These texts may be reconciled in two ways, either by recollecting that the Levites were obliged to spend five years in learning the duties of their ministry, before they were admitted to officiate; or that, in the time of Moses, their consecration began at the twenty-fifth year of their age, but afterwards, during the time of David, at their twentieth year. Numb. xiv. 45. Then the Amalekites CAME DOWN, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill. The twenty-fifth verse should be read without a parenthesis, and in the present tense dwell. The meaning simply is, that they at present lie in wait for you, at the bottom on the other side of the mountain. God, having consented not to destroy the people suddenly, gave them notice of their danger from the neighbouring people, who were lying in wait to give them battle. The Israelites presumed (verse 44.) to go up unto the hill top; whence they were driven and discomfited by the Amalekites and Canaanites, who had posted themselves there. A detachment of the Amalekites, who were encamped on the opposite foot of the hill, might easily ascend to succour their Canaanitish allies. 21. Numb. xxi. 2, 3. is said to be contradicted by the subsequent history of the conquest of Canaan. But there is no reason why we should not understand the destruction of the Canaanites and their cities, as limited to those which they then took: for Joshua afterwards took the king of Arad. (Josh. xii. 14.) See also Judg. i. 16, 17. 22. In 1 Cor. x. 8. St. Paul tells us, that the number of persons who were cut off in the plague was twenty-three thousand; but, in Numb. xxv. 9. Moses makes them not less than twenty-four thousand, because in this number he includes the thousand who were found guilty of idolatry, and were in consequence slain with the sword; whereas the apostle speaks only of those who died of the pestilence. 23. From the law being mentioned in the book of Exodus, as delivered on Mount Sinai, and from Mount Horeb being mentioned as the place where it was delivered, in the book of Deuteronomy, without any notice being taken of Mount Sinai, it has been insinuated, that neither of these books are worthy of credit, especially because some injudicious persons have represented them in maps as two distinct mountains. It is however well known that Sinai and Horeb are two different peaks of one and the same range of mountains; and hence it is, that what is in one passage of Scripture related as having been done at Horeb, is in another place said to have been done at Sinai, or in the wilderness of Sinai. 24. Deut. i. 9-18. is said to contradict Exod. xviii. 13-23. and Moses is asserted to have conceived the idea of setting judges and rulers over the people. A little attention to the two passages would have satisfied the objector that Moses did not conceive any such idea. In Exod. xviii. 13-23. Jethro, his father in law, having observed the great personal fatigue to which the Jewish legislator daily exposed himself suggested to him the appointment of magistrates over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, men of integrity and piety, to hear and determine minor questions between the people, subject, however, to the approbation of God. In verses 24-27. we read generally that Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, followed his counsel, with the approbation of God, and appointed the necessary officers. In the first chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses is represented as alluding to this fact, but with this remarkable difference, that he not only says nothing of Jethro, but instead of representing himself as the person who selected those magistrates, he states that he had appealed to the people, and desired that they would elect them. "There is a great and striking difference between these statements, but there is no contradiction: Jethro suggested to Moses the appointment; he, probably 73 VOL. I. after consulting God, as Jethro intimates, if God shall thus command thee, referred the matter to the people, and assigned the choice of the individuals to them; the persons thus selected he admitted to share his authority as subordinate judges. Thus the two statements are perfectly consistent. But this is not all their difference is most natural. In first recording the event, it was natural Moses should dwell on the first cause which led to it, and pass by the appeal to the people as a subordinate and less material part of the transaction; but in addressing the people, it was natural to notice the part they themselves had in the selection of those judges, in order to conciliate their regard and obedience. How naturally also does the pious legislator, in his public address, dwell on every circumstance which could improve his hearers in piety and virtue. The multitude of the people was the cause of the appointment of these judges: How beautifully is this increase of the nation turned to an argument of gratitude to God! How affectionate is the blessing with which the pious speaker interrupts the narrative, imploring God, that the multitude of his people may increase a thousand fold! How admirably does he take occasion, from mentioning the judges, to inculcate the eternal principles of justice and piety, which should control their decisions! How remote is all this from art, forgery, and imposture! Surely here, if any where, we can trace the dictates of nature, truth, and piety." 25. Deut. x. 6, 7. is affirmed to contradict Numb. xx. 23-29. and xxxiii. 30. 37. 38. But Dr. Kennicott has shown that verses 6-9. of Deut. x. are an interpolation, and ought to be inserted after Deut. ii. 11.2 For reconciling this passage, where Aaron is said to have died at Moserah, with Numb. xxxiii. 31, 32. where his death is said to have taken place on Mount Hor, it is sufficient to remark that the same place frequently had different names; just as (we have seen) Horeb and Sinai were two peaks of the same ridge, so Moserah might have been a peak of Mount Hor, and interchanged with it. In Deut. x., as it stands in our printed copies, there are several things omitted, which are preserved in the Samaritan copy, and remove the difficulty we otherwise find respecting the time and place of Aaron's death. The Samaritan copy may be thus translated: "Thence they journeyed, and pitched their camp in Gudgodah; thence they journeyed and pitched in Jobbatha, a land of springs and water. Thence they journeyed and pitched in Abarnea. Thence they journeyed and pitched in Ezion-geber. Thence they journeyed and pitched in the desert of Sin, which is Kadesh. Thence they journeyed and pitched in mount Hor, and there Aaron died," &c. 26. Deut. x. 22. is apparently contradicted by Acts vii. 14. The family of Jacob are differently reckoned at their going into Egypt. In Deut. x. 22. Moses says, that they were threescore and ten, that is to say, all who came out of Jacob's loins (Gen. xlvi. 26.) were threescore and sir, besides himself, Joseph and his two sons who were in Egypt before; which make three score and ten. But in Acts vii. 14. Stephen adds to these nine of his sons' wives, and thus makes the number three score and fifteen. The latter, though not of Jacob's blood, were of his kindred, as Stephen justly expresses it, being allied to him by marriage. 27. There is no strange inconsistency' between Deut. xxxii. and Deut. xxxiii. The former is a sublime ode, which contains a defence of God against the Israelites, and unfolds the method of divine judgments. In the latter chapter Moses takes his leave of the people, by pronouncing a blessing upon them generally, and upon each tribe in particular. 28. In Joshua, x. 23. and 37. the Israelitish general is charged with killing the same king of Hebron twice. The historian relates no such thing. Hebron was a place of considerable note; and its inhabitants finding that their king had fallen in battle, elected 1 Dr. Graves's Lectures on the Four last books of the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 87. 2 Mr. Townsend has accordingly placed them so in his excellent Harmony of the Old Testament. See vol. i. p. 379. another in his place. The second king was he whom Joshua slew, after he had taken the city and its dependencies, as related in verse 37. 29. Josh. x. 15. is apparently contradicted by verse 43. of the same chapter. In the former place he is said to have returned and all Israel with him to Gilgal; which he certainly did not do until the end of the expedition, (verse 43.) where it is properly introduced. It is therefore either an interpolation, or must signify that Joshua intended to have returned, but changed his resolution, when he heard that the five kings had fled and hidden themselves in a cave at Makkedah. So Balak, king of Moab is said (Josh. xxiv. 9.) to have warred against Israel, that is, he intended to war against them. 30. Josh. xi. 19. There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel,save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all other they took in battle. is said to contradict Josh. xv. 63. As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah unto this day. There is no contradiction here. Although Jerusalem was taken and its king vanquished by Joshua, together with the land surrounding it (Josh. x. 5. 23. 42.), the fortress or strong hold of Zion continued in the hands of the Jebusites. And the Israelites not being able immediately to people all the cities they had taken, the Jebusites recovered possession of the city, whence the children of Judah expelled them after the death of Joshua. (Judg. i. 8.) But the fortress of Mount Zion remained in their hands until the reign of David. 31. Josh. xxi. 43, 44. we read, The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. This is asserted to be a direct contradiction to the preceding parts of this book; but it is assertion without proof. The whole country was now divided by lot unto them; and their enemies were so completely discomfited, that there was not a single army of the Canaanites remaining to make head against them; and those who were left in the land served under tribute; and the tribute so paid by them, was the amplest proof of their complete subjugation. Add to this, that the Israelites had as much of the land in actual possession as they could occupy; and as they increased, God enabled them to drive out the antient inhabitants, but in consequence of the infidelity of the Israelites, their enemies were often permitted to straiten them, and sometimes to prevail against them. It is also be recollected, that God never promised to give them the land, or to maintain them but upon condition of obedience: and so punctually did he fulfil this intention, that there is not a single instance upon record in which they were either straitened or subjugated, while they were obedient and faithful to their God. In this sense, therefore, it might most correctly and literally be said that there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came to pass.-Nor will one word of his ever fail, while sun and moon endure. 32. In Judg. i. 19. we read, The Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron. From this passage M. Voltaire and his copyists in this country have taken 1 If payment of tribute be not an absolute proof of subjugation, the objector to the sacred historian might with equal truth have affirmed, that during the late war, in which Great Britain was engaged for her existence as an independent nation and government, her forces did not subdue the French West India Islands and the Dutch settlement at Batavia in 1812, because the antient inhabitants continued to remain in them, and to pay tribute. occasion to remark that it is difficult to conceive how the Lord of heaven and earth, who had so often changed the order and suspended the established laws of nature, in favour of his people, could not succeed against the inhabitants of a valley, because they had chariots of iron. A little consideration, however, of the context of the passage will show that this mighty difficulty has as little foundation as all the rest which the ingenuity of the enemies of the Bible have imagined to exist. In the first place then it is to be observed, that when it is said HE drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley; the antecedent is Judah, not Jehovah; because Jehovah had often displayed much more eminent instances of his power; and he that effected the greater, could certainly have effected the less. In the second place, though it pleased God to give success to Judah in one instance, it does not necessarily follow, that therefore he should give it in all. So that there is no more absurdity in the passage, than there would be in the following speech, if such had been addressed to the sovereign by one of his commanders returned from America : "By the blessing of God upon your Majesty's arms, we overcame general Greene in the field; but we could not attack general Washington, because he was too strongly entrenched in his camp." There is no reason, therefore, for supposing, that "the Jews considered the God of Israel their protector as a local divinity; who was in some instances more, and in others less powerful, than the gods of their enemies."1 33. Judg. vi. 1. is said to contradict Numb. xxxi. 10. In the latter place, however, it is not said that all the Midianites were extirpated. Those who engaged the Israelites were discomfited, and their country was laid waste, that those who fled might have no encouragement to return thither. In the course of two hundred years, however, they might increase and become sufficiently formidable (as we read that they did in Judg. vi. 1.) to oppress the northern and eastern Israelites, especially when joined by the Amalekites and Ishmaelites, or children of the east, as their allies are termed in the third verse. This remark will serve also to remove the contradiction objected between 1. Sam. xv. 7, 8., where the Amalekites are said to have been discomfited by the Israelites under Saul, and 1 Sam. xxx. 1, 2. where they are said, twenty-three years afterwards, to have made a predatory incursion against Ziklag. The latter were doubtless a travelling predatory horde, similar to those who to this day live in the country where the Amalekites formerly dwelt, viz. Arabia. 34. The account of Saul's death, related in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1—6. (whence it is copied, with some trifling difference, in 1 Chron. x.) is said to be contradicted by the account of the Amalekite, narrated in 2 Sam. i. 10. The historian relates the fact as stated by the Amalekite himself, whose story bears every mark of being a fiction, formed in order to ingratiate himself with David as the next probable successor to the crown. (Compare 2 Sam. iv. 10.) There are always men of this description about camps, whose object is plunder, and for which they will strip the dead. 35. 2 Kings xxiv. 13. and xxv. 8—12. are stated to be contradictory. If the objector had attended to the difference of times, he would have found the Scriptures perfectly consistent. Nebuchadnezzar carried away the riches and furniture of the temple at three different times:-First, in the third year of Jehoiachim (Dan. i. 2.); these were the vessels which his son Belshazzar profaned (Dan. v. 2.), and which Cyrus restored to the Jews (Ezra i. 7.), to be set up in the temple, when rebuilt:-Secondly, in the reign of Jehoiachim he again took the city, and cut to pieces a great part of the vessels of gold which Solomon had made (2 Kings xxiv. 13.): and, thirdly, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, as related in 2 Kings xxv. 8-12., he once more pillaged the temple. 36. Ezra ii. is apparently at variance with Nehemiah vii. On the discrepancies occurring throughout these two chapters, the com1 Bp. Horne's Works, vol. vi. p. 493. mentators must be consulted: it may suffice here to remark that the account contained in Ezra was taken in Chaldæa before the Jews commenced their return; and that, which is related in Nehemiah vii., after their arrival in Jerusalem. Some of them altering their minds and staying behind after they had given in their names to go, and others dying on the way, lessened part of the numbers in Nehemiah; as, on the contrary, some of them coming to them afterwards, made the numbers mentioned in the latter appear the greater. But the principal and most numerous contradictions are to be found in the Old Testament between some parts of the second book of Saanuel, and the books of Kings and Chronicles; and chiefly relate to numbers, dates, names, and genealogies. The means by which some of these repugnancies may be reconciled have already been indicated ;1 in addition to which we may remark, that although the commentators generally present satisfactory solutions, yet many of the seeming differences may be easily reconciled on the principle that the books of Chronicles are supplementary to those of Kings; and hence they are termed in the Septuagint HagaλToeva or things omitted. Besides, the language was slightly changed, after the captivity, from what it had previously been. The various places had received new names, or undergone sundry vicissitudes; certain things were now better known to the returned Jews, under other appellations than those by which they had formerly been distinguished; and from the materials before him, which often were not the same as those used by the abridgers of the histories of the kings, the author of the books of Chronicles takes those passages which seemed best adapted to his purpose, and most suitable to the time in which he wrote. It must also be considered, that he often elucidates obsolete and ambiguous words, in former books, by a different mode of spelling them, or by a different order of the words employed even when he does not use a distinct phraseology of narration, which he sometimes adopts. The following are the most material passages of these books, which have been the subject of cavil to the modern advocates of infidelity. 37. In 1 Chron. xix. 7. the children of Ammon are said to have hired thirty-two thousand chariots, and the king of Maachah and his people; which appears an incredible number. But the original word here rendered chariots does not always bear that meaning: it is a collective noun signifying cavalry or riders. The meaning therefore is, that they hired thirty-two thousand Syrian auxiliaries, who were usually mounted on chariots or horses, but who occasionally also served as foot soldiers, which is perfectly in unison with 2 Sam. x. 6., where the Syrian auxiliaries engaged by the Ammonites amount exactly to thirty-two thousand, besides a thousand men, whom they hired of the king of Maachah; and whom we may presume to be infantry. 38. 2. Sam. xxiv. 1. Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and he moved David against them, to say, Go number Israel and Judah. is said to contradict 1 Chron. xxi. 4 Satan stood up and provoked David to number Israel. It is not usual to mention the anger of God, without stating its cause: but as the first of these texts now stands, God is stated to be angry, and his anger leads him to move David to number the people. This numbering of the people, however, was not the cause, but the effect of his anger; the cause is stated in the second passage which may be rendered—an adversary (perhaps one of David's wicked counsellors, for the Hebrew word (saTaN) signifies an adversary) stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. At the time referred to, David probably coveted an extension of Empire; and having 1 See pp. 532. 544. of the present volume. |