SCRIPTURE IRRECONCILABLE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
It is not our intention to dwell at any length upon what are termed the
miracles of Scripture. Of course they are contrary to experience, but
then they are acknowledged miracles, and those who believe such things
possible satisfy their minds by the persuasion that He who made the laws
of nature can suspend them at will, or can introduce some new factor at
need to bring about preternatural results.
Thus, if any one were to object to the statement made in the Book of
Numbers (xxii., 28.) respecting the ass of the Prophet of Pethor, which
spoke like a man, and knew the will of Jehovah better than his master,
the answer would be, the Lord, who made the ass, could make it talk also.
Again, if any one were to say that Peter could no more walk on the sea
than any other man, the reply would be, that Jesus was a divine being,
and sustained his rash disciple by His omnipotent power. So, if anyone
were to demur to the chariot and horses which fetched Elijah from the
banks of the Jordan, and carried him through the air to that mysterious
country called by the Hebrews “heaven,” he would be told—well, I hardly
know what he would be told, but certainly the miracle was substantially
repeated when the crucified but risen Christ mounted through the air
without either chariot or horses, and followed Elijah to the same
mysterious region.
Not a few of the “miracles” of the Bible appear quite purportless, mere
exhibitions of super-human power; but, as they are miracles, nothing more
can be said. What end could be answered by that miracle performed by the
bones of Elisha, recorded in the Book of Kings? It is said that the
Moabites were burying a man, and being disturbed, cast the dead body into
the grave of Elisha; but when it touched the bones of the prophet, it
“revived and stood upon its feet” (2 Kings, xiii., 21). In fact the
restoration of life is certainly the commonest of all miracles. We have
the widow’s son restored to life by Elijah; the son of the widow of Nain;
the daughter of Jairus; Lazarus, Jesus, and the many saints which came
out of their graves after the resurrection, and appeared unto many
(Matthew xxvii., 52, 53). Shakespeare was quite mistaken when he spoke
of the grave as “that bourne from which no traveller returns.” Many have
returned, but what is passing strange is that none have left any record
of the land of shadows, and no curiosity seems ever to have arisen in any
living being to learn from these resuscitated ones the secrets of the
dead. This certainly is contrary to human experience. If some now in
their graves were to go to London and “appear unto many,” they would be
beset with questions—questions of infinite interest, questions of untold
influence; but of all the numerous dead who came to revisit the earth,
not one has left behind a single item of information, and if we except
Lazarus and Jesus, not even the name of anyone has escaped. Some are
called “saints;” but were these saints taken from Paradise, and sent to
live again in this “vale of tears?” One was a Moabite, was he snatched
from the “burning lake” to live a new life and die a second time in
battle? It is past finding out; and truly so contrary to experience, so
altogether strange, so objectless, so incredible, that those who relate
such things must bear the responsibility.
But if several of the scripture “miracles” are mere wanton exhibitions of
super-human power, not a few others are puerile in the extreme. Witness
that of Elijah beating the Jordan with his cloak to make himself a
passage across the river (2 Kings, ii., 8), a “miracle” repeated by
Elisha, after the ascent of the Tishbite (2 Kings, ii., 14). Witness the
tale told of Elisha respecting the woodman’s axe: The woodman dropped his
axe in the river, and Elisha attracted the iron head to the surface of
the water, merely by “casting a stick into the river” (2 Kings, vi., 6).
Witness the petty wrath of the Shunamite against the children of Bethel.
These thoughtless children mocked him, saying, “Go up, bald-pate!” and
the enraged prophet “cursed the children in the name of the Lord,” when,
lo! “two she-bears out of the wood tare forty-and-two of them.” In
regard to Elisha, however, it must be said that his miracles outnumber
all the rest of the miracles of the Old Testament put together, and they
are none of them free from serious objection.
The whole argument generally advanced in support of the miracles of Jesus
is singularly weak. It is said that miracles were needful to show that
Jesus was the “Sent of God;” that the working of miracles is the seal of
the Almighty to the credentials of Christ, as Nicodemus pleaded (John
iii., 2), “No one can do these miracles which thou doest, except God be
with him,” and Christ himself endorsed the same plea when he said to the
disbelieving Jews, “Believe me for my works’ sake” (John xiv., 11). It
is notorious that false prophets, and even Satan himself, are said to be
workers of miracles. It is said that miracles are performed to deceive
and lead astray, as well as to convince and lead to God. In fact
miracles prove nothing—neither mission from God, nor approval of God, nor
the truth of a doctrine, nor the power of God working in the person who
performs them. They are restricted to the Jews, and nobody knows
anything of the historians who have avouched them. Thus the great
miracle workers of the Old Testament were Elijah and Elisha; but no one
knows who wrote the Books of Kings, which describe their wonderful works,
nor whether those records were compiled before or after the Captivity.
The miracles of Christ are recorded in four Gospels, and who were the
authors of these memorials? Luke was no eye-witness—he himself
acknowledges that his Gospel was compiled from several existing ones (i.,
1–4); but we are nowhere told by what guiding power he made his
selection, nor why his compilation is better or more worthy of credit
than the originals. Mark, like Luke, was no apostle, and no one knows
who he was, when he wrote, or where his Gospel was written. The very
fact that he was the John Mark referred to in the Acts (xii., 25) is a
mere conjecture, and even if admitted would not prove that he was one of
those who “companied” with the apostles from the baptism to the
resurrection. The Fourth Gospel, like the First Epistle of John, is
notoriously doubtful, as Bretschneider has shown in his “Probabilia;”
parts are certainly spurious, and the whole seems to belong to the latter
half of the second century. {19} We are, therefore, reduced to one
Gospel—that of Matthew—and even of this it may be said, that no one knows
whether it was written in Greek or Hebrew, for no one has seen the
original. It is certain that parts of our present text are
interpolations, and although it would appear that Matthew wrote what is
termed the “Logia” (or sayings of Christ), it is far from certain that
the “Logia” is the same as our First Gospel. The fact seems to be this:
that Matthew noted down the discourses and parables of Christ; and
unknown authors from time to time added to the original work, till
ultimately it assumed its present form and proportions.
It must not be forgotten that our present canon of the New Testament was
not established till the year 494; the canon recognised at the council of
Laodicea (360–4) repudiated the Book of Revelations. The primitive
Christians never refer to any book of the New Testament, and few
quotations from it were made by the apostolic fathers. It is not till
the close of the second century that we meet with any definite and
distinct mention of New Testament Scriptures at all. Eusebius recognises
as canonical books the four Gospels and Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and
the first Epistles of John and Peter; but he considers the rest of the
books as doubtful; and speaks of others as equally worthy of credit or
rather discredit, such as the Acts of Paul, the Book of the Shepherd
[Hermas], the Kerugma of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Clementine
Epistles, the Doctrines of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews;
all these, except the first are mentioned by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen, on whose authority our selection of Canonical New
Testament Scriptures mainly depends.
It is not a little strange that none of the books cited by the authors of
the Bible as their authority form any part of our canonical Scriptures.
Thus Joshua (x., 13) and the prophet Samuel (2 bk., i., 18) refer to the
“Book of Jasher;” Moses (Nos. xxi., 14) refers to the “Book of the Wars;”
the Chronicles refer to the “Book of Nathan the Prophet,” the “Prophecy
of Ahijah the Shilonite,” the “Vision of Isaiah,” the “Vision of Iddo the
Seer,” the “Book of Shemaiah the Prophet,” the “Book of Iddo concerning
Genealogies,” the “Lamentations of Jeremiah for king Josiah,” and the
“Story [history] of Iddo” (2 Chron., ix., 29; xii., 15; xiii., 22;
xxxii., 32; xxxv., 25); the writer of the first book of Kings (xiv., 19,
29) to the “Diary of the Kings of Judah,” and to another of the “Kings of
Israel;” {20a} in 1 Kings iv., 29–33, we have mention of several works of
Solomon unknown to us; in Acts, vii., 42, allusion is made to the “Book
of the Prophets;” Paul refers more than once to his “own Gospel” (Rom.,
ii., 16; xvi., 25); {20b} and Jude (14) to the “Book of Enoch,” none of
which form any part of our Bible.
In regard to the New Testament the number of books professing to set
forth the words and deeds of Christ was very numerous, even when the
Gospel of Luke was compiled, and when the canon was fixed by “uninspired”
authority, the claimants were legion. The present selection was made by
persons wholly incompetent to weigh evidence, and their only rule was
what they arbitrarily judged to be orthodox, which, of course, means in
agreement with their own religious opinions. This being the case, on
what does the testimony of miracles rest? certainly not on eye-witnesses,
not even on the authority of contemporaries. Paley says the men suffered
persecution and even death in proof of their belief, but Paley has no
ground for this assertion: first, because he knows nothing about any of
the four Evangelists, and cannot tell whether they suffered persecution
or not; and, secondly, he cannot know whether the names attached to these
evangelists are real names or not. But allowing Paley’s assertion to be
true, what is gained by it? It is by no means true that a willingness to
suffer is a proof of truth. It may be a proof of obstinacy, of
conviction, or even of cowardice, but can be no proof of truth. A boy
who has stolen from a schoolfellow will often suffer greatly to maintain
a lie; indeed the expression, “it was worthy a better cause,” is a
proverbial proof that men suffer and labour for the wrong as well as for
the right. Allowing, therefore, that the early disciples did suffer, it
proves nothing, and certainly it will not prove the truth of the gospel
narratives. It is now admitted by all biblical scholars that large parts
of our Gospels are interpolations, some of the epistles are known to be
spurious, and probably the only part of the New Testament at all worthy
of credit is that taken from the “Logia,” or sayings of Christ. But we
have run somewhat from our subject. In stating that Scripture
contradicts experience, we would wholly set aside miracles, and limit our
examples to matters more tangible. Our first observations shall be
respecting the Mosaic account of prehistoric man.
(1.) _The Biblical prehistoric man not reconcilable with historic
experience_.
The writer of the Book of Genesis represents Cain as a tiller of the
ground. His son was Enoch, who built a city called Enoch; and during the
lifetime of Adam lived Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, all sons of Lamech.
The first of these was the “father of such as dwell in tents,” the second
the inventor of both “harp and organ,” and the third a forger of “every
artifice in brass and iron.”
The Flood came and swept away the whole race of man except the arkites;
but the grandsons of Noah were Mizraim, Cush, and Canaan, sons of Ham;
Asshur, Elam, Lud, Madai, Javan, and Tiras, the founders of the
Egyptians, Cushites, and Canaanites, the Assyrians, Elamites or Persians,
Lydians, Medes, Ionians, and Thracians; while Canaan and Cush gave birth
to Sidon, founder of the Sidonians, and Nimrod the despot, who founded a
vast empire, “the beginning of which was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calah
the great city.”
Here we are introduced to agriculture from the very beginning: Adam
tilled the garden of Eden; Cain, the first earth-born man, was a farmer;
and Noah, the representative of the new race, was the planter of a
vineyard. While Adam still lived we have tents invented, musical
instruments, and “every artifice in brass and iron;” while Noah was still
alive we have the fathers born of all the great empires, which have to
the present day perpetuated their names. Is this credible? Is it not
rather of a piece with the old system of taking the names of places,
cities, and empires, and concocting personages to account for them? We
all know that the ancient Greeks and Romans did so; we all know that
Geoffrey of Monmouth has done as much for our own country. Thus Britain,
Cornwall, Devon, and so on, suggested the mythical heroes, Bryt, Corin,
and Debon. The people or place suggest the name, and the founder is a
mere myth. It is wholly irreconcilable with all the experience of
geology and history, that the very first families of the earth should be
founders of empires, inventors of brass and iron works, tents and musical
instruments, tillage and vine dressing; in fact, the men immediately
following Adam and Noah were like those which Moses had seen in Egypt,
and he never dreamt of a more primitive race. {22}
Now, what says science and history of prehistoric man? The earliest
traces of which we have authentic record prove that men lived in caves,
not cities like that of Enoch; they lived by hunting and fishing, not by
agriculture and breeding sheep, like Cain and Abel; far less by
vine-dressing, like Noah. They had small hands, for the implements found
give room for only three fingers of an ordinary man; their skulls were
long, and their legs more nearly allied to the monkey type.
There is no trace in the palæolithic period of any such human beings as
Moses describes; none even in the next period, styled by Sir John Lubbock
the later or “polished stone age,” like Tubal-Cain, a “worker in brass
and iron,” none like Jubal, who could “handle the harp and organ.” Long,
long before the “age of bronze” dawned upon the earth, ages upon ages of
a ruder and still ruder race lived and passed away; a race whose
instruments were stone, first rough and subsequently smooth and polished.
It is impossible in the present state of human knowledge to determine
what length of time elapsed before the palæolithic age glided into the
neolithic, but it must have been very great, and even then the rude life
which presents its records to observation shows that man was far removed
from the Mosaic description of the immediate children of Cain and
grandsons of Noah. There were no builders of cities, no founders of
empires; but as we ascend higher and higher from the drift, we trace a
certain knowledge in pottery and a goodly skill in working up stone into
warlike and other implements. The gallery graves of the earth, even in
the latest age of the neolithic period, resemble Eskimo huts more than
regular cities and palaces, and it is not till we arrive at the evening
of this long day that we discover any trace of herdsmen and tillers of
the soil.
All this vast history of man finds no place in the Book of Genesis. As
the writer of that book knew nothing of the rocks and their mighty
revelations, he knew nothing of man but in the state of civilised
society. The one and the other are wholly irreconcilable with the logic
of facts, and deserve no higher place than the wild legends of India and
China, Greece, Rome, and our own Britain. What would Sir John Lubbock
say to the legend: that Noah the first man, so to speak, was a
vinedresser; that within a century his offspring were building a tower,
the top of which was to reach the skies, a tower described as a most
finished and extraordinary work of art? What would he say to the
statement that primitive man, long before the neolithic or even
palæolithic period produced the founders of such grand empires as
Babylon, Assyria, Persia, and old Greece? It is an insult to our
understanding, a contradiction to our eyes, a gainsaying of the
infallible records of the rocks, to place credence in such legends. They
are palpably untrue, wholly impossible, and as wholly irreconcilable with
history and the experience of facts. {23}
(2.) _The Scripture accounts of the increase of man wholly
irreconcilable with experience and history_.
We shall confine our remarks under this head to three instances—the
builders of Babel, the age of Abraham, and the Exodus from Egypt. Other
instances will doubtless recur to the reader, but the scope of argument
would be much the same in every example.
The builders of Babel are placed about 100 years after the flood. The
general impression left by the Bible account is, that the race of man was
pretty numerous. “The whole earth,” says the writer, “was of one
language and one speech.” This would not be said of a clan or a nation,
but must refer to several nations. It would be absurd to call Sussex or
Kent “the whole earth,” nor less so to say it was all of “one language
and one speech.” It would be scarcely less impertinent to say all
England, or all France, spoke one and the same language. But to say that
all Germany, Russia, Spain, Italy, England, and Sweden, spoke one
language and used one speech would be far otherwise. When, therefore,
the historian makes the statement that “the whole earth was of one
language and one speech,” he virtually says there were several different
nations, and a good round number of peoples. The writer continues—“And
it came to pass as they (?) journeyed from the east they found a plain in
the land of Shinar and dwelt there,” and they “made bricks” (!) and used
“slime for mortar,” and said one to another, “Let us build a city, and a
tower whose top may reach to heaven;” but the Lord scattered them abroad
from thence upon the face of all the earth. [Gen. xi., 1–9.]
Now, at the abatement of the flood the earth contained just four men and
four women. According “to experience,” a population under the most
favourable circumstances possible may double itself in 25 years; {24} but
let us take the increase of the prolific race of Abraham, which,
according to Scripture authority, doubled itself in 20 years [Gen. xlvi.,
27]. This would make the entire population of the earth at the
dispersion 256 souls. Suppose half males and half females, we get 128 of
each sex, and supposing one-third to be adults and two-thirds children,
we have somewhat less than 43 adult males, and this was the entire
population of grown men in “the whole earth.” These 43 men “were all of
one language and one speech.” These 43 men “made bricks,” and said one
to another, “let us build a city and a tower whose top shall reach to
heaven,” and the speech of these 43 was confounded, and the two score and
three were “scattered over the whole earth.” Nothing of comment need be
added.
The next event we would advert to is the period of Abraham. There were
then several large empires and populous nations. Egypt had its regular
court and standing army; Nineveh was older still; China and India were
certainly advanced in organisation. We read of nine kings who made war
“in the vale of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea” [Gen. xiv.]; some of the
Greek states, as Argos and Attica, were founded; and Etruria must have
been in its hey-day. This would demand a population of some hundreds of
millions at the least; but what was the fact, according to the Bible
reading?
Noah was scarcely dead when Abraham was born; some calculate that he had
been dead two years, while others think the two lives overlapped each
other. As Noah was 950 years old at death, and 600 when he entered the
ark, we are not left to conjecture respecting the interval, which, of
course, was 350 years. There were four men and four women when the flood
ceased; and suppose the increase to be the extraordinary one of doubling
five times in a century, we have 256 souls at the end of the 1st century,
8,192 at the close of the 2nd, and one-and-a-half million at the death of
Noah; say two millions at the birth of Abraham, a population inferior to
that of Lancashire, and only two-thirds that of London. These two
millions are supposed to have furnished forth several large empires, most
of which would require more than the whole number. Again we leave the
subject without adding a word of comment.
The number of the Exodus has already been considered in No. 8 of this
series. It is given by the author of the book as 600,000 “fighting men”
or adult males; and if the women equalled the men, and the children were
two to one, we have 600,000 adults of each sex, and 1,200,000 children of
each sex, somewhat more than three-and-a-half millions, say three
millions. The increase of 70 souls in 215 years, although oppressed by
taskmasters, and although for 80 years of the time the decree of Pharaoh
to put to death every male infant at birth, was supposed to be in force.
Taking the same rate as that given above, the 70 at the close of the
first century would have been 2,240, and 124,540 at the time of the
Exodus. Allowing the children to be twice as many as the adults, this
would give us 6,703 as the number of “fighting men,” or, in round
numbers, 6,000 instead of 600,000.
Presuming the Bible text to be correct, the three millions led by Moses
into the wilderness would require daily for food 3,000 oxen and 30,000
sheep, that is allowing half-a-pound of food per head. Of course meat
might be replaced by bread, but it would not decrease the difficulty to
have corn to carry across the Red Sea.{26a} As it was 45 days before
manna was supplied, the fugitives must have driven before them 1,135,000
sheep, and 135,000 oxen. Hence there were three million of men, women,
and children, a mixed multitude of camp followers, more than a million
sheep, and 135,000 head of oxen to lead in flight across the Red Sea,
with the horsemen and chariots of Pharaoh in pursuit. Of course, on the
reduced scale of 6,000 instead of 600,000, all this would be divided by
100; and although there would still remain above a thousand oxen and
eleven thousand sheep, the numbers would be much more manageable; but the
writer of the Book of Exodus is responsible for the larger numbers, and
with them only are we concerned. {26b}
(3.) _The armies of the Jews_, _and the numbers slain in war
irreconcilable with experience and history_.
Akin to the above is the extravagant numbers given in Scripture of the
fighting men mustered on several occasions by the petty kingdom of Israel
before it was divided, and of the still more petty states of Judah and
Israel after the revolt of the ten tribes. The whole undivided kingdom
was nominally 60 miles broad, and 140 miles long, less than the county of
Yorkshire. Much of this never came into the power of the Hebrews, and
more than three-fourths was desert. After the division each kingdom was
about the size of Norfolk and Suffolk. {27a}
Let us first take two examples of the undivided kingdom. At the close of
David’s reign, the number of fighting men is given (2 Samuel, xxiv., 9)
as 1,300,000; and, after the revolt, Abijah, grandson of Solomon, is said
to have headed an army of 400,000 chosen men against Jeroboam, who had
800,000 men under him. This gives 1,200,000 fighting men in two petty
kingdoms, the aggregate of which was less than the principality of Wales.
But what will be said of the sequel? the 400,000 men under Abijah slew
500,000 of the enemy! with swords and bows!! {27b}
The late unhappy, but gigantic contest between Germany and France, makes
us pretty familiar with war, the size of armies, and the number slain by
the most murderous instruments ever used by man. Suppose Gambetta had
said 400,000 Frenchmen had slain 500,000 Prussians, should we believe it?
Suppose he had said that 500,000 out of 800,000 had fallen by the sword,
should we believe it? It is wholly irreconcilable with experience, and
most incredible.
Come we now to an example or two of the divided kingdom. The kingdom of
Judah was about equal in area to the two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk,
but what are we told of its army?
[2 Chronicles, xiv., 8.] Asa, grandson of Rehoboam, King of Judah, had
300,000 heavy-armed troops, and 280,000 light-armed, nearly 600,000, and
“all mighty men of valour!!”
[2 Chronicles, xvii., 14–18.] Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, had an army of
1,160,000 soldiers, “all mighty men of valour!”
[2 Chronicles, xxv., 5, 6.] Amaziah, King of Judah, had 300,000 “choice
men, handling spear and shield, above 20 years old,” and a mercenary
contingent of 100,000 Israelites, which he hired for 100 talents of
silver (£34,200).
[2 Chronicles, xxvi., 12–13.] Uzziah’s army consisted of 307,500 trained
soldiers “under 2,600 chief officers.”
No such armies as these correspond with our experience. Compare the
armies of Europe with those of these petty princes, and see how wholly
irreconcilable are these statements to the plain unvarnished statements
of dry facts.
We have given one instance of slaughter under Abijah, king of Judah, and
will now add one example of Pekah, king of Israel.
[2 Chronicles, xxviii., 6, 8.] Pekah is said to have slain in one day
120,000 valiant men of Judah, and to have carried away captive 200,000
souls, with much spoil.
Mr. Cardwell proposes to raise our army to 108,000 men. “This,” says
_The Times_, “is more than twice as large as the largest army ever taken
into battle by Wellington, and three times as large as [the English
contingent of] that with which he conquered at Waterloo.” What would
_The Times_ say of the armies of Judah and Israel?
Where there is no motive for exaggeration the numbers are much more
modest. Thus the army of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, no doubt, was
very formidable, but it dwindles to nothing compared to the gigantic
armies of Judah and Israel. The army of the “great king” amounted only
to 185,000 men (2 Kings, xix., 35); if Judah could muster its million or
even half million of valiant men, all in the prime of life, there was no
need of a miracle to lay the invaders in the dust.
We will conclude this part of our subject with a few examples of
incredible statements, which cannot be classed under the foregoing heads.
(4.) _Incredible Marvels or Statements_.
Joshua, vi., 20.
A procession of priests is said to have walked round the fortifications
of Jericho, and when they blew with their trumpets “the walls fell down
flat.”
Judges, iii., 31.
Shamgar, we are told, slew 600 of the Philistines with an ox-goad. Doeg,
the Edomite (1 Sam., xxii., 18), “with his own hand,” slew in one day 85
persons “who wore a linen ephod,” besides “all the men and women,
children and sucklings, asses, oxen, and sheep,” of the town of Nob.
Abishai, David’s brother-in-law (2 Sam., xxiii., 18), slew 300 with his
own spear; but Adino, the Eznite, (v. 8), slew with his own hand in one
battle 800 men (!) Impossible as these statements undoubtedly are, they
dwindle into insignificance before the exploit attributed to Samson
(Judges, xv., 16), who, “with a new jawbone of an ass,” slew 1000
Philistines (!!). A thousand men laid low by one with no other
instrument than an ass’s jaw (!!); but the marvel does not end here, for
when Samson had thrown away his weapon, “there came water from a hollow
place in the jaw,” and the thirsty Samson drank thereof to revive his
fainting spirit.
Ruth, iv., 21, 22.
Boaz was great grandfather of David, and the mother of Boaz was Rahab the
harlot. In this brief space is to be crowded all the events recorded in
the book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the book of Ruth, and part of the
First Book of Samuel, a period of about 400 years.
Take a familiar case. George III. was grandfather of our Queen, and he
was grandson of George II. This exactly corresponds with the text; but
400 years would carry us back not to George II., but to Edward IV. What
would be thought of an historian who said that Edward IV. was the father
of Queen Victoria’s great grandfather? But the statement referred to is
identical thereto.
1 Kings, xx., 30.
We are informed by the writer of the book of Kings that some of the
routed host of Benhadad fled to Aphek, when a wall fell, and by its fall
crushed to death 27,000 of them (!).
2 Kings, i., 9–12.
Elijah is said to have brought fire from heaven by his bare word, and by
this means were consumed two companies sent to arrest him, each company
consisting of 50 men.
Jonah.
The prophet Jonah is said to have been swallowed by a whale. Presuming
it possible for a whale to swallow a man, no man could live three days
and three nights in the belly of a fish, and then be cast by it on dry
land.
Deuteronomy, viii., 4.
Moses tells us that in forty years’ time the “raiment of his three
million wanderers” waxed not old, and though marching all that time about
the hot desert, “their feet did not swell” from the scorching sand.
1 Chronicles, xix., 6, 7.
Hanun of Ammon sent 1000 talents of silver (£342,000) to Mesopotamia, for
the hire of 32,000 chariots (!!). Is not this wholly at variance with
sober history? Is it credible? In the parallel account given in 2 Sam.
x., 6, there is no mention of these 32,000 chariots of war.
2 Chronicles, xiv., 9.
It is stated that Mareshah, in Judea, was invaded in the reign of Asa, by
a million Ethiopians and 300 chariots (!!).
These are a few specimens of the unhistoric character of the history of
the Old Testament. We will add one or two instances of the equally
incredible statements of the wealth of Bible Kings.
2 Samuel, viii., 7; 1 Chronicles, xviii., 7.
Hadarezer’s army is represented to have been furnished with shields of
gold. We read occasionally of some rich prince, like Glaucus, having
golden armour, but never of a whole army being equipped with golden
shields. We are told also that Solomon made 300 shields of gold for the
temple; but these were mere ornamental plates, “3 pounds of gold went to
one shield,” the value of these was not above half-a-million of English
money, they were mere playthings compared to those in Hadarezer’s army (1
Kings x. 17).
2 Chronicles, vii., 5.
At the dedication of the temple, we are informed that Solomon “offered in
sacrifice 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep.” Compare this with the
sacrifice of Hezekiah, “70 bullocks, 100 rams, and 200 lambs” (2 Chron.
xxix., 32).
1 Chronicles, xxii., 14.
This profusion of wealth, unexampled as it may be, is wholly eclipsed by
king David, who laid up for Jehovah about 7,000 millions sterling (!!);
that is to say, a million talents of silver and 100,000 talents of gold;
in English money 342 millions sterling in silver, and 5,500 millions
sterling in gold. Truly the principality of Wales could never compete in
wealth with this Pactolus of a kingdom! {31} Come we now to our last
division.