1879

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 hitcher, 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. 2:18).
“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).
Restored Identity at the Resurrection
BROTHER Rae, late of Bristol, now of London, sends the following clipping from the Observer of September last. “During a thunderstorm on Saturday afternoon, two labourers, in the employ of Mr. Bennion, a farmer, near Leek, were killed by lightning while reaping wheat. It is stated that on the breast of one of them is an impression of a sheaf of corn. A third man is so seriously injured that he is not likely to recover.” Brother Rae says he has been on the outlook for an occurrence of this sort ever since reading Anastasis, wherein Dr. Thomas referred to the case of a man killed by lightning while sheltering under a tree having the image of the tree impressed on his body, as illustrating the principle on which the mental impressions of the present life are engraved on the new brain produced at the resurrection, resulting in the reproduction of identity. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” the character formed during probation is reproduced on new substance, and the result is the man that was before, recognised by himself and all who knew him.
“Profane” Confirmation of New Testament History
It is important to bear in mind that several events which are recorded in the New Testament as having occurred in connection with Christ and his apostles, are also mentioned by those heathen authors who lived concurrently with or immediately after them, not because we stand in need of their testimony, but because it is the testimony of those who not only did not believe, but who were opposed to the doctrines and precepts of Christ, and who, therefore, would not be likely to make mention of any facts calculated to support that which it was their wish to decry, except such as were historical and notorious facts which could not be suppressed or denied.
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dion record the fact “that Augustus Cæsar ordered the whole empire to be censed or taxed.” This fact is mentioned by Luke.—(Luke 2:1.)
Chalcidius relates “that a great light or a new star appeared at that time in the east.” This is doubtless the star mentioned in Matt. 2:2, 9, 10, which guided the wise men on their way to the place where Christ was born.
Macrobius relates it as a known fact “that Herod the king of Palestine, so often mentioned in Roman history, made a great slaughter of innocent children.” This is no doubt the slaughter mentioned in Matt. 2:16.
Celsus acknowledges that Jesus was carried down into Egypt.
Tacitus mentions the fact “that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, that Jesus was brought into judgment before him, and by him condemned and crucified.”
Trallian states “that at the time when Jesus died, there was a miraculous darkness and a great earthquake.”
Julian, Prophyry, and Hierocles all admit “that many miraculous cures and works out of the ordinary course of nature were wrought by Christ.”
Phlegon confesses “that Jesus foretold several things which came to pass according to his predictions.”
Julian acknowledges “that Peter, the apostle of Christ, performed many wonderful works.”
Thus we see that the truth of the Bible narratives is corroborated by the testimony of its enemies. Indeed, it has been well said that “there is no transaction of ancient history that can exhibit more than a fraction of the evidence by which the narrative of the Gospels is sustained.”
FRANCIS A. CHATWIN.
Recent Discoveries Prove the Bible and Confute the Learned
At one of the sectional meetings of the Church Congress, held at Sheffield, the question for discussion was “What definite results have been produced by the discoveries in Egypt, Nineveh, and Palestine?”
The first paper read, by Professor Rawlinson, confined the subject to Egypt and Assyria. The speaker chiefly dwelt on the effect which the recent discoveries in Assyria produced on the interpretation of Scripture, and, in so doing, he referred his hearers to the prevalent theory entertained both in Germany and in England some thirty years ago, when the historical books of the Old Testament were regarded as a bundle of myths, containing not narratives of facts, but romantic tales invented by their several authors. This theory was supported mainly by two assertions: (1) That the scriptural narrative was in many important points absolutely at variance with profane history, and was consequently false; and (2), that the manners and customs of the foreign nations brought into contact with the Jews were greatly misrepresented. Supposed “crucial instances” under the former head were the pre-eminence of Babylon over Assyria in the early times, the late appearance of Assyria as a conquering Power, the Cushite character of the early Babylonian monarchy, the implied subjection of the Medes to Assyria when Media was really independent, and the pure invention of certain monarchs, as Zerat the Ethiopian, Sargon, King of Assyria, and Belshazzar, King of Babylon. “Crucial instances” of error with respect to manners and customs were Egypt, as described in the Pentateuch; Babylon, as set forth in the Book of Daniel; and Persia, as depicted in Esther. In these three cases, the sacred writers had been taxed with extreme and extraordinary ignorance of the true habits of the countries, or with the strangest intentional misrepresentation of them. It was, said Canon Rawlinson, when things were in this state, when the mythical interpretation had triumphantly established its complete dominion over the Old Testament, that by God’s providence the series of Oriental discoveries commenced. When man was silenced, the “stones” were made to “cry out.” The mounds of Mesopotamia gave up their treasures; the enigmas of the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and cuneiform characters were penetrated; the language of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia recovered; a contemporary literature was dug out of the earth; paintings and sculptures revealed the manners and customs of the peoples; and a light was thereby shed upon ancient history such as it had never received before. Then a just comparison was made between the sacred narrative and authentic profane history, and they were found to be in most remarkable accord. In conclusion, the speaker pointed out in detail how recent discoveries in Egypt and Africa had established the plain historical interpretation in the various alleged “crucial instances,” to which reference has been made above.
Origin of the Laws of Nature
The following interesting paragraph is from the Daily News:—“THE LAWS OF NATURE.—Sir E. Beckett, Q.C., delivered a lecture on the subject of the meaning and origin of the laws of nature, in the theatre of the London Institution, Finsbury Circus, last evening. There was a large attendance, including many ladies. The learned gentleman at the outset reminded his audience that last year he gave them a lecture on gravity as an universal force of nature, and that he then had occasion incidentally to make some remarks about laws of nature in general. The present lecture was an expansion of the subject upon which he spoke last year. Very few people, he said, reflected what the laws of nature meant and what they did not mean. In order to clear the ground, he would first tell them what were not laws of nature. It was not a law of nature that two and two made four, although it was very true. No mathematical proposition was a law of nature. These things were what was called necessary truths; that was to say, they were truths which they knew without observation. A great many years ago Sir John Herschel gave the best possible illustration of the difference between necessary truths and the laws of nature in his book on the Study of Natural Philosophy. He said that a sufficiently clever man shut up by himself might conceivably reason out all the truths of mathematics, but that the cleverest man that ever lived could not find out without trial what a lump of sugar would do when put into a cup of tea. The lecturer showed how, with regard to the universal force of gravity or attraction, it was impossible to stir one single step without the necessity for a prime cause to produce the motion or tendency to motion which every atom of matter had, humourously pointing out some of the absurdities into which philosophers fell when they attempted to solve the great problems of nature without a prime cause of some kind. When people spoke about matter being self-existent they did not know what they meant. No properties of matter could be self-existent, because they required forces of some kind to make them behave as they did. Whether they could discover where these forces came from was another question. There they got perhaps a shade beyond science. And to talk of these motions, or whatever they were, as being inherent—a word as old as Epicurus—was to say nothing at all. Take the peculiar behaviour of water. Water changed its mode of behaviour at a perfectly arbitrary heat. Below 39 water expanded before it froze; above 39 it expanded also, and if it did not the world would be uninhabitable, for all the water would have got quite solid long ago except that artificially thawed. How did that happen? To account for these things by the doctrines of accident and chance, which played so great a part in the evolution theory, meant nothing more than that they were merely the results of laws of nature which we could not calculate. Such language seemed to him to be only fit for Bedlam. It was a perfectly human function to calculate the laws of nature; the power of making the very smallest law of nature was not a human power, wherever it might come from. There was somewhere or other a power that made things work as they did, and foresaw results. It might be said if all these things were designed by this power, why were they not done a great deal better? He did not know, and if philosophers of all kinds would only confess as much when they did not know, instead of talking nonsense, it would be a great deal better. A law of nature must be taken with all its consequences, which were as certain as any result of mathematics. As to the question of moral evil, there was only one answer to be given to it, and that was that it was the consequence of free will. At the conclusion of the lecture the learned gentleman was warmly applauded.”
The Uncertainties of Modern Science
(Continued from page 465, vol. XV.)
“Every single point in this atheistic nebular theory involves a direct logical contradiction. First, if the universe be full of matter, there could be no motion, for no mass or particle could find any unoccupied place into which to move. There could be no attractive force, for how could parts draw nearer to each other, when every spot between was perfectly full? There could be no rotation in a homogeneous mass, since there will be just as much reason for turning one way as another. There could have been no primitive heat, since heat is motion, and there could be no change of place in a plenum, when no particle has any place not already filled, into which it could remove. There could be no condensation for the same reason.
“The nebular theory, in its only reasonable form, requires these postulates; a system of material atoms, finite, however vast, and therefore capable alike of motion and of increase; a beginning, that is, a primitive state of perfect rest, in which there are forces, but no motion, and therefere not a high temperature, but a perfect zero of cold; a finite past duration, since if we went further back, the later motions must reappear, only with their directions reversed, and the whole ground of the theory would be swept away. And, above all, we need a creative will, to determine the number and the place of all the atoms, and the laws of attraction and repulsion that must guide and determine all their later movements. For the grand aphorism of Newton must remain for ever firm and sure, however sciolists strive against it. ‘Blind necessity, which is always the same everywhere, could never produce this beautiful variety of things.’
“It is folly to derive a state of motion from one of rest, if motion has been eternal, or to describe an original state, if there never was an origin. The nebular theory, in the hands of the atheist, shares the fate of the corpse of Priam. Evolution, again, in Mr. Spencer’s work, is only an obscure synonym for the process of cooling. A heated body contracts and condenses when it cools, and this, in more learned phrase, is the integration of matter. It parts with some of its heat to the cooler bodies around it, and this is the dissipation of motion. Incoherent gases, by cooling, become imperfectly coherent fluids; and these, when cooled further, coherent solids. A sea of aqueous vapour, or a bowl of water, to sense, is wholly homogeneous; but ice-crystals are more or less sensibly heterogeneous. Thus mere cooling combines all the characters of evolution, in Mr. Spencer’s definition.
“But can this be really the grand secret of nature, the key to a new and improved system of physical science? Is this the discovery which is to throw that of Newton into the shade, and absorb into itself all mental philosophy and Christian faith? A primitive nebula, intensely heated at first, has gone on cooling for almost infinite ages! If true, this would be grotesquely inadequate as a theory of all physical change. For this demands not loose phrases or metaphysical verbiage, but distinct laws of force, like the law of gravitation; and of these the theory offers no trace. But it is not true. It is rather the direct opposite of the truth. The primitive nebula, on the only hypothesis which gives us a right to assume its existence at all, cannot have been intensely hot, but at an absolute zero of cold. Heat is atomic motion. And all motion, in a true nebular theory, can only result from attractive forces in a nebula at rest, and its later condensation. The cooling, which Mr. Spencer mistakes for the whole process, and calls evolution, is only a secondary result of the condensation, or the heating process, which directly results from attractive forces, and which must have gone before. Evolution is not simple cooling. Heating by attraction and pressure, and later cooling of the central parts of each mass by transfer of motion towards the surface, are successive stages in the progressive development of cosmical changes.”
(To be continued.)
Proved Trustworthiness of the Writings of Moses (Known as the Pentateuch.)
(Concluded from page 466, vol. XV.)
“The Christian reader will have still stronger reasons for believing in the genuineness and divine origin of the Pentateuch. Our Lord and his apostles speak of the Pentateuch in the language common to the Jews in all times as ‘the Law.’ Sometimes this expression was used of the Old Testament. But when spoken of in connection with the other portions as, ‘The Law and the prophets,’ (Matt. 5:17, 18; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16), or, ‘The Law, the prophets, and the Psalms’ (Luke 24:44), it means the five books attributed to Moses. In the next place, it is to be noted that our Lord, the evangelists, and the apostles regard the Law as a divine revelation, and therefore possessing a divine authority. By Luke 2:23, 24, 39, it is called ‘the Law of the Lord.’ Paul (Rom. 7:22) calls it ‘the Law of God.’ He also teaches that obedience to the Law gives life, transgression entails death.—(Rom. 7:7–11, compare Gal. 3:10.) Again, when Paul cites the words of the Pentateuch, he ascribes them to God; for example, ‘God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them.’—(2 Cor. 6:16, compared with Lev. 26:11, 12.) In like manner John describes sin as the transgression of the Law, ‘Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law.’—(1 John 3:4, compare James 2:8.) The whole system of New Testament doctrine concerning salvation, the guilt of man, the curse of the Law, and redemption by the blood of Christ, rests upon the supposition that the Law is a divine revelation. In like manner, the whole argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning Christ’s priesthood, the nature of his atonement, the typification of the gospel in Levitic ordinances, necessarily presupposes the divine origin of the law.—(Heb. 8:5; 10:1, &c.) Our Lord also ascribes divine authority to the Law. He refers to it as the highest authority (Matt. 12:5; Luke 10:25, 26); and speaks of its precepts as ‘the commandments of God.’—(Matt. 15:3.) According to our Lord’s teaching, the Law is so entirely divine, that ‘it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one jot or tittle of the law to fail’—(Luke 16:16, 17), and therefore is to be violated by none. Matt. 5:19, ‘Whosoever shall break (or, weaken the authority, λύσῃ) of one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ To assert the divine authority of the Law more strongly, is impossible.
“In the thilrd pace, it is to be observed, that our Lord and his apostles taught that the Pentateuch was given by Moses, that he was the penman, and wrote the laws as given him by God. Thus the word ‘Moses’ is frequently put instead of ‘the Law.’ So St. Luke says, 24:27, ‘Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures in the things concerning himself.’ Again, our Lord says, (Luke 16:29), ‘They have Moses and the prophets—if they hear not Moses and the prophets.’ In these places the name of Moses is put for what Moses wrote, as ‘the prophets,’ for their writings. Still stronger is what the Lord says, (John 7:19), ‘Did not Moses give you the law?’ In Luke 2:22, and Acts 15:5, it is called ‘the Law of Moses.’ Our Lord himself says, ‘All things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses.’—(compare Acts 28:23, and 13:39.) It may, however, be said that the Pentateuch is called Moses, and the Law of Moses, because it contains the history and some commands of Moses, on which was based the subsequent legislation, but that these expressions do not necessarily imply that Moses wrote the books. But the New Testament goes farther, and states distinctly that the books were written by Moses. In Matt. 22:24, the Jews said to our Lord, ‘Moses said.’ In John 8:5, ‘Moses in the law commanded us,’ and in Mark 12:19, and Luke 20:28, ‘Moses wrote unto us.’ The Lord, in his reply, confirms this opinion as to the authorship of the law, saying, ‘Have ye not read in the book of Moses?’—(Mark 12:26. In the parallel passage (Luke 20:37), our Lord says, ‘Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham,’ &c. Moses can only be said to call God by that title by being the historian of what God had called Himself. The historian calls God the God of Abraham. Moses, therefore, was the historian; and, therefore, our Lord also says to the Jews (Mark 7:10), ‘Moses said, Honour thy father and mother,’ and again, when speaking of divorce (Mark 10:5), ‘For the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept;’ and, in like manner (John 10:46, 47), ‘Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’ (Compare John 1:45, 46; Acts 3:22.) James says, in like manner, ‘Moses is read in the Synagogue every Sabbath day.’—(Acts 15:21). Paul says (Rom. 10:5), ‘Moses writeth (γράφει) the righteousness of the law,’ referring to Lev. 18:5. It is evident, therefore, that our Lord and his apostles regarded the Pentateuch as the law of Moses, the book of Moses, the writings of Moses.
Fourthly, it appears, also, that they received the history which that book contains as true and authentic, the miraculous and supernatural as well as that which is according to the common course of nature. Thus, in Mark 10:9, the Lord refers to the creation of Adam and Eve as historically true; and on the words of Adam founds His own command: ‘What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ In Matt. 24:37, He refers to the deluge, the destruction of the world, and the preservation of Noah. In Luke 17:32, to the fire and brimstone which destroyed Sodom and the cities of the plain, and the transformation of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt. So he refers to the appearance of God in the burning bush; the miraculous effect of looking at the brazen serpent; and the miraculous supply of manna, as typical of Himself, where the comparison necessarily implies the truth of the fact.—(Jno. 3:14; 6:49–51.) Stephen repeats almost word for word the history of Abraham’s miraculous call, the birth of Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs; the miraculous circumstances of the exodus, and the giving of the law.—(Acts 7.) Paul compares the first and second Adam, and refers to the creation of the former from the dust of the earth (1 Cor. 15:21, &c.), and to the creation of the woman.—(1 Cor. 11:7–8.) He also refers to the temptation by the serpent, and the transgression of the woman, as real history (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13, 14); and in Rom. 5:12 founds an argument upon the fact that death entered by sin. In Rom 4:19 he refers to the miraculous conception and birth of Isaac; and in 9:10–13 to the election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau, as true history. He makes the Passover the ground of an exhortation to holiness (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), and presses upon the attention of the Corinthians the passage through the Red Sea, the guidance of the pillar and cloud, as well as the miraculous supply of water; and upon that most miraculous trait in the history of the manna, that he that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack, he founds directions respecting the exercise of charity.—(2 Cor. 8:15.) In 1 Cor. 10:8 he refers to Baal Peor; and in 2 Cor. 3:13, to the miraeculous glory in the countenance of Moses. He evidently receives the whole as inspired, authentic and authoritative; holy, just and good; a schoolmaster unto Christ; when the one object of his life, to preach justification by faith without the law, would naturally have led him to depreciate its authority, if he had not been instructed by the spirit to receive it as a Divine revelation. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 11. reference is made to the Mosaic history from Cain and Abel to the passage of the Red Sea, as well as the circumstances of awe and majesty under which the law was given (Heb. 12:18–21); to the wanderings and death of the rebellious Israelites (Heb. 3:7–19), and the early institution of the Sabbath. James refers to the offering of Isaac (2:21); and Peter points to the example of Sarah (1 Pet. 3:6); to the deliverance of Noah (2 Pet. 2:6, 9, 15); the destruction of Sodom, and the dumb ass rebuking the madness of the prophet. These references prove that Christ and the apostles believed in the Divine origin of the Pentateuch. Christ’s omniscience and the working of the spirit of truth in the apostles are sufficient warrant for the faith of every Christian man. Whether he can solve difficulties or not, he has the infallible testimony of Christ and his inspired apostles, and that is an answer to all objectors. He feels that he cannot reject the Pentateuch without renouncing his faith in his Saviour. Christ himself has stated the indissoluble connection between faith in the Pentateuch and faith in himself. ‘If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?’ Bishop Colenso has proved in his own person the truth of the Saviour’s appeal. He first rejects the Pentateuch; he then robs Christ of his omniscience. According to him, Christ’s knowledge as to ‘the authorship and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch’ did not ‘surpass that of the most pious and learned of his nation.’ In perfect consistency with these sentiments, when he rejects Moses and the Pentateuch, he does not ask us, in order to fill up the aching void, to fall back upon Christ and the gospels, but upon the theology of the Sikh Gooroos, and other heathen, ‘who had no Pentateuch or Bible to teach’ them. And this is, in fact, the drift of the new theology, to bring us back to scientific heathenism. Bishop Colenso has spoken out what others have been mumbling in dark sentences. But whilst it is possible to contrast the condition of Christendom with that of the Hindoos, the Chinese of the present day, or the great nations of classical antiquity—the republic of Moses with the republic of Plato—the power of Christ’s doctrine with the effects of the teaching of Socrates—we think it more agreeable to reason, as well as to piety, to refuse the new heathenising theories; to abide by the old Catholic doctrine, and hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints.”

310-317




THE BIBLE TRUE
THE BIBLE’S HISTORICAL RELIABILITY WAITING THE NEXT ATTACK
AT the annual meeting of the Church Congress, recently held at Sheffield, some good things were said on the subject of the Bible’s proved historical veracity. Papers were read by Professor Rawlinson, Mr. W. R. Cooper, and Canon Tristram, the latter of whom said that the assaults on the truth of the Old Testament historical narratives had been triumphantly repulsed by the discoveries which formed the subject of discussion, and they calmly awaited the next charge. Professor Rawlinson said that thirty years ago, the historical books of the Bible were believed to be merely romance, and not intended to be the records of absolute facts, and an attempt was made to divide those that were mythological from those which were legendary. Then it was said that the unhistorical character of the books was proved by the misrepresentation of the manners and customs of the people of whom they spoke, and of Egypt, as described in the Pentateuch, Babylon as described by Daniel, and Persia as described in the book of Esther. It was when things were brought to this state that, in God’s providence, the wonderful series of discoveries which our time had witnessed were brought about, and opportunities were given of testing the truth of the sacred narratives which the world had never had before, and never expected to possess. The points which were said to show the strongest instances of disagreement were found to be striking instances of agreement between sacred and profane history, and the ground was thus cut from under the feet of mythical interpreters, and their whole system collapsed. It was not too much to say that they had not now a defender, and had scarcely an apologist.
Canon Tristram’s paper dealt with the question: What definite result as to the interpretation of Scripture has been produced by recent discoveries? He said:
“The discoveries of archæology, whether monumental or historical, have affected the interpretation of Scripture in four aspects—1, ethnological; 2, historical; 3, chronological; 4, geographical and topographical. The last three aspets affect the interpretation of the early Scriptures, whether pre-Abrahamic or post-Abrahamic. In all three aspects we knew nothing till very recently which could be looked upon as contemporary. We had only vague traditions or the second-hand information of later ancient writers, so that profound investigators of primæval antiquity, such as Stanley Faber, had none of the mass of material, whether of archæological discovery or linguistic recovery, which is at our command to aid them in tracing the primitive history of man. The result is that, whether we turn to the so-called legendary epoch before the call of Abraham, or to the annalistic period following it, we now find ourselves confronted with a contemporary and sometimes a more ancient literature, amplifying, exaggerating, interpolating, but never absolutely contradicting the terse narrative of Genesis. Looking first of all at the historical revelations of the Assyrian tablets in the pre-Abrahamic period, the long series of records published in many volumes by the Biblical Archæological Society bring before us a complete Assyrian story of man from the Creation. The story of the Creation and the Fall belong to the upper, or Akkad, i.e., Cushite division of the country, and in their present form are, perhaps, not the earliest legends; but even these are, in their original form, at least two centuries older than Abraham and six centuries older than Moses. The story of the Flood and the history of Nimrod were probably written in the south of Chaldæa, and are at least as early as B.C. 2,000. But they were all traditions before committed to writing, and the traditions are much older still. Mr G. Smith remarks: ‘There is fair reason to suppose that there was a close agreement between the text of the Chaldean legend and Genesis, while there does not appear to be anything like the same agreement between these inscriptions and the accounts transmitted to us by Berosus.’ Let us briefly note the points of identity. The first tablet, corresponding to Gen. 1:1, 2. begins—
‘When the upper regions were not yet called heaven,
‘And the lower region was not yet called earth,
‘And the abyss of hades had not yet opened its arms,
‘Then the chaos of water gave birth to all of them,
‘And the waters were gathered into one place.
‘No men yet dwelt together, no animals yet wandered about;
‘None of the gods had yet been born,
‘Their names were not spoken, and their attributes were not known.’—‘Records of the Past, vol. ix. p. 117).
In another, we have the creation of dry land; in the fifth we have the creation of the heavenly bodies with much detail, the moon being created before the sun. They are to be for signs, for seasons, for days and for years. But more, it declares the Sabbath to have been ordained at the Creation. ‘On the seventh day He appointed a holyday, and to cease from all work he commanded.’ But, as Mr. Talbot Fox remarks: ‘The account falls short of the majesty of the Hebrew Genesis, for it implies that the heavenly movements might possibly go wrong, and therefore, the dwellings of the gods Hea and Bel are placed in the planets.’ The creation of the cattle of the field, the beast of the field, and the creeping things, occur as in Genesis. We have the Fall. ‘The dragon Tiamut tempted him. The god Hea heard and was angry, because his man had corrupted his purity.’ The curse is, ‘May he be conquered and at once cut off.’ On a seal two figures are seated by a tree holding out their hands to the fruit, while a serpent stands erect behind one of them. Four rivers are spoken of as surrounding Gan-dann—i.e., Gan-Eden, the Garden of Eden, two of them the Tigris and Euphrates. Among the Antediluvians occur Cain, Enoch, Cainan, Lamech, Tubal-Cain, or Bil-Kan, the god of fire and melter of metal. The ten generations of Genesis are represented by ten successive kings. The translation of Enoch is placed after the Flood, and transferred to Noah. Of the famous Izdubar legend, the Assyrian story of the Flood, I need not speak. Twenty-three points in the narrative of Genesis are given in the tablets, with some few discrepancies, enough to show that neither narrative was copied directly from the other. The tablets gave an account of the building of the Tower of Babel and its interruption by Divine interposition. Next came the story of Nimrod, identified with the highest probability as the Izdubar of the Tablets, for he founded Babel, Akkad, Erech and Nipur, which has been shown to be another name for the Calneh of Genesis. The discovery by Mr. Loftus and identification of Ur, with its innumerable inscriptions, its bricks stamped with the name of Arioch (Gen. 14:1), and its temples to the moon-god and other idols, bring down the exhumed Assyrian annals to the time of Abraham. What, then, said the speaker, is the definite result as to Scripture history? Certainly there is not an incident touched on from primæval chaos to the call of Abraham, which is not illustrated and confirmed by the utterances of a language which speaks again after a silence of 4000 years, though we have only just begun to gather a few fragments from its storehouses. The ingenuity of a destructive criticism can avail nothing against this. Subtle intellects have endeavoured to evolve from their inner consciousness the theory of differing Jehovistic and Elohistic originals put together in later ages to form the early chapters of Genesis, and shallow copyists have assumed this as an accepted axiom of scholarship. We have been told that the Pentateuch, in its present shape, was compiled by Samuel, by the late Seers, or by Ezra. But now it is no longer possible to suggest any origin later than the date of the Exodus for the history of Genesis, for to the Jews of the later period of Samuel the records of Assyria were inaccessible, and the structure of the language of Genesis is too archaic to be postponed to the period of the Captivity.” The next points discussed were the geographical and topographical details of the early Scriptures, attention being chiefly directed to the journal of the wanderings of the Exodus and the allotment of the Land of Promise. The recent surveys of the Sinaitic peninsula showed the most exact accordance of the record of the Exodus with existing topographical facts, which accordance would be inconceivable unless the history were completed at the time. Briefly describing the recent discoveries made during the exploration of Palestine, which fully bore out the truth of the Scripture narrative, and mentioning that there is scarcely a village, however insignificant, which does not retain for its desolate heap or its modern hovels, the Arabic equivalent for the name written down by Joshua 3,300 years ago, Canon Tristram said in conclusion: “But it is not merely the continuance by an ‘occult Providence’ of the names in the very places where they ought by the Record to be; it is the little touches which often startle, by the way in which they carry conviction of the time and place of the sacred penman. Thus when we read that Abraham’s second encampment ‘was on a mountain east of Bethel, and that he pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east, and then he builded an altar,’ and when between the site of Bethel, and the desolate heap, the ‘Tell’ of Ai, we observe a valley, and in its centre a lofty hill with undecipherable ruins on its summit, whence and whence alone a view of the Jordan valley and the head of the Dead Sea is obtained, we know exactly where Abraham stood and where the writer placed him. Thus is proof and illustration rapidly accumulating, and one definite result is certainly this, that hostile criticism must for the future be subjective and not objective. The historical assault has been triumphantly repulsed all along the line. We calmly await the next charge; ‘Magna est veritas et prœvalebit.’”
What Science Can and Cannot Do
In his inaugural address at the college of St. Andrews, Lord Selborne made some excellent remarks on this subject—remarks having a valuable bearing on the foundations of our faith. Referring to the various scientific theories of the universe, he said:
“What I am bold enough to dispute altogether is their title to be called scientific. Largely as they are conversant with, much as they profess to build upon, some of the facts of scientific observation, they receive no support from anything which deserves the name of evidence. They make (so it seems to me) as large a demand on faith without experience, on ‘the evidence of things not seen,’ as is made by any doctrines of theology. Induction from scanty or indirect materials imperfectly known, when it cannot be verified by experiment, must necessarily be speculative and precarious.
It should, therefore, be a first principle in all such inquiries, to begin with a right conception of what natural science can and what it cannot do. It can collect, classify, and compare phenomena; it can note their succession and order; it can decompose the subjects of sense into some of their elements, and can trace those elements through many permutations and combinations of substance and form; it can to some extent measure, excite, and make use of the mechanical, chemical, and other forces, on which their structure, arrangement, growth, and other changes depend. To all these things it can give names, convenient as signs and symbols. But what the things so observed and so named are in themselves—what matter is, what force is, no philosopher can tell us. When we have measured the distances and weighed the masses of all the heavenly bodies; when we have tested by the spectroscope the materials of the sun and stars; we are still on the outside of things. If we sometimes seem to penetrate beneath the surface, it is only like children who unpack nests of Chinese boxes, or peel off the coats of a bulb. In words for which I am indebted to my friend and your Chancellor (himself no mean philosopher), the Duke of Argyll, ‘Every advance has its new horizon; every answered question brings into view another question, unanswered and perhaps unanswerable, lying close behind it.’ Matter without mind would be to us nothing; it is through mind only that matter is perceived. As science cannot tell us anything of the essential nature, so neither can it inform us of the ultimate cause of any of these things. Every moment’s experience, and all the results of investigation, concur to show that everything in the world has not been from all eternity exactly as it is now; that there are causes and effects—a series of changes, depending on laws, or on some law, of causation. Science may trace, link after link upwards, some part of the chain which thus hangs down from Infinity; but how that chain came into existence, what began, and what sustains it—on these points science is, and must continue to be, silent. The atomic or world-dust cosmogony is not more satisfactory or more intelligible as an explanation of ourselves and all the varieties of being, form, and force, which we see around us, than the chaos of the ancients. The question, ‘And Chaos whence?’ still inevitably recurs. The speculation of natural philosophers, even after their boldest flights, fail to throw the faintest ray of light upon the transition from inorganic matter to vegetable life, upon animal life, consciousness, and instinct, upon reason and the moral sense in man. Are these realities or not? Do they, or do they not, belong to a higher system, to a greater world, than that of physics, mechanics, and chemistry? No analysis of the material structures with which they are connected has any tendency to explain how they came to be, or why they differ as they do. Many poisonous vapours may float in the social atmosphere; but none, surely, can be worse than that which would suggest doubt or disbelief of everything which cannot be tasted, handled, or seen. It is disbelief not in God only, but in man. Not in the sphere of religion only, but in those of morals and politics, it leaves our human life without rudder, chart, or compass. Epicureanism was the philosophy of Imperial Rome; to modern materialism, the will of those who have power is the sole ground of the obligation of law: Epicureanism in the higher, and Socialism in the lower regions of thought, are still, as they have always been, the natural products of this system. Here it is that religion comes in. I will not trespass at all upon the proper province of the teachers of religion; but to be silent as to the keystone of the arch of human knowledge and virtue is not possible. Morality, which is the conscience of reason; language, which is the discourse of reason; mathematics, the infallible law—poetry, the creative spirit—and natural science, the experimental record—of reason—all point to this. Religion harmonises the inward world of life and consciousness with the outward world of sense, ascribing all to one great cause, which if our knowledge of it is but as a tangent to infinity, still realises the highest conceptions and aspirations which man can form, impersonating the supremacy of perfect reason. In a moral and intelligent author of the Universe, of absolute power, wisdom, and goodness, reason finds the explanation and the archetype of itself, nowhere else discoverable. Infinity and eternal self-existence are transcendent realities, which it is impossible to understand, but in which, under one hypothesis or another, belief is absolutely unavoidable. The alternative is between intelligent and unintelligent self-existence. The more we dissect, analyse, decompose, the more mastery we obtain over the elements of matter, the more irresistible (to my mind at least) becomes the conviction that there is a higher and greater Power behind them. Those who recognise the idea of “force” as necessary to be added to the idea of matter, in order to account for the existences and the known conditions of the universe, bear testimony to this truth, though they fail to explain it. To me (I trust to my hearers also) the presence of that Power is a relation of God. Nature leads men who know no Revelation viam palantes quœrere vitœ; to seek the Unknown, by “feeling after Him, if haply they may find Him.” That cannot be true science which, on this the most important of all subjects, would lead those who believe that they have found Him back to blank ignorance, and teach them to ‘care for none of these things.’ You will hear, nevertheless, from some who think themselves wise, that these things are ‘unknowable.’ A dogma which denies the possibility of the knowledge seems to me to deny also the possibility of the Being of God. It is implied in any reasonable conception of the Author of the Universe, that He is ‘not far from every one of us.’”
Colenso Answered
Dr. McCaul, professor of Hebrew in King’s College, London, answered Colenso a good while ago. The answer is good and conclusive. We are indebted to brother Shuttleworth for being able to publish copious extracts from it in a series of articles commencing with this.
“Faith in the inspiration of the Mosaic writings depends not upon satisfactory replies to objections, nor successful solutions of difficulties. The Pentatench possesses the testimony of the Saviour’s omniscience, and has stamped the evidence of its divine origin upon the annals of the world. From the present hour back to the days of Moses, its influence, and even its language, can be continuously traced in the theology of Christians, the tradition of Jews, the oracles of Hebrew prophets, and the records of Israelite historians. Its very necessity to the right understanding of the religious condition of man, at any period of the world’s history for the last three thousand years, demonstrates its heavenly source. He, then, who believes the Gospel, or contemplates the gigantic and never-ceasing influence which the Pentateuch has exerted upon human thought, action, and conscience, will not be much disturbed by difficulties of detail in a book of such remote antiquity, made up of detached portions of legislation, and fragments of history, written at intervals during the wanderings of the desert, amidst all the cares, troubles, and interruptions necessarily the lot of Israel’s leader and deliverer, and, though inspired, bearing the unmistakable impress of the circumstances under which it was composed. In such a book there must be difficulties, as easily discerned by the believers as the unbelievers—and not a few have been noticed and explained, many centuries ago, by Christian fathers and Jewish Rabbis. In more modern times, Spinoza and the English Deists, the French philosophers and the German rationalists have increased their number; and Christian apologists of various nations, have multiplied answers, so that now but little new can be said for or against the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch. Bishop Colenso’s chief difficulties, such as that relating to Judah’s grandchildren, the number of the children of Israel at the Exodus—the mode of finding sustenance for the cattle in the wilderness—the history of the fortieth year, have been discussed again and again. But as they are stated in a somewhat new form, and some minor objections added, an examination of the Bishop’s whole argument became necessary. The results are now presented to the reader, and will show that the objections propounded by Bishop Colenso are based, some on doubtful interpretations, others on suppression of, or addition to, the words of Scripture impugned, on unwarranted assumptions, or defective information. To range them under these rubrics would be perhaps the most interesting and most forcible method of showing their weakness, and would prevent repetitions. But it might not be considered so fair to the objector. It would certainly not be so convenient for reference; and in some cases would be difficult where unwarranted assumption, defective information, and doubtful interpretation are all combined. The objections, therefore, are reviewed in the order in which they are stated.”
“The first difficulty propounded by Bishop Colenso was not discovered by modern criticism, but was observed and explained centuries ago by Christian fathers and Jewish Rabbis. It relates to Judah’s age and the birth-place of his grandchildren, Hezron and Hamul. As stated by D.C., the difficulty rests on two suppositions; first that the historian meant to convey the idea that Hezron and Hamul were born in Canaan; secondly, that at the descent into Egypt, Judah’s age was forty-two. First, then, as to the birthplace of Judah’s grandchildren. D. C., in section 19, quotes Gen. 46:12, ‘And the sons of Judah, Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zarah; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan; and the sons of Pharez, Hezron and Hamul’—and then says (the italics are D.C.’s)—‘It appears to me to be certain that the writer means to say that Hezron and Hamul were born in the land of Canaan, and were among the seventy persons (including Jacob himself, and Joseph, and his two sons), who came into Egypt with Jacob. He repeats the words again and again:—‘These are the names of Israel, which came into Egypt, ’ (5:8); ‘All the souls, that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, were threescore and six,’ (5:26)—which they would not be without Hezron and Hamul. ‘And the sons of Joseph which were born him in Egypt were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten,’ (5:27); ‘These are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already’ (E. 1:1, 5), Now of all these texts which D.C. here accumulates, there is only one that seems to favour his view, the others serve to refute it. The verse apparently favourable is Gen. 46:26, ‘All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, were threescore and six’—and this seems favourable only in the English translation, not in the Hebrew text. The words ‘All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt’ seem to imply that these sixty-six were then all alive, and accompanied Jacob at the time. The stress of the argument lies upon the preposition ‘with,’ but that preposition does not exist in the Hebrew (neither Eth) את nor Im עא), but another (ל), which signifies ‘To, of, belonging to,’ as is explained in the following verse, ‘All the souls of the house (לבית) of Jacob.’ The accurate translation therefore is, ‘All the souls of, or belonging to, Jacob, who came down into Egypt—were sixty-six.’ The text says nothing at all of their accompanying him, nor of the time at which they went down, but simply that they who went down were sixty-six. D.C. will, perhaps, ask—‘Then why are these sixty-six separated from Joseph and his sons, of whom it is said in the following verse, ‘And the sons of Joseph which were born to him in Egypt, were two souls?’’ To which I reply, that they are not separated, except by those who divided the text into verses. The great object of the writer is to prove that the whole number of those who went down into Egypt is only seventy. He, therefore, carefully notes the number of each of Jacob’s four families, and here comes to give the sum total, and therefore verses 26 and 27 ought to be read together thus—‘And all the souls of, or belonging to, Jacob, who came down into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, were threescore and six, and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.’ The subject of the proposition is ‘All the souls belonging to Jacob who came down into Egypt,’ in verse 26. The predicate is, ‘were threescore and ten,’ given in verse 27. But D.C. will perhaps say that in Exodus. 1:1 the Hebrew has the preposition ‘with’ where it is said ‘every man and his household came with (את) Jacob.’ But there the names of those who had households (which Hezron and Hamul had not) are given, and they are those of the eleven sons of Jacob. The names of the grandchildren are not specified, nor is the number sixty-six given, but on the contrary, the number ‘seventy,’ which includes Joseph and his sons, who certainly did not accompany Jacob into Egypt, for they were there already. There is therefore no passage which asserts that the sixty-six, including Hezron and Hamul, were alive, and went into Egypt at the time of Jacob’s going down. The question is therefore reduced to this, what is meant by the words ‘came down into Egypt,’ or ‘went down into Egypt?’ do they mean, that they who were born in Egypt, are excluded; or can they include those who had never been in Canaan at all, but were born in Egypt? Most certainly the latter, as is proved by the texts adduced by D.C. himself. First, we have Gen. 46:27, ‘All the souls of the house of Jacob (הבאה) which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten,’ and secondly, Deut. 10:22, ‘Thy fathers went down (ירדו) into Egypt with threescore and ten persons.’ The number ‘threescore and ten’ cannot be made out, without the sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, who, in our occidental sense of the words, never ‘came,’ or ‘went down into Egypt’ at all, but were born there. These two texts, therefore, prove that the words ‘came into Egypt’ may include those born in Egypt, that they do actually include Ephraim and Manasseh, and may, therefore, also include Hamul and Hezron, and some of the ten persons, named as the sons of Benjamin, and thus this ground of D.C.’s objection is removed. It is now here stated that Hamul and Hezron accompanied Jacob—and the expressions ‘came’ or ‘went down into Egypt’ have a wide signification, including those who did not immigrate into Egypt, but were born there.”
To be continued.)