 twentyseventh day of the month, 2 Kings xxv. 27; on the twentyfifth 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 first, 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 hisfourth
year). Joram of Israel, -reign begun in the second year of
Jehoram of Judah, 2 Kings i. 17; apparently five years before,
Vol. iii. 113.
2 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.M  Or, with MIr. Bullock,2 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. contemporary with Uzziah (Azariah) fourteen years, 2 Kings xiv.
23; xv. 1; thirty-eight years, 2 Kings xv. 8 (Bihr, Thenius,
and Wolff say that in xiv. 23 we should read fifty-one, b:, for
forty-one, Nn; Ewald 3 says fifty-three.  Browne 4 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 1:, 27, is put here by mistake for I  15.
Some5 suppose an interregnum of eleven or twelve years
between the death of Jeroboam and the accession of his son).
Josiah's reformation in his twelfth 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 newlydiscovered 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 connection with him four years.6  Some Jewish critics maintain
that " the twentieth year of Jotham" means the twentieth from
See Davidson, Sac. Herm., p. 550.   2 Smith's Bible Dict., ii. 1178.
8 Vol. iv. p. 118.              4 Ordo Sacclorum, p. 239, note
6 Ordo Saeclorum, loc. cit.     6 See Sac. Herm., p. 550.
84*




402            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
the beginning of his reign, that is, the fourth year of his suce
cessor Ahaz.  Bihr thinks the thirtieth verse an interpolation).
Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year, Jer. lii. 12; eighteenth year,
Jer. li. 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 commanderin-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 Rawlinson 2 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
-eign over the whole).3  Pekah's reign twenty years, 2 Kings
xv. 27; about thirty, 2 KIings xv. 32, 33; xvii. 1 (Bahr thinks
that Z, 20, has been substituted improperly for 1,, 30. Oppert
and Lenormant4 assert, upon the authority of the Assyrian inscriptions, 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, I Sam. xiii. 1, 2, the
1He says that the father " conferred upon his son Nebuchadnezzar, now
a man, some share of the government." See Hengstenberg's Genuineness of Daniel, p. 50.
2 Historical Illustrations, pp. 168, 169 (Alnerican edition).
1 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 Untersuchungen
fiber die biblische Chronik, pp. 54, 55, note (a). For tabular and synchronistic lists of the kinrs of Judah 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. 82.
Parker 1: " It may have been rebuilt in the interval."
Amalekites utterly destroyed.   Overthrown at a later period.
1 Sam. xv. 7, 8.             1 Sam. xxx. 1, 17.
The Hebrew expression in the first passage is, literally,
"devoted to destruction," and means no more than that he
destroyed all whom  he caught.  The words " all the people"
are to be interpreted, as Thenius' says, " with a restriction,"
an& 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 critics3 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 difficulty 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 Palestine, 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
quickly (" maher "), Dent. ix. 3; yet not at once (" mahr "),
Deut. vii. 22, the Hebrew term is employed in these two cases
Dc Wctte's Introd. to Old Test., ii. 177, note.
2 Die Bieher Samuels, p. 68.: Compare Bib. Corn. Intrbd., to Judges, pp. 123-125. On this hypothesis, we must read in Judg. i. 1, "after the death of ilMoses," 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 suggestedl (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 remaining 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 capturing 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.                406
Ewald,' in his sketch of the "never-ending hostilities and
counter-hostilities of those early times," hits the mark precisely.
Hlaving 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
c  the Hebrews might easily achieve most extraordinary momentary 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 inhabitants, 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.  Debir 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 2 suggests that the latter passage may refer to a
successor of the king mentioned in the former. Kjinig3 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.4  Or, the vow or ban made by
Moses may not have been fully carried out till the time of
Joshua.  Kurtz 5 suggests that the city may not have been conquered at the same time with its king, or that Hormah may have'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.
8 Alttestamentliche Studien, i. 22.
4 Some have reckoned three places with this name. Num. xiv. 45 may
mean, unto the place now known as Hormah.
Vol. ii. iii 335.




406           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
been recaptured by the Canaanites, and only definitively conquered 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. a (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 di'ferent 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, first, 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, IHivernick, 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.1
Apostles called at one time.       At a dizerent time.
John i. 85-43.    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.  Ebrard2 has shown that this 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 temporary 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
1 See Acts x. 3, 13, 15, and ix. 6, 10-16.
2 Gospel History, sections 44, 51, and 70.




408           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Galilee, or to preach the nearness of the "kingdom of heaven ").
Creation, - one order, Gen. i. 11-27; another order, Gen. ii.
4-7, 9, 19-22 (it is conceded by the best authoritiesl 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 following 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." 2
The narrative in the second chapter is "wholly unchronological," 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).3 Feast of unleavened bread instituted before the exode,
Ex. xii. 15; afterwards at Succoth, Ex. xiii. 3 (the second text
1 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.
a 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 lie).
Levites set apart during the sojourn at Sinai, Num. iii. 6; viii.
14; apparently not till later, Deut. x. 6-8 (Rashi,2 Hengstenberg,3 and others say that vs. 6 and 7 of Deut. x. are parenthetical; 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 "4 in these lists do not
absolutely prove the identity of the persons.  Rawlinson"
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
sacrfice. 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 statement that Moses sent " young men of the children of Israel"
to offer sacrifice upon a certain occasion).6
1 See Ebrard, pp. 196, 197.
2 Conciliator, i. 246.
3 Gen. of Pent., ii. 352.
4 Davidson, Introd. to Old Test., ii. 138.
6 Bible Corn. on Neh. x. 1-28.
6 See Ex. xxiv. 5. Compare, however, Kurtz, ii, 8334-33; iii. 142, 148.&
85




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 reniewed; in other words, that a new meaning and
signzficacy may be attached to an old name.1  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 renewcd 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 oldfamiliar names. This would seem a sufficient explanation 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."2  Upon his return, in view of the abundant blessings
which he had received, he performed his vow,3 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 times1 This is the testimony of a scholar thoroughly acquainted with Oriental
manners and customs, Prof. J. L. Porter, in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia,
ii. 132 (latest edition).
2 Gen. xxviii. 20-22.
8 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.' LeClere 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, N am.
xxxii. 41; Dent. iii. 4, 14 and Judg. x. 3, 4 (the old name
may have acquired new significance through the second Jair;
or, as IKurtz 2 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,3 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 confirmation of the former meaning.  Murphyp 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' Kitto, i. 614.                         2 Vol. iii. 469, 470.
Y 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 chapter 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 afforded 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).2
Christ crucified at the third hour.  About the sixth hour.
Mark xv. 25.            John xix. 14-18.
Tllhere 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 apGospel History, pp. 445, 446     2 Conciliator, i. 126-129.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                413
proaching the sixth hour, So Ewald,' apparently. 2d. John,
writing in Asia Minor, may have used the Roman official mode
of computation, reckoning from midnight, so that the "sixth
hour" would be 6 A.Ml.  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,2 Gardiner,
Hug, Olshausen, Tholuck, Townson, Wieseler, Wordsworth,
and others.  3d. A copyist's mistake, in John, of, 3, for S, 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,3 and obtains in modern times.
Dr. Robinson4 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. 4-89.
It is objected by Strauss5 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.
I Life of Christ, p. 325.       2 Smith's Bib. Diet., ii. 1102
3 Compare 1 Sam. xxx. 12, 13.    4 Later Bib. Res. pp. 625, 626.
6 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 circumstances, 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 Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; visit
of the Magi; flight of the family to Egypt; return and settlement at Nazareth.'
Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Patritius2 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 3 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 4 takes the
passage as implying that Daniel lived to see that glorious epoch,
but not at all that he died at that time.
I So Robinson, Gardiner, Wieseler, and others.
2 Kitto, ii. 548, note; Andrews' Life of our Lord, pp. 84-89.
8 Gospel History, pp. 186-189.
4 Gen. of Daniel, pp. 54-56.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 415
Deluge, - duration 150 days.          Lasted but 40 days.
Gen. vii. 24; viii. 3.          Gen. vii. 4, 12, 17.
As Knobel 1 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," 2 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 seventeenth 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,"3 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 family to go
forth.4  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 the famine did- the last two
texts referring to the drought.
Esau settled in Seir, at one time.  Not till a later period.
Gen. xxxii. 8.             Gen. xxxvi. 6, 8.
The writer, in the first passage, speaks of the "country of'Die Genesis,.p. 85.    2 Chap- vii. 11.    8 viii. 13.    4 viii. 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.l 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.2
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 separately). God's work ended on the seventh day, Gen. ii. 2; on
the sixth day, Ex. xx. 11 (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 transfiguration, 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. 11; 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 announceAccording to Fuerst and Gesenius, the Hebrew term Ag.e means not
only a generation, but also a century. So the Latin "seculum" originally meant an age or generation, but in later times came to denote a
century.
2 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." 1 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 Zerubbabel.  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 preparedfront 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 soul for heaven and of
heaven for the soul -  may be now in progress.
Holy Spirit existing before man.            LNot 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.2
Holy Spirit bestowed before Pentecost.  Nlot 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 8E3oboev;
Chrysostom, ao0E'v; Alford,'verowvoyv.




418            DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
that the imperative is here used for the future, "Ye shall
receive."  So Kuinoel.l  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 very 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
boy or young man.2 Ishmael was at the time some sixteen years
of age. The growing boy would be much more easily overcome 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.3
Israelites bondage 400 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 4 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 hundred and thirty," 5
with the call of Abraham.  Isaac was born in the twenty-fifth
year of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan; Jacob was born in
I Compare, on the other hand, Winer's Grammar of N. T. Idiom, p. 312.
2 So Fuerst and Gesenius. The same word is applied to Joseph when
seventeen years of age, Gen. xxxvii. 2, 30.
3 So Keil, Kurtz, Lange, and others in substance.
4 Bengel, Baumgarten, Mr. Browne (Kitto, i 509, and Ordo Saeclorum,
pp. 295-816), and Mr. R. S. Poole (Smith's Bible Diet., i. 442-444), and
others.
6 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 affliction predicted ill
Gen. xv. 13; that a large portion of the period was spent in
Canaan,l 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 descendants, of whom  2750 were between thirty and fifty years of
age! 2
2d. It is maintained by the majority of modern critics3
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 following objections: that Paul4 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 generations5
See Gen. xxvi. 2, 8.
2 Num. iii. 27, 28; iv. 36. Compare Green's "Pentateuch Vindicated,"
p. 129; Kurtz, Vol. ii. 144, 145; Smith's Bible Dict., i. 450, 451.
3 Delitzsch, Ewald, Gesenius, Hiivernick, Hengstenberg, Hofinann, Jahn,
Kalisch, Keil, Knobel, Kurtz, Lange, Michaelis, Ranke, Reinke, Rosenmiiller, Tiele, Tueh, Winer, etc.
4 Gal. iii. 17.
6 Gen. xv. 16.




420           DISCREPANCIES OF TIIE 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 KIurtz 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 inferred that in Ex. vi. 18-20 several generations have been
omitted).
Israelites dwelt in Heshbon 300 years.   A longerperiod.
Judg. xi. 26.          Various texts.
If, following  Josephus,2 we allow  twenty-five years for
Joshua's period of rule, and ten years for Eleazar and the
elders 3 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 twentynine years; sufficiently near to the round number above.
-Jacob's age at his flight, forty years.  Seventy-seven years.
Gen. xxvi. 34; 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 fourteenth year of the sojourn
with Laban, it follows that Jacob, instead of being only forty
years old,4 was actually seventy-seven,5 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.6
1 See striking examples in Gen. xlvi. 15, 18, 22.
2 Antiq. v. 1. 29.
8 Josh. xxiv. 31, 33.
4 So Von Bohlen and Liitzelberger.
6 So Lange, Murphy, Keil, iKurtz, Hengstenberg, etc.
8 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 marriage with her.l 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.2 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 spentforty years
in the employ of Laban, and that all his children, except Joseph,
were born during the first thirty-four years.3
Jehovah, - name unknown.             Welt-known.
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto   Name appears in the original of the
Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of following passages, Gen iv. 1, 26; v.
God Almighty, but by my name JEIHO- 29; ix. 26.
VAI was I not known to them. Ex.
vi. 3.
Some4 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 5 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.           2 So in substance Lange and others,
8 See Bib. Corn., i. 177, 178.  4 Ebrard and Ewald.
6 Aben Ezra, Calvin, aiivernick, Munk, etc.
86




422           DISCREPANCIES OF 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, " lie gave them  their land as a possession about four hundred and fifty years; and, after that, he
gave [to them] judges until Samuel the prophet." t It may be
added that the chronology of the book of Judges is very uncertain, there being more than Jffty 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 transportation of the heavier materials of the tabernacle when the
Israelites were on the march,4 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.6
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,7 followed by Wagner and Schubert,8 calls attention 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. Dict., ii. 1514, note.   2 Keil, Commentary, p. 276, note.
3 Num. viii. 24.                4 Num. iv. 4-15, 24-26, 31-33.
5 So Abarbanel, Aben Ezra, Lightfoot, Outram, and Reland.
6 Num. viii. 25, 26.       7 Cosmos, i. 97,188,189 (Sabine's trans.).
s See in Kurtz' Bible and Astronomy, pp. 427-432.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 423
shown that light results from molecular action or combination.
Hence, the command, " Light be," was simply another way of
saying,'" Let molecular action begin," - whereupon light was
at once evolved.  Professor Dana2 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 liglht,' said God, and forthwith light
Ethereal, first of things, quintessence pure,
Sprung fiom 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." 3
Lord's supper instituted at Passover.  Upon the preceding day.
Matt. xxvi. 17-30; 5Mark 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 supper was instituted on the evening following the fourteenth day
of Nisan, at the legal time of the passover.  Robinson 4 maintains that the term " passover " sometimes comprises the whole
paschalfestival, or the feast of unleavened bread which began
with the passover proper; that the expression "to eat the passover" 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 5 substantially concur.
1 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 248-249.
4 English Harmony, pp. 200-205.
6 So Andrews, Bochart, Davidson, Fairbairn, Gardiner, Hengstenberg,
Lange, Lewin, Lightfoot, 3Milligan, Norton, Olshausen, Robinson, Schoetto
gen, Stier, Tholuck, and Wieseler.




424           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
Othersl 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 gradually diminish
to that length.2
_Moses feared the king of Egypt.        Did not fear him.
Ex. ii. 14, 15; iv. 19; Acts v.ii. 29.       Heb. xi. 27.
ile feared the king at first, but braved his anger at a lat-er
period.
Peter's denials at one time.               At another time.
Matt. xxvi. 34; Luke xxii. 34; John xiii. 388.  Mark xiv. 80.
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 Christ'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 as few persons hear thefirst crow1 Alford, Bleek, Caspari, De Wette, Ebrard, Ellicott, Erasmus, Ewald,
Grotius, Ideler, Liicke, Meyer, Neander, Sieffert, Suicer, Tischendorf,
Tittmann, Westcott, Winer, Wratislaw, in substance.
2 See authorities in Bib. Com., on Gen. vi. 8.
8 On Inspiration, pp. 140, 141.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 425
ing, the term generally denotes the second. All the evangelists
refer to this latter; but 3Mark with greater precision designates
it as the " second crowing."
It seems probable that no one of the evangelists has mentioned all the denials by Peter during 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 be likely to repeat the denial a considerable number 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 still, as before the
change, the revered prophet." This appears clear from xi. 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.
2 History of Israel, iii. 42.
8 History of Israel, iii. 29.
36*




426           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
to come to an end, to cease to be. 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 - came first and alone to the sepulchre. If
so, she may have come " early, when it was yet dark"; while
tlho other women did not arrive till "the rising of the sun."
Or, of the two parties of women,2 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 appearance of the sun; at the break of day they retreat to their
lairs.3 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.4  The Septuagint gives 440 years; Josephus, 592;
Browne,6 573; Clinton,7 612; Rawlinson, 580 to 600. On the
1 Gospel History, pp. 447, 448.
2 See infra, p. 828, note.
8 See Robinson's Harmony, p 212; also, compare Judg. ix. 82, 33.
4 See some fourteen different estimates, Ordo Saeclorum, pp. 6, 7.
6 Antiq. viii..3, 1.
6 Ordo Saeclorumn, p. 703.
7 Fasti Hellenici, Essay on Scripture Chronology.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                 427
other hand, Bahr, Cassel, Ewald,' Keil, Rsch,2 Thenius, Winer,3
and others accept the number 480 as authentic.  If we adopt
the latter hypothesis, we may follow Bachmann, Cassel, Keil,4
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.
Num. xiv. 33.              Num. xxxiii. 3; Josh. iv. 19.
The deficiency was merely five days. In the first text, a
round ermber is employed. Other examples of the use of
round numbers are, Ex. xvi. 1, 13, 14, 35 and Josh. v. 10-12;
also 1 Kings vi. 1 and 37, 38.
Worship of God, - beginning.         Not till a later time.
Gen. iv. 8, 4.                 Gen. iv. 26.
The latter passage is of doubtful interpretation. It may
refer to the first institution of the regular, solemn, public worship of Jehovah, in place of the former private, arbitrary,
irregular service as seen in the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.'
Murphy thinks that at this time men first began to address
God in prayer and thanksgiving. Previously their worship had
been mute adoration.
V. MISCELLANEO US.
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 with earth or stones, the whole
Vol. ii. pp. 368, 369.
2 In Studien und Kritiken, 1863, pp. 712-742.
3 Rcal-Wdrterbuch, ii. 327-329.
4 See their respective Commentaries upon the Book of Judges.
So Kurtz, Vol. i. p. xvi.; also, Lange.




128            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, outed, lentiles, has been con.
founded with Strzi, 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 all 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 remains is nothing in comparison.2  This use of the word is due
in part to " the want of universal terms in Hebrew."3
2d. The plague was limited to animals " in the field," ix. 3.
Sir Gardner Wilkinson 4 tells us that some animals were stallfed 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.5  These considerations obviate the difficulty.
Crooked straightened.                Cannot be 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 disSee Jahn, Bib. Archaeol., ~ 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.;R. S. Poole in Smith's Bible Diet., iii. 2541.
4 Ancient Egyptians, i. 96 (2d series); similarly Abarbanel and Rashi.
5Gesenius 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 haughtiness 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.  Zdckler, with HIengstenberg and
Hitzig, 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 singularly, thus: "The number of fools is infinite."
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 1 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 emerging 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.
Goguet2 and Stahl3 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.
ISee in Davidson's Introd. to Old Test., i. 36.
2 Smith's Bible Dict., i. 345.
8 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 malleability, is peculiarly liable to suffer
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 2 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 particles
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.                     They 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 3 object that if the cloud had been a reliable 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 thatfor
Introd. to Old Test., i. 254, 255.
2 Ancient Egyptians, iii. 180, 181; Hengstenberg, Egypt and Books of
Moses, p. 217.
I 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 encampment, and the length] of tarry in each location; yet human
prudence was by no means precluded with respect to arranging the encampment so as to combine most advantageously the
circumstances of water, pasture, shelter, supply of fuel, medicinal 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 supplementary to the guidance of the cloud.'
Manna, - taste, like wafers made with 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 1" 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 been in the form of miniature oxen.
Or, as De Wette and Rawlinson think, here may be a copyist's
error, v:rp., knops or gourds, for r::~p, oxen.
Mosaic law,- 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.     2 Ex. xix. 18.




432           DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE.
capital crimes are mentioned.' The laws of the Roman kings,
and the twelve tables of the decemviri were full of cruel punishments.2  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 WTm. Blackstone's time (A.D. 17231780), no less than one hundred and sixtY3 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.4
These facts should silence those who are perpetually inveighing against the " barbarity of the Mosaic code."
Mount inaccessible.                  Might be 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 forbidden to ";break through" the bounds or barrier, that is, to
pass a certain limit, under penalty of deaths
Nothing new on earth.              Some things are new.
Eccl. i. 9, 10.         Isa. xliii. i9; lxv. 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 phenomena of nature recur in regular order, and history ever tends' Wines, Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 263.
2 Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Book vi. chapter 15.
3 One writer says, " nearly three hundred "; see " Romilly," in Appleton's New American Cyclopaedia (first edition).
4 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."
Paschal offering, a lamb or kid.   Might be from the herd.
Ex. xii. 5.                  Deut. xvi. 2.
The Hebrew  word " seh" means both a lamb, and a kid.'
This fact relieves some apparent incongruities in our version.
In the second text, the term "passover" includes not only the
proper paschal sacrifice, but also the offerings 2 (some of which
were taken from the " herd ") of the succeeding six days; as is
clear from the next verse: " seven days shalt thou eat unleavened
bread therewith." As to Ex. xii. 9 compared with Deut. xvi.
7; the Hebrew  term  "bishal" means sometimes to cook in
water; at other times, to roast or broil.8
Parable of the talents.                Of the pounds.
Matt. xxv. 14-80.                 Luke xix. 11-27.
Strauss asserts that these are discordant versions of the same
parable; but Chrysostom, Gerhard, Alford, and Trench,4 have
shown that they are separate parables, addressed to quite distinct groups of hearers, in different states of mind, and needing
different admonitions.
Strange gods, real existences.      They are nothing.
Ps. xcvi. 4, 5; Isa. xliv. 9, 10, 17.  1 Cor. viii. 4, 5; x. 19.
Paul, in asserting that "an idol is nothing in the world,"
does not deny the existence of the idol, but simply that it has
any power to help or harm the worshipper. As Crusius has
remarked, not the existence, but the divinity, of the idol is
called in question.
Sun and moon put to shame.           Their glory increased.
Isa. xxiv. 23.                  Isa. xxx. 26.
The two passages combined are a poetic prediction that in a
coming day, the light of the sun and the moon, though increased
See Ex. xii. 5.
2 Num. xxviii. 16-19.
3 Compare 2 Sam. xiii. 8; 2 Chron. xxxv. 13;particula*y, the lattertext.
4 On Parables, p. 220 (American editibn).




434           DISCREPANCIES OF TilE 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 madefor the temple.          Not made 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 became of the surplus that remained this author does not tell us.
But the chronicler supplements the narrative with the information that this surplus was afterwards expended in making
vessels for the temple.l
Waters of Egypt turned to blood.       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,2 as implyingfar the greater
part; the exceptions being so few and insignificant that the
author overlooks them entirely. Some water remained unchanged, upon which the magicians operated, and which the
Egyptians drank during the interval.  Kurtz 3 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 4 suggests that " only the water that was seen " was smitten, that the
nation might not perish.  Mr. Alexanders thinks that "the
So Bihr, Keil, and Rawlinson.' So Keil, and Hengstenberg (Egypt and Books of Moses, pp. 109, 110).
The latter points out the use of universal terms throughout the narrative,
" all the trees" broken by the hail, etc. The idiom is a very common one
in all languages.
3 Vol. ii. p. 271.
4 Smith's Bible Dict., iii. 2540.6 Kitto, i. 749.




HISTORICAL DISCREPANCIES.                435
water when filtered through the earth on tl$v 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 supplied by them.
Whence did Elijah obtain water?  Blunt 2 thinks that, since
Carmel is upon the coast, sea-water was employed. Baihr suggests that the brook Kishon was not dry, and that the water
may have been obtained thence. Robinson3 expresses the
opinion that the transaction took place at the foot of the mountain; perhaps, at some Tell (hill) near the permanent fountains
of the Kishon.
But Dean Stanley,4 with Van de Velde, J. L. Porter, Rawlinson, Tristram, and Prof. C. M. Mead,5 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
1Fuerst and Gesenius say that the word rendered "barrels" in our
version, means buckets or pails. Translated "pitcher," Gen. xxiv. 14-20.
2 Coincidences, p. 199.
3 Physical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 31, and note.
4 Sinai and Palestine, p. 347, and note. Comp. Josephus, Apt. viii. 138 5.
5 Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct. 1873, pp. 672-686.




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 depth."
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 suggestedcl, 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 pertaining to every event having passed irrecoverably from the memory 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 explanation 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 following 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 of first publication is indicated by full-faced
figures. With reference to the size of books there is much difference between ancient and modern designations.
The first two works are of an introductory character.
Staalkopf, Jac. Introductio in historiam Conciliatorum Biblicorum.
4to. Lipsiae, 1724.
Alardus, Nicolaus. Bibliotheca Harmonico-Biblica, quae praeter
historiam harmonicam, tradit notitiam scriptorum harmonicorum.
8vo. Hamburgi, 1725.
Julianus Pomerius, Abp. of Toledo, fl. A.D. 680.'APTrKeqV/zv, sive
contrariorum in speciem locorum utriusque Testamenti, libri duo.
folio, Basileae, 1530; 8vo. 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.
87*                   437




438            BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX.
Althamer Brenzius, Andreas. Diallage; hoc est, Conciliatio locorum Scripturae, 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.
Rabe, Ludwig. Conciliationes locorum S. Scripturae in specie pugnantium. 8vo. Argentorati, 1527, 1550; Noribergae, 1561.
In two parts, and including one hundred and twenty discrepancies. The materials of the work are extracted from the
writings of Augustine.
Cumirano, Serafino. Conciliatio locorum  communium  Sacrae
Scripturae, 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) Xexia,  Domingo de. Concordancias de
muchos pasos dificiles de la divina historia. 8vo. Sevilla, 1556.
Obenhein, Christoph. Novi Testamenti locorum pugnantium ecclesiastica expositio; adjectae sunt etiam quarundam euangelicarum
quaestionum solutiones. 8vo. Basileae, 1563.
In Acta apostolorum ecclesiastica expositio locorum. 8vo.
Basileae, 1563.
Camara, Marco de la.  Quaestionarium  conciliationis simul et
expositionis locorum difficilium Sacrae Scripturae, in quo DC.
Scripturae loca exponuntur.  4to  Compluti. 1587. -Also,
Venetiis, 1603.
lontoya, Pedro Lopez de. De Concordia Sacrarum Scripturarum,
4to. Matriti, 1600.
Iettinger, Joannes. Harmonia in utroque Testamento; sive conciliationes eorum, quae in sacris biblicis sibi invicem adversa
videntur. 8vo. Lavingae, 1601.
Sharp (Lat. Sclarpius), John. Symphonia Prophetarum et Apostolorum, 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 conciliatio locorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti adparenter sibi contradicentium. 8vo. Argentorati, 1626, 1630; Noribergae, 1649,
1654 (enlarged edition, 1696).
According to Horne, 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 Contradictions in Holy Scripture. Translated, with Notes, by E. H.
Lindo. 2 vols. 8vo. London, 1842.
This work, restricted to the Old Testament, solves four hundred
and seventy-three cases of discrepancies, by the usually ingenious,
though sometimes fanciful, methods peculiar to the Jewish rabbies.
Thaddaeus, Joannes. S. S. Scriptura, a se nec diversa, sibi nec
adversa, hoc est, Conciliatorium Biblicum, in quo paria mille et
supra S. Codicis Locorum specie tenus contradicentium, conciliantur. 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.,
Minister of the Gospel. London, 1656.
Thaddaeus, Joannes, and Man, Thomas. The Reconciler of the
Bible inlarged, wherein above three thousand seeming contradictions 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 comprises a multitude of trivial discrepancies, and omits many of the
more important.
lagrig  Domenico. AV7TLXo-yal, seu contradictiones 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 contradictions throughout Sacred Scriptures, distinguish'd, 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 Vindicatio 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 dictorum Scripturae Sacrae, in speciem inter se pugnantium, secundum seriem Locorum Theologicorum in ordinem redactae; editae
a Joh. Schelhammero, Jun. 4to. Hamburgi, 1662, 1700, 1726.
Santa Cruz, Emanuel Fernandez de. Antilogiae totius Scripturae.
2 tom. fol. Tom. i., Segoviae, 1671; Tom. ii., Lugduni, 1677.
A 2d ed. of Tom. i., Lugduni, 1681.
Bleiswyek, Jan C. van. Bybel-balance ende Harmonieboeck. 4to.
Delfft, 1675.
Ridderg Franciscus.  Schriftuerlyk licht ouer schynstrydende, duystere en misduyde texten der heiligen schrifture. 4to. 5 delen.
Rotterdam, 1675.
Walch speaks of this work as copious and elaborate.
Caper, Franciscus.  Conciliatio locorum utriusque foederis, quae
contraria esse videntur. In his "Arcana Atheismi revelata." 4to.
Roterdam., 16 7 6.
Le Fevre (Lat. Faber), Jacques (died, A.D. 1716). Conciliatio locorum Sacrae Scripturae quae contradicere invicem videntur. 12mo.
Parisiis, 1683 (.) [Fabricius styles this the second edition], 1685.
This work is said to be an enlargement of that of Magri, mentioned above.




BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX.                441
Toornburg, K. Concordantiae locorum dissonantiumt Sacrae Scripturae [Belgice]. 8vo. Alcmariae, 1695.
The original title of this work I have not been able to find.
Pontas, Jean. Scriptura Sacra ubique sibi constans; seu Difficiliores
Sacrae Scripturae in speciem secum pugnantes, juxta sanctorum
ecclesiasticorum Patrum theologorumque sententiam conciliati.
4to. Parisiis, 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 Harmonia 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,
G6rlitz, 1707-1717.
Surenhuys, Willem  (Lat. Surenhusius, Gulielmus).  BIBAO1
KATAAAArHA, in quo secundum Theologorum Hebraeorum formulas allegandi, et modos interpretandi conciliantur loca ex V. in
N. T. allegata. 4to. Amstelaedami, 1713.
Discusses some one hundred and sixty-five cases of disagreement between citations in the New Testament and the original
passages in the Old. This work properly belongs to a distinct
department.
Baruh, 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.
Evanson, 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. 8vo. 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. 8vo.
London, 1823.
Treats of nineteen discrepancies.
Longhurst, S. A Common-place Book, or Companion to the New'Testament; consisting of Illustrations of difficult passages; apparent 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. 8vo. Stuttgart, 1842.
Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Sacred Hermeneutics, Developed and Applied. 8vo. Edinburgh, 1843.
A portion of this work, pp. 516-611, is devoted to our subject,
and resolves some one hundred and fifteen apparent contradictions (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 Whately. 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.       IGEN.            PAGE GEN.             PAE
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,          4, 68   22,            425   8,              282
ii. 2,      395, 416 ix. 2,           354   10, 14,        260
3,             395   3,             246   15,             281
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
iii. 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 xxiii. 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.            PAGE GEN.             PAGE EXOD.            PAGE
xxv. 6,  295, 305, 380 xxxvi. 26,     312 ii 25,             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 1  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  18f,             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
6, 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 OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                 445
EXOD.           PAGE I EXOD.          PAGE: EXOD.           PAGE
xv. 3,            92 xxii. 18,         307 xl. 17,           396
6,             207   21,             302   20,         390, 396
13-17,         396   25,             306
20,            309   28,              62      LEVITICUS.
25, 26,        236   29,             224 i. 1-17,          236
xvi. 1,          427 xxiii. 1-33,      221   5, 8, 11,       356
2, 3,          340   3,              296 ii. 1-16,         236
13, 14,        427   10, 11,         297 iii. 1-17,        236
16,            343   14-16,          387   2,              219
23,            395   16,             412 iv. 1-35,         236
31,            431   31,             282   3,              114
34,            396   33,             221   14, 22, 23,     241
35,        342, 427 xxiv. 3-8,       220   26,             236
xvii. 1-7,       374   5,              409 v. 1-19,          236
9,             395   9, 10,           73   15, 18,         245
14,            207   13,             395 vi. 1-30,         236
xviii. 2-6,      351   18,             351 vii. 1-38,        236
5,        354, 409 xxv. 10,          407 xi. 13-19,        391
7,             225   15,             242   21, 23,         246
13-26,         284   18, 20, 34,     226 xii. 3,         12, 13
23, 24,        350 xxvii. 1,         427 7   6, 7,         230
25,       350, 412   8,          427, 428 xvi. 29,         416
27,            355 xxviii. 1,        409 xvii. 3, 4,       367
xix. 2,          409 xxix. 1-46,       236   11,             236
11,            376   14,             114   13,             220
12, 13, 17,    432   18, 36,         235 xviii. 1-30,      281
18,       376, 431   45,             102   5,              104
19,             76 xxx. 12-14,       345   16,             292
21-24,         432   13,             385   21,         237, 266
22,            409 xxxi. 15,         234   22-24,          266
xx. 1-26,        221   17,              56   25, 28,         266
3, 5,          225   18,              63   26,             305
4, 5,          226 xxxii.'20,        429 xix. 13,          300
5,       78, 84, 86   26, 27,        285   26,             244
8,        233, 395   33,             207   34,             305
11,    56, 234, 416 xxxiii. 3,        63 xx. 1-27,         281
12,            287   7,              396   2,              237
13, 14,        255   11,              73   21,             292
15,            300   14, 15, 17,      63   23,        266, 267
16,            290   20,              73   27,             307
17,       249, 282   23,           73, 75 xxii. 12,   283, 284
24,            427 xxxiv. 5-7,        59 xxiii. 1-44,      387
xxi. 1-36,       221   6, 7,            82   18, 19,         384
2,             303   10-27,          220   27-29,          223
7, 11,         304   18-23,          387   32,             416
14,            255   20,             224   33-39,          223
16,            302   28,             221   42, 43,         34i
20, 21,        298   33-35,          355 xxv. 4, 6, 20, 21,22, 291
23-25,         299 xxxv. 12,         407   32-34,          395
29, 30,        261 xxxvii. 1,        407   39-41,          303
xxii. 1-31,      221 xxxviii. 8,       239   44,             302
8, 9,           62   26,         345,411   46,        298, 303




446           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 xxviii. 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   18,            255
10,           352   31-33,          352 xxxii. 8,         350
17,            366   32,            353   13,              95
32,            345   35,             352   19, 32,        375
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,       357
21,            366   20, 21,          69   9-13, 15,      350
29,            354   22,         69, 333   20, 21,        338
29-31,         430 xxiii. 10,        208   22,            350)
29-32,         3.55   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.           PAGE DEUT.            PAGE DEUT.            PAGE
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   1.1,            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. (17) 18,    325   14, 15,     324
3,.56   20,              78   16, 17,    376, 404
6-11,          225 xxx. 1,           134   18,             408
xiv. 7,          246   6,              166   19,             3 33
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 x ii. 7,      375, 404
27,            288   26,        363, 391   8,          376, 404
28, 29,        289 xxxii. 4,   76, 83, 97   10,        348, 406
xv. 3,           305   1 1,             63   10-23,          404
4, 11,         356   13, 14,         340   12,         348, 403
12,        303, 304   39, -           60   14,             405




448           INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.
JO8H.           PAGE JOSH.            PAGE I JUDG.          PAGE
xii. 16,    348, 403 xxiv. 1,         377 ix. 1-57,         323
21, 23,    348, 405   14,       344, 394   8,             340
xiii. 1,         404   23,            344   13,             251
1-6,           376   26,            377   32, 33,         426
9-12,          374   31,            420 x. 1-18,          323
25,            365   32,            357   3.              411
30,            385   33,            420   4,          385, 411
xiv. 1-15, 5,    412                       xi. 1-40,        323
6,            323        JUDGES.           17, 18,        335
12, 13,       405 i. 1, 1-36,       403   26,             420
15,           395   1-19,           150   30-40,      237, 238
xv. 1-63,        412   8,             406   37-40,          240
8,             375   9-11,          405 xii. 1-6,         370.13,       150, 395   10,            321 xiii. 22,          73
13-19,         322   11-13,         405 xv. 14, 15,       142
14,            321   11-15,         322 xvii. 9,          336
15-17,         405   16,        355, 406 xviii. 1, 2, 8,  368
21-32,         387   17,            405   27, 28,         406
26-32,         369   19,              55   29,            410
33,            368   20,            321   30,             338
42,            369   21,            406 xix. 29,          257
63,   348, 404, 406   22,           404 xx. 15, 46, 47,    387
xvi. 1-10,      412   22-25,      348, 403
2,             395   26,            395         RUTH.
10,           348   27,             405 i. 1, 21,         335
xvii. 1-18,      412   28,            324
11,            348   29,        403, 404      1 SAMUEL.
12,       348, 404   30, 33,        324 i. 1,             335
14,            404   34,            344   9,              396
15-18,         369   35,            324   11,             239
xviii. 1,        377 ii. 1-3,         266   21, 22,         428
1-28,         412   1-6,            403 ii. 10,           207
6,             412   7,             344   22,             239
28,            375   8, 9,          403   23, 24,         335
xix. 1,          369   22,            324   30, 31,       63, 67
1-6,           388   23,            376 iii. 3,           396
1-51,          412 iii. 1-7,        266   13,             335
2-6,           373   2, 4,          324   21,             377
2-7,           369   9,              150 iv. 3,           377
9,             369   13,            406 vi. 6,             89
40, 41, 40-48,  368   20, 21, 26,   255   19,           14, 92
47,   368, 406, 410 iv. 4,      308, 309 vii. 13,         944
xx. 7, 8,        385   5,             308   15,             425
xxi. 2, 3,       395   II,        354, 355 viii. 2,         352
23, 24,        368   14,             308   5,         229, 425
41,            395   21,             255   7,             229
43,            376   24,             405   19,            359
xxii. 2,         344 v. 31,           204 ix. 1,            351
7,             375 vi. 33,          406   3,              204
11-34,         344 vii. 1-25,       323   16,             344
xxiii. 5,        404 viii. 1-35,      323   17,             359
16,            148   10-12,         406   20,             204




INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                449
I SAM,          PAGE 1 SAM.           PAGE 2 SAM.           PAGE
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  i24,             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. 1,          425 xxiv. 6,          26 xiv. 27,          380
3,             412! xxv. 25,         315   33,            225
I1,            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 i xxx. 1,        403   2,              338
49,            352   12, 13,        413   8,          238, 385
50, 51,        351   17,            403   9,14,           238
xv. 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 i    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 i 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
xvii. 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 1  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 1 6,             320   14,             396
88*




450           INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.
1 KINGS.        PAGE 1 KINGS.         PAGE 2 KINGS.        PAGE
Vi. 17,          383 xix. 11, 12,       58 xiv. 3, 7,       271
37, 38,        427   15, 16,         339   17,            399
vii. 14,         339 xxi. I,          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,         364   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:vii. 1,        415   4-19,       350, 351   27,            400
7,             435   5-7,           370
22,        201,355 xii. 1,      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
I CHRON.        PAGE 1 CHRON.         rAGOE  2 CHRON.       PAGB
ii. 13,          316 XX. 4,           373 1 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, 1, 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
xvi. 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      N EH EM IAH.
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,             380




452           INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.
NEH.            PAGE       PSALMS.          PSALMs.          PAGE
vii. 11-67,      381                  PAGE 1. 22,            207
32,            403 i. 3,             173 li. 2,            166
70-72,         381 ii. 8,            302   5,              161
viii. 17,        417   9,          116, 207   9,             207
ix. 17,           82   11,             241   16,             235
x. 1-28,         409 v. 4,              76   17,             207
9-13,          387   6,              205 liii. 5,          242
14-27, 32,     385 vi. 5,            193 lv. 15,           271
xi. 3-36,        337 vii. 8,           228   23,              180
xii. 1,          352   11,              82 lviii. 3,          161
1-7,           390 ix. 11,           103 lix. 4,           114
8, 9,          387   17,             214 Ix. Title,        382
xiii. 23-30,     412 x. 1,              70 lxii. 12,          97
xi. 6,           209 lxix. 24, 27,     271
JOB.          xiv. 2,.3,       159   28,              207
i. i,            159 xvii. 14,         180 lxxi. 17,           73
6, 7,          362 xviii. 11,        101 lxxii. 17,        115
19,            347 xix. 1,            72 lxxiii. 7, 12,    180
ii. 7,           172 xxiv. 2,          429   11,               58
10,            279   3, 4,           159   16-18,          181
iii. 10,         347 xxvi. 7,           73   24,              197
13,            191 xxx. 5,            95   27,             204
18,            197 xxxii. 1,         221   28,           70, 73
vii. 9,          200 xxxiv. Title, 318, 332 lxxiv. 12,       251
viii. 4,         347   10,             173 lxxvi. 2,          103
ix. 10            73   21,             180 lxxviii. 55,      283
22,             88 xxxv. 6, 8,       271   58,              78
x. 21,           197 xxxvii. 3,        173   69,             215
xi. 7,            72   9,              205 lxxxi. 12,         77
12,            161   20,             204 lxxxiii. 15,      209
xii. 6,          180   21,             300' 17,         209, 271
xiii. 23,        114   25,             177 lxxxv. 5,          95
xiv. 4,          161   34,             205 lxxxvi. 2,        159
12,            200   36,             206 lxxxvii. 2, 3,    228
21, 22,    188, 190   37,            208 lxxxviii. 5,6,11,12, 197
xv. 14,          161   38,         205, 208 xc. 2,            60
xvi. 9, 12-14,   207 xl. 5,             73 xci. 4,         16, 63
xix. 10,         205   6,              152 xcii. 9,          203
17,            347 xli. 1,           296   15,              83
xxi. 7, 8,       180 xlii. 9,           16 xciv. 5,          207
9, 14,         181 xliv. Title,      353   23,             203
xxii. 23, 24,    174   1-3,            283 xcvi. 4, 5,       433
xxiv. 5, 6, 12,    182   23,            57 xcvii. 2,         101
20, 24,        181 xlv. Title,       353   7,               60
xxvi. 5,         195   2,              115. c. 2,            241
7,             429 xlvi. Title,      353 cii. 25, 26,      215
xxvii. 13, 14, 22,  182   1,            70 ciii. 8, 9,        95
xxxi. 18,        161 xlvii.-xlix. Titles, 353 civ. 5,        215
xxxvi. 14,       180 xlix. 10,     178, 204   15,            251
xxxviii. 1,       76 1. 6              201   22,             426
xlii. 7-9,       162   13, 14,         235   30,             417
12,    172,175, 208   21,             58   35,             206




INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                 453
PSALMS.         PAGE PROV.            PAGE I ECCL.           PAGE
cvi. 18,         352 xiv. 21,          296 j 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,               98
xiii. 9,         205
PROVERBS.          ECCLESIASTES.   xiv. 9,           191,195
i. 22,            72 i. 4,             215   10,             195
26,             96   9, 10,          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 xlii. 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.            PAxG
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
Iv. 6,            71 xxxvii. 5,        344        DANIEL.
7,             196 xl. 10,           252 i. 1,    393, 400, 402
lvi. 2,          233 xlvi. 2,          400   2,              412
Ivii. 1,      88, 204 Ii. 8,           205   5, 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
lxi. 1, 2,   150,151   29,             402   16, 18,         292
lxiii. 17,        90   31,             400 vi. 10, 11,       231
lxv. 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. 14,      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,             166 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 OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                 455
JONAMH          PAGE      HABAKKUK.               MALACHI.
iii. 4, 5,       148                   PAGE                   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     ZECHARIAH.          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.            PAGT  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
17,            153   21, 22,          287   20,             114
iv. 7,            83   26,              153 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   20,             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   5, 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 1xxii, 12,        209




456           INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.
MATT.           PAGE         MARK.          MARK.            PAGI
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         LU KE.
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 viii. 12,          155   22,             153
34,            417   3-8,             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,         11.1, 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
~ii. 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
iui. 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, 117, 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. 1.       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,            21 ] 5   24,            63   33,             198
xxii. 1,         423   39, 40,          358   38,             424
3,             140   40, 41,          119 xiv. 2, 3,        417
89




458           INDEX OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.
JOHN.           PAGE ACTS.            PAGE ACTS.             PAGE
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 xxvi. 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
5,         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,             56j  28,             139   11,             162
25,        171, 199 xvi. 1, 3,       260:1 11-13,           83




INDEX  OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                 459
ROM.             PAGE 1 COR.            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
I 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.
PHIL.           PAGE 1 TIM.            PAGE HEB.              PAGE
ii. 12, 13,    167, 251 v. 19, 20,      293 x. 39,            170
15,            129   23,             251 xi. 5,         206, 217
iii. 11, 12, 15,    169 vi. 9, 10,      253   8,              364
19,            208   15, 16,          185   12,             318
iv. 3,           309   16,       70, 73, 101   13,        178, 363
4,             251   17,         174, 253   16,         149, 407
5,             134   18,              253   17,             380
20,            307   21,              345
COLOSSIANS.                                27,             424
ii. 3,           111      2 TIMOTHY.          32,             239
5,             114 i. 10,             185   33,             363
8, 9,          1.07 ii. 14,           261   37,             173
14,            207   24,          19, 261   39,         149, 363
16,            233   25,    165, 265,279   40,              149
iii. 3,          208 iii. 12,           178 xii. 6,       172, 179
9,         166, 290   16,             143   8,              179
10,            166 iv. 14,           275   11,              172
20,21,         287                           17,            232
22,            293        TITUS.             23,            202
i 11,            214   29,           93, 95
1 THESSALON IANS.                            xiii, 4,     255, 291
ii. 4,           294       HEBREWS.            14,            177
iv. 6,           300 i. 1,                4   20,             128
14,            199   8,          106, 137
15,         19, 134 ii. 4,            121        JAMES.
15-17,         183   17,              111 i. 2,             253
17,            134 iii. 8,             90   5, 6,            89
v. 19,           139 iv. 3,             417   13,           79, 82
9,.            218   17,               63
2 T H ESSALO N IAN S.   13,              56   19, 20,         245
i. 8,            202   15,              114   25,             104
9,         203, 205 V. 7,             117 ii. 5,            175
ii. 1,2,3,       134   8,               114   12,             104
7,              18 vi. 4-6,           170   14, 17, 21,     167
9,         121, 126   13,             243   22, 24,         167
9-12,           99   17,              244   25,             290
11,          40, 77   18,      55, 98, 244   26,            167
13,            169 vii. 14,           150 iii. 15,          254
19,            104   16,              261
1 TIMOTHY.          26,             114   17,             254
i. 17,            73 viii. 1,           128 iv. 3,             89
ii. 3, 4,        214 ix. 4,             390   8,               70
5,         106, 131   26,             128 v. 1-3,           174
6,             119   27,         183, 185   11,              92
8,             231   28,              128   12,             243
11, 12,        309 x. 4;              236   17,             415
iii. 15, 16,     129   5, 6,            152   19, 20,         262
iv. 7,           307   11,              236
10,            214   26-29,           170       1 PETER.
16,            262   27,              206 i. 2,             168
v. 6,            208   31,               96   17,              81
8,             280   38,               88   18, 19,         107




INDEX  OF SCRIPTURE CITATIONS.                 461
1PET,            PAGE        1 JOHN.         REV.              PAGO
ii. 7,            127                   PAGE iV. 8,            218
8,          40, 128 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
Hi. 4,           362                           11,             216
21, 22,        170      REVELATION.          12,         182,202
iii. 7,      203, 216  ii. 11,      183, 184   13, 15,         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.          Ammonites, torture, 264; allies,
Abel-beth-maachah, names, 373.      320; land taken, 365.
Abigail, father of, 316.          Anah, nationality, 321.
Abijah, mother, 317; hypocrisy, 317. Anak, sons' fate, 321.
Abraham, equivocation, 26; temp- Analogy of Bible and nature, 33.
tation, 79; sacrifice of Isaac, 238; Anatomists, disagreement, 11.
difficulty  with  Pharaoh, 317; Angels seen, number, 386.
withAbimelech,317; inheritance Anger approved and condemned,
gained, 318; prolonged virility,   245.
318; weakness and timidity, 318; Animal-food, use restricted and unmarriage with Keturahb, 318, 339;   restricted, 246; kinds prohibited
destination, 364; sons, 380; age   and allowed, 246.
at migration, 392.              Animals, number employed  by
Absalom, sons, 380; tarry at home,   Christ, 384; number sacrificed,
393.                              384.
Achan, children slain, 87, 237.   Announcement made to Mary and
Adam, death when, 393.              to Joseph, 406.
Adultery tolerated and forbidden Apostles, lists of names, 322; called
255.                              when, 407; distinct from  the
Agag mentioned prematurely, 394.   " seventy disciples," 407.
Ahab, deceivedbyMicaiah, 98; death Arah, sons, number, 380.
where, 364; death when, 396.    Ark, location, 366; contents, 390;
Ahaz, favoring religion, 319; invin-   construction when, 407.
cible, 319; burial where, 364.    Arrangement, different methods and
Ahaziah of Israel, reign begun    principles, 9.
when, 398.                      Asa, mother, 323; removal of high
Ahaziah of Judah, brethren's fate,   places, 323; ten years' tranquility,
319; grandfather, 320; death   398.
where, 364; age, 398; reign begun, Assassination sanctioned and for398.                              bidden, 255.
Ahimelech, high-priesthood, 320.   Authorship, differences, 6.
Ai, destruction, 403.             Avenging of' blood provided for and
Altar, material, 427.               discountenanced, 256.
Amalek  mentioned  prematurely, Azariah, reign begun, 399; ended,
394.                              399.
Amalekites, destruction, 94, 403;
location, 365.                  Baal, prophets slain, 265.
Amasa, father of, 320.            Baasha, death when, 399.
Amaziah, reign begun, 398.        Bacon, Francis, Christian ParaAmbuscade, number of men, 381.    doxes, 8.
462




GENERAL INDEX,                         463
Balaam, return whither, 366; per- I Cattle of Egypt, extent of destruc
mission and prohibition of jour-   tion, 428.
ney, 69.                         Census of Israelites, made when,
Baptism enjoined and neglected, 257.   411.
Barley and lentiles, field, 428.   Chapiter, length, 382.
Beasts, slain where, 367; number Chastity tested in diverse ways, 258.
entering Noah's ark, 387.        Children, of Bethel, slain by bears,
Bedan, judge of Israel, 323.         270; treatment, 287.
Beersheba named twice, 410.        Christ, divinity, 106; omnipotence,
Benevolence of God, he withholds    110; omniscience, 1.11; omniand bestows blessings, 89; hardens j  presence, 114;  holiness, 114;
men's hearts, and they do it, 89;   mercy, 116; courage and fortiis warlike and peaceful, 92.       tude, 11 7; veracity, 11 7; mission,
Benjamin, birth-place,, 367; number   118; miracles, 120; modes of repof sons, 384.                      resenting him, 127; sacrifice, 130;
Benjamites, number slain, 387.       intercession, 131; coming, 131;
Bethel,  conquered  when, 403;   kingdom, 136; name, 138; exenamed twice, 410.                  cution, 220; bearing of the cross,
Bethsaida, twofold location, 367.    324; last drink, 325; genealogy,
Bethshemites, 50070 slain, 92.       325; last tour, 327; concealment
Bible, analogy to nature, 33; comrn-   of miracles, 327; resurrection,
pared with other books, 47; moral   327; revelation of truth, 330; use
influence undiminished, 50.        of parables, 331; approach by
Bleek, definition of miracle, 122.   centurion, 367; ascension, 367;
Blessing gained by those who see   first re-appearance, 367; first serand those who see not, 219.        mon, 368; number of appearBlind men, number healed, 386.       ances  386; conveyance upon
Blood, poured and sprinkled, 219;   mountain, 407; beginning  of
covered with dust and poured out,   preaching, 407; anointing, 411;
220.                               crucifixion, 412; entombment,
Boasting tolerated and repudiated,   413; infancy, order of events, 413.
247; Paul's case, 247; Moses' Christ, execution. See Execution of
case, 248.                         Christ.
Brown, Dr. Thos., definition of mir- Christians, bearing of weapons by,
acle, 124.                         permitted and forbidden, 259.
Burdens, our own and others, to be Chronology, Oriental methods, 13.
borne by us, 257.                 Circumcision, instituted  and discarded, 260; not to be omitted,
Caleb, father of, 323.               yet neglected forty years, 260;
Calling men " father," forbidden    profitable, yet useless, 260.
and exemplified, 257.            Cities, location, 368; pertained to
Canaan cursed, 84, 302.              what tribe, 368;  Canaanitish,
Canaan, land, in state of famine,   smitten when, 404.
367; conquered  speedily, 403; Cities of refiuge, number; 385.
extent of subjugation, 404.      Cities and villages, number, 387.
Canaanites, extirpated, 265, 324; City, Levitical, dimensions, 388.
spared for test of Israel, 324; Collusion  of sacred writers disdestroyed suddenly, 403.           proved, 36.
Capital punishment inflicted and i Coming of Christ, in humility and
omitted, 258.                      in grandeur, 131; before and after
Captives, spared and put to death,   "times of Gentiles," 132; near
258; number taken by Nebuchad-   and far off, 134; before and after
nezzar, 384.                       world evangelized, 135.




464                      GENERAL INDEX.
Commutation for murder, not al- Death of man, all must die, but
lowed, yet permitted, 261.          some die not, 183; Lazarus not
Computation, different methods, 11;   to die, yet did die, 184; man's
Oriental methods in general, 13;   death like a beast's, and different,
Hebrew methods, 396.                184; death ceases, and still exists,
Concubine,wife of inferior rank, 295.   185; men immortal, yet God only
Conduct of David, strayed and did   so, 185; men kill souls, and cannot stray, 221; heart perfect, yet   not kill them, 186; immortality
he sinned, 222.                     possessed, and to be acquired,187.
Contention and strife enjoined and  Deaths by plague, number, 382.
forbidden, 261.                   Debir  conquered  several times,
Conversion of men, effected byone-   405.
self and by another, 262.         Degrees of future punishment, alike
Convocations and feasts, number,   and different, 210.
387.                              Deluge, duration, 415.
Country of two demoniacs, 369.      Demoniacs, number healed, 387.
Courage and fortitude of Christ, Descent of Christ into hades, pashrank, yet shrank not, at death,   tristic view of, 192.
117.                              Design of the Discrepancies, 30.
Covenant, basis, religious laws and      To stimulate the intellect, 30.
civil laws, 220.                       Illustrate analogy of Bible and
Covering of sin approved and de-           nature, 33.
nounced, 221.                         Disprove collusion of sacred
Coveting enjoined and prohibited,          writers, 36.
249.                                  Lead us to value spirit above
Creation, order of events, 408.            letter, 37.
Creation of man, made like God;          Serve as a test of moral charthis likeness acquired, 158; made        acter, 38.
in divine image; with sexual dis- Destruction of the earth, indestructinctions, 159; made like God;   tible, yet to be destroyed, 215.
none Iike him, 159.               Disciples, outfit, 154; tarry, where,
Crimes specified, different lists, 221.   369.
Critic's imagination, source of dis- Discrepancies, number, 1.
crepancies, 25, 28.                    Origin, 3.
Crooked made straight, 428.              Design, 30.
Results, 41.
Dan named twice, 410.                    Ethical, 219.
Daniel, exaltation, 331; tarry at        Historical, 312.
Babylon, 414.                         Miscellaneous, 427.
Dates, difference, source of discrep- Distrust enjoined and precluded,
ancies, 3.                          262.
David, perils in wilderness of Ziph, Divinity of Christ, is God and man,
26; sparing Saul in cave, 26;    106; one with, yet distinct from,
temptation to number the people,   the Father, 106; equal with, yet
79; general conduct, 221; per-   inferior to Him, 107; Son is God,
fectness of heart, 222; detention at   and Father only God, 107; is Son
Saul's court, 331; building of tem-   of God, and Son of man, 108;
ple forbidden, 331; officers' names,   only Son of God, yet men are
332; relation to Achish, 332; sons'   sons, 109.
names, 332; sons' priesthood, 333; Divinity of Holy Spirit, is God, yet
tempter, 333; warriors' names,   subordinate, 141.
334; capture of Philistine city, Divorce  allowed  and  restricted,
369; three anointings, 411.         263.




GENERAL INDEX.                         465
Doctrinal Discrepancies, 55.       Epithets, opprobrious,  forbidden
Pertaining to God, 55.           and employed, 277.
To Christ, 106.                Esau, wives' names, 336; settlement
To Holy Spirit, 139.             in Seir when, 415.
To Scriptures, 143.            Eternity of God, his origin from
To Man in relation to the Pres-   eternity, yet in time, 60.
ent, 158.                    Ethical Discrepancies, 219.
To Man in relation to the Fu-      Duty of man to God, 219.
ture, 183.                       Duty of man to himself, 245.
Dor conquered twice, 405.              Duty of man to fellow-men, 255.
Drought and famine, duration, 415. Eutychus, death, 337.
Duration of future punishment, un- Execution of Christ, lawful and unending, yet will terminate, 211.   lawful, 220.
Duty, revelation of, gradual, 4.   Exode of Israelites, time, 416.
Extent of salvation, all Israel saved,
Earth, destruction, 215; dried twice,   yet only a portion, 213; all men
415; founded, 429; saturated,   saved, yet some not saved, 214.
429.                             Extirpation of Canaanites, grounds,
Ebrard, illustration of messenger,   266.
328.
Edomites hated and not hated, 271; Faith and works, contrast, 8, 167.
hindered Israel's passage, 335; in- Famine, duration, 393.'hospitable, 335; slain, how many, Fast, observance enjoined and neg382.                               lected, 223; of seventh month,
Edwardses, the two, case, 26.        on what day, 416.
Effort, human, encouraged and de- Fear of persecutors forbidden and
preciated, 249.                    exemplified, 277.
Egyptians visible and not seen, Feast, of unleavened bread, insti363.                               tuted when, 408; duration, 416; of
Ehud, slaughter of Eglon, 255.       tabernacles underZerubbabel, 417.
Ela, reign, duration, 399.         Final judgment.  See Judgment,
Elhanan, victim, 336.                final.
Eli, family discipline, 335.       First-born sons dedicated and reEliakim, predecessor, 335.           deemed, 224.
Elijah, mockery of Baal's prophets, Firstling animals redeemed and not
276; journey to Horeb, 379.        redeemed, 224; redeemed with
Elimelech, indigence, 335.           money and not thus, 224; sanctiElisabeth, tribal descent, 336.      fied and not sanctified, 225.
Elisha, deception of Syrians, 276.   Folly, remediable and irremediable,
Elkanah, nationality, 336.           278; answered in one way, and
Employments of heaven, incessant   in a different, 278.
praise, yet rest and quiet 218.  Forces, Josiah's, stationed, 370.
Enemies, treatment, cruelty  em- Foreskins, number, 382.
ployed and prohibited, 264; case ]Fruit-trees spared and destroyed,
of Ammonites, 264; of Moabites,   279.
264; of Baal's prophets, 265; of Fruits of Holy Spirit, love and venyoung Bethelites, 270; of Edom-   geance, 142; gentleness and fury,
ites, 271; enemies cursed  and    142.
loved, 271; treated kindly, and  Future punishment, nature, 203;
put to pain, 275; ridiculed, and    instruments, 209; degrees, 210;
addressed mildly, 276.             duration, 211.
English letters, similarity, 20.
Ephraim, land located, 369.        Genealogical lists, diverse, 325, 337.




466                      GENERAL INDEX.
Generations, number, 388.          Heretics treated. harshly and gently,
Gershom, relatives' names, 338.      279.
Gezer, names, 373; conquest when, Hezekiah, indigence, 340; passover,
403.                               340; age at accession, 399.
Gibeonites, nationality, 338.      Hiram, mother, nationality, 339.
Gifts of returned captives, amount, Historical Discrepancies, 312.
381.                                 Concerning persons, 312.
Gilgal mentioned prematurely, 394.      Concerning places, 363.
God, omnipotence, 55; omniscience,      Concerning numbers, 380.
56; omnipresence, 58; eternity,      Concerning time, 392.
60; unity, 60; immateriality, 63;.  Miscellaneous, 427.
immutability, 63; inaccessibility, Hodge, Prof. C., definition of mir70; inscrutability,72; invisibility,   acle, 121.
73; holiness, 76; justice, 83; be- Holiness of Christ, is holy and is
nevolence, 89; mercy, 92; verac-   sin,114; blessed and a curse, 115.
ity, 98; habitation, 101; position, Holiness of God, author of evil, yet
103; law, 104; work ended, 416;   not its author, 76; jealous and
worship begun, 427.                free from  jealousy, 78; tempts
Golden calf, destruction, 429.       men and tempts them  not, 79;
Goliath, armor, placed where, 370;   respects and respects not persons,
head carried whither, 370..        81; angry and not angry, 82;
Good works exhibited and concealed,   may be and cannot be tempted, 82.
279.                    -        Holy Spirit, personality, 139; divinGospel, preached where, 370.         ity, 141; fruits, 142; beginning,
Greek letters, similarity, 20.       417; bestowment, 417.
Greek terms descriptive of future  Horeb, relation to Sinai, 376.
punishment, 212.                 Hormah, conquered when, 405.
Horsemen, number, 382.
Habitation of God, in light, and in  Horsemen or footmen, 382.
darkness, 101; in chosen temples, Hosea's wife, unchastity, 255.
and not in them, 102; in eternity, Hoshea, reign begun, 399.
and with men, 102; in heaven, House and porch, height, 382.
and in Zion,. 103.               " Howland will case," 36.
Hair, long, worn by men, 246.      Human effort.  See Effort, human.
Halting-places of Israelites, 371.    Hypothesis, logical value, 52.
Havoth-jair, number of cities, 385;
named when, 411.                 Idolatry forbidden and practised,
Hazael, anointed by whom, 339.       225; punished and passed by, 225.
Hazor conquered twice, 405.        Idol-meats non-essential, yet to be
Heads of people, number, 385.        shunned, 249.
Heaven, occupants, 216; employ- Image-making sanctioned and forments, 218; preparation when,   bidden, 226.
417.                             Images disposed of, how, 430.
Hebrew letters, similarity, 20.    Imagination of critic, source of disH-ebrew midwives, case, 290.         crepancies, 25.
Hebrew  numbers, method of ex- Immateriality of God, a spirit, yet
pressing, 13.                      material, 63.
Hebrew terms, descriptive of future Immutability of God, unchangeable
punishment, 204.                   and repenting, 63; satisfied and
Hebrews' land, premature mention,   dissatisfied, 68; destroys and de394.                               stroys not, 68; abhors and does
Hebron  mentioned  prematurely,   not abhor, 68; permits and for395; king conquered when, 405.    bids, 69.




GENERAL INDEX.                         467
Improvidence enjoined and forbid- Israelites, claim  to Canaan, 282;
den, 280.                          condition in desert, 340; dwellInaccessibility of God, approachable   ings, 343; imitation of heathen
and not accessible, 70; all and    343; hearkening to Moses, 344
not all seekers find, 71; early   practice of idolatry, 344; repulse
seekers succeed and fail, 71.      of Philistines,  344; resistless
Incest, alleged case of Abraham,   might, 344; comparative strength,
281.                               344; death in wilderness, 357;
Inscrutability  of God, attributes    halting-places, 371; station where,
revealed and hidden, 72; won-   373; return whither, 374; arrival
ders recounted and numberless,   at Sinai, 409; duration of bon73.                                dage, 418; tarry  in  Heshbon,
Inspiration, relation to authorship,   420; length of w-andering s, 427.
6; not limited to the same phra- Jacob, name derived, 315; brought
seology, 7.                        out of Egypt, 345; errand, 345;
Inspiration  of Scriptures, all in-   mode of securing birthright, 345;
spired, yet portions uninspired,   support, 345;  daughters, 384;
143.                               family, 389; age at flight, 420;
Instruments of future punishment,   time of sons' birth, 421.
shame and a whirlwind, 209; a Jael, slaughter of Sisera, 255.
worm  and a tempest, 209; dark- Jair, cities, number, 385.
ness and fire, 210.              Jehus, conquest when, 406.
Intellect stimulated  by  discrep- Jeduthun, sons, number, 385.
ancies, 30.                      Jehoahaz, reign begun, 400; duraIntercession of Christ, only Media-   tion, 400.
tor, yet Spirit intercedes, 131; Jehoash, reign begun, 400.
intercedes for world and not for Jehoiachin, son, 346; age at accesworld, 131.                        sion, 400; capture, 400; deliverIntermediate state of man, dead    ance, 400.
unconscious and conscious, 188; Jehoiakim, successor, 346; death
dead asleep and awake, 191; de-   where, 374; fourth year, 400.
void of, yet possess knowledge, Jehoram, sons' fate, 346.
193; exercise mental powers, and Jehoshaphat, league.with Ahaziah,
not so, 195; in darkness and in   346.
glory, 197; not with Christ, yet Jehovah, name unknown, 421.
righteous with him, 198; in same Jehu, anointed by whom, 339.
place, yet in different places, 199; Jephthah, sacrifice  of daughter,
in the dust, yet saints with God,   239.
199.                             Jericho captured twice, 406.
Interval before passover, 416; be- Jeroboam, residence, 375.
fore transfiguration, 416.       Jeroboam  II. contemporary with
Invisibility of God, seen and unseen,   Uzziah, 401.
73; similitude visible and not vis- Jerusalem, a delight and a provocaible, 76.                          tion, 228; belon(red to what tribe,
Isaac, equivocation, 26, 318; sacri-,375; burned when, 393; captured
fice by father, 237.              rwhen, 393; change of name, 395.
Isllbosheth, reign begun, 400.     Jesse, number of sons, 385.
Ilhmael, age at expulsion, 418    Jesus  approached  by  centurion
Israel, support, 345; sight, 363;   and elders, 346. See also under
sreteption of new namle, 411. See   "Christ."
also " Jacob."                   Jethro, identity, 354.
Israel, sin ineffaceable and may be Jewess, marriage restricted to tribe,
removed, 227; boundary, 374.       283.




468                      GENERAL  INDEX.
Joab, crimes punished, 256.         Kingdom  of Christ, not of world,
Job, flocks and herds, size, 175;   yet within Pharisees, 136; endsurvival of his children, 347.      less and will terminate, 137.
John, identity with Elias, 347; ac- Kings in Israel, premature mention,
quainmance with Jesus, 409.         395.
Jonah (Jonas), sign adduced, 155.  Kish, father of, 351.
Joram, of Israel, reign begun, 400.  Kohath, son of, 351.
Jordan, meaning of phrase " is  Korah,  manner of  death, 352;
side," 375; time of crossing, 416.   family's fate, 353.
Joseph, derivation of name, 315;
purchasers' nationality, 339; im- Laadan, posterity, 351.
prisonment, 348; keeper, 348; Laban, father of, 351.
deportation, 348.                 Laish captured twice, 406.
Joshua, conquest of kings, 348; of Land assigned twice, 412.
Canaan, 376; reception of name, Laughter praised and condemned,
395.                                250.
Josiah, extirpation of idolatry, 348; Law, given where, 376.
sons, 349; death where, 376; re- Law of God, tends to liberty and to
formation begun, 401.               bondage, 104; perfect, yet perJotham, duration of reign, 401.        fects nothing, 104; tends to life
Judah, duration of reign, 149.         and to ldeath, 104.
Judas, manner of death, 349.        Lazarus, death, 184; mode of egress
Judges, appointed by whom, 350;   from tomb, 353.
period of rule, 421.              Leadership of cloud, nature, 430.
Judging of David, desired and dcle- Letters, similarity of Hebrew, 20;
precated, 228.                      of Greek, 20;' Hebrew  used as
Judging of others forbidden and    numerals, 21; Greek used as nuallowed, 284.                       merals, 24; letters  transposed,
Judgment final, of man, ascribed to    313; letters confounded, 392.
God and to man, 201; attributed  Levites portion, were settled, yet
to antd disclaimed by Christ, 201;   sojourners, 288; had stated revadministered by God, and by men    enue, yet deemed  mendicants,
also, 202.                          289;  part at inauguration of
Judicial purpose of discrepancies, 38.   Joash, 350; number, 382; classes,
Just man's life by faith and by    387; dimensions of cities, 388;
works, 228.                         land mentioned, 395; set apalrt
Justice  administered  by different   when, 409; beginning of service,
judges, 284.                        422.
Justice of God, is just and unjust, Light,  beginning  of  existence,
83; punishes for others' sins, and    422.
not so, 84; slays the good and  Lord's supper, described, 156; time
spares them, 88.                    of instituting, 423.
Justification of man, by faith and by  Lot, daughters of, 282.
works, 167.                       Luz mentioned prematurely, 395.
Lying  countenanced  and prohibKadesh, situated where, 373.          ited, 290.
Keturah, connection with Abraham,
318, 339.                         Machir, wife of, 351.
Killing of men forbidden and sanc- Mahol, sons of, 351.
tioned, 285.                      Maiden, decease, 337.
Kindred hated, yet loved, 286; par- Malefactors, reviling, number, 384.
ents honored and slighted, 287; Man, creation, 158; sinfllness, 159;
children slain, yet cherished, 287. I  repentance, 165;  regeneration,




GENERAL INDEX.                           469
166; justification, 167; sanctifi- Moabites, punishment, 264.
cation, 168; perfection, 169; final Molten sea, contents, 382; appenperseverance,  169;  righteous,    dages, 431.
earthly lot, 172; wicked, earthly  Monarchy sanctioned, yet offensive
lot, 180; death, 183; intermediate   to Jehovah, 229.
state,188; resurrection, 200; final Moral character tested by discrepjudgment, 201; duty to God, 219;   ancies. 38.
dnty to himself, 2"45; duty to fel- Moral purity of Scripture, purity
low-men, 255; fear upon beasts,   enjoined, yet impure ideas sug354; life, duration, 424.            gested, 144.
Manasseh, repentance, 351.           Mosaic law, character, 431.
Manna, taste, 431.                   Moses, self-praise, 248; name deMan, own way followed and not   rived, 315; wife's nationality,
followed, 250.                       339; family sent back,; - 1;'ast,
Manuscripts, errors, 19; date, 45.    351; decrepitude, 354; TatherMarriage, approved and disparaged,   in-law, 354; rank among pr,,ph291; with a brother's widow en-    ets, 355; veil, 355; book received,
joined and prohibited, 292.          363; outlook, 373; commission
Mercy of Christ, is merciful and un-   given where, 377; fear of Pharaoh,
merciful, 116; spares reed and    424.
wields rod, 116.                  Motherhood, blessed and to be exMercy of God, is unmerciful and    piated, 230.
merciful, 92; his anger fierce and  Mount of law, accessibility, 432.
slow, 95; lasting and brief, 95; Mourning commended and discounto fall into hands, fearful and not   tenanced, 251.
so, 96; laughs at, yet not pleased' Murder,  punishment  commuted,
with sinner's overthrow, 96; just   261; fbrbidden and sanctioned,:
and mercifull, 97; hates some, yet   285.
kind to all, 97.
Meribah, location, 374.              Naboth, sons' fate, 356.
Micaiah, ironical words to Ahab,276. Name of Christ, has divine name,
Michal, sons of, 385..      and a city also bears it, 138.
Midianites overthrown, 406.          Names, plurality, 17, 314, 373';
Milton, description of hospital, 33.   changes, 17; errors in, 25, 312;
Mliracles of Christ, proof and not a    different forms, 314; derivation,
proof of divine mission, 120.        314.
Miscellaneous Discrepancies, 427.  j Nature, contradictions in, 33.
Mission of Christ, peace and war, I Nature of future punishment, con118; universal and limited, 1;1 9    tinued misery and end of conto Samaritans and to Jews only,   sciousness, 203;  wicked perish
119; to fulfil and to redeem from  and rits htc ous perish, 204; sinners
law, 120; to judge and not to    annihilated, and annihilated objudge world, 120.                    jects still exist. 204; wicked cut
Modes  of  representing   Christ,   off, and  Mesciah  cut off, 205;
despised and honorable, 127; un-   wicked destroyed; destroyed percomely and lovely, 127; a lion    sons vet living, 205; sinners deand a lamb, 127; high-priest and    stroyed; destroyed things exist,
a sacrifice, 128; vine and stone,   205; sinnersconsumed; consumed
128; shepherd and sheep, 128;   things exist, 206; wicked was not.'door and  bread, 128; light of   and Enoch was not, 206; wicked
world, and men are lights, 129;   devoured, and  pious devoured,
foundation and men are founda-   206; God's adversaries and widtions, 129.                          ows' houses devoured, 206; sin40




470                     GENERAL INDEX.
ners devoured; persons devoured'    Differences of authorship, 6.
by forest, 207; wicked and right-    Differences of stand-point or of
eous  torn  and  broken, 207;          object, 7.
wicked broken; things broken         Different methods of arrangeremain, 207; wicked blotted out;       ment, 9.
things blotted  out exist, 207;      Different methods of computawicked and righteous have an end,      tion, 11.
208; wicked and righteous die,       Peculiarities of Oriental idiom,
208.                                    14.
Nebuchadnezzar, his encampment         Plurality of names or synowhere, 377; nineteenth year, 402;      nymes, 17.
dream explained when, 402.           Different meanings of same
New, nothing on earth, 432.               word, 18.
Errors in manuscripts, 19.
Obed-edom, nationality, 339.           Imagination of critic, 25.
Obedience due to rulers, yet with- Other sources of discrepancies, conheld, 292; due to masters, yet to   densation of narrative, 10, 29;
God only, 293; to scribes, yet   deficient knowledge of circumthey must be shunned, 293.         stances; 29, 436.
Objects, difference of writers, 7.  Overseers, number, 382.
Occupants of heaven, Christ only
and Elijah also, 216; flesh and Parable of talents, 433.
blood excluded, yet Enoch there, Paran, wilderness, location, 372.
217; publicans and harlots there, Park, Prof. E. A., definition of mirbut no impure, 217.                acle, 122.
Offender  rebuked  privately  and Paschal offering, kind, 433.
publicly, 293.                   Passover, slain where, 377.
Officers, appointed when, 412.     Patristic view of intermediate state,
Officers, chief, number, 382.        192.
Omnipotence of Christ, all power- Paul, moral state; nothing good in
ful and not almighty, 110.         him, yet Christ in him, 230; his
Omnipotence of God, power abso-   boasting elucidated, 247.
lute and limited, 55; unwearied Pekah, duration of reign, 402.
and weary, 56.                   Penal object of discrepancies, 40.
Omnipresence of Christ, everywhere People, number, 381, 389.
and not in all places, 114.      Perfection of man, saints perfect,
Omnipresence of God, ubiquitous    and Paul not perfect, 169.
and not everywhere, 58.          Perseverance, final, of man, aposOmniscience of Christ, all-knowing    tacy impossible, yet some fall,
and ignorant,l  1.                 169; Christians indestructible and
Omniscience of God, all-knowing    destroyed, 172; called all saved,
and ignorant, 56; attentive and    yet some perish, 172.
forgetful, 57; sleepless and slum- Personality of Holy Spirit, an intel
bering, 57.                        ligence and an influence, 139.
Omri, reign begun, 402.            Persons, discrepancies concerning,
Ophir mentioned prematurely, 395.    312; slain, number, 383; anothei
Oriental idiom, peculiarities, 14,   case, 383; sealed when, 409.
145.                             Peter, residence, (77; denials, 424.
Oriental methods of notation, 13.   Pharaoh, hardening of heart, 90.
Oriental modes of dress, 145.      Piety evinced; profession a proof
Origin of Discrepancies, 3.          and not a proof 231.
Difference of dates  of pas- Pillar of cloud, use, 430.
sages, 3.                   Pillar of temple, length, 383.




GENERAL INDEX.                         471
Pleasing of men practised and con- Repentance of man, his own act and
demned, 294.                       God's gift, 165.
Polygamy tolerated and discour- Resistance exemplified and interaged, 295.                         dicted, 298.
Pomegranates, number, 383.         Results of' Discrepancies, 41.
Poor, favored and not favored, 296;    Text not unsettled by them, 41.
present and absent, 356.             Moral influence of Bible not
Position of God, sitting and stand-      impaired, 50.
ing, 103.                        Resurrection of man; dead raised
Potter's field, purchasers, 347.     and not raised, 200; resurrection
Prayer, public and in private, 231;   universal and partial, 200; Jesus
incessant and brief, 232.          raised first; others raised prePredictions of Scripture, privately   viously 201.
and not privately explained, 146; Retaliation, allowed and discoursure, yet not always fulfilled,148;   aged, 299.
divine promise absolute yet con- Retribution, earthly; recompense
ditional, 148; promise to Judah    here and hereafter, 182.
fulfilled and not so, 149.       Righteous, earthly lot, no evil, yet
Priests, dues, first-born and first-   some evil, 172; prosperity and
lings, and not these, 296; desig-   misery, 172; prosperity a reward
nation, 356; number of classes,   and a curse, 174; poverty a bless390; time of consecration, 409.    ing and undesirable, 175; riches
Produce of seventh year, for the    a blessing, yet not to be desired,
poor, and for owner, 297.          175; wisdom cause of happiness
Promises, reception, 363.'          and sorrow, 176; a good name a
Property in man  recognized and    blessing and a curse, 176; rightprecluded, 298.                    eous beg not, yet some beg, 177;
Prophecy. See Predictions.           possess the earth, yet are sojournProverb, origin, 412.                ers, 177; pilgrims and strangers,
Psalms, imprecatory, explanation,   yet not so, 178; they surely live,
272.                               yet some die, 178; are persecuted,
Punishment. See Future Punish-   yet not persecuted, 178; handled
ment.                              roughly, yet not touched, 179;
Purchaser of sepulchre, 357.         their yoke easy, yet burdensome,
Purity, 251. See also Moral Purity    179.
of Scriptures.                   Righteousness, excess and deficiency
perilous, 233.
Robbery of Egyptians forbidden
Quotations of Scripture, passages    and countenanced, 300.
and  incorrect quotations,'50; Rulers' knowledge of Jesus, 358.
passage and condensation, 151;
passages and expansion, 151; pas- Sabbath, sanctioned and repudiated,
sage and inexact version, 152;   233; instituted for diverse rcapassage and wrong reference, 153;               mentioned  pr
sons, 234; mentioned premaforms of report, and variations,   turely, 395.
153.                             Sabbath desecration prohibited and
countenanced, 234.
Rahab, case, 290.                  Sacrifice of Christ, died for friends,
Ransom, amount, 385.                 yet, for enemies, 130; laid down
Regeneration of man, he is active   life and was murdered, 130.
and passive, 166.                Sacrifices, appointed and disavowed,
Repentance of Esau, unable yet his   235; expiatory,and not expiatory,
duty to repent, 232.               236.




472                     GENERAL INDEX.
Sacrifices, human, sanctioned and    161; children of wrath and keepstringently prohibited, 237.       ers of law, 164; sinners through
Salab, father of, 352.               Adam, and righteous through
Salathiel, father of, 346.           Christ, 165.
Salvation, extent, all Israel, yet Sinners' feeling, fear yet no fear,
only a portion saved, 213; uni-   242.
versal and partial, 214; work of Sin-offering,  of  one  kind  and
God and of man, 251.               another, 241.
Samaritans, inhospitality, 358.    Slavery and oppression, 298, 302;
Samuel, artifice, 99; first-born, 352;   ordained  and  forbidden, 302;
visit to Saul, 358; judgeship, 425;   IIebrew slavery allowed and premeeting with Saul, 425.            cluded, 303.
Sanctification of man through truth  Slaves, emancipation, in seventh and
and through spirit, 168.           in fiftieth year, 303; female, manSanctuary, location, 377.            umitted, and not so, 304.
Sarah, beauty and charms, 317.     Solomon, tyranny, 362; destination
Satan, imprisonment, 362.            of fleet, 378; gifts to Hiram, 385;
Saul, king, sons, 352; election, 359;   number of wives, 295, 390; andeath, 359; family's fate, 360;   ointings, 412.
ignorance of David, 360; journey, Sons sharing estate equally and un379; reign, 402; anointings, 412.   equally, 304.
Saul of Tarsus, attendants hearing  Speaker, upon a certain occasion,
the voice, 359; position, 359.     363.
Schleiermacher, definition of mira- Spices, time of preparation, 412.
cle, 122.                        Spies, sent by whom, 350.
Science, discrepancies in, 35.     Spirit of Bible above its letter, 37.
Scriptures, comparison with clas- Stalls, number, 383.
sics, 46; inspiration, 143; moral Stand-point of writers, different, 7.
purity, 144; predictions, 146; Staves of ark, fixed and removable,
quotations, 150.                   242.
Seedtime and harvest, 425.         Stone removed from well, 363.
Sennacherib, army, survivors, 363.  Strange gods, character, 433.
Sepulchre, time of visit to, 426.  Stranger, treatment, loved and not
Service of God, with fear and with   loved, 305; impartially treated,
gladness, 241.                     yet not so, 305.
Shakespeare, text, compared with  Strong drink allowed and forbidden,
that of Bible, 47.                 251.
Shekels paid by David, number, Stuart, Prof. M., on future punish390.                               ment, 212.
Shemaiah, sons, number, 385.       Substitute for Bible not to be found,
Shimei, punishment, 256.             51.
Significations of word, opposite, 18. Sun and moon ashamed, 433.
Sihon, heart hardened, 91.         Swearing and oaths countenanced
Simeon, cities and towns, 369, 373.   and prohibited, 242.
Simeonites, number, 385.
Similar events, identity, 26.      Taanach, conquered when, 405.
Sin, forgiveness, all sin pardonable, Tabernacle, location, 378; premayet soneic not so, 241.            ture mention, 396.
Sinai, relation to Horeb, 376.     Tabernacles, feast observed, 417.
Sinfulness of man, none without Tables of shew-bread, number,
sin, yet some sinless, 159; made    384.
upright and made sinful, 161; Talents, number, 383; parable,
born sinful, yet infants sinless,   433.




GENERAL INDEX.                        473
Temple, length, 383; number of Voltaire, treatment of the Bible, 27.
vessels, 383; premature mention,
396; mount, 396; furniture re- Wandering of Israelites, duration,
moved, 412; erection, 426; mak-   427.
ing of vessels, 434.            Washington, birth-day, 11.
Temptation desirable and not so, Water of Egypt, changed, 434.
253.                            Water on Mount Carmel, abundant,
Testimony, premature mention,396.   435.
Text of Scripture, not unsettled, 41; Wealth not to be, yet may be reof Old Testament, 42; of New   tained, 253.
Testament, 44.                  Wicked, earthly lot, long-lived and
Thermometer, illustration, 12.      die early, 180; prosper and do
Things in ark, number, 390.         not prosper, 180; see and see not
Thnetopsychism, origin, 185.        divine glory, 181; sin with imThompson, Dr. J. P., on Oriental   punity, yet punished, 181; punchronology, 13.                   ishment affirmed and denied, 182.
Time, errors in, causes, 392; meth- Wicked, treatment, hated and loved,
ods of computation, 11, 396.      306; justified properly and imTimes, observance, may be, and may   properly, 306.
not be observed, 244.           Wisdom, profitless and valuable,
Timnah, relationship, 352.          254.
Trench, Abp., definition of miracle. Witchcraft, treatment, punished and
122.                              contelnned, 307.
Trespass, recompense made to the Wives, foreign, repudiated, 412.
Lord and to the priest, 245.    Woman, a certain, nationality, 339.
Tribes, loyal, number, 387.       Woman, condition  and  rights,
should be subject and bear rule,
Unclean birds, number, 391.         308; should be silent, and may
Unity of God, one and a plurality,   prophesy, 309.
60.                             Worship of God, beginning, 427.'Usury exacted of no poor man and
no Hebrew, 306.                 Xenophon, Memorabilia, compared
with the gospels, 10.
Various readings, value, 36.
Veracity of Christ, witness true and Year, kinds,l 1; beginning, 12, 412;
untrue,ll 7; received and received   fractions counted for whole, 12.
not testimony, 118.
Veracity of God, cannot lie, and Zebedee, wife, request, 347.
sends lying spirits, 98; denounces  Zebulon, name derived, 316.
and sanctions deception, 99.    Zechariah, father of, 352.
Version of affair, 434.           Zedekiah, relationship, 352; view of
Vessels made for temple, 434.       Babylon, 363.
Visitors at sepulchre, number, 391; Zerubbabel, father of, 352; feast of
time of their visit, 426.         tabernacles, 417.
40*








WARREN F. DRAPER,
PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER,
ANDOVER, IMiASS.,
Publishes and offers for Sale the following Works, which will be sent,
post-paid, on receipt of the sums affixed.
GARDIJNER'S GREEK HARMONY. A Harmony of the Four Gospels
in Greek, according to the Text of Tischendorf, with a Collation of the Textus
Receptus, 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 Harmsony is, of course, the choice of a text.
The one chosen by Professor Gardiner is that of Tischendort''s eighth edition of the New Testament. This text wvas 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 Vaticanus.'
Professor Gardiner would, indeed, have published his Harmony more than a year ago, but waited
till opportunity could be given for 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 Tisclheldorf
agrees or conflicts with that of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles in places where there is a difference 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." - Biblsotheca 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 samne page the
readings of the principal editions and manuscripts, together with the quotations made by the evangelists from the Old Testament." — Princeton review.
"Dr. Gardiner's work has been vell done, and lhe has given us a Harmony of great value." —
Quarterly 2Reviews Evang. Lauth. Church.
" 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
sacred text." — Reformed Churlsch Monthly.
" It is a superior work of its kind." - Nati.onal Baptist.
"This book, the result of great research and utmost painstaking, is well worthy the consideration
of all Bible scholars." - Watchnanz and Reflector.
GARDINER'S ENGLISH HARMONY. 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 Berkeley 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 modern criticism has made in
the authorized English text." — Bibliotheca Sacra.
"We gladly commend this Harmony to every intelligent reader of the Scriptures. The need of
sulch a guide is felt by every thoughtfsul 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 be helped to the understanding of the
Gospels by a simple Harmony, perhaps reads as we suggested above, in connection with some
stanll dard Life of our Lord." -  /The Churchsman.
LIFE  OF  CHIRIST. 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 improvements into
the style of teaching the Bible to the young." - Bibliotheca Sacra.
"This little volume will not only 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 with
a Bible-class."- Christian Union.
(1)




P4blicattions of W. F. Draper.
A GUIDE TO READING THIE HEBlREW TEXT; for the Use of
Beginners. By  LR.Ev. W. H. VIBBER'T, M  A., Professor of Hebrew in the
Berkeley Divinity School.  12mo.  pp. 67. $1.25.
"The aim of this worol 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 Hebrew Bible. One thing is given at a time, with exercises for practice,
so 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 plain of
arrangement, which ihe must follow closely and steadily, he is lead onl from section to section, until
perfect familiarity with the forms and sounds of characters and signs is acquired." - Author's Pref.
" Mr. Vibbert's manual is what it claims to be. It really gives, in a perspicuous and exact manner, an initiation into the mysteries 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 preliminary to gralmmar 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 character which it had when the Scribes expounded it." - CIhristiant Register.
RIGGS'S 0. T. EMENDATIONS. Suggested Emendations of the Authorized English Version of the Old Testament.  By ELIAS  RIGcGS, 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 Versioe,, which I have never attempted, but of comparisons made in the course of translating the Scriptures 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 providentially called to the work of translating the word of God into other tongues." - AZth'or's Preface.' W. F. Draper, publisher of the Bibliotheca Sacra, has issued aIn interesting and suggestive little
treatise written by Rev. Elias Riggs, Missionary of the A. B. C. F. F. M., at Constantinople, which is
introduced by an Ilntroductory Note of Prof. Thayer of Andover. It is intended to suggest some of
the phlilological 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 whicll 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 ulnchanging 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-defended 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 H-erald.
HEBREW ENGLISH PSALTER. The Book of Psalms, in Hebrew and
English, arranged in P'arallelism.  16mo. pp. 194. $1.25.
" The preacher in expounding to his congregation one of the Psalms of David, will find it very
convenient to hlave the original by the side of the Englisll version. For private reading and meditation, also such an arrangement will be found very pleasant and profitable. We feel confident that
this little volume will be a favorite with Hebrew scholalrs; and that, when they have once become
habituated to it, it will be, to many of them, a vadle nmecron." - Bibliotieca Sacra.
"A handsome edition of the Book of Psalns, which will be quite a favorite with clergymen and
theological students." - Nelw Engylandelr.
"A very convenient and admirable manual, and we beg leave to thank our Andover friend for
it." — Presbyterias Qu)rrterlE.
" The volume is beautifully printed, of convenient size for use, and of admirable adaptation to the
service of those whose Hebrew has become a dim reminiscence." - North Anerictan.
HIEBREW  G-RAMM AV R. The Elements of the Hebrew Language. By Rev.
A. D. JONES, A.M.  8vo.  pp. 168.  $1.75.
"By a simple and progressive series of exercise, and by a perfectly plain exposition of the syntax,
the student is enabled to take up flebrew just as he would the initia Latizc, and just as easily." -
Publisher's Circular, Apr. 15, 1870.
"The plan of the work is admirable, and happily executed." - Reforened Chuzrch Afessenger.
(2)




Publications of W. F. Draper.
WINER'S N. T. GRAMMAR. A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament; prepared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament.
By Die. GEORGE BENEDICT WINEr.  Seventh Edition, enlarged and improved.
By DR. GOTTLIEB  LUNEMANN, Professor of Theology at the University of
Gettingen.  Revised and authorized Translation.  8vo. pp. 744. Cloth, $5.00;
sheep, $6.00; half goat, $6.75.
"Pro: 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 fill 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." - Princeton 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." - Baptist Quarterly.
"Tlhe seventh edition of Winer, superintended by Lunemann (Leipz. 1867), we have at last,
thanks to Prof. Thayer, in a really accurate translation." - Dr. Ezrna Abbot, in Simith's Dictionary
of the Bible, Amersican aEdition.
" We have before us, in our own language,' a reproduction of the original work,' in its most perfect form, and with its author's latest additions and improvements." - New Elnglander.
"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. Isle 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
Froft Massoe'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."-Bib. Sacra.
"' The whole appearance of the work as it now stands indicates a careful and thorough scholarship. A critical comparison of several pages with the original confirms 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 reverent and accurate study of the Word of God." — Anericaz Presbyterian  Review.
BUTTM1[Al7NN'S NXT. T. GRAIMMAR. A Grammar of the New Testament
Greek. By ALEXANDER BUTTMAINN. Authorized Translation, by J. HENRY
THAYER. With -numerous additions and corrections by the Author. 8vo. pp. 494.
Price, 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 Classic 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 fobr every Student, by giving running references throughout the book to
five or six of the most current grammatical rolrks, among them the Grammars of Iladley, 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 aseparate Index has been added, comprising all the passages cited from the
Septuagint. The other Indexes have been materially augmented; the cross-references have been
multiplied; chapter and verse added to many of the fiagmentary 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 firequently in commentaries and gramnatical
worlks has been added for the convenience of students." - Translator's vreeftce.
"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 wrork 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 be helpful to students, both in connection with Winer's and as discussing many points from a different or opposite point of view. Prof.
Thayer has added much to the value of the book — as one to be readily and conveniently used - by
enlarging and perfecting the Indexes," etc. - New Englander.
(3)




Publications of V: F. Drapez,.
ELLICOTT'S COM1MIENTARY, CRITICAL AND GR:AMMATICAL, on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.  With an Introductory  Notice
by C. E. STOWE, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. 8vo. pp. 183
$ 1.50.
Thle Commentaries of Prof. Ellicott supply an urgent want in their sphere of criticism. Prof.
Stowe says of them, in his Notice: "It is tlhe crowning excellence of these Commentaries that
th]ey are exactly what they profess to be, critical and gramsssmatical, and tlhcrefore in the best
sense of tile term, exegetical...... His results are worthy of all confidence. lIe is more careftl thlan Tiscllendorlf slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently
laborious tiian any other living New Testament critic, withl the exception, perhaps, of Tregele1CS."
"They [Ellicott's Commentaries] have set the first example, in this cor:'!.y, i':ngland] of't
ta.orough and fearless examination of the grammatical and philological requirements of' very
x-orl-d of' the sacred text. I do not know of anything superior to them, in their os-n particular
Ine, in Germany; and they add, what, alasl is so seldom found in that cons  y, profblnd
r verence for the matter and sulbjects on which the author is laboring; nor is their vallue
ltsseued by Mr. Ellicott's having confined hlimself for the most palrt to one department of a
ellmmnlentator's work. - the grammllatical and pllilological." -DIean Alford.
Tile criticral part is devoted to thle settling of' the text, and this is admirably done, with a
ttbor, slill, and conscientiousness unsurpassed." - Bib.?Sacra.
"We have never met with a learned commentary oil any book of the New Testament so.tearly perfect in every respect as the'Commentlary on the Epistle to the Galatians.' by Proft;llicott, of King's College, London, - learned, devout, and orthodox." -- Ietle)ende len7t.': We would recommend all scholars of the original Scriptures who scelk directness, lurminol us
-orevity, tllhe bsence of everythling irrelevant to strict grammatical inllquiry, w-ith a conlcise alld
eet very complete view of the opinions of others, to possess themselves of Ellicott's Comnalentries." - American'Pres7byterian.
qCOM./LMENTARY ON EPHBESIAINS. 8-~o. y.p..90. $1.50.
COtMMENTARY ON THEESSALONIAlNS, 8vo. pp. 17L. $1.50.
COMMENTARY ON THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 8vo. $2.00.
COMMENTARY ON PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND
PEI:LEMON.  2.00o.
TilUE SET in fivie vols., on fine paper, extra cloth, bevelled, gilt tops. $10.00.
TilE SET in two vols., black cloth $ 8.00.
gENDERSO-:Y O,_*q THE MINOR PROPHETS. THE BOOK
OF  THE  TWELVE  31INORt   I'ROPIETS.  Translated from  the Original
luebrew.  Witll a Conmlnentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. By
E. HElINDEn sosN. D.D.  With a Biographical Sketch of the Author, by E. P.
BARnows, Hitchcock Professor in Andover Theological Seminary.  8vo.
pp. 490. $ 3.50.
" This Commentary on the Minor Prophets, like that on the Prophecy of Isaiah, las been
hlighly ansd deservedly esteemed by professional scholatrs, and has been of great service to the
workling 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 fitr as we know, by no other single volume in the English language. Dr. Henderson was a good H-lebrew and Biblical scholar, and in his Commentaries he is intelligent,
brief, and to the point." - Boston Recorder.
"The American publisher issues this valuable work withl the consent and approbation of the
author, obtained froml himself before his death. It is published in substantial and elegant style,
clear white paper anld beautiful type. The wolrk is invaluable for its philological research and
critical acumen. The notes are learned, reliable, and practical, and the volume deserves a
place inl every theological student's library." - American Presbyterian, etc.
" O' all his Commentaries none are more popular than hlis Book of the Minor Prophets." -
Cahristirnss Observer.
" 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."~ltristia, Chroxaicle.
2




Publications of W. F. Draper.
HhENDERSON'S JERIEMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS.'The
Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and that of the Lamentations, translated
fom  the original Hebrew; with a Commentary Critical, Philological, and
Exegetical. By E. HEINDERSON, D.D. 8vo. pp. 315. $2.50.
"This Commentary, which has been before the public for some years, like that of Isaiah and
the Minor Prophets, combines learning and clearness, pholological research, critical taste
sound judgment, and pure devotion. An introductory dibss rtation, brief, but luminous and
instructive, prepares the reader for an appreciative study of the work. The translation, perhaps, sometimes unnecessarily deviates fiom the Englishl version. It is printed ill the clear
and elegant style for which the Andover press is distiuguishled." - Ervagelical (Quartearl/.
" Dr. Henderson is one of the most eminent of moderln biblical critics, and is known itl this
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 his happy blending
of textual with exegetical comment. His treatise on Jeremiah is well worlthy by its elevated
beholarship to take a place side by side with the commentaries of Bishop Ellicott and of Pro-'mssor Murphy, also issued by Mr. Draper." -Publisher's Circular, Oct. 1. 1868.
[13 NDERSON'S  EZEKIEL.  The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, translated from the original Hebrew; with a Commentary Critical, Philological,
and Exegetical. By E. Henderson, D.D. 8vo. pp. 228. Price, $2.00.
"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 wiitll the original text, and
will be found very helpful to the real student of these sacred symbols." -Zion's Ilerald.
" This Commentary, like that on the Minor Prophets and other books of the Old Testament,
by the same author, is very satisfactory. On every page it gives evidence of carefal research
and critical scholarship. It avoids all fanciful interpretation; its expositions are marked by
practical good sense." - Evangelical Quarterly Review, Pa.
MiURPHY'S GENESIS. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book of Genesis; with a new Translation.  By JAMES G. il1uiPriY, LL.D.,
T.C.D.  With a Preface by J. P. THoMPsoN, D.D., of New York. 8vo.
pp. 535. Price, $3.50.
"The most valuable contribution that has fobr a long time been made to the many aids for the
critical study of the Old Testament, is Mr. Draper's republication of Dr. Murpshy onl Genesis,
in oneoctavovolume. Dr. Murphy is one of the Professors of the Assembly's College at Belfihst.
and adds to a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew, and of the science of' interpretation, great
common sense, genuine wit, and admirable power of expression. Heince 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 effectual and relieving wound than Dr. Murphy. It is a good deal to say of a commentary, but we say it in till sincerity, that this volume furnishes about as tiscinating work for
one's hours for readinlg, as any volume of the day, il any dleparltlent of litelature; -ewhile its
general influence will be salutary, and effective for the truth."- C'o7Tgregationalist.
MURPHY'S  EXODUS. 8vo. pp. 385. Price, $3.00.
"Thu'ls far nothing has appearled in this country for half a century on the first two books of
the Pentateuchl so valuable as the present two volumes." (On Genesis and Exodus.) His
style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford golden suggestions and keytloughts.....  Some of the laws of interpretation are stated with so fresh and natural a clearnoess sand force that they will permanently stand." - llethodist Quartterly.
"I feel that I am richer for having it on my shelf of Christian armory. I wish every one of
mny brethren in the ministry had the same joy; and few need be deprived of it, for the books
ale very cheap." - Reev. I C'. _Fish, D.D.
" Prof. Murphy's Commentalry on Genesis has been published long enough to have secured
the ligllest reputation for scholarship, researcll, and sound judgment.  This volume on
Exodus takes it place in the sane rank, and will increase rather than diminish its author's
reputation among scholars." —  Neational satcptist.
"This is the second volume of the ablest Commentaory on the Pentateuch that has yet fallen
into our hands." — 2'e lWeekly Press.
"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 alnd
unfolds its lany subjects of discussion, will be sure to fix and reward the attention of the
general student." — 1Te Lutheran.




Pubi~cai-ons of W. F. Draper.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By
MiOSES STUART, late Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theolowcal
Seminary at Andover.  Third Edition.  Edited and revised by PROF. If. D.
C. ROBBIN'S. 12mo. pp. 544. $2.25.
" Ilis Commentary on the Romnans is the most elaborate of all his worlks. It has elicited more
discussion than ally of his other exegetical volumes. It is the result of long continued, patient
tholghlt. It expresses, in clear style, his maturest conclusions. It has the animating influence
of all original treatise, written on a novel plan, and under a sense of personal responsibility.
Regarding it in all its relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it the miost
important Commentary which has appeared in this country on this Epistle." — Bib. Sacra.' We heartily commend this work to all students of the Bible. The production of one of the
first Biblical scholars of our age, on the most important of all the doctrinal books of tile New
Testament, it deserves the careful study, not only of those who agree with Prof. Stuart in his
theological and exegetical principles, but of those who earnestly dissent from some of his
views in both respects." - Watchsmas anzd Reflector.
"This contribution by Prof. Stuart has justly taken a high place among the Commentaries
on the Epistle to the Romans, and, with his other worlts, will always be held in high estimation
by the student of the Sacred Scriptures." - New York Observer.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
By PnOF. MI. STUART. Third Edition. Edited and revised by PROF. I. D. C.
iOBBINS.  12mo. pp. 575. $2.25.
"It is a rich treasure for the student of the original. As a commentator, Prof. Stuart was
especially arduous and faithful in following up the thought and displaying 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." - Anmericcan Presbyterian.
" This Commentary is classical, botih as to its literary and its theological merits. The edition
before us is very skilfully edited, by Professor Robbins, and gives in full Dr. Stuart's text, w~th
additions bringing it down to the present day." - Episcopal  Recorder.
"We have always regarded this excellent Commentary as the happiest effort of the late
Andover Professor. It seems to us well-nigh to exhaust the subjects which the author comprehealded 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." — Chrristian Observ'er.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. By PROF.
iI. 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 mian ripening fir 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 firmer works. No English
reader, we venture to say, can elsewhere find so complete a philological exposition of these two
important books of the Old Testament." - Bib. Sacra.
COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES. By MosES STUART, late
Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover.
Second Edition. Edited and revised by R. D. C. ROBnINS, Professor in Middlebury 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 Commentary is strictly and minutely exegetical.
STUART'S MISCE LLANIES. pp. 369. 12mo. $1.00.
CONTENTS. —I. Letters to Dr. Channing on the Trinity.-II. Two Sermons on the Atonement. —III. Sacramental Serrllon on the Lamb of God.-IV. Dedication Sermon.-:Real
Christianity. - V. Letter to Dr. Channing on Religious Liberty. - VI. Supplementary Notes
and Postscripts.
COXMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE. 2 vl. Svo. pp... p. 4,
501. ~5.00.
CRITICAL HIST'ORY AND DEE'ENCE Of THE OLD TEST~A,
MENT CANON. 12mo. pp. 450. $1.75.
3




:Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Appleton. Works of Jesse Appleton, D.D., with a Memoir
of his Life and Character.  2 vols. in I.  8vo.       $3.00
"They will ever form standard volumes in American theological
literature." - Biblical Repository.
Edwards. Writings of Professor B. B. Edwards. With
a Memoir by  Professor EDWARDS A. PARK.  2 vols.
12mo.                                                 $3.00
CONTENTS. — Vol. I. Memoir, and Seven Sermons.
Vol. II. Sixteen Essays, Addresses, and Lectures.
Homer. Writings of W. B. Homer. With an Introductory
Essay and a Memoir.  By Professor EDWARDS A. PARK.
12mo.                                                 $1.25
CONTENTS.- Memoir, Literary Addresses, and Discourses.
Smith. Select Sermons of Rev. Worthington Smith, D.D.
With a Memoir of his Life, by REV. JOSEPH TORREY,
D.D., Professor in Burlington College.  12mo.         $1.25
"This brief Memoir from the pen of Prof. Torrey sets forth his marked
peculiarities as a man, a Christian, a preacher, and as the head of the
University, in a practical, useful, and very readable manner. Valuable
hints upon various questions of Congregational polity are thrown out, in
the -course of the discussion, and much information of value to ministers
is included in the sketch of this prudent and useful man. Sixteen Sermons complete the volume, showing Dr. Smith's characteristics as a
pulpit laborer." - The Congregationalist.
"A beautiful and worthy tribute to a rich character and noble life."
- North American Review.
Taylor. A Memorial of Samuel Harvey Taylor.  Compiled by his last Class. 8vo. Pica Type. Tinted Paper;
cloth, bevelled, gilt edges. Published by Subscription. $1.75
This elegant little volume is a tribute of affection and respect to the
late Principal of Phillips Academy, by his last Senior Class. It contains
the Address by Professor Park, at the Funeral of Dr. Taylor; the Selection from the Scriptures read on the occasion by Prof. J. L. Taylor; a
Sermon by Prof. J. W. Churchill, preached at the Chapel of the Theological Seminary on the Sabbath following; Resolutions of the Members
of the Academy and the Alumni, with some account of the Funeral
Services, and Reminiscences by a former pupil. A beautiful Photograph,
cabinet size, the last one taken of Dr. Taylor, precedes the title.
An Address, Delivered at the Funeral of Samuel Harvey
Taylor, LL.D., by Professor EDWARDS A. PARK.  8vo.
Paper covers.                                     25 cents.
1-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Angel over the Right Shoulder, The; or the Beginning ot
a New Year.  By the Author of " Sunnyside.  40 cents.
"It is as provokingly short as it is exquisitely beautiful." - Boston
Recorder.
" What a blessed thing is a sunny spirit, ever cheerful and happy, and
ever diffusing joy over all around it. Such a spirit is the Author of
"Sunny Side."  She comes to us again as a living angel- in good omen
over the right shoulder. We commend it to all mothers, and especially
to all Mrs. Jellabys." — Independent.
Carlyle, Thomas. Latter-Day Pamphlets. 12mo.  $1.00
CONTENTS.- The Present Time. —Model Prisons.-Downing Street.
-The New Downing Street. - Stump Orator. - Parliaments. -
Hudson's Statue. -Jesuitism.
A Collection of the Proverbs of all Nations. Compared,
Explained, and Illustrated.  By  WALTER  B. KELLY.
12mo.,                       $1.25
"This is one of those books, like Roget's Thesaurus, Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, and Lippincott's Pronouncing Gazetteer, which contains
a vast amount of information in a very small space - books that a writer
cannot afford to be without, for they contain information that by days of:
research in libraries one would hardly be able to obtain. This collection
contains all the proverbs which are familiar in all nations. They are
classified under various heads, such as Women, Love, Marriage, Home,
Self-conceit, Ingratitude, and so on. There is also a full index, which
enables one at once to find any particular proverb. Another excellent
feature is, that when a proverb is taken from another language, not only
the English, but the original is given. The book is replete with good
things. It supplies a want that many a one has felt —a want that no
dictionary, gazetteer, or book of quotations now supplies." — College
Courant.
"It is not possible, perhaps, to collect the proverbial wisdom of the
world in any more attractive form than this of Mr. Kelly's...... As a
book for the library, an armory where a writer or a speaker may be armed
and equipped in a single line; as a book for the centre-table, something
that you can read a page or twenty pages of, have your reading cut short
anywhere, and still be complete and intensely interesting besides,- as a
book for either of these purposes, the " Proverbs of all Nations" will be
found very acceptable. Certain it is, at least, that " you may go farther
and fare worse."-Christian Freeman.
Value of the Study of Church History in Ministerial
Education. A Lecture delivered to the Senior Class of
Andover Theological Seminary. By EGBERT C. SMYTH.
8vo.  Paper,                                      25 cents.
God's Ownership of the Sea. By LEONARD SWAIN, D.D.
Reprinted from the Bibliotheca Sacra.  Paper,   25 cents.
A remarkably interesting Essay on the office and uses of the sea.
2-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Political Economy. Designed as a Text-Book for Colleges.
By JOHN BASCOM, A. M., Professor in Williams College.
12mo.  pp. 366.                                        $1.50
"It goes over the whole ground in a logical order. The matter is
perspicuously arranged under distinct chapters and sections; it is a compendious exhibition of the principles of the science without prolonged
disquisitions on particular points." - Princeton Review.
" This is a valuable work upon a subject of much interest.' Professor
Bascom writes well, and his book makes an excellent manual." - Boston
Recorder.
" The book is worthy a careful study, both for the views it contains
and as a mental training." - Evening Express.
Questions on  Kiihner's Elementary  Greek  Grammar.
By CHARLES W. BATEMAN, LL.D.; with Modifications
and Notes by SAMUEL H. TAYLOR, LL.D., Principal of
Phillips Academy. 12mo. pp. 57. Paper covers. 40 cts.
These "Questions" are a valuable aid to the pupil in making his
knowledge of the principles of the Grammar more definite, and in fixing
them more permanently in his mind. They will also greatly aid the
teacher to systematize his work, and lighten the labor of teaching. These
" Questions," though prepared with special reference to Kiihner's Grammar, are equally applicable to any elementary Greek Grammar. They
are a valuable aid.
Dbderlein's Hand-Book of Latin Synonymes. Translated
by REv. H. H. ARNOLD, B.A., with an Introduction by
S. I. TAYLOR, LL.D.  New  Edition, with an Index of
Greek words.  16mo.  pp. 267.                          $1.25
"The present hand-book of Diderlein is remarkable for the brevity, distinctness, perspicuity, and appositeness of its definitions. It will richly
reward not merely the classical, but the general student for the labor he
may devote to it. It is difficult to open the volume, even at random,
without discovering some hint which may be useful to a theologian.....
From the preceding extracts it will be seen that this hand-book is useful
in elucidating many Greek, as well as Latin synonymes." - Bib. Sacra.
" The little volume mentioned above, introduced to the American public
by an eminent scholar and teacher, Samuel H. Taylor, LL.D., is one of
the best helps to the thorough appreciation of the nice shades of meaning
in Latin words that have met my eye. It deserves the attention of teachers
and learners, and will amply reward patient study."-Prof: E. D. Sanborn.
" We have been acquainted for some years with the merits of this work,
and cordially commend it as one of the best manuals on Latin synonymes,
and admirably adapted to the wants of the student."-Evangelical Review.
" It is well adapted to school purposes, and embraces all that is necessary
on this subject. He has often introduced also the nearest corresponding
expression both in the Greek and German languages, and placed them
side by side with the Latin synonyme."- Evening Express.
" We have no hesitation in saying that this is the best work on Latin
synonymes that has yet been published." — Universalist Quarterly.
3-74




Books Published  by W. F. Draper.
Classical Study: Its Usefulness illustrated by Selections
from the Writings of Eminent Scholars. Edited, with an
Introduction, by SAMUEL H. TAYLOR, LL.D., Principal
of Phillips Academy.  12mo.                              $2.00
Professor J. R.. Boise, of the University of Chicago, thus writes in the
March number of the Illinois Teacher: " The selection of essays made by
Dr. Taylor is eminently judicious, and presents the views of many
leading writers, both in Europe and in this country. The Introduction,
containing about thirtyjpages, gives, first, a concise and'clear sketch of
the history of the controversy on the value of classical studies; and then,
several reasons why the highest benefits of classical study are seldom
reached in this country. On this latter point, we know of no one better
qualified by education and long experience as a teacher to speak wisely..... To all who desire the best collection of essays in our language on
classical study, the work of Dr. Taylor will be very welcome. It should
have a conspicuous place in every school-library, and in the private
library of every educator in our land..... Not the least valuable part of
the volume is the Introduction, in which Dr. Taylor so ably, clearly,
and fairly balances the arguments on the two sides."
"We commend the book as a valuable collection of essays on the
higher methods of mental training." - American Presbyterian.
The  Theology  of the Greek  Poets. By W. S. TYLER,
Williston Professor of Greek in Amherst College.  12mo.
Cloth.                                                  $1.75
"Professor Tyler has here produced a work which is an honor to
American literature. It is well fitted to be a classic in our Colleges and
Theological Seminaries. It furnishes admirable illustrations of the truth
of both natural and revealed theology, and suggests original methods
for the defence of these truths." -Bibliotheca Sacra.
"The book is an important contribution to natural theology. It
traces the relation of the theology of the Greek poets to that of Christ.
Prof. Tyler does his work with the mind of a master." - Zion's Herald.
The  Kingdom   of Christ on  Earth:  Twelve  Lectures
delivered before the Students of the Theological Seminary,
Andover. By SAMUEL HARRIS, Dwight Professor of
Systematic Theology in Yale College. 8vo.               $1.75
"These lectures are characterized by a firm grasp of the subject, by
profound and thorough comprehension of the facts and principles which
it involves, by a lucid and connected method, and a perspicuous and
popular style. The subject is of the very essence of the Christian system. The specific views presented are judicious and sound.  The
student in theology will find that a careful study of these lectures, pursued so far as to bring the whole presentation into living and shaping
relation to his religious thought, will be of inestimable advantage to him
in clearing away mists and difficulties, in harmonizing and systematizing
his religious knowledge, in opening views into remoter fields of truth, in
guiding and quickening his mind generally in its contemplation of
religious truth." - The College Courant.
4-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Hymns and Choirs: Or the Matter and the Manner of the
Service of Song in the House of the Lord. By AUSTIN
PHELPS and EDWARDS A. PARK, Professors in Andover,
and DANIEL L. FURBrER, Pastor at Newton. 12mo. $1.50
"Perhaps no other volume in the English language discusses the subject of Christian Psalmody more thoroughly, or on the whole, with better
taste and judgment..... Considered as a treatise on the art of selecting
psalms and hymns, from whatever collection, for use in public song, and
of guiding that part of worship in a Christian assembly, it is a book to
be studied by all pastors, and by all expectants of the sacred office." —
New Englander.
"There is a great deal of curious information in this volume about
hymns, as well as a thorough discussion of the principles of the service
of song.' "- Congregational Quarterly.
Ministerial Culture.  By  AUSTIN  PHELPS, Professor of
Sacred Rhetoric in Andover Theological Seminary. 18mo.
Paper,                                                12 cts.
Lectures on Pastoral Theology. By ENOCH POND, D.D.,
Professor in Bangor Theol. Sem. 2d ed.  12mo.   $1.75
"Though specially adapted to Congregational churches and ministers,
they will be found of use to all; for they are wise and prudent. All the
special relations and duties of the ministry are fully and clearly discussed."
- American Presbyterian Theological Review.
"' No pastor, no young pastor more especially, will carefully ponder the
suggestions here made without profit." - Methodist Protestant.
Preacher and Pastor, The. By Fenelon, Herbert, Baxter,
and Campbell. Edited by Prof. E. A. PARK. 12mo. $1.50
Fenelon's "Dialogues concerning Eloquence," Herbert's "Country
Parson," Baxter's " Reformed Pastor," and Campbell's "Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence."
Pulpit Elocution.  Comprising Remarks on the Effect of
Manner in Public Discourse; the Elements of Elocution
applied to the Reading of the Scriptures, Hymns, and Sermons; with Observations on the Principles of Gesture; and
a Selection of Exercises in Reading and Speaking. By
WILLIAM RUSSELL. With an Introduction by Prof. E. A.
PARK and Rev. E. N. KIRK. 12mo. Second ed.   $1.50
"The plan of it is admirably adapted to aid the student, the minister,
and other public speakers in the acquisition of that practical knowledge
of speaking as an art, which is of very great importance to their influence and usefulness." -Philadelphia Christian Observer.
" It is one of the most thorough publications upon the subject, and is
admirably addressed to the correction of the various defects which diminish the influence of pulpit discourse. - Literary World.
5-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Works of Villiamt G. 1'. Shedd, recently Professor of
Ecclesiastical 1History in Andover Theol. Serm.
Discourses and Essays.  12mo. pp. 324.                      $1.50
" These elaborate articles are written in a lucid and racy style, and invest with a rare interest the themes of which they treat. - Bibliotheca Sacra.
" These Discourses are all marked by profound thought and perspicuity
of sentiment." - Princeton Review.
" These Essays are, every one of them, a rich treat for the thinkers,
the lovers of deep thought; of thought clothed in a strong, terse, stern,
clear expression." - Methodist Quarterly Review.
" Papers like these are worthy the deepest study and the warmest admiration of the best minds; the entire volume is a storehouse from which
thoughts rich and truthful may be drawn." -Presbyterian Quarterly.
Lectures upon the Philosophy of History.  12mo. 75 cts.
"This volume consists of four Lectures, of which the following are the
titles: The Abstract Idea of History; The Nature and Definition of
Secular History; The Nature and Definition of Church History; The
Verifying Test in Church History. It is written in a lucid style, and
will interest the students of theology and of history. - Bibliotheca Sacra.
" The style of these Lectures has striking merits. The author chooses
his words with rare skill and taste, from an ample vocabulary; and writes
with strength and refreshing simplicity." - New Englander.
Outlines of a Systematic  Rhetoric.  From  the German
of DR. FRANCIS THEREMIN, by W. G. T. SHEDD.  $1.00
"The Introductory Essay which Professor Shedd has prefixed to this
valuable Treatise, is elaborate, vigorous, impressive. It excites the mind
not only to thought, but also to the expression of thought —to inward
and outward activity. The whole volume is characterized by freshness
and originality of remark, a purity and earnestness of moral feeling." -
Bibliotheca Sacra.
" The subject is ably unfolded in this compact yet thorough treatise.
What, however, is exhibited by Theremin in a dry light, in the form of
naked philosophic statement, is displayed by Professor Shedd in his Introductory Essay, with that glow of life, beauty, and force which distinguishes his writings." - Princeton Review.
Guericke's Church History (Ancient Church; including
the First Six Centuries).  8vo.                         $3.00
"Characterized by research, devoutness, firm grasp of evangelical truth,
and careful exhibition of the practical as well as the intellectual aspects of
Christianity." - North British Review.
"We regard Professor Shedd's version as a happy specimen of the
transjfision, rather than a translation, which many of the German treatises
should receive. The style of his version is far superior to that of the
orignal." — Bibliotheca Sacra.
Guericke's Church History —Medieoval Church. $1.50
"This portion of Guericke's Church History continues the account
down to A.D. 1073, when Hildebrand ascended the Papal chair as Gregory VII. With the previous volume, this addition comprises the History
of the Church during the first ten centuries.
6-74




Books Published  by WV. F. Draper.
Remarks on the Internal Evidence for the Truth of Revealed Religion.  By THOMAs ERSKINE, Esq., Advocate.
Third American, from Fifth Edinburgh Ed. 16mo. 75 cts.
"The entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which it advocates to intelligent and considerate minds. It is one of the best,
perhaps the best, of all the discussions of this momentous subject." —
Congregationalist.
" This argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the Truth of
Revealed Religion, is the most compact, natural, and convincing we
have ever read from any author." - Christian Chronicle.
" No man ought to consider himself as having studied theology unless
he has read and pondered and read again' Erskine on the Internal Evidence.' " —Independent.
WVitinga s of Archbishop Whately. Published under the
sanction of the author, from the latest revised editions; viz.
Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of St.
Paul.  12mo.  Cloth extra, gilt tops.                  $1.50
"Dr. Whately's writings are characterized by sound thought and solid
judgment. Clear and solid sense is his peculiar characteristic. He is
often ingenious, generally candid, almost always plain and transparent."
-Bibliotheca Sacra.
"An excellent work." -New York Evangelist.
"The Archbishop's writings are a part of the sterling theological letters of the age, and ought to be possessed by all the studious and
thoughtful." -Journal and Messenger.
"This book had passed through at least eight editions in England
before its publication in this country. Dr. Whately is always entitled to
a hearing. Never profound, he is always clear; never very original, he
is always instructive; never disgustingly dogmatic, he always seems to
feel a serene assurance that he has exhausted the whole subject, and
that his verdict is final; always positive and didactic, he is yet never
extreme, but always takes the middle and moderate view." - Watchman
and Reflector.
Essays on some of the Pecularities of the Christian Religion, and Historic Doubts concerning Napoleon.
12mo. pp. 264 and 48. Bound in 1 vol. Cloth extra,
gilt tops.                                             $1.50
Historic  Doubts concerning  Napoleon.  12mo.  Paper
covers, 25 cents; cloth, 50 cents.
About the year 1821 Whately published this Essay anonymously. It
was designed as an answer to Hume's objections to the credibility of the
Christian miracles. Following Hume's method, Whately gravely argued
the improbability of the existence of the first Napoleon, and demonstrated
that, on Hume's principles, the testimony in relation thereto could not be
credited.
7-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney of
Uley, Gloucestershire. 12mo.                          $1.00
The Contemplations and Letters of Henry Dorney were held in high
estimation by Madam Phebe Phillips. The copy which she used, came
down to her as an heirloom from her pious ancestors, and was ranked,
on her private table, next to her Bible and hymn-book. So highly did
she esteem the work, that she copied out, with her own hand, a large
part of the volume for the use of a friend. It is now reprinted as a
precious memorial of one of the honored founders of the Theological
Institution.
Bible History of Prayer. By C. A.GooDRICH. 12mo. $1.25
" The aim of this little volume is to embody an account of the delightful and successful intercourse of believers with heaven for some four
thousand years. The author has indulged a good deal in narrative,
opening and explaining the circumstances which gave birth to the several
prayers.
" The author does not aim to write a treatise on prayer, or to comment
on all the references to prayer in chronological order, but to dwell on its
nature and importance, and make suggestions on the most important
allusions to prayer, as indicated all along for four thousand years. He
explains the circumstances connected with the prayers of these holy men."
- Religious Union.
Messianic Prophecy and the Life of Christ. By Rev.
W. S. KENNEDY.  12mo.                                 $1.25
"The plan of the author is to collect all the prophecies of the Old
Testament referring to the Messiah, with appropriate comments and reflections, and then to pursue the subject through the New Testament in
the life of Christ as he appeared among men. The reader will find the
results of Hengstenberg and Neander here gathered up, and presented in
a readable shape." -The Presbyterian.
" This work exhibits the prophetic element in the Messianic argument
in an analytical shape, and with peculiar force." -Episcopal Recorder.
" The general idea of the book is a very happy one, and it has, on the
whole been well wrought out."-The Lutheran.
Five Discourses on St. Paul. To which is added a Discourse on Fatalism.  By ADOLPHE MONOD.  Translated
from the French by Rev. J. H. MYERS, D.D. 12mo. 90 cts.
"The aim of the author is to present an estimate of the character,
labors, and writings of the Apostle Paul in the light of an example, and
to apply the principles which actuated him, and which he maintained, to
Christians of the present day." - Boston Journal.
" A book unsurpassed in its department, in any language, for manly
eloquence, thorough research, profound reflection, a most earnest, glowing, winning Christian spirit, united with an exact appreciation of the
great Apostle's character and work, and a wise, cautious, bhut bold and
unflinching, application of his teachings to the times in which we live. -
The Translator.
"A masterly and most eloquent delineation of the inner life of the great
Apostle." — Evangelical Quarterly.
8-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Historical Development of Speculative Philosophy from
Kant to Hegel.. From the German of DR. H. M. CHALYBAEUS. With an Introductory Note by SIR WILLIAM
HAMILTON. 12mo.                                       $1.50
"One of the best of the many Introductions which have been prepared
to lead the inquirer to a knowledge of the recent speculative philosophy."
-Bibliotheca Sacra.
"Those who are in search of knowledge on this perplexed subject,
without having time to investigate the original sources for information,
will receive great assistance from this careful, thorough, and perspicuous
analysis."- Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review.
"Nowhere in the same compass is ingenious scepticism, as associated
with philosophy and drawn from it by false speculative reasonings, more
forcibly exposed and rebutted by fact and argument." -Recorder.
Studies in Philosophy and Theology. By JOSEPH HAVEN,
D.D., Professor in Chicago Theol. Sem.  12mo.    $2.00
" This work is divided into two parts. The first part contains Essays
having the following titles: Philosophy of Sir William Hamilton; Mill
versus Hamilton; the Moral Faculty; Province of Imagination in Sacred
Oratory; the Ideal and the Actual. The second part contains Essays on
Natural Theology; the Doctrine of the Trinity; Theology as a Science
-its dignity and value; Place and Value of Miracles in the Christian
System; Sin as related to Human Nature and the Divine Mind; Arianism, the Natural Development of the Views held by the Early Church
_Fathers.
" Dr. Haven has exhibited much ability and a good spirit in discussing
various controverted questions in philosophy and theology...... Men
who differ from the author in some of his speculations will be pleased
with his distinctness of thought and perspicuity of style." -Bib. Sacra.
"Dr. Haven writes with clearness, and with the ease of a man who has
made a thorough study of the subjects which he undertakes to deal with."
-The Presbyterian.
"They grapple earnestly and clearly with the great problems now agitating the world of philosophy and theology."-American Presbyterian.
" Professor Haven gives us in this condensed form the fruitage of his
life-thoughts upon the grandest themes that can engage the human attention......We deem it no more than just to say, that in this volume
philosophy and faith blend, each strengthening the other, to a degree unsurpassed in any work of the kind." — Chicago Evening Journal.
Mediation. The Function of Thought.  16mo.    $1.25
"This is a fragment — perhaps it were better to say it is a foundation,
laid in preparation for a promised superstructure. "Mediation," in the
title, designates the whole work. In the present volume the author endeavors to "show the base which exists in the normal constitution ot
humanity," for the truth which he is subsequently to build up before us
in its symmetrical completeness. He now discusses the function ot
thought in man, as distinguishing him from all other animals, not only
in degree, but in kind." — Christian Union.
9-74




Books Published by W. F. Draper.
Theologia Germanica. Which setteth forth many fair Lineaments of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things
touching a Perfect Life.  Edited by DR. PFEIFFER, from
the only complete Manuscript yet known. Translated from
the German by SUSANNA WINKWORTH.  With a Preface
by the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, Rector of Eversley; and
a Letter to the Translator, by the CHEVALIER BUNSEN,
D.D., D.C.L., etc.; and an Introduction by PROF. CALVIN
E. STOWE, D.D.  16mo.             Cloth, $1.50; calf, $2.50
This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it into notice
by an edition which he published in 1516, of which he says: "And I will
say, though it be boasting of myself, and' I speak as a fool,' that, next
to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book hath ever come into my hands
whence I have learnt, or would wish to learn, more of what God and
Christ, and man, and all things, are."  "A precious lump of pure gold
in a flag of earth and stone."
" The work is at once a literary curiosity and a theological gem."Puritan Recorder.
"This little volume which is brought out in antique style, is, apart
from its intrinsic value, a curiosity of literature. It may be regarded as
the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation. No fewer. than seventeen
editions of this book appeared in his lifetime, and up to the present day
it has continued to be a favorite manual of devotion in Germany, where
it has passed through certainly as many as sixty editions."-Evening
Traveller.
" I value it exceedingly, so vivid and so rich is it, on the great ideas of
sin, and salvation through Christ." —Congregational Herald.
"A most valuable, interesting, and instructive volume, upon the most
vital points of Christianity."-Lutheran Standard.
The Confessions of St. Augustine. Edited, with an Introduction, by W. G. T. SHEDD.  12mo.  Cloth, bevelled
edges.                                                $1.50
"This is a beautiful edition of a precious work." - Bibliotheca Sacra.
"This beautiful edition of a theological classic is desirable, on account
of the careful comparison of the whole work with the Latin text, and the
addition of explanatory notes." -Evangelical Quarterly.
"Prof. Shedd's Introduction is a masterly essay, which of itself is a
volume for attentive reading. It ought to be read before the book is begun.
Thorough, searching, and discriminating, beyond the facts it communicates, its instruction and hints are suggestive and valuable." -New York
Observer.
The Redeemer's Tears wept over Lost Souls; and other
Essays. By JOHN HOWE, A.M. [With a Life of John
Howe, A.M. By the Rev. W. URWICK, D.D.]. 16mo.
Cloth,                                                $1.00
19-74