PART III.

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.