1877 the c

71-75
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION,
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SCURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
”Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
The Bible’s Enemies and the Bible’s Friends
“It is a remarkable fact, that the more self-conceited, worldly-minded, and wicked people are, the more they neglect, despise, and asperse the sacred Scriptures: and, on the contrary, the more humble and holy, the more they read, admire, and value them. What the Lord said of his disciples is equally true of the Bible. ‘If it were of the world, the world would love its own; but because it is not of the world, therefore the world hateth it.” No book, however, has had as many friends. Vast numbers of wise and good men, through many generations and distant countries, have agreed in receiving the Bible as a divine revelation. Many of them have been notable for seriousness, erudition, penetration, and impartiality in their judgment of men and things; living and dying they have recommended it to all others, as the source of hope, wisdom, and consolation. ‘Reason itself,’ says a judicious writer, ‘dictates that nothing but the plainest matter of fact could induce so many thousands of persecuted and prejudiced Jews to embrace the humbling, self-denying doctrine of the cross, which they so much despised and abhorred. Nothing but the clearest evidence arising from undoubted truth, could make multitudes of lawless, luxurious heathens, receive, follow, and transmit to posterity, the doctrines and writings of the apostles; especially at a time when the vanity of their pretensions to miracles and the gift of tongues could be so easily discovered had they been impostors, and when the profession of Christianity exposed persons of all ranks to the greatest contempt and most imminent danger.”—FREY.
J. M.’s Objections to the Bible
BESIDES the difficulty connected with the period of Israel’s sojourning in Canaan and Egypt disposed of last month, “J.M.” professes to have found, in the course of his Scripture readings, “other cases of discrepancy” “so numerous” that he “began to make a list.” It may be that “J. M.’s” discoveries in this respect were of his own finding out. If so, he is a man of some penetration, and ought to be disposed to seek for and able to find an explanation for all difficulties in the case of a book proved divine in so many irresistible ways. If not (and it seems far more likely that he was indebted for the “discrepancies” to the malicious ingenuity of such men as Tom Paine and Bradlaugh than that he found them out in his own unaided readings of the Scripture), he is only another illustration of a mediocre intellect deceived by the shallow plausibilities of men who wish to have the Bible untrue, and who strain logic and garble facts, and exaggerate unfavourable appearances to establish a desired conclusion. In that case, it is scarcely candid for “J. M.” to adopt the style of a candid philosopher, retailing facts as if observed for the first time by himself, and the impressions they made on his mind.
It is evident that “J. M.’s” prepossessions were in favour of the rejection of the Bible. His mode of introducing the difficulty set forth in par. IV. reveals this. Amongst “numerous discrepancies” that he professes to have found, he describes the difficulty in question as “the one that interested him most.” This is not the language of one who, at one time an carnest believer in the Bible, found himself compelled to relinquish that belief: such an one, knowing how incomparably comforting, how inconceivably precious, how unspeakably glorious are the things taught in the Scriptures, and how perfectly blank and dark and melancholy is life to every individual man apart from the hope set forth in the Scriptures, could not have referred to the discovery of reasons for discarding the blessed hope, as “interesting.” The difficulty that “interested” J. M. “most,” would have staggered and dismayed the other. He would have looked at it none the less critically, and if logically involving the sad conclusion referred to, he would none the less frankly have accepted the conclusion; but his after allusions to it would not have been in the style of a botanist discovering a rare plant, or a geologist a new fossil. The difficulty would not have been the one that “interested him most,” but the one that distressed him the most.
But no doubt “J. M.” uses accurate language, and the difficulty in question really “interested” him; because among all the “other cases of discrepancy” that were “so numerous,” there was really nothing but what was susceptible of a reasonable and satisfactory explanation, whereas this really seemed to defy solution, and that gave a sure footing for the man who wished to kick the Bible down.
“The one,” that “interested him most was that presented by a comparison of 1 Kings 6:1 with Acts 13:18, 22.” These two passages, at first sight, certainly do appear to differ by a hundred years in their statement of the period that elapsed between the exodus and the fourth year of Solomon. That they do not do so in reality, was shown at length in the Christadelphian for Aug., 1875, page 373, to which we must refer the reader instead of repeating what has been so recently written on the point. It is probably to this, or some such explanation that “J. M.” refers when he says the passages in question contradict themselves, when “looked at apart from all theories.” Explanations, however, are not to be dismissed in this way. There are difficulties in everything: science, history, optical perceptions—everything; and these difficulties, in a correct state of knowledge, have their explanations. What would be thought of a man shutting his eyes to those explanations, merely because the difficulties “looked at apart” from these explanations, favoured some prejudice or fantasy of his? A child, walking along the street with its mother, sees the moon apparently travelling along the tops of the houses. It says: “Ma, the moon is following us.” “No, my child.” “Yes, ma; look!” “Ah, my child, it only appears to do so.” “How is that, ma?” “It is so far away that it appears to move when we move; but it does not move. It is our going past the houses between us and it that makes it appear to move.”
To the child this is an unintelligible “theory;” and if like “J.M.,” it would insist, “‘apart from all theories,’ the moon follows us when we walk along the street.” But if it lived, it would find the theory true and the appearance false; so it will be with “J.M.,” if he have the capacity to appreciate an explanation and the candour to desire the truth.
The Authenticity of the New Testament
(Continued from page 559, vol. xiii.)
IF we wish to find the records of a corporate body, we should seek for them in the custody of that corporation itself; if found there, the records may speak for themselves as to the authority which may be attached to them. And thus it is with regard to the Scriptures; the Old Testament was given to the Jews, and they have transmitted it to us; the New Testament was given to the Christian community, and they have delivered it on even to our days; and the early writers of the Church have given us sufficient attestation that the books which we have are the same which they had from the beginning. Thus do we receive the Scriptures from what might formally be considered the proper custody, even if the early specific evidence had been less strong.
I was present, about twenty years ago, at an investigation, in which a corporate body found it needful to produce the charter which gave them a certain extent of jurisdiction. A document was produced; on examination, it was seen that it was not the original charter, but it was (as it professed to be) a transcript which had been made 550 years before. This transcript had been admitted in the reign of James II. as secondary evidence of what the contents of the original charter had been. But when the document was read, it showed that the corporation who brought it forward, had habitually acted in contravention of almost all its provisions. They had enforced dues and tolls in defiance of its limitations. Its production thus condemned them so thoroughly that they could never again establish their claim to these tolls. No one, certainly, could, after this, suspect that the document—mere transcript as it was—was anything contrived by the corporation; its genuineness was proved even by the testimony which it bore against those who brought it forward.
Thus has it been with regard to the Old Testament and the Jews, and the New Testament and the Church. Each is a witness against the collective body which has transmitted it. In each case we have not the original documents, but only transcripts; and in each the transmission is confirmed by the contents of the documents. Just as the production of the charter, to which I referred, condemned the corporation which relied on it, so does the Old Testament condemn the Jews, and the New Testament the practical and doctrinal condition for ages, of the Churches that transmitted it. They affirm its divine authority; and the testimony which it bears against them is such, that we cannot suppose it possible that they would assert this on any ground but those of believing this to be the truth.
In bringing forward witnesses to the authorship and transmission of the New Testament books, I confine myself to the earlier centuries: if this period gives us satisfactory evidence, we need not inquire further how these books have been transmitted from the fourth century and onward.
And here let me remark, that many a document is presented to us without any array of extensive evidence. An MS. is found which shows that the book has some antiquity. The internal character of the book agrees with the age of the alleged author, and perhaps the whole scope shows that it is ancient production. Thus, an MS. written in the middle ages, and now preserved in the Bibliothèque du Roi at Paris, has been published this year (1851) at Oxford: I know the MS. well; and when M. Emmanuel Miller, of Paris, was copying it for the press, I examined with him several of the passages. Now, the work contained in this MS. belongs undoubtedly to the early part of the third century of our era; critics are not agreed as to the author, but the events to which allusion is made, and the heretical doctrines attacked, are rightly considered to be sufficient evidence as to when the author lived. And so, too, many ancient records may be brought to light which we feel that we can confidently use as historical data. Of what value, otherwise, would be the Assyrian records discovered of late at Nineveh? The circumstance of the discovery and transmission are judged to be sufficient warrant in this case, as well as in that of the Arundelian Marbles, and in other instances.
The transmission of the New Testament books to our times, has been accompanied by circumstances of a far more confirming character. Ancient books have come down to us through MSS., either in the language in which they were originally written, or in translations, or in both. The latter case is true of the New Testament. There now exists MSS. in the original Greek of the New Testament books of every age, from the fourth century inclusive, to the time when they were printed. This is the fullest guarantee to us that these are the identical books to which the chain of witnesses that I adduced, bears testimony. The MSS. also are of importance in the evidence that they bear in favour of those books which Eusebius describes as doubted by some,—for we find no MS. containing a collection of Epistles in which those are rejected which some then controverted. But besides MSS. we have versions;—of these, some, such as the Syriac and old Latin, were made (as is almost certain) in the second century, while in or before the fourth century, there were formed Egyptian versions in the two dialects of upper and lower Egypt, as well as a Gothic translation, and a new one into Latin. Others, such as the Æthiopic and Armenian, were made in a period immediately subsequent. Of the Gothic version we possess but a part; and of the rest all, except the old Syriac, are witnesses for all our New Testament books.
There is not such a mass of transmissional evidence in favour of any classical work. The existing MSS. of Herodotus and Thucidides are modern enough when compared with some of those of the New Testament. Thus every country, into the language of which the New Testament books were translated in early times, is a witness to us of their transmission.
Claims of Rome
But the Church of Rome tells us, “You received the New Testament through our church; it is only through us that you know its genuineness; you admit our evidence as to what is a divine authority, and, therefore, you must own that we have the right to declare to you what God teaches us in Scripture.”
These are high-sounding claims. But, before I question one single fact contained in them, there is a fallacy to be pointed out which deprives the claim of all force.
Rome begs the question as to a very important principle. A plain statement of the case shows this:—
“He who transmits an authoritative document possesses the right to interpret it.
“Rome has transmitted the Scriptures to you.
“Therefore, Rome possesses the right to interpret them to you.
It is only by tacitly assuming the extravagant premise that the Romish argument has a semblance of force.
Similarly we might conclude that the corporation to which I referred just now, had the right to explain its charter if it pleased, that the postman has the right of expounding to us the letters which he delivers, and that the constable possesses the privilege of explaining the meaning of the magistrate’s summons.
This principle, if true, would justify the Jews in their explanations of the Old Testament; so that we must receive as authoritative all that is taught in their traditions—the Mishnah and the Gemara—in spite of what the Lord says to them: “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions.”
But further, it is not true that we receive the Scriptures through the Church of Rome alone. In the witnesses of the first three centuries, you may remember that none, except Clement of Rome, were bishops in that place; so that Romanists can claim not one of these witnesses besides, as a Pope; and as to this Clement, the name of the Pope but ill befits him when he pretends to commission to write authoritatively. He argues instead of dogmatising, and he shows such proofs of human infirmity as must be rather mortifying to an upholder of Papal claims. He even in his simplicity (for a good simple soul he seems to have been) refers to the story of the phœnix as a fact in natural history. Other witnesses supply us with not a little incidental testimony against Romish claims.
But besides Rome as a channel, we also receive the Scriptures through the churches of other lands. The Latin version of the Scriptures was diffused long before Papal claims were advanced, through Italy, North Africa, Gaul, the Spanish Peninsula and Britain. The Oriental Churches have handed down each its own version; and for the original Greek text, we have to thank the Greek Church.
Thus, all these have been so many separate and consenting channels of transmission. So true is it as defined by the “reformers,” that “the Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ.”
Thoroughly do I repudiate the idea of any infallible church, congregation, or body of men. I would not say in anything the Church could not err; but on the plain grounds of testimony, already given, I do state that, in the transmission of the New Testament books, the Church hath not erred.

166-169
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
The Inconsistencies of “Rev.” Infidels
“IN the last century, a band of able but unscrupulous writers appeared, whose object was to get quit of Scripture in toto by exposing its inaccuracies. Bolinbroke, Poland, Chubb, Morgan, worked hard at their self-appointed task of overthrowing “superstition.” Most laboriously did they gather together the supposed absurdities and inconsistencies of Scripture in order to overwhelm the Bible beneath its own rubbish. But the book emerged from this deistical dust unharmed, and for two generations these objections have almost gone out of sight.
They have, however, within these few years been reproduced; and not by men, like those of the last century, philosophers belonging to no church, but by ministers of the “orthodox churches” of the land. These successors of the philosophical deists of a former age have gone over the same ground as their predecessors, and uttered the same accusations against Scripture, though in more reverent words, with this exception, that the old assailants spared the gospels and the words of Christ, whereas their modern imitators have not scrupled to pronounce upon the inaccuracies and improprieties of ‘Him that spake as never man spake.’ In the nature, or rather the extent of inference, the new differ from the old; the latter made use of the supposed inaccuracies to disprove entirely the claims of Scripture; the former merely employ these inconsistencies to set aside its inspiration. But which of the two classes has logic on its side? Clearly that of the deists. If their premisses were correct, their conclusion was irresistible; and to stop short of it, is to give up the whole case. If the Bible be as inaccurate as the ‘reverend’ infidels say it is, then it has no claim upon our confidence or respect; it is then much less inspired than Herodotus, or Plato, or Milton, or David Hume, or Macaulay. We are very far indeed from accusing all the questioners of some of the Bible miracles with entertaining such views; but, by a theory of miracles which assumes the inaccuracy of the Mosaic narrative, they are playing into the hands of the deists and semi-deists, and aiding them in discovering inaccuracies where even they did not expect to find them.”—Eclectic Review.
“J.M.’s” Objections to the Bible
Paragraph No. 5. deals with “the numerical discrepancies of the Bible,” viz., “700 Syrians” in 2 Sam. 10:18, are “7,000” in 1 Chron. 19:18; “700 horsemen” in 2 Sam. 8:4, are “7,000” in 1 Chron. 18:4; “40,000 stalls for horses” in 1 Kings 4:26, are “4,000” in 2 Chron. 9:25; “22 years” in 2 Kings 8:26, are “42” in 2 Chron. 22:2; “the third hour” in Mark 15:25, is “the sixth hour” in John 19:4.
“J.M.” introduces these discrepancies in anything but a bold manner. He refers to the cause of them first, by way of lessening the force of the explanation after he has paraded them. He says “some” of them are “probably due to errors of transcription.” Why “probably?” Is it not manifestly so? If “4,000” in one case had been 25 in another, or 7,000 had been 1,860, the plea for substantial contradiction might have had some standing ground. But in all the cases, except the last, it is only the difference of one figure, and in most of them, a question of a cipher, showing it is a matter of clerical error. The readiness with which such an error might arise will be appreciated by those who know that in Hebrew numeration, the addition of a single perpendicular dash, called a “metheg” (not much larger than a dot), changes units to thousands. Thus the Hebrew letter ן stands for 50, while the same with a dot over it stands for 50,000. In an old MS., the dot might easily become obscured, or sufficiently dimmed to escape the notice of the copyist, and lead to a large difference. Again, many numerals resemble each other, and in the copying of MS. might easily pass one for another. Thus ג stands for 4, ן for 50, ך for 20 and ב 2. י stands for 10, ז for 6 and ו for 7. In most MSS. the numbers are expressed in words; but it has not been always so, and thus an error arising from an obliterated dot, or from careless copying, would be easily perpetuated in words. It is a point on which no stress is laid by scholars. As Tregelles observes in a footnote on p. 38 of his pamphlet on the authenticity of Daniel, “In criticism, it holds good as a sound cannon that difficulties connected with dates and numbers, are not in themselves legitimate grounds for rejecting any document; because transcribers of numbers (just like modern compositors with regard to figures) were more habitually liable to err than in anything else. Few MSS. of any ancient work whatever are wholly free from errors in this particular.”
But, while not laying much stress on them, “J.M.” says these errors “show how largely the human element enters into the composition of the Scriptures and seriously affect their claim to be the Word of God.” The very reverse of this is the truth. The errors are errors of writing and not of composition, and the smallness of their number in such a mass of writing as there is in the Bible shows how very little “the human element” had to do with it, even in the matter of copying.
But why any copying mistakes at all? “J.M.” may enquire. Answer: God is not resposible for the mistakes of man, or to put it into a form directly appropriate to the argument of the objector, the Bible, as originally written by inspired men, is not responsible for the blunders of those who have copied it. But why does not God prevent their blunders? Answer: inspiration was confined to the writers of the Bible; it did not extend to mere copyists. Had God so chosen, He might have laid His hand on every man, in all ages, who set himself to the transcription of the holy oracles, but He has not done so. He has done all that he considered necessary for the object in view, and He is the best judge of this. That the Bible is so complete and so free from error is a marvel suggesting divine supervision to a great extent; but the supervision was not extended to the absolute prevention of transcribers’ mistakes. These mistakes, however, are few and self-evident; and any man who comes to the conclusion that they “seriously affect the claim of the Bible to be the Word of God,” must be predisposed to such a conclusion. Such errors may have been permitted to exercise the minds of the candid lovers of truth, and to cause to stumble the man who prefers to cast the Word of God behind his back.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
In our day Daniel is in many respects one of the most precious books of the Bible. The efforts of unbelief to get rid of it have been laborious and clever. That they are worse than unavailing, that they are strained, childish, absurd, and altogether unfounded, and that no book in the Bible stands commended on stronger grounds of confidence than the book of Daniel, is conclusively shown by Tregelles, the author of the articles on the authenticity of the New Testament. Most readers will be glad to hear the argument, of which we shall from month to month produce the principal portions, for the strengthening and gladdening of the hearts of the faithful. The following is a
First Instalment
“In the third century we find that Porphyry, the Syrian of Bashan, asserted that this book was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees; so that it would be a production, not of Daniel in Babylon, B.C. 507—538, but of some unknown writer subsequent to B.C. 164. The assertions of Porphyry have often been repeated with various modifications; and have of late been circulated in such forms as to render it of some importance to consider the subject pretty fully. Arguments have been advanced by two classes of persons: those who oppose revelation as such, and those that admit the revelation of God in many parts of His Scripture, and yet deny that this book forms a genuine portion of such revelation.
“It is to the latter class, or to those who may encounter their arguments, that I wish first to address myself in the following remarks; for although in many points the argument will apply (as I trust that I may show) to the thorough deniers and opposers of revelation in general, yet if such were the persons especially considered, the primary lines of proof might perhaps be carried to an extent that is needless in the general discussion of the present question. I assume that the New Testament is a divinely-bestowed and authentic communication of God’s will and truth, and that its statements are therefore worthy of reliance. This gives a ground of argument common to all who have not rejected simple and clear results of evidence: some of the other proofs to be advanced will apply equally to objectors in general.3
“At the time when the Lord Jesus Christ taught on this earth amongst his own people, the Jews, that nation possessed a collection of books which they regarded as sacred, believing that they had been given of God to their fathers as an authoritative declaration of His holy will. We know as a fact what these books were: they were the same that we now have in the Old Testament, written (with the exception of the few and short Chaldee portions) in the Hebrew language. In proof of what the sacred books of the Jews were in our Lord’s days, it might suffice to refer to the testimony of Josephus, the contemporary of most of his apostles: that Jewish writer tells us what the Scriptures of his nation were, mentioning how they were divided (according to the then Jewish arrangement) into twenty-two books, of which he gives a particular description; we thus know that they answered to the thirty-nine books as they stand in our division—the Apocrypha forming no part of this collection of sacred writings.”
“If, too, we take the Jews in their dispersions from the days of Titus, we find that, in whatever land they have been located, they have preserved the same collection of books, without addition or rejection, and have maintained their divine authority.”
“When we turn to the New Testament, we find that our Lord and his apostles refer to the Jewish Scriptures as a collection, and that they speak in the strongest manner as to their authority. This is amply proved by the references which they make to the Scripture as a collection, or to the Scriptures as the body of holy writings. Thus, our Lord met his adversaries with a citation, to which he added, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken.’—(John 10:35.) He appealed to the Old Testament in proof of his mission; ‘Search the Scriptures . . they are they which testify of me.’—(John 5:39.) He met the ignorant objections of the Sadducees with, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’—(Matt. 22:29.) He spoke of the Scriptures as so authoritative that they must be fulfilled.—(Matt. 26:54.) So, too, the apostles. St. Paul says, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.”—(Rom. 15:4.) He refers to the Old Testament as consisting of those Holy Scriptures in which Timothy had been instructed, and which, as being God’s revelation, could make wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. These Scriptures were “the oracles of God,” which St. Paul teaches us (Rom. 3:2) were entrusted to the Jews. They were the depositaries of the precious trust, and to know what were the writings contained in the collection, we have only to enquire what they held as such; for the collection is confirmed by all the sanction of our Lord and his apostles. This sanction, be it remembered, is not confined to mere dogmatic statements (though that would have been enough) but it extends also to the habitual use which they make of the statements of the Old Testament, on which they rest as being unquestionable authority. “The Holy Ghost saith’ (Heb. 3:7), is followed by a citation from the 95. Psalm. We are taught in Heb. 10:15, that ‘the Holy Ghost is a witness to us, for after that he had said before,’ and then follow words from the prophecy of Jeremiah.”
“Thus, in direct statement, in allusion, and in practical use, do we find that the Son of God and his inspired servants have confirmed to us the collection of Jewish Scriptures as being possessed of divine authority. If, then, we can show that any particular book formed part of that collection, it will be enough to satisfy fully a Christian enquirer: such an one will not be deterred by difficulties which an objector might raise, for he will know that such difficulties can in no way invalidate the truth of what our Lord has taught. This general ground might suffice with regard to Daniel or any other of the Old Testament books.
“With regard to Daniel, however, we can go yet further in the way of explicit statement. Our Lord in his prophetic discourse to his disciples in Matt. 24., says, ‘When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand).’ (verse 15.) What can be more decisive than this reference? Christ mingles his own predictions with a citation from this book, referring to Daniel by name, and giving him the high designation of prophet. This is authority to us in our use and reception of this book; so that we may, on this ground alone, cast aside every difficulty and objection as things of no weight when compared with the declaration of the Son of God.”
“Beside this explicit statement, we find also in the New Testament frequent and clear allusions to the Book of Daniel. Thus, in the discourse contained in Matt. 24. in which Christ distinctly uses the Book of Daniel, He also (verse 30) speaks of “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven,” and of those who “shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” In this the terms and statements of Dan. 7:13, are adopted so as to embody them as part of our Lord’s teaching. So, too, in verse 21, in mentioning the time of unequalled tribulation, he plainly alluded to Dan. 12:2.
“On what ground did the High Priest and the council charge our Lord with blasphemy? Because of his application of a prophecy of Daniel to himself. Jesus had answered (Matt. 27:64), “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” Jesus and the Sanhedrim alike admitted the authority of the Book of Daniel: only they charged him with blasphemy in saying that he was “the Son of Man,’ of whom these things were written: this they considered to be a sufficient ground for condemning him to death, and on the ground of this application of the passage in Daniel, they did so condemn Him, saying, ‘He is guilty of death;’ and thus they delivered him to Pontius Pilate to be crucified.”
(To be continued.)
210-214
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Creation of Man versus Development
“For my own part, both from a physiological and from a psychological point of view, I consider man widely separated from all the rest of organic life, and this for a great variety of reasons, some of which I will endeavour briefly to explain. Firstly, I assign to man an unique position in nature on account of his great cerebral development, in virtue of which he is enabled to command and to overcome all other animals, notwithstanding that so many possess greater physical power than he enjoys. In comparing the brain of man with those of the highest species of anthropoid apes, we are at once struck with this great and important difference, which, although it may be, and probably is, a difference of degree alone, and not of kind, is, I think, sufficiently great to separate our own from every other known species. In a physiological comparison, too, of man with the apes, we are at once struck with the vertical direction of the face in the former. This you will understand when I tell you that the facial angle of man is usually about 75° to 85°, whereas in the Chimpanzee gorilla and other anthropoid apes, it is not more than 30° to 35°. Some smaller monkeys, it is true, have a facial angle of 60°, but these need not be referred to, as they bear no real resemblance whatever to our own species. Then, again, there is the erect posture of man, which at once disconnects from the Simian family, no species of which genus is able to assume that position without much inconvenience and pain. Nor must I omit to mention that man alone possesses the great and important power of articulation, which, in itself, I think, a sufficiently important reason, even if there were no other, for separating him from the rest of organic life. Dr. Buckner, it is true, contends, that the “tones which apes are accustomed to utter exhibit a close approximation to the lowest primitive forms of human speech.” But when we remember the thousands of different langauges spoken daily by the human race, I think it will require a very great stretch of the imagination to believe that all these have been developed from the hideous howls and yells of monkeys. . . . For these, therefore, and for many other important reasons, I demur altogether to the animal derivation of man; and I accept, in preference, the better known, more rational, more probable, and evidently correct account of the origin and creation of man given us in the book of Genesis. Let me also observe, before passing from this branch of the subject, that if the theory of the animal derivation of man be correct, we ought to be in possession of, at any rate, some remains of the intermediate species between homo and pithecus. Both Darwin and Huxley, and indeed all their followers, admit that there are great and important cerebral and other differences between our species and those most closely resembling it; and, such being the case, we have, I think, a right to ask for some evidences of the “missing link.” Of these there are absolutely none, and as the onus probandi of establishing their case rests with the gentlemen to whom I have referred until they are able to produce some evidences of the “missing link,” we are entitled to believe, supported as our opinion is by most conclusive evidence, that the chain has always been disunited.”—(Lecture by W. SALKELD ADAMS.)
The Bible and the Fossilists
The following amusing yet cogent remarks, are from a New Zealand paper, the Independent Review:—
“Captain Hutton is very strong on the question of Evolution. But before I go the whole hog with the captain I expect him to turn up fossils from the time that man was an oyster—up to his present stage—and to inform me whether he is going to evolve any higher. I will not be too particular, even supposing he has not got all the links; but I do expect that he will show me a fossil-man when he had a very short tail, say two inches, and I shall want to know whether he can inform me about the different tribes of monkeys on the earth at the present time, and whether their tails are likely to drop off under the process of evolution. A gentleman met me on the street the other day, and told me that he was astonished that a man holding extended views on things in general, as I did, should believe in the Inspiration of the Bible! Why, says he, they are finding fossils of man in the pre-Adamite earth. I told him that that was very likely, as the Bible says, that man was told to “multiply and replenish the earth,” showing clearly that there had been a race of people before the present one. Ah! But, says he, look where it says that God gave Noah the rainbow as a sign that he would never flood the earth again; and, says he, there must have been rainbows before, as it is a natural phenomenon arising from the sun shining upon falling rain. I showed him by the Bible that it was impossible there could be any rainbow as there was no rain. “No rain!” says he, “Where do you find that?” I said, “In Genesis 2nd chap., 5th verse, where it says, ‘For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. . . . . But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.’ There was no rain before the flood, therefore there could be no rainbow, the earth being watered with dew. My friend was then going to leave, but I besought him not to be in a hurry, as I would like to enlighten him a bit. “Well,” says he, what do you think of Colenzo’s writings? Do you not think he shows up the Pentateuch properly?” “Yes, I do; but I think he shows up himself more, as he admits the validity of Christ, while at the same time he declares the five books of Moses to be fiction. If he denies the five books to be inspired, he must prove that Christ was an impostor; for the Scriptures of the New Testament say, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them the things concerning himself. Had ye have believed Moses you would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” Therefore, the words suited to Colenzo and his followers are to be found in the words addressed by Jesus to the Jews—‘If ye believe not the writings of Moses, neither would ye believe one though he rose from the dead.’” My friend left, and I have not seen him since.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 170.)
“It is needless to refer in detail to the allusions to the book of Daniel found in many parts of the New Testament; it is sufficient to state this as a fact. . . .
“I should have thought that the statements of our Lord and his apostles were sufficient on these points; they are so, I fully believe, for every simple-minded Christian who rightly reverences their authority. Unhappily, however, such attempts have been made to invalidate this attestation as call for a passing notice. It has been said that our Lord and his apostles did no more in their allusions to Daniel, and in citing him by name, than express themselves according to the current opinion of the day; that they intended no more than a kind of argumentum ad hominem, a addressing the Jews who owned the authority of Daniel, and that their words must be no more rested on in their literal force than those of a philosopher should be, who expressed himself in popular language, and spoke of the sun as rising or setting, words which, in his mouth, would not imply that he believed the sun to move and the earth to be stationary.
Such is the hinted doubt by which some would invalidate the plain statements of the New Testament. I reply, first, that the direct statements of Christ, and the allusions made by him and his apostles go far beyond the use of a current opinion; for the book of Daniel is used as an authority, so as to show what Christ himself regarded it to be. The use of Daniel, so far from being introduced as any mere argumentum ad hominem addressed to unbelieving Jews, is most markedly found when the Lord’s own disciples are the persons addressed—persons whom he had to instruct by truth, not to confute . . . .
Besides, it is of importance to remember that our Lord, so far from accommodating himself to any of the false notions and opinions which were current amongst the Jews, his countrymen, reproved them for the traditions which they had added to the Word of God, and the false opinions which they had introduced. To suppose, then, that He used words which would sanction an opinion of theirs, that Daniel was a prophet, unless this were truly the case, and unless his book were truly divine Scripture, is to introduce a thought utterly at variance with the whole character and course of our Lord’s teaching and actions. How would he have said, “the Scripture cannot be broken,” if he had not only sanctioned others in their use of a spurious book as being Holy Scripture, but had also so used it himself? How could he in that solemn hour, when he was judged before the high priest (in accordance with God’s purpose that one man should die for “the children scattered abroad”), have taken his title and his attributes of glory from this book, unless he had intended his church to be taught and guided by what he then said and did?
“On these definite grounds may we hold fast the book of Daniel as being divinely-inspired Scripture, a book to which our Lord has directed our especial attention, and from which he drew those statements of his divine attributes and (yet unrevealed) glorious kingdom, which were made the grounds of his condemnation by men. This species of absolute proof ought to carry a conviction of absolute certainty to the minds of all who acknowledge the divine authority of the New Testament.
“While these proofs are conclusive, it is at the same time right to show, as a matter of fact, that the opinion that the book of Daniel was written in the Maccabean period is per se untenable. The proofs of this point are to be stated, not as though they could be needed to confirm the conclusions already arrived at on the highest possible authority, but simply to show how far removed are the theories of objectors from the facts of the case, and how such may be refuted even on their own grounds. This may disarm objections: it might lead opposers to see that the only reasonable ground which they can take on such a subject, is the same which has been already reached on the authority of our Lord and his apostles.
“It is certain that at the Christian era the book of Daniel was commonly received by the Jews as the prophecy of God in Babylon, written about five centuries and a half before. Of this the New Testament and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rulers of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blasphemy against our Lord for applying its terms to himself. Had this book been one of doubtful authority or obscure origin, they could not have thus regarded the use which he made of its contents.
“Had the Jews, then, any proofs that this book belonged to a period anterior to the Maccabean? Could this be shown irrespective of the revelation through our Lord Jesus Christ? The Jews most certainly knew that they were the depositaries of the Scripture of God, and thus they would at once have rejected such a notion as that they had added a book, professedly containing divine revelations, to the sacred writings of Moses and the other prophets, when that book, so far from having been written by a prophet in the captivity, was of comparatively modern date. The Jews at the Christian era must have known whether Daniel pertained or not to the Maccabean period; for that age was not so far removed from the time of our Lord as to be sufficient to introduce uncertainty in a matter of such public importance and notoriety, as the introduction and reception of a book as part of the Holy Scriptures. Melancthon thus states the connection of the two periods,—‘Simeon, who embraced Christ as an infant, saw, when a young man, the elders who had seen Judas Maccabæus.’ Had the book of Daniel, then, been a spurious composition of that age, it must have still been well known as a fact.
“But we can go farther back: some time in the interval between the birth of our Lord and the days of Judas and his brethren, was written the first book of Maccabees, which has been transmitted to us in a Greek version. In this we find the prophecy of Daniel used as a well-known and accredited book. In chap. 1:54, the writer says of Antiochus Epiphanes, that ‘he builded the abomination of desolation upon the altar,’—a use of Daniel as manifest as when we read similar words in the New Testament. In chap. 9:27, the writer says, ‘There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them;’ thus using a phrase and thought taken from Daniel 12:1. In various places there are expressions in the Greek of the first book of Maccabees verbally identical with the real 70. of Daniel; for instance, ‘and many shall fall down slain’ (9:40, and elsewhere), is literally found in Dan. 11:26, of that version.
“Thus it is evident that the author of the first book of the Maccabees received Daniel as the inspired writing of the prophet in captivity in Babylon: that he considered that various portions of it were fulfilled in the Maccabean age, is equally certain from the use which he makes of the book; and he clearly expected that these statements which he makes would be received by his readers, the Jews in general. Whatever, then, may be the time in which this author lived, the book of Daniel had previously obtained its currency as an accredited book.
“If it had been a forgery of the days of the Maccabees, intended to encourage the Jews in their contentions with the Seleucidæ, would not this author have been aware of the fact? He shows a close acquaintance with the events which he records, and even speaks of some of them so much in the way of allusion and mere indication, as to presuppose that, in the age in which he wrote, the events were yet familiar. And so they well might be, for when did this author live? He carries on the history to the death of Simon, the last-surviving brother of Judas Maccabeus, B.C. 135; and then alludes to some of the actions of his son and successor, John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135–107, referring for the rest to the book of his high-priesthood. Hence it seems as if John Hyrcanus was still alive when this author wrote, otherwise some allusion to his death and successor might have been expected3 We may thus, I believe, regard this book as older than B.C. 107. Those who think it more recent, consider that it was but a little subsequent to the death of John Hyrcanus; so that even on that supposition it belongs to a period but little removed from the Maccabean wars which it records.
“Judas Maccabæus purged the temple and instituted the Feast of Dedication (which our Lord vouchsafed to observe), B.C. 165—that is but fifty-eight years prior to the death of John Hyrcanus. Simon, the survivor of the brethren, died B.C. 135, which leaves an interval of but twenty-eight years on to the time of the death of his son. Thus, if the book of Daniel were a Maccabean forgery, it must have been written but fifty-eight years, at the utmost, before the death of John Hyrcanus; and must have come into general use and reception within twenty-eight years of the death of the last of those brethren while his son and other contemporaries were yet alive.
“All this would present many difficulties to be solved, even if it were supported by evidence, which it is not. We should have to suppose that the Jews were exceedingly lax and careless as to what books they received as authoritative Scripture, whereas the fact was notoriously the reverse; it was because of their adherence to Scripture that they suffered under the persecution of Antiochus. We should have to explain how the Jews in Jerusalem were persuaded by some unknown author that this book which he had written was an ancient work, and how it could have been thus introduced to their attention. There would be other difficulties behind; for there were still Jews in Babylonia (as well as in other countries) with whom those of the Holy Land had intercourse as we see in Josephus) from time to time; how could they be brought to receive this book as an ancient prophecy if it had indeed been a recent forgery.”

267-272
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets. hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Bible History Confirmed by the Monuments of Egypt
“The monumental history of Egypt illustrates that of the Bible; first of all, in the fact that whenever the sacred writers give the name of an Egyptian King, there is found in the native records of the period indicated a prince bearing the appellation. Shishak, Zera, Tirhakah, Necko, Hophra occur, according to the Hebrew annals, especially where Sheshouk, Osorko, Shebak, Tehrah, Neku, Naphra are placed by the Egyptians. Each of these names belong to one epoch and to one only, and each is found exactly at the period where the sacred penman places it. Again, when Egypt appears, by the native annals, to be suffering depression at the hands of a foreign Power, the sacred narrative, if it deals with Egypt at all, shows the same fact of depression, and indicates the temporary predominance of the same foreign influence. Thus the Ethiopian predominance, in the latter portion of the eighth century, B.C., and the beginning of the seventh, is strongly marked in Isaiah (chaps. 18. and 20.), and noticed to some extent in the Second Book of Kings. Sennacherib, when he invades Egypt, has for an adversary, not a native Egyptian, but ‘Tirhakah, King of the Ethiopians,’ the Tehrak of the hieroglyphics, and the Tarrae-as of the native historian, Manetho, whose nationality is distinctly declared by both these authorities to be Ethiopian. Thirdly, in one instance, where the Holy Land itself was the scene of an Egyptian expedition, the monuments contain a distinct notice of the fact, and add to what is told us in Scripture some very interesting particulars. Shishak, we learn from Chronicles, ‘came up against Jerusalem with 1200 chariots and threescore thousand horsemen,’ and ‘took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and came to Jerusalem.’ And Rehoboam ‘humbled himself’ and became Shishak’s ‘servant,’ and gave him the treasures of the temple and the treasures of his own palace, and Shishak carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.’—(2 Chron. 12:2–9.) Now, we find at Karnak, in Egypt, that this very King Sheshouk set up after his expedition an inscription, in which he commemorated the submission of the king (or kingdom) of Judah, and also recorded the capture of a number of ‘fenced cities’ of Judah and Israel, as many as fifty or sixty being particularised. It is curious to find that these cities are not all of them in the Southern Kingdom. Some of them are most certainly within the territories of Jeroboam, who was Shishak’s creature (1 Kings 11:40) and ally. It seemed strange that Shishak should have taken these cities until it was observed that they all belonged to one of two classes—either they were Levitical, or else they were cities the population of which was Canaanite. We can easily understand that the Levitical cities would be hostile to a king who had ‘cast the Levites off from executing the priest’s office’ (2 Chr. 11:14), and that the Canaanite cities may, under the circumstances of time, have reasserted their independence. Thus it would seem to have been Shishak’s aim to strengthen Jeroboam in two ways—1, by weakening Rehoboam, his enemy; and 2, by putting down all opposition to him within the limits of the Ten Tribes, and placing him in quiet possession of the whole kingdom. Such are the chief of the clear and direct historical illustrations of Scripture contained in the Egyptian records. It is, perhaps, to some of you disappointing to find that they are so few. No doubt it would have been highly interesting to have discovered among the inscriptions a notice of the visit of Abraham to the first Pharoah mentioned in the Bible, or an account of the arrival of Jacob and his family in Egypt, or a recognition of the high position of Joseph or of Moses, or clear evidence of the servitude of the Israelites under the ‘king who knew not Joseph,’ or a description of the Exodus and of the destruction of the Egyptian host in the Red Sea. And there have not been wanting among archæologists some sanguine and less critical spirits who have persuaded themselves, and endeavoured to persuade others, that some of these events are either described in the Egyptian monuments or represented. But calm and cool criticism, inexorable as fate, and not to be tempted to swerve an inch from the strict line of the most probable by any leaning towards the interesting or the desirable, lays it down that in the Egyptian records none of these events obtain mention, though some of them may obtain illustration from events which are represented or recorded.”—Canon Rawlinson.
J.M.’s Objections to the Bible
Turning from the subject of numerical discrepancies, J. M. in paragraph 6. says a word on the subject of the genealogies. He professes to have expected “simplicity and harmony” “in a subject like this.” This shows that he is rather more simple himself than he may suspect he is, for if there is one subject with which common experience shows there is a natural facility for the development of complexity and apparent inconsistency, it is the subject of genealogical relation and descent. A boy has a father who dies: the boy’s mother marries again—a man it may be of the same name but no connection. The second husband gets called “father” and is known for forty years after in the family in that character. The boy not liking his second father, runs away and gets adopted by a third, whom he calls father. The boy grown to a man emigrates. His real father’s brother has also emigrated and dies in the colony without relatives, intestate. The son puts in a claim for the property. His history is enquired into. People knowing the son at different stages, give conflicting accounts—some know him as the son of one man, another as the son of the second, and third as the son of still another. Judges like “J. M.” would dismiss the claim, remarking that “in a subject like this,” they would have expected “simplicity and harmony.”
“J. M.” in the genealogies, finds “a series of intricate puzzles,” which, not being able to solve, he concludes are evidence of the falsity of the claim of the Scriptures to the word of God. The puzzles exist doubtless, but their existence rather proves than disproves the Bible, for it is the characteristic of truth to be sometimes apparently inconsistent, while falsehood carefully strives to preserve the appearance of consistency. Thus a man arriving in Birmingham, says, “I have just come from London.” A fellow traveller says, behind his back, “Why, I came into the train when at Stafford, and I saw the fellow in the town there at a review two hours before the train started.” Afterwards, the man himself says to a third party, “I was at Stafford to-day and saw the review.” Without explanation, there is an appearance of inconsistency in the story, due to its artless truthfulness; for it turns out that the man came by express from London, but got into the wrong part of the train, and was taken to Stafford, where he had to wait over two hours for a train to Birmingham, and filled up the time by sauntering out of the town to where a review was going on. A man pretending to have come from London would have carefully abstained from all allusion to any other place.
Two discrepant accounts of a matter, both shown by other considerations to be true, must be capable of reconciliation. But some people are not capable of effecting the reconciliation, and like “J. M.” they prefer the easier method of throwing overboard the whole matter as an imposition, especially when they have a bias against the Bible; for the rejection of the Bible leaves a man free to live for himself in the present world, which all the natural instincts incline a man to do.
The “intricate puzzles” to which “J. M.” alludes are all capable of solution and have been solved (see Christadelphian for Decr. 1872) except the one he cites, which is not a “simple example” of the rest, as he calls it, but an exception altogether, standing by itself in this peculiarity, that it is due to the difference existing between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint. The Septuagint version differs from the original Hebrew in the genealogies, from the circumstance, doubtless, that the translators (uninspired patriotic Jews) doing their work in Egypt, which boasted mythically a great genealogical antiquity, desired to represent the Jewish archives as reaching further back than they did, so as to compare more respectably with Egyptian antiquities. Among the discrepancies due to this cause is the insertion of a generation (Cainan) between Arphaxad and Sala, not found in the Hebrew Scriptures.—(Gen. 11:12.) This addition appears in Luke, thus: “Sala who was the son of Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxed.”—(Luke 3:46.) This is what “J. M.” lays hold of. The question is, how came this addition into Luke? “J. M.” cares not to enquire. It is sufficient for him that it is there. But this is not enough for a mind perceiving how entirely the truth of the Bible is otherwise provided. In the absence of positive knowledge, we can only suggest, and a feasible suggestion it is, that it was added by some transcriber of Luke who only had the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in his possession, and who, on comparing Luke’s list with that in Gen. 11. concluded that Luke had made an omission. We may not know how that addition occurred, but it must have occurred in some way not inconsistent with Luke’s inspiration, because inspiration is proved conclusively on independent grounds.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 215.)
“The continued dissensions of the Pharisees and Sadducees sprung up in the days of John Hyrcanus (if not before): this division among the Jews was a guarantee against either party introducing any new book as a part of Holy Scripture. If it were proved that the Sadducees received only the Pentateuch as authoritative, still they would have been a check on the Pharisees, if they had wished to add any fresh book of prophecy, which (on the Maccabean theory) Daniel would have been.
“All the Maccabean theory of the origin of Daniel seems to me to arise from the notion that that age, and the period immediately succeeding, are times of which we know so little, that anything might then have occurred without our being able to prove the contrary. But, in truth, we know the history of the Maccabean age with particular exactness; and what we know happens to supply distinct evidence on the very point in question. How can we imagine that within twenty-eight years (probably but half so long) all memory of facts was so utterly effaced, that a recent book passed current as an ancient prophecy?
“We may well ask, How could this be? and especially so, when we remember what pains the Jews have taken to preserve in the Feast of Dedication the memory of the Maccabean deliverance. This feast connects the Jew of the present day with the deeds of Judas: how much more must it have done this while there were yet living the elders, in whose days these things had been wrought? The thanksgiving used still in this feast by the Jews appears itself to be a production of that very age; for it contains the expression, ‘Thou hast wrought for Thy people Israel, great salvation and deliverance, as it is this day,’—words only fitting a time when the fruits of the Maccabean struggle were still enjoyed by the people of the Jews as mercies in all their freshness.
“Thus the notion that the Maccabean period was one of such uncertainty, and that its events were so little remembered, that a spurious book might easily be received as genuine, is singularly at variance with the facts of the case. It was an epoch to which peculiar attention was directed, both at the time and in later ages. And be it remembered, that the period alleged to be so obscure, in which the book of Daniel was (according to the suppositions brought forward) introduced into general use, is limited to the sovereignty and high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus,—a period not greater than that from the death of Napoleon, at St. Helena, to the time when the supreme power in France had passed into the hands of his nephew. A comparison of this period with a similar space of time in our own days, makes us feel the futility of imagining that so small an interval was enough to envelope such a notorious fact as the reception or non-reception of a book of Scripture in obscurity.
“Thus the first book of Maccabees is evidence to us of the completest kind, that the book of Daniel was, in the Maccabean age itself, received and used as being what it professed,—an authoritative revelation given to the prophet of God in Babylon.
“But we can go yet farther: the first book of Maccabees recognises the existence and common knowledge of the book of Daniel prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the re-cleansing of the Temple. In chap. 2., it speaks of the death of Mattathias, the father of Judas and his brethren, and how in that hour he gave a charge to his sons to be zealous for the Law of God: in doing this, he draws examples from the saints of the Old Testament,—Abraham, Joseph, Phinehas their ancestor, Joshua, Caleb, David and Elijah who was zealous for the law, and was received up into Heaven. He then continues—‘Ananias, Azarias, Misael, believing, were saved from the flame: Daniel in his simplicity was delivered from the mouth of the lions. And thus understand in every generation, that all who hope in Him shall not be feeble. And fear ye not the words of a sinful man; for his glory is for the dunghill and for worms. To-day he shall arise, and to-morrow he shall not be found; for he shall return to his dust, and his thought perisheth.’—(ver. 59–63.)
“It may be said that we have no certainty that the writer of this book has faithfully recorded the speech of the dying Mattathias: he may have put expressions into the mouth of the Asmonean patriarch, according to his own notions of the historical examples which might be suitably brought forward under the circumstances. Let this objection have its full weight; and even then we see that the author of the book considered that, in B.C. 166 (not more than sixty years before he wrote), Daniel was a book of Scripture so well known, that examples might be taken from it to conclude a list which began with Genesis. He never would have put into the mouth of the dying priest sentiments and allusions altogether incongruous, and which must have been known to be such by those for whom he wrote.
“It is, however, difficult to suppose that the speech of Mattathias is the invention of the author of the book: it is characterised by that gravity and sobriety of statement which seem to mark it as real history; and this narrative was written, be it remembered, in the days of the grandson of the Asmonean patriarch.
“Thus the first book of Maccabees supplies simple evidence that the prophecy of Daniel was a well-known and accredited document prior to the Maccabean days in which some would place it. This might be considered as enough evidence: in common cases, if we find that a document has been accredited for being what it professes, so long, that memory or record can testify nothing to the contrary, then the document is received as bearing evidence of its own origin.
“Did the Jews, prior to the Maccabean age, receive books which professed to contain Holy Scripture lightly and unadvisedly? Let the persecution of Antiochus, during which they so clave to the law of Moses, bear witness to their adherence to their own Scriptures: let their conduct wherever found, in their dispersions, attest the same thing. They hold fast, and have held fast, the same collection of sacred books, to which they have added no others, even though they have introduced so many disfiguring traditions.
“The book of Daniel professes to be written by Daniel in the captivity; it contains the mention of events which, if true, must have been of public notoriety amongst all the Jews in Babylon. Did they accredit Daniel as a prophet, and did they receive his book as a divine prophecy? If they did, then there is an end of the whole matter. But if the reception of the book of Daniel was a later thing, how did it take place? Was it first known and received by the Jews of Jerusalem, at an age subsequent to that of the prophet? If so, how did the Jews of the dispersions regard it? Did those of Babylonia condemn it or attest it? With Babylonia the returned exiles had habitual intercourse for ages;2 and Jews of that region had much to do (as we see in the cases of Ezra and Nehemiah) with the reforms carried on amongst the returned Jews. Thus, if the book were first received in Babylon, it must have been by those who would at once check any forgery in the matter; if in Jerusalem, then the Babylonian Jews would have been witnesses for or against its claims.
“But, in fact, this leads the inquiry to the common grounds on which we prove the transmission of all ancient books or ancient monuments whatever. If any book is spoken of in the first place where it is mentioned as a known and authentic writing, the presumption is always considered to be in its favour, even though there is no prior proof of its existence. This presumption is considerably strengthened if the writing is mentioned as well known, and especially if it is spoken of under circumstances which incidentally prove this to be the case. A further corroboration is afforded if it is not the property of any individual merely, but of a community who guard it as an authoritative document: we then possess that sort of external evidence which leads us to examine the writing itself, and to see by whom it professes to be written, and when.
“Having done this, if we find that it claims to proceed from an author, who would, from the circumstances of the case, be well known by the community who possess the writing, we have reasonable grounds for receiving it as being what it claims to be. The burden of proof, then, rests wholly on those who deny the authenticity.”


310-315
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Further Confirmation of the Bible From Egyptian Sources
“We have now to observe the indirect confirmation of the Scripture History which is furnished by its harmony with what the (monumental) records tell us of Egyptian manners, customs, habits, modes of action, natural products, character and condition of art and the like. The representation of Egypt in the latter part of Genesis and in Exodus is so full and copious, and the facts which are laid down with respect to Egypt and the Egyptians are so numerous, as to render this portion of the Pentateuch a crucial test of the trustworthiness of the historian, who, if either careless or ignorant, could not have failed to betray himself by coming in collision with well-known facts, and who, if his words are in harmony with all such facts, establishes a just claim upon our attention, as one who wrote at the time whereof he gives the history, who was observant, and who aimed at stating the exact truth. The writer shows us Egypt under a settled monarchy. The king bears the title of Pharaoh. He is absolute or nearly so, committing men to prison and releasing them, or if he please, ordering their execution; appointing officers over the whole land, and taxing it apparently at his pleasure; raising a foreigner suddenly to the second position in the kingdom, and requiring all, without exception, to render him obedience. At the same time, the king has counsellors or ministers, “elders of his house” (Gen. 1:7) and others, whose advice he asks, and without whose sanction he does not seem to act in important matters. His court is organised after the fashion of later Oriental monarchies. He has a bodyguard under a “captain,” one of whose chief duties is to execute the sentences which he pronounces upon offenders. He has a train of confectioners, at the head of whom is a “chief confectioner” (Gen. 40:2), and a train of cup-bearers, at the head of whom is a “chief cupbearer.” (Ibid.) He rides in a chariot, and all men bow the knee before him (41:43.) The state of Egypt is one of somewhat advanced civilisation. There is also a class of “magicians” or “sacred scribes” (41:8), who may be either a sub-division of the priests or else may form a distinct profession. The name given to the class (scribes) implies that writing is practised. Among other indications of advance in civilisation are the mention of fine linen as worn by some (41:42) of a golden neck chain (ib.) a silver drinking-cup (44:2), wagons (45:21), chariots (50:9), a coffin or mummy case (ib.:26), and the practice of embalming. Among special peculiarities are (1) the position of the priests which is evidently very exalted (41:45), and more particularly their privilege with respect to their lands, which they hold by a different tenure from the rest of the people (47:22; (2) the existence of customs implying strong feelings with respect to purity and impurity, and a great dread of material defilement (43:32); (3) a special dislike or contempt for the occupation of herdsmen; and (4) a greater liberty with respect to the intermixture of the sexes than is common with Orientals. Other noticeable points are the great fertility of the soil; the cultivation in spring of the following crops, chiefly wheat, barley, flax, and rye or spelt (Ex. 9:32); the keeping of cattle, partly in the fields, partly in stables (ib.:3, 19); the storing of water in vessels of wood and stone (7:19); the existence of numerous granaries (Gen. 41:56); the use of the papyrus for boats (Ex. 2:3); the practice of carrying burthens upon the head (Gen. 40:16); the employment by the monarch of a signet ring (41:42); the importation of spices from Arabia (27:25); the washing of guests’ feet (43:24); the practice of sitting at meals (ib.: 38); the use of furnaces, ovens, kneading troughs, walking-sticks, hand mills, bitumen, and pitch. Now it is not too much to say that in this entire description there is not a single feature which is out of harmony with what we know of the Egypt of this remote period from the monuments. The power and grandeur of the king is absolutely proved by them. His authority is absolute; he enacts laws, imposes taxes, administers justice, executes or pardons offenders at his pleasure. He has a body guard, which is constantly seen on the sculptures, in close attendance upon his person. He is assisted in the management of state affairs by the advice of a council, consisting of the most able and distinguished members of the priestly order. His court is magnificent, and comprises various grand functionaries, whose tombs are among the most splendid of the early remains of Egyptian art. When he left his palace for any purpose, he invariably rode in a chariot. His subjects, wherever he appeared, bowed down or prostrated themselves. With respect to the early civilisation of Egypt, it is especially noted by those conversant with the subject, that the earliest sculptures extant, which can scarcely be later than B.C. 2400 or 2300, contain traces of a progress and advance which are most striking, and indeed surprising. The representations on one of the earliest are said by M. Lenormant to show the civilisation of Egypt as completely developed and organised as it was at the Persian or even at the Macedonian conquests, with every indication of a long anterior existence (Manual, vol, 1. p. 334). ‘In the tombs of the Pyramid period,’ says Sir Gardner Wilkinson, ‘are represented the fishing and fowling scenes as in latter times; the rearing of cattle and wild animals of the desert; the scribes using the same kind of reed for writing on the papyrus; the same boats; the same modes of preparing for the entertainment of guests; the same introduction of music and dancing; the same trades, as glass-blowers, cabinet makers, and others; as well as the same agricultural scenes, implements, and granaries.’—(Rawlinson’s Herodotus, ii. p. 29.) The monuments of this early time distinctly show the practice of writing, the distinction of classes or castes, the degradation of shepherds, the peculiar dignity of the priests, the practice of embalming and of burying in wooden coffins or mummy cases; the manufacture and use of linen garments; the wearing of gold chains; the employment of hand-mills, of furnaces, ovens, and kneading pans; the common practice of carrying staves or walking-sticks; the storing of water in vessels of wood and stone; the practice of making boats out of papyrus; the use of pitch and bitumen, and almost all the other points of the Mosaic description.”—Canon Rawlinson.
“J.M.’S” Objections to the Bible
“J.M.’S” next objection relates to the book of Ecclesiastes. He was led to have some doubt, he says, “whether the writer of it had any certain belief in a future state.” Why should he doubt this in view of the abundant evidence of Solomon’s belief on this point in the Proverbs, even if Ecclesiastes afforded no evidence on the point, which it does? Perhaps he doubts if Solomon were the writer. He does not make himself clear on this point. If he does doubt the writer’s identity with Solomon he is not a reasonable man, for the decisive authority in such a matter (the consent for twenty-eight centuries of the people among whom it was produced), attributes it to him; and the man who in such a matter sets himself against evidence of this sort, is either an ignoramus or one of those gentlemen of whom Solomon in the Proverbs says, “there is more hope of a fool than of him.” But even if it were not so certain, as it is, that Solomon was “the writer” of the Ecclesiastes, there still would be no room to doubt “the writer’s” belief in a future state, in view of the last ten verses of the book, in which he expressly gives what he calls “the conclusion of the whole matter.” “Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work unto judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil.” How can it be doubted that this refers to “future” judgment? Did no responsible Jew under the law, die with “secret things” unjudged—good and evil? Nay, did not all die with such “secret things?” How then could the writer speak of “every secret thing” being brought unto judgment if he did not entertain “a belief in a future state?” To make the statement refer to “punishment in the present life” is manifestly absurd in view of the fact that “the present life” passes away with many “secret things” undisclosed and unrectified. True, that many of the responsibilities contracted under the law of Moses were discharged by penalties in the present life; but concurrently with these, there was a higher relation to God (even of faith), and higher actions, good and evil, which could only have their issue in the “future state” more clearly exhibited afterwards in the teachings of Christ.
“J. M.” makes it an objection that the writer of Ecclesiastes cautions men against being “righteous overmuch or overmuch wicked.” There seems a little peculiarity in this at first sight, but it disappears when we realise that the book was written for the guidance of Israel in days pertaining to their life as a nation occupying the land of Jehovah under the law; and secondly, that its lessons are applicable even to our circumstances. As to Israel, all were citizens alike who were circumcised, and to both classes,—the offenders and observers alike,—Solomon has a word of advice. The transgressor he reminds that wickedness shortens life, besides exposing the transgressor to the condemnation of the law. On the other hand, the righteous are informed that it is possible to be abnormally scrupulous, and too much concerned about the right and reason of things, with a like result of self-destruction. So far from this two-fold admonition affording a ground of objection to Ecclesiastes, it shows the perfect good sense of the spirit which prompted its production. The possibility of running into sensitive extremes in the desire to do right is exemplified in actual experience, and that this extreme should be discouraged in the book enjoining righteousness is a fact that will never be used against it except by hypercritics, whose knowledge of wisdom is limited to an acquaintance with the moral philosophy of the schools. There is, however, very little proneness in human nature to extreme in the direction of righteousness. It is the rare exception. Consequently, it is an extreme of which the Bible takes notice in only one instance, and that the instance in question. Where there is only one caution of this sort, there are thousands inculcating the study and practice of righteousness, a proportion of one to the other which practically corresponds to the needs of human nature.
It is a libel on Ecclesiastes on the part of “J.M.” to represent it as teaching, that the best thing for a man do is to “enjoy the present.” True, he does not broach this idea positively. He qualifies his suggestion by the phrase “it almost seems to teach” such a thing. Still, like most non-committal writers, he manages to convey the idea that he only refers to as an appearance. He justifies the suggestion by quoting the words of Solomon: “there is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink and that his soul should enjoy good in his labour.” But there is no necessary parallel between the idea contained in these words and the notion conventionally expressed in the phrase “enjoying the present.” “Enjoying the present” means gratification without reference to right or wrong or future responsibility, as in the case of pleasure followers who constitute the present evil world; whereas “enjoying good” in the sense of Solomon’s words, is to enjoy what God has appointed, subject to His regulations. This is evident throughout the whole of Ecclesiastes. Chapter 9:7, exhibits the feature distinctly: “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy person.” And again at the close of the book “fear God and keep His commandments.”—(Chap. 12:13.) The enjoyment of God’s bounties in the forms and relations in which His law permits them, is undoubtedly the “portion” which God gives a man in so far as the present life is concerned. This feature is not confined to Ecclesiastes, nor to the old Testament. Paul says of these bounties that “God hath created them to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”—(1 Tim. 4:4.) And again, “God giveth us richly all things to enjoy.”—(1 Tim. 6:17.) Other illustrations might be quoted: there is no inconsistency between this feature of scriptural teaching and that which represents the saints as strangers and pilgrims in an evil world, whose pleasures they are to deny themselves. The world is one thing and God’s creature bounties another; so the pleasures which a godless generation invent for themselves are distinct from the enjoyments which God has associated with the healthy and legitimate use of His own appointments.
Solomon’s words are only out of harmony with the rest of the Bible in the estimation of those who cannot discriminate between things which differ. It is good for a man to enjoy what God has given him, when God accepteth his person in the way of righteousness. Solomon enjoins this in contrast with the man who misses the good that God has placed within his reach through worry about things beyond his control, and a morbid scrupulosity in the direction of righteousness which disregards and violates the dictates of true wisdom. That Ecclesiastes should contain such an injunction is a fact in its favour with all truly reasonable men, who have no difficulty in seeing a little deeper than superficial critics of the stamp of “J. M.”
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 272.)
“The book of Daniel was received (as I have shown) in the Maccabean age, as a writing previously received, well known, and accredited; the persons in whose hands it was, were the Jews at large, who must have known that the appeals made in the first book of Maccabees, were to a publicly-accredited book of Scripture. Thus, in the proper custody, there was this book in existence, which must, according to all principles of historic proof, be admitted to give its own testimony, quantum valeat. It professes to be written by a prophet in Babylon, whose mission was connected with remarkable miracles: the community which received this book must have known from whence it came into their hands, and thus they must have known whether it possessed claims on their attention or not. And if no point of time can be assigned as that at which the Jews first received the book of this prophet posterior to his own age, we must embrace the conclusion that from his own time and onward they had always possessed it.
“An ancient monument must always be allowed to speak for itself: if proof be required that it is ancient, let that be given, and then let the monument be listened to as to all that it has to say of its own origin; it is thus that we obtain many valuable points of historic evidence.
“Thus, the inscription on the arch of Titus is,—
SENATVS
POPVLVSQVE.
ROMANVS DIVO.TITO.
DIVI. VESPASIANI. F.
VESPASIANO.
AUGUSTO.
And it is of deep interest to us, connected as it is with the destruction of Jerusalem and with the carrying away of the holy vessels of the Temple, depicted on the edifice. We do not raise any question about fraud or deception; we receive the evidence as trustworthy. We might find difficulty in proving that this arch is that erected in honour of Titus, in the same way that we might prove a contemporary event; but we take the inscription itself, standing on a public edifice, as proof of the fact;—and a good proof it is, not only as carrying moral conviction, but even as legal evidence.
“If this is the case with regard to works previously unknown, how much more must it be so as to a writing received and possessed by a community? The tradition or transmission of a book which professes to be by a certain author, and which does not come forth to light from a secret hiding place, but, at the first point at which it is mentioned in extant documents, was well and widely known, is the strongest evidence which the case admits, that the book is true in its profession,—that it is in fact the work of the author whose name it bears. To reject this testimony would be to adopt the wildest scepticism, and that with regard not only to Scripture, but also all the literary remains of antiquity. The argument may be summed up in a few words; books exist, professing to be the works of certain authors; they have been transmitted as such from ancient days; and thus the profession must either be true, or thus we should have to account both for the existence of the books, and also for the false opinions which have obtained currency respecting them. We might as well doubt the genuineness of ancient inscribed edifices, as of books thus transmitted, which carry on their own face a certificate of their origin.
“Thus may we take our stand at the Maccabean age, and look backward at the transmission of the book of Daniel. If not genuine, was it forged in the age immediately subsequent to that to which it professes to belong? If so, there were contemporary witnesses to prevent its reception by disproving its claims. Or, was it introduced in a later age? Then it would have been impossible for the perpetrators of the fraud (if such a word may be used here even hypothetically), to dissuade the Jews alike of Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria, that this had been one of their sacred books from the time of Zerubbabel and the building of the second Temple.
“When a book, at a given time, is proved to have been regarded as the work of a certain author, or as possessed of a great antiquity, otherwise undefined, we must look at its own claims, which in such circumstances possess a primary weight of evidence, just like that of a monumental inscription.
“Thus the profession of the author of the book that he was Daniel—a prophet in the Babylonish captivity—is primâ facie proof that this is the fact; the onus probandi may be fairly thrown on those who would deny it. If this be not admitted, then we shall be guilty of treating this book (well known by a community scattered through many lands), with less consideration than we bestow upon writings of whose origin and early reception we know scarcely anything.
“He who would disprove the evidence of the author of the book, must either do so on internal grounds (and those of not mere surmise, but of a positive character), or else he must show that in some marvellous manner the Jews were led to accredit this book with its professed authorship and its exalted claims.
“This is not a case like that of the book in the Apocrypha, called Baruch; which, although professing to be by Baruch, the companion of Jeremiah, never was accredited as such by the Jews, and can be proved not to be such, on internal and unquestionable grounds. So that the same principles of transmissive evidence enable us to sift the claims which the inscribed title of a work may advance, and to accept or reject them as may be needful in arriving at the truth.”


360-366
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
So-Called “Spontaneous Generation”
THE scientific men would like to account for the universe without the Possessor of heaven and earth, who declared to Israel that He formed all things by His wisdom and sustains them by His power. They have therefore invented the notion of “spontaneous generation.” The notion is that organic life comes of itself, as a spontaneous development of abstract force—first in a simple cellular form in both the animal and vegetable departments; from which more complex forms are developed under the influence of surrounding circumstances. The notion has now been made the subject of scientific test, with a result which shows that nature herself excludes it. We are indebted to a correspondent, for a newspaper clipping, which conveys the following information: “Professor Tyndal has spent another year over arduous and experimental examination of the facts that bear upon the theory of spontaneous generation, and on Friday night last communicated the results to the members of the Royal Institution. The sum of these results is, in his own words, that ‘from the beginning to the end of the inquiry there is not a shadow of evidence in favour of the doctrines of spontaneous generation. There is, on the contrary, overwhelming evidence against it.’ By exhaustive examination, he finds himself led ‘inexorably to the conclusion that in the lowest as in the highest of organised creatures, the method of nature is that life shall be the issue of antecedent life.’ Twelve months ago he had experimented with animal and vegetable infusions which had been boiled for five minutes, and which, on being subsequently exposed to air free from all floating matter, were found incapable of developing either the bacterial or the fungoid life of which putrefaction consists. The experiment was repeated hundreds of times, and always with the same result. In autumn similar experiments had a very different issue. Then the same organic liquids previously experimented on, after three times as much boiling, were found to fill up with the organisms of putrefaction. A superficial judgment might have regarded the latter experiments as throwing doubt on the earlier. By careful examination Professor Tyndal satisfied himself that the laboratory of the Royal Institution, in which the second series of experiments was conducted, had become infected by a virulently putrefactive atmosphere. He thereupon betook himself to the laboratory in the pure atmosphere of Kew Gardens. There the experiments that had failed in the polluted atmosphere produced again the original results—liquids which had filled themselves with putrefactive organisms after three hours’ boiling at the Royal Institution laboratory, were found to be perfectly sterilised after five minutes’ boiling at Kew. The premises at the Royal Institution having been thoroughly disinfected, the original results were afterwards obtained there.”
Assyrian Confirmation of Bible History
“I must pass now from Africa to Asia—from the kingdom of the Pharaohs to those still mightier monarchies which rose up on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates at a date not much later than the rise of Egypt, and which exercised for many centuries a still wider sovereignty.
The earliest illustration which the Babylonian records furnish to the scriptural narrative is to be found in that curious series of tablets known as ‘the Izdubar Legends,’ discovered and deciphered chiefly by my friend, Mr. G. Smith of the British Museum. These tablets give the Babylonian account of the deluge. . . .
Its resemblance to the Biblical narrative is striking; yet neither has the appearance of having been drawn from the other; and the most rational conclusion is that they are independent accounts of a real event in human history, of which the ancestors of both nations had experience. The next event in Bible history which the Assyrian records illustrate is the invasion of Palestine in the lifetime of Abraham by a powerful monarch who bore sway over Lower Mesopotamia, but whose proper country was the still more remote Elam, or the tract east of the Lower Tigris, between its course and the mountains. It is surprising to find that at this early date military expeditions could reach so far, and it is at first sight strange that a power so little known as Elam should have been the chief invader. The early Babylonian inscriptions, however, show that Elam did at a remote period exercise authority over Lower Mesopotamia, and that monarchs of Elamitic race did carry their arms into Syria. From the time of Abraham we must pass at a bound to that of Ahaz, the next period at which the Assyrian annals directly illustrate the narrative of Scripture. Scripture relates that Ahaz, being threatened with destruction by his northern neighbours, Samaria, which was under Pekah, and Damascus, which was ruled by Rezin, sent to a king of Assyria named Tiglath-pileser, and having accepted the position of a tributary, called on him for aid against his adversaries. The Assyrian monarch responded to the call, went up against the confederate monarchs, shattered the alliance, took Damascus, carried its people into captivity, and slew Rezin (2 Kings 16:5–9). Similarly, Tiglath-pileser tells us that from his 12th to the 14th year he carried on a war in Southern Syria and Palestine with Pekah, King of Samaria, and Rezin, monarch of Damascus, who were confederated together, that he besieged Rezin in his capital for two years, and finally took it, after which he put Rezin himself to death, and carried away captive vast numbers of his subjects. Ahaz he does not mention in this place; but elsewhere he states that before quitting Syria he held his court at Damascus, and summoned the neighbouring monarchs before him to make submission, and give tribute; and that among them came, not only Pekah of Samaria, but also Yahu-Khazi (whom I believe to have been Ahaz), King of Judah. You will not have forgotten the account in Scripture of Ahaz visiting Tiglath pileser at Damascus, and sending to Jerusalem the pattern of an idolatrous altar, which he commanded Urijah, the high priest, to set up in the temple. The successor of Tiglath-pileser on the throne of Assyria was according to the inscription Shalmaneser; and Shalmaneser appears in the Second Book of Kings as the next Assyrian assailant of Israel. This prince goes up against Hoshea, and besieges Samaria for two years, at the end of which time ‘the Assyrians’ (it is said) take it, and the people are carried into captivity. Shalmaneser’s annals have been defaced, and we have thus no positive confirmation of his Palestinian wars; but Sargon, his successor, declares that Samaria was taken, and its people led away captive in his first year, so that if the city stood a two years’ siege, it must have been attacked by his predecessor, Shalmaneser. He also speaks of founding cities in Media, and planting them with colonists from a distance—a statement which throws light on the passage where it is said of the Israelites, ‘And the King of Assyria did carry away Israel into Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes’ (2 Kings 18:11). Sargon’s son and successor, according to the Assyrians, was the famous Sennacherib, who is mentioned in Scripture as the assailant of Hezekiah not many years after the captivity of Israel. Scripture evidently mentions two expiditions of Sennacherib. The second expedition was that far more famous one, when, being engaged in war against Egypt and Ethiopia, the great Assyrian monarch sent three high officers of his court from Lachish to threaten Hezekiah, whom he regarded as inclined to favour his enemies. You have heard often, and can scarcely have forgotten, the blasphemous threats of Rabshakeh—you remember the letter of Sennacherib in which these threats were repeated and made his own—you recollect how Hezekiah read the letter and took it to the temple and ‘spread it before the Lord’—how Isaiah upon this was sent with an assurance of safety and how ‘that night’ the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians (which was at Libnah) an hundred fourscore and five thousand—and the proud monarch, having lost his army, was forced to retire, and ‘departed, and went and returned and dwelt at Nineveh.’—(2 Kings 19:36.) The latter of these two expeditions receives no notice in Sennacherib’s annals. Monarchs, especially Oriental monarchs, are disinclined to put on record their miscarriages; and I have even observed that in modern Europe there is a tendency to avoid commemoration of disasters. Thus Sennacherib is silent with respect to his calamity; but he records the first, his successful expedition, at some length. ‘Because Hezekiah, King of Judah,’ he says, ‘would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong cities, and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and carried off as spoil 200,150 people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless number. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in; and raising banks of earth against the gates to prevent escape. . . . Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold and eight (?) hundred talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of submission to my power.’ I do not think that I need point out the close agreement between this account and that of Scripture; they are too nearly identical to require comment or annotation.”—Canon Rawlinson.
“J. M.’s” Objections to the Bible
Paragraph 8. sets forth that “J. M.” in the course of his cogitations became “concerned” at the discrepancy between “the statements of most of the prophets with regard to the restoration of Jerusalem,” and “those of Ezekiel as to the capital city of the restored kingdom.” His contention is that while according to the first set of statements, the old city must be restored, according to Ezekiel it is to be a new city totally unconnected with Jerusalem. This can hardly be regarded as a serious argument. Jerusalem with a new name (Yahweh-shammah—the Lord is there)—even if that name were to supersede the current use of the old name, which is doubtful, is Jerusalem still. The “statements of the prophets” were for present reading, and in describing her coming glory, it was needful to identify the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children, with the exalted city of the age to come; which could only be done by speaking of that exalted city as Jerusalem.
But then, says “J. M.,” the new city was to have the “tower of Hananeel and the king’s wine presses” (Jer. 31:38), which are not to be found in Jerusalem, at the present day. This does not prove that these are indistinguishable as topographical points of the future city. The explorations of the Palestine society have identified and unbared the foundations of many walls and towers and localities, which had perished from memory; and restored points of description which may be serviceable in the future rehabiliment of the city. But even suppose they had not been found, would that prove that God could not find them when the time of restoration comes?
“But the city he (Ezekiel) describes is a totally different one” from that of the other prophets. That is not proved. The “other prophets” speak of Jerusalem simply: they say nothing of dimensions or the form of the city in her glory. If Ezekiel supplies both, he does not contradict but merely supplements “the other prophets.” No doubt, Ezekiel’s city differs from the Jerusalem of past times: but this involves no difficulty unless we suppose that “the other prophets” when they spoke of the future glory of “Jerusalem,” meant the identical architecture under which they knew the city so-called. But this would be childish. The architecture of Jerusalem has varied with every generation, like all other cities: and the idea of confining her to any particular stage of her configuration would be absurd. It is only a hypercritical and uncandid state of mind that would insist on such an idea. The London of to-day is a very different place from the London that Queen Elizabeth knew, both in extent and architecture; but who would say that therefore Victoria does not reign in the metropolis of Elizabeth? Jerusalem of the age to come will be larger than the Jerusalem of past times, (even larger than London): and when “the sons of strangers” come to “build her walls,” they will not follow the zigzag irregularities of her ancient form, but work by the improved plans revealed to Ezekiel: and none but simpletons, will say “This is not Jerusalem.”
But, says “J. M.” “the size of the (land) oblation and the position of the city with regard to it, too, make it seem impossible that Ezekiel’s city could occupy even anything like the same site as Jerusalem.” Suppose it were so, there would be no practical difficulty. The identity and power of a metropolitan city do not depend upon its resting on a particular spot of earth. It is its relation to the polity of which it is the heart, that constitutes its position. If London were pulled down to-day and built ten miles farther on, it would be London still, if it were built as London and to fill the position of London. Jerusalem pulled down ages ago and re-built as Jerusalem, though not on the exact spot, would be Jerusalem still.
But it is not certain that it wont be built on the very spot. We may even go further and say that it certainly will be built on the very same spot and enlarged. But what about Ezekiel’s specifications in that case? Well, they are not necessarily inconsistent. The “size of the land oblation” has nothing to do with it. If the city rests on the same spot, the 50-mile-square will be adjusted with reference to the fact. There is more in the allusion to “the position of the city with regard to it;” it doubtless occupies the southernmost part of the square, and no doubt if you fix the position of the square adversely, the city is driven out of its place. But the position of the square as a matter of topographical exactness is altogether an open question. All that is certain is that it lies between the portions of Judah and Benjamin, and that it is of a breadth from north to south corresponding with the portions allotted to the tribes. Before “J. M.’s.” objection could be sustained, the position of the oblation would have to be beyond question, which is so far from being the case, that most who examine the matter come to different conclusions. That “J. M.” should seek to make an objection against the Bible out of such a subject, shows that he either lacks capacity to deal with it, or that like most rejectors of the Bible, he is anxious to find matter of objection wherever he can, without being particularly anxious as to whether the objection is well-founded or not.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 315.)
“In looking back at the age when the author of Daniel professes to have lived, we find independent evidence that such a name and person were then known. In Ezekiel, chap. 14., the name of Daniel is twice mentioned: in the communication of God to the prophet, he says, ‘when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously . . . though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God’ (verse 14, so also verse 20). It appears to be assumed that these three were well-known persons. Noah, found alone righteous in his generation, was one whose name and actions were familiar to every reader of Scripture; so too Job, who was upright, so that there was none like him in the earth: the introduction of Daniel between the other two, is proof that there was at some earlier age, or else in the time of Ezekiel himself, a servant of God so called, of eminent holiness. He must, too, have been a well-known person, for such objects alone can be rightly used as standards of comparison. But we find no Daniel recorded in earlier ages; hence we must conclude that Ezekiel had one as a well-known contemporary. In chap. 27. of Ezekiel, we find Daniel again used as a standard of comparison. In verse 3, the Lord says to the ‘Prince of Tyrus,’ ‘Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee.’ Thus we find that the Daniel recognised in Ezekiel was pre-eminent in holiness, and also one to whom secret things were especially made known.
“Thus, in or before the days when Daniel the writer professes to have lived, there was a well-known Daniel possessed of the moral characteristics of that prophet in chap. 1., and spiritually endowed, as he is said to be, in chap. 2. And as no such previous Daniel is recorded, we must conclude that he belonged to the time of the captivity, so that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel, and Daniel the author of the book, are also professedly of the same age. But in Ezekiel’s days we find no trace of any other Daniel, except the author. Thus, we have proof that there was an eminent Israelite called Daniel—a real, well-known person—with whom the author of the book identifies himself. The reception of the book of Daniel, by the Jews as a body, sanctions this identification: they must have known whether it was really written by this well-known person or not.
“The undesignedness of the coincidence between Ezekiel and Daniel is shown by the former not speaking of Daniel as a writer, though indicating his character, and by his referring only to those things now found in his book, which are earlier in date than the time when Ezekiel wrote.
“A reference to the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and the place of Daniel in that translation, is needful, in order fully to investigate the subject; while in so doing, it must be fully admitted that some of the obscurity which rests on the ancient versions in general, still broods over LXX.
“It is a demonstrated fact, that this version of the Old Testament was commenced before the year 285 B.C., and that whether all the books were executed about the same time, or at a considerable interval, yet that the work of translation went on until all the sacred books, received alike by the Jews of Jerusalem and Alexandria, were turned into Greek.
“The mere fact that Daniel takes its place as part of this version, is an important point in the history of the transmission of the book. It shows how fully it must have been received by the Jewish community at large; and be it remembered that the separation of the Jews was an event long prior to the Maccabean times. Indeed, it is highly probable that the version of Daniel was anterior to that epoch; at all events, the translator of Ecclesiasticus (who lived, on the latest supposition, at that time) speaks of the books of Scripture in general as translated into Greek: he even notices the imperfections of the Greek versions; and thus it is needless to consider that the real LXX. of Daniel was a production of a subsequent time on account of its being so defective as a translation.
“Had not Daniel been known as one of the collection of holy writings, it is inexplicable how it could have formed a part of this ancient version. It presents to us another channel of transmission.
“An argument may be based on the imperfection of the Greek version of Daniel as found in the real LXX. (for which the Church at an early period substituted that of Theodotion); had Daniel been a recent book when the Greek translation of it was executed, how could we suppose that the meaning would have been so lost in the version? On the Maccabean theory, the original of Daniel and the Greek translation, must have been separated at most by a very short interval, not nearly sufficient for its meaning and phraseology to have become antiquated.
“There is a narration in Josephus (Ant. Jud. 11:8) in which the book of Daniel is mentioned, the historic accuracy of which has been impugned by many, not on positive grounds, but simply on those of doubt and difficulty. He states that Alenander the Great paid a remarkable visit to Jerusalem, with the intention of severely punishing the people for adhering to their oath of fidelity to the last Darius,—that Jaddua, the high priest, met him at the head of a procession,—that the conqueror’s wrath was averted, and that on his visit to the holy city, the prophecy of Daniel was shown him, which said that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia.
“Whatever doubt or difficulty may be raised as to the historic truth of this narration in all its parts, still we have no reason to question that this was believed as a fact, in the first century, by the Jews; we know how remarkably Alexander favoured the Jews—a circumstance which must have had some cause or reason—and it is evident that the Jews in Josephus’s days believed that Daniel was a book extant in the days of Alexander: this belief is all that I wish to press absolutely; for it shows that they must have known that it was a book long anterior to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
“It cannot be said that this register was introduced in order that it might pass as Nehemiah’s; there is as little possibility of imposture, as there is in the addition of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, where Moses himself could not be supposed to be the writer. Such additions to the books of the Old Testament stand on the same ground as to their reception, as the books which are anonymous; we receive them as transmitted to us through the proper channel of custody as holy Scripture.
“This duly-chronicled succession of high priests, and of contemporary Levites, is a guard, up to that time, against the reception of Daniel, or any other book, if spurious, as part of holy Scripture: and Josephus shows that the Jews believed that Daniel was known and used by Jaddua himself.
“Neh. 12:22, also mentions Jaddua, and ‘the priests to the reign of Darius the Persian.’ This shows us the time to which this register carries us on, even to the days of Darius Codomanus, the last Persian king. It was to him that Jaddua had sworn allegiance, and thus he refused to break his oath, preferring rather to endure the displeasure of Alexander. ‘Darius the Persian’ seems to be an expression thus used after the rule of Macedon had been set up; otherwise the designation had no such significance as it would have once had in those days when it was used in opposition to Mede.
“The Jewish account is, that Simon the Just (the high priest from B.C. 300–291) closed the canon of the Old Testament: if this means that he finished the books as transmitted in one collection, it may be probable as a fact; for that Simon the Just was the son of Onias, the son of this Jaddua. If this account be a tradition, it is confirmed by the fact that the Old Testament mentions persons on to his age, and no farther: we are thus shown that the writing of any books of the Old Testament ends in his days, with the mention of the last Darius, and the high priest Jaddua, his grandfather.”
(To be continued.)


446-452
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”(Isaiah 5:24).
M. Thiers and Human Destiny
M. THIERS, the leading statesman of France, has passed into his grave at the ripe age of fourscore years. Among the papers he has left, is a work on philosophy, in which, according to the public notices of his life, he records his conviction, as the result of a long lifetime’s experience, that there are ills inherent in the present constitution of things that science will be eternally powerless to cure; and that the present life is a training for a higher state of existence. It is interesting to hear such a verdict from such a man as the late M. Thiers. Indirectly, it is a powerful confirmation of the Bible, though the Bible needs it not. The Bible explains the inherent ills on which “nature” can throw light. Nature can only show us what is; it cannot tell us why; and in showing us evil without the “why,” it shows a mystery. There must be a reason for the “ill” which M. Thiers acknowledges and admits human impotence to cure. Nature furnishes no reason. The Bible does, and hence comes in to fill the void which mere natural thoughts discover.
The Bible also speaks of a cure, and makes the mystery of evil a vanishing mist. It exhibits God’s purpose to destroy every curse, to abolish pain as an experience and death as an event, in His own wise way. This way involves delay, because the delay is needed to ripen the situation for the full manifestation of good. God’s revealed method in the case is to choose a limited number for this good, on the principle of faith and obedience, during the prevalence of evil with multitudes who perish. Here becomes visible the true idea shadowed in M. Thiers’ conclusion that the present state is a state of preparation for a higher existence. It is undoubtedly such a state of preparation, but for whom and on what principle, and with what result to those not prepared, can only be learnt from what God has been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures. Away from this, all is speculation and darkness. M. Thiers, with all the facts of human existence under the cognizance of a powerful intellect, sees an incurable state of evil which the Bible accounts for, and discerns a necessity towards higher good which the Bible presents the form of, with its applications and limitations. The fact is an interesting offset to the obtuseness of a generation of shallow sceptics, who see no particular evil to be lamented and no particular good to be desired.
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
“Some years after his return to Nineveh, Sennacherib met his death by violence. Scripture tells us that he was murdered by two of his sons as he was worshipping in one of the Ninevite temples; that the murderers, having effected their bloody purpose, fled, escaping into the land of Armenia; and that Esar-haddon, another son of Sennacherib, not implicated in the murder, reigned in his stead. The Assyrian monuments, hitherto discovered, make no mention of the assassination; but they show us Esar-haddon, soon after his father’s death, engaged in a war with two half-brothers on the Armenian frontiers—a very natural consequence of such an attempt as that which Scripture records, and they tell us of his complete success and triumphant establishment of himself upon the throne of his father. Contemporary with Sennacherib we find, in Isaiah and Kings, a certain Merodach-baladan. He is represented as on friendly terms with Hezekiah, and, consequently, as braving the anger of the Assyrians, ‘of whom he must be independent, or he could not act as he does.’ The records of the Assyrians contain frequent mention of their prince, who was an inveterate enemy of the Assyrian power, who met both Sargon and Sennacherib in the field, and was by each in turn driven from his kingdom, but continued all his life to claim the Babylonian crown, and left the inheritance of his pretensions to his sons and grandsons. The disappearance of Assyria from the scene by the destruction of Nineveh, and the substitution, in its place, as the great Eastern power of Babylon, towards the latter part of the seventh century B.C., which are clearly seen in Scripture, appear also very plainly in the inscriptions, the Assyrian portion of which suddenly ceases about B.C. 610, while the Babylonian becomes numerous. The greatness of Nebuchadnezzar at this time also becomes very apparent. His proud boast: ‘Is not this great Babylon which I have built?’ is illustrated by the fact that three-fourths of the bricks found at Babylon have his name upon them; his command of captive labour is indicated, if not implied, in the enormous size and number of the great works which he undertook in all parts of Babylonia; his long reign, marked in Scripture by the prolonged captivity of Jeconiah, is proved by the amount of regnal years noted on his tablets; and his extreme pride and haughtiness is amply shown by the general tone of his utterances on tablets, bricks and cylinders. Of his compassionate son and successor, Evil-Merodach, who released Jeconiah from prison, no memorials have been found; but a recent discovery has thrown very remarkable light on the closing scene of the great Babylonian monarchy, which is the subject of the fifth chapter of Daniel. The feast made by Belshazzar to his lords, the desecration which it involved of the temple vessels, the mysterious warning given to the infatuated prince by the writing which he saw ‘the fingers of a man’s hand trace upon the palace wall,’ are in the recollection of you all, together with Daniel’s exposition of the prophetic words and the sequel, that ‘in that night was Belshazzar slain,’ and his kingdom divided and given to the Medes and Persians. Sceptics used to be fond of asking, ‘Who was this Belshazzar, of whom profane history knew nothing, and whose very existence it seemed to deny by making the last King of Babylon a certain Labynetus or Nabonnedus, who, moreover, was not killed at the capture of the city; but, after its capture, submitted to Cyrus, and was kindly treated by him?’ The apparent contradiction was explained when, some fifteen years ago, a record made by the order of Nabonnedus himself was exhumed from the mounds of Babylonia—a record in which he mentioned that the name of his eldest son was Bel-shar-ezer (or Belshazzar), and spoke of him in a way which implied that the two were joint rulers of Babylon. The sacred and the profane became at once harmonious. It was that, of the two joint kings, one, the younger, at the time of the siege, bore command within the city, held an impious and untimely feast, was warned, and fell in the sack of the place; while the other kept the open field, submitted when his capital was taken, and experienced the clemency of the conqueror. Such are the chief of the direct confirmations of the scriptural narrative which the cuneiform inscriptions furnish. They are, perhaps, fewer than you might have expected. But it should be borne in mind, first, that the cuneiform records are occasional and fragmentary; and that the so-called ‘Historical Books’ of Scripture are intended to give the religious rather than the civil history of the Jewish nation, and that, consequently, they omit the points of contact between the chosen people and the surrounding nations, unless where they have a religious bearing. The relations of Ahaz with Tiglath-pileser might never have been mentioned in Kings if they had not led to a remarkable desecration of the temple; those of Hezekiah with Merodach-baladan might have been passed by if they had not furnished the occasion for a remarkable prophecy. It is probable, indeed it is certain, from the Assyrian records, that numerous occasions of contact between the Jews and the Assyrians were passed over by the sacred historians because they, in no way, affected the religious condition of the Jewish people.”—Lecture by Canon Rawlinson.
J. M.’s Objections to the Bible
FROM the Old Testament, J. M. in par. 9. turns to the New for “objections to the infallibility of the Bible.” Of these, however, he instances but two. One of these has already been thoroughly dealt with in answer to “J. G.” two months ago.—(See Christadelphian for last August—Answers to Correspondents, page 377, under the heading “Was Redemption nigh in the Apostolic Age?”) The objection is that the second advent of Christ did not take place in the first or second century, as the first believers expected and as Jesus himself seemed to teach: from which it is deduced that the expectation and the teaching were alike mistaken. The fallacy of this argument having been thoroughly made manifest in the place referred to, it is unnecessary to deal with it now, and so par. 10. (which is the last paragraph) is disposed of.
The objection brought forward in par. 9. is, that while Acts 9:23–32 “seems to imply” that Paul came straight to Jerusalem after his enlightenment at Damascus, Paul himself, in Gal. 1., says he did not go up to Jerusalem, but went first into Arabia, and returned to Damascus, where he stayed three years before going up to Jerusalem. This is the flimsiest of all the flimsy objections brought forward in this lithographed resumé of reasons “Why I left the Christadelphians” (which ought to have read, “Why I reject the Bible as the Word of God”); in fact, it is difficult to imagine a really earnest and capable man bringing it forward. Is it possible that an earnest man, with so much at stake as is implied in receiving or rejecting the Scriptures, could be content with a “seems to imply” as the basis of an objection? Many things “seem” to be that are not. Many a truthful man, in common conversation, “seems to imply” conclusions inconsistent with the very statements he is making. When he says he has never been on a Welsh railway, he seems to imply either that he has never been in Wales, when we know he has walked through it, or that he lives in England, and has been on English railways, when, in fact, he lives in a Welsh sea-port, and has travelled on a French line, but never on a Welsh. Should we accuse him of falsehood on the strength of a “seems to imply?” This is what J. M. does with the Bible in the case in question. Acts 9. “seems to imply” something which Paul’s statement in Gal. 1. shows could not be; therefore the Bible is untrue! What miserable trifling in the face of such a host of invulnerable evidence that the Bible is true! When a thing is proved true, earnest men look below the “seems” and find out that they are only “seems”—“seems,” too, which go to strengthen the realities of the case; for truth has often inconsistent “seems” about it, while falsehood is carefully trimmed into an artificial consistency. But a man who wants to believe in a certain direction is content with the “seems,” as in the present case.
But how stands the case? Acts 9:23, says that “after many days were fulfulled,” Paul went to Jerusalem; Paul says he did so “after three years.”—(Gal. 1:18). Where is the contradiction? What is the difference between “many days” and “three years?” Are not 1095 days “many days?” True, 100 days are “many days,” but so are a thousand days. The quantitive objection is indefinite. The known facts must be the guide; and the known fact in the present case is that the “many days” were 1095 days.
But then, the rejector rejoins, “Acts says nothing about Arabia?” Well, what of that? Shall we say Paul did not go into Arabia because Acts does not say so? If so, why not conclude that Paul neither ate nor slept during the “many days” he was at Damascus? Acts tells us he there “fulfilled many days:” it does not say he went to bed, or took his dinner. “Yes; but it is to be understood as a matter of course.” So is the other to be understood as a matter of course when it is a fact, which Paul testifies it to be. The omission to mention it does not disprove it. J. M. does not tell us in his “why’s” that he has read certain books that turn from the truth: shall we say he has not read them because his “why’s” are silent? or that there is a contradiction between his “why’s” and the facts of the case? If we are to be reasonable in our treatment of his production, are we to be unreasonable in our treatment of the Acts?
“But, then, Acts says that when Paul did come to Jerusalem, Barnabas ‘brought him to the apostles,’ whereas Paul in Galatians says he saw Peter, and that other of the apostles saw he none, but James the Lord’s brother.” Well, “apostles” is plural: how many does it take to make the plural number?—“two or more.” Acts says “the apostles;” Galatians says “two.” Where is the contradiction? “Because the apostles means the twelve.” This is your assumption, Mr. Objector. The twelve no doubt would be “the apostles,” but a lesser number were all that were available at the particular time. In the case in question, Peter and James were all the apostles Paul was able see. Where the others were is not stated: probably absent in the district at work. The two at home, representing the rest, would be, in the particular transaction, “the apostles.”
To make an objection out of such a point, only illustrates the great strength of the whole case.
The keenest of casuists have spent their strength in vain to loosen, in true logic, a single stone of the building. J.M.’s little effort is an addition to the failures. Of course it does not rank among the strong efforts. We have given it a little attention, because it has been circulated (where it could be) among brethren, some of whom, perhaps, might not see through its fallacies at once, and be made uncomfortable in their adhesion to the faith. Doubt is a worm that kills the healthiest plant at last. The spade of investigation unearths the worms, and the knife of logic kills them. Then the watering of the word will nourish, and the manuring and pruning of adversity and exhortation have their due effect in developing growth and vigour.
J. M. takes refuge in Deism; but J. M. will find that nothing will avail a man for eternal life, but the righteousness of God’s own providing in Christ, to be taken and worn in the way appointed, of which we learn in the writings of inspired prophets and apostles alone. Liberty to bestow undistracted attention on the affairs and interests of this present life, or to indulge, without fetter, in the vagaries of scientific speculation (even allowing a good deal of it may have a basis in truth,) may be pleasing meanwhile and for a time; but there is another aspect of the case. Such liberty will be enjoyed at the expense of the kingdom of God; and a man will find at the last that there is no other portion for the sons of men than the kingdom of God, for all things else end among the fossils.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 367.)
“Such, then, is an outline of the external and transmissive proof of the genuineness of the book of Daniel; it will be seen that we possess these grounds of evidence besides what we learn authoritatively from the New Testament.
If the genuineness of an ancient book is attacked, it must be either on external or internal ground. The grounds of disproof from the former may be satisfactory, but, in general, the external arguments against a book are negative; for they rest on the silence of those who may be expected to mention it. Of course, we have sometimes explicit early testimony that a book does not really proceed from the author whose name is attached to it; and, in such a case, the evidence is positive. In general, however, external counter testimony is only negative; such and such writers do not mention a book which they must have known had it been then in being; hence there is a presumption against the book which one who defends it has to meet.
Internal grounds, however, may be wholly different; for the contents of a book may show that some claim has been advanced on its behalf which is wholly untenable; for instance, a book may speak of its alleged author as already dead, or it may introduce the events and opinions of an age altogether more recent than his time; on such internal grounds we can at once reject the claims made on behalf of such parts, at least, of the book. We may possess such external proof as to lead us to pause before we reject the book entirely, and to inquire whether the difficulties are really such as we have supposed, and whether the passages in which they occur are undoubtedly parts of the genuine text book.
In thus examining objections, we may find such contradictions, etc., running through the whole texture of the work, as to show that it cannot be genuine, and that its claims are altogether false.
Reference has been made above to the register inserted in Nehemiah; this is a good illustration of the mode in which external evidence is not invalidated by facts contained in a book, which, at first, might seem to contradict such testimony. When, however, any addition has been introduced into a book bona-fide, it is commonly so manifest as such that none could imagine it to be part of the older work, and thus no confusion arises, either as to principles of evidence or their application; just as the Arch of Titus (to which I have already referred as an illustration of historic monuments), which has been repaired in modern times to preserve it from destruction; where the latter stonework is purposely so different from the ancient, that no one could confound them, even if there had not been a modern inscription recording the repairs.
These principles will apply not merely to authorship, but also to other claims on behalf of any book: thus, the second book of Maccabees is said, by the Church of Rome, to be divinely-inspired Scripture, although the author disclaims any such authority (15:38) as plainly as words can be devised. I use this as an illustration of internal disproof.
The grounds on which the Book of Daniel has been attacked are partly external, partly internal.
The external grounds are but few, and but little reliance can be placed on them; because the Jewish nation, having no writings extant for some centuries subsequent to the time when the Old Testament books in general had been written, it can excite no surprise that allusions from writings cannot be brought forward in favour of Daniel or other Scripture books. This silence proves nothing and disproves nothing.
However, it has been said that the author of Ecclesiasticus knew nothing of the Book of Daniel, because, in the place in which he recounts the writers of Scripture, he mentions the other prophets, but says not one word about Daniel.
This seems to be an argument of some weight: let it, however, be examined. In the passage in question (chap. 49), Jesus the son of Sirach is not recounting the writers of his nation, but the famous men: he does not profess (as some have seemed to assume) to give a list of the books of the Old Testament. Let it be granted that he might well have mentioned Daniel amongst the other famous Israelites, but the argument will equally apply to Ezra, of whom he says not a word. Perhaps it may then be argued that he knew nothing of Ezra, but this is disproved from his mention of Nehemiah, in whose book the actions of Ezra are just as much spoken of as in that which bears his own name.
If any reliance be placed on the silence of Jesus, the son of Sirach, it would go to disprove that any famous Daniel ever existed; whereas we know from Ezekiel that there was such a Daniel; and Ezekiel, with his visions, is mentioned in Ecclesiasticus amongst the other prophets.—(49:8).
Thus vain is it to rest on the negative argument drawn from this source.
Another external objection has been grounded on the place assigned to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible, where it stands not among the prophets, but in that part called by the Jews כְּבּתוּבִים K’tȟvĦm, which commence with the Psalms and end with the Chronicles. The place of Daniel, there, is between Esther and Ezra. What bearing this argument has on the question is not very apparent to anyone who regards these books as being, all of them, Holy Scripture: it must be supposed (as it seems) that this place was one of less honour than among the prophets; and the Jews must be imagined to have placed Daniel there as a book of whose origin or authority they were in doubt. It is difficult to suppose that such arguments could be seriously alleged. It may be quite sufficient to remark that the Psalms stand in the same division of the collection; that the Jews, at the Christian era (as witnessed by Josephus) considered Daniel as a super-eminent prophet; that we do not know on what principle many parts of the collections of sacred writings were arranged; and that Daniel stands, after all, in a by no means unnatural place between other writings relating to the captivity; and that his book is partly historical, partly prophetic.
This place of the Book of Daniel in the collection of sacred writings, may explain how Jesus, the son of Sirach, omits him when speaking of the other prophets.
Such are the slender external grounds of disproof. Will they avail anything when looked at in themselves? And will they not rather set off the fulness of the external evidence in favour of Daniel, by the marked contrast?
It is on internal grounds that the objectors really rest. It will be needless for me touch on several of these supposed grounds; for they relate but little to the Book of Daniel itself, but rather to the subjective condition of mind on the part of those who object. Thus the miracles and prophecies are stated as grounds for rejecting the book! This is an argument, of course, against the truth of any such interpositions on the part of God. But how different are the miracles in Daniel from those recounted in Jewish legends! They stand in the same contrast as do the miracles in the gospels to those in the apocryphal lives of Christ and in the legends of saints.


498-502
THE BIBLE TRUE;
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES ARE THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, 1 have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
”The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Doctor Schlieman’s Discoveries and the Bible
THE Jewish Messenger, referring to the researches and discoveries of Dr. Schlieman, which have created such a sensation and thrown such a flood of light on Homeric tales which were so much doubted, makes a few reflections, some of which we copy: “It is now usually considered that Homer was nearly contemporary with King Solomon. There is room for ample store of confirmation of the Biblical narrative in discoveries yet to be made near the sites of the great Phœnician cities. The library of the old Assyrian King is scarcely opened when there are records of conflicts with the Kings of Israel. When the inscriptions on Egyptian tombs and temples are deciphered, there are recollections of the Israelite bondage too clear to be misunderstood, even to the story of the task-makers ordering bricks without straw. Inferentially, the fact of the slaying of the first-born is demonstrated—the mighty influence of Joseph declared by the column in his honour. As the exploration of Palestine progresses, the most minute details of the Temple and its appurtenances are declared upon the testimony of the rocks themselves. The extraordinary remains of the Giant Cities of Bashan brings us face to face with Joshua and his wars. Every year there is a startling identification of the site of some wondrous place recorded in Scripture and an infallible test of its accuracy. The most ancient of cemeteries is preserved with unexampled reverence by the venerable descendants of Ismael. Had Israelites an enthusiast like Schlieman or Smith, every tradition of modern Palestine and Egypt would be traced to its source, and the exploration would determine with the fidelity of the photograph, the ancient life of the Holy Land, the journeys of Israel, the truth and grandeur of the Bible.”
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
“It remains to call attention, with the brevity that the hour requires, to the indirect testimony to the veracity of the Biblical narrative which the cuneiform inscriptions furnish. This subject is one of such extent and complication that volumes might easily be written upon it. . . . . . . The first instance which I will give is geographic. The writer of Kings relates that when the people of Israel were carried finally into captivity by a king of Assyria, whom he does not name, but who appears from the Assyrian records to have been Sargon, they were placed by him ‘in Halah and in Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.’ The writer of Chronicles adds that before this, in the reign of Tiglathpileser, a portion of the Israelites was removed by him, and brought to what are clearly some of these same places—‘to Halah and to Habor, and to Hara and to the river of Gozan,’ where (he says) they continued until his own day.—(1 Chron. 5:26.) Now the habitat of the Ten Tribes has always been a question that has interested people, and the position of the various places mentioned in the above-quoted passages was long a subject of almost inexhaustible debate among commentators. The predominant opinion was that all the places mentioned were to be sought in the same locality, and the position of ‘the cities of the Medes’ being known, it was sought to identify all the other local terms with names proper to Media; ‘the river of Gozan’ was identified with the Kizil-Uzen from a very incomplete similarity of name; and of Halar, Habor and Hara, still more far-fetched and unsatisfactory explanations were given. Such was the position in which things rested down to the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions. It was then found that the names Gozan, Habor and Hara (or Haran) were words of every-day use among the Assyrians of the time of Sargon and Sennacherib; that in the inscriptions of these kings and others near their time, Habor always meant a certain river — the modern Khabour—the great affluent of the Euphrates, the only important stream between it and the Tigris; that the country which it watered was called Gozan, so that it was ‘the river of Gozan;’ and that Hara or Haran, was the name of a town in the near vicinity. It thus appeared that Sargon divided his captives, placing some in Media beyond the Tigris, while he settled others in Upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates, in the tract to which Tiglath-pileser had already transported a portion of the Israelites, the two and a half tribes east of Jordan, which were the first to suffer captivity. It adds to the interest of this discovery to note that thus the bulk of the nation was brought back—apparently to die and disappear—to the very country from which it had proceeded in the person of its progenitor Abraham; for there is no reasonable doubt that the Hara of 1 Chron. 5. is the Haron, coupled with Gozan, (2 Kings 19:12, ) nor that this is the Haran to which Abraham went from Ur, where the descendants of his brother Nahor established themselves. This place which was called Carrhæ by the Greeks and Romans, and was famous for the defeat of Crassus, has resumed in the mouths of the natives its old title, and is called Harran at the present day.”—Lecture by Canon Rawlinson.
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
The word science, now so much in vogue, occurs once only in our English version. It is where Paul counsels Timothy to avoid ‘profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith.’
Those Gnostic heresies and speculations, to which the warning first applied, are extinct long ago. Nothing is left of them but some fossil skeletons in the works of the Fathers. But oppositions of pretended science to the Christian faith have revived in other forms, and exist at the present day. In the name of scientific progress, faith in God, in a life to come and in supernatural revelation, has been vigorously assailed. The chief leaders in this philosophical sect may be called Agnostics and their creed Agnosticism. They affirm that of a Creator, a First Cause, a Supreme Governor of the universe, nothing whatever can be known. But by way of compensation they claim that their own advance in natural knowledge is ‘all but infinite’ compared with their predecessors. From this lofty pedestal they affect to look down upon all faith in a living, personal God, and supernatural religion, as a superstition that is waxing old and ready to vanish away.
A severe moral conflict is thus forced on all Christian believers. And in this strife, which cannot be avoided, a purely defensive attitude, a timid, apologetic tone, ill befits either the dignity of their cause or the strength of their position. There can be no conflict between the genuine sense of God’s messages to mankind and the real facts and authentic conclusions of science. But false constructions of Scripture, on the one side, and the crude hypotheses or fanciful guesswork of men of science on the other, may and will contradict and clash, while they depart equally from the truth. It is now the fashion with many to assume that the risk of error is wholly on the side of Christian believers. Physical science, as a whole, including the newest and latest guesses of its students, has the same infallibility claimed for it which is claimed by the Vatican Council for the Bishop of Rome. It has been a test, not only for interpretations of the Bible, but for the Bible itself: which must be rejected and cast aside wherever it differs from this new and later revelation, of which modern men of science are the self-appointed prophets. Religion, we are told, consists simply of blind emotions about things unknowable, while the students of nature have a rightful monopoly of knowledge, truth and wisdom.
It is our duty to sift these proud claims and see if they have any warrant at all in the actual state of things. This is needful in the interest of genuine science no less than of Christian faith. An inflated paper currency must be not less unsafe and mischievous in matters of science than those of trade. Credulity is no monoply of religious believers. It may sometimes be found even among the leaders of modern research; while among their disciples and admirers, its recent growth has a tropical luxuriance and is really almost prodigious.
Physics and physiology have, no doubt, made great and real progress in the last fifty years. But what, after all, is their present stage? Do they form a complete, mature, and perfect scheme of truth, a firm and lofty pedestal, from which their students may look out, unvexed themselves, like the gods of Epicurus, on the tossing waves and storms of ethical debate and religious controversy? Are they not rather in a nebulous stage, where a solid nucleus of certain or nearly certain truth is encompassed and concealed by a copious mist of unexplained phenomena, unproved guesses, and dim, hazy, floating speculations? Does not a vast cloudland or dreamland envelop this world of science, shrouding it, usually, with a dull watery fog of thick vapour; but ever and anon, in some wild and monstrous hypothesis, streaming off, like the tail of a comet, into infinite space and the outer darkness? The second, and not the first, I hold to be the true description of modern science, in spite of all its progress. This is true both in physics, which deal with lifeless matter, and physiology, which deals with living creatures. If true in the first, it must be doubly true in the second and higher department, which all confess to be more difficult and mysterious. My object in this address will be to establish its truth, even in physics, and for this end to consider these topics in succession; the law of gravitation, the nature of matter, the existence of ether; the conservation of energy with the doctrine of evolution and the nebular theory; the dissipation of energy and the solar percussion theory; the molten nucleus theory of the earth’s formation; and the astro-glacial theory of the great ice period, supposed to have lasted for ages before man appeared on the earth.”—Professor Birks at the Victoria Society.
(To be continued).
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses
(Known as the Pentateuch).
Colenso’s objections do not destroy the historic character of the Pentateuch. (Of this, we shall see more hereafter, if the Lord will). But it is well to remember that independent of all solutions of difficulties, there is testimony sufficient to prove its genuineness and divine origin. That testimony is found in the books of the Old and New Testaments. It is possible to trace the existence of the Pentateuch in every age, from Malachi back to Joshua: that is sufficient to prove its genuineness. It has the sanction of the Saviour and his apostles, and that will prove its divine origin.
The question may, however, occur to some minds, how do we know that the Pentateuch which we now possess is that referred to by our Lord, and cited by Hebrew writers? To this the answer is, we have most satisfactory proof of the identity. The Pentateuch has descended to us in at least four independent channels. The whole people of the Jews, Rabbinists and Karaites; the Greek, Syrian, and Roman churches, all possess a Pentateuch. It stands at the beginning of their Sacred Scriptures. And those different copies,—the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, Syriac, and Latin, all so wonderfully agree, as to leave no doubt of identity. The present Jews have received their Hebrew copies, and the Chaldee translations, from those who dwelt not only in Jerusalem, but in Babylon. The Pentateuch of Eastern, and Western, Indian, African, and Chinese Jews, is the same. The translation possessed by the Greeks is that received at the time of their conversion, and has come down in a perfectly distinct channel from the Hebrew. There was no love between Jews and Greeks, so as to induce the latter to conform their Scriptures to those of the former, and yet the Greek Pentateuch is manifestly a translation of the Hebrew possessed by the Jews. The Syriac version agrees still more minutely with the Hebrew; and yet the intercourse of Syrian Christians with Jews was as little as that of the Greeks. With regard to the Latin, there is the same agreement, and the same independence of transmission. Between Jews and Christians there was a wall of separation which entirely prevented either from borrowing of the other. Amongst Christians themselves there were differences, both in language and theology, sufficient to prevent collusion. The Greek translation was not made from the Syriac; nor the Syriac from the Greek. They are entirely independent one of the other; and yet all present to us, with a few unimportant differences, the same Pentateuch. The Hebrew is that which the Jews received from their fathers. The Greek existed before the days of the Saviour. The Syriac version was made, as is generally supposed, early in the second century, probably before that time. We have, therefore, four independent witnesses to prove the identity of the Pentateuch which we possess, with that which was known to our Lord. And to these might be added the testimonies of Philo and Josephus, in whose writings sufficient portions of the Pentateuch are found to prove the identity of their copies with ours, and their belief that Moses was the author.
But, from the days of our Lord to the time of the last canonical Hebrew writer, there is a long interval. How can it be known, therefore, that the Pentateuch as then existing was that received from Malachi and his contemporaries? Here again there is a chain of sufficient testimonies. About one hundred and thirty years before Christ, the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, translated the book of Ecclesiasticus into Greek. That book is acknowledged to be genuine, and has so many references to the law as to prove the identity of the book so called. The first book of Maccabees, also received as authentic by modern critics, carries us nearly fifty years farther back. The mad efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the book of the law; and the zeal, not only of the priests, but of the common people, ready to die rather than disobey it, attest the existence of the book, and the popular belief that it was from God. That our Pentateuch existed, and was received as the law of Moses, one hundred years earlier, that is, about two hundred and eighty years before Christ, is attested by the fact that it was then translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews. Their version, commonly known as the Septuagint, is that quoted by Evangelists and Apostles, and handed down to us by the Greek Fathers; and of whose agreement with the Hebrew we have already spoken. The providence of God has preserved a still more ancient testimony, in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Its existence was known to the Christian Fathers; but for a thousand years it lay concealed, and at last came forth as from the grave, to assure us of the identity of the Pentateuch. Suppose that in that long interval some doubter had said the Samaritans were a distinct and rival sect, hated by the Jews, and hating in return. Josephus and the fathers of the church, and the Rabbis, all bear witness that they had a copy of the Pentateuch: bring it forth, and let us compare it with the Hebrew and Christian copies, and see whether they agree. How would he have triumphed had the Samaritan copy been produced, and found to differ altogether from those of Jews and Christians! But what is the fact? The Samaritan copy has been produced, written in a character equally known to Jews and Christians. A little remnant of the people still exist to present it to the world. And, lo! with the exception of a very few passages, it is the same in narrative and legislative enactment as that known to the synagogue and the church. This testimony carries us back to the erection of the temple on Mount Gerizim, to the days of Sanballat, that is, to the time of Nehemiah (Neh. 13:28), and the close of the canon of the Old Testament; and assures us not only that it existed, but that it was not and could not be a compilation of those times. Manasseh, of the family of the high priest, being excluded from the priesthood because he refused to dismiss his heathen wife as the law required, does not protest against this law as ungenuine, and therefore unworthy of obedience: but when he leaves the Jewish people, imposes its yoke upon his Samaritan friends. Such conduct can only be explained by Manasseh’s firm conviction that its origin was divine. Its acceptance by the Samaritans testifies a similar conviction on their part, produced by what is already learned. At all events, the Pentateuch then existed, was ever afterwards preserved by the Samaritans, and their copy now shows the identity of their Pentateuch with our own.”—Dr. McCaul.
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 452.)
It is said that the book contains such historical errors and contradictions as prove the writer to have lived at a later age. But what are the grounds on which such errors are alleged? Every fragment of ancient history bearing on Babylon is ransacked, and these doubtful accounts, which present but little agreement amongst themselves, are taken as sufficient for impugning this book.1 And so, too, as to the statements of Daniel itself. For instance, it has been said that ‘the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’ (chap. 2:1) is altogether incorrect, since chap. 1:5 shows that three years and more had elapsed since King Nebuchadnezzar had taken Jerusalem. This shews that the whole account must be taken as transmitted together, and to the whole must the principle be applied, which I call historic transmission. By this term I mean that the transmission of a document containing difficulties makes the earliest receivers of the document, and the author himself, vouchers that the historic difficulties, so far from being real objections, show that those who were acquainted with the whole of the circumstances would know they were no difficulties at all. I include the author as a witness, for he would, at least, know what he was writing; and thus, if possessed of ordinary intellectual powers, he would not go out of his way to introduce difficulties. It is true that such things are often found in such forged writings as are only weak and absurd; but, in a book sensibly written, with ability and intelligence, like that of Daniel, it would be difficult to suppose that the author would introduce contradictions just to puzzle the reader. The solution of the supposed difficulty seems to be, that Nebuchadnezzar first ruled jointly with his father Nabopolassar, and that his ‘second year’ in Daniel 2. is dated from his sole sovereignty.5
In Daniel we find Nebuchadnezzar, as King of Babylon, when the Jews were carried captives; his successor (as we learn from other Scriptures) was Evil-Merodach, and the last king of Babylon was Belshazzar, called in Daniel the son (meaning, as some think, grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar. Then came the rule of the Medes and Persians, Darius the Mede (Dan 6.) possessing the kingdom, in which he was succeeded by Cyrus the Persian. This account of the Babylonian kings appears as if it was given by one who knew the facts; and yet any statement in the fragments of profane historians which might seem to contradict it, has been advanced as a reason for rejecting Daniel. It is singular that Scripture statements should not be allowed to possess equal weight with those of profane historians. Why should we pay more implicit heed to Berosus and Abydenus* than to the author of the Book of Daniel? But are the discrepancies real? Daniel does not say that other kings did not reign between Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar; indeed, he does not mention the former of these kings at all, although, on any hypothesis, he must have heard of him—so vain is it to base an argument on the silence of Daniel. There may have been other and intermediate kings without one statement of this book being controverted, even by implication. It would be needless to enter into a grave refutation of those who would make difficulties and objections out of the names which the kings bear in the Book of Daniel; in Roman history, Mastarna and Servius Tullius are one and the same person; so, too, Caius Octavius, Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus, and Augustus, are identical, as are Annius Verissimus and Marcus Antoninus, and so (to come to modern times) are Tamas Kouli Khan and Nadir Shah. What wonder, then, if Daniel, writing in Babylon, used the names by which sovereigns were best known there, even though they possessed other designations?
In truth, the allegations of historic difficulty connected with Daniel, though often stated as if they were strong, fall to pieces at the first touch; for they all rest almost entirely on the notion that we possess independent knowledge of the contemporary facts; a groundless assumption such as this ought to be allowed no weight in historical investigations—nor would it, if Scripture were not arraigned at the bar of (so-called) criticism.
The time has been when the silence of profane historians has been used as an argument against Scripture in general, and against the Book of Daniel in particular. Thus, it was once said, with a kind of boast, that Herodotus, ‘the father of history,’ does not even mention Nebuchadnezzar; and thus it was in-insinuated that either he was a mythic person, or, at least, that the Scripture accounts of him and his greatness and conquests, were fiction and exaggeration. Some have looked on the widespread ruins on the shores of the Euphrates, around Hillah, doubting or denying that the city to which they belonged had really risen to its greatness under that founder of the first monarchy of prophetic vision!
But it was reserved for our days that those heaps of ruins should be no longer mute and silent, but that from the sculptured stones of Egypt, from the buried palaces of Nineveh, and from the bricks of Babylon, there should arise a testimony to the fidelity of Scripture, in opposition to the opinions of men or the ignorant assertions of profane writers.
Dr. Young was led (shall I say, by a special interposition of divine Providence?) to discover, by means of the Rosetta stone, the letters of ancient Egypt, and thus to open the way for others to follow in reading the records of the patriarchal ages. More recently three have laboured in the Assyrian and Babylonian fields; and thus Colonel Rawlinson has deciphered the arrowheaded character so long a mystery, while Dr. Layard has been busied in bringing to light the long-buried monuments of Nineveh, and Dr. Hincks has been a successful fellow-labourer in the investigation of results in reading inscriptions. All these discoveries have shown that the writers of Holy Scripthey must have been acquainted with facts which they state; for the same facts are, in many cases, told us on independent grounds, transmitted in contemporary records, though concealed for ages. These things cannot give the Christian more certainty than he had before, as to what is written in Holy Scripture; it does, however, supply an argument which ought to convince the objector that the writers of Scripture were, at least, possessed of an acquaintance with the historic facts to which they allude. And yet it may be that some will now believe in the ancient grandeur of Nineveh, because of Dr. Layard’s discoveries, ignoring the fact that this greatness, in its detail, was previously taught fully in Holy Scripture, and there alone.
The plain of Babylon has one voice and one testimony: the inscribed bricks, used, as they are, for all edifices and for all purposes, still show whence they came; and they all tell who was the mighty monarch who raised the buildings of Babylon: the inscription on each is ‘Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar.’
But Herodotus makes no mention of Nebuchadnezzar and ascribes the glories of Babylon to others: let this teach caution in judging Scripture statements by what we find in profane historians. Had Scripture been composed of such materials as their narratives, we might have found an equal absence of knowledge on such points of history. We have sufficient data for adhering to what Scripture says (even if we could regard it as an ordinary book), when on historic points it seems to clash with profane writers.”—Tregelles.
(To be continued.)


550-557
THE BIBLE TRUE
OR
ARGUMENTS, ARTICLES, PAPERS, EXTRACTS AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTER, FROM VARIOUS SOURCES TO PROVE THAT
THE SCRIPTURES AND THE AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE RECORDS OF DIVINE REVELATION
AND THE ONLY SOURCE AT PRESENT AVAILABLE TO MAN OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING A FUTURE LIFE, AND THE WAY BY WHICH IT IS TO BE SECURED
“Concerning Thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. Thy word is true from the beginning.”—(Psalm 119:152, 160.)
“Come hither, and hear the word of the Lord your God.”—(Jos. 3:9.)
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff (dreams) to the wheat?”—(Jer. 23:28.)
“When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.”—(1 Thess. 2:13).
“The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—(2 Peter 1:21.)
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in times unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son.”—(Heb. 1:1).
“The sword of the Spirit is the word of God.”—(Eph. 6:17).
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”—(2 Tim. 3:16).
“Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”—(Prov. 13:13).
“Their root shall be as rottenness and their blossom shall go up as dust, because they have cast away the law of the Lord of Hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”—(Isaiah 5:24).
Science and Theology
THE following clipping from the Liverpool Mercury (for which we are indebted to a brother who came across it) is interesting. The direction of its interest will be quickly seen. It is customary, in our day, to suppose that science is the irreconcileable foe of the Bible. When arguments for the Bible are irresistible, people have a reservato this effect. “Scientific men are infallible. Your arguments are very plausible, but take them to the scientific men. Why don’t they believe them?” As much as to say, “if the scientific men could see compatibility between science and the doctrine of God, we might be disposed to be of that mind too.” Well, here is a case. Dr. Drysdale, chairman of the Liverpool Philosophical Society, ‘has just published an address,’ says the Liverpool Mercury, ‘recently delivered by him before the members of that Association, on the question, ‘Is Scientific Materialism compatible with Dogmatic Theology?’ In a discourse of unusual merit, and showing a wide familiarity with phases of modern thought, both British and Continental, Dr. Drysdale answers the question in the affirmative. Defining scientific materialism to mean ‘the reduction of not only the inorganic universe, but also the phenomena of life and mind, to conditions of matter and force,’ he maintains that it does not of necessity imply the denial of a personal God and Creator, or a future life of man. In the course of his exposition, the accomplished author shows himself perfectly able to cope with such high scientific authorities as the writers of The Unseen Universe, has a good word to say even for Mr. John Stuart Mill, and is candid enough to admit that Spinoza and David Hume were personally among the most amiable and upright of men. In short, this address may be regarded as an Eirenicum on the part of an eminent physician and man of science—another and a most successful attempt to prove that science and religion are not natural enemies, or citadels frowning defiance at each other. The essays of Bacon contain no greater truth than that which is expressed in the words: “A smattering of philosophy leads men to Atheism; a profound acquaintance with philosophy brings men back to religion.” Dr. Drysdale’s scholarly address is another evidence of this—another and most welcome testimony that science has a foundation, and so has religion; and that if they unite, the basis, while broader, will only support two kindred compartments of one great fabric—the one the outer and the other the inner court.”
Bible History Confirmed by the Assyrian Tablets
‘My next illustration shall be mythology, showing the light which the inscriptions shed on scriptural notices of the religion of the Assyrians and Babylonians. We learn from the seventeenth chapter of the Second Book of Kings that on the removal of the Israelites from their country their place was supplied by colonists from other parts of the Assyrian dominions—‘from Babylon, and from Cutha, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim’—and we are further told that these colonists introduced severally the woship of their own special deities—‘the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth their god, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the men of Sepharvaim burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.’ Now here the first thing to be noted is, that though these colonists are (with the one exception of Hamath) from cities of Babylonia, yet they worship different gods. Now this is a marked feature of the Babylonian and Assyrian religion as revealed to us by the inscriptions—each city has its favourite among the gods, its patron, deity or deities. Next, when we come to consider the special deities of the different towns, (we find together with some difficulties) some remarkable points of agreement. I have not time now to notice the difficulties. I have done so, and explained them in my comment on Kings in the Speaker’s Commentary; at present I will only point out instances of close agreement. ‘The men of Cuth made Nergal their god.’ Nergal is constantly presented to us in the inscriptions as the special deity of Cutha. The Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech. Sippara (or Sepharvaim) is distinguished in the inscriptions by having two protecting deities, which are the male and female Sun. The latter is called Annnit, in which we have, I think, the root of Anam-melech; the former is the Sun-God, Son or Shemesh, whom the Hebrew writer has mentioned under one of his epithets the Fire-King (or, perhaps, ‘the exalted King.’) One more illustration and I will release you. There is a passage rather difficult to understand in the Second Book of Chronicles (33:11) which runs thus—‘The Lord brought upon them the captains of the host of the king of Assyria, which took Manasseh among the thorns and bound him with fetters and carried him to Babylon.’ What is this ‘taking among the thorns?’ The English reader is led to suppose that Manasseh hid himself in a thicket—an unkingly and not very probable action. But what do we find when we look to the original? Why that the natural translation would be, ‘Which took Manasseh with hooks and bound him with fetters and carried him to Babylon.’ Our translators, not understanding what this could mean, looked about for some other sense, and found the one which they have given. But I think no Hebrew scholar will defend it. The real meaning is one of which the Assyrian sculptures furnish very abundant illustration. It was an Assyrian practice to place hooks or rings in the mouths of captive kings, passing them through the upper or under lip, or perhaps through both, to attach a string or thong to the rings, and so to lead the prisoner into the royal presence. This is what was really done with Manasseh, who was led into the presence of Esarhaddon in this cruel and ignominious way.—(Compare 2 Kings 19:28, and Amos 4:2.)—Lecture by “Canon” Rawlinson.
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 501.)
“The law of gravitation stands foremost among the doctrines of modern physics. The evidences of its truth have gone on increasing for two full centuries, ever since the Principia of Newton appeared. That any person of intelligence should still doubt it, after it has been confirmed by all the complex calculations and verified results of astronomy, through these two hundred years, is to me a matter of wonder and amazement.
But has this truth, however firm and solid, no nebula still surrounding it? In that case, such a paper as the one in your fourth volume by your former secretary, on ‘Current Physical Astronomy,’ would have been impossible. And that paper by no means stands alone. Statements of Dr. Tyndall and Mr. Spencer, and the hypotheses named by Professor Maxwell, in his articles on ‘Atoms’ and ‘Attraction,’ prove still more decisively how much remains debated, uncertain and obscure, even in the most certain of scientific truths.
And first, what do we mean by a physical law? Dr. Tyndall answers boldly, a fatal necessity. Torricelli, Newton, the scientific men of the present day, all knew, he says, that the succession, besides being permanent, is necessary; that the gravitating force must produce the observed course of the seasons. ‘If the force be permanent, the phenomena are necessary, whether they do or do not resemble what has gone before. Nothing has occurred to indicate that the operation of the laws has ever been suspended, or nature crossed by spontaneous action.’ Hence miracles are incredible. Strong in this premise, the inherent necessity of natural laws, he issues an imperial edict to all theologians: ‘Keep to the region of the human heart; but keep away from physical nature. Here, in all frankness, I would say, you are ill-informed, self-deluded and likely to delude others.’
So frank a statement demands a frank and simple reply. The exclusion of all theologians and believers in miracles from the fields of science rests on two grounds — a plain historical falsehood and a patent logical sophism. If this scientific interdict is valid, Sir Isaac Newton must share in the exile denounced against all Christian divines. His authority is here quoted to prove the very self-same doctrine which he has most clearly, strongly, and pointedly denounced and condemned. According to him, the law of gravitation and the other laws of nature are no product of a blind and fatal necessity. ‘This beautiful system,’ he says, ‘of sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.’ And again: ‘Blind, metaphysical necessity, which is the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find could arise from nothing but the counsel and will of a Being necessarily existing.’ Thus Newton is invoked to establish, as a test of scientific competence, that conception of natural laws which he has plainly denounced as unscientific, unreasonable and absurd.
But the reasoning of Dr. Tyndall is here no less defective than his inversion of historical truth is surprising and extreme. He confounds two things wholly distinct — a hypothetical necessity that certain results must follow, if such and such laws operate undisturbed, and a real necessity that these laws must continue to operate, and can never be varied or suspended, either by some higher law unknown to us, or by the free choice of the Creator. His dictum, then, is not less opposed to common sense than to Newton’s real teaching and authority. Whenever there are diverse laws among which a calculator may choose, so as to trace the consequences of one or another at his pleasure, the real existence of any one of them can be due to no blind fate, but, as Newton justly maintains, to the wise and intelligent choice of a Divine Lawgiver.”—(To be continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (from p. 503)
(Known as the Pentateuch.)
“Thus, without having recourse to the Sacred Records, we have traced the existence of the Pentateuch to the time of the return from Babylon. From this time on we have the testimony of Hebrew writers. Of these, during the rebuilding of the Temple and city of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Hebrew Commonwealth, there are no less than five—Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah and Ezra. With the two last-named writers, modern criticism has dealt unceremoniously. But the unsparingness of the criticism has done more good than harm. The most sceptical admit enough to be genuine, to prove that the Law existed and was received as the Law of God given by Moses. These books describe the endeavour of the leaders of the Jews to restore the temple and the worship as they had been before the captivity, and the law of Moses is the form according to which all was to be done. Ezra 7:21, speaks of “the Law of the God of heaven.” Nehemiah 1:7 confesses the transgression ‘of the commandments, statutes, and judgments which God commanded Moses.’ Malachi 4:4, commands Israel ‘to remember the law of Moses given in Horeb, with the statutes and judgments.’ Haggai says, ‘Ask now the priests concerning the Law.’ Zechariah testifies against Israel that ‘they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the Law.’ Now the Law here spoken of must be that known to Manasseh and the Samaritans, and therefore identical with that which we now possess. It was evidently not written or compiled at the time. The tithes and sacrifices were burdensome under the circumstances of the returned Jews; the laws with respect to marriage more burdensome still. Nothing but faith in the Law, as received from their fathers, could have led the people to submit, or the leaders to persevere in the trying and ungrateful task of restoring the ancient worship and discipline. Indeed, it is admitted on all hands that the Law spoken of, or alluded to in these books, is the Pentateuch in all its completeness as we now possess it. The Jews must, therefore, have possessed it in their exile, and brought it back with them on their return.
The correctness of this statement is abundantly proved by the writings of Ezekiel, who was himself a captive. He had been carried away eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, began to prophesy in the fifth year of the captivity, and continued to prophesy at least until the sixteenth year after the city had been destroyed.—(Ezek. 1:1, 2, and 29:17.)
Concerning the genuineness of these writings, modern criticism raises no doubts. Its estimate of Ezekiel’s style and genius is not very flattering, but it pronounces that the prominent and unequivocal peculiarities of the man are stamped on every page from the beginning to the end; that the book was written and its parts arranged in their present order by Ezekiel himself.1 If, therefore, he was acquainted with the Pentateuch, or Law, it must be that which Ezra and his companions brought with them from their exile, even if we had no details to prove their identity. That he was thus acquainted with a law, judgments and statutes, acknowledged by the people as divine, to which, therefore, he could refer in order to convince them of sin, and on which, as upon an infallible authority, he could found his reproofs, is certain beyond the shadow of a doubt. In chapter 22:26, Ezekiel says, ‘The priests have done violence to my law.’ That in this passage the prophet does not use the word ‘law’ generally of any religious doctrine given by God, but of ‘The Law,’ is evident from the detail which precedes and follows the words quoted. In verses 3–12 we read: ‘In thee have they set light by father and mother; in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger; in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. Thou hast despised my holy things and hast profaned my Sabbaths. In thee are men that carry tales to shed blood, and in thee they eat upon the mountains; in thee have they discovered their fathers’ nakedness. In thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter-in-law; and another, in thee, hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter. In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood. Thou hast taken usury and increase.’ In these few verses there are, at least, twenty-nine references to, or rather quotations from the Pentateuch, from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, perceptible in the English version, but the very Hebrew words used in the original of those books.5 In the twenty-sixth verse, first referred to, we read, ‘Their priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths and I am profaned among them.” In this one verse are, at least, four more references to Lev. 10:10; 11:45; 20:25, and Ex. 31:13. Besides which, it is to be remarked that the word translated profane (חל) occurs only in the Pentateuch, in 1 Sam. 21:5, 6, and in Ezekiel. Let the reader also examine chaps. 18. and 20., where he will find references and quotations without end. The latter chapter is also worthy of attention as a recapitulation of the history of what happened in the wilderness. Indeed the whole book of Ezekiel is impregnated with the language of the Pentateuch, as has been proved long ago. It is specially remarkable for the use of the figures and language peculiar to the Pentateuch. Thus, the phrase, “Pine away in their iniquity,” (Ezek. 4:17; 24:23; 33:10), occurs only here and Lev. 26:39. Again, a favourite expression of Ezekiel’s, “Mine eyes shall not spare,” (Ezek. 5:11; 7:4–9; 8:18; 9:5–10), occurs in the Pentateuch, once in Gen. 45:20 (margin), five times in Deuteronomy, and only once besides in the whole Bible. — (Isa. 13:18.) Another phrase peculiar to Ezekiel and the Pentateuch is, “I will draw out a sword after them.” Compare Exod. 15:9; Lev. 26:33, with Ezek. 5:2–12; 12:14; and observe in Lev. 26:33, and Ezek. 12:14, that the threat of drawing the sword is, in both cases, accompanied with “the threat of dispersion,” expressed in the original in the very same words. Again, the phrase, “Staff of bread,” occurring in our prophet, 4:16; 5:16; 14:12, is found only in the Pentateuch.—(Lev. 26:26.) In like manner the expression, “I will set my face,” employed several times by Ezekiel, is, excepting two passages in Jeremiah, found only in the Pentateuch. There are many other similar points of agreement, but these are sufficient to identify the Law of which Ezekiel speaks with that of the Pentateuch, which we now possess. And it is particularly to be observed that his references to the law necessarily imply that the priests, the prophets, and the people all knew the law to which he referred, and received it as an undoubtedly divine authority, to which they were amenable, by which they were to be judged, and from which there was no appeal. We have, therefore, unexceptionable testimony that the Pentateuch existed in the captivity and seven years before the (Babylonian) destruction of Jerusalem. (The evidence is carried gradually backwards, in the ensuing sections).” (To be continued.)
Genuineness of the Book of the Prophet Daniel
(Continued from page 505.)
“All now admit the existence and might of Nebuchadnezzar, and yet Herodotus knew nothing about him or his actions: this is a simple argument to meet some of the false criticisms which are used to oppose Scripture by exalting other authorities.1
The allegations, then, of historical errors in Daniel, based on the silence of other authors (of whom scarcely one goes over the same ground), are worse than futile: they are not easy to combat, for they are as intangible as shadows on the wall. They are such points as the names of the kings mentioned in this book; the customs spoken of as existing; the time, etc., of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession;—not one of which would be regarded as a serious difficulty (or as any difficulty at all) in the case of a profane historian.
One of these objects (and, I believe, far the strongest) may be noticed in detail. Daniel says that Belshazzar, the last Babylonian king, was slain on the night of his impious feast, and that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. On the contrary, Berosus and Abydenus both say that the last king, whom they call Naboneddus or Nabonedochus, was not killed, but that he had an honourable abode in Caramania assigned to him. To which shall we give credit? Berosus says that he surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa after the city of Babylon was taken; so that this account disconnects him altogether from the final catastrophe. Berosus and Abydenus give us the Chaldee account, in which the downfall of the monarchy was thus represented: the interval between the days of Cyrus and those of the Seleucidæ, was quite sufficient for a legend to assume this form; and now that the Persian sovereignty was fallen, it was but natural for those stories which related to the last of a preceding race to be revivified. In fact, this narrative about an abode in Caramania for the king who had disappeared, is only the same in kind as the many similar legends which have been connected with fallen monarchs: witness the tales respecting Don Roderick, James IV., and Don Sebastian.
But it may be asked, how can this Babylonia account be refuted? Perhaps a direct disproof cannot be given: but here the two narrations stand; let them be judged between themselves. Had Daniel been a late book, how can we account for the writer not having inserted the later narration of Berosus and Abydenus? And if he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, how could we imagine that the Jews of that region would receive the narration as true? In fact, the two histories stand on their own merits; and thus without pressing into our service the testimony of Xenophon, who says that the Babylonian king was killed, it may be fairly put to the reader, whether he rejects the narrative of Daniel in favour of those who pro more, soften and explain away what would be for the discredit of Babylonia. Historic investigation would not hesitate in such a case. This is at least a proof that the historic parts of Daniel are wholly independent of the accounts which were current in latter times.
One ground of objection to the book has been based on Greek words which it contains. These are found in the names of musical instruments, ch. 3:5, etc.: κίθαρις, קַיתְרֹס or קִיתַרֹס σαμβύκη, ֒181ַבְּ֫כָא; ψαλτήριον, פְּסַנתֵּרִין; and συμφωνία, סוּמְפֹּנֳיה. But what ground do these afford for questioning the date or authorship? The conclusion which I should draw from their occurrence, would simply be, that such musical instruments were then known in Babylon as had been derived from the Greeks, and still retained their Greek names.
The fact of part of Daniel being written in Chaldee, and part in Hebrew, has been made an objection. This is most strange: the same thing is found in Ezra; and so it rather tells in favour of Daniel than the contrary.
So, too, the impurity of the Hebrew: had the language been such as is found in Isaiah, no doubt that an objection would have been raised from the purity of the language being such as a Jew in Babylon could not be expected to use.
An objection has been raised from Dan. 9:2, where the writer says, ‘I, Daniel, understood by books;’ it has been alleged that the writer evidently means by the phrase ‘by the books’ בַּסְּפָּרִים, the Old Testament as a collection, and therefore he must have lived later than ‘the closing of the canon.’ If this objection has any meaning, it shows that the writer of Daniel was demented; for it is evident that he intended his book to be received as part of holy Scripture. But ‘the books’ is not the Jewish designation of the Old Testament, but ‘the writings.’ And, further, מֵפֶר, a book, in the plural, commonly means a letter; the only places where it is otherwise rendered are Ec. 12:12, ‘books,’ Jer. 32:14, ‘evidences,’ and this passage in Dan. 9. Elsewhere (and it occurs eighteen times), it is always translated in our version quite correctly, a letter, or letters. The reference in Dan. 9:2 is assuredly to the letter mentioned in Jer. 29:10.
It may be needful to assure the reader that these objections, trivial as they are, have actually been brought forward as if they were weighty and conclusive, as if they would be admitted for one moment as sufficient for rejecting any ancient writing whatever. It really seems as if an endeavour were made to compensate in the number of accusations for there individual weakness. Opposers seem to have acted on the principle which weighs with vulgar minds, vitupera fortiter aliquid adhoerebit: if much is said on a subject, or in accusation of any person or thing, it seems to such as if there must be something in the charges, or else so many could not be brought. Such principles are utterly at variance with critical truth and mental rectitude.
But, it is added, that the prophecies in Daniel prove the book to be a forgery. How can this be? Because (it is answered) they give a clear and distinct history on to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then fail entirely. This argument rests, then, on the subjective mode in which the objector understands the prophecies. Some have shown their supposed critical acumen, by even pointing out in what parts of the Maccabean age the different sections of Daniel were written; so that it has been said that chapters 1. to 6. were written while Antiochus Epiphanes had suppressed the Jewish worship, and his abominable idol was yet standing, and that the rest of the book was written when Judas Maccabæus had purged the Temple! And all this without one tittle of evidence! To affirm that this book belongs to the Maccabean age, shows a sufficient boldness of assertion, but this minuteness goes farther still. I cannot but regard it as an instructive proof of the consequences of rejecting evidence, that such opinions are advanced, and we are told that they are worthy of reception without evidence. Suppose we were to reject history (that for instance of the last sixty years), and account for the present condition of things, politically and morally, from our own subjective ideas of what is fitting and probable.
I do not now discuss the interpretation of Daniel up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; but this assumed theory is overturned at once and sufficiently by two parts of Daniel.
1st.—He prophesies that there should arise four great monarchies; and he says himself that Babylon was the first of these, and the Medo-Persian the second; and that this second would be subverted by the first king of Greece, and then a fourth would rise. It might be plain, in the Maccabean days, that the Roman power was rising into supremacy; but still it was not a monarchy, and even its supremacy, as an ultimate thing, was very problematical. He also further prophesies that no other earthly kingdom would subvert this fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has been accomplished. The Roman State became a monarchy: it subverted the subsisting parts of the Grecian sovereignty; but no fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though repeatedly attempted; as, for instance, by Charlemagne, by Charles V., and, in our day, by Napoleon. How could an impostor, a pseudo-Daniel of the days of the Maccabees, know all this?
2nd.—He foretells the time when Messiah the Prince should arise, as dated from a certain decree. Now, at the time foretold, the Messiah did come; he also foretold that Messiah should be cut off: this, too, was accomplished. He then speaks of the destruction of the city, which also took place.
These two predictions, involving many points, are sufficient to show, 1st: that Daniel was a true prophet; and 2nd, that it is not correct to make the death of Antiochus the last point of definite prediction in the book.
As, then, Daniel, was a prophet of post-Maccabean events, as proved by this two-fold testimony, why not admit that the antecedent occurrences, spoken of in the form of predictions, are also prophecies? Why not believe this prophet when he speaks of the time when he wrote, and the place where? Why suppose that truth and imposture are most mystically combined?