CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS

It is maintained that there are contradictions in the Pentateuch, and therefore that it is not the production of Moses. The objector assumes that Moses would not contradict himself, and accounts for the supposed contradictions by the hypothesis that the Pentateuch was written by another author, or rather by many other authors.

This was the oft-repeated argument of Voltaire and Paine. It seems to be confidently relied upon by Reuss¹ and Kuenen,² who give lists of passages claimed to be contradictory.

I. Kuenen claims that what he calls "the two creation stories," contained in the first and second chapters of Genesis, are contradictory. He says:' ' The division of the work of creation into six days is entirely unknown to the second story. Moreover, the order of creation is quite different in the second: first, the man is created; then trees and plants; then animals; and, lastly, the woman."³ In regard to these claims, we remark as follows:

(1) There is a presumption against any such contradiction as Kuenen thinks he finds between these two passages. The author of Genesis, even though he were an uninspired and an ordinary man, was not likely to be guilty of such palpable inconsistency. Even on the hypothesis of two authors, the contradiction is unaccountable and improbable. Why did not the compiler of the two accounts, or some redactor afterward, harmonize them? According to the analytic view, there was, besides the first compiler, a host of writers whose business it was to retouch and improve the Pentateuchal books. Whether, therefore, there was but one author of Genesis or many, the existence of such transparent blemishes as Kuenen claims in that book would be strange and improbable.

(2) Our critic assumes that because the six days' work is not mentioned in the second chapter, therefore it is denied. This is unreasonable. Silence, if it does not give consent, is at least not denial. Otherwise, we might say that Kuenen is contradicted by Reuss in regard to this very matter in hand; for the latter is silent in regard to it, though he makes it his special business to find contradictions in the Pentateuch.

(3) The order of narration in the two chapters is different, but this difference is no contradiction. Authors are not bound to state events in the order of their occurrence. They may treat of the same subject twice or oftener; they are not bound to follow the same order of presentation; and in the second treatment or account they may give particulars not contained in the first. According to our critic's view, if a second witness in court does not repeat all the testimony given by the first, or does not give it in the same order, there is contradiction between them.

(4) Kuenen ignores the common-sense view which has commended itself to readers and students of the Bible in general. That view is that the account contained in the second chapter of Genesis is designed to supplement the account contained in the first by the addition of some particulars. In this second account man is taken as the special subject. His twofold nature is suggested by additional information concerning his creation,⁴ and then is set forth the provision that God made for him. Among other things, it is stated that the Lord brought the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air to Adam, that he might name them.⁵ Their formation out of the ground is mentioned in this connection, and if it is to be understood that they were formed immediately before they were brought to Adam we would be compelled to recognize the passage as conflicting with the first chapter, where the formation of the land animals is assigned to the fifth day and the creation of man to the sixth. But such a construction is not necessary. Owing to the want of the pluperfect tense in the Hebrew language, the perfect is often made to do duty in its place. Hence, the meaning may be presented thus: "And out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air." Only the beasts of the field are here mentioned, not the beasts of the earth; and only the land fowls, — the fowls formed out of the ground,⁶ — not the water fowls, are mentioned. The fact that the animals brought to Adam were formed out of the ground is the thing indicated, not the time of their formation. The thought would be expressed in English thus: "The Lord God brought to Adam the beasts and birds which he had formed out of the ground."

(5) Finally, Kuenen deals here only in assumption and assertion.

2. Reuss finds a contradiction in the passages one of which represents Sarah as the daughter-in-law of Terah⁷ and the other as his daughter.⁸ But there is here certainly no contradiction; for when Sarah married Abram, her father's son, she became the daughter-in-law of her father. Here, also, according to the analytic view, Kuenen contradicts Reuss, for the former is silent in regard to this supposed contradiction.

3. Reuss⁹ affirms that the account of Abraham's attempt to deceive Pharaoh¹⁰ is a story told in two other places,¹¹ with variations. Kuenen decides that the deception, after its finst failure, is too improbable psychologically for the same author to ascribe both attempts to Abraham.¹² According to Reuss, we have here, of the same affair, three reports contradicting one another as to persons, times, places, and circumstances. Kuenen holds this view in regard to two of the reports, but is silent in regard to the third.

As a matter of course, the hypothesis that these three accounts, or even two of them, relate to one event involves the notion of contradiction. But this hypothesis is made without just reason. There is nothing improbable in Abraham's doing the same thing twice and in Isaac's doing it once. The "psychological" reason assigned by Kuenen is puerile. It is not incredible that Abraham should resort to an expedient that had failed. Men often do this. They fight and fail, and fight again; they deceive and fail, and try to deceive again. History abounds in examples of this. If future theorists should imitate the course of the critics, the former may, with their hypotheses and fancy, make as great havoc of secular history as the latter are trying to make of the narratives in the Pentateuch. Perhaps some future critic will decide that the accounts of the beheading of Charles II. and Louis XVI. are discordant stories of the same event. Why not? Both the culprits were kings, both had been dethroned, both had been imprisoned, both were tried by irregular courts, both were condemned and executed by their own subjects, and both were put to death in the same way. How many points of similarity there are! In the coming ages the man who has a theory to maintain will not find it difficult to persuade himself that all the accounts of the death of these two monarchs are only variant stories of one beheading. Perhaps some skeptical investigator in coming time will pronounce a like judgment on the accounts of the death of Lincoln and Garfield. The similarities are very striking — both Presidents of the United States, both elected by the same political party, both assassinated, both surviving for a time the assassin's attack, both assassinated in Washington, both assassinated in public, the assassin in both cases put to death. The historical skeptic will perhaps talk, like Kuenen, about psychological improbability in the case. He may say:(1) that it is psychologically improbable that the public assassination of a President, followed by the speedy death of the perpetrator, would be very soon repeated; (2) that the improbability is increased by the fact that the first assassination is represented by historians as being perpetrated in the theater, in the presence of hundreds of people, and the second in broad daylight, in the thronged streets of Washington City; (3) that the improbability, amounting to incredibility, is further shown by the fact that it was claimed at the time that the second assassin was insane, which shows that many even then regarded the act as performed by a sane man as incredible.

This is a fair representation of the way that Reuss, Kuenen, and other analysts, by means of hypothesis and fancy, construe two or three Bible narratives as discordant stories of one event, and then infer contradictions as to persons, places, times, and circumstances. It is to be noted that though these critics are keen to observe similarity in these narratives they seem to be blind to the dissimilarities. In this way just conclusions are not likely to be reached.

4. Reuss and Kuenen claim that there are two accounts of the origin of the name "Beer-sheba."¹³ Of course, their aim is to prove that they are contradictory, and thus to prove that Moses did not write them both. If there are seeming contradictions in these accounts, they are only seeming ones. It is, indeed, said that Isaac digged the well called Beer-sheba.¹⁴ But it is said that Abraham digged the well and named it. This looks very much like an improbability, if not a contradiction. For how could Isaac dig a well that had been digged before? The sacred record, however, makes this matter plain, for it is expressly stated that the Philistines stopped all the wells which Abraham digged and that Isaac had digged them again.¹⁵ Nor is there any contradiction in saying that both Abraham and Isaac named one of the wells Beer-sheba. When the well had been filled up by the Philistines, the name ceased. When the well went out of existence, the people had no use for the name. But when Isaac redigged the well, he gave it the name which his father had given it before. The express declaration is that Isaac digged again the wells which the Philistines had stopped and "called their names after the names by which his father had called them."¹⁶

5. Reuss and Kuenen hold that we have two discordant accounts of the removal of Joseph to Egypt.¹⁷ According to one of these accounts, Joseph was taken by his brothers out of the pit into which they had cast him and was sold by them to Ishmaelites, who took him to Egypt. According to the other account, he was stolen out of the pit by Midianites, while his brothers were eating bread, and was carried to Egypt and sold to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh.

One of the main arguments in favor of the hypothesis of two discordant accounts is the fact that Joseph is said to have been sold both to Ishmaelites and Midianites,¹⁸ and that also Joseph's sale in Egypt is attributed in one place to the Midianites¹⁹ and in another to the Ishmaelites.²⁰ The question to be determined is whether these two names designate two sets of persons or only one.²¹ Now, that the Midianites were Ishmaelites is expressly declared in Judges 8:2. It is there said of the Midianites, after their defeat by Gideon, "They were Ishmaelites." Reuss states that the Midianites were accounted Ishmaelites, and refers to the passages concerning the sale of Joseph to prove it. In his note on Genesis 25:1-6 he says:" Ces Midyanites sont ailleurs rangés parmi les descendants d'Ismael (Juges 8:24, comp. Gen. 38:28, comp. avec 25 et 39:1)"²² ("These Midianites are elsewhere ranked among the descendants of Ishmael"). Yet he forgets all this, and, in his eagerness to find a contradiction in the account of the sale of Joseph, contradicts himself.²³

We are not now discussing the question whether there are two or more narratives dovetailed together in the Book of Genesis, but whether there are contradictions in the account of the sale of Joseph. And we advert to the identification of the Midianites with the Ishmaelites in that account and elsewhere, distinctly admitted by Reuss, as showing the unreality of the claimed contradiction.

As to the claimed contradiction between the two statements that Joseph was stolen²⁴ and that he was sold,²⁵ there need be no difficulty, if we only allow to words that latitude of meaning which all mankind gives them. He who takes a man and sells him is a thief and a robber. Those who think that Joseph contradicted himself in speaking at one time of his removal to Egypt as a sale and at another as a theft would do well to reflect a little on the old Deuteronomic law:" If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die."²⁶ This fully justifies the variant language of Joseph concerning the stealing and selling of himself by his brethren and the Ishmaelites. Clearly the author of Genesis had more common sense than our critics.

6. Reuss and Kuenen claim that there are contradictory accounts of the change of Jacob's name to "Israel." They quote in proof Genesis 32:28 and Genesis 35:10. But do these passages conflict? In the first, the change of name is announced in connection with the wrestling of Jacob with the angel. In the second passage it is mentioned in connection with Jacob's second visit to Bethel. The change itself from "Jacob" to "Israel" could not be made twice, but the change might be announced twice or oftener. Reuss himself destroys the objection in his presentation of it. He says: "Le nom d' Israel fut donné á Jacob, d'aprés chap. 32:28, en suite de la lutte nocturne que le patriarche avait soutenue contre Dieu. Au chap. 35:10, ce changement de nom est relaté une secondé fois á l'occasion d'une autre rencontre."²⁷ ("The name of 'Israel' was given to Jacob, according to chapter 32:28, in consequence of the nocturnal wrestling which Jacob had sustained against God. In chapter 35:10 this change of name is related a second time, on the occasion of another rencounter.") Observe the statements: The name of "Israel" is given on the occasion of the wrestling; this change of name is related a second time. This explodes the objection.

7. Contradictions are claimed in the accounts of Esau's wives, and in the statements concerning the father-in-law of Moses. In Genesis 26:34; 28:9 the names of Esau's wives are given as Judith, Bashemath, and Mahalath. But in Genesis 36:2, 3 their names are given as Adah, Aliolibamah, and Bashemath. The father-in-law of Moses is called Jethro, and also Reuel; he is called also a Midianite,²⁸ a Kenite,²⁹ and perhaps by implication a Cushite.³⁰

But these passages embracing proper names are a very insecure foundation for charges of contradiction. Copyists were especially liable to make mistakes in the transcription of proper names. Hence, in urging such objections as we are dealing with, the critics are in danger of treating mere clerical errors of transcribers as contradictions of the original writers.

Besides, among the ancient peoples with whom we are specially concerned it was not uncommon for a person to have two or more names. Thus, we have Abram and Abraham, Jacob and Israel, Esau and Edom, Sarai and Sarah, and probably Iscah as a third name.³¹ We do verily believe that our critics have some knowledge of these facts. As before shown, Reuss in one place recognizes the fact that the Midianites were accounted as Ishmaelites, though he seems in a short time to have forgotten it. But it may be said, even granting that the father-in-law of Moses had two names, — Reuel and Jethro, — how can we acquit the Pentateuchal record of self-contradiction in calling him, expressly or impliedly, in one place an Ishmaelite, in another a Midianite, in another a Kenite, and in another a Cushite? This can be done very easily by accepting every one of these statements as true, and by believing that Jethro was all these combined in one — an Ishmaelite by descent, a Midianite by nation, a Kenite by tribe, and a Cushite by residence, precisely as Moses was a Shemite by descent, a Hebrew by nation, a Levite by tribe, and an Egyptian by residence.

8. It is claimed that there is a contradiction in the statements made concerning the birth of Benjamin, Jacob's youngest son. One statement is, that he was born when there was "a little way to come to Ephrath," and that Ephrath is Bethlehem, in the land of Canaan.³² But a little further on in the same chapter the names of Jacob's twelve sons, including Benjamin, are given, and then this statement is made: "These are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-aram.''³³ The claimed discrepancy is stated by Reuss as follows:" Au meme chapitre, 35:16, il est dit que Rachel accoucha de son fils Benjamin prés de Bét-lehem. Et quelques lignes plus loin, v. 26, il est dit que tous les douze fils de Jacob, énumérés nominativement, Benjamin y compris, étaient nés en Mesopotamie, avant le retour du patriarche en Canaan."³⁴ ("In the same chapter, 35:16, it is said that Rachel was delivered of her son Benjamin near to Bethlehem. And some lines further on, verse 26, it is said that all the twelve sons of Jacob, mentioned by name, Benjamin included among them, were born in Mesopotamia, before the return of the patriarch to Canaan.")

By way of reply, we remark:

(1) The statement of Reuss is not accurate. The sacred record does not say that ''all the twelve sons were born in Mesopotamia." The words "all" and "twelve" are thrust in by the critic as a make-weight in the argument.

(2) The birth of Benjamin took place before the arrival at Hebron, on the journey from Padan-aram.

(3) If the record read in this way: "These are the sons of Jacob, who were all born in Mesopotamia, except Benjamin, who was born on the way to Hebron," the most captious critic could have found no fault. But this exceptional statement is a part of the record. It had been stated just a few lines before that Benjamin was born on the home journey a short distance from Bethlehem, and it was no more necessary to repeat this statement than to state a second time that Jacob's other sons were born in Padan-aram.

9. It is claimed that there are two discordant accounts of the settlement of Esau in Seir. Both Reuss³⁵ and Kuenen³⁶ maintain that according to one passage Esau was established in Seir before³⁷ Jacob's return from Mesopotamia, and according to another not till after³⁸ his return. In this latter passage it is indeed stated that the permanent settlement of Esau in Seir was effected after Jacob's return to Canaan; but in the other passages it is not stated that this settlement was effected before. They say nothing about Esau's permanent settlement, or his settlement at all, in Seir. What they state is as follows:(1) Jacob sent messengers to Esau in the land of Seir or Edom;³⁹ (2) the messengers returned with the information that Esau was approaching with four hundred men;⁴⁰ (3) after the interview between the brothers, Esau returned to Seir.⁴¹ These are the facts, and all the facts, stated. They do not prove that Esau had as yet settled at Seir. He may have been there temporarily. The fact that he had under his command four hundred men favors the supposition that he was at this time engaged in a military expedition; but at all events his settlement in Seir is not mentioned, and is a mere inference of our critics, employed to support a theory.

10. There are other passages which the analytic critics claim to be contradictory. These in general are those that are cited by the skeptics in their efforts to disprove the divine inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. Nothing, or at least very little, that is new has been of late presented on this subject. We have considered what we believe to be the most plausible arguments employed by the critics, who have endeavored to fasten the charge of inconsistency and contradiction on the Pentateuch.

1) L'Histoire Sainte, Int.,pp. 39-4.

2) Hexateuch, pp. 38-40.

3) Hexateuch, pp.38,39.

4) Gen. 2:7, 8-25.

5) Gen. 2:19.

6) Gen. 1:20; 2:19.

7) Gen. 11:31.

8) Gen. 20:12.

9) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., pp. 40, 41.

10) Gen. 12:10-20.

11) Gen. 20:1-l5; 26:1-11.

12) Hexateuch, p. 39.

13) Gen. 21:25-31; 26:32, 33.

14) Gen. 26:15, 18.

15) Gen. 26:15, 18.

16) Gen. 26:18.

17) Gen. 37:18-36.

18) Gen. 87:27, 28.

19) Gen. 37:36.

20) Gen. 39:1.

21) Reuss, L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 52; Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuehs, pp. 54, 55.

22) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 379.

23) L'Histoire Sainte, p. 52.

24) Gen. 40:15.

25) Gen. 45:4.

26) Deut. 24:7.

27) L'Histioire Sainte, Int., p. 42.

28) Ex. 2:16-21; 3:1; 18:1.

29) Judg. 1:16; 4:11.

30) Num. 12:1.

31) Gen. 11:29.

32) Gen. 35:16-19.

33) Gen. 35:21-26.

34) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 43.

35) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 42.

36) Hexateuch, p. 39.

37) Gen. 32:3; Gen. 33:16.

38) Gen. 36:6-8.

39) Gen. 32:3.

40) Gen,32:6.

41) Gen.23:16.