Gadarenes. exactly parallel to that of these two abbreviators. The latter | the names of the same apostle. Simon, it is well known, was called Peter, extracted the particulars, related in their several abridgments, from the history of Dion Cassius, as the former drew the materials of their Gospels from the life of Jesus Christ. Xiphilin and Theodosius transcribed their relations from a certain collection of facts contained in one and the same history; the four evangelists, from a certain collection of facts contained in the life of one and the same person, laid before them by that same SPIRIT, which was to lead them into all truth. And why the fidelity of the four transcribers should be called in question for reasons which hold equally strong against the two abbreviators, we leave those to determine who lay such a weight upon the objection.' 3. A third source of apparent contradictions, in the different circumstances related, arises from false readings, or from obscure and ambiguous expressions, or from transpositions in the order of relating, and sometimes from several of these causes combined. The only way by which these seeming repugnancies may be reconciled, is to call in the aid of sacred criticism; which, when judiciously applied, will, in most instances, if not in every case, remove them. Thus, in Gen. xxix. 1-8. we have a dialogue in which no man is men. tioned but Jacob, the only living creatures present being three flocks of sheep: yet these are represented as conversing, rolling away the stone, and watering the sheep. This appearance of contradiction probably origi nated, first, in some transcriber writing (HADⱭRIM), flocks, for (HAROIM), shepherds, in three places; and, secondly, from verse 3. expressing what customarily happened, not what then had actually taken place; and this mistake, having obtained in some copy of high repute, has been transcribed into all the later manuscripts. That the above mistake has actually been made appears from the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, from the Arabic version in Bishop Walton's Polyglott (which has preserved the true reading in verses 3 and 8.), and from the Greek version. The true reading, therefore, as Houbigant and Dr. Kennicott contend, is shepherds, not flocks, and the third verse should be read parenthetically. Having thus stated the various causes of apparent contradictions in the different circumstances related by the inspired writers, we shall proceed to illustrate the preceding remarks. I. The names of persons and places are respectively liable to change. In like manner, the same places are distinguished by several names: as and all the other apostles, except Saint John, had more names than one. Emishphat and Kadesh, Gen. xiv. 7. Hermon, Sirion, Shenir, Deut. ii. 9. Magdala in Matt. xv. 39. is terined Dalmanutha in Mark visi 10, and the country of the Gergesenes, in Matt. viii. 28., in Mark v. 1. called that of the V. Many persons and places also have the same name. There was one Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, Josh. xix. 15. and another in the tribe of Judah, Matt. ii. 6. Luke ii. 4. There were two towns called Cana, Josh. xix. 28. John ii. 1. Several Casareas, Mait. xvi. 13. Acts ix. 30. and xviii. 22. Several Zechariahs, as in 1 Chron. v. 7. xv. 20 xxiv. 25, &c. 2 Chron. xvii. 7. xx. 14. Zech. i. 1. Luke 1. 5. Matt. XX. 36. The Zechariah in this last cited passage was probably the person meationed in 2 Chron. xx. 14. and the name of the father has been added since, by some transcriber, who took it from the title of the prophecy. Several Herods, as, 1. Herod the Great, in whose reign our Redeemer was incar nate, Matt. ii. 1. and by whom the infants at Bethlehem were massacred, Matt. ii. 16. 2. Herod Antipas, surnamed the Tetrarch, Matt. xiv. 1. bỷ whom John the Baptist was murdered (verse 10), and our Saviour was mocked and set at nought, Luke xxiii. il. 3. Herod Agrippu, who slew the apostle James, Acts xii. 2. and miserably perished, verse 23. So, there all, the successive kings of a country. Thus, Pharaoh was the general are some names which appear to have been common to several, if not to name of the kings of Egypt, Gen. xii. 15. xxxix. 1. Exodus i.-xv. passim. 1 Kings iii. 1. 2 Kings xxiii. 29. Isa. xix. 11. Jer. xxv. 19. xliv. 30. and xlvi. 17., and very frequently in the prophecy of Ezekiel; and that this was the constant title of the Egyptian kings, is further attested by Josephus1 and Suidas. Artaxerxes was the cominon name of the whole race of Persian kings; as Abimelech was of the Philistines, Gen. xx. 2. xxvi. 8 compared with the title to Psal. xxxiv. ; and Agag of the Amalekites, as may be inferred from Num. xxiv. 7. compared with 1 Sam. xv. 8. VI. The differences in names occurring in the Scriptures are sometimes occasioned by false readings, and can only be reconciled by correcting these; but the true name may in such cases be distinguished from the erroneous one, by the usage of Scripture in other places, as well as from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the ancient versions, and Josephus.? The following instances will illustrate this remark. Hadarezer, 1 Chron. xviii. 3. ought to be Hadadezer, as in 2 Sam. viii. 3. a Resh being mistaken for a Daleth 7. Joshebbassebet, in 2 Sam. xxii. 8. (marg. rend) should be Jashobeam, as in 1 Chron. xi. 11. and xxvii. 2.9 Bathshua, the daughter of Amiel, in 1 Chron. iii. 5. should be Bathsheba the daughter of Eliam, as in 2 Sam. xi. 3. the two last letters of the father's name being transposed, and the two first put last.10 Azariah, in 2 Kings xiv. 21. should be Uzziah, as in 2 Chron. xxvi. 1. and elsewhere; which reading is adopted, or nearly so, by the Arabic and Syriac versions. Jehoahaz, in 2Chron. xxì. 17. should be Ahazihu, or Ahaziah, as in 2 Kings viii. 24. and elsewhere. The name of the great king Nebuchadnezzar is spelled seven different ways.13 Thus, the name of one person is sometimes given to another, either as they are types of them,-so Christ is called David (Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24.) and Zerubbabel (Hag. ii. 23.)—or, on account of some resemblance between them, as in Isa. i. 10. Ezek. xvi. 3. 46. Mal. iv. 5. compared with Matt. xi. 14. and John i. 21. Rev. ii. 20. and xviii. 2. So Hell derives its name, in many languages, from the valley of the children of Hinnom, on account of the wickedness there committed, and the dreadful cries formerly heard in that § 2. Apparent Contradictions, from Things being related in a place. In like manner, the place of the great slaughter (Rev. xvi. 16.) has its name from the place of the memorable battle where Josiah was slain, 2 Kings xxiii. 29. Aaron's rod, for instance, retained its name when changed into a serpent, Exod. vii. 12. So Matthew is called a publican, because he had formerly followed that calling. Simon the leper is so termed because he had formerly been afflicted with the leprosy, Matt. xxvi. 6. So it is said in Matt. xi. 5. that the blind see, and the deaf hear, that is, those who had been blind and deaf. A similar instance occurs in Matt. xxi. 31. The publicans and harlots enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, those who had been such, not those who continue so. (Compare 1 Cor. vi. 9.) different Order by the sacred Writers. I. The Scriptures being as it were a compendious record of important events, we are not to infer that these took place exactly in the order narrated; for frequently things are re lated together, between which many things intervened while they were transacting. Neither are we to conclude that a thing is not done, because it is not related in the history of other things happening in the same age. of the Israelites, which are not noticed in their proper place in the book 1. Thus, in Num. xxxiii. we have a particular account of the journeyings of Exodus. In the four Gospels especially, we find that each of the evangelists did not relate every word and thing; but one frequently omits what has been related by the rest, while that which has been briefly noticed by one is recorded at length by the others; and two evangelists, when relating the same fact, do not always observe the order of time. 2. So, in John xii. 1-3. Jesus Christ is said to have been anointed at takes no notice of this remarkable circumstance till within two days of the Bethany six days before the passover; yet Saint Matthew (xxvi. 2. 6, 7.) IV. The same persons or places sometimes have several relate his treachery, returns to give an account of the event which prompt names. Thus, Esan's wife is called Bashemath in Gen. xxvi. 34. and Adah in Gen. xxxvi. 2. Gideon is called Jerubbaal in Judges vi. 32. and vii. 1. Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar are the same person, Ezra i. 8. and v. 14. compared with Hag. i. 14. and ii. 2. 21. Almost numberless similar instances might be adduced from the Old Testament: nor are examples wanting in the New. Thus, he who was nominated for the apostleship, is called Joseph, Barsabas, and Justus. (Acts i. 25.) Joses and Barnabas are 1 West's Observations on the History of the Resurrection, pp. 279. Gerard's Institutes, p. 426. § 1147. Jahnii Enchiridion Herm. Gen. cap. vi. De Compositione EvaντIoQvæv, p. 137. The Vulgate version so renders verse 3. Morisque erat ut cunctis ovibus (lege pastoribus) congregatis devolverent lapidem, &c. Houbigant in loc. Dr. Kennicott's First Dissertation on the Hebrew text, pp. 360-365. The proper version of the passage above referred to will be thus:-"Then Jacob went on his journey, and came into the land of the people of the east: 2. And he looked, and behold a well in a field; and, lo, three shepherds were lying by it, for out of that well they watered their flocks; and a great stone was upon the well's mouth. (And there all the shepherds usually met together, and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the sheep; and put the stone again upon the well's mouth, in its place.) 4-7. And Jacob said, &c. &c. 8. And they said, We cannot until all the shepherds shall be gathered together, and roll the stone from the well's mouth; then we water the sheep." feast. "The reason is manifest. It was at this time that Judas offered to the chief priests and elders to betray him; and the evangelist, intending to ed him to it. The rebuke which he received in the house of Sinon, when he complained of the waste of ointment, had irritated his proud disaffected heart, and inspired him with sentiments of revenge. The mention of the unction of our Saviour, which was preparatory to his burial, reminds us of another observation, which is of use in removing difficulties, namely, that two facts may much resemble each other and yet not be the same. Although they differ, therefore, in some circumstances, while they agree in others, it is through haste and inattention that, on this account, we charge the Scriptures with contradiction. The anointing of Christ, six days before the passover, is evidently different from the anointing recorded in the seventh chapter of Luke. The two incidents agree, as both happened at table, and in the house of a person named Simon; but on considering the passages, they appear to have taken place at different times." Apparent contra dictions of this kind are so numerous in the Gospels, that it would alroost require a harmony of them to be constructed, were we here to specify them; and from these discrepancies have originated harmonies, or coanected histories, compiled from the writings of the evangelists, in the CHAP. VII. SECT. I. § 3] OF SCRIPTURE, ALLEGED TO BE CONTRADICTORY. structure of which different theories of arrangement have been adopted in | order to reconcile their seeming discrepancies.1 3. Other additional instances of things that are mentioned as having hap pened, but of which no notice is taken in the sacred histories, occur in Gen. xxxi. 7, 8, the changing of Jacob's wages ten times, that is, frequently; in Psalin cv. 18. Joseph's feet being hurt with fetters; in Hosea xii. 4. Jacob's weeping; in Acts vii. 23-30 several things concerning Moses; in Acts xx. 35. à saying of our Lord; in 1 Cor. xv. 7. an appearance of Christ to St. James; in 2Tim. iii. 8. Jannes and Jaunbres withstanding Moses; in Heb. ix. 19. Moses sprinkling the book as well as the people with blood; and in Heb. xii. 21. a saying of Moses. Jude 9. Michael's contending for the body of Moses; and verse 14. Enoch's prophecy; and in Rev. ii. 14. Balaam teaching Balak to put a stumbling-block before the children of Israel: all which things might be known by revelation, or by personal com. munication, as in the case of Christ's appearance to James, who was evidently living when Paul mentioned it, or by tradition, or by the history of those times, as some of the circumstances above adverted to are mentioned by Josephus. II. Things are not always recorded in the Scriptures exactly in the same method and order in which they were done; whence apparent contradictions arise, events being sometimes introduced by anticipation and sometimes by ioTspwoss, in which the natural order is inverted, and things are related first which ought to appear last. 1. Events introduced by anticipation. The creation of man in Gen. i. 27. ; which, after several other things inserted, is related tnore at large, particularly the creation of Adam, in Gen. ii. 7. and of Eve, in verses 21-23. The death of Isaac (Gen. xxxv. 29.) is anticipated, as several transactions, especially those in chapters xxxvii. and xxxviii. must have happened during his life: it was probably thus antiIsaac is sup. cipated, that the history of Joseph might not be disturbed. posed to have lived at least twelve years after Joseph was sold into Egypt. In Exod. xvi. 33. we read of the keeping of the pot of manna, which was not done till many years after. David's adventure with Goliath, related in 1 Sam. xvii., was prior to his solacing Saul with his music; and the latter story is recorded in 1 Sam. xvi., the historian bringing together the effect of Saul's rejection, and the endowment of David with various graces, among which was, his pre-eminent skill on the harp. "It appears, indeed, froni many circumstances of the story, that David's combat with Goliath was inany years prior in time to Saul's madness, and to David's introduction to him as a musician. In the first place, David was quite a youth when he engaged Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 33. 42); when he was introduced to Saul, as a musician, he was of full age. (xvi. 18.) Secondly, his combat with Goliath was his first appearance in public life (xvii. 56.); when he was introduced as a muscian he was a man of established character. (xvi. 18) Thirdly, his combat with Goliath was his first military exploit. (xviii. 38, 39.) He was a inan of war when he was introduced as a musician. (xvi. 18.) He was unknown both to Saul and Abner when he fought Goliath. He had not, therefore, yet been in the office of Saul's armour-bearer, or resident in any capacity at the court. Now, the just conclusion is, not that these twenty verses are an 'interpolation, (as some critics have imagined), but that the last ten verses of 1 Sam. xvi., which relate Saul's madness and David's introduction to the court upon that occasion, are misplaced. The true place for these ten verses seems to be between the ninth and tenth of the eighteenth chapter. Let these ten verses be removed to that place, and this seventeenth chap. ter be connected immediately with the thirteenth verse of chapter xvi., and the whole disorder and inconsistency that appears in the present narrative will be removed." In Matt. xxvi. 21. and Mark xiv. 18. our Saviour is recorded to haye intimated by whom he was to be betrayed, while eating the passover; which Saint Luke (xxii. 21.) shows to have been after the institution of the Lord's Supper: the order of Luke therefore is the true one. The imprisonment of John is set down in Luke iii. 19. before the baptism of Christ, whereas it happened after he had entered on his public ministry. The same occurrence is related by Saint Matthew and the other evangelists, peripλy, on occasion of Herod's consternation. 2. Events related first which ought to have been placed last. The calling of Abraham to depart from Ur in Chaldea, in Gen. xii. 1., for it preceded that departure which is related in ch. xi. 31. Compare Gen. xv. 7. with Acts vii. 3. The history of Judah, in Gen. xxxviii. for most of the particulars related happened before the sale of Joseph. In Luke iv. 9. the carrying and placing of Christ on one of the battlements of the temple is related after his being transported to an exceeding high mountain; whereas it certainly preceded it, as appears from Matt. iv. 5. 8. who has distinctly noted the order of the temptations. III. A thing is sometimes attributed to one who was formerly an example of any action. See an instance of this in Jude, verse 11. IV. Actions or things are sometimes said to be done, when And in this language Christ ordinarily spoke a little before his death, as Thus, in Gen. xxvii. 37. we read, I have made him thy Lord, that is, I VI. So, actions or things are said to be done, which only concealed. Thus, in Josh. ii. 7. it is said, the men pursued after the spies; that is, they believed they were doing so, at the very time when the spies were VII. So, a thing is said to be done by him who only desires or endeavours to accomplish it, or uses proper means for that See examples of this in Gen. xxxvii. 21. Esther viii. 5. Ezek. xxiv. 13. purpose. 1 Cor. x. 33., &c. 3. Apparent Contradictions, arising from Differences in Numbers. Apparent contradictions in the Sacred Writings, arising speaking in whole or round numbers,-from numbers being from the difference of numbers, proceed from the Scriptures taken sometimes exclusively and sometimes inclusively,from various readings, and from the writers of the New Testament sometimes quoting numbers from the Alexandrian version, not from the Hebrew text. I. The Scriptures sometimes speak in whole, or, as we usually term them, round numbers; though an odd or imperfect number would be more exact. Thus, in Gen. xv. 13. it is foretold that his posterity should he enslaved ing to be four hundred and thirty years, as also does Paul, Gal. iii. 17. and in Egypt four hundred years. Moses (Exod. xii. 40.) states their sojourn Josephus In Acts vii. 6. Stephen says that the children of Israel sojourn ed in Egypt four hundred years, leaving out the odd tens. Though the Israelites themselves resided in Egypt only two hundred and some odd years, yet the full time of their peregrination was four hundred and thirty years, if we reckon from the calling of Abraham and his departure from Ur, until the Israelites quitted Egypt; and that this is the proper reckoning appears from the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch; which in all its printed teuch, reads the passage in Exod. xii. 40. thus: Now the sojourning of the editions and manuscripts, as well as the Septuagint version of the Penta. children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. should wander forty years in the wilderness; but if we compare Num. In Nuin. xiv. 33. it is denounced to the murmuring Israelites that they xxxiii. with Josh, iv. 19. we shall find that some days, if not weeks, were wanting to complete the number: but, forty years being a round and entire therefore Moses delivers it in this manner. The same remark applies to number, and because in so many years a few days were inconsiderable, Judges xi. 26. relative to the sojourning of the Israelites in the land of the Amorites. The twelve apostles are also mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 5. though Judas was no more; and Abimelech is said to have slain seventy persons, though Jotham escaped. Compare Judges ix. 18. 56. with verse 5. 6 II. Sometimes numbers are to be taken exclusively, and sometimes inclusively. Matt. xvii. 1. Mark ix. 2. Luke ix. 28. and John xx. 26. may be mentioned as examples of this remark. See them further explained in p. 405. Obs. V. infra. III. Differences in numbers not unfrequently arise from false readings. As the Hebrews anciently used the letters of their alphabet to denote some places, and contradictory in others, are owing to mistakes in some numbers, many of those numbers which to us appear almost incredible in of the similar letters. Thus, in 2 Kings viii. 26. we read that Abaziah was said to have been forty-two years old, which is impossible, as he could not twenty-two years old when he began to reign; but in 2 Chron. xxii. 2. he is be born two years before Jehoram his father, who was only forty years old. Twenty-two years, therefore, is the proper reading, a Kaph 3, whose numeral power is twenty, being put for a Mem D, whose numeral power is forty. In like manner, in 2 Sam. viii. 4. and x. 18. we read seven hundred, As the Jews anciently appear to have expressed numbers by marks analogous to our common figures, the corruption (and consequently the seemwhich in 1 Chron. xviii. 4. and xix. 18. is seven thousand, theproper number. ing contradiction) may be accounted for, from the transcribers having carelessly added or omitted a single cipher. In 1 Kings iv. 26. we are told ix. 25. is only four thousand, and is most probably correct, a cipher having that Solomon had forty thousand stalls for horses, which number, in 2 Chron. been added. In 2 Chron. xiii. 3. 17. we meet with the following numbers, four hundred thousand, eight hundred thousand, and five hundred thousand, which in several of the old editions of the Vulgate Latin Bible are forty thousand, eighty thousand, and fifty thousand; the latter are probably the true numbers.9 By the application of this rule, some critics have endeavoured to recon. cile the difference relative to the hour of Christ's crucifixion, which by Mark (xv. 25.) is stated to be the third, and by St. John (xix. 14.) the sixth V. So actions or things are said to be done, which are only hour; for, as in ancient times all numbers were written in manuscripts, declared to be done. 1 See an account of the principal Harmonies of the Gospels, pp. 319, 320. Particularly Mr. Pilkington (Remarks on Scripture, pp. 62-68.), and Bp. Horsley's Biblical Criticisms, vol. i. p. 331. Mr. Townsend in his not at length, but with numeral letters, it was easy for I, three, to be taken for s, six. Of this opinion are Griesbach, in his elaborate edition of the New Testament, Semler, Rosenmüller, Doddridge, Whitby, Bengel, Coc. ceius, Beza, Erasmus, and by far the greater part of the most eminent critics. What further renders this correction probable is, that besides the De Bell. Jud. 1. v. c. 9. § 4. Antiq. 1. iii. c. 1. § 9. Ibid. Diss. i. pp. 96-99. 462, 463. Diss. ii. p. 209. Other similar remarks Ibid. Diss. i. p. 532. Diss. ii. p. 208. are interspersed in the same elaborate volumes. Ibid. Diss. i. pp. 532-534. Diss. ii. pp. 196-218. Other examples occur in Diss. ii. p. 219. et seq. Codex Bezæ, and the Codex Stephani (of the eighth century), there are four other manuscripts which read rp, the third, in John xix. 14. as well as the Alexandrian Chronicle, which professes to cite accurate manuscripts-even the autograph copy of St. John himself. Such also is the opinion of Severus Antiochenus, Ammonius, and some others cited by Theophylact on the passage; to whom must be added Nonnus, a Greek poet of Panopolis in Egypt, who flourished in the fifth century, and wrote a poetical paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John, and who also found pin the manuscript used by him.1 IV. Apparent contradictions in the numbers of the New Testament arise from the sacred writers sometimes quoting the numbers of the Septuagint or Alexandrian version, not those of the Hebrew text. This is evidently the case in Acts vii. 14. where Jacob's family is stated, at the time of his going into Egypt, to have consisted of threescore and fif teen souls; whereas Moses, in Gen. xlvi. 27. fixes it at threescore and ten souls. What further confirins this reinark is, that the Septuagint version of Gen. xlvi. 20. enumerates five persons more than the Hebrew, which, being added to the threescore and ten mentioned by Moses, exhibits the exact number, seventy-five. To this we may add (although it does not strictly belong to numbers) the well-known passage, Luke iii. 36. where, in giving the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the evangelist notices a Cainan, whose naine does not occur in the pedigree recorded by Moses, but which appears in the Septuagint version of Gen. x. 24.3 On the subject of quotations from the Old Testament in the New, see pp. 293-319. supra. It is not to be understood with some latitude, which shall afterwards be expressed SECTION II. APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN CHRONOLOGY. CHRONOLOGY is a branch of learning which is most difficult to be exactly adjusted; because it depends upon so many circumstances, and comprehends so great a variety of events § 4. Apparent Contradictions in the Relation of Events in in all ages and nations, that with whatever punctuality the one Passage, and References to them in another. These contradictions are of two kinds. 1. Sometimes events are referred to as having taken place, which are not noticed by the inspired historians; these apparent contradictions have already been considered in § 2. Obs. I. pp. 402, 403. 2. Sometimes the reference appears contradictory to circumstances actually noticed in the history. Thus, in Num xiv. 30. it is said that none of the Israelites should come Into the land of Canaan, save Caleb and Joshua; and yet, in Josh. xiv. 1. accounts of time might have been set down in the original manuscripts, yet the slightest change in one word or fetter may cause a material variation in copies. Besides, the dif ference of the æras adopted in the computations of different countries, especially at great distances of time and place, is such, that the most exact chronology may easily be mistaken, and may be perplexed by those who endeavour to rectify what they conceive to be erroneous; for that which was exact at first is often made incorrect by him who thought it false before.4 Chronological differences do undoubtedly exist in the Scriptures, as well as in profane historians; but these differences infer no uncertainty in the mutters of fact them selves. It is a question yet undetermined, whether Rome was founded by Romulus or not, and it is a point equally litigated, in what year the building of that city commenced; See Griesbach, Rosenmüller, Kuinöel. Doddridge, Whitby, Dr. A. yet, if the uncertainty of the time when any fact was done 2 Various other solutions have been given, in order to reconcile this imply the uncertainty of the fact itself, the necessary inseeming difference between the numbers of Jacob's family, as related inference must be, that it is uncertain whether Rome was built the Old and New Testaments: the most satisfactory of all is the following at all, or whether such a person as Romulus was ever in one of Dr. Hales; which by a critical comparison of Gen. xlvi. 27. with Acts existence. Further, differences in chronology do not imply vii. 14. completely reconciles the apparent discrepancy. "Moses," he remarks, "states that all the souls that came with Jacob that the sacred historians were mistaken, but they arise from into Egypt, which issued from his loins (except his sons' wives), were sixty- the mistakes of transcribers or expositors, which may be six souls," Gen. xlvi. 26., and this number is thus collected:obviated by applying the various existing aids to the ex Jacob's children, eleven sons and one daughter amination and reconciliation of the apparent contradictions in scriptural chronology. and xxii. 13. we read, that Eleazar and others entered into that land. But this seeming repugnance will disappear when it is recollected that nothing speak of things by way of restriction and limitation, and yet to leave them is more common in the most serious and considerate writers, than to Clarke, and other commentators on the passage in question. Reuben's sons Judah's three sons and two grandsons Simeon's sons Levi's sons 12 4 6 3 5 4 3 7 7 1 4 10 66 "If to these sixty-six children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, we add Jacob himself, Joseph and his two sons born in Egypt, or four more, the amount is seventy, the whole number of Jacob's family which settled in Egypt. In this statement the wives of Jacob's sons, who formed part | of the household, are omitted, but they amounted to nine: for of the twelve wives of the twelve sons, Judah's wife was dead (Gen. xxxviii. 12), and Simeon's also, as we may collect from his youngest son, Shaul, by a Canaanitess (xlvi. 19), and Joseph's wife was already in Egypt. These nine wives, therefore, added to the sixty-six, gave seventy-five souls, the whole amount of Jacob's household, that went down with him to Egypt; critically corresponding with the statement in the New Testament, that Joseph sent for his father Jacob, and all his kindred, amounting to seventy five Souls-the expression, all his kindred, including the wives who were Joseph's kindred not only by affinity, but also by consanguinity; being probably of the families of Esau, Ishmael, or Keturah. Thus does the New Testament furnish an admirable commentary on the Old." From the preceding list, compared with that of the births of Jacob's sons, it appears that some of them married remarkably early. Thus Judah, Er, and Pharez respectively married at the age of about fourteen years: Asher, and his fourth or youngest son (Beriah), under twenty; Benjamin about fifteen; and Joseph's sons and grandsons could not have been inuch above twenty years old when they married, in order that he should have great-grandchildren in the course of seventy-three years. What further confirms this statement is, that they must have necessarily married at a very early age (as we know is practised to this day in the East), to have produced, in the course of two hundred and fifteen years, at the time of their departure, no less than six hundred thousand men, above twenty years of age, exclusive of women and children; so that the whole popula tion of the Israelites, who went out of Egypt, must have exceeded two millions. Dr. Hales's New Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. part i. pp. 159-162. Dr. Hales has proved this second Cainan to be an interpolation in the Septuagint, New Analysis, vol. i. pp. 90-94. I. Seeming contradictions in Chronology arise from not ob serving, that what had before been said in the general, is afterwards resumed in the particulars comprised under it. For the total sum of any term of years being set down first, before the particulars have been insisted on and explained, has led some into mistake, by supposing that the particulars subsequently mentioned were not to be comprehended in it, but were to be reckoned distinctly as if they had hap pened afterwards in order of time, because they are last related in the course of the history. Thus, in Gen. xi. 26. it is said, that Terah lived seventy years and begat ABRAM: and in verse 32. that the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. But in Gen. xi. 4. it is related that Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran; which is inconsistent, if we suppose Abram to have resided in Haran till the death of his father Terah. But, if we con sider that the whole number of years, during which Terah lived, is set down in Gen. xi. 32. and that Abram's departure from Haran, which is inconsistency; on the contrary, if Terah were only seventy years old when related in Gen. xii. 4. happened before his father's death, there will be no Abram was begotten, and if Abram were only seventy-five years old when he departed for Haran, it will be evident that Abram left his father Terah in Haran, where the latter lived after his son's departure, to the age of two hundred and five years; although during Terah's life Abram occasionally returned to Haran, for his final removal did not take place until the death of his father, as we learn from Acts vii. 4. Now, if this way of relating the general first, which is afterwards particularly set forth, be attended to in the interpretation of the Scriptures, it will afford a natural and easy solu tion of many otherwise inexplicable difficulties. Another explanation has been offered for the above apparent chronological difference, viz. that Abram was Terah's youngest son though first mentioned. What renders this solution probable is, that it is no unfrequent thing in Scripture, when any case of dignity or pre-eminence is to be distinguished, to place the youngest son before the eldest, though contrary to the usage of the Scrip tures in other cases. Thus, Shem, the second son of Noah, is always placed first; Abram is placed before his two elder brothers Haran and Nahor; Isaac is placed before Ishmael; Jacob the youngest son of Isaac has the pre-eminence over Esau: and Moses is mentioned before his elder brother Aaron. Whatever chronological difficulties, therefore, arise upon Jenkin on the Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. p. 151. It would require too extensive en inquiry for the limits of this work, to enter into a detail of the various systems of chronology extant: the most recent is the elaborate Analysis of Dr. Hales, in 3 vols. 410, or 4 vols. 8vo., to which we can confidently refer the reader. CHAP. VII. SECT. II.] OF SCRIPTURE, ALLEGED TO BE CONTRADICTORY. this supposition, that the son first named must necessarily be the first-born, must consequently proceed from inistake. II. Sometimes the principal number is set down, and the odd or smaller number is omitted; which being added to the principal number in some other place, causes a difference not to be reconciled but by considering that it is customary in the best authors not always to mention the smaller numbers, where the matter does not require it. fifteenth year began in August 778. And if John the Baptist entered on IV. Seeming chronological contradictions arise from the Thus, in Gen. xv. 13. it is announced to Abraham that his "seed should And it came to Of this we have evident proof in the Scriptures. Thus the Benjamites that were slain, are said in Judges xx. 35. to be 25,100, but in verse 46. they are reckoned only at 25,000. So the evangelist Mark says, xvi. 14., that Jesus Christ appeared to the eleven as they were sitting at meat, though Thomas was absent. The observation already made, on the use of round numbers in computations, will apply in the present instance; to which we might add numerous similar examples from profane writers. Two or three, however, will suffice. One hundred acres of land were by the Ro-pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same of Egypt." Between these two passages there is an apparent contradicmians called centuria; but in progress of time the same term was given to day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land double that number of acres. The tribes, into which the population of Inade from two different dates. In Gen. xv. 13. the time is calculated from Rome was divided, were so denominated, because they were originally tion: the truth is, that both are perfectly consistent, the computation being three in number; but the same appellation was retained though they were Exod. xii. 40, 41. it is reckoned from his departure from "Ur of the Chalafterwards augiented to thirty-five; and in like manner the judges, styled the promise made to Abrahamn of a son, er from the birth of Isaac; and in centumviri, were at first five more than one hundred, and afterwards were By the application of this rule many commentators reconcile the differ. nearly double that number, yet still they retained the same name. Since, dees," his native country, in obedience to the command of Jehovah. ence between Mark xv. 25., who says the hour of Christ's crucifixion was then, it is evident that smaller numbers are sometimes omitted both in the Old and in the New Testament, as well as in profane writings, and the was brought forth. Notwithstanding the authorities above adduced, they principal or great numbers only, whether more or less than the precise the third, and John xix. 14, who says it was about the sixth hour, that he calculation, are set down, and at other times the smaller numbers are spe. cified;-nay, that sometimes the original number multiplied retains the observe that none of the ancient translators read the third hour in John: considering the day as divided into four parts answering to the four watches. same denomination; therefore it is reasonable to make abatements, and they therefore solve the difficulty (imperfectly it must be confessed), by of the night. These coincided with the hours of three, six, nine, and not always to insist rigorously on precise numbers, in adjusting the actwelve, or, in our way of reckoning, nine, twelve, three, and six, which counts of scriptural chronology. also suited the solemn times of sacrifice and prayer in the temple: in cases, they argue, in which the Jews did not think it of consequence to hours, but only those more noted divisions which happened to come ascertain the time with great accuracy, they did not regard the intermediate nearest the time of the event spoken of. Adopting this method of reconwhich we have reason to conclude that the third hour was past. John ciliation, Dr. Campbell remarks, that Mark says it was the third hour, from says it was about the sixth hour, from which he thinks it probable that the sixth hour was not yet come. "On this supposition, though the evangelists may by a fastidious reader be accused of want of precision in regard to dates, they will not by any judicious and candid critic be charged with falsehood or misrepresentation. Who would accuse two modern historians with contradicting each other, because in relating an event which had happened between ten and eleven in the forenoon, one had said it was past nine o'clock; the other that it was drawing towards noon?"10 From the evidence before him, we leave the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the reading which is preferably to be adopted. We apprehend that the weight of evidence will be found to preponderate in favour of the solution given in pp. 403, 404. supra. III. As sons frequently reigned with their fathers, during the Hebrew monarchy, the reigns of the former are not unfrequently mude, in some instances, to commence from their partnership with their fathers in the throne, and in others from the commencement of their sole government after their father's decease; consequently the time of the reign is sometimes noticed as it respects the father, sometimes as it respects the son, and sometimes as it includes both. V. The terms of time in computation are sometimes taken inclusively, and at other times exclusively. Thus in Matt. xvii. 1. and Mark ix. 2. we read that after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain upart. But in Luke ix. 28. this is said to come to pass about an eight days after; which is perfectly consistent with what the other the six days between the time of our Saviour's discourse (which they are evangelists write. For Matthew and Mark speak exclusively, reckoning relating) and his transfiguration; but Luke includes the day on which he had that discourse, and the day of his transfiguration, and reckons them with the six intermediate days. So in John xx. 26. eight days after are probably to be understood inclusively; it being most likely on that day were unnecessary to subjoin additional examples of a mode of reckoning se'nnight on which Jesus Christ had before appeared to his disciples. It which obtains to this day in common speech, and in almost every writer, except those who professedly treat on chronology. Thus, Jotham is said (2 Kings xv. 33.) to have reigned sixteen years, yet In the preceding verse 30. mention is made of his twentieth year. This repugnance is reconcilable in the following manner; Jothain reigned alone sixteen years only, but with his father Uzziah (who, being a leper, was, therefore, unfit for the sole governinent) tour years before, which makes twenty in the whole. In like manner we read (2 Kings xiii. 1.) that in the three-and-twentieth year of Joash the son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel in Sanaria, and reigned seventeen years:" but in verse 10. of the same chapter it is related that "in the thirty-seventh year of the saine Joash began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign over Israel in Samaria." Now, if to the three-andtwenty years of Joash, mentioned in the first passage, we add the seventeen years of Jehoahaz, we come down to the thirty-ninth or fortieth year of Joash; when on the death of Jehoahaz, the reign of Jehoash may be sup posed to have begun. Yet it is easy to assign the reason why the coinmencement of this reign is fixed two or three years earlier, in the thirty. seventh year of Joash, when his father must have been alive, by supposing that his father had adinitted him as an associate in the government, two or three years before his death. This solution is the more probable, as we find from the case of Jehoshaphat and his son (2 Kings viii. 16.) that in those days such a practice was not uncommon. The application of the rule above stated will also remove the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings xxiv. 8. and 2Chron. xxxvi. 9. Jehoiachim being eight years old when he was associated in the government with his father, and eighteen years old when he began to reign alone. The application of this rule will reconcile many other seeming contradictions in the books of Kings and Chronicles; and will also clear up the difficulty respecting the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius mentioned in Luke iii. 1. which has exercised the ingenuity of many eininent philologers who have endeavoured to settle the chronology of the New Testament. Now, we learn from the Roman historians that the reign of Tiberius had two commencements: in the first, when he was admitted to a share in the empire (but without the title of emperor), in August of the year 764 from the foundation of the city of Roine, three years before the death of Augustus; and the second when he began to reigu alone, after that emperor's decease. It is from the first of these commencements that the fifteenth year mentioned by Saint Luke is to be computed; who, as Tiberius did not assume the imperial title during the life of Augustus, makes use of a word, which precisely marks the nature of the power exercised by Tiberius, viz. in the fifteenth year Ts Although the observations above given are sufficient to solve the chro nological difficulty, it is proper to notice, that, instead of tiro hundred and five years, in Gen. xi. 32., the Samaritan Pentateuch reads one hundred and forty-five years, the adoption of which will remove the seeming contradiction. According to the text (Gen. xi. 26.3 Terah begat Abrain when he was seventy years old, and died in Haran (32) when he was 205. Abram departed from Haran in his seventy-fifth year (Gen. xii. 4.), and in Acts vii. 4. it is said that Terah died before Abram had departed from Haran. The age of Terah, when Abram was born, added to his age when he left Haran, makes only one hundred and forty-five years. Hence it is concluded that an error has crept into the text; and therefore De Dieu, and Drs. Kenni-339-382. 8vo.) Doddridge's Family Expositor, vol. i. sect. 15. note (b). cott, Geddes, and Boothroyd, and Prof. Stuart, adopt the reading of the Samaritan text in preference to that of the Hebrew. See $ 3. Remark I. p. 403. Centuriam nunc dicimus (ut idem Varro ait) ducentorum jugerum modun: olin autem ab centum jugeribus vocabatur centuria: sed mox duplicata nomen retinuit: sicuti tribus dictæ primum a partibus populi tripartito divisi, quæ tamen nunc multiplicatæ pristinum nomen possident. Columella de Re Rust. lib. v. c. 1. tom. ii. p. 199. ed. Bipont. Ernesti, in his Index Latinitatis Ciceroniana, article Tribus, has adduced several simi. ar instances. In Pliny's time they were one hundred and eighty in number. Ep. lib. vi. ep. 33. Jenkin's Reasonableness of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 157. • Dick's Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 299. This mode of computation is not confined to the evangelical historians. The rabbins also observe, that the very first day of a year may stand in current for years complete, or vice versà, in the successions of so many computation for that year; and this way of reckoning mistakes of years the Scriptures, may amount to a considerable number of years. For this kings, and in the transactions of affairs for so long a time, as is narrated in reason Thucydides says, 12 that he computes the years of the Pelopponesian war, not by the magistrates who were annually chosen during that time, but by so many summers and winters; whereas Polybius, Josephus, and Plutarch, have been supposed to contradict themselves because they reckon sometimes by current and sometimes by complete years. The preceding, and various other ways by which disputes in chronology may be occasioned, are a sufficient argument to us, that they do not imply that there were, originally, chronological mistakes in the books themselves. And if mistakes might arise in so many and such various ways, without any error in the original writings;-if the same difficulties occur upon so very nice and intricate a subject in any or all the books which are extant in the world;—and if it could by no Lardner's Credibility, part i. book ii. chap. iii. (Works, vol. i. pp. 10 Campbell on John xix. 14. vol. ii. pp. 572, 573. 3d edit. 1807. 13 Thucydidis Historia Belli Peloponnesiaci, lib. vi. c. 20. tom. iii. pp. 237, means be necessary, that books of divine authority should be either at first so penned as to be liable to no wrong interpretations, or be ever after preserved by miracle from all corruption, it is great rashness to deny the divine authority of the Scriptures, on account of any difficulties that may occur in chronology. SECTION III. taken by their predecessors, are each solicitous to bring for ward some new interpretation of his own. These differences, however, are no inore an objection against prophecy, than they are against the truth of all history; and we may with equal trepriety conclude that things never came to pass, because historians difer about the time when they were done, as that they were never predicted, because learned men vary in their modes of explaining the accomplishment of such predictions. Expositors may differ in the niceties of the chronological part, but in general circumstances they are agreed; hence, whoever will consult them may be greatly confirmed in the truth of the prophecies, upon this very consideration-that there is less difference in the explana tion of the principal prophecies than there is in the comments upon a ost ancient profane histories: and that those who differ in other matters must APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN PROPHECIES AND THEIR have the greater evidence for that in which they agree. Although there FULFILMENT. I. "When both a prediction and the event foretold in it are recorded in Scripture, there is sometimes an appearance of disagreement and inconsistency between them. may be a difficulty in calculating the precise time when some prédictior A were fulfilled, because it is disputed when the computation is to begin, or how some other circumstance is to be understood, yet all interpreters and expositors are agreed, concerning these very prophecies, that they cre fulfilled. For instance, in Gen. xlix. 10. it is certain that the sceptre has departed from Judah, whether that prophecy is to be understood of the tribe of Judah, or of the Jewish nation who were denominated from that of the Messiah, yet the elder writers invariably refer it to him; and it is certain that the city and sanctuary are destroyed, and that the sacrfce and oblation are entirely done away, though interpreters do not agree about the precise time and manner of the accomplishment of every par ticular. In a similar manner the prophecy of Daniel respecting the arrenty weeks is equally plain, and its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusaleun is certain; notwithstanding the differences of opinion in assigning the precise epocha of time. Plain matter of fact shows that these decorable predictions are fulfilled; and the only difference is concerning a single circumstance. To doubt, therefore (as some of our modern selfstyled philosophers do), of the fulfilment of prophecies, merely because we do not certainly know the exact time when each particular was ac complished, though we certainly know that they must have long since been fulfilled, is as unreasonable, as if a man should question the truth of history on account of the uncertainties which are to be found in chronol gy. The existence of Homer is not denied because it is uncertain when le lived; nor is the reality of the Trojan war the less certain because the time of the capture of Troy has been variously determined. History has been well remarked, relates what has happened, and prophecy lere tells what shall come to pass; and an uncertainty in point of time Lo mere affects the one than the other. We may be uncertain of the time foreld by the prophet, and as uncertain of the time mentioned by the historian; but when all other circumstances agree, there is no reason why cur certainty as to the single circumstance of time, should be alleged against the credibility of either of them. "This appearance generally arises from some difficulty in understand-tribe. Although the later Jewish writers deny its application to the times ing the true meaning of the prediction: it may be occasioned by any of those causes which produce the peculiar difficulties of the prophetic writings; and it is to be removed by the same means which serve for clearing these difficulties. It may proceed from any sort of obscurity or ambiguity in the expression, or from any uncertainty in the structure of a sentence."' Thus, there is a seeming difference in Matt. xii. 40.2 between our Lord's prediction of the time he was to be in the grave, and the time during which his body was actually interred. Now this difference is naturally and easily obviated by considering, that it was the custom of the Orientals to reckon any part of a day of twenty-four hours for a whole day, and to say it was done after three or seven days, &c. if it were done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Compare 1 Kings xx. 29. and Luke ii. 21. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek vox spov to signify a natural day of twenty-four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it; so that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights, was the same as to say that it happened after three days, or on the third day. Compare Esther iv. 16. with v. 1. Gen. vii. 4. 12. 17. Exod. xxiv. 28. and Dan. viii. 14. II. Apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishment sometimes proceed from the figurative language of the prophets; which is taken, partly from the analogy between the world natural and an empire or kingdom considered as a world politic, and partly from sacred topics.3 Hence it is that the prophets so frequently express what relates to the Christian dispensation and worship in termis borrowed from the Mosaic religion; of which instances may be seen in Isa. ii. 2, 3. xix. 19. and lvi. 7. Jer. iii. 17. Zech. viii. 22. and Mal. i. 11. For the religion of Moses being introductory to that of Jesus, and there being, consequently, a mutual dependency between the two religions, "it is reasonable to suppose that, previous to such an important change of the economy, some intimations would be given of its approach. And yet, to have done this in a way, that would have led the Jews to look with irreverence on a system under which not only themselves but their posterity were to live, would not have harmonized with our notions of the divine wisdom. A method was therefore to be invented; which, while it kept the people sincerely attached to the law, would dispose them, when the time was come, for the reception of a better covenant that was to be established on better promises. Now the spirit of prophecy, together with the language in which that prophecy was conveyed, fully accomplished both these purposes. By a contrivance only to be suggested by divine prescience, the same expressions, which in their primary and literal meaning were used to denote the fortunes and deliverances of the Jews, for the present consolation of that people, were so ordered, as in a secondary and figurative sense to adumbrate the suffer ings and victories of the Messiah, for the future instruction of the church of Christ. Had no expedient of this sort been employed, we should have wanted one proof of the connection between the Mosaic and Christian religions; and, on the other hand, had the nature of the Messiah's kingdom been plainly described, the design of the national separation would have been defeated. But, when spiritual blessings were promised under the veil of temporal blessings, and in terms familiar to the carnal expectations of the Jews, a proper degree of respect for the old system was preserved, at the same time that matters were gradually ripening for the introduction of the new; and the shadow of good things held forth obscurely in the law prepared them to look forward to that happier day, when the very image itself should be presented in full splendour, and distinctly defined by the Gospel." III. Apparent contradictions between the prophecies and their accomplishment "may be occasioned by a prediction relating only to one part of a complex character or event, and on that account seeming to be inconsistent with other parts of it; and the appearance will be removed by taking in such predictions as relate to these other parts, and considering them all in connection."5 Such seeming differences occur in the predictions relative to the exalta tion and glory of the Messiah, compared with the prophecies concerning his previous sufferings. On this subject the reader may compare pp. 390-392. of the present volume. In pp. 451-456. infra, we have given a table of the chief predictions relative to the Messiah. V. Some of the prophetic declarations are not predictions concerning things future, but simply commands relative to things which were to be performed, or they are conditional promises and threatenings, not absolute predictions; so that, if it subsequently appear that these were not executed, such non-performance cannot create any difficulty or repugnancy between the supposed prophecy and its fulfilment. We may illustrate this remark by reference to the fast observed by the Jews on the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; these fasts the prophet Zechariah (viii. 19.) in the name of Jehovah declares, are to this declaration, we know that they continued afterwards to be observed. be abolished, and converted into a joyous festival; but notwithstanding Another instance may be seen in 2 Kings viii. 10. Elisha's answer to Hazael; to which we may add the seeming assertion, that the last day was near, in Rom. xiii. 11, 12. 1 Cor. x. 11. Thess. iv. 15. Heb. ix. 26. James v. 7, 8. 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13. and 1 John ii. 18. VI. Some of the prophetic promises appear to have been made to individuals, which, however, were not fulfilled in them. But between such prophecies and their fulfilment there is no real dia cordance; because they were accomplished in the posterity of the person to whom the promise was made. Thus, in Isaac's prophetic blessing of Jacob, it was announced (Gen. xxvii. 29.) that he should be lord over his brethren. Now we know from the Sacred Writings that this never took effect in the person of Jacob; but it was fully verified in his posterity. SECTION IV. APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN DOCTRINE. THESE arise from various causes; as contradictions from a mode of speaking which, to our apprehensions, is not sufficiently clear,-from the same term being used in different senses in different texts,-from the same word being used in apparently contradictory senses,-from the different designs of the sacred writers,-from the different ages in which the various sacred writers lived, and from the different degrees of their knowledge respecting the coming of the Messiah, and the religion to be instituted by him. IV. Seeming differences in the interpretation of prophecies 1. Seeming Contradictions from a Mode of Speaking, which, also proceed partly from the difficulty of fixing the precise time of their fulfilment, and partly from the variety of opinions adopted by expositors; who, being dissatisfied with the views 1 Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 434. Bishop Halifax's Sermons on the Prophecies, Serm. 1 to our Apprehensions, is not sufficiently clear. It has been the practice of some writers to assert that the apostles, Saint Paul in particular, have argued both illogically and inconclusively; this assertion, however, falls to the ground of itself, when we consider the violent dislocations Jenkin on the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. pp 178, 179. |