Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

wives about with them, "not as wives but as SISTERS, that they might minister to those who were mistresses of families; that so the doctrine of the Lord might, without reprehension or evil suspicion, enter the apartments of the women." And in giving his finished picture of a perfect Christian, he says“ Εσθιεικαι πίνει, και ΓΑΜΕΙ... ΕΙΚΟΝΑΣ έχει τους ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥΣ He cats and drinks and MARRIES... having the APOSTLES for his EXAMPLES.'

[ocr errors]

SECTION VI.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE SACRED WRITERS.

THERE

HERE are some facts recorded in one part of the sacred writings, which seem to be repugnant to the statements contained in other parts of the Scriptures: and these apparent contradictions are to be found between different writers of the Old Testament, and also between the Old and the New Testament.

I. In the Old Testament, the following passages are objected to as contradictory.

1. Gen. i. and Gen. ii. have been affirmed to contradict each other. They are perfectly consistent. In the first chapter, Moses gives a general account of the whole creation in six days; and then, carrying on his history, he proceeds to describe particularly the formation of Adam and Eve. In Gen. ii. 3. it is said, that God had rested from all his works which he had created and made; that is, he ceased to make any more creatures; consequently, Adam was NOT made after this.

2. Gen. vii. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

[blocks in formation]

The words and forty nights,' in Gen. vii. 17. are lost from the Hebrew copies, but they are found in the Septuagint Greek version, and also in many MSS. of the Latin Vulgate version. They ought to be restored to the text, which will read as follows, in perfect unison with Gen. vii. 12.-The flood was forty days and forty nights upon the earth.

3. Gen. vii. 24. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

is said to be contradicted by

Gen. viii. 3. The waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were abated.

Gen. viii. 3. ought to be rendered:-The waters continually subsided from off the earth; and at the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were much abated. This rendering (which Dr. Boothroyd has adopted in his new version of the Bible,) completely removes the alleged contradiction.

4. Gen. viii. 4, 5. are affirmed to be repugnant.

Dr. Boothroyd renders them thus, which obviates that repugnancy :-The waters were much abated, so that, in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon one of the mountains of Ararat. And the waters were continually decreasing until the tenth month: and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains were visible.

5. Gen. vi. 19. vii. 2, 3. 8, 9. and 15. and viii. 20. are charged with being direct contradictions. A little attention to the context and connection of the passages in question will show their perfect consistency.

1 Clementis Alexandrini Stromata, lib. vii. c. 2. cited by Dr. A. Clarke in his Com. mentary on 1 Cor. ix. 5.-Clement was one of the most learned Greek Christian writers in the close of the second century. His Stromata were written a. D. 193.

In Gen. vi. 19-21. general orders are given to Noah to take into the ark with him, animals of every kind, pairs of each. In Gen. vii. 2. the number of pairs is stated, viz. seven pairs of clean beasts, and two pairs of beasts that are not clean; and (verse 3.) of the fowls of the air that are clean, seven pairs, the male and the female, and of fowls that are not clean, two pairs, the male and his female. In vii. 8, 9. and 15. the historian relating what was done in obedience to the divine command, says generally, that pairs went with Noah inte the ark; and in viii. 20. it is stated, also, in general terms, that he offered sacrifices of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl. There is, therefore, no real contradiction between these several numbers. As animals were not used for food before the Deluge, it is probable that the distinction of beasts and fowls into clean and unclean was made with respect to sacrifices; the former being offered while the latter were not.

6. On the alleged contradiction between Gen. xv. 13. Exod. xii. 40, 41. and Acts vii. 6. see p. 546. supra.

7. Gen. xxii. 1. It came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

apparently contradicts

James i. 13. God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.

Temptation signifies nothing more than trial; any opposition or difficulty that may exercise our virtues, and make them known. In this sense God may be said to tempt men; that is, he tries and proves them, and thus he tempted Abraham. Sometimes temptation means dangerous trials and enticements to sin, under which we are more likely to sink, than to overcome them. In this sense God tempteth not any man; nor will he if he resist them, suffer us to be tempted above what we are able. (1 Cor. x. 13.)

8. From Gen. xxxi. 38. and 41. compared with Gen. xxxiv. it has been asserted that Dinah was only six years of age (instead of sixteen,) when she was forcibly defiled by Shechem; and hence it is insinuated that the narrative is so contradictory as to be unworthy of credit.

This pretended difficulty, concerning the age of Dinah, originated in the supposition that that disastrous circumstance took place in the very same year when Jacob returned into Palestine. So far, however, is the book of Genesis from dating it in that year, that on the contrary, we learn from it, that Jacob resided in that country a long time. (Compare Gen. xxxiii. 11. 18. xxxiv. 1. 30. and xxxv. 1. 28, 29.) The best chronologists compute that the patriarch's residence, both at Succoth and at Shechem was about ten years; and there is not a single word in the book of Genesis that affords any ground of contradiction or difficulty against this computation. Dinah therefore was about sixteen, or between sixteen and seventeen years of age; and her brothers Simeon and Levi, about twenty-two or twenty-three (instead of twelve, as the opposers of the Bible falsely assert,) when the disastrous occurrence at Shechem obliged Jacob to quit that district or canton, and go to Bethel, whence he repaired to Mamre to his father Isaac. It is true, that Isaac's death, which is recorded at the close of Gen. xxxv. was subsequent to Joseph's departure into Egypt, though the latter is not related until the thirty-seventh chapter; but that Patriarch's decease was noticed in this place, by anticipation, in order that the history of Joseph might not be interrupted. This mode of narrating facts, it is well known, is pursued by all historians who do not wish to be mere annalists, and by no means affects the date of the account of Dinah, which took place previously to Isaac's death, as well as the sale of Joseph. The days of Isaac were a hundred and four score years; he was one hundred and seventy-three years old when Dinah was violated, and one hundred and seventy-four when Joseph was sold into Egypt.

9. The land of Rameses, in Gen. xlvii. 11. means the land of Goshen, and not the capital of that district; it was probably so called in the time of Moses, from the city of Rameses, which the Israelites had built for Pharaoh. The Hebrew historian used an appellation well known

1 The above is the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and of the Septuagint and Syriac Versions. The rendering of the Hebrew Text is imperfect-Of fowls of the air also by sevens, the male and the female. Bishop Newton's Works, vol. i. p. 168.

to them. There is no improbability or contradiction whatever between Gen. xlvii. 11. and Exod. i. 11.

10. Gen. xlviii. 8. and 10. in the first of these verses, it is said, that Israel beheld Joseph's sons; and in the other, that his eyes were dim, so that he could not see.

The meaning is, not that he could not see at all, but only that he could not plainly and distinctly see the objects which were before him. Therefore, though he beheld Ephraim and Manasseh, yet he could not distinguish them, until they were brought nigh to him. The declaration of Jacob to Joseph, in xlviii. 22. is not prophetic of the future, as a scoffing writer of the present day has asserted. From Gen. xxxiii. 19. we learn, that Jacob bought a piece of land from Hamor at Shechem; to which he doubtless alludes in Gen. xlviii. 22. I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. It should seem that this spot had afterwards fallen into the hands of an Amorite family or tribe, after the destruction of the Shechemites, and that Jacob had retaken it from them by force of arms, though this transaction is no where else mentioned.

11. Reuel in Exod. ii. 18. is the same as Raguel in Numb. x. 29. The Hebrew is the same in both places; consequently there is no contradiction. The reason of the seeming difference is, that the y (oin or ain,) in 48177, is sometimes used merely as a vowel, and sometimes as g, ng, and gn; and this is occasioned by the difficulty of the sound, which scarcely any European organs can enunciate. As pronounced by the Arabs, it strongly resembles the first effort made in the throat by gargling. Raguel is the worst method of pronouncing this word; Re-u-el, the first syllable being strongly accented, is nearer to the true sound. On a comparison of all the places, where these relations of Moses are mentioned, it is evident that Re-u-el or Raguel was the father of Jethro, whose daughter Zipporah Moses married; and it is most probable that Hobab was the son of Jethro, who accompanied the Israelites through the wilderness. (Compare Exod. iii. 1. iv. 18. and Numb. x. 29.) No solid objection can be made against this explanation, from Reuel being called "their father,' (Exod. ii. 18.) as this appellation frequently denotes any remote ancestor.1 Aged men, uncles, and grandfathers are in the Scriptures sometimes called fathers. Thus in Gen. xxxi. 43. Laban calls his grandchildren his children, and considers himself as their father; and in 2 Kings, XIV. 3. David is called the father of Amaziah, though he was his remote an

cestor.

12. Exod. iii. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him (Moses) in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.

is said to
contradict

Exod. iii. 4. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.

In these two verses there is no contradiction whatever. On the subject of this and other divine appearances related in the Old Testament (which both Jews and Christians believe, on the solid evidence of facts, though infidels, unable to refute them, dismiss them with scoffing,) the solid and incontestible solution is laid by Jesus Christ himself, who perfectly understood the whole affair of divine appearances, in John v. 37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John i. 18.) No man hath seen God at any time. He is the invisible God, whom no man hath seen nor can see. It is often said, that the Lord, the Most High God, appeared to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the prophets, the ancestors of the Jews: but, according to Jesus Christ's rule, the appearance, form, or shape which they saw, was not the appearance of the Lord God himself; for never, at any time, did they see his shape. Again, it is often said, that the most High God spake to the patriarchs, to Moses, and to the prophets; but our Lord affirms that they never heard his voice at any time. How shall we reconcile this seeming inconsistency? The true solution according to the Scriptures, is this:-That the Lord God never spake or appeared in person, but always by a proxy, nuncius, or messenger; who represented him and spake in his name and authority. It was this messenger of

1 Dr. A. Clarke and Dr. Boothroyd on Exod. ii. 18.

Jehovah (or angel of Jehovah,) who appeared unto Moses (Exod. iii. 2.), and who is called, in verse 4. JEHOVAH or Lord (whence it is evident that he was no created human being); and who spake to Moses, in verse 5. saying, Draw not nigh hither, &c., I am the God of Abraham (verse 6.) and I AM THAT I AM. (verse 14.) All which words were pronounced by an angel, but are true, not of the angel, but of God, whom he represented. So a herald reads a proclamation in the king's name and words, as if the king himself were speaking. The word ANGEL, both in the Greek language and in the Hebrew, signifies a messenger or nuncius, an ambassador; one who acts and speaks, not in his own name or behalf, but in the name, person, and behalf of him who sends him. Thus the word is frequently rendered in our authorised translation; and, if it had always been rendered the messenger of the Lord, instead of the angel of the Lord, the case would have been very plain. But angel, being a Greek word, which the English reader does not understand, throws some obscurity upon such passages.I

13. Exodus vii. 19-21. is apparently contradicted by Exodus vii. 22. Both are reconciled by comparing verse 24. The Egyptians digged round about the river for water to drink : and it seems that the water thus obtained was not bloody like that in the river; on this water, therefore, the magicians might operate. Again, though Moses was commissioned to turn into blood, not only the waters of the river Nile, but also those of their streams, rivers, ponds, and pools: yet, it seems evident from verse 20. that he did not proceed thus far, at least in the first instance, for it is there stated, that only the waters of the river were turned into blood. Afterwards, doubtless, the plague became general. At the commencement, therefore, of this plague, the magicians might obtain other water, to imitate the miracle; and it would not be difficult for them, by juggling tricks, to impart to it a bloody appearance, a fetid smell, and a bad taste. On either of these grounds, there is no contradiction in the Mosaic

account.

14. Exod. ix. 6. ALL THE CATTLE OF EGYPT DIED; but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

is said to contradict

Exod. ix. 20. He that feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made HIS CATTLE flee into the houses.

Nothing can be more evident than that universal terms are used in all languages in a limited sense; so that the word ALL, in verse 6. means, that all the cattle that did die, belonged to the Egyptians, and died in the field, while those in the houses escaped; or else that a great many of all sorts of cattle died; or, if we understand that all the cattle of the Egyptians perished as asserted in ix. 6., what was there to hinder them from obtaining others from the Israelites, not one of whose cattle died in the land of Goshen? This justihes the supposition that there was some respite or interval between the several plagues.

15. It has been asserted, that Exod. xx. 11. and Deut. v. 15. (both which passages enjoin the observance of the Sabbath,) are at variance; and hence it has been inferred that Moses could not be the author of the Pentateuch.

But the enforcement of the same precept by two different motives, does not constitute two discordant precepts; and this is the case with the passages in question. In Exod. xx. 11. Moses urges the observance of the Sabbath, by a motive taken from the creation: and in the latter, by another derived from their exode or departure from bondage in Egypt.

{

16. Exod. xxiii. 11. The apparently John i. 18. 1 John iv. 12. No LORD spake unto Moses face to face. } contradicts man hath seen God at any time. The Almighty is said to have conversed with Moses, and Jacob to have seen him. (Gen. xxxii. 30.) But this only signifies that God revealed himself to them in a more particular manner than to others: for God is a spirit, whom no one hath seen or can see (1 Tim. vi. 16.) that is, as he is in Heaven. And when Moses besought this favour of God, he refused him, saying, Thou canst not

1 Dr. J. Taylor's Scheme of Scripture Divinity, ch. xv. (Bp. Watson's Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. i. p. 65.)

see my face, for there shall no man see me and live. (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) The Apostle John might, therefore, say, that no man hath seen God at any time. The antient Christian writers (who certainly were more likely to understand the subject than we are) were generally agreed, that the person who appeared to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets, was the word of God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

17. In Levit. xvii. 1-7. the Israelites were prohibited from slaughtering any clean animal, which they were permitted to eat, in any other place except upon the altar at the door of the tabernacle, whither they were to bring it, and to immolate it. The reason assigned for this prohibition in verse 7. is, that they should no longer offer sacrifice unto idols. But in Deut. xii. 15. 20-22. the Israelites, just before they entered Palestine, were permitted to slaughter oxen, sheep, or other clean animals at pleasure, in any part of the country, provided they did not regard them as sacrifices, and abstained from their blood, which the heathens, in their sacrifices, were accustomed to drink.

Between these two passages there is an apparent contradiction; but it may be readily accounted for, when we consider that the laws of Moses were necessarily regulated by the circumstances of the Israelites, and that they were not intended to be absolutely unalterable. The law in question might be observed in the wilderness, where the Israelites kept near together, and from their poverty, ate but little animal food: but in Palestine, and when their circumstances were improved, it would have been an intolerable grievance, for many of them lived at the distance of several days' journey from the sanctuary, at which alone offerings could be made; and they must consequently, either have altogether denied themselves the use of the flesh of oxen, sheep, and goats, or else have travelled long journeys to present them at the altar before they could taste it. But in fact, Moses himself shows that Lev. xvii. 1 -7. was a temporary law, intended only for their situation in the wilderness, by the phrase" without or within the camp." And in the law last promulgated, (Deut. xii. 15. 20-22.) in the fortieth year of their pilgrimage, just before their entrance into Palestine, he explicitly declares it repealed, as soon as they should abide there, permitting them to kill and eat the flesh of oxen, sheep, &c. any where, as already noticed. He tells them, that they might then eat them even as the hart and the roe, that is, with as full liberty, and likewise without the smallest idea of offering; for the hart and the roe were not allowed to be brought to the altar.1

[ocr errors]

18. The promulgation of the Levitical law is said (Lev. i. 1.) to have been made from the tabernacle, and in Lev. xxvi. 34. we read, These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses in Mount SINAI.

But there is no real contradiction here. The Hebrew preposition (beth; signifies near as well as in; the meaning, therefore, is, that these were added to the foregoing commandments, before the Israelites removed from the wilderness of Mount Sinai, or while they were near Mount Sinai. And if the objector had distinguished the time and place when the Levitical law was given, from the time when the moral law was promulgated, he would not have asserted the existence of a contradiction. The latter was given on Mount Sinai, in the third month of the first year after the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. (Exod. xix. xx.) The tabernacle was raised on the first day of the first month of the second year after their departure; on which occasion Aaron and his sons were set apart to the sacerdotal office. (Exod. xl. 2. 17-32. To the ceremonies attendant on this consecration, the chief part of Leviticus belongs; and, from the manner in which this book begins, it is plainly a continuation of the preceding. Indeed the whole is but one law, though divided from a very antient period into five portions.

19. Numb. iv. 3. From THIRTY years old, and upwards, even until fifty years old.

apparently contradicts

Num. viii. 24. From TWESTY AND FIVE years old and upawards, they shall go, &c.

Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 414, 415. vol. i. pp.

3.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »