OBJECTIONS FROM ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OR MISTAKES.

The subject is a very large one, and a full discussion of it would take one over almost every part of the Bible, and be obviously inconsistent with the limits of a volume like this.

1. Some general suggestions in regard to these alleged mistakes, as a mass, may be profitably made; as, for example:

a. Many of these are founded on misinterpretation of Scripture. It is said that the New Testament writers misunderstood and misapplied the Old Testament; were controlled by the false prejudices of their age; were guilty of illogical argument. But these allegations cannot be sustained by fair exegesis. Particular expressions have been interpreted so as to imply some scientific or historic ! error. Thus the word firmament in Genesis has been supposed to convey the idea common in ancient physical science, that the starry universe was fixed in a firm, spherical covering revolving round the earth. That idea is naturally suggested by the Latin firmamentum, and by the Greek stereoma, of which it was a translation, but it is entirely absent from the original Hebrew word raqia, which means simply something spread out or expanded, an expanse. So the expressions as to the sun's rising (literally breaking forth) and setting (going in) are no difficulty to the candid reader, being interpreted phenomenally, just as are similar phrases in use every day among ourselves.

b. Many objections rest on misapprehension of the facts of history. Many of these have been al ready satisfactorily cleared up, and we are thus led to expect the solution of any that remain obscure. Research has shown, in numerous instances, that it was the objectors who were mistaken, and not the sacred writers. It used to be alleged, for example, that Daniel was certainly in error in representing Belshazzar as ruler in Babylon, and slain when it was taken; whereas profane historians give the name of Nabonidus as the last king, and affirm that he was not in Babylon, but at Borsippa, where he surrendered to Cyrus, and was continued in authority as a subordinate ruler. The difficulty seemed formidable, until recent discoveries revealed the name Bil-shar-uzur on a brick of the period, and indicated that he was the son of the reigning monarch. He may then be fairly supposed to have been joined with him in dominion, and left in charge of the city of Babylon. This explains what had formerly been another puzzle, namely, that, in promising to exalt Daniel to the highest dignity, he proposed to make him third ruler in the kingdom. He himself was only the second ruler.

In like manner, Luke was long charged with error as to Cyrenius being governor of Syria at the time of the enrolment for taxation, inasmuch as Cyrenius was known to have been governor ten years later. It now appears from the researches of Zumpt that he was twice governor of Syria, and it seems reasonable to suppose that that earlier period was the one referred to by Luke.

c. Many of the objections are based manifestly and confessedly upon our ignorance. The sacred writer states a portion of the facts; another writer, sacred or profane, presents another portion. The intervening or connecting links are not given by either, but have to be conjectured or left unsupplied. If we knew more, the difficulty would be diminished, or might disappear altogether. This is obviously the case in all historical accounts. It is always unsafe and unfair to say that a thing can not be, merely because we do not understand how it was. Every juggler's exhibition affords numerous instances of apparent incompatibles, where it only needs the knowledge of some slight unobserved circumstance to explain the mystery.

The two accounts of Balaam (Numbers xxii. to xxiv. and xxxi. 8–16) are different, but not incompatible, presenting the same man in different periods of his history, under different circumstances: at first a backslider in heart, but still clinging with one hand to God, while grasping with the other after the rewards of his unhallowed greed and ambition; afterwards having thrown off all restraints, and doing evil with both hands earnestly. Why must this be rejected, on purely internal grounds, as not “a trustworthy history of facts”? The intervening fact, fairly supposable, if not inferrible from the narrative, is that God deserted the prophet who, though he spoke the truth, loved a lie, and left him to his miserable and corrupt self.

It is painfully common to find some commentators making out of every difference of view or statement a contradiction, when nothing of the sort is fairly implied. Mark and Luke give the details as to the paralytic let down before Christ through the roof; Matthew simply describes his being brought; therefore even Weiss represents that he conflicts with Mark. Matthew mentions two demoniacs, Mark only the more prominent and remarkable one. If there were two, there was one. Where is the contradiction? Matthew and Mark name Thaddeus as one of the Twelve; Luke calls him Judas, and says that he is the brother of James, to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Is this any discrepancy? He had two names, as was so common in those days. He was Judas Thaddeus, Judas the beloved. And Lebbeus, which some manuscripts read, is probably only another endearing epithet, which Jerome says meant corculum, or darling. A hundred instances of this sort might be given.

d. Some alleged discrepancies arise from the different objects had in view by the different narrators, or from the different circle of readers or hearers addressed. The four Gospels are not only thus a four-sided view of our Lord's history from as many different directions, but are adapted to as many different classes, as may be seen in all recent comparative studies of the Evangelists. This is obvious not only in the selection of the incidents narrated, and in the special details given, but in the arrangement of the materials. It is evident that Matthew, for instance, is guided, not by a chronological, but by a topical principle in the order he adopts, grouping together things of similar nature, or incidents that naturally suggested each other. “That the Evangelist's mind should thus have worked according to the natural laws of suggestion, is altogether compatible with the inspiration of his narrative; for every part of the Bible bears the impress of human thinking, only preserved by the Spirit from error and guided into all truth, so that the inspired writer says precisely what God would have him say." (Broadus on Matthew ix. 2-34.).

An interesting example of the natural and legitimate difference in the narrative, produced by different circumstances and audiences, may be found in the three accounts of the conversion of Paul, as given by Luke, in the course of his history (Acts ix. 1-18), by Paul himself to the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 1-21), and again by Paul to Festus and Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 9-23). The variations cannot be urged as discrepancies that mark error or falsehood, because they all occur in the same brief book; and he would have been a heedless and unskilful falsifier indeed who in forging a story would have failed to avoid, or smooth away and remove, such obvious grounds of objection. But when the three accounts are carefully compared, when the points omitted at this time and inserted at the other are considered, the verisimilitude of the whole is decidedly confirmed. Compare any of the recent commentaries on Acts. And on this general subject, see Westcott's. 6 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,” Da Costa's “Four Wit nesses,” and Gregory's “Why Four Gospels?”

e. Some apparent discrepancies arise from counting years from different eras or starting points; from the use of round numbers or approximate numbers; from the counting of parts of years or days as years or days, etc. Such methods of computation are in accordance with recognized custom in all speech, are common, legitimate, necessary. The laborious arithmetical criticism of Bishop Colenso on the Pentateuch, though expanded over seven volumes to manufacture and magnify the mistakes of Moses, derives its plausibility mainly from ignoring these obvious principles.

f. Some disagreements and difficulties arise apparently from errors in the transcription of our present copies, notwithstanding all the care that has been taken, and the general accuracy with which the sacred books have been preserved. This is probably the explanation of such cases as the fifty thousand and seventy men dying at the small village of Bethshemesh (1 Samuel vi. 19), where the fifty thousand are omitted by Josephus, and by Thenius, Reinke, Wellhausen, and Keil; and the statements of Stephen as to the places of burial of the patriarchs (Acts vii. 16). So with many of the discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles as to the years of the kings of Judah and Israel, and similar matters.

2. The most satisfactory and useful method of answering this class of objections, if we had time to go into detail, would of course be to take up the particular cases of alleged discrepancy; or, if not all, at least those among them that seem strongest or most important. Thus we might subject the matter to a practical test. If we examine, for in stance, the different accounts as to the genealogy of our Lord, the inscription on the cross, or the words spoken at the baptism of Jesus, it is readily seen that these present no insuperable obstacle to our accepting the plain testimony of the Scripture as to the authority of the inspired writers. Yet they certainly should be allowed, as part of the phenomena of Scripture, to aid in shaping our doc trine as to the nature of the record thus inspired, and to lead us to recognize it as thoroughly human and individual, at the same time that it is sent forth with divine authority. It is believed that the failure to do this by some advocates of inspiration, in their arguments and statements, is what has led many devout and earnest students to array them selves against the commonly received, but sometimes unfortunately presented, doctrine of Inspiration.

It is evident that the testimony of the Evangelists, for instance, should be compared and put together on the same legal principles as the testimony of the several witnesses before a court of justice, each stating the facts from his point of view, each modifying, enlarging, or supplementing the impression derived from the account of the other, so that the result of the whole testimony is presented. Thus the celebrated jurist, Judge Green leaf, has reviewed on legal grounds the witness of the four Evangelists in his well known work.

Professor George P. Fisher, in his “Beginnings of Christianity” (pp. 406–412), has selected and briefly discussed five out of the whole mass of alleged contradictions in the Gospels, as those most apparently insuperable on the ordinarily received view. These are the Sermon on the Mount, as given in Matthew and Luke; the Healing of the Centurion's Servant; Peter's Denials; the Healing of the Blind Man at Jericho; and the Time of the Last Supper, in John and the Synoptics.

These particular cases have been ably discussed by President Bartlett in the Princeton Review for January, 1880. An elaborate and valuable work by Rev. J. W. Haley, on “The Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible,” has been published by Draper of Andover. It gives, in the First Part, an excellent and instructive chapter on the Origin of the Discrepancies, and then treats of their Design and Results. In the Second Part, he discusses them in detail, as doctrinal, ethical, and historical discrepancies. While in the numerous and varied cases mentioned we may not always prefer the explanation to which he seems inclined, (and there is great room for difference of opinion in such matters, the work deserves earnest commendation and study for its laborious research, its condensation of results, its candor and courtesy, as well as its decided ability.

We cannot now go into the details. They are discussed, not only in the works mentioned, but in any good commentary. It is sufficient here to say that there is no case that does not seem to us to admit of a reasonable explanation, consistent with true inspiration.

3. After one has considered and explained the particular discrepancies alleged as most forcible or troublesome, we are sometimes met by an inquiry like this: “I grant that this and that case admits of a fair, or at least a probable explanation. That would not be sufficient to hinder me from believing in the inspiration of the Scripture. But suppose we should find a case of insuperable discrepancy, or discover by some Assyrian or Egyptian monument a clear historical error in the Bible, what would become of your doctrine of Inspiration?” Our answer is, We propose to wait till such a case arises, before we shape our doctrine, not from the facts and teachings of God's word, but to meet an imaginary contingency which may never arise.

And the fact that such discrepancies and errors have been so often and so confidently alleged, and one after another have been found to admit of a reasonable explanation, is a ground of confidence that in the future it will be as in the past.

We may be pardoned for referring, by way of illustration, to a story which is told of a poor colored woman, whose Christian faith was much opposed and ridiculed by an ingenious and free thinking, but kind master. Nothing that he could say was able to shake her confidence in God. Objections melted away before her honest and fervent personal experience of grace. Trials and afflictions but cleared her vision for the things unseen. “Well, Aunt Sally," said he, “I see that none of these things move you; but suppose that something was to happen that showed you plainly that God did not care for you or your prayers, what would you do then?” — “Now," replied she, “dem supposes, dey does a heap o’mischief. I ain't got nothin' to do wid dem. I'm just livin' by de facks."

We shall do best to go by the facts.