We shall subdivide this head into two parts. Under the first we will bring forward biblical blunders or misstatements, and under the second positive contradictions.
The two former parts of this paper were concerned with the dogma ofgeneralinspiration; this part looks to theverbalinspiration of the Bible. There surely can be no safe mean between verbal inspiration and no inspiration at all. Give up the verbal inspiration and the wedge is introduced which must inevitably destroy the whole dogma; but if one single blunder can be pointed out, that one blunder will be fatal to the notion of verbal inspiration.
As the errors of Scripture are very numerous, nothing like an exhaustive list can be included in a small pamphlet like this, but every end will be served by the instances subjoined, which we have arranged in groups, for the purpose of preserving something like order.
The first example we would bring forward refers to Saul’s daughter Michal, who is called in the book of Samuel “the wife of Adriel.” Now, Adriel did not marry Michal (Saul’s youngest daughter), but Merab. Michal married first David and then Phalti.
This will be evident by a reference to 1 Sam. xviii., 19, 27,where it is said: “When Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel to wife. And Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David; and Saul gave him Michal, his daughter, to wife.”
During the persecution, David fled from the presence of the king, and Saul then “gave Michal to another husband, whose name was Phalti” (1 Sam. xxv., 44). It is, therefore, an historical error to call Michal the “wife of Adriel.”
Speaking of Asa, king of Judah, the chronicler says, his “heart was perfect all his days, [but] the high places were not taken away out of Israel.” Where Israel obviously ought to be Judah. The kingdom of David was divided into Judah and Israel, and Asa had nothing whatever to do with the latter.
A similar blunder occurs in 2 Chron. xxi., 3, where Jehoshaphat is called “the King of Israel,” whereas he was King of Judah, as will appear evident from 1 Kings, xxii., 41, where it is said “Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab, king of Israel.” (See also2 Chron. xxiii., 2.)
And again, 2 Chron. xxviii., 27, we have the same error repeated; for, speaking of Ahaz, king of Judah, the writer says, “they buried him in Jerusalem, but brought him not into the sepulchres of the Kings of Israel,” meaning the kings of Judah.
Here we have a very glaring error. Elijah is represented as sending a threatening letter to Jehoram, king of Judah; but the Tishbite had been “taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire” during the reign of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram’s father; and the prophet alluded to should be Elisha, and not Elijah.
The blunder arises from a confusion in the mind of the chronicler between Jehoram king of Israel, and Jehoram king of Judah. This will be understood by turning to 2 Kings, viii., 20, where the revolt of the Edomites, which preceded the “threatening letter,” is narrated. The translation of Elijah is given six chapters further back, viz. 2 Kings, ii., 11.
The writer is speaking of Judas, who returned the money casting it down before the priests. This money was used forthe purchase of a field to bury strangers in, and the Evangelist adds: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying: ‘They took the 30 pieces of silver . . . and gave them for the potter’s field.’” These are not the words of Jeremiah at all, but of Zechariah. (xi., 12, 13.)
Here we have an historical error made by Christ himself. The disciples had been blamed for plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath day; whereupon Jesus retorted—“Have ye not read what David did when he had need and was an hungered . . . how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar, the High Priest, and did eat the shew bread?” The High Priest alluded to was not Abiathar, but Ahimelech. The account will be found 1 Sam. xxi., 1–6. “Then came David to Nob, to Ahimelech the [High] Priest . . . and said to him . . . give me [the] five loaves [under thine hand] . . . And the priest answered . . . ‘There is no common bread under mine hand, but [only] the hallowed bread, . . . So the priest gave him [the] hallowed bread.”
Here again we have an unpardonable historical error. The writer says: “So Jacob died, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor.” This was not Abraham, but Jacob. Abraham bought of Ephron the Hittite, the field of Machpelah (seeGen. xxiii., 16, &c.); it was Jacob who bought the “parcel of a field at the hand of the children of Hamor [Emmor], Shechem’s father, for 100 pieces of money.” (Gen. xxxiii., 19; and Joshua, xxiv., 32.)
These are so numerous it is universally allowed that no dependence is to be placed upon them; but the instances subjoined are sufficiently striking, and in any book except the Bible would be termed errors.
Here the writer says that twenty-nine cities towards the coast of Edom were awarded to the tribe of Judah, and hegives the names; but if any one will count the names set down he will find they amount to thirty-eight.
The enumeration occupies twelve verses, two of which contain four names, and the other ten verses three each.
This is a very gross error or exaggeration. The writer says that 42,000 Ephraimites were slain at the passage of the Jordan, because they “could not frame to pronounce” the word Shibboleth aright. By turning to the census (Numbers, xxvi., 37) it will be seen that the entire population of the tribe was only 32,500, and by comparing this census with the previous one it will be further seen that the tribe of Ephraim was on the decrease, but even in its palmiest days it never amounted to 42,000. (SeeNumbers, i., 33.)
Here we have the tale of Absalom’s revolt. Having murdered his half-brother Amnon, he fled to Gesher, the court of his grandfather; but after the lapse of three years he was permitted to return to Jerusalem, on condition that he kept away from court for two years. At the expiration of this time he became reconciled to the aged king, and “tarried forty years,” when he revolted.
This of course is a blunder. The whole reign of David was only forty years, and this was towards its close. Probably “forty years” should be fortydays, but the correction is only a guess, and the text is responsible for the mistake.
The First Book of Chronicles begins with a genealogy from Adam down to David. The subject occupies several chapters, but any attempt to reconcile the numerous genealogies of Scripture is quite hopeless. Let any one, for example, take the two tables of Matthew and Luke, and it will presently appear how little they correspond; or take the genealogy of Simeon given in Gen., xlvi., 10, and 1 Chron., iv., 24, and compare them together; or that of the sons of Benjamin given in Gen., xlvi., 21; 1 Chron., vii., 6; and 1 Chron., viii., 1. In Genesis his sons are said to be ten, in Chron., vii., they are three, in Chron., viii., they are five.
One would have thought that no diversity could possibly exist respecting David, the favourite king; but what is thefact? The Bible writers agree neither respecting his father’s family nor his own.
The reference given above states David to be “the seventh son of Jesse;” but in 1 Sam., xvi., 10, 11, he is represented to be the eighth son. The writer says, “Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel; and Samuel said: Are these all thy children? and (Jesse answered) there remaineth yet the youngest, and he keepeth the sheep.”
Similarly, in regard to the sons of David, compare 1 Chron., iii., 6–8, and 1 Chron., xiv., 5–7, with 2 Sam., v., 15–16. If anyone had known about David one would suppose that Samuel would have been that man, but Samuel says only seven sons were born to David in Jerusalem, whereas the chronicler says he had nine, viz., (1) Ibhar, (2) Elishua, (3)Eliphelet, (4) Nogah, (5) Nepheg, (6) Japhia (7), Elishama, (8) Eliada, (9)Eliphelet. It will be seen that the name Eliphelet occurs twice in the Book of Chronicles but only once in the book of Samuel. The other name omitted by the prophet is Nogah.
Now we are upon the subject of genealogy we would direct attention to two other examples. In 1 Chron., iii., 22, we read that the “sons of Shemaiah [were] Hattush, Igeal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat, six;” but only five names are given, so that “six” should have beenfive.
The other example is 1 Chron., vii., 14–15, compared with Numbers, xxvii., 1. The chronicler says: The children of Manasseh were first Ashriel, and “the name of the second was Zelophehad, who had daughters;” but the author of the book of Numbers says Zelophehad was the “son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh,” and that no mistake may possibly exist respecting the Zelophehad referred to, the writer expressly mentions that it was the Zelophehad who had “the daughters.” (Seeverse 7.)
Here the chronicler enumerates the cities given to Aaron, and says: “All their cities were 13;” but according to the list subjoined the number should have been eleven.
We are told that Jehoram at death was 40 years old. “He was 32 when he began to reign, and reigned eight years.” Next chapter [xxii., 2] we are told that his son, who immediately succeeded him, was 42 years old when he began to reign; so that Ahaziah was two years older than his father.
What makes the blunder worse is this: Ahaziah was the youngest of several children [2 Chron., xxi., 17[36]]; but the blunders do not end even here, for we are furthermore informed [2 Chron., xxii., 8] that Jehu “slew the Princes of Judah [even] the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah,”i.e., the grandsons of Jehoram. The number thus slain was 42 [2 Kings, x., 13–14], only the author of the book of Kings does not call them grandsons, but “brethren of Ahaziah.” Let whichever of these records be accepted, the error is equally palpable. If the princes slain by Jehu were the brothers of Ahaziah, then Jehoram, who died at the age of 40, had 43 sons, the youngest of which was 42 years old at his father’s death. If, on the other hand, the princes referred to were the grandchildren of Jehoram, then had he 42 grandsons at the age of 40.
This is another example similar to the one above. Zichri, we are told, was “a mighty man of Ephraim,” and he “slew Maaseiah, the son of king Ahaz.” In the 1st verse of the chapter we are informed that “Ahaz was 20 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 16 years;” so that his age at death was 36, and he was succeeded by Hezekiah, his son.
The next chapter [2 Chron., xxix, 1] opens thus—“Hezekiah began to reign when he was 25 years old;” so that Ahaz at the age of 20, had at least two sons, one of which was grown to man’s estate, and the other was half the age of his father. We read of early marriages, but it is most unusual for any father to have a son at the early age of four or five, and it is more likely that the chronicler is in error than that such an event should be rigidly true.
A similar statement is made respecting Josiah, who had four sons, and at least two wives before he was 16. His four sons were Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum [1 Chron., iii., 15]. Shallum, his youngest son, succeeded him [Jer. xxii., 11]; this young man was also called Jehoahaz, if the author of the book of Chronicles may be relied on [2 Chron., xxxvi., 2].
He was 23 years old at his father’s death, and as Josiah died at the age of 39, Shallum was born when his father was 16 [2 Chron., xxxiv., 1]. He reigned only three months, andwas then succeeded by Jehoiakim, an elder brother, who was 25 years old [2 Kings, xxiii., 30]; so that Josiah was only 14 when his second son was born. His eldest son Johanan must have been above 26 years of age, and this would make Josiah under 13 at the birth of his first-born.
Now, the age of hundreds of persons have been given in the Bible, but no single example can be found to induce a belief that the Jews were precocious fathers. We never find it said that so and so was 4 or 5, 10 or 12 years old, and begat sons and daughters. The age stated is about the same as with ourselves, and there is every reason to believe that the instances referred to above are oversights.
This shall be the last example under this division of our subject, though far more remains behind than we have here brought under notice.
In this passage Ezra gives the number of gold and silver vessels restored by Cyrus. They are the sacred vessels carried by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon, and the number restored is estimated at 5,400; but the articles specified amount to only 2,499. There were 30 gold chargers, and 30 gold basins, 1,000 silver chargers, with 1,000 other vessels in silver, 410 silver basins, and 29 knives. The deficiency, therefore, is 2901.
This miscalculation is sufficiently strange, but the statement becomes infinitely more astounding when we read the account given us in the book of Kings respecting the spoliation of these vessels [2 Kings, xxiv., 13]. It is said that Nebuchadnezzar “cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon had made.” This was in the reign of Coniah or Jehoiachin.
In the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Zedekiah the captain of the Babylonian army “broke in pieces” the brazen vessels, but took the brass; and he broke in pieces the gold and silver vessels, but took the gold and silver with him to Babylon. So that the gold and silver vessels were twice reduced to metal [2 Kings, xxv., 13–16]. Jeremiah [lii., 17–23] enters into minute details.
These vessels seem to have possessed a wonderful recreative power. They were always being taken away to supply a temporary want of money, yet were always in the temple ready for a new spoliation.
(1) Shishak, king of Egypt, in the 5th year of king Rehoboam,“took away the treasures of the house of the Lord; he even took awayall; and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made” [1 Kings, xiv., 25–26].
(2) Asa followed the example of Shishak, for he also “tookallthe silver and gold left in the treasures of the house of the Lord” to give to Benhadad king of Syria. [1 Kings, xv., 18.]
(3) Jehoash, king of Judah, could not take away Solomon’s vessels of gold and silver, because they were gone already, but he “took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold found in the treasures of the house of the Lord . . . and sent it to Hazael king of Syria.” [2 Kings, xii. 18.]
(4) Jehoash, king of Israel, also “tookallthe gold and silver, and all the vessels found in the house of the Lord,” and returned to Samaria with his spoils. [2 Kings, xiv., 14.]
(5) Ahaz, king of Judah, wanted money, and followed the example of his predecessors, for he also “took the silver and the gold found in the house of the Lord,” and sent it to the king of Assyria. [2 Kings, xvi., 8.]
(6) We have not to tarry long before we come to Hezekiah, who “gave the king of Assyria all the silver found in the house of the Lord,” and “cut off the gold from the doors and pillars to give to the king of Assyria.” [2 Kings, xviii., 15–16.]
(7) Once more the temple was spoiled, before we come to the final spoliations by the king of Babylon, in the 8th year of Jehoiachim king of Judah. This has been alluded to already.
It will be observed that it is not always said that the vessels were taken out of the temple, but in several of the spoliations it is said simply that the treasures were taken out of the house of the Lord; by turning, however, to 1 Kings, vii., 51, it will be seen that the “treasures” include the vessels, for we are told that “the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did Solomon put among the treasures of the house of the Lord.”
Hence Shishak took away all the treasures of the temple, all the silver and the gold and the vessels that Solomon had placed there. Ifallin this case means less than all we have Asa to follow, who took away “all that was left.” Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Jehoash, made new vessels and hallowed things, but Jehoash gave all these to Hazael king of Syria; and though all the treasures were given away already, the king of Israel makes a raid on the temple and carries offto Samaria “all the vessels” both of silver and of gold; Ahaz does the same; Hezekiah takes all the silver vessels and cuts off all the gold ornaments of the doors and pillars. After this comes Nebuchadnezzar, who finds all the vessels of Solomon somehow still treasured in the temple, and seizing on them he cuts them to pieces, but they are not yet destroyed nor even lost, for some 10 or 11 years afterwards Nebuzzar-adan, captain of the guard of the king of Babylon, lays his hand on the sacred vessels, and took them “in gold and in silver” to Nebuchadnezzar. Ezra tells us the number amounted to 5400, but how they could be given to so many, cut to pieces and repaired, sent to Assyria, Samaria, and Syria, yet be all wonderfully found safe and sound in a temple in Babylon, is, to say the least, past understanding. Come we now to another class of errors.
God is represented as saying: “I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name God Almighty [El Shadday], but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”
Now the name Jehovah occurs over and over again in the Book of Genesis, and has given rise to the Jehovistic and Elohistic controversy, made familiar to English readers by Bishop Colenso. Abraham, we are told, built an altar to Jehovah near Bethel [Gen. xii. 8.], and another in Hebron [Gen. xiii., 18.] but stranger still, when the sacrifice of Isaac was stopped, the patriarch called the spot Jehovah-Jireh [Gen. xxii. 14]. How could he call it so, if the very name Jehovah was unknown to him?
The children of Israel had scarcely entered the “wilderness” when the Amalekites came to oppose them. A severe battle ensued, in which the Israelites were at first worsted, but ultimately the foe was “put to the sword.”
The whole history leads to the belief that the people left Egypt unarmed. They were slaves, and it is not at all likely that Pharaoh would have suffered 600,000 slaves to carry swords. It is very true that our English version says “the children of Israel went upharnessedout of the land of Egypt” [Exod. xiii., 18.], but the marginal reading is “by five in a rank,” which seems the more probable. No time was givenfor preparation, for the people were “urgent to send them away in haste,” they had not even time to prepare food before they left, but “took their dough before it was leavened” [Exod. xii., 34]. Having crossed the Red Sea, they would have no opportunity of procuring swords, so that this battle must remain a mystery.
Here we are told that David, having cut off the head of Goliath, “carried it to Jerusalem.” How could this be, seeing that Jerusalem at the time was in the hand of the Jebusites, and did not fall into the hand of the Israelites till several years afterwards? When David slew the giant he was a mere stripling, say 15 or 16 years of age, but when he took Jerusalem from the Jebusites he was above 30. [2 Sam. v., 6.]
The prophet Nathan is commanded by God to say that the Lord “will set up his seed after him, and establish the kingdom of David for ever;” and again “thine house and thy kingdom,” says Nathan, “shall be established for ever, thy throne shall be established for ever.” What is the fact? Solomon reigned 40 years, but towards the close of his reign, sat on a very tottering throne; no sooner did Rehoboam succeed than 10 parts out of 12 revolted; and in 380 years more the kingdom of Judah had ceased to exist; so that the repeated promise of Nathan that the kingdom should endure for ever proved altogether a failure.
Precisely the same promise was made to the Rechabites, with precisely the same results: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father [to drink no wine], Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” Great efforts have been made to show that the Rechabites still exist; but I apprehend that few scholars will place any reliance on the conflicting accounts. Brett professes they are in Hungary; Niebuhr says they are in Medina; the “Bible Cyclopædia” asserts that they live in Mecca; the missionary Wolff maintains that they live near Jerusalem; Signor Pierotti affirms that he found them in the vicinity of the Dead Sea.
We are here told that God himself sent lying spirits into His prophets, not by way of punishment, but in order to mislead; so that, admitting certain books to have been written by prophets, and even that God sent His “spirit” to inspire them, it by no means follows that the books are worthy of credit. It is not enough to be a prophet, it is not enough to be moved by the spirit, it is not enough that the spirit comes from God, we must ourselves decide the all important question whether the spirit is a “lying spirit” or the “spirit of truth.” The two kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat enquired of the prophets whether or not they should make war against the Syrians, 400 prophets agreed in the answer, go, for “the Lord will deliver them into your hands.” Nothing could be plainer, nothing more decisive; but Michaiah says, don’t believe the prophets, “for the Lord has put a lying spirit into all their mouths” to compass the destruction of the two kings. Here were 400 who said “go,” and one who said “no,” the prophets have been deceived by a spirit of falsehood. Is it at all credible that the God of truth would employ spirits of untruth to go upon his missions? How can it be said that God abhors lies when he employs lying spirits as his ministers? But, without doubt, the lying prophet is recognised in Scripture, for besides these 400 we have the lamentable tale of the old prophet of Bethel, who told the prophet of Judah to go home with him, declaring that the Lord had sent him, but “he lied,” and the prophet of Judah was slain by a lion for trusting the word of his brother prophet [1 Kings, xiii., 18]. There is an inconsistency in all this revolting to common sense; and so, indeed, is there in the notion of the parliament referred to in the book of Job [ii., 1], “there is a day when the sons of God present themselves before Jehovah, and Satan is present amongst them,” and God speaks to Satan and employs him to do His bidding. Paul says there is no fellowship between God and Belial, light and darkness, and he is right.
Elisha said to the king of Israel, “The Lord will deliver the Moabites into your hands,” and that Israel should smite “every fenced city of Moab, and every choice city.” None of this prophecy came true, and why? Because the king of Moab, when “he saw the battle was too sore for him, sacrificed his eldest son on the wall for a burnt offering.” The Israelites, seeing this, were panic struck, fled, and left the prophecy unfulfilled [seeverses 26, 27],
There is some great mistake here. “In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa,” says the chronicler, “Baasha, King of Israel, came up against Judah, and built Ramah;” but what says the book of Kings? “In the third year of Asa, King of Judah, began Baasha to reign over Israel, and he reigned twenty-four years” [1 Kings, xv., 33]; if this latter statement is correct Baasha died in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Asa, and could not have waged war against him nine years afterwards.
The writer says that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, laid siege to Jerusalem in thethird year of Jehoiakim; but Jeremiah says [xxv., 1.] that thefourthyear of Jehoiakim was thefirstof Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. So that he was not king at all in the “3rd year of Jehoiakim.”
Matthew says, “all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen; and from David to the captivity are fourteen; and from the captivity to the birth of Christ are fourteen.” This is true in no sense. The “periods” are quite unequal in length; the “genealogies” are not alike in number; and fourteen in no case is correct. According to Bible chronology the first period was 911 years, the second 497, and the third 584.
The evangelist says—“No man hath seen God at any time;” similarly we read in Exodus [xxxiii., 20], “There shall no man see my face and live.” How does this agree with Gen. xxxii., 24–30, where Jacob is said to have wrestled all night with a mysterious being, and “called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” Sarah also “looked upon God” when she was told that her husband would have a son [Gen. xvi., 13]. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, with the 70 elders of Israel “saw the God of Israel . . . they saw God, and did eat and drink” [Exod. xxiv., 9–11]. Moses was on two occasions 40 days with God, and saw his “similitude,” and spake to him “mouth to mouth” [Numbers, xii., 8]. Numerous other instances will occur to every reader; if anything is revealed in Scripture more positively than another, it is that God has appeared tomany, from Adam to John, talked to them familiarly, and they have lived.
John says, “There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” I will not go this length respecting the mis-statements and errors of Scripture; but it would be no exaggeration to say, if all were written down, this pamphlet would not contain them.
***We will conclude this part of our subject with one or two errors of a different sort.
The writer says—“These are the words which Moses spake to all Israel on this side Jordan, in the plain over against the Red Sea.”
At the time he was as near Jordan, and about as far from the Red Sea as he well could be. The expression “On this side Jordan” means in this verseeastof the river, but after the Israelites had come into the lot of their inheritance, “this side Jordan” meantwestof the river, and east of it was called “beyond Jordan” [Joshua, ix., 1, 10].
This is another geographical error. It is stated that Gideon ordered it to be proclaimed throughout his host that all who had no stomach for the pending fight with the Midianites were at liberty to depart early from Mount Gilead.
Now, the encampment of Gideon was in the valley of Jezreel, west of the Jordan; whereas Mount Gilead is beyond Jordan, far away from the site of the battle.
This is a third example of geographical confusion, similar to those marvellous blunders of old Homer. The chronicler says that Jehoshaphat built ships in “Ezion-gaber to go to Tarshish.” Ezion-gaber was a harbour in the Red Sea, and Tarshish is generally supposed to be Tartessus, the famous Phœnician emporium near the mouth of the Guadalquiver, and not far from the modern Cadiz. It was far more than the navigators of Jewry could have accomplished to sail from theRed Sea to Spain, and certainly Jehoshaphat would not have chosen that harbour for building ships for the Mediterranean.
Solomon says: “Go to the ant, thou sluggard—which provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.” No doubt it was a vulgar error of very wide diffusion that ants feed upon corn, and lay up a store of grain in harvest time for winter use. Pliny, Ælian, Ovid, Virgil, Horace,[44]and several in our own country, have endorsed the instruction of Solomon, but what is the real fact? In the first place, ants are dormant in winter; and in the next place, they do not feed upon corn, but chiefly on animal food. What Solomon and others supposed to be grains of corn are in reality the cocoons which they bring out of their nests in fine weather to air, and after they have exposed them to the sun they carry them back again. Efforts have been made to prove that there is a species of ant which lives on grain; but even if such could be found, it is not the exception, but the rule which must characterise the animal. No one would say to a person, you are “white as a rose,” or “black as a cherry;” though there are white roses and black cherries. In all proverbial expressions and general allusions, the ordinary character is referred to, and not the exceptions.
Jesus said: “A grain of mustard-seed . . . is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”
It is not correct that the “grain of mustard is the least of all seeds.” Many seeds are smaller, as that of the foxglove and tobacco plant; nor is it correct that mustard anywhere grows into a tree, “so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”
The exaggeration in the corresponding verse of the second Gospel is even greater than that of Matthew. Mark says: “It is less than [any of] the seeds that be sown in the earth . . . but becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches.”
Here, again, critics have come forward to prove that the mustard seed of the text was not mustard seed, but something else. Some one fancies he has discovered a seed which better answers the description, and says Jesus did not mean mustard, but the seed of the critic. Such puerile defence does more harm than good. Moses did not mean “six days” bysix days; Joshua did not mean that the “sun was to stand still,” when he commanded it so to do; Solomon did not mean “ants” byants; nor Jesus, “mustard-seed” bymustard seed. In fact, words have no meaning, but may be fitted with a sliding scale to fit the wishes and knowledge of every reader. The dishonesty of this practice is palpable, and any system which needs such shoring should be suffered to fall through its own weakness.
Being on the subject of blunders, we would commend our readers to the two verses referred to above—“Thesonsof Ezra were Jether, Mered . . . and Jalon; andshebare Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah.”
Again. “Thesonsof Manasseh [were] Ashriel, whomshebare . . . and the name of the second was Zelophehad.” I know not if the reader can understand these verses; I must candidly confess I am wholly unable to attach any meaning whatever to them.
Another puzzle will be seen in Ecclesiastes, vii., 27–29, but probably the translation is in great measure responsible for the obscurity of this passage. The preacher says: “Behold, this have I found, counting one by one to find out the account; which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I not found.” It would be no easy matter to make out what the preacher “has found,” which requires such a blowing of trumpets. The original Hebrew may throw some light upon his meaning, but I am certain that if any candidate for the civil service had written those verses, no examiner would commend their perspicuity.
In the former part of this division numerous examples have been brought together to prove that the scope of Scripturein one place is not reconcilable with the statement given in another; it now remains to go one step further, and show that one Scripture positively contradicts another. In the former part the passages alluded to are obviously in error; in this part one text will be contrasted with another contradictory text, but it will not be possible to pronounce which is right, or whether both are not equally in fault. It will suffice in many cases simply to set one statement against another statement in separate columns, and leave the reader to form his own judgment; but in some few instances a remark or two will be given to point out the scope of the error to which attention is directed.
Gen. vi., 19, 20.
The direction given by God to Noah was—“Of every living thing ofall flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark . . . they shall be male and [its] female; of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind,two of every sortshall come unto thee to keep them alive.”
Nothing can be more explicit. It is even expressly said that thecattlewere not to exceed two; it was to be two “ofallflesh;” two of “every sort.”
Gen. vii., 2.
This plain, positive direction is altered in the very next chapter, and a distinction is made between clean and unclean animals: “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee bysevens, the male and his female.”
Seven pairs (or 14 animals) is a very wide deviation from the direction, two only of every sort shall be taken into the ark to keep them alive.
Gen. xlvi., 27; Deut. x., 22.
In the books of Moses we are more than once told that all the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were “three score and ten.”
Acts, vii., 14.
By what authority does the martyr Stephen increase this positive assertion by the addition of five more? saying “all the kindred [of Jacob which came into Egypt] were three score and 15 souls.”
We read in Gen. xlvi., 26, that the number, exclusive of Joseph and his two sons, who were already in Egypt, and of Jacob himself, the founder of the race, “all the souls were three score and six;” but including these four, the number amounted to “three score and ten.” By adding together the names set down in Gen. xlvi., 15, 18, 22, 25, it will be found that the number amounts to 70; the five, therefore, added by Stephen, had no existence.
1 Sam., xxx., 1–10, 17.
The Amalekites burnt Ziklag, and drove off the women as captives. Three days afterwards David and “his men” came to the place and saw the calamity which had befallen it. David consulted the ephod, and was told to pursue the “rovers,” for he should not only overtake them, but should recover all that they had taken captive. “So David went, he and thesix hundred menthat were with him, and came to the brook Besor.” Here David left behind 200 of the men, and with the remaining 400 overtook the spoilers, and extirpated them, for “he smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day, and there escaped not a man of them, save 400 who fled on camels.”
1 Chron., xii., 20–22.
How is this transaction recorded by the chronicler? When David reached Ziklag, eight captains “of thousands” came to him, and helped him against the Amalekite raiders, and so many men flocked to his standard to help him, that his army was “a great host, like the host of God.”
Certainly it seems very improbable that 400 men should be able to extirpate the whole army of the Amalekites which must have been pretty numerous, seeing 400 men mounted on camels managed to escape; but these 400 are spoken of as mere ciphers, for David and his men slew all the whole army, except these [few] young men who were on camels.
2 Sam., ii., 10.
Ishbosheth, the rival king of David, is said to have reignedtwo years; and during these two years, David reigned over Judah only.
2 Sam., ii., 11.
In the very next verse we are informed that David reignedseven years and a halfover Judah only, during all which time Ishbosheth reigned over the rest of the tribes.
2 Sam., viii., 4, 5.
David, says the writer of this book, took from Hadadezer, (?) King of Zobah, 1,000 chariots, andseven hundredhorsemen, and 22,000 footmen.
1 Chron., xviii., 4.
In the corresponding passage recorded in the book of Chronicles, we are told that the number of horsemen was not 700, butseven thousand. The name of the king is here called Hadarezer.
2 Sam., x., 6, 18.
Hadarezer hired 33,000 Syrians to oppose David; but David came against the allied army and “slewseven hundred chariotsof the Syrians, and forty thousandhorsemen.”
1 Chron., xix., 18.
In the book of Chronicles David is said to have slainseven thousandmen, which fought in chariots, and forty thousandfootmen.
2 Sam., xxiv., 9.
The “fighting men” at the close of David’s reign are stated in the book of Samuel to have been 1,300,000 (!); of these 800,000 were of Israel, and 500,000 of Judah.
1 Chron., xxi., 5.
In the book of Chronicles the number of fighting men is even more astounding. It is given as 1,570,000; of which 1,100,000 belonged to Israel, and 470,000 to Judah.
2 Sam., xxiv., 13.
When David numbered the people, a choice of three evils was given him. According to Samuel, the evils were:sevenyears of famine, three months pursuit by his enemies, or three days’ pestilence.
1 Chron., xxi., 12.
According to Chronicles, the choice was:threeyears of famine, and not seven.
2 Sam., xxiv., 24.
In the book of Samuel, David is said to have given to Araunah for the threshing-floorfiftyshekels ofsilver[£5 13s. 6d.].
Chron., xxi., 25.
In the book of Chronicles, he is said to have given for it 600 shekels ofgold[£547 10s.].
1 Kgs., vii., 26.
According to the book of Kings, Solomon’s brazen laver held 2,000 baths [15,000 gallons].
2 Chron., iv., 5.
According to the book of Chronicles, it held 3,000 baths [about 22,500 gallons].
2 Kgs., viii., 26.
The writer of the book of Kings tells us that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year.
2 Chron., xxii., 2.
We are here informed that Ahaziah was 42 when he began to reign, and not 22. Both agree in the length of his reign.
2 Kgs., xiv., 7.
In the book of Kings, Amaziah is said to have slain 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt.
2 Chron., xxv., 11–12.
In the book of Chronicles he is said to have slain twice that number: 10,000 he smote, and 10,000 he cast down from the top of a rock, whereby “they were all broken in pieces” (!)
2 Kgs., xxiv., 8.
The author of the book of Kings tells us that “Jehoiachin waseighteen yearsold when he began to reign, and [he] reigned in Jerusalem three months.”
2 Chron., xxxvi., 9.
The author of the book of Chronicles says that “Jehoiachin waseight yearsold when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.”
1 Chron., xxii., 14.
David, we are here told, bequeathed to Solomon for the temple the fabulous sum of 100,000 talents of gold, and a million talents of silver. In English money this would be seven thousand million sterling (say 7,000,000,000!).
1 Chron., xxix., 4.
In this chapter the bequest is stated to have been only 3,000 talents of gold, and 7,000 of silver. This would amount to £166,650,000 English money. A good round sum for a petty state not bigger than Yorkshire, but still considerably reduced from that given in the previous record.
2 Chron. iii., 15.
According to the chronicler the height of the two pillars made by Solomon for the temple was 35 cubits in the shaft, on which was a chapiter of five cubits. Altogether about 80 feet!!
Jeremiah lii., 21, 22.
Jeremiah tells us the shaft of each was only 18 cubits high. He agrees in the height of the chapiter (five cubits). According to Jeremiah the entire height was about 40 feet, or half that of the chronicler.
Jeremiah lii., 28–30.
The “prophet” informs us that the total number of captives taken from Judah to Babylon was only 4,600. A modest number enough, compared with the number of fighting men, which averaged 300,000, according to the Bible historians.
Ezra ii., 64.
Ezra states that of the captives taken to Babylon only 42,360 were willing to return. All the rest preferred to remain where they were. No doubt Ezra would give us to understand that more remained in Babylon than went up to the land of their fathers.
The “prophet” has made a mistake in his sum. The three captivities were 3,320 + 832 + 745=4,897, not 4,600. One is puzzled to understand how 4,000 captives should have so stripped the kingdom as to leave it a wilderness; we find hundreds of thousands falling in a single battle without exhausting the country at all.
Matt. xvii., 1–2.
Here we read “Aftersixdays Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain . . . and was transfigured before them.”
Luke ix., 28.
Luke says “About aneightdays after . . . he took Peter, John, and James, and went up into a mountain, and was transfigured.”
Mark vi., 40.
Mark says of the 5000 who were fed with five barley loaves and two fishes: “They sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties.”
Luke ix., 14.
Luke says that Jesus directed his disciples “to make them sit down by fifties in a company.”
These last two examples are not very weighty, but in a book which professes to be inspired, and demands unreserved and unconditional belief, we expect minuteaccuracy. The argument we advance is accumulative. Probably no book of good reputation has so many contradictory passages as the Bible; the examples referred to in this pamphlet form but a small part of what might be brought forward, if we allowed ourselves a larger space.
The examples given above are more or less connected with figures. The rest of the examples to be stated are independent of such sources of error. A few shall be given in detail and others in parallel columns.
Adam and Eve, we are here told, were created on the sixth day. The words are quite explicit, “male and female created he them, and God blessed them . . . and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
We are little prepared to hear in the very next chapter that God did not create them a male and female on the sixth day, and of course did not bless them. What is still more strange is that the chapter opens with the words: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them, and on the seventh day Godendedhis work which he had made.”
According to v. 21 we find that God did not rest from his work at the close of the sixth day, nor was his work ended, nor was woman yet made; for after this “rest,” or during this “sabbath,” we are not told which, Adam being thrown into a deep sleep, one of his ribs was abstracted, and out of this rib was Eve made.
After Cain had killed his brother Abel he was “driven by God from the face of the earth;” and Cain said: “My punishment is greater than I can bear . . . I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall come to pass that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.”
One would suppose from this that the world was populated at the time, and not that Cain was the first-born of the human race.
“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come.” We are told that Shiloh [the peaceful one] means “the son of peace,” the Messiah, Jesus Christ. If so, how thoroughly did facts contradict this prophecy. Judah had no sceptre till David’s time, 650 years after these words werespoken; it held the sceptre 460 years, and it departed from Judah 580 years before Shiloh came.
The chapter contains the decalogue read in the Anglican churches every Sunday morning. Moses broke the first pair of stone tables, but having prepared two others Jehovah “wrote upon them the words that were on the first tables.”
By comparing Exod. xxxiv. with Exod. xx., it will be found that there is very little resemblance between the first and second decalogue. Only three of the ten commandments are at all alike, the other seven of the first pair of tables find no counterpart in the second.
Saul is called “a choice young man and a goodly,” yet had he at the time a son in man’s estate.
Saul positively affirms that he had “utterly destroyed all the Amalekites, except Agag,” and him Samuel “hewed to pieces.” Some twenty years after this extirpation, David is appointed to destroy the very same people, and he also “smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day, and there escaped not a man of them, save 400 young men, which fled on camels.” (1 Sam. xxx., 17.) (See also1 Chron., iv., 41–43.)
When David was introduced to king Saul, he is described as “a mighty valiant man, and a man of war;” but in the next chapter he is called a “stripling unpracticed in arms,” and unused to armour.
In the former of these two chapters (v. 21), he is represented as Saul’s companion, who “stood before the king, and Saul loved him greatly;” in the latter (xvii., 55, 56), he becomes a stripling wholly unknown to the monarch and his officers, for Saul asks Abner “whose son is this youth? and Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And Saul said, Inquire whose son the stripling is.” Yet this stripling was a “mighty man of valour,” who had actually been Saul’s “armour bearer” and beloved companion. He had lived with Saul, had played to him in his moody fits, and charmed away his ill-temper, had been a cause of jealousy tothe king, who had even tried to kill him, and yet neither Saul nor Abner had ever seen him or known his name.
The writer says there were two high priests during the rebellion of David, one elected by Saul and the other by David: they were, “Zadok son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar.”
If anyone will read the narrative with tolerable care he will see that Ahimelech was dead, having been slain by Doeg when he put the city of Nob to the sword (1 Sam. xxii., 18); besides Ahimelech was not the son but the father of Abiathar, (1 Sam. xxii., 20; xxiii., 6), and the father of Ahimelech was Ahitub, a “fact” repeated three times in as many verses, in 1 Sam. xxii., 9–12.
This blunder about Ahimelech has been copied into other places, for example, 1 Sam. xx., 25; 1 Kings iv., 4; 1 Chronicles xviii., 16, but there cannot be a shadow of doubt that Abiathar, and not Ahimelech, was the high priest appointed by David: first, because Abiathar fled to David for safety; secondly, because he was the high priest during the entire reign of David; and finally, because he was deposed by Solomon, who told him he would have put him to death if he had not served before David. (1 Kings ii., 26.)
“O earth, earth, earth!” exclaims the prophet, “hear the word of the Lord—Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man [Coniah] childless.”
According to 1 Chronicles, iii., 17, 18, Coniah, or Je-coniah had eight sons, viz: Assir, Salathiel, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazar, Jecamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah.
Jehovah told Jeremiah that Jehoiakim “should have none to sit on the throne of David:” but we are told (2 Chronicles xxxvi., 8) that his son succeeded him, and after his son his brother.
This and the two following chapters speak of the conquest of Egypt by Babylon. The writer says that the country should be made desolate from north to south, and that there should be “no more a prince of Egypt.”
Not one word of this corresponds with the known history of Egypt. Herodotus does not give the slightest hint of such a calamity. Merchants frequented the country without interruption long after that, and if the people had been scattered, the cities utterly wasted for 40 years, and “no king had succeeded to the throne,” it must have been known. The silence of historians on this point is a most conclusive proof that the logic of fact did not accord with the word of prophecy.
The same may be said of the Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea. No history confirms this tale, and no king of Egypt can be made to tally with the catastrophe. But Egypt was not an insignificant kingdom like Judah, which no one knew about; it was the foremost kingdom of the world, and if one of its kings had been drowned in the sea with all his host, some mention must have been made thereof.
Take another example. Both Matthew and Luke labour to prove the genealogy of Christ from David. Luke traces Joseph to Adam, through David (iii., 23–36), and Matthew gives the descendants of David down to “Joseph, the husband of Mary.” The object of both is to show that Jesus, through Joseph, came in the direct line, and was therefore of the lineage of David.
The interpolated miraculous conception, abandoned by biblical scholars,[53]utterly stultifies the purpose of these pedigrees. Matthew and Luke “prove” that Jesus was of the lineage of David because Joseph, the husband of Mary, was in the direct line. The miraculous conception goes to show that Joseph wasnotthe father of Jesus, and consequently that Jesus was not of the line of David at all. Here, then, is a dilemma:—if Jesus was the son of Joseph his divinity must be given up;if he was not the son of Joseph,he was not of the line of David,and his Messiahship must be given up.
By casting an eye over the two genealogies, it will be seen that they differ in all points except at certain nodes, and the usual answer is, that Luke’s is the pedigree of Joseph, and Matthew’s that of Mary. But there is not the slightest indication of this difference in the Gospel text; both profess to give the genealogy of Joseph. Matthew says, “Jacob begatJoseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born” (i., 16); there cannot be a shadow of doubt that this is meant for the pedigree of Joseph, the husband of Mary. If not, the genealogy was that of Rahab the harlot, for verse 5 tells us that Boaz was the husband of Rahab, of whomObed was born. So again in verse 6, Bathsheba is given as the wife of David, and mother of Solomon. Luke says (iii., 23), Jesus was [as was supposed] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli; and does not even mention Mary. The three words in brackets are a mere gloss, and could not have been written by Luke, as they would destroy the very thing he was trying to prove: Jesus was the son of Joseph, Joseph of Heli, and Heli was a descendant of David, Abraham, and Seth. If Jesus was not really the son of Joseph, why trouble himself to show that Joseph was in the line of David, Abraham, and Seth?
But it is quite evident that Matthew and Luke supposed Jesus to be the son of Joseph. So did the neighbours of Joseph and Mary, for they said (Matt, xiii., 55), “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” It never oozed out in his native village that Mary’s son was other than her son in the usual course of nature. Even Mary herself says to Jesus “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing” (Luke ii., 48); Mary calls Joseph the father, and not the reputed father, of Jesus, and never seems to have had a shadow of doubt about it. So was it with the disciples; their adherence to Jesus had nothing to do with his divinity. They none of them ever hint at such a notion. Philip said to Nathaniel “We have found him of whom Moses spoke, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John i., 45); not Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Jehovah, but Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. All were anxious to prove his lineage from David, and none cared to set aside so very important a point. Of course they spoke of him as “Christ,” but Christ was merely an accepted title for “King of the theocracy,” and in order that Jesus might be the “Christ,” it was absolutely essential that he should be a descendant of David.[54]The interpolated legend of the miraculous conception is a fatal blunder,and if accepted would utterly destroy the claim of Jesus to the Messiahship.
Gen., ii., 17.
The Lord God said to Adam, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; forin the daythat thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
Gen., iii., 17–19.
Unto Adam God said, “Because thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee not to eat [notthou shalt surely die, but] in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.”
Two things strike us in reading the latter passage: (1) Adam did not “surely die”on the dayhe ate of the forbidden fruit; and (2) there is not the slightest hint to justify the common dogma thatdeathwas the penalty incurred by Adam, but simplytoil—toiltillhe died. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat breadtillthou return unto the ground.”
On the subject of death it may be here remarked that the scripture makes mention of thousands and hundreds of thousands, who are not to die at all. We have the case of Enoch (Gen., v., 24), the case of Elijah (2 Kings, ii., 11), and all the inhabitants of the earth who will be alive “at the last day” (1 Corinthians, xv., 51). Either death is not “the wages of sin,” or these persons are not of the race of Adam. The “curse” is not transmitted to them; if not to them, why to others? And what becomes of the dogma of Adam and Christ as federal heads? The whole theory is utterly overturned.
1 Kings viii., 9; 2 Chron. v. 10.
The historic books of the Old Testament agree in the fact that there was “nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb.”
Hebrews ix., 4.
The writer of this book affirms that besides the tables of the covenant, there were in the ark “the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.”
The pot of manna and Aaron’s rod ought to have been in the ark, inasmuch as Moses was told to place them there (Exod. xvi., 33, 34.; Numbers xvii., 10); but this is only another instance of the inconsistency complained of.
1 Kings, xxii., 48, 49.
The writer tells us that “Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish [i.e. Spanish galleons] to go to Ophir for gold. . . . Then said Ahaziah to Jehoshaphat, let my servants go with thy servants in the ships, but he would not.”
2 Chron. xx., 35, 36.
In the Book of Kings we are told that Jehoshaphat would not allow Ahaziah to join in the adventure to Ophir. The chronicler says that “Jehoshaphat joined Ahaziah” in making these galleons.
2 Kings, ix., 11–13.
The royal historian distinctly says that Jehu was expressly raised by God to the throne of Israel to extirpate the wicked house of Ahab, and “avenge the blood of the prophets shed by Jezebel.”
Hosea, i., 4.
Hosea says: “The Lord said I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and (because he extirpated the house of Ahab) I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
2 Kings, ix., 27.
The book of Kings informs us that when Jehu fell on the race of Ahab, Ahaziah “fled to Megiddo, and there died.”
2 Chron., xxii., 9.
The chronicler says he was caught by the agents of Jehu “hid in Samaria,” and being taken captive to Jehu, was then slain.
2 Kings, x., 17.
Here the slaughter of the house of Ahab is placed in Samaria.
2 Kings, x., 11, 12.
Here it is placed in Jezreel, andafterJehu had slain “all that remained of the house of Ahab, all his great men, and his kinsfolk, and his priests . . . he arose and departed andcame to Samaria.”
This agrees with Hosea, i., 4, cited above.
1 Chron., xi., 1–3.
On the death of Saul we are here told that “Thenall Israelgathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, . . . thou shalt be ruler over . . . Israel . . . and David made a covenant with them in Hebron . . . and they anointed David king over Israel.”
2 Sam., ii., 1–11.
Here we are informed that David and his men went to Hebron at the death of Saul, “and the men ofJudahcame and anointed him king over the house of Judah.”
But Abner took Ishbosheth, son of Saul, and made him king over allIsrael. David was for seven years and six months king over the house of Judah only.
2 Chron., xxiv., 22.
Joash, it is said, “remembered not the kindness of Jehoiada [his foster father], but slew hisson,”i.e., Zechariah the High Priest, see v. 20.
2 Chron., xxiv., 25.
Here we are told that Joash slew not thesonof Jehoiada, but thesons; for the servants of Joash conspired against him not for the blood of Zechariah, but “for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada.”
2 Kings, xii., 13.
When Jehoash repaired the temple he placed a money-box beside the altar for voluntary contributions, but (says the writer) there was not money enough collected to make “bowls of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, noranyvessels of gold or silver.”
2 Chron., xxiv., 14.
The chronicler contradicts this assertion point blank, and affirms that with the money so collected “were made vessels for the house of the Lord, vessels to minister and to offer, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver.”
2 Chron., xxxiii., 15.
Manasseh is represented as having taken the strange gods and idols out of the house of the Lord . . . and of having “cast them out of the city.”
2 Kings, xxiii., 6.
But in the reign of Manasseh’s grandson, whose name was Josiah, these strange gods and idols were still in the temple, for Josiah “took them out of the house of the Lord . . . and stamped them to powder.”
Psalm, lxxii., 20.
We read, here “the prayers [i.e., the psalms] of David, the son of Jesse, are ended.”
1 Chron., xvi., 7–36.
Here is given a psalm which the chronicler says “David delivered first.” From verse 8 to 22 is Psalm cv., 1–15; the next 11 verses are Psalm xcvi.; and the remaining verses are Psalm cvi., 1, 47, 48.
In the “headings” 18 of the psalms, after the lxxii., are ascribed to David, viz., ciii., cviii., cix., cx., cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxi., cxxxiii., cxxxviii., cxxxix., cxl.–cxlv.
Matt., i., 23.
Matthew says the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah (vii., 14), “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel” [God with us.]
Matt., i., 16.
The son of Mary was Jesus, called the Christ.
(1) The child referred to by Isaiah was to be still an infant when Rezin and Pekah should be cut off. Isaiah says, “Before the child [Emmanuel] shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, [Syria and Israel] shall be [deprived] of both her kings.” It required no great penetration to foretell that the league of Ahaz with Tiglath-pileser the great king, would soon annihilate the petty princes of Damascus and Israel.
(2) All scholars, both Jewish and Christian, agree that the child referred to was the expected infant of Isaiah himself. Within two years Pekah fell by the hand of Hoshea, and Resin by the sword of the Assyrians.
(3) The Jews affirm that the word virgin [almah] does not of necessity mean a maiden or unmarried woman. If Isaiah in the text referred to his wife, she was already mother of at least one child two years old. Joel, i., 8, applies the word to awidowadvanced in life: “Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth,”seeProv., xxx., 19.
Matthew, v., 1.
Jesus “seeing the multitude went up into amountain, and when he wasset, he opened his mouth and taught the people.” [Here follow the beatitudes.]
Luke, vi., 17.
Jesus came down with his disciples, andstoodin theplain, and said: &c. [Here follow the beatitudes.]
Matt., viii., 28.
“When [Jesus] was come to the other side [of the lake] into the country of theGergesenes, there met himtwopossessed with devils, coming out of the tombs.”
Mark, v., 1, 2; Luke, viii., 26, 27.
“When they came over unto the other side of the sea into the country of theGadarenes, there met him out of the tombs a certain man which had devils a long time.”
Matt, xx., 20, 21.
“Themotherof Zebedee’s children . . . said unto [Jesus], grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand and the other on the left in thy kingdom.”
Mark, x., 35–37.
“James and John thesonsof Zebedee came unto [Jesus] saying, grant unto us that we may sit one on thy right hand and the other on thy left in thy glory.”
Matt., xxii., 46.
Here we are told that Jesus puzzled the Pharisees with the question, “How can Christ be David’s son, seeing that David calls himlord?” “And no man,” adds the writer, “from that day forth, durst ask him any more questions.”
Mark, xii., 34.
Mark gives a different version. He says a certain scribe asked Jesus, “Which is the first commandment of all?” And when Jesus answered the scribe well, adds, “No man after that durst ask him any question.”
Luke, xx., 40.
Luke agrees with neither of his brother evangelists. He states the matter thus: The Sadducees tell Jesus of a woman who married seven times, and ask whose wife of the seven she would be in the resurrection. After Jesus had replied, some of the scribes remarked, “Master, thou hast well said,” and Luke adds, “after that they durst not ask him any question.” Which is right would be hard to say. Only one can be so.
Matt., xxvi., 6, &c.; Mark, xiv., 3, &c.
Matthew and Mark say that Jesus was banqueting in the house of Simon the Leper, when a woman came and anointed him with spikenard.
John, xii., 1, &c.
John places this anointing in the house of Lazarus, and says the woman’s name was Mary, who took a pound of spikenard for the purpose.
There cannot be a doubt that all these refer to the same event or tradition.It was just prior to the “entry into Jerusalem” which brought about the trial and condemnation. It is wholly incredible that this anointing with spikenard should have been done twice at about the same time.
Matt., xxvi., 34.
Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Verily I say unto thee that this nightbefore the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
See also Luke, xxii., 34; and John xiii., 38.
Mark, xiv., 30.
Jesus said: “Verily I say unto thee that this day, even in this night, before the cock crowtwice, thou shalt deny me thrice.”
Matt., xxvi., 73.
Matthew describes the third “denial” thus: “After a while camethey that stood byand said to Peter, surely thou art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”
Mark and Luke give substantially the same account.
John, xviii., 26.
John says it was not “they that stood by,” but “one of the servants of the High Priest, whose ear Peter [had] cut off.” This servant said, “Did not I see thee in the garden with him,” and not that “thy speech bewrayeth thee.”
Matt, xxvi., 74.
Matthew, in accordance with his dictum, makes Simon Peter deny thrice any knowledge of Jesus, and, having so done, “immediately the cock crew.”
Mark xiv., 68–72.
Mark has another tale to make good, and says that Simon Peter denied once, and the cock crew once; after this Peter denied twice more, and then the cock crew a second time.
Matt, xxvii., 5.
Matthew says that Judas, after he had betrayed his master, “went and hanged himself.”
Acts, i., 18.
Simon Peter says, “This man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out.”
Simon Peter says that Judas bought a field with the money he received from the priests. The evangelist says he flung the money down in the temple, and the priests bought with it the potter’s field to bury strangers in. What is meant by “falling headlong” is very difficult to make out.
Matt, xxviii., 2–5.
Matthew tells us that an angel “rolled back the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it; and the angel said, ‘Fear not . . .’”
John xxi., 1. We are told that Mary saw two angelssitting; one at the head and the other at the feet.
Mark xvi., 4, 5.
Mark says the stone was rolled away, and the visitors on “entering into the sepulchre saw [the angel] sitting on the right side. And he said,” &c. Luke [xxiv., 4] says there weretwo menwhostood. They had “shining garments,” and they said, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?”
Mark x., 46; Matt, xx., 29.
Mark says, and Matthew agrees with him, that Jesus met with Bartimeus, the blind beggar, onleavingJericho.
Luke xviii., 35.
Luke says it was not on leaving Jericho, but as he was about toenterthe city.
Mark xiv., 69.
In regard to the second denial of Simon Peter, Mark says “Amaidsaw him again, and said tothem that stood by, this is one of them.”
Luke xxii., 58.
Luke tells us the person was not a woman, but a man; and Peter answered “Man, I am not,”i.e., not one of the disciples.
Luke, ix., 1.
Here we read that Jesus “called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority overalldevils, and to cure [all] diseases.”
Luke, ix., 38–40.
We are hardly prepared in the same chapter to hear that the disciples hadnotpower to cast out devils, and cure diseases, for a man says to Jesus, “Master, a spirit taketh my son and teareth him; and I brought him to thy disciples to cast it out, but they could not.”
John xix., 6.
When Jesus was brought before the Roman procurator, Pilate said to the Jews, “Take ye him, and crucify him.”
John xviii., 31.
This is very strange, seeing the Jews had just said to Pilate, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”
Would any Roman procurator have told the Jews to crucify a criminal, knowing that it was strictly forbidden by the Roman senate?