(D.) Conclusion.

[77]Joshua 1. 7, 8; 8. 31, 32; 23. 6; 24. 26. Judges 3. 4.

[78]Judges 20. 27, 28; 21. 19; 1 Sam. 2. 12-30; 3. 3; 4. 4; 6. 15; 14. 3.

[79]1 Kings 2. 3. 2 Kings 14. 6.

[80]Hos. 4. 4-6; 8. 1, 13; 9. 4; 12. 9; Amos 2. 4, 11; 4. 4, 5; 5. 21-25; 8. 5.

[81]Hos. 8. 12 (R.V.).

On the other side, we have the statement in Jeremiah,that God did not command the Israelites concerning burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, when He brought them out of Egypt.[82]But the next verse certainly implies that it was placing these before obedience that God condemned. And Hosea in a similar passage declares this to be the case, and that God's not desiring sacrifice means His not caring so much about it, as about other things.[83]It is also urged that there were practices which areinconsistentwith these laws; the most important being that the sacrifices were not limited to one place, or the offerers to priests. As to the former, the principle of the law was that the place of sacrifice should be of Divine appointment,where God had chosen to record His name, (i.e., where thearkwas), and not selected by the worshippers themselves.[84]In Exodus it is naturally implied that there should be many such places, as the Israelites were then only beginning their wanderings; and in Deuteronomy that there should be only one, as they were then about to enter Canaan.

[82]Jer. 7. 22.

[83]Hosea 6. 6; 1 Sam. 15. 22.

[84]Exod. 20. 24; Deut. 12. 5.

But for many years, owing to the unsettled state of the country, and the ark having been captured by the Philistines, the law could not be obeyed. When however, the people had rest from their enemies (which was the condition laid down in Deuteronomy) and the temple was built at Jerusalem, the law was fully recognised. After this the worship athigh placesis spoken of as asin, while Hezekiah is commended for destroying these places, and for keeping the commandmentswhich the Lord commanded Moses.[85]

[85]1 Kings 3. 2; 22. 43; 2 Kings 18. 4-6.

The discovery, however in 1907, that there was a Jewish Temple of Jehovah at Elephantine, near Assouan in Egypt, with sacrifices, as early as the sixth centuryB.C., and that it had apparently the approval of the authorities at Jerusalem, makes it doubtful if the law as to the one sanctuary was ever thought to be absolutely binding.

As to the other point—the sacrifices not being offered only bypriests—there is an apparent discrepancy in the Pentateuch itself; since Deuteronomy (unlike the other books) seems in one passage to recognise thatLevitesmight perform priestly duties.[86]Various explanations have been given of this, though I do not know of one that is quite satisfactory. There are also a few cases, where men who were neither priests, nor Levites, such as Gideon, David, and Elijah, are said to have offered sacrifices.[87]But these were all under special circumstances, and in some of them the sacrifice was directly ordered by God. There is thus nothing like sufficient evidence to show that the laws of the Pentateuch were not known in later days, but merely that they were often not obeyed.

[86]Deut. 18. 6-8.

[87]E.g., Judges 6. 26; 2 Sam. 24. 18; 1 Kings 18. 32.

Lastly we have the finding of theBook of the Law(probably Deuteronomy) when the temple was being repaired in the reign of Josiah, about 621B.C., which is regarded by some critics as its first publication.[88]But this is a needless assumption, for there is no hint thateither the king or the people were surprised at such a book being found, but merely at what it contained. And as they proceeded at once to carry out its directions, it rather shows that they knew there was such a book all the time, only they had never before read it. And this is easily accounted for, as most copies would have been destroyed by the previous wicked kings.[89]On the other hand, an altogether new book is not likely to have gained such immediate and ready obedience; not to mention the great improbability of such an audacious fraud never being detected at the time.

[88]2 Kings 22.

[89]2 Kings 21. 2, 21.

Nor is it easy to see why, if Deuteronomy was written at a late date, it should have contained so many obsolete and useless instructions; such as the order to destroy the Canaanites, when there were scarcely any Canaanites left to destroy.[90]Yet the people are not only told to destroy them, but to do itgradually, so that the wild beasts may not become too numerous;[91]which shows that the passage was written centuries before the time of Josiah, when there was no more danger from wild beasts than from Canaanites. Nor is it likely, if Deuteronomy was written at that time, when Jerusalem claimed to be the central sanctuary, that the city itself should never once be named in the book, or even alluded to.

[90]Deut. 7. 2; 20. 17.

[91]Deut. 7. 22.

Moreover, discoveries in Egypt have shown that in early times religious writings were sometimes buried in the foundations, or lower walls of important temples; where they were found centuries afterwards when the temples were being repaired; so the account, aswe have it in the Bible, is both natural and probable.[92]

[92]E. Naville, Discovery of the Book of the Law, 1911, pp. 4-10.

On the whole, then, none of these arguments for alate dateare at all conclusive, and we therefore decide that this theory is not only very improbable in any case, but quite untenable in face of the strong evidence on the other side.

Having thus shown that the Pentateuch appears to date from the time of Moses, it only remains to consider its authorship, and the witness it bears to the miracles of the Exodus.

Now that the greater part should have been written by Moses himself is plainly the most probable view. And this is strongly confirmed by the book itself; for a large part of it distinctlyclaimsto have been written by Moses. It is not merely that this title is given in a heading, or opening verse, which might easily have been added in later times. But it is asserted, positively and repeatedly, all through the book itself, both in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that many of the events, and laws referred to (often including several chapters) were actuallywritten downby Moses.[93]This is an important point, and it must be allowed great weight.

[93]Exod. 17. 14; 24. 4; 34. 27; Num. 33. 2; 36. 13; Deut. 31. 9, 22, 24. The first two passages in Exod. are assigned to the supposed E, the third to J, those in Num. to P, and those in Deut. to D.

And the first passage, that Moses was to write the threat against Amalekin a book, is specially interesting; because we cannot think that the book containednothing but this single sentence. It evidently means inthebook (see American R. V.), implying that a regular journal was kept, in which important events were recorded. And this is confirmed by another of the passages, which says that Moses wrote down something that occurredthe same day;[94]and by another which gives a long and uninteresting list of journeys in the Desert,[95]which certainly looks like an official record kept at the time. While the concluding passage relates how Moses, when he had finished writing the book, gave it to the Levites to keep beside the ark, in order to preserve it, and anything more precise than this can scarcely be imagined.[96]

[94]Deut. 31. 22; comp. Exod. 24. 4.

[95]Num. 33.

[96]Deut. 31. 24-26.

Moreover, the frequent references of Moses to his own exclusion from Canaan, and his pathetic prayer on the subject, have a very genuine tone about them.[97]And his bitter complaint that God had broken His promise, and not delivered the people,[98]could scarcely have been written by anyone but himself; especially after the conquest of Canaan, when it was so obviously untrue.

[97]E.g., Deut. 3. 23-26; 1. 37; 4. 21; 31. 2.

[98]Exod. 5. 23.

And his authorship is further confirmed by the fact that so little is said in his praise. His faults are indeed narrated quite candidly, but nothing is said in admiration of the great leader's courage, and ability, till the closing chapter of Deuteronomy. This was evidently written by someone else, and shows what we might have expected had the earlier part been the workof anyone but Moses himself. Nor is there anything surprising in his writing in the third person, as numbers of other men—Cæsar, for instance—have done the same.

But now comes the important point. Fortunately it can be stated in a few words. If the Pentateuch is a contemporary document, probably written by Moses, can we reject the miracles which it records? Can we imagine, for instance, acontemporarywriter describing the Ten Plagues, or the Passage of the Red Sea, if nothing of the kind had occurred? The events, if true, must have been well known at the time; and if untrue, no contemporary would have thought of inventing them. We therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole chapter, that theoriginof the Jewish religionwas confirmed by miracles.

(A.) The Later Old Testament Books.(1.) Undesigned agreements; the rebellion of Korah.(2.) Alleged mistakes; unimportant.(3.) Modern discoveries; these support their accuracy.(B.) The Old Testament Miracles.(1.) Their credibility; this can scarcely be disputed, if miracles at all are credible; the silence of the sun and moon, two other difficulties.(2.) Their truthfulness; list of eight public miracles, two examples, Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in detail; conclusion.

(A.) The Later Old Testament Books.

(1.) Undesigned agreements; the rebellion of Korah.

(2.) Alleged mistakes; unimportant.

(3.) Modern discoveries; these support their accuracy.

(B.) The Old Testament Miracles.

(1.) Their credibility; this can scarcely be disputed, if miracles at all are credible; the silence of the sun and moon, two other difficulties.

(2.) Their truthfulness; list of eight public miracles, two examples, Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in detail; conclusion.

Having now examined the origin of the Jewish Religion, we have next to consider itshistory; which also claims to have been confirmed by miracles. So we will first notice (very briefly) the Old TestamentBooks, from Joshua onwards; and then consider some of theMiracleswhich they record.

Now, the arguments for, and against the genuineness of these Books need not be discussed at length, since we have already decided in favour of that of the Pentateuch, and most critics who admit the one, admit the other. But a few remarks may be made on threesubjects, those ofundesigned agreements, the importance of which is not obvious at first sight; thealleged mistakesin the Old Testament; and the effect ofmodern discoveries.

Now, if we find two statements regarding an event, or series of events, which, though not identical, are yet perfectly consistent, this agreement must be eitheraccidentalornot accidental. And supposing it to be too minute in detail to be accidental it shows that the statements are somehow connected together. Of course, if the events are true, each writer may know them independently, and their statements would thus be in perfect, though unintentional agreement. But if the events are not true, then either one writer must have made his account agree with the other, or else both must have derived their information from a common source. In the former case, there would be intentional agreement between the writers; in the latter, between the various parts of the original account. In any case, there would be designed agreement somewhere; for, to put it shortly, the events, being imaginary, would not fit together of necessity, nor by accident, which is excluded, and hence must do so by design.

This has been otherwise expressed by saying that truth is necessarily consistent, but falsehood is not so; therefore, while consistency in truth may be undesigned, consistency in falsehood can only result from design. And from this it follows that anundesigned agreementbetween two statements—provided of course it is too minute to be accidental—is a sure sign of truthfulness.It shows, moreover, that both writers had independent knowledge of the event, and were both telling the truth. And of course the same argument applies if the two statements are made by the same writer, though in this case there is a greater probability that the agreement is not undesigned.

We will now consider a single example in detail, and select that referring to the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as it is connected with an important miracle. Korah, we are told,[99]belonged to the family of Kohath and the other two to that of Reuben; and from incidental noticesin another part of the book, we learn the position of thetentsof these men. The former was to the south of the central Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, on an inner line of tents, while the latter were also to the south, though on an outer line of tents.

[99]Num. 16; 2. 10, 17; 3. 29.

This explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah, he had tosend forDathan and Abiram, and how next morning he left the central Tabernacle, where the men had assembled to offer incense, (and where they were afterwards destroyed, probably by lightning) andwent untoDathan and Abiram (vv. 8-25). It explains how, later on, thetentsof Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned, while that of the leading conspirator, Korah, is strangely omitted. It explains how thefamiliesof these two were destroyed, though no mention is made of that of Korah; since the destruction was probably limited to the tents of Dathan and Abiram, who were brothers, and the small tabernacle they had erected alongside, and from which alone the people were toldtodepart(vv. 26, 27). We may therefore conclude that Korah'sfamilywas not destroyed, since their tent was at some distance. And this accounts for what some have thought to be a discrepancy in another passage, where we read that thesonsof Korah did not die; as well as for Dathan and Abiram, being mentioned alone later on.[100]In fact, the position of these tents is the key to the whole narrative, though we are left to discover it for ourselves.

[100]Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.

Now if the account is true and written by a contemporary, all is plain; for truth, as said before, is necessarily consistent. But if the story is a late fiction, all this agreement in various places is, to say the least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of fictionaccidentallyarranging these details in different parts of his book, which fit together so perfectly? Or can we imagine his doing sointentionally, and yet never hinting at the agreement himself, but leaving it so unapparent that not one reader in a thousand ever discovers it? This single instance may be taken as a sample of numerous others which have been noticed all through the Old Testament; and they certainly tend to show its accuracy.

We pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old Testament, and considering the long period covered, and the variety of subjects dealt with, and often the same subject by various writers, the number of even apparent discrepancies is not very great. And it is beyond dispute that many of these can be explainedsatisfactorily, and doubtless many others could be so, if our knowledge were more complete. Moreover, they are, as a rule,numericalmistakes, such as the incredibly large numbers in some places,[101]and the rather discordant chronology in Kings and Chronicles. But the former may be due to some error in copying, and the latter to the different ways of counting a king's reign.

[101]Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.

The only mistake of any real importance refers to the large numbers of the Israelites, who are said to have left Egypt,—some 600,000 men, besides children, or probably over two million altogether. For on two subsequent occasions, when the census of the tribes is given, it totals up to about the same number.[102]This is no doubt a serious difficulty; as anyone can see, who will take the trouble to calculate the space they would require on the march, or in camp. If we assume, for instance, that they crossed the arm of the Red Sea in, say,fortyparallel columns, these would still have to be of enormous length to contain 50,000 persons each, with their flocks and herds.

[102]Exod. 12. 37. Num. 1. 26.

Perhaps the best explanation is that suggested by Professor Flinders Petrie, that the word translatedthousandsshould befamilies,[103]so that the tribe of Reuben, for instance,[104]instead of having forty-sixthousandfive hundred men, would have forty-sixfamilies, (making about) five hundred men. The chief arguments in favour of this are, first, that the same word is used in Judges 6. 15, where it so obviouslymeans family and not thousand, that it is so translated in both the Authorised and Revised Versions.

[103]Egypt and Israel, 1911, p. 43.

[104]Num. 1. 21.

And secondly, it would account for the remarkable fact that though there were twelve tribes, and they were each counted twice, yet the number of the hundreds is never 0, 1, 8 or 9; but always one of the other six digits. It is extremely unlikely (practically incredible)[105]that this would occur in an ordinary census, but the proposed theory explains it at once. For the hundreds could scarcely be 0, or 1, as this would mean too few men in a family; or 8 or 9, which would mean too many; while the other digits always work out to what (allowing for servants) is a reasonable proportion, from 5 to 17. On this theory the number of men would be reduced to 5,600, which is much more intelligible. But some other passages scarcely seem capable of this interpretation, so it must be admitted that the number forms a difficulty, whatever view we adopt.

[105]The chance of its occurring would be only (6/10)24or less than 1 in 200,000.

Lastly, as to the effect of modern discoveries on the accuracy of the Old Testament. In the case of the Pentateuch, as we have seen, there is very littledirectevidence either way; but it is different in regard to some of the later books.

In the first place, and this is very important, modern discoveries have shown that the period of Jewish history from the time of Moses onwards was distinctlya literary age. In Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, and elsewhere, it was the custom, and had been for centuries,to record all important events, at least all those that were creditable to the people concerned; so it is almost certain that the Jews, like the surrounding nations, had their historians. In every age conquerors have loved to record their conquests, and why should the Jews alone have been an exception?

Yet the historical books of the Old Testament have no competitors. If, then, we deny that these are in the main a contemporary record, we must either assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations, had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely; as well as being contrary to the Books themselves, where therecordersare frequently mentioned, even by name.[106]Or else we must assume that their works were replaced in later days by other and less reliable accounts, which were universally mistaken for the originals, and this seems equally improbable.

[106]E.g., 2 Sam. 8. 16; 2 Kings 18. 18; 2 Chron. 34. 8.

Passing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be divided into two classes, geographical and historical. In the first place thegeographyof Palestine has been shown to be minutely accurate. But this does not prove the Old Testament Books to be genuine, but merely that they were written by Jews who knew the country intimately. It helps, however, in some cases to remove apparent difficulties. Thus the discoveries at Jericho, in 1908, have shown that the place was merely a small fortified hill, the length of the surrounding wall being about half a mile, so there was no difficulty in the Israelites walking round it seven times in the day.[107]And much the same may be said of thehistoricalnotices. The monumental records of the Kings of Judah and Israel have not at present been discovered, but we can often check the history by the records of other countries. And these are as a rule in perfect agreement, not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society, customs, and state of civilisation, of the period. Indeed, in some cases where this was formerly disputed, as in the importance assigned to theHittites, it has been fully justified by modern discoveries.[108]But this again does not prove the genuineness of the Books, though it certainly raises a probability in their favour.

[107]Josh. 6. 15.

[108]1 Kings 10. 29; 2 Kings 7. 6.

Sometimes, however, the evidence is stronger than this, one of the best known instances being Daniel's mention ofBelshazzar.[109]He states that the last king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar's son, or grandson (margin, A.V.) called Belshazzar, who was slain at night when the city was captured (aboutB.C.538). But according to Berosus, who wrote about the third centuryB.C., all this appears to be wrong. The last king of Babylon was a usurper called Nabonidus, and any such person as Belshazzar is quite unknown. And so matters remained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered at Mugheir in 1854.

[109]Dan. 5. 1.

From these it appears that Belshazzar was the eldest son of Nabonidus, and was apparently associated with him in the government. And an inscription recently found at Erech shows that this was the case for several years.[110]There is no proof that he ever had the title ofKing, unless he is the same as oneMardukshazzar, about this time (not otherwise identified), which is not unlikely, as we know Marduk was sometimes calledBel—i.e., Baal, or Lord. And another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to show that he was slain at Babylon in a night assault on the city (or some portion of it) as described by Daniel, some months after Nabonidus had been taken prisoner.[111]As to his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar perhaps his mother (or grandmother) was a royal princess. And there certainly seems to have been some connection between the families, as we know from the inscriptions that he had a brother called Nebuchadnezzar.

[110]Expository Times, April, 1915. Comp. Dan. 8. 1.

[111]Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxviii., 1906, p. 28; vol. xlvi., 1914, p. 14.

Now, of course, if Daniel himself wrote the book, he would have known all about Belshazzar, however soon afterwards it was forgotten. But, if the book is a late fiction, written by a Jew in Palestine about B.C. 160, which is the rationalistic theory, as the wars between Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold, how did he know the name of Belshazzar at all, or anything about him, when such a person was unknown to previous historians? Plainly then, this is a distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date of the book.[112]

[112]It is worth noting that this rationalistic theory, which was generally accepted by the so-called Higher Critics, has now become so difficult to maintain in the face of archæology that Dr. Pinches, Lecturer in Assyriology at University College, London, said recently 'I am glad to think with regard to the Book of Daniel that the Higher Criticism is in fact buried.' Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xlix., 1917, p. 135.

And much the same may be said of Isaiah's mention ofSargonof Assyria, who is stated to have taken Ashdod. Yet the very existence of such a king was unknown to secular history, till the last century; when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with inscriptions recording, among other things, his capture of Ashdod.[113]

[113]Isa. 20. 1. Orr's Problem of Old Test., 1906, p. 399.

Two other cases are of special interest, because the monuments seemed at first to show that the Bible was wrong. One of these refers to a so-calledPul, King of Assyria;[114]but when the list of Assyrian monarchs was discovered, no such king could be found. It looked like a serious discrepancy, and was even spoken of as 'almost the only important historical difficulty' between the Bible and the monuments.[115]But it has now been discovered thatPuluwas the original name of a usurper, who changed it to Tiglath Pileser III. on ascending the throne; though he was still sometimes called Pulu.[116]This not only removes the difficulty, but tends to show the early date of the narrative; for a late writer would probably have called him by his better-known name.

[114]2 Kings 15. 19.

[115]Rawlinson, Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament, 1871, p. 121.

[116]Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. iv., p. 761.

The other instance refers toJehu, who is stated in the Assyrian inscriptions to be the son of Omri; though according to the Bible he was no relation whatever. But it has now been shown that the words translatedson of Omrimay only meanof the land or house of Omri,which is a common Assyrian name for the kingdom of Israel.[117]

[117]Driver, Schweich Lecture, 1908, p. 17.

As a last example we will take thedatesgiven for the Fall of the two capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem. These were calculated long ago (margin,A.V.) from a number of statements in the Bible, giving the lengths of different reigns, etc., atB.C.721 and 588 respectively.[118]And now the inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia fix the former atB.C.722 and the latter at 586.[119]Everyone must admit that these are remarkable agreements, considering the way in which they have had to be calculated.

[118]2 Kings 17. 6; 25. 3.

[119]Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. i., p. 401.

We have now briefly considered the Books of the Old Testament, both as to theirundesigned agreements, which are very interesting; theiralleged mistakes, which are unimportant; and the effect ofmodern discoveries, which has undoubtedly been to support their accuracy. What, then, is the value of the evidence they afford as to the history of the Jewish Religion having been confirmed by miracles?

We will include under this term superhuman coincidences as well as miracles in the strict sense; and they occur all through the historical books of the Old Testament. A few of them have been already noticed in the last chapter, but we must now discuss them more fully, first considering whether they are credible, and then whether they are true.

Now this can scarcely be disputed,provided miracles at all are credible, which we have already admitted, since scientific difficulties affect all miracles equally; and of course the Superhuman Coincidences have no difficulties of this kind whatever. Among these may be mentioned most of the Ten Plagues, the destruction of Korah, the falling of the walls of Jericho, probably due to an earthquake; the lightning which struck Elijah's sacrifice; and many others.

ThePassage of the Red Sea, for instance, almost certainly belongs to this class. The water, we are told, was driven back by a strong east wind, lasting all night; and this was doubtless due to natural forces, though, in common with other natural events (such as the growth of grass[120]), it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And the statement,the waters were a wall unto them, need not be pressed literally, so as to mean that they stood upright. It may only mean here, as it obviously does in some other cases, that the waters were a defence on each side, and secured them from flank attacks.[121]And as they must have advanced in several parallel columns, probably half a mile wide, this certainly seems the more likely view.

[120]Ps. 147. 8-9.

[121]Exod. 14. 21, 22; Nahum 3. 8; 1 Sam. 25. 16.

And what makes it still more probable is that much the same thing occurred in this very neighbourhood in recent times. For in January, 1882, a large expanse of water, about 5 feet deep, near the Suez Canal, was exposed to such a strong gale (also from the east) thatnext morning it had been entirely driven away, and men were walking about on the mud, where the day before the fishing-boats had been floating.[122]Moreover, on this theory, the miracle would not lose any of its evidential value. For the fact of such a strip of dry land being formed just when and where the Israelites so much wanted it, and then being suddenly covered again, through the wind changing round to the west (which it must have done for the dead Egyptians to have been cast up on theeastside)[123], would be a coincidence far too improbable to be accidental.

[122]Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxviii., 1894, p. 268. It is vouched for by Major-General Tulloch, who was there on duty at the time.

[123]Exod. 14. 30.

Another well known miracle, which probably belongs to this class, is the'silence' (or standing still) of the sun and moon.[124]This is often thought to mean that the earth's rotation was stopped, so that the sun and moon apparently stood still. But a miracle on so vast a scale, was quite needless for the destruction of a few Canaanites, and there is another, and far better explanation.

Back to Index Next