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.” See also Luke, xxii., 34; and John xiii., 38. Matt., xxvi., 73. John, xviii., 26.

Matthew describes the third John says it was not “they that “denial” thus: “After a while stood by,” but “one of the came _they that stood by_ and servants of the High Priest, said to Peter, surely thou art whose ear Peter [had] cut off.” one of them, for thy speech This servant said, “Did not I see bewrayeth thee.” thee in the garden with him,” and not that “thy speech bewrayeth Mark and Luke give substantially thee.” the same account. Matt, xxvi., 74. Mark xiv., 68–72.

Matthew, in accordance with his Mark has another tale to make dictum, makes Simon Peter deny good, and says that Simon Peter thrice any knowledge of Jesus, denied once, and the cock crew and, having so done, “immediately once; after this Peter denied the cock crew.” twice more, and then the cock crew a second time. Matt, xxvii., 5. Acts, i., 18.

Matthew says that Judas, after he Simon Peter says, “This man had betrayed his master, “went [Judas] purchased a field with and hanged himself.” the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out.” Simon Peter says that Judas bought a field with the money he received from the priests. The evangelist says he flung the money down in the temple, and the priests bought with it the potter’s field to bury strangers in. What is meant by “falling headlong” is very difficult to make out. Matt, xxviii., 2–5. Mark xvi., 4, 5.

Matthew tells us that an angel Mark says the stone was rolled “rolled back the stone from the away, and the visitors on door of the sepulchre, and sat “entering into the sepulchre saw upon it; and the angel said, [the angel] sitting on the right ‘Fear not . . .’” side. And he said,” &c. Luke [xxiv., 4] says there were _two John xxi., 1. We are told that men_ who _stood_. They had Mary saw two angels _sitting_; “shining garments,” and they one at the head and the other at said, “Why seek ye the living the feet. among the dead?” Mark x., 46; Matt, xx., 29. Luke xviii., 35.

Mark says, and Matthew agrees Luke says it was not on leaving with him, that Jesus met with Jericho, but as he was about to Bartimeus, the blind beggar, on _enter_ the city. _leaving_ Jericho. Mark xiv., 69. Luke xxii., 58.

In regard to the second denial of Luke tells us the person was not Simon Peter, Mark says “A _maid_ a woman, but a man; and Peter saw him again, and said to _them answered “Man, I am not,” _i.e._, that stood by_, this is one of not one of the disciples. them.” Luke, ix., 1. Luke, ix., 38–40.

Here we read that Jesus “called We are hardly prepared in the his twelve disciples together, same chapter to hear that the and gave them power and authority disciples had _not_ power to cast over _all_ devils, and to cure out devils, and cure diseases, [all] diseases.” for a man says to Jesus, “Master, a spirit taketh my son and teareth him; and I brought him to thy disciples to cast it out, but they could not.” John xix., 6. John xviii., 31.

When Jesus was brought before the This is very strange, seeing the Roman procurator, Pilate said to Jews had just said to Pilate, “It the Jews, “Take ye him, and is not lawful for us to put any crucify him.” man to death.” Would any Roman procurator have told the Jews to crucify a criminal, knowing that it was strictly forbidden by the Roman senate?

CONCLUSION.

The apology that a certain degree of variance is a proof of independent testimony is quite beside the present question, and so is the argument of Dr. Whately about Napoleon. No doubt half-a-dozen correspondents describing any event in the late war would dwell on different incidents, and see matters from different stand-points; one would have a bias towards the French and another towards the Prussians, one would be cast in a Tory mould and another would have Radical proclivities, one would see with military eyes and another with the eyes of a civilian, one would look towards the end and another would limit his vision to the present action; but who claims for these correspondents divine inspiration? who believes that they are all baptized into one spirit, and that the spirit which guides them has guaranteed that they shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? They write as human beings, with fallible judgments, and all the prejudices of caste, education, interest, and special advocacy; with so many things to bias judgment, no doubt there will be considerable variety of statement, but all this in no wise applies to the Bible writers—they are not supposed to write from any of these motives, but to be guided and directed by one and the same motive, and all to be led by the Spirit of unerring truth. With such writers there may be considerable verbal difference, but no substantial variety; there may be shades of variety, and different incidents may strike different eye-witnesses, but there can be no positive contradiction, and the same incident cannot be described as two antagonistic facts. If Samuel was right when he affirmed that David took from the king of Zobah 700 horsemen, the chronicler was wrong when he said the number was 7000. If the chronicler was correct in saying that Jehoiachim was only eight when he ascended the throne, his brother chronicler was in error when he declared that he was eighteen. If Jesus was the son of Joseph and Joseph a descendant of David, then Jesus was of the lineage of David; but if he was the son of quite another line he was not of the line of David. If the writer of the book of Kings was right in saying that no vessels of gold and silver were made of the money collected in the temple by Jehoash, the writer of the book of Chronicles could not be correct in saying that all sorts of gold and silver vessels were made therefrom. If Matthew was right in saying that the soldiers arrayed Jesus in a “scarlet robe,” Mark and John were wrong in pronouncing it to be a “purple garment;” and if Jesus said to Peter, before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice, he did not say before the cock crow _twice_ thou shalt deny me thrice. If the writers were eye and ear witnesses, and if the guiding Spirit of God brought to their remembrance what Jesus said and did, such discrepancies could not have occurred.

These contradictions, and their number is legion, are not the shades of variety, the verbal differences of independent writers of truth, they are irreconcilable statements, one of which must be wrong, and if both claim to be guided by the Spirit of Infallible Truth, their claim cannot be allowed. It cannot be true that 22 is 42 and 7000 the same as 600; but give up inspiration and place the Bible on the same platform as any other ancient record, then everyone is at liberty to weigh its statements and to hold fast just so much as is consistent with the advanced knowledge of science, the general scope of experience, and the harmony of history.

* * * * *

SUBJECTS OF TWELVE OF THE SERIES.

No. 1.—“On the Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle.” By R. LEWINS, M.D., Staff Surgeon-Major to Her Majesty’s Forces. No. 2.—“The Physical Theory of Animal Life.” A Review by JULIAN. No. 3.—“The Nature of Man Identical with that of other Animals.” By JULIAN. No. 4.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Christ and the Christian Idea, viewed from a Biological standpoint.” By JULIAN. No. 5.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “The Mosaic and Christian Ideas wholly without Originality.” By JULIAN. No. 6.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Life on the Basis of Hylozoism.” By JULIAN. No. 7.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY; or “Identity of the Vital and Cosmical Principle, according to DR. LEWINS.” By JULIAN. No. 8.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Mission of Moses,” from the German of Schiller. Annotated by JULIAN. No. 9.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“Christ not divine nor his death vicarious.” By JULIAN. No. 10.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Curé Meslier and his Will,” from the German of Strauss, with Preliminary Remarks by JULIAN. No. 11.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY—“The Bible irreconcilable with science, experience, and even its own statements.” By JULIAN. No. 12.—BIOLOGY _versus_ THEOLOGY.—“The Dinner of the Count de Boulainvilliers from Voltaire,” with an Introduction by JULIAN (_in the press_).

FOOTNOTES.

{3} _Lay Sermons and Reviews_. This paper, “On the Origin of Species,” was originally published in the “Westminster Review,” of April, 1860.

{14a} Job xxxviii., 8.

{14b} “On the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God as manifested in the creation of animals, and in their history, habits, and instincts,” by the Rev. William Kirby, M.A., F.R.S., rector of Barham.

{15} The common Hebrew cubit was about 22 inches. The “royal cubit” was three inches longer. The Roman cubit was 18 inches.

{19} See Dr. Davidson’s _Introduction to the New Testament_. Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, &c., take the same view. See also “Biology _versus_ Theology,” No. I.

{20a} It is obvious that the Book of the Kings, whether of Judah or Israel, is not the record called the first and second Book of Kings in our Bible, for it is not unfrequently referred to in the Chronicles, for “the rest of the acts” of certain kings, but the account in our Books of Kings, in some cases at any rate, is far more meagre than that of the Chronicles. To give one example: 2 Chron. xxvii., 7, refers us for a more detailed account to the book of the “Kings of Israel and Judah,” but the record given in 2 Kings, xv., 36–38, is far less ample than that of the Chronicler. It is no less certain that the book called “The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” cannot be our books of Chronicles, inasmuch as they wholly omit the Kings of Israel, and speak only of the Kings of Judah.

{20b} Perhaps this expression may mean “the general scope of his preaching,” and not a book. It may go for what it is worth, and can in no wise affect the question at issue.

{22} Take two examples of this etymology. HEBREW is supposed to be derived from Heber, sou of Salah, great-grandson of Shem, who is called “the father of all the children of Heber” (Gen. x., 21–24); but Abraham, the 6th remove from Heber, is called a Hebrew after he crossed over into Canaan (Gen. xiv., 13). The more probable derivation of the word is _heber_ (an emigrant, one that has crossed over); if so, Abraham was called a _hebrew_ because he was a sojourner who had crossed over into the “land of promise.”

Again, CANAAN is said to have been so called from Canaan son of Ham, and Canaan’s eldest son was, according to the same authority, Sidon, founder of the Sidonians, and his other sons were founders of the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgasites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites, and Hamathites (Gen. x., 15–18).

All this is most improbable, although in keeping with the practice of ancient chroniclers. Modern historians find more probable derivations in some local peculiarity or suggestive characteristic. Thus Argos, in Greece, is mythically derived from Argos, its 4th king; but Strabo tells us the word means _a plain_. Devonshire is not a corruption of Debon’s share or lot (_Faery Queen_ ii., 10), but of the Saxon _defn-afon_ (deep water). Similarly Canaan means _low lands_, as opposed to “Aram” (the highlands), and being suited to commerce from its nearness to the coast, the word in time became a general term for “a trader.”

{23} Arphaxad was born “two years after the flood” [Gen. xi., 10]; at the age of 35 he had a son, Salah [v., 12], in thirty more years Salah had his son Eber, and before Pelez was born, which was 34 years later, the Dispersion had taken place.

{24} It may be safely asserted that population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical progression of such a nature as to double itself every 25 years.—_Encyclopædia Britannica_, vol. xviii., p. 3, col. Practically, such an instance is rare, if not wholly uninstanced. Take the increase of England and Wales as an example. In 1377 it was 2,092,978, in 1483 it was 4,689,000; in the 100 years, ending with 1800, the population had increased from 5,475,000 to 8,675,000; and in the century ending with 1860 it increased nearly threefold, the largest increase we have experienced. [In 1760 it was 6,736,000, in 1861 it was 20,062,725.]

{26a} The average size of an ox in the herd is 60 stone (of 8 lbs.), and of a sheep six stone. When the Armistice of 28 days was lately proposed, the supply of Paris for the time was estimated at 34,000 oxen, 8,000 sheep, 8,000 swine, 5,000 calves, 100,000 cwt. of salt meat, eight million cwt. of hay and straw, 200,000 cwt. of meal, and 30,000 cwt. of dried vegetables. For the cooking of food, the estimate was 100,000 tons of coals, and 14 million square feet of wood.

{26b} The absurdity of such an increase as even the “small” supposition of doubling every twenty years will be obvious to any one who will take the trouble of working out the figures for 440 years, which would bring us to the reign of David. At the Exodus the number was three millions; if they doubled every twenty years the people in the little kingdom of David would have been twelve and a half trillion!! And if the increase of the book of Exodus is taken as the standard the numbers must be increased a hundred-fold. Now the whole population of the world is somewhat more than 1,000 _millions_, so that in a space not so large as Yorkshire, and three-fourths wilderness, would be gathered together more than all the inmates of all the world twelve thousand times over.

{27a} The nominal limits of “the promised land” were the Euphrates and Mediterranean Sea on the east and west, the “entrance of Hamath” and “river of Egypt” on the north and south, giving a surface of 60,000 square miles; but Sidonia and Philistia on the west, the land of the Moabites and Ammonites on the east never belonged to the kingdom of David, the real extent of which was about 45 miles broad and 100 miles long. Yorkshire is 90 by 130, the principality of Wales 65 by 150; so that the entire kingdom of David in its greatest extent was considerably smaller than Yorkshire or Wales, and only one quarter of it was inhabited, the rest being desert or wilderness.

{27b} Take Prussia. Every Prussian is liable to be called into military service as soon as he attains his 20th year, and after he has completed his 27th year he enters the Landwehr. Suppose war is proclaimed, then every layman in Prussia between 20 and 27 is liable to be called into the ranks, and would constitute a standing army of 200,000 strong; by adding the Landwehr of the first call, 100,000 more would be supplied; and by enrolling all who have not rendered their full service to the state, the entire amount would be increased to 600,000. How absurd, therefore, to speak of double the number of soldiers in such a petty nation as Judah or Israel! The entire population of Yorkshire is less than two millions, of Wales not equal to “David’s army;” yet the entire kingdom of David was smaller than either, and more than three-fourths of it was uninhabited!!

{31} Our national debt is not half a quarter of this sum, being somewhat less than 800 millions sterling. Suppose an English historian had told us that a king of wealthy England had laid by money enough to pay off the national debt eight times, what would be thought of the statement? But suppose we had been told that one of the kings of Wales or of Northumbria had saved all this money for a church, would the most credulous believe it? France finds it no easy matter to raise 200 millions, and all Europe would be puzzled to find the money _instanter_, but the king of a little territory considerably smaller than Belgium managed to raise that sum thirty-five times over.

{36} Ahaziah was also called Jehoahaz and Azariah.

{44} See Virgil, _Geor._ i., 184, 185; _Æneid_, iv., 402–406; Horace, _Satires_, bk. i., _s._ i., 33 &c.

{53} See No. IX. of this Series.

{54} Ut apud Persas _Arsaces_, apud Romanos _Cæsar_, apud Egyptios _Pharao_, ita apud Judæos _Christus_ communi nomine rex appellatur. _Ps. Clem. Recog._ i., 45, p. 497.