Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

in another language, one and the same place, viz: “The place of a skull." Mark xv. 22. See next Article.

CAUSES OF APPARENT DISCREPANCIES. Had the writers of the New Testament undertaken, or proposed to undertake, to give a full account of all the circumstances connected with the birth, life, death, and resurrection of their Divine Master; and had any one of them failed in so doing, such failure, even in one point, would be fatal to the veracity of the narrator, and consequently fatal, so far as he was concerned, to the truth of Christianity. But so far from any one of them professing to give a detail of all that related to Christ, not one of them professed that he was even writing a common history of Him. And so far from their having had any such idea, the Apostles in the conclusion of that Gospel, which may be considered as having been attested to by them all, (when they said of its Author, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and WE know that his testimony is true;" John xxi. 24,) they figuratively express their conviction of the little, in proportion to what might have been, recorded; (ver. 25.) And Luke, who has written more than all of them, says, that his gospel related to what Jesus had only began to do, and teach. Acts i. 1. The fact is, the gospels, (as they are called) are only memoirs, composed of detached narrations of circumstances, put down by the sacred writers, and witnesses, just as they appeared to their judgment, of most importance. Had these men written in the contrary way, had they agreed verbatim in their histories of Christ, infidels would immediately cry out, "see, they wrote in concert; there was evidently a collusion between them-it is all a job," &c. That such would have been the language of infidels is manifest; for

where there is the least similarity between the sacred writers, as for instance in the account given by Matthew and Mark of the fig tree, and the destruction of Jerusalem, they immediately shout, "Collusion! Collusion!" We maintain, that so far from the gospels having in them any thing which invalidates the veracity of their authors, or proves either craft, dishonesty, design, or enthusiasm, that they incontrovertibly prove the very reverse of each of these qualities, exhibiting the very best possible test of the truth of human testimony, viz: Substantial truth under circumstantial variety." All the apparent discrepancies in the Bible, (for recollect we deny that there is a single actual contradiction,) may be (according to Horne) referred to one or other of the following causes:

1. To the different sources whence the inspired writers drew their narratives; Thus, while the twelve apostles were absent from Christ, some of them longer, some shorter, as they went two by two, some must have witnessed what others did not, and vice versa. See Piercing, Vinegar.

2. To the different designs which the sacred writers had in the composition of their narratives; e. g., the genealogy of Christ given by Matthew and Luke. The former being for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles. See Genealogy.

3. To the liability of the names of persons and places changing.

4. The name of the head of a tribe or nation was sometimes given to their posterity; e. g., Edom or Esau is put for the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau. Numb. xx. 18.

5. The same persons or places sometimes had several

names; e. g., Esau's wife is called Bashemath in Gen. xxvi. 34, and Adah in Gen. xxxvi. 2. Thus he who was nominated for the apostleship is called Justus, Joseph, and Barnabas; (Acts i. 25:) Joses and Barnabas are the names of the same apostle. The place called Emishphat, and Kadésh, Gen. xiv. 7. Magdala, in Matthew, xv. 39, is called Dalmanutha in Mark viii. 10: and the country of the Gergesenes, in Matthew viii. 28, is called in Mark v. 1, Gadarenes.

6. To many persons and places having the same name. There was one Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, (Josh. xix. 15,) and another in the tribe of Judah. (Matt. ii. 6: Luke ii. 4.) There were two towns called Cana, Josh. xix. 28: John ii. 1; several Cæsareas, several Zechariahs, &c. &c.: several Herods.

7. Things oftentimes related in different order. See

Passover.

8. Events introduced by anticipation. Creation of man, (Gen. i. 27,) which, after several other things inserted, is related more at large in the creation of Adam. (Gen. ii. 7. 21. 23.)

9. The sacred writers sometimes speak in general, or round numbers. We do the same at the present day, without the least intention whatsoever of deception. See Numbers. All. Creature.

10. Sometimes numbers are exclusive, sometimes inclusive.

11. The writers sometimes quote numbers from the Septuagint, sometimes from the Hebrew, text.

12. Some events are referred to (not as to where,) by the sacred writers of the New Testament, which are not noticed by the inspired historians of the old, but which nevertheless, might be in other records then extant.

13 Kings and their sons frequently reigned at the same time during the Hebrew monarchy; hence chronological discrepancies.

14. Sometimes historians adopted different methods of computation, assigning different dates to the same period; e. g., in Gen. xv. 13, it is announced to Abraham that his "seed should be a stranger in a land that was not theirs, and should serve them, and that they should afflict them FOUR HUNDRED YEARS." But in Exod. xii. 40, 41, it is said-" They dwelt in Egypt four hundred and THIRTY years." Both are perfectly consistent: the apparent contradiction arising from the computation being made from two different dates. In Genesis the time is calculated from the date of the promise made to Abraham of a Son; and in Exodus from his departure from UR of the Chaldees.

Finally, while we cheerfully admit that there are numerous apparent contradictions in the Sacred Scriptures, we positively deny that there is a single positive contradiction in the whole Bible. Moreover, we assert, that the greater the number of apparent contradictions, the greater is the proof that it never was made up by one man; that it never was the result of collusion; and finally, that it never was invented by any man, or men, with a view to deceive mankind. See Omission. Character. Evidence.

CEREMONIES. Jewish sacrifices, &c. Although the ceremonial law, instituting various peculiar observances, may appear to us now, very unwise and foolish; yet nothing, upon mature consideration, exhibits more the wisdom of God, and the inspiration of Moses; and that for the following reasons: 1st. Mankind, like individuals, have had their infancy, youth and manhood.

Now the ability of a teacher is most conspicuous, when he adapts his instructions, or lessons, to the age and capacity of his pupils; for what would be more ridiculous than attempting to teach a person to read, who did not know the alphabet! In ancient times, mankind may be considered as having been in their infancy, and that mode of instruction, which would be most applicable to infancy, would be extremely unfit for manhood, or for mankind now. 2d. It has been discovered in the present century, that no method is so calculated to make a lasting impression on the human mind, as that which embraces signs, figures and representations, similar to that adopted in the Lancasterian system of instruction; and our daily experience must corroborate the truth of the fact, that the things we actually see, make a much more lasting impression on us, than what we merely hear. This course then is exactly what the Deity adopted in the ceremonial institutions amongst the Jews. 1st. He adapted the mode of instruction to the capacities of mankind then. 2d. He adopted that method best calculated to make an indelible impression on the minds of men. For example, the shedding of the blood of animals was not to appease the wrath of God; but to show the enormity of rebellion against the Most High; that its penalty was death; eternal death! For beasts have no resurrection! This shedding of blood, was also to point out that blood which was to be shed on Calvary's cross, and which was to cleanse from all sin. Again, what could possibly exhibit the detestable, contaminating, incurable (by man) nature of sin, than the disease called leprosy? And the same reasoning is applicable to every ceremonial rite, from the building of the altar, to the garments of the priests. So we see, that what some would-be-philoso

« FöregåendeFortsätt »