PART III._Biology versus Theology. The Bible: irreconcilable with Science, Experience, and even its own statements

THE BIBLE IRRECONCILABLE WITH ITSELF.

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 of

_general_ inspiration; this part looks to the _verbal_ inspiration 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.

(_a_.) _Historical Errors_.

2 Sam. xxi., 8.

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.”

2 Chron. xv., 17.

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 also_ 2 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.

2 Chron. xxi., 12.

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.

Matt, xxvii., 9.

The writer is speaking of Judas, who returned the money casting it down

before the priests. This money was used for the 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.)

Mark ii., 26.

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.”

Acts, vii., 15, 16.

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 (_see_ Gen. 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.)

(_b_.) _Erroneous figures_.

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.

Joshua, xv., 21–32.

Here the writer says that twenty-nine cities towards the coast of Edom

were awarded to the tribe of Judah, and he gives 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.

Judges, xii., 6.

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.

(_See_ Numbers, i., 33.)

2 Sam., xv., 7.

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

forty _days_, but the correction is only a guess, and the text is

responsible for the mistake.

1 Chron., i., 13–15.

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.

1 Chron., ii., 14.

One would have thought that no diversity could possibly exist respecting

David, the favourite king; but what is the fact? 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 been _five_.

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.” (_See_ verse 7.)

1 Chron., vi., 57–60.

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.

2 Chron., xxi., 20.

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.

2 Chron., xxviii., 7.

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.

2 Chron., xxxiv., 1.

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, and was 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.

Ezra i., 7–11.

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 away _all_; 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 “took _all_ the

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 “took _all_ the 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. If _all_ in

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 off to 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.

(_c_.) _Misstatements_.

Exod. vi., 3.

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?

Exod. xvii., 8–13.

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 up _harnessed_ out 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 given for

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.

1 Sam. xvii., 54.

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.]

2 Sam. vii., 12, 13, 16.

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.

Jeremiah, xxxv., 18, 19.

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.

1 Kings, xxii., 19–23; 2 Chron. xviii., 22.

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.

2 Kings, iii., 15–20.

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 [_see_ verses 26, 27],

2 Chron. xvi., 1.

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.

Dan. i., 1.

The writer says that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, laid siege to

Jerusalem in the _third year of Jehoiakim_; but Jeremiah says [xxv., 1.]

that the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim was the _first_ of Nebuchadnezzar’s

reign. So that he was not king at all in the “3rd year of Jehoiakim.”

Matt., i., 17.

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.

John, i., 18.

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 to many, from Adam to John,

talked to them familiarly, and they have lived.

John, xxi., 25.

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_.

Deut. i., 1.

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

verse _east_ of the river, but after the Israelites had come into the lot

of their inheritance, “this side Jordan” meant _west_ of the river, and

east of it was called “beyond Jordan” [Joshua, ix., 1, 10].

Judges, vii., 3.

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.

2 Chron. xx., 35–37.

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 the Red Sea

to Spain, and certainly Jehoshaphat would not have chosen that harbour

for building ships for the Mediterranean.

Prov. vi., 6–8; xxx., 25.

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.

Matt, xiii., 31, 32; Mark, iv., 31, 32.

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” by _six

days_; Joshua did not mean that the “sun was to stand still,” when he

commanded it so to do; Solomon did not mean “ants” by _ants_; nor Jesus,

“mustard-seed” by _mustard 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.

1 Chron. iv., 17; and 1 Chron. vii., 14.

Being on the subject of blunders, we would commend our readers to the two

verses referred to above—“The _sons_ of Ezra were Jether, Mered . . . and

Jalon; and _she_ bare Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah.”

Again. “The _sons_ of Manasseh [were] Ashriel, whom _she_ bare . . . 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.

PART III.—SECOND DIVISION.

SCRIPTURE CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE.

In the former part of this division numerous examples have been brought

together to prove that the scope of Scripture in 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. Gen. vii., 2.

The direction given by God to This plain, positive direction is

Noah was—“Of every living thing altered in the very next chapter,

of _all flesh_, two of every sort and a distinction is made between

shalt thou bring into the ark clean and unclean animals: “Of

. . . they shall be male and [its] every clean beast thou shalt take

female; of fowls after their to thee by _sevens_, the male and

kind, and of cattle after their his female.”

kind, of every creeping thing of

the earth after his kind, _two of Seven pairs (or 14 animals) is a

every sort_ shall come unto thee very wide deviation from the

to keep them alive.” direction, two only of every sort

shall be taken into the ark to

Nothing can be more explicit. It keep them alive.

is even expressly said that the

_cattle_ were not to exceed two;

it was to be two “of _all_

flesh;” two of “every sort.”

Gen. xlvi., 27; Deut. x., 22. Acts, vii., 14.

In the books of Moses we are more By what authority does the martyr

than once told that all the souls Stephen increase this positive

of the house of Jacob which came assertion by the addition of five

into Egypt were “three score and more? saying “all the kindred [of

ten.” 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. 1 Chron., xii., 20–22.

The Amalekites burnt Ziklag, and How is this transaction recorded

drove off the women as captives. by the chronicler? When David

Three days afterwards David and reached Ziklag, eight captains

“his men” came to the place and “of thousands” came to him, and

saw the calamity which had helped him against the Amalekite

befallen it. David consulted the raiders, and so many men flocked

ephod, and was told to pursue the to his standard to help him, that

“rovers,” for he should not only his army was “a great host, like

overtake them, but should recover the host of God.”

all that they had taken captive.

“So David went, he and the _six Certainly it seems very

hundred men_ that were with him, improbable that 400 men should be

and came to the brook Besor.” able to extirpate the whole army

Here David left behind 200 of the of the Amalekites which must have

men, and with the remaining 400 been pretty numerous, seeing 400

overtook the spoilers, and men mounted on camels managed to

extirpated them, for “he smote escape; but these 400 are spoken

them from the twilight even unto of as mere ciphers, for David and

the evening of the next day, and his men slew all the whole army,

there escaped not a man of them, except these [few] young men who

save 400 who fled on camels.” were on camels.

2 Sam., ii., 10. 2 Sam., ii., 11.

Ishbosheth, the rival king of In the very next verse we are

David, is said to have reigned informed that David reigned

_two years_; and during these two _seven years and a half_ over

years, David reigned over Judah Judah only, during all which time

only. Ishbosheth reigned over the rest

of the tribes.

2 Sam., viii., 4, 5. 1 Chron., xviii., 4.

David, says the writer of this In the corresponding passage

book, took from Hadadezer, (?) recorded in the book of

King of Zobah, 1,000 chariots, Chronicles, we are told that the

and _seven hundred_ horsemen, and number of horsemen was not 700,

22,000 footmen. but _seven thousand_. The name

of the king is here called

Hadarezer.

2 Sam., x., 6, 18. 1 Chron., xix., 18.

Hadarezer hired 33,000 Syrians to In the book of Chronicles David

oppose David; but David came is said to have slain _seven

against the allied army and “slew thousand_ men, which fought in

_seven hundred chariots_ of the chariots, and forty thousand

Syrians, and forty thousand _footmen_.

_horsemen_.”

2 Sam., xxiv., 9. 1 Chron., xxi., 5.

The “fighting men” at the close In the book of Chronicles the

of David’s reign are stated in number of fighting men is even

the book of Samuel to have been more astounding. It is given as

1,300,000 (!); of these 800,000 1,570,000; of which 1,100,000

were of Israel, and 500,000 of belonged to Israel, and 470,000

Judah. to Judah.

2 Sam., xxiv., 13. 1 Chron., xxi., 12.

When David numbered the people, a According to Chronicles, the

choice of three evils was given choice was: _three_ years of

him. According to Samuel, the famine, and not seven.

evils were: _seven_ years of

famine, three months pursuit by

his enemies, or three days’

pestilence.

2 Sam., xxiv., 24. Chron., xxi., 25.

In the book of Samuel, David is In the book of Chronicles, he is

said to have given to Araunah for said to have given for it 600

the threshing-floor _fifty_ shekels of _gold_ [£547 10s.].

shekels of _silver_ [£5 13s.

6d.].

1 Kgs., vii., 26. 2 Chron., iv., 5.

According to the book of Kings, According to the book of

Solomon’s brazen laver held 2,000 Chronicles, it held 3,000 baths

baths [15,000 gallons]. [about 22,500 gallons].

2 Kgs., viii., 26. 2 Chron., xxii., 2.

The writer of the book of Kings We are here informed that Ahaziah

tells us that Ahaziah was 22 was 42 when he began to reign,

years old when he began to reign, and not 22. Both agree in the

and he reigned one year. length of his reign.

2 Kgs., xiv., 7. 2 Chron., xxv., 11–12.

In the book of Kings, Amaziah is In the book of Chronicles he is

said to have slain 10,000 said to have slain twice that

Edomites in the Valley of Salt. 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. 2 Chron., xxxvi., 9.

The author of the book of Kings The author of the book of

tells us that “Jehoiachin was Chronicles says that “Jehoiachin

_eighteen years_ old when he was _eight years_ old when he

began to reign, and [he] reigned began to reign, and he reigned

in Jerusalem three months.” three months and ten days in

Jerusalem.”

1 Chron., xxii., 14. 1 Chron., xxix., 4.

David, we are here told, In this chapter the bequest is

bequeathed to Solomon for the stated to have been only 3,000

temple the fabulous sum of talents of gold, and 7,000 of

100,000 talents of gold, and a silver. This would amount to

million talents of silver. In £166,650,000 English money. A

English money this would be seven good round sum for a petty state

thousand million sterling (say not bigger than Yorkshire, but

7,000,000,000!). still considerably reduced from

that given in the previous

record.

2 Chron. iii., 15. Jeremiah lii., 21, 22.

According to the chronicler the Jeremiah tells us the shaft of

height of the two pillars made by each was only 18 cubits high. He

Solomon for the temple was 35 agrees in the height of the

cubits in the shaft, on which was chapiter (five cubits).

a chapiter of five cubits. According to Jeremiah the entire

Altogether about 80 feet!! height was about 40 feet, or half

that of the chronicler.

Jeremiah lii., 28–30. Ezra ii., 64.

The “prophet” informs us that the Ezra states that of the captives

total number of captives taken taken to Babylon only 42,360 were

from Judah to Babylon was only willing to return. All the rest

4,600. A modest number enough, preferred to remain where they

compared with the number of were. No doubt Ezra would give

fighting men, which averaged us to understand that more

300,000, according to the Bible remained in Babylon than went up

historians. 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. Luke ix., 28.

Here we read “After _six_ days Luke says “About an _eight_ days

Jesus taketh Peter, James, and after . . . he took Peter, John,

John, and bringeth them up into a and James, and went up into a

high mountain . . . and was mountain, and was transfigured.”

transfigured before them.”

Mark vi., 40. Luke ix., 14.

Mark says of the 5000 who were Luke says that Jesus directed his

fed with five barley loaves and disciples “to make them sit down

two fishes: “They sat down in by fifties in a company.”

ranks, by hundreds and by

fifties.”

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 minute accuracy. 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.

Gen., i., 27.

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 God _ended_ his 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.

Gen., iv. 14.

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.

Gen., xlix., 10.

“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 were

spoken; it held the sceptre 460 years, and it departed from Judah 580

years before Shiloh came.

Exodus, xx.

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.

1 Sam., ix., 2.

Saul is called “a choice young man and a goodly,” yet had he at the time

a son in man’s estate.

1 Sam., xv., 7–20.

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 also_ 1 Chron., iv.,

41–43.)

1 Sam., xvi., 18.

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

to the king, who had even tried to kill him, and yet neither Saul nor

Abner had ever seen him or known his name.

2 Sam., viii., 17.

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.)

Jeremiah, xxii., 29, 30.

“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.

Jeremiah, xxxvi., 30.

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.

Ezekiel, xxx., 13.

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.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST.

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 was _not_ the 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

begat _Joseph_, 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 whom

Obed 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. Gen., iii., 17–19.

The Lord God said to Adam, “of Unto Adam God said, “Because thou

the tree of the knowledge of good hast eaten of the tree of which I

and evil thou shalt not eat of commanded thee not to eat [not

it; for _in the day_ that thou _thou shalt surely die_, but] in

eatest thereof thou shalt surely the sweat of thy face shalt thou

die.” 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 day_ he ate of the forbidden fruit; and (2)

there is not the slightest hint to justify the common dogma that

_death_ was the penalty incurred by Adam, but simply _toil_—toil

_till_ he died. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread

_till_ thou 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. Hebrews ix., 4.

The historic books of the Old The writer of this book affirms

Testament agree in the fact that that besides the tables of the

there was “nothing in the ark covenant, there were in the ark

save the two tables which Moses “the golden pot that had manna,

put therein at Horeb.” 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. 2 Chron. xx., 35, 36.

The writer tells us that In the Book of Kings we are told

“Jehoshaphat made ships of that Jehoshaphat would not allow

Tarshish [_i.e. Spanish Ahaziah to join in the adventure

galleons_] to go to Ophir for to Ophir. The chronicler says

gold. . . . Then said Ahaziah to that “Jehoshaphat joined Ahaziah”

Jehoshaphat, let my servants go in making these galleons.

with thy servants in the ships,

but he would not.”

2 Kings, ix., 11–13. Hosea, i., 4.

The royal historian distinctly Hosea says: “The Lord said I will

says that Jehu was expressly avenge the blood of Jezreel upon

raised by God to the throne of the house of Jehu, and (because

Israel to extirpate the wicked he extirpated the house of Ahab)

house of Ahab, and “avenge the I will cause to cease the kingdom

blood of the prophets shed by of the house of Israel.”

Jezebel.”

2 Kings, ix., 27. 2 Chron., xxii., 9.

The book of Kings informs us that The chronicler says he was caught

when Jehu fell on the race of by the agents of Jehu “hid in

Ahab, Ahaziah “fled to Megiddo, Samaria,” and being taken captive

and there died.” to Jehu, was then slain.

2 Kings, x., 17. 2 Kings, x., 11, 12.

Here the slaughter of the house Here it is placed in Jezreel, and

of Ahab is placed in Samaria. _after_ Jehu had slain “all that

remained of the house of Ahab,

all his great men, and his

kinsfolk, and his priests . . .

he arose and departed and _came

to Samaria_.”

This agrees with Hosea, i., 4,

cited above.

1 Chron., xi., 1–3. 2 Sam., ii., 1–11.

On the death of Saul we are here Here we are informed that David

told that “Then _all Israel_ and his men went to Hebron at the

gathered themselves to David unto death of Saul, “and the men of

Hebron, saying, . . . thou shalt _Judah_ came and anointed him

be ruler over . . . Israel . . . king over the house of Judah.”

and David made a covenant with

them in Hebron . . . and they But Abner took Ishbosheth, son of

anointed David king over Israel.” Saul, and made him king over all

_Israel_. David was for seven

years and six months king over

the house of Judah only.

2 Chron., xxiv., 22. 2 Chron., xxiv., 25.

Joash, it is said, “remembered Here we are told that Joash slew

not the kindness of Jehoiada [his not the _son_ of Jehoiada, but

foster father], but slew his the _sons_; for the servants of

_son_,” _i.e._, Zechariah the Joash conspired against him not

High Priest, see v. 20. for the blood of Zechariah, but

“for the blood of the sons of

Jehoiada.”

2 Kings, xii., 13. 2 Chron., xxiv., 14.

When Jehoash repaired the temple The chronicler contradicts this

he placed a money-box beside the assertion point blank, and

altar for voluntary affirms that with the money so

contributions, but (says the collected “were made vessels for

writer) there was not money the house of the Lord, vessels to

enough collected to make “bowls minister and to offer, and

of silver, snuffers, basins, spoons, and vessels of gold and

trumpets, nor _any_ vessels of silver.”

gold or silver.”

2 Chron., xxxiii., 15. 2 Kings, xxiii., 6.

Manasseh is represented as having But in the reign of Manasseh’s

taken the strange gods and idols grandson, whose name was Josiah,

out of the house of the Lord . . . these strange gods and idols were

and of having “cast them out of still in the temple, for Josiah

the city.” “took them out of the house of

the Lord . . . and stamped them

to powder.”

Psalm, lxxii., 20. 1 Chron., xvi., 7–36.

We read, here “the prayers Here is given a psalm which the

[_i.e._, the psalms] of David, chronicler says “David delivered

the son of Jesse, are ended.” 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. Matt., i., 16.

Matthew says the birth of Jesus The son of Mary was Jesus, called

fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah the Christ.

(vii., 14), “Behold a virgin

shall conceive and bear a son,

and shall call his name Emmanuel”

[God with us.]

(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 a _widow_ advanced

in life: “Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband

of her youth,” _see_ Prov., xxx., 19.

Matthew, v., 1. Luke, vi., 17.

Jesus “seeing the multitude went Jesus came down with his

up into a _mountain_, and when he disciples, and _stood_ in the

was _set_, he opened his mouth _plain_, and said: &c. [Here

and taught the people.” [Here follow the beatitudes.]

follow the beatitudes.]

Matt., viii., 28. Mark, v., 1, 2; Luke, viii., 26,

27.

“When [Jesus] was come to the

other side [of the lake] into the “When they came over unto the

country of the _Gergesenes_, other side of the sea into the

there met him _two_ possessed country of the _Gadarenes_, there

with devils, coming out of the met him out of the tombs a

tombs.” certain man which had devils a

long time.”

Matt, xx., 20, 21. Mark, x., 35–37.

“The _mother_ of Zebedee’s “James and John the _sons_ of

children . . . said unto [Jesus], Zebedee came unto [Jesus] saying,

grant that these my two sons may grant unto us that we may sit one

sit, the one on thy right hand on thy right hand and the other

and the other on the left in thy on thy left in thy glory.”

kingdom.”

Matt., xxii., 46. Mark, xii., 34.

Here we are told that Jesus Mark gives a different version.

puzzled the Pharisees with the He says a certain scribe asked

question, “How can Christ be Jesus, “Which is the first

David’s son, seeing that David commandment of all?” And when

calls him _lord_?” “And no man,” Jesus answered the scribe well,

adds the writer, “from that day adds, “No man after that durst

forth, durst ask him any more ask him any question.”

questions.”

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., John, xii., 1, &c.

3, &c.

John places this anointing in the

Matthew and Mark say that Jesus house of Lazarus, and says the

was banqueting in the house of woman’s name was Mary, who took a

Simon the Leper, when a woman pound of spikenard for the

came and anointed him with purpose.

spikenard.

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. Mark, xiv., 30.

Jesus said to Simon Peter: Jesus said: “Verily I say unto

“Verily I say unto thee that this thee that this day, even in this

night _before the cock crow_, night, before the cock crow

thou shalt deny me thrice.” _twice_, thou shalt deny me

thrice.”