Who wrote the Bible?

CHAPTER VI.

THE PENTATEUCH.

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—collectively called the Pentateuch—are the most important books of the Old Testament. The three great Semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism, are all, to a great extent, based upon them.

These books, orthodox Christians affirm, were written by Moses at least 1,450 years before the Christian era. “This sacred code,” says Dr. Adam Clarke, “Moses delivered complete to the Hebrews sometime before his death.” In modern versions of the Bible, Genesis is styled the First Book of Moses; Exodus, the Second Book of Moses; Leviticus, the Third Book of Moses; Numbers, the Fourth Book of Moses, and Deuteronomy, the Fifth Book of Moses. Their very high authority rests upon the supposed fact of their Mosaic authorship and great antiquity. To disprove these—to show that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, nor at this early age, but centuries later by unknown writers—is to largely impair, if not entirely destroy, its authority as a religious [51]oracle. And this is what modern criticism has done.

Arguments for Mosaic Authorship.

The following passage is the chief argument relied upon to prove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

“And it came to pass, that when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deut. xxxi, 24–26).

This was written for a purpose. Its sequel appears in 2 Kings. During the reign of Josiah, Hilkiah the high priest discovered a “book of the law” in the temple. “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord” (2 Kings xxii, 8).

This book was the book of Deuteronomy, written, not in the time of Moses, but in the time of Josiah, more than eight centuries later. Hilkiah needed the book and he “found” it. It was written by him or for him. Holland’s great critic, Dr. Kuenen, says: “There is no room to doubt that the book was written with a view to the use that Hilkiah made of it” (Kuenen’s Hexateuch, p. 215).[52]

Dr. Oort, another able Dutch scholar, professor of Oriental languages at Amsterdam, says: “The book was certainly written about the time of its discovery. It is true that it introduces Moses as uttering the precepts and exhortations of which it consists, just before the people enter Canaan. But this is no more than a literary fiction. The position of affairs assumed throughout the book is that of Judah in the time of Josiah” (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 331).

In support of this unanimous conclusion of the critics, Dr. Briggs presents the following long array of irrefutable arguments:

“The reasons for the composition of Deuteronomy in the time of Josiah according to the later hypothesis are: (1) Expressions which indicate a period subsequent to the Conquest (ii, 12; xix, 14); (2) the law of the king, which implies the reign of Solomon (xvii, 14–20); (3) the one supreme judicatory of the time of Jehoshaphat (xvii, 8); (4) the one central altar of the times of Hezekiah (xii, 5 seq.); (5) the return to Egypt in ships not conceivable before the time of Manasseh (xxviii, 68); (6) the forms of idolatry of the middle period of the monarchy (iv, 19; xvii, 3); (7) no trace of Deuteronomy in writings prior to Jeremiah; (8) the point of view indicates an advanced style of theological reflection; (9) the prohibition of Mazzebah (xvi, 22) regarded as lawful in Isaiah (xix, 19); (10) the style implies a long development of the art of [53]Hebrew oratory, and the language is free from archaism, and suits the times preceding Jeremiah; (11) the doctrine of the love of God and his faithfulness with the term ‘Yahweh thy God’ presuppose the experience of the prophet Hosea; (12) the humanitarianism of Deuteronomy shows an ethical advance beyond Amos and Isaiah and prepares the way for Jeremiah and Ezekiel; (13) ancient laws embedded in the code account for the penalties for their infraction in 2 Kings xxii; (14) ancient laws of war are associated with laws which imply the wars of the monarchy, and have been influenced by Amos” (The Hexateuch, p. 261).

No book had been deposited in the ark as the writer stated. At the dedication of Solomon’s temple the ark was opened, but it contained no book. “There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb” (1 Kings viii, 5–9).

In the Pentateuch it is also stated that Moses, at the command of God, wrote certain covenants (Ex. xxxiv, 27), recorded the curse of Amalek (Ex. xvii, 14), and made a list of the stations between the Red Sea and the Jordan (Num. xxxiii); likewise that he wrote a song (Deut. xxxi, 22). The absurdity of adducing these to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is thus exposed by Briggs:

“When the author of the Pentateuch says that Moses wrote one or more codes of law, that he wrote a song, that he recorded a certain [54]memorandum, it would appear that having specified such of his materials as were written by Moses, he would have us infer that the other materials came from other sources of information. But it has been urged the other way; namely, that, because it is said that Moses wrote the codes of the covenant and the Deuteronomic code, he also wrote all the laws of the Pentateuch; that because he wrote the song Deut. xxxii, he wrote all the other pieces of poetry in the Pentateuch, that because he recorded the list of stations and the memorial against Amalek, he recorded all the other historical events of the Pentateuch. It is probable that no one would so argue did he not suppose it was necessary to maintain the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch at every cost” (Hexateuch, pp. 10, 11).

Again, it has been argued that Christ and some of the writers of the New Testament recognize Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Such expressions as “the law of Moses,” “the book of Moses,” “Moses said,” etc., occur a few times. These expressions are explained and this argument answered by the following: 1. It is not denied by critics that Moses was the legislator of the Jews and promulgated certain laws. 2. An anonymous book is usually called after the leading character of the book. 3. At this time the traditional theory of the Mosaic authorship was generally accepted. Of Christ’s mention of Moses, Dr. Davidson says: “The [55]venerable authority of Christ himself has no proper bearing on the question.”

[Contents]

Arguments Against Mosaic Authorship.

That the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, that it is an anonymous work belonging to a later age, is clearly proven by the following:

1. There is no proof that Moses ever claimed to be the author of the Pentateuch. There is nothing in the work, neither is there anything outside of it, to indicate that he was its author.

2. The ancient Hebrews did not believe that he wrote it. Renan says: “The opinion which attributes the composition of the Pentateuch to Moses seems quite modern; it is very certain that the ancient Hebrews never dreamed of regarding their legislator as their historian. The ancient documents appeared to them absolutely impersonal, and they attached to them no author’s name” (History of Semitic Languages, Book II., chapter i).

3. The Pentateuch was written in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew of the Bible did not exist in the time of Moses. Language is a growth. It takes centuries to develop it. It took a thousand years to develop the English language. The Hebrew of the Bible was not brought from Egypt, but grew in Palestine. Referring to this language, De Wette says: “Without doubt it originated in the land [Canaan] or was still further developed therein after the Hebrew and other Canaanitish people had migrated [56]thither from the Northern country” (Old Testament, Part II.). Gesenius says that the Hebrew language scarcely antedates the time of David.

4. Not only is it true that the Hebrew language did not exist, but it is urged by critics that no written language, as we understand it, existed in Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof. Andrew Norton says: “For a long time after the supposed date of the Pentateuch we find no proof of the existence of a book or even an inscription in proper alphabetical characters among the nations by whom the Hebrews were surrounded” (The Pentateuch, p. 44). Hieroglyphics were then in use, and it is not to be supposed that a work as large as the Pentateuch was written or engraved in hieroglyphics and carried about by this wandering tribe of ignorant Israelites.

5. Much of the Pentateuch is devoted to the history of Moses; but excepting a few brief compositions attributed to him and quoted by the author he is always referred to in the third person. The Pentateuch contains a biography, not an autobiography of Moses.

6. It contains an account of the death and burial of Moses which he could not have written:

“So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab.... And he buried him in a valley of the land of Moab” (Deut. xxxiv, 5, 6).

“And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (8).[57]

Orthodox commentators attempt to remove this difficulty by supposing that the last chapter of Deuteronomy belongs to the book of Joshua, and that Joshua recorded the death of Moses. The same writer, referring to the appointment of Joshua as the successor of Moses, says: “And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom” (Deut. xxxiv, 9). If Joshua wrote this, however full of the spirit of wisdom he may have been, he certainly was not full of the spirit of modesty. Joshua did not write this chapter.

7. “No man knoweth of his [Moses’] sepulchre unto this day” (Deut. xxxiv, 6).

That the authorship of this chapter should ever have been attributed to either Moses or Joshua is incomprehensible. The language plainly shows that not merely one but many generations had elapsed between the time of Moses and the time that it was written.

8. While the advocates of the Mosaic authorship have, without proof, asserted that Joshua wrote the book of Joshua and the conclusion of Deuteronomy, the Higher Critics have demonstrated the common authorship of Deuteronomy and a large portion of Joshua. As all the events recorded in Joshua occurred after the death of Moses, he could not have been the author of Deuteronomy.

9. “They [the Israelites] did eat manna until they came unto the borders of Canaan” (Ex. xvi, 35).[58]

This passage was written after the Israelites settled in Canaan and ceased to subsist on manna. And this was not until after the death of Moses.

10. “The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them” (Deut. ii, 12).

This refers to the conquest of Canaan and was written after that event.

11. “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day” (Num. xv, 32).

When this was written the children of Israel were no longer in the wilderness. Their sojourn there is referred to as a past event. As Moses died while they were still in the wilderness—that is, before they had entered the promised land—it could not have been written by him.

12. “Thou shalt eat it within thy gates” (Deut. xv, 22).

The phrase, “within thy gates,” occurs in the Pentateuch about twenty-five times. It refers to the gates of the cities of the Israelites, which they did not inhabit until after the death of Moses.

13. “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, ... that the land spew not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you” (Lev. xviii, 26, 28).[59]

When Moses died the nations alluded to still occupied the land and had not been expelled.

14. “And Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen” (Gen. xxii, 14).

This is one of the passages adduced by the critics of the seventeenth century against the Mosaic authorship of these books. It implies the conquest and a long occupancy of the land by the Israelites.

15. “And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan” (Gen. xxiii, 2). “And Jacob came ... unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron” (xxxv, 27).

Moses’ uncle was named Hebron, and from him the Hebronites were descended. After the Conquest this family settled in Kirjath-arba and changed the name of the city to Hebron.

16. “And Rachel died and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem” (Gen. xxxv, 19).

The Hebrew name of Bethlehem was not given to this city until after the Israelites had conquered and occupied it.

17. “For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?” (Deut. iii, 11.)

This is another passage relied upon by the early critics to disprove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The writer’s reference to [60]the bedstead of Og, which was still preserved as a relic at Rabbath, indicates a time long subsequent to the conquest of Bashan.

18. “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance” (Deut. xix, 14).

This refers to the ancient landmarks set by the Israelites when they obtained possession of Canaan, and was written centuries after that time.

19. “And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-jair” (Num. xxxii, 41).

The above is evidently a misstatement of an event recorded in Judges:

“And after him [Tola] arose Jair, a Gileadite, and judged Israel twenty and two years. And he had thirty sons, ... and they had thirty cities, which are called Havoth-jair unto this day” (Jud. x, 3, 4).

Jair was judge of Israel from 1210 to 1188 b.c., or from 241 to 263 years after the date assigned for the writing of the Pentateuch.

20. “And Nobah went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after his own name” (Num. xxxii, 42).

Referring to this and the preceding passage, Dr. Oort says: “It is certain that Jair, the Gileadite, the conqueror of Bashan, after whom thirty places were called Jair’s villages, lived in the time of the Judges, and that a part of Bashan was conquered at a still later period by [61]a certain Nobah” (Bible for Learners, vol. i, p. 329).

21. “Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day” (Deut. iii, 14).

Even if Jair had lived in the time of Moses, the phrase “unto this day” shows that it was written long after the event described.

22. “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan” (Gen. xiv, 14).

This passage could not have been written before Dan existed. In Judges (xviii, 26–29) the following account of the origin of this place is given: “And the children of Dan went their way; ... and came unto Laish, unto a people that were at quiet and secure; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and burnt the city with fire.... And they built a city, and dwelt therein. And they called the name of the city Dan.” This is placed after the death of Samson, and Samson died, according to Bible chronology, 1120 B.C.—331 years after Moses died.

23. “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” (Gen. xxxvi, 31).[62]

This could not have been written before the kingdom of Israel was established; for the writer is familiar with the fact that kings have reigned in Israel. Saul, the first king of Israel, began to reign 356 years after Moses.

24. “And his [Israel’s] king shall be higher than Agag” (Num. xxiv, 7).

This refers to Saul’s defeat of Agag. “And he [Saul] took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword” (1 Sam. xv, 8). The defeat of Agag is placed in 1067 B.C., 384 years after Moses.

25. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ... until Shiloh come” (Gen. xlix, 10).

These words are ascribed to Jacob; but they could not have been written before Judah received the sceptre, which was not until David ascended the throne, 396 years after the death of Moses.

26. “And the Canaanite was then in the land” (Gen. xii, 6).

When this was written the Canaanite had ceased to be an inhabitant of Palestine. As a remnant of the Canaanites inhabited this country up to the time of David, it could not have been written prior to his time.

27. “The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land” (Gen. xiii, 7).

This, like the preceding passage, could not have been written before the time of David. The Perizzites, also, inhabited Palestine for a [63]long period after the conquest. In the time of the Judges “the children of Israel dwelt among the ... Perizzites” (Jud. iii, 5).

28. “The first of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God” (Ex. xxiii, 19).

This was not written before the time of Solomon; for God had no house prior to the erection of the temple, 1004 B.C., 447 years after Moses. When David proposed to build him a house, he forbade it and said:

“I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle” (2 Sam. vii, 6).

The tabernacle itself was a tent (Tent of Meeting). During all this time no house was ever used as a sanctuary.

29. “One from among the brethren shalt thou set king over thee.... But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses.... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deut. xvii, 15–17).

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses” (1 Kings iv, 26). “And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt” (x, 28). “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart” (xi, 3). “The weight of gold that [64]came to Solomon in one year was six hundred three score and six talents of gold” (x, 14). “And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones” (27).

Nothing can be plainer than that this statute in Deuteronomy was written after Solomon’s reign. The extravagance and debaucheries of this monarch had greatly impoverished and corrupted the kingdom, and to prevent a recurrence of such excesses this law was enacted.

30. “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, ... thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment” (Deut. xvii, 8, 9).

This court was established by Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xix, 8–11). Jehoshaphat commenced his reign 914 B.C., 537 years after Moses.

31. “But in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there shalt thou do all that I command thee” (Deut. xii, 14).

“Is it not he [the Lord] whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?” (Is. xxxvi, 7).

Up to the time of Hezekiah the Hebrews worshiped at many altars. Hezekiah removed these altars and established the one central altar at Jerusalem. This was in 726 B.C.—725 years after Moses.[65]

32. “And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships” (Deut. xxviii, 68).

This, critics affirm, was written when Psameticus was king of Egypt. He reigned from 663 to 609 B.C.

33. “Neither shalt thou set thee up any image [pillar]” (Deut. xvi, 22).

This proves the late origin of the Pentateuch, or at least of Deuteronomy. Isaiah (xix, 19) instructs them to do the very thing which they are here forbidden to do, and as he would not have advised a violation of the law it is evident that this statute could not have existed in his time. Isaiah died about 750 years after Moses died.

34. The worship of the sun, moon, and stars by the Jews, is mentioned and condemned (Deut. iv, 19; xvii, 3). This nature worship was adopted by them in the reign of Manasseh, 800 years after Moses.

35. “Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord, what he did in the Red Sea, and in the brooks of Arnon” (Num. xxi, 14).

The author of the Pentateuch here cites a book older than the Pentateuch, which gives an account of the journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Moab—from the Exodus to the end of Moses’ career.

36. “And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly” (Deut. xxvii, 8).

“And he [Joshua] wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses” (Josh. viii, 32).[66]

Christians affirm that the Law of Moses and the Pentateuch are one. That this Law of Moses was not the one hundred and fifty thousand words of the Pentateuch is shown by the fact that after the death of Moses it was all engraved upon a stone altar.

37. “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. xii, 3).

No writer would bestow such fulsome praise upon himself. This was written by a devout admirer of Moses, but it was not written by Moses.

38. “And this is the blessing wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death” (Deut. xxxiii, 1).

There are three reasons for rejecting the Mosaic authorship of this: Moses is spoken of in laudatory terms; he is spoken of in the third person; his death is referred to as an event that is already past.

39. “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses” (Deut. xxxiv, 10).

Not only is the highest praise bestowed upon Moses, a thing which he would not have done, but the language clearly shows that it was written centuries after the time he lived.

40. The religious history of the Hebrews embraces three periods of time, each covering centuries. During the first period the worship of Jehovah was confined to no particular place; during the second it was confined to the holy [67]city, Jerusalem; during the third it was confined, not merely to Jerusalem, but to the temple itself. There are writings in the Pentateuch belonging to each of these periods. The Encyclopedia Britannica declares that this fact alone affords overwhelming disproof of Mosaic authorship.

41. The religion of the Pentateuch was not a revelation, but an evolution. The priestly offices, the feasts, the sacrifices, and other religious observances underwent many changes, these changes representing different stages of development in Israel’s religion and requiring centuries of time to effect.

42. The legislation of the Pentateuch was also the growth of centuries. Some of the minor codes are much older than the documents containing them. There is legislation older than David, 1055 B.C.—probably as old as Moses, 1451 B.C. There is legislation belonging to the time of Josiah, 626 B.C., of Ezekiel, 575 B.C., of Ezra, 456 B.C. Would it not be absurd to claim that all the laws of England from Alfred to Victoria were the work of one mind, Alfred? And is it less absurd to claim that all the laws of the Jews from Moses to Ezra were instituted by Moses?

43. The Pentateuch abounds with repetitions and contradictions. The first two chapters of Genesis contain two accounts of the Creation differing in every important particular. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis [68]two different and contradictory accounts of the Deluge are intermingled. Exodus and Deuteronomy each contain a copy of the Decalogue, the two differing as to the reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath. There are several different versions of the call of Abraham; different and conflicting stories of the Egyptian plagues; contradictory accounts of the conquest of Canaan.

[Contents]

The Work of Various Authors and Compilers.

44. The four preceding arguments suggest the concluding and most important one. The character of the writings of the Pentateuch preclude the possibility of unity of authorship, and consequently the Mosaic authorship of the work as a whole. The books of the Pentateuch were not all composed by one author. The book of Genesis is not the work of one author. The first two chapters of Genesis were not written by the same writer. The Pentateuch was written by various writers and at various times.

The Pentateuch comprises four large documents known as the Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, and the Deuteronomic and Priestly Codes. They are distinguished by the initial letters E, J, D, and P. E and J include the greater portion of Genesis and extend through the other books of the Pentateuch, as well as through Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. D includes the greater portion of Deuteronomy, fragments of the preceding books, and a large [69]portion of Joshua. P includes the greater portion of the middle books of the Pentateuch and smaller portions of the other books.

The author of each of these documents incorporated into his work one or more older documents. These four works were afterwards united by successive editors or redactors. E and J were first fused into one. A subsequent redactor united D with this, and still later another united this compilation with P.

In addition to these principal documents there are several minor codes, chief of which is the Holiness Code comprising ten chapters of Leviticus, xvii-xxvi. There are also several poems written by various authors. Thus the Pentateuch instead of being the product of one mind is the work of many writers and compilers, probably twenty or more.

These documents, especially the principal ones, notwithstanding the intermingling of their contents, are easily distinguished and separated from each other by Bible critics. The thoughts of the human mind, like the features of the human face, controlled by the law of variation, assume different forms. We who are familiar with faces have no difficulty in distinguishing one face from another. No two faces are alike. Critics who have devoted their lives to literature can distinguish the writings of individuals almost as readily as we distinguish the faces of individuals. There are certain idioms of language, certain peculiarities of style, belonging [70]to each writer. The language and style of these documents are quite dissimilar. To quote Dr. Briggs: “There is as great a difference in style between the documents of the Hexateuch as there is between the Four Gospels.” The principal documents are thus described by this critic:

“E is brief, terse, and archaic; graphic, plastic, and realistic; written in the theocratic interest of the kingdom of God. J is poetical and descriptive, the best narrative in the Bible, giving us the history of the kingdom of redemption. D is rhetorical and hortatory, practical and earnest, written in the more theological interest of the training of the nation in the fatherly instruction of God. P is annalistic and diffuse, fond of names and dates, written in the interest of the priestly order, and emphasizing the sovereignty of the Holy God and the sanctity of the divine institutions” (Hexateuch, p. 265).

Each document abounds with characteristic words and phrases peculiar to that document. Holzinger notes 108 belonging to E and 125 belonging to J. Canon Driver gives 41 belonging to D and 50 belonging to P. One of the chief distinguishing marks is the term used to designate the Deity. In E it is Elohim, translated God; in J, Jehovah (Yahveh) Elohim, translated Lord God. In D the writer continually uses the phrase “The Lord thy God,” this phrase occurring more than 200 times. “I am Jehovah” is a phrase used by P, including the Holiness [71]Code, 70 times. It is never used by E or D. “God of the Fathers” is frequently used by E and D; never by P.

Bishop Colenso’s analysis of Genesis is as follows: Elohist, 336 verses; Jehovist, 1,052 verses; Deuteronomist, 39 verses; Priestly writer, 106 verses.

The Pentateuch was chiefly written and compiled from seven to ten centuries after the time claimed. The Elohistic and Jehovistic documents, the oldest of the four, were written at least 300 years after the time of David and 700 years after the time of Moses. They were probably written at about the same time. E belongs to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, J to the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The unanimous verdict of critics is that Deuteronomy was written during the reign of Josiah, about 626 B.C., 825 years after Moses died. The Holiness Code belongs to the age of Ezekiel, about fifty years later. The Priestly Code was written after the Exile, in the time of Ezra, 1,000 years after Moses. Important changes and additions were made as late as the third century B.C., so that, excepting the variations and interpolations of later times, the Pentateuch in something like its present form appeared about 1,200 years after the time of Moses.

[Contents]

The higher Criticism—Its Triumph and Its Consequences.

The certainty and the consequences of the [72]Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch are thus expressed by Hupfeld:

“The discovery that the Pentateuch is put together out of various sources, or original documents, is beyond all doubt not only one of the most important and most pregnant with consequences for the interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament, or rather for the whole of theology and history, but it is also one of the most certain discoveries which have been made in the domain of criticism and the history of literature. Whatever the anti-critical party may bring forward to the contrary, it will maintain itself, and not retrograde again through anything, so long as there exists such a thing as criticism, and it will not be easy for a reader upon the stage of culture on which we stand in the present day, if he goes to the examination unprejudiced, and with an uncorrupted power of appreciating the truth, to be able to ward off its influence.”

The critical labors of Hobbes, Spinoza, Peyrerius, Simon, Astruc, Eichorn, Paine, Bauer, (G. L.) De Wette, Ewald, Geddes, Vater, Reuss, Graf, Davidson, Colenso, Hupfeld, Wellhausen, Kuenen, Briggs, and others, have overthrown the old notions concerning the authenticity of the Pentateuch. There is not one eminent Bible scholar in Europe, and scarcely one in America, who any longer contends that Moses wrote this work.

The pioneers in the field of the Higher Criticism [73]were the Rationalists Hobbes and Spinoza and the Catholics Peyrerius, Simon, and Astruc. More than two hundred years ago Benedict Spinoza, the greatest of modern Jews, with his own race and the entire Christian church against him, made this declaration, which the scholarship of the whole world now accepts:

“It is as clear as the noonday light that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses” (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chap, viii, Sec. 20).

A century passed, and Thomas Paine in France, in the most potent volume of Higher Criticism ever penned, exposed in all their nakedness the wretched claims of the traditionalists. He read the Pentateuch and wrote:

“Those books are spurious.” “Moses is not the author of them.” “The style and manner in which those books are written give no room to believe, or even to suppose, they were written by Moses.” “They were not written in the time of Moses, nor till several hundred years afterwards” (Age of Reason).

About the same time German scholars, ever foremost in the domain of critical analysis, took up the work. The writings of Eichorn, Bauer, Vater, and De Wette, “swept the field in Germany.” De Wette, one of her greatest theologians, thus presents the conclusion of German critics:

“The opinion that Moses composed these books is not only opposed by all the signs of a later date which occur in the work itself, but [74]also by the entire analogy of the history of Hebrew literature and language” (Books of Moses, Sec. 163).

Fifty years or more elapsed and Davidson and Colenso studied and wrote, and British scholarship was soon arrayed against the old in favor of the new. Dr. Davidson, in the following words, voices the opinion of England’s learned:

“There is little external evidence for the Mosaic authorship, and what little there is does not stand the test of criticism. The succeeding writers of the Old Testament do not confirm it.... The objections derived from internal structure are conclusive against the Mosaic authorship” (Introduction to the Old Testament).

At last, in our own land and in our own time, Dr. Briggs and others attack the Mosaic theories, and, in spite of the efforts of Princeton’s fossils, the intelligence of America acknowledges the force of their reasoning and accepts their conclusions. The Higher Criticism has triumphed. Spinoza’s judgment is confirmed, and the American critic pronounces the verdict of the intellectual world:

“In the field of scholarship the question is settled. It only remains for the ministry and people to accept it and adapt themselves to it” (Hexateuch, p. 144).

But this is not the end. A victory has been achieved, but its full results remain to be realized. The clergy, against their will, and the [75]laity, who are subservient to the clergy’s will, are yet to be enlightened and convinced. Even then, when the facts disclosed by the Higher Criticism have gained popular acceptance, another task remains—the task of showing men the real significance of these facts. The critics themselves, many of them, do not seem to realize the consequences of their work. The Rationalistic critics, like Hobbes, Spinoza, Paine, Reuss, Wellhausen, Kuenen and others, have measured the consequences of their criticisms and accepted them. The orthodox critics have not. Some of them, like Dr. Briggs, while denying the Mosaic authorship and great antiquity of the Pentateuch, while maintaining its anonymous and fragmentary character, and conceding its contradictions and errors, are yet loath to reject its divinity and authority. But these also must be given up. This work as a divine revelation and authentic record must go. Its chief theological doctrine, the Fall of Man, is a myth. With this doctrine falls the Atonement, and with the Atonement orthodox Christianity. This is the logical sequence of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. To these critics, and to all who are intelligent enough to discern the truth and courageous enough to meet it, I would repeat and press home the admonition of our critic, “to accept it and adapt themselves to it.”[76]

[Contents]

CHAPTER VII.

THE PROPHETS.

Next to the Pentateuch, the most important books of the Old Testament are the Prophets. They are divided into two divisions, Earlier and Later. The Earlier prophets comprise Joshua, Judges, First Samuel, Second Samuel, First Kings, and Second Kings. The Later Prophets are divided into Greater and Minor. The Greater Prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; the Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

[Contents]

Joshua.

The book of Joshua, it is claimed, was written by Joshua just before his death, which occurred, according to the accepted chronology, in 1426 B.C. This book for a time formed a part of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch). In later times, to increase its authority, the Pentateuch was ascribed to Moses. A recognition of the fact that Moses could not have written a history of the events that happened after his death caused that portion now known as Joshua to be detached and credited to Joshua.[77]

Many of the arguments adduced against the Mosaic authorship of the preceding books apply with equal force against the claim that Joshua wrote the book which bears his name. The book contains no internal evidence of his authorship; he does not claim to be its author; the other writers of the Old Testament do not ascribe its authorship to him; he is spoken of in the third person; it is clearly the work of more than one writer; the language in which it was written was not in existence when he lived; much of it relates to events that occurred after his death.

“And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-serah.... And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua” (Josh. xxiv, 29–31).

As the Pentateuch gives an account of the death and burial of Moses, so the book of Joshua gives an account of the death and burial of Joshua.

“And Eleazer the son of Aaron died” (xxiv, 33).

The death of Eleazer occurred six years after the death of Joshua.

“But the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day” (xv, 63).

The children of Judah did not dwell in Jerusalem [78]until nearly 400 years after Joshua. The phrase “unto this day” is frequently used in the book, and this shows that it was written long after the events it describes.

In his account of the miracle of Joshua causing the sun to stand still, the writer appeals to the book of Jasher in support of his statement:

“Is not this written in the book of Jasher?” (x, 13.)

This could not have been written until after the book of Jasher was written or compiled. When was Jasher written? We do not know, but in his history of David the author of Samuel thus refers to it: “He [David] bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jasher” (2 Sam. i, 18). This proves that the book of Jasher was not written before the time of David. If the book of Joshua was not written until after the book of Jasher was written, then it could not have been written until the time of David or later.

The book of Joshua consists of two parts. The first, which originally formed a part of, or sequel to, Deuteronomy, was probably written before the Captivity; the latter part was written after the captivity—900 years after the time of Joshua.

[Contents]

Judges.

The authorship of this book has been ascribed to Samuel. In disproof of this I quote the following:[79]

“Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem and taken it” (i, 8).

Jerusalem was taken by Judah 1048 B.C.; Samuel died 1060 B.C., twelve years before it was taken.

“In those days there was no king in Israel” (xviii, 1; xix, 1; xxi, 25).

This passage, which is repeated several times, was written after Israel had become a kingdom, and evidently long subsequent to the time of Saul and Samuel.

“And they forsook the Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth” (ii, 13).

This was probably written as late as the reign of Hoshea, 730 B.C.

The chapters relating to Samson indicate a date as late as Manasseh, 698 to 643 B.C. During the reign of this king the Hebrews became sun-worshipers. Samson was a sun-god—the name signifies “sun-god.” All the stories related of him in Judges are solar myths.

“He and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land” (xviii, 30).

The above passage denotes a date as late as the Captivity.

Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “It is probable that the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings originally formed one work” (art. Ruth). If these books originally formed one work, Samuel was not the author of any of them, for Kings, it is admitted, was written as [80]late as the time of Jeremiah, and possibly as late as the time of Ezra, from 450 to 600 years after Samuel.

Judges, like the Pentateuch and Joshua, is the work of several writers. It can scarcely be called even a compilation. It is a mere collection of historical and mythological fragments, thrown together without any regard to logical arrangement or chronological order.

[Contents]

First and Second Samuel.

It is popularly supposed, and many Christian teachers affirm, that Samuel wrote the books which bear his name. And yet the writer says, “Samuel died,” and seven chapters of the first book follow this announcement. The second book in no way pertains to him; his name is not once mentioned; the events narrated occurred from four to forty-four years after his death.

Others claim that the books were written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, basing their claim on a passage in Chronicles, which says that the acts of David “are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer” (1 Chron. xxix, 29).

As Samuel died while David was yet a young man—four years before he became king—he did not record the acts of David. Nathan and Gad are referred to in the books, but in a manner that forbids the supposition of their authorship. [81]These books were not written by Samuel; neither were they written by Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. Their authorship is unknown.

Concerning the books of Samuel, Dr. Oort writes: “There is no book in the Bible which shows so clearly that its contents are not all derived from the same source.... Two conflicting traditions relating to the same subject are constantly placed side by side in perfect simplicity, and apparently with no idea that the one contradicts the other” (Bible for Learners, vol. i, pp. 433, 434).

[Contents]

First and Second Kings.

In the Catholic version, and in the subtitles of our versions of the Bible, First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings are called the First, Second, Third, and Fourth books of Kings. They are properly one book. The division of the work into four books is not only artificial, but illogical. Regarding the authorship of the last two, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “As regards the authorship of the books, but little difficulty presents itself. The Jewish tradition, which ascribes them to Jeremiah, is borne out by the strongest internal evidence” (Kings).

Is this true? The date assigned for Jeremiah’s composition of the books is 600 B.C. And yet a considerable portion of the work is devoted to a presentation of the forty years of Jewish [82]history subsequent to this date. It records the death of Jehoiakim, the first siege and taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the elevation of Zedekiah to the throne, his eleven years’ reign, the second siege and capture of Jerusalem, and a long list of events that followed. It records the reign of the Babylonian king, Evil-Merodach. This, according to the popular chronology, and according to the “Bible Dictionary,” was from 561 to 559 B.C.—forty years after the date assigned, and long after the time of Jeremiah.

These books are a mixture of history and fiction. They profess to be a history of the Hebrew kings; and yet a dozen chapters are devoted to a fabulous account of the sayings and doings of two Hebrew prophets, Elijah and Elisha. First and Second Chronicles, which give a history of the same kings, refer to Elijah but once, and make no mention of Elisha.

The confused character of their contents, especially their chronology, has often been referred to. They are simply a compilation of ancient documents, written at various times, and by various authors.

The Encyclopedia Britannica expresses the almost unanimous verdict of critics respecting the authorship of the four principal historical books of the Old Testament: “We cannot speak of the author of Kings or Samuel, but only of an editor or successive editors whose main work was to arrange in a continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier books.”[83]

[Contents]

Isaiah.

Isaiah, the chief of the prophetic books, and, next to the Pentateuch and the Four Gospels, the most important book of the Bible, purports to be a series of prophecies uttered during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Uzziah’s reign began B.C. 810, and ended B.C. 758; Hezekiah’s reign began B.C. 726 and ended B.C. 698. Isaiah’s ministry is supposed to have extended from about 760 to 700 B.C., and toward the close of this period, the book of Isaiah, as it now appears, is said to have been written.

In support of Isaiah’s authorship of the entire work the following arguments have been advanced:

• 1. Its various prophecies exhibit a unity of design.
• 2. The style is the same throughout the work.
• 3. Messianic prophecies abound in both its parts.
• 4. No other writer claimed its authorship.
• 5. The ancient Jews all ascribe it to him.

The above arguments for the authenticity of the work are partly true and partly untrue. So far as they conflict with the following arguments against its authenticity as a whole they are untrue:

• 1. The work is fragmentary in character.
• 2. The style of its several parts is quite unlike.
• 3. Many of its events occurred after Isaiah’s death.[84]
• 4. Much of it relates to the Babylonian captivity.
• 5. It records both the name and the deeds of Cyrus.

Isaiah might very properly be divided into two books, the first comprising the first thirty-nine chapters; the second, the concluding twenty-seven chapters. Impartial critics agree that while Isaiah may have written a portion of the first part he could not have written all of it nor any of the second. This is the conclusion of Cheyne, Davidson, De Wette, Eichorn, Ewald, Gesenius, and others.

That he wrote neither the first nor the second part of the book, as it now exists, is proven by the following passages taken from both:

“Babylon is fallen, is fallen” (xxi, 9).

“Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defensed cities of Judah, and took them” (xxxvi, 1).

“So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned and dwelt in Nineveh.

“And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nishrock his god, that Addrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia; and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead” (xxxvii, 37, 38).

Sennacherib ascended the throne 702 B.C. and died 680 B.C. Isaiah lived in the preceding century.

“That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and [85]shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid” (xliv, 28).

“Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus” (xlv, 1). “He shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives” (xlv, 13).

Cyrus conquered Babylon B.C. 538, and released the Jews from captivity and permitted them to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple B.C. 536, nearly two centuries after the time of Isaiah.

Regarding these passages, Dr. Lyman Abbott, in a sermon on “The Scientific Conception of Revelation,” says: “If you take up a history and it refers to Abraham Lincoln, you are perfectly sure that it was not written in the time of George Washington. Now, if you take up the book of Isaiah and read in it about Cyrus the Great, you are satisfied that the book was not written by Isaiah one hundred years before Cyrus was born.”

Prof. T. K. Cheyne of Oxford University, the leading modern authority on Isaiah, says: “That portion of the Old Testament which is known as the book of Isaiah was, in fact, written by at least three writers—and possibly many more—who lived at different times and in different places.” Nearly all of the ninth chapter, which, on account of its supposed Messianic prophecies, is, with Christians, one of the most valued chapters of the Bible, Professor Cheyne declares to be an interpolation.[86]

That four of the middle chapters, the thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, thirty-eighth, and thirty-ninth, originally formed a separate document is evident. Concerning these four chapters, Paine truthfully observes: “This fragment of history begins and ends abruptly; it has not the least connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor with that which follows it, nor with any other in the book” (Age of Reason, p. 129).

If Isaiah wrote this book, and Jeremiah wrote the books of Kings, as claimed; then either Isaiah or Jeremiah was a plagiarist; for the language of the four chapters just mentioned is, with a few slight alterations, identical with that of a portion of the second book of Kings.

The integrity of this book cannot be maintained. It is not the product of one writer, but of many. How many, critics may never be able to determine; certainly not less than five, probably more than ten.

[Contents]

Jeremiah.

The prophecies of Jeremiah, it is affirmed, were delivered at various times between 625 and 585 B.C., and a final redaction of them was made by him about the latter date. The book, as it now appears, is in such a disordered condition that Christian scholars have to separate it into numerous parts and rearrange them in order to make a consecutive and intelligible narrative. Dr. Hitchcock, in his “Analysis of the Bible” (p 1,144), says: “So many changes have taken place, or else so many irregularities were originally [87]admitted in the arrangement of the book, that Dr. Blayney, whose exposition we chiefly follow, was obliged to make fourteen different portions of the whole before he could throw it into consecutive order.”

The following is Dr. Blayney’s arrangement of the book: Chapters i-xii; xiii-xx; xxii, xxiii; xxv, xxvi; xxxv, xxxvi; xlv-xlviii; xlix (1–33); xxi; xxiv; xxvii-xxxiv; xxxvii-xxxix; xlix (34–39); l, li; xl-xliv.

This disordered condition of Jeremiah indicates one of two things: a plurality of authors, or a negligence, if nothing worse, on the part of the Bible’s custodians that Christians will be loath to acknowledge.

The book, as a whole, was not written by Jeremiah. He did not write the following:

“And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison” (lii, 31).

The release of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach occurred 562 or 561 B.C. Jeremiah had then been dead twenty years.

This book is not the work of one author. The thirty-seventh and thirty-eighth chapters were not written by the same person. Much of the thirty-eighth is a mere repetition of the thirty-seventh; and yet the two are so filled with discrepancies [88]that it is impossible to accept both as the writings of the same author.

Jeremiah, it is declared, wrote both Kings and Jeremiah. He could not have written the concluding portion of either. The last chapter of 2 Kings and the last chapter of Jeremiah are the same, and were written after the time of Jeremiah.

[Contents]

Ezekiel.

The period assigned for Ezekiel’s prophecies is that beginning B.C. 595 and ending B.C. 573. Christians assert that the first twenty-four chapters of the work were written before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. The whole work was undoubtedly written after this event.

The Talmud credits its authorship to the Great Synagogue. If this be correct, Ezekiel had nothing to do with its composition; for he was not a member of the Great Synagogue. Ewald, while claiming for him the utterance of its several prophecies, believes that the book in its present form is not his work, but that of a later author.

Referring to Ezekiel, Dr. Oort says: “In his case, far more than in Jeremiah’s even, we must be on our guard against accepting the written account of his prophecies as a simple record of what he actually said” (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 407).

Zunz, a German critic, not only contends that the book is not authentic, but declares that no such prophet as Ezekiel ever existed.[89]

While it must be admitted that the internal evidence against the integrity and authenticity of Ezekiel is weaker than that of the other books thus far examined, it can be confidently asserted that Bible apologists have been unable to establish either. One damaging fact they concede: no other writer of the Bible ever mentions the book or its alleged author.

[Contents]

Minor Prophets.

The twelve Minor Prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, require but a passing notice. Compared with the other Prophets, or even with the principal books of the Hagiographa, they are of little importance. A part of them may be genuine—the writings of those to whom their authorship has been ascribed—but there is no external evidence, either in the Bible or elsewhere, to support the claim, while the internal evidence of the books themselves is not convincing.

The date assigned for the composition of Jonah, the oldest of the Later Prophets, is 856—according to some, 862 B.C. He is said to have prophesied during the reign of one Pul, “king of Assyria.” But unfortunately Pul’s reign is placed in 770 B.C., ninety years after the date assigned for the book. Jonah is named in the Four Gospels, named by Christ himself. This is adduced as proof of its authenticity and in support of a literal instead of an allegorical [90]interpretation of its language. But Christ’s language, even if his divinity be admitted, proves neither the authenticity nor the historical character of the book. He taught in parables, and certainly would have no hesitancy in using an allegorical figure as a symbol. No scholar now contends for its authenticity, and no sane person believes its stories to be historical. Luther rejected the book.

Four other books, Hosea, Micah, Zechariah, and Malachi, are quoted or supposed to be quoted, by the Evangelists, and two, Joel and Amos, are mentioned in Acts. This proves no more than that these books were in existence when the New Testament was written—a fact which none disputes.

Matthew (ii, 6) cites Micah (v, ii) as a Messianic prophecy. Micah lived during the reign of Hezekiah and wrote, not of an event 700 years in the future, but of one near at hand, the expected invasions of the Assyrians. The passage quoted by Matthew (ii, 15) from Hosea (xi, 1) refers to the exodus of the Israelites which took place 700 years before the time of Hosea.

Zechariah is the work of at least three writers. Davidson says: “To Zechariah’s authentic oracles were attached chapters ix-xiv, themselves made up of two parts (ix-xi, xii-xiv) belonging to different times and authors” (Canon, p. 33). The passage quoted by Matthew (xxi, 5) is not from the authentic portion of Zechariah, but from one of the spurious chapters, ix, 9.[91]

Mark (1, 2, 3) quotes a prophecy which he applies to John the Baptist. The passage quoted contains two sentences, one of which is found in Malachi (iii, 1), the other in Isaiah (xl, 3). Whiston declares that both sentences originally belonged to Isaiah. If Whiston is correct the Evangelist has not quoted Malachi. This, the last book of the Old Testament, is an anonymous work, Malachi being the name of the book and not of the author.

The period assigned for the prophecies of Amos is from 808 to 785 B.C. The book contains the following: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old” (ix, 11).

“And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them” (14).

Amos was not written until after the captivity. This commenced 588 B.C. and continued fifty years.

Joel, it is asserted, was written 800 B.C. That this writer also lived after the captivity is shown by the following:

“I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem” (iii, 1).

This passage, it is claimed, was a prediction made centuries before the event occurred. Joel’s ability to predict future events, however, is negatived by his next effort: “But Judah [92]shall dwell forever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation” (20).

“Nineveh is laid waste: who shall bemoan her?” (Nahum iii, 7).

The composition of Nahum is placed between 720 and 698 B.C. Nineveh was destroyed 606 B.C., a century later.

The first verse of Zephaniah declares that the book was written “in the days of Josiah,” in the seventh century B.C.; the last verse shows that it was written in the days of Cyrus, in the sixth century B.C. Every chapter of Habakkuk and Obadiah’s single chapter show that these books were written after the dates assigned.

The book of Haggai is ascribed to Haggai, the last person in the world to whom it can reasonably be ascribed. It is not a book of Haggai, but about Haggai. Excepting a few brief exhortations, of which it gives an account, it does not purport to contain a word from his tongue or pen. This argument applies with still greater force to Jonah.

The greater portion of the Minor Prophets are probably forgeries. The names of their alleged authors are attached to them, but in most cases in the form of a superscription only. Each book opens with a brief introduction announcing the author. These introductions were not written by the authors themselves, but by others. The only authority for pronouncing the books authentic, then, is the assurance of some unknown Jewish scribe or editor.[93]

A damaging argument against the authority, if not against the authenticity, of the Prophets is the fact that while the historical records of the Old Testament cover the time during which all of them are said to have flourished, only a few of them are deemed worthy of mention.[94]

[Contents]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE HAGIOGRAPHA.

The Hagiographa comprises the remaining thirteen books of the Old Testament. It was divided into three divisions: 1. Psalms, Proverbs, Job. 2. Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. 3. Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, First and Second Chronicles. The Jews considered these books of less value than those of the Law and the Prophets. The books belonging to the third division possess little merit; but the first two divisions, omitting Esther, together with a few poems in the Pentateuch and the Prophets, contain the cream of Hebrew literature.

[Contents]

Psalms.

The collection of hymns and prayers used in public worship by Jews and Christians, and called the Psalms, stands first in importance as a religious book in the Hagiographa. Christians accept it not only as a book of praise, but as a prophetic revelation and doctrinal authority.

It is popularly supposed that David wrote all, or nearly all, of the Psalms. Many commentators [95]attribute to him the authorship of one hundred or more. He wrote, at the most, but a few of them.

The Jews divided them into five books: 1. Chapters i-xli; 2. xlii-lxii; 3. lxiii-lxxxix; 4. xc-cvi; 5. cvii-cl. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary,” a standard orthodox authority, claims for David the authorship of the first book only. The second book, while including a few of his psalms, was not compiled, it says, until the time of Hezekiah, three hundred years after his reign. The psalms of the third book, it states, were composed during Hezekiah’s reign; those of the fourth book following these, and prior to the Captivity; and those of the fifth book after the return from Babylon, four hundred years after David’s time.

There are psalms in the third, fourth, and fifth books ascribed to David, but they are clearly of much later origin. The “Bible Dictionary” admits that they were not composed by him, and attempts to account for the Davidic superscription by assuming that they were written by Hezekiah, Josiah, and others who were lineal descendants and belonged to the house of David. But there is nothing to warrant the assumption that they were written by these Jewish kings. They were anonymous pieces to which the name of David was affixed to add to their authority.

The second book concludes with these words: “The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are [96]ended.” This is accepted to mean that none of the psalms following this book belong to David. The Korahite psalms, assigned to David’s reign, belong to a later age. Twelve psalms are ascribed to Asaph, who lived in David’s reign. This passage from one of them was written at least 430 years after David’s death:

“O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled: they have laid Jerusalem on heaps” (lxxix, 1).

In the second and third books the word God occurs 206 times, while Jehovah, translated “Lord God,” occurs but 44 times; in the remaining three books, God occurs but 23 times, while Jehovah occurs 640 times.

Psalms xlii and xliii are merely parts of the same psalm. Psalm xix consists of two distinct psalms, the first eleven verses constituting one, the last three another. Psalms xiv and liii are the same; lx and cviii, omitting the first four or five verses, are also the same. The Septuagint version and the Alexandrian manuscript contain 151 psalms, the last one being omitted from other versions.

Some of the more conservative German critics credit David with as many as thirty psalms. Dr. Lyman Abbott contends that he did not write more than fifteen. The Dutch scholars, Kuenen and Oort, believe that he wrote none. And this is probably the truth. While collections of these psalms doubtless existed at an earlier period, the book, in its present form, [97]was compiled during the Maccabean age, about one hundred and fifty years before the Christian era.

Many of these psalms are fine poetical compositions; but the greater portion of them are crude in construction, and some of them fiendish in sentiment.

[Contents]

Proverbs.

The authorship of Proverbs has been ascribed to Solomon. He could have written but few of these proverbs, and probably wrote none. It is a compilation of maxims made many centuries after his time. Tradition represented Solomon as the wisest of men, and every wise saying whose origin was unknown was credited to him.

Dr. Oort says: “The history of Solomon’s wisdom resembles that of David’s music. In either case the imagination of posterity has given a thoroughly religious character to what was in reality purely secular; and just as David was made the author of a number of psalms, so various works of the so-called sages, or proverb-makers, were ascribed to Solomon” (Bible for Learners, vol. ii, p. 75).

The book consists of seven different collections of proverbs, as follows: 1. i, 7-ix; 2. x-xxii, 16; 3. xxii, 17-xxiv; 4. xxv-xxix; 5. xxx; 6. xxxi, 1–9; 7. xxxi, 10–31. The first six verses are a preface.

The first collection, it is admitted, was not the work of Solomon. These proverbs were composed [98]as late as 600 B.C. The second collection is presented as “The Proverbs of Solomon.” If any of Solomon’s proverbs exist they are contained in this collection. The third collection is anonymous. The fourth begins as follows: “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out” (700 B.C.). The fifth contains “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh.” The sixth, comprising the first nine verses of the last chapter, are “The words of King Lemuel.” The seventh, comprising the remainder of the chapter, is a poem, written after the Captivity.

[Contents]

Job.

It is remarkable that the book which, from a literary point of view, occupies the first place among the books of the Bible, should be the only one in the collection that was not written by a believer in the religion of the Bible. It is almost universally conceded that the book of Job was not written by a Jew, but by a Gentile.

Most Christians ascribe its authorship to Job himself; but there is no more authority for ascribing it to Job than there is for ascribing the Pentateuch to Moses. Job is the name of the leading character of the book, not the name of its author. Its authorship is unknown. The Talmud asserts, and probably correctly, that Job was not a real personage—that the book is an allegory. Luther says, “It is merely the argument of a fable.”

Regarding its antiquity, Dr. Hitchcock says: [99]“The first written of all the books in the Bible, and the oldest literary production in the world, is the book of Job.” The date assigned for its composition is 1520 B.C.

Had Job been written a thousand years before the time claimed, it would not be the oldest literary production in the world. But it was probably written a thousand years after the time claimed. Luther places its composition 500 years after this time; Renan says that it was written 800 years later, Ewald and Davidson 900 years later. Grotius and De Wette believe that it was written 1000 years after the date assigned, while Hartmann and others contend that it was written still later. While its exact date cannot be determined, there is internal evidence pointing to a much later age than that named.

“Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south” (ix, 9).

The use of these Greek astronomical names proves a later origin. So, too, does the following passage:

“The Chaldeans made out three bands” (i, 17).

Of this people Chambers’ Encyclopedia says: “The Chaldeans are first heard of in the ninth century before Christ as a small Accadian tribe on the Persian Gulf.” This was seven centuries after the date assigned for Job, while the same authority states that Chaldea did not exist until a still later period.[100]

The poem of Job, as originally composed, comprised the following: Chapters i-xxvii, 10; xxviii-xxxi; xxviii-xli, 12; xlii, 1–6. All the rest of the book, about eight chapters—nearly one fifth of it—consists of clumsy forgeries. The poet is a radical thinker who boldly questions the wisdom and justice of God. To counteract the influence of his work these interpolations which controvert its teachings were inserted.

Nor is this all. Our translators have still further mutilated the work. Its most damaging lines they have mistranslated or glossed over. Thus Job (xiii, 15) says: “He [God] will slay me; I have no hope.” Yet they make him say the very reverse of this: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.”

[Contents]

The Five Rolls.

The second division of the Hagiographa, known as the Five Rolls, or Megilloth, contains five small books—The Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ruth, and Esther.

The Song of Solomon, Song of Songs, or Canticles, as it is variously called, and Ecclesiastes, or The Preacher, are said to be the works of Solomon—the former a product of his youth, the latter of his old age. It is quite certain that the same author did not write both, and equally certain that Solomon wrote neither.

The Song of Solomon, Ewald affirms, is an anonymous poem, written about the middle of [101]the tenth century B.C..—after Solomon’s time. It is doubtless of much later origin. It belongs to Northern, and not to Southern Palestine. This alone proves that Solomon did not write it. The Talmud says, “Hezekiah and his company wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.” Hengstenberg, one of the most orthodox of commentators, says that Ecclesiastes was written centuries after the time of Solomon. Davidson believes that it was written as late as 350 B.C.; while Hartmann and Hitzig, German critics, contend that it was written still later.

Solomon’s Song is an amorous poem, beautiful in its way. But when we turn to it in the Christian Bible and find the running titles of every page and the table of contents of every chapter filled with sanctimonious drivel about Christ and his bride, the Church, we are reminded of a lecherous parson masquerading under the cloak of piety among his female parishioners. The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is something of a Freethought preacher. He is a skeptic and a philosopher.

Lamentations, it is claimed, was composed by Jeremiah. There is little evidence either for or against this claim. Oort affirms that its ascription to Jeremiah is a “mistaken tradition,” that its five poems were written by five different authors and at different times. The habit of ascribing anonymous writings to eminent men was prevalent among the Jews. Moses, [102]Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Daniel, and probably Jeremiah, have been declared the authors of books of which they never heard.

Ruth is the only book of the Bible whose authorship is generally conceded by Christians to be unknown. Dr. Hitchcock says: “There is nothing whatever by which the authorship of it can be determined.”

Many orthodox scholars admit that Esther’s authorship, like that of Ruth, is unknown. Some credit it to Mordecai. It was written as late as 300 B.C., 150 years after Mordecai’s time. The Vulgate and modern Catholic versions include six chapters not found in our authorized version. There are many books in the Bible devoid of truth, but probably none so self-evidently false as Esther. It has been described as “a tissue of glaring impossibilities from beginning to end.” Luther pronounces it a “heathenish extravagance.”

[Contents]

Daniel.

Christians class Daniel with the Greater Prophets, and assign its authorship to the sixth century B.C. It belongs to the Hagiographa and was one of the last books of the Old Testament to be written.

A considerable portion of the book relates to Belshazzar. Twenty times in one chapter is he referred to as the king of Babylon, and five times is he called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, [103]neither was he king of Babylon. Again the author devotes several chapters to Darius “the Median,” who, he says, defeated the Chaldeans and conquered Babylon. Now, nearly everybody, excepting this writer, supposed that it was Cyrus the Persian who conquered Babylon. Darius “the Median” was never king of Babylon. This book was written by one ignorant of Babylonian history, and not by Daniel, who lived in Babylon, and who is said to have been next to the king in authority.

Prof. A. H. Sayce, Professor of Assyriology in Oxford University, considered by many the greatest of archæologists, a believer in the divinity of the Bible and an opponent of Higher Criticism, is compelled to reject Daniel. In a recent article, he says: “The old view of the old Book is correct excepting the book of Daniel, which is composed of legends.... The historical facts as we know them from the contemporaneous records are irreconcilable with the statements found in the historical portions of Daniel.”

This statement, aside from its rejection of Daniel, is significant. Here is a man whose life-long study and researches make him preeminently qualified to judge of one book’s authenticity and credibility. This book he rejects. The books he accepts are those concerning which he is not specially qualified to judge.

Dr. Arnold says: “I have long thought that the greater part of the book of Daniel is most [104]certainly a very late work, of the time of the Maccabees” (Life and Correspondence, Vol. II., p. 188). This conclusion of Dr. Arnold’s, made seventy years ago, is confirmed by the later critics who place its composition in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, about 165 B.C.

A part, if not all of the book, was written in Aramaic. In the Greek version the three small Apocryphal books, History of Susannah, Song of the Three Holy Children, and Bel and the Dragon, are included in it. The fact that the Jews placed Daniel in the Hagiographa, instead of the Prophets, is fatal to the claims regarding its authorship and date.

[Contents]

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ezra and Nehemiah for a time constituted one book, Ezra. This was afterwards divided into two books and called The First and Second books of Ezra. Both were ascribed to Ezra. Subsequently the names were changed to those by which they are now known, and the authorship assigned respectively to Ezra and Nehemiah. That both were not composed by the same author is shown by the fact that each contains a copy of the register of the Jews that returned from Babylon.

Critics agree that Ezra did not write all of the book which now bears his name—that it is the work of various authors and was written, for the most part, long after Ezra’s time. A portion of it was written in Hebrew and the remainder in Aramaic.[105]

Nehemiah wrote, at the most, but a part of the book ascribed to him. He did not write the following:

“The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers; also the priests to the reign of Darius the Persian” (xii, 22).

Darius the Persian began to reign 336 B.C.; Nehemiah wrote 433 B.C.

“There were in the days of ... Nehemiah the governor” (xii, 26). “In the days of Nehemiah” (47).

These passages show that the book, as a whole, was not only not written by Nehemiah, but not until long after the time of Nehemiah. Spinoza says that both Ezra and Nehemiah were written two or three hundred years after the time claimed. The later critics are generally agreed that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah had anything to do with the composition of these books.

[Contents]

First and Second Chronicles.

The concluding books of the Hagiographa, and of the Old Testament, if arranged in their proper order, are First and Second Chronicles. Theologians tell us that they were written or compiled by Ezra 456 B.C.

By carefully comparing the genealogy given in the third chapter of 1 Chronicles with that given in the first chapter of Matthew, it will be seen that the records of Chronicles are brought down to within a few generations of Jesus. [106]These books are a compilation of documents made centuries after the time that Ezra and Nehemiah are supposed to have completed the canon of the Old Testament, and a hundred years after the date assigned for the Septuagint translation.

The fragmentary character of many of the books of the Bible, and particularly of Chronicles, is shown in the conclusion of the second book. It closes with an unfinished sentence, as follows: “The Lord his God is with him and let him go up—.” The concluding words may be found in another book of the Bible—Ezra (i, 3): “To Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel,” etc. The first verses of Ezra are identical with the last verses of Chronicles. The compiler of Chronicles had seemingly begun to copy the document which now forms a part of the book of Ezra, and in the middle of a sentence was suddenly called away from his work, never to resume and complete it.

We have now reviewed the books of the Old Testament. We have seen that the claims made in support of their authenticity are, for the most part, either untrue or incapable of proof. When and by whom Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, [107]Jonah, Haggai, and Malachi were written is unknown. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Zechariah wrote, at the most, but portions of the books ascribed to them. The few remaining books may have been written by those whose names they bear, though even these are veiled in doubt. There is not one book in the Old Testament whose authenticity, like that of many ancient Greek and Roman books, is fully established.[108]

[Contents]

CHAPTER IX.

THE FOUR GOSPELS.

The lesser in size but the greater in importance of the two divisions of the Bible is the New Testament. The principal books of the New Testament, and the most highly valued by Christians of all the books of the Bible, are the Four Gospels. These books, it is affirmed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the first century; Matthew between 37 and 50, Mark and Luke between 56 and 63, and John between 78 and 97 A.D.

The orthodox claims regarding the origin of these books are thus expressed by Dr. Hitchcock:

“The Four Gospels are the best authenticated ancient writings in the world; so clear, weighty, and extensive is the mass of testimony in favor of them” (Analysis of the Bible, p. 1149).

“These four books, together constituting the best attested piece of history in the world, were written by four eye-witnesses of the facts narrated” (Ibid, p. 1151).

“Matthew and John were Apostles and Mark and Luke were companions and disciples of Apostles” (Ibid).[109]

If these books are authentic and divinely inspired, as claimed, Christianity is built upon a rock, and the floods and winds of adverse criticism will beat against it in vain; but if they are not authentic—if they were not written by the Evangelists named—if they are merely anonymous books, written one hundred and fifty years after the events they purport to record, as many contend, then it is built upon the sand and must fall.

[Contents]

The Apostles.

Christians claim to have an “unbroken chain of testimony” to the genuineness and credibility of the Four Gospels from the alleged dates of their composition down to the present time. I shall endeavor to show that they have no such chain of testimony—that the most important part of it is wanting.

Twenty books—all of the remaining books of the New Testament but three—are ascribed to the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John. All of these books, it is affirmed, were written after Matthew was written, and about one-half of them after Mark and Luke were written. If this be true, some proofs of the existence of the Synoptic Gospels ought to be found in these books.

Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul all have been assigned later dates than Matthew, and a portion of them later dates than Mark and Luke. But there is not a word to indicate that [110]any one of these Gospels was in existence when Paul wrote.

The two Epistles of Peter, it is claimed, were written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. But these Epistles contain no mention of them.

The four remaining books, First, Second, and Third John and Revelation, are said to have been written after these Gospels were composed. Their reputed author, however, knows nothing of these gospels.

The three great Apostles are silent—three links at the very beginning of this chain are missing.

[Contents]

The Apostolic Fathers.

After the Apostles, and contemporary with the oldest of them, come the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Clement wrote about the close of the first century. There are two Epistles credited to him, but in these Epistles are to be found no evidences of the existence of the Four Gospels.

Ignatius is said to have suffered martyrdom in the year 116. There are fifteen Epistles which bear his name. A few of these are believed to be genuine, while the remainder are conceded to be forgeries. But in none of them, neither in the genuine nor in the spurious, is there any evidence that the Gospels had appeared when they were written.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who is said to [111]have been the companion of John, died at a very advanced age, about the year 167. His Epistle to the Philippians is extant, but it contains no reference to the Gospels.

Hermas and Barnabas are usually classed with the Apostolic Fathers. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas make no mention of the Evangelists.

That the writings of the Apostolic Fathers contain no proofs of the existence of the Four Gospels is admitted even by Christian writers. Dr. Westcott admits it:

“Reference in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our Lord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go, that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does not necessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actual source of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode in which Clement refers to our Lord’s teaching—‘the Lord said,’ not ‘saith’—seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to any written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are still found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity of the Gospels” (On the Canon of the New Testament, p. 52).

Bishop Marsh makes the following admission: “From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be deduced that he had read any part of [112]the New Testament. From the genuine Epistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred that Clement had read the First Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd of Hermas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles of Ignatius it may be concluded that he had read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, and that there existed in his time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he has quoted them. From Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians it appears that he had heard of St. Paul’s Epistle to that community, and he quotes a passage which is in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and another which is in the Epistle to the Ephesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to any other epistle, or any of the Four Gospels” (Michaelis, Vol. I., p. 354).

Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenæus).

Professor Norton says: “When we endeavor to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to Apostolic Fathers we, in fact, weaken its force. At the very extremity of [113]the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links which will bear no weight” (Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol I., p. 357).

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, all refer to the Epistles of Paul, showing that they were in existence when they wrote and that they were acquainted with them. But they never mention the Four Gospels, and this silence affords conclusive evidence that these books as authoritative documents did not exist in their time; for it is unreasonable to suppose that they would use the least important and make no use of the most important books of the New Testament. Three additional and three of the principal links in this “unbroken chain of testimony” are wanting, and must be supplied before the authenticity of the Four Gospels can be established.

[Contents]

The Christian Fathers.

The early Christian Fathers had no knowledge of the existence of the Four Gospels. One of the earliest and one of the most eminent of the Christian Fathers was Justin Martyr. He lived and wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings are rather voluminous, and are devoted to the task of proving to both Jews and Gentiles the divinity of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. If a Christian writer were to attempt to demonstrate this now, where would he go for his authority? To the Four Gospels. These would constitute his [114]chief—almost his entire authority. Now, had these books been extant when Justin wrote, and valued as they are by Christians to-day, he would have used them, he would have quoted from them, he would have named them. But he makes no use of them, he never mentions them. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the Old Testament—Messianic prophecies, etc.—and in nearly two hundred instances he names the books from which he quotes. He makes nearly one hundred quotations from Christian writings that are now considered apocryphal, but he makes none from the Four Gospels.

This silence of Justin is the most damaging argument that has been adduced against the authenticity of the Gospels. This demonstrates one of two things: that these books were not in existence when Justin Martyr wrote, were not in existence at the middle of the second century, or if they were, the foremost Christian scholar of his age rejected them.

Recognizing the significance of this damaging fact, Christian apologists have attempted to show that Justin was acquainted with our Gospels by citing extracts from his writings similar to passages found in them. Westcott adduces seven passages, but admits that two only are wholly identical. He says:

“Of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or St. Luke, exhibiting, indeed, three slight various readings not elsewhere [115]found, but such as are easily explicable. The sixth is a condensed summary of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain” (Canon of the New Testament, p. 131).

Think of this renowned defender of Christianity, Justin Martyr, attempting to establish the divinity of Christ by citing four hundred texts from the Old Testament and apocryphal books and two only from the Evangelists!

There is really but one passage in the Gospels to be found in Justin. But if it could be shown that they contain many passages similar to, or even identical with, passages found in his writings, this would not prove that he has quoted from them. It is not claimed that these Gospels are mere fabrications of their authors, or that they are composed entirely of original matter. They consist largely of traditions, and these traditions, many of them, were embodied in other and older books which were used by the early Fathers. While the Four Gospels were not extant in Justin’s time, some of the documents of which they are composed, particularly those containing the reputed sayings of Jesus, had already appeared and were frequently cited by the Fathers. These citations, Paley, Lardner, Westcott, and others, in their evidences of Christianity, have adduced as proofs of the early origin of the Four Gospels.

Justin’s quotations are chiefly from what he [116]calls the “Memoirs of the Apostles.” These, it is claimed, were the Four Gospels. If so, then the gospels we have are not genuine, for the quotations from the “Memoirs” are not to be found in our Gospels. Justin says that Mary (not Joseph) was descended from David; that Jesus was born in a cave; that the Magi came from Arabia; that Jesus made ploughs and yokes; that a fire was kindled in the Jordan at his baptism; that he was called a magician. The “Memoirs,” or Gospels, from which Justin quotes are not our Gospels.

The Rev. Dr. Giles repudiates the claim that Justin Martyr recognized the Gospels. He says:

“The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him—do not occur once in all his works. It is, therefore, childish to say that he has quoted from our existing Gospels” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, a Christian bishop and a contemporary of Justin Martyr, is cited as a witness for the Gospels. He is quoted by Eusebius as referring to writings of Matthew and Mark. But the books he mentions are plainly not the gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Of Matthew he says: “Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able” (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).

This was not the biographical narrative known as “Matthew,” but probably an apocryphal [117]book called the “Oracles of Christ,” which some ascribed to Matthew.

Mark is referred to as follows: “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but afterwards, as I said, accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the Lord’s discourses” (Ecclesiastical History, book iii, p. 39).

This does not describe our Gospel of Mark, which, although a compilation, is a consecutive narrative of events, and not a collection of isolated fragments.

But even if Papias was acquainted with the Gospels, he is a poor witness to their credibility, for he accepted the teachings of tradition in preference to the books which he knew: “I held that what was to be derived from books did not profit me as that from the living and abiding voice [tradition]” (Ecclesiastical History, iii, 39).

Dr. Davidson admits that the books mentioned by Papias were not our Gospels. He says:

“Papias speaks of Matthew and Mark, but it is most probable that he had documents which either formed the basis of our present Matthew and Mark or were taken into them and written over” (Canon of the Bible, p. 124).[118]

“He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels” (Ibid, p. 123).

The writings of thirty Christian authors who wrote prior to 170 are still extant. In all these writings there is to be found no mention of the Four Gospels.

In the writings of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, occurs the following: “John says: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.’” This was written in 180, after the middle of the latter half of the second century, and is the earliest proof of the existence of any one of the Four Gospels.

Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, who wrote about 190, is the earliest writer who mentions all of the Four Gospels. He names them; he declares them to be inspired; he makes four hundred quotations from them. The Four Gospels were in existence when Irenæus wrote, and they were undoubtedly composed between the time of Justin Martyr and the time of Irenæus—that is, some time during the latter half of the second century.

Writers on the evidences of Christianity endeavor to establish the genuineness of the Four Gospels by showing that the Fathers who lived and wrote during the two centuries following the ministry and death of Jesus accepted and quoted them as authorities. They credit these Fathers with more than four thousand evangelical quotations. But where are these quotations to be found? Nearly all of them in Irenæus, [119]Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen, while in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr few or none are claimed. The fact that the writings of the Fathers which appeared immediately after 180 contain thousands of evangelical references, while in all the writings which appeared before 170 the evangelists are not even named, affords conclusive evidence that the Four Gospels were composed during or near the decade that elapsed between 170 and 180 A.D.

[Contents]

Internal Evidence.

The Four Gospels do not claim to have been composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The titles are not “The Gospel of Matthew,” “The Gospel of Mark,” “The Gospel of Luke,” and “The Gospel of John,” but “The Gospel According to Matthew,” “The Gospel According to Mark,” “The Gospel According to Luke,” and “The Gospel According to John.” The titles simply imply that they are according to the real or traditional teachings of these Evangelists. So far as the textual authorship is concerned, they are, and do not purport to be other than, anonymous books. Omit these titles, and not one word remains to indicate their authorship. Now, it is admitted that these books did not originally bear these titles. St. Chrysostom, who believes that they are genuine, says (Homilies i) that the authors did not place their names at the head of their Gospels, but that [120]this was afterward done by the church. There is nothing in them to support the claim that they were written by those whose names have been prefixed. On the contrary, their contents furnish conclusive proofs that they were not written by these supposed authors, nor in the apostolic age.

[Contents]

Matthew.

Christians believe that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Hebrew. Our Matthew was written in Greek. An attempt has been made to explain the discrepancy by assuming that Matthew wrote his book in Hebrew, and subsequently rewrote it in Greek, or translated it into this language. But another difficulty remains. The quotations from the Old Testament in Matthew, and there are many, are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Septuagint (Greek) version. This proves that it was originally written in Greek and not in Hebrew.

The Gospel According to the Hebrews, it is affirmed, was the Hebrew form of Matthew. If this be true, then our Greek Matthew cannot be a correct translation, for the passages from the Gospel of the Hebrews which have been preserved are not to be found in Matthew. The following quotations are from the Gospel of the Hebrews, this supposed original Gospel of Matthew:

“He who wonders shall reign, and he who reigns shall rest.”[121]

“Then the rich man began to smite his head, and it pleased him not.”

“The Holy Ghost, my mother, lately took me by one of my hairs, and bore me to the great mountain Tabor.”

“I am a mason, who get my livelihood by my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst restore to me my strength, that I may no longer thus scandalously beg my bread.”

If these passages are from the original Gospel of Matthew, then the accepted Gospel of Matthew is spurious.

This Hebrew Gospel was the Gospel of the Ebionites and Nazarenes. Eusebius says: “They [the Ebionites] made use only of that which is called the Gospel According to the Hebrews.” Epiphanius says: “They [the Nazarenes] have the Gospel of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language.” St. Jerome refers to it as “the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use.”

Referring to these sects, Dr. Hug, the eminent Catholic critic, says: “The Ebionites denied the miraculous conception of Christ, and, with the Nazarenes, looked upon him only as an ordinary man.” The Gospel which these sects accepted as their authority could not have been our Gospel of Matthew, because the most important part of this Gospel is the story of the miraculous conception.

While the claim that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew is vigorously maintained, the claim that he afterwards translated it into [122]Greek himself is so manifestly untenable that many have conceded its improbability. Jerome says: “Who afterwards translated it [Matthew] into Greek is not sufficiently certain.”

The consequences of this admission are thus reluctantly expressed by Michaelis: “If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words.”

Two texts may be cited from Matthew which prove a later date for the Gospel than that claimed. Jesus, in upbraiding the Jews, is reported to have used the following language:

“Upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar” (xxiii, 35).

Zacharias, the son of Baruch (Barouchos), who is undoubtedly meant, was slain in the temple about 69 A.D. Thus Matthew makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death and twenty or thirty years after the Gospel of Matthew is said to have been written.

Dr. Hug admits that this is the Zacharias referred to. He says: “There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who, according to Josephus, a short time before the [123]destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly slain in the temple.”

Regarding this passage in Matthew, Professor Newman, of University College, London, says: “There is no other man known in history to whom this verse can allude. If so, it shows how late, how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred truth” (Religion Not History, p. 46).

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (xvi, 18, 19).

This passage was written at the beginning of the establishment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, for the purpose of securing the recognition of the Church of Rome (the founding of which tradition assigned to Peter) as the church of Christ.

Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: “If the arguments in favor of a late date for the composition of St. Matthew’s Gospel be compared with those in favor of an early date, it will be found that the former greatly outweigh the latter.”

Dr. Davidson admits that Matthew is an anonymous work. He says: “The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown” (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 72).[124]

[Contents]

Mark.

As to where the Gospel of Mark was written, whether in Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, is unknown. Some believe that it was written at Antioch; Chrysostom states that it was written at Alexandria; Irenæus says that it was written at Rome. If it was written at Rome it was probably written in Latin instead of Greek. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” concedes that “it abounds in Latin words.” The following is an example:

“And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many” (v. 9).

Commenting on this passage, the Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word ‘legion’ is Latin; but in Galilee and Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word ‘legion’ would be perfectly unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country” (Christian Records, p. 197).

If it was written in Latin, then our Greek Mark, like Matthew, instead of being an original Gospel, is simply an unauthenticated translation.

Mark has generally been considered a Petrine Gospel; orthodox Christians claiming that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark. Discussing this claim, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “Throughout the Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic [125]of Petrine influence and teaching” (Vol. I., p. 362). Volkmar and others declare it to be Pauline. One thing can be affirmed with certainty; it was not written by John Mark, neither was it dictated by Peter.

The last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed, are an interpolation, because they are not to be found in the older manuscripts of the book. The Revision Committee which prepared the New Version of the New Testament pronounced them spurious. If these verses are not genuine, then it must be admitted that the second Gospel is either an unfinished or a mutilated work; for with these verses omitted, it ends abruptly with the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving the most important events at the close of Christ’s career, his appearance and ascension—the proofs of his resurrection—unrecorded.

The greater portion of Mark is to be found in Matthew and Luke, and much of it in the same or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review of the Gospel, says: “Mark has almost a complete parallel in Luke and Matthew taken together. There are but 24 verses which have no parallel in either of the other synoptics” (History of Christianity, p. 350).

Regarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says: “Our second Gospel cannot have originated from recollections of Peter’s instructions, i. e., from a source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or [126]otherwise, from the first and third Gospels” (Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51).

That neither Peter nor Mark had anything to do with the composition of this book is admitted by Davidson. Referring to it he says: “It has therefore no relation to the Apostle, and derives no sanction from his name. The author is unknown” (Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II, p. 84).

[Contents]

Luke.

In denying the authenticity of Mark and Luke, what I deny is that these books were written by the traditional Mark and Luke, the companions of Peter and Paul. I deny that they were written in the apostolic age and by apostolic authority. As stated by “Chambers’s Encyclopedia,” “the question as to their genuineness is in the main question as to the fact of their existence at this early period; the special authorship of each Gospel is a comparatively less important question.”

The book of Luke is anonymous; it does not claim to be written by Luke. And yet the Fathers may have been correct in ascribing its authorship to him. If so, who was this Luke? Where did he live? When did he write his book? “Chambers’s” says he “was born, according to the accounts of the Church Fathers, at Antioch, in Syria.” Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says, “He was born at Antioch.” The Gospel is addressed to Theophilus. Who was Theophilus? The “Bible Dictionary” says: [127]“From the honorable epithet applied to him in Luke i, 3, it has been argued with much probability that he was a person in high official position.” There is but one Theophilus known to history to whom the writer can possibly refer, and this is Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the latter part of the second century. Luke and Theophilus, then, both belonged to Antioch, and it is undoubtedly to this Theophilus that Luke’s Gospel is addressed. This proves that it was written more than one hundred years after the date assigned for its composition. When Luke assumed the task of writing a Gospel, Matthew, it has been claimed, was the only Gospel extant. And yet Luke in his introduction declares that many had been written; all of which he admits were genuine. Jerome says that one of the Gospels which Luke refers to was the Gospel of Appelles: “The Evangelist, Luke, declares that there were many who wrote Gospels.... They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Appelles, and others.” The Gospel of Appelles was written about 60 A.D. If Luke’s Gospel was written after the Gospel of Appelles, it was written after the middle of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of the greatest of modern theologians, maintains that Luke is a compilation of thirty-three different manuscripts; as follows: Chapter i, 1–4; i, 5–80; ii, 1–20; ii, [128]21; ii, 22–40; ii, 41–52; iii, iv, 1–15; iv, 16–30; iv, 31–44; v, 1–11; v, 12–16; v, 17–26; v, 27–39, vi, 1–11; vi, 12–49; vii, 1–10; vii, 11–50; viii, 1–21; viii, 22–56; ix, 1–45; ix, 46–50; ix, 51–62; x, 1–24; x, 25–37; x, 38–42; xi, 1–13; xi, 14–54; xii, xiii, 1–9; xiii, 10–22; xiii, 23–35; xiv, 1–24; xiv, 25–35; xv, xvi, xvii, 1–19; xvii, 20–37; xviii, xix, xx; xxi; xxii, xxiii, 1–49; xxiii, 50–56; xxiv.

Bishop Thirlwall’s Schleiermacher contains the following in regard to the composition of Luke: “The main position is firmly established that Luke is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from works which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. He is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands” (p. 313).

The immediate source of Luke’s Gospel was undoubtedly the Gospel of Marcion, itself a compilation of older documents. Referring to this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould says: “The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it, then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount” (Lost and Hostile Gospels).

[Contents]

The Synoptics.

The Synoptics Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is claimed, are original and independent compositions, [129]and the oldest of all the Gospels, both canonical and apocryphal. This claim is disproved by the form and character of their contents. One of two things is certain: either these writers copied from each other, or all copied from older documents. The following, which are but a few of the many passages that might be adduced, afford unmistakable evidence of this:

Matthew—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (xxii, 33).

Mark—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (i, 22).

Luke—“They were astonished at his doctrine” (iv, 32).

Matthew—“For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (vii, 29).

Mark—“For he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes” (i, 22).

Matthew—“While he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief priests,” etc. (xxvi, 47).

Mark—“While he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests,” etc. (xiv, 43).

Matthew—“And without a parable spake he not unto them” (xiii, 34).

Mark—“But without a parable spake he not unto them” (iv, 34).

Matthew—“Sought opportunity to betray him” (xxvi, 16).[130]

Luke—“Sought opportunity to betray him” (xxii, 6).

Mark—“But they understood not that saying” (ix, 32).

Luke—“But they understood not this saying” (ix, 45).

The theory that the Synoptics borrowed from each other will account for the agreements in their books; but it will not account for the disagreements, and these are quite as numerous as the agreements. The following hypothesis, however, will account for both. When the Synoptics were composed probably fifty gospels, some of recent and others of early origin, were already in existence. In addition to these were a hundred other documents pertaining to Christ and his teachings. From this mass of Gospel literature the Synoptics were compiled. Those portions that agree were taken from a common source; those that do not agree were taken from different documents.

Dean Alford believes that in the early ages of the church there existed what he terms a “common substratum of apostolic teachings,” “oral or partially documentary.” This, he says, “I believe to have been the original source of the common part of our three Gospels.” Canon Westcott admits that “their substance is evidently much older than their form.”

Professor Ladd, of Yale College, says: “In some respects each of the first three Gospels must be regarded as a compilation; it consists [131]of material which the others have in common with it, and which was of a traditional kind more or less prepared before the author of the particular Gospel took it in hand to modify and rearrange it” (What Is the Bible? p. 295).

Bishop Marsh, in his Michaelis, says: “The notion of an absolute independence, in respect to the composition of our three first Gospels, is no longer tenable” (Vol. III, part 2, p. 170).

Prof. Robertson Smith, of Scotland, pronounces them “unapostolic digests of the second century.” Evanson goes further and declares them to be “spurious fictions of the second century.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica concedes the fact that Protestant scholarship in Europe has virtually abandoned the popular orthodox position regarding the origin of these books. It says:

“It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees, and that while they have their root in the apostolic age, they are fashioned by later influences and adapted to special wants in the early church. They are the deposits, in short, of Christian traditions handed down first of all in an oral form, before being committed to writing in such a form as we have them; and this is now an accepted conclusion of every historical school of theologians in England no less than in Germany, conservative no less than radical.”

[Contents]

John.

In addition to what has already been adduced [132]against the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, I submit the following:

1. John, the disciple of Jesus, was an unlettered fisherman. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an accomplished scholar and a polished writer. His book is one of the classics of Christian literature.

2. The Apostle John was born at Bethsaida. The author of John says that Bethsaida was in Galilee (xii, 21). Bethsaida was not in Galilee, but in Perea, and to assert that John wrote this Gospel is to assert that he was ignorant of the location of his own town.

3. “In Bethany beyond Jordan” (New Ver. i, 28). “In Enon near to Salim” (iii, 23). “A city of Samaria, called Sychar” (iv, 5). These passages were written by one little acquainted with the geography of Palestine and unfamiliar with the scenes he attempts to describe.

4. John, the son of Zebedee, was a Jew. The manner in which the author of the Fourth Gospel always refers to the Jews is conclusive evidence that he was not a Jew.

5. The Synoptics state that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples, and was crucified on the following day. The author of John states that he was crucified on the previous day, and therefore did not partake of the Paschal supper. In the second century a great controversy arose in the church regarding this. Those who accepted the account given in the Synoptics observed the feast, while those who accepted [133]the account given in the Fourth Gospel rejected it. Now, we have the testimony of Irenæus that John himself observed this feast. “For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had ever observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord” (Against Heresies, iii, 3). As John accepted the account which appears in the Synoptics and rejected that which appears in the Gospel of John, he could not have written the Fourth Gospel.

6. The disciple John is represented as standing at the cross and witnessing the crucifixion. The author of John does not claim to have been present, but appeals to the testimony of an eye-witness in support of his statements: “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true” (xix, 35).

7. “Now, there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples whom he loved” (xiii, 23). “The disciple standing by, whom he loved” (xix, 26). “To Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved” (xx, 2). This beloved disciple is said to be John. The Synoptics, however, do not represent John as the favorite disciple. If there was one disciple whom Jesus loved more than the others, it was Peter. To ascribe to John the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is to ascribe to him a spirit of self-glorification that is simply disgusting.

8. “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not [134]written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye might have life through his name” (xx, 30, 31). Thus concludes the original Gospel According to St. John. This book was not written by John, but it was written by a disciple of John for Johannine Christians. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy was formed and the Gospel of John was admitted to the New Testament canon, there was appended another chapter—a forgery. The hero of this chapter is Peter. A dozen times Jesus calls him by name. To him Jesus gives the oft repeated injunction, “Feed my lambs;” “feed my sheep.” This chapter was added to counteract the Johannine influence and exalt the Petrine teachings so dear to Rome. To give an appearance of genuineness to this forgery, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is again introduced and declared the author of the Gospel, thus making John himself a supporter of Petrine supremacy.

9. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics state, were witnessed by John. The author of the Fourth Gospel knows nothing about them. “All the events said to have been witnessed by John alone are omitted by John alone. This fact seems fatal either to the reality of the events in question or to the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel” (Greg).

10. Even Christians have tacitly admitted the [135]hopelessness of maintaining the authenticity of both the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. If the Synoptics are authentic, the Fourth Gospel cannot be. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “In the Fourth Gospel the narrative coincides with that of the other three in a few passages only. Putting aside the account of the Passion, there are only three facts which John relates in common with the other Evangelists” (Art. Gospels).

11. The author of John declares Jesus to be God. The complete deification of Jesus was the growth of generations. The early Christians, including the Apostles, believed him to be a man. Later, he became a demi-god, and the writings and traditions which represented him as such formed the materials from which the Synoptics were compiled. Not until the latter part of the second century was Jesus placed among the gods, and not until this time was the Fourth Gospel written.

Alluding to the Fourth Gospel, Canon Westcott says: “The earliest account of the origin of the Gospel is already legendary.”

Professor Davidson says: “The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times it is here irresistible” (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

From a work entitled “The New Bible and Its Uses” Prof. Andrew D. White, our present minister to Germany, in his “Warfare of Science” [136](vol. ii, p. 306), quotes the following in relation to John, which shows how rapidly the supposed authenticity of Bible books is disappearing before the investigations of the Higher Critics:

“In the period of thirty years ending in 1860, of the fifty great authorities in this line, four to one were in favor of the Johannine authorship.... Of those who have contributed important articles to the discussion from 1880 to 1890, about two to one reject the Johannine authorship of the Gospel in its present shape—that is to say, while forty years ago great scholars were four to one in favor of, they are now two to one against, the claim that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel as we have it.”

[Contents]

The Four Gospels.

The principal reason for rejecting both the reputed authorship and the credibility of the Four Gospels is the contradictory character of their contents. If Jesus Christ was a historical personage, as Christians believe, these alleged biographies were not written by his Apostles and their companions; neither were they compiled from authentic records.

The Greek text of the Gospels disproves their authenticity. Their assigned authors, or two of them at least, were unlearned Jews. Their work was confined chiefly to the lower classes of their countrymen, in a land where Greek was almost unknown. The absurdity of this is shown by Mrs. Besant: “The only parallel for so curious [137]a phenomenon as these Greek Gospels, written by ignorant Jews, would be if a Cornish fisherman and a low London attorney, both perfectly ignorant of German, wrote in German the sayings and doings of a Middlesex carpenter, and as their work was entirely confined to the lower classes of the people, who knew nothing of German, and they desired to place within their reach full knowledge of the carpenter’s life, they circulated it among them in German only, and never wrote anything about him in English.”

The doctrines of the immaculate conception and of a material resurrection, so prominent in the Four Gospels, are proofs of their late origin. These doctrines are not taught in the older books of the New Testament, and were unknown to the Christians of the first century.

The scholarly author of “Supernatural Religion,” after a patient and exhaustive examination of every accessible document relating to the subject, writes as follows:

“After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus” (Vol. II., p. 248).

Bishop Faustus, a heretical theologian of the fifth century, referring to this so so-called Gospel history, says:

“It is allowed not to have been written by the Son himself nor by his Apostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should be [138]suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles.”

Regarding these four books and their sequel, Acts, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, the noted theologian and critic of Holland, voices the opinion of himself and his renowned associates, Dr. Kuenen and Dr. Oort, in the following words:

“Our interest is more especially excited by the five historical books of the New Testament. If we might really suppose them to have been written by the men whose names they bear, we could never be thankful enough for such precious authorities.... But, alas! not one of these five books was really written by the person whose name it bears—though for the sake of brevity we shall still call the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and they are all of more recent date than their headings would lead us to suppose.... We cannot say that the Gospels and the book of Acts are unauthentic, for not one of them professes to give the name of its author. They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 24).

The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, nor the Four Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The authenticity of the chief books of the New Testament, like that of the chief books of the Old, must be given up. The results [139]of our review of them may be summed up in the words of the great German, Ferdinand Christian Baur: “These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century.”[140]

[Contents]

CHAPTER X.

ACTS, CATHOLIC EPISTLES, REVELATION.

In this chapter will be reviewed the so-called historical book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. In some versions of the New Testament the Catholic Epistles come immediately after Acts.

[Contents]

Acts of the Apostles.

The Acts of the Apostles is one of many books bearing this name which appeared during the early centuries of the church. Concerning the origin of our canonical Acts, Dr. Hitchcock says: “It was written by Luke, in considerable part from his own observations of the facts narrated, and about A.D. 63, and at Rome, during Paul’s stay there.”

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus; the book of Acts is addressed to the same person, and as the author states that he has addressed a former work to him, it is inferred that both works were written by the same person. It has been shown that Theophilus lived in the latter part of the second century, and that the Gospel [141]of Luke was written at this time. If Luke and Acts, then, were written by the same person, and Acts was written after Luke, it also must have been written late in the second century, and consequently could not have been written by Luke, the companion of Paul.

It is asserted that Luke was the associate of Paul, and that he was in Rome with Paul when his book was written. This implies Paul’s sanction of the book. But if the Epistles of Paul are genuine, and it is generally agreed that those bearing upon this question are, this can not be true; for the Paul of these epistles and the Paul of Acts are two entirely different characters.

The book is entitled the Acts of the Apostles; and yet the acts of Peter and Paul are almost the only apostolic acts recorded. Besides the narrative of the author, the book consists largely of discourses attributed to Peter and Paul. But the style of the “unlearned and ignorant” (iv, 13) Peter is so similar to that of Paul with his “much learning” (xxvi, 24), and both so closely resemble the style of the author, that one not strongly imbued with faith must conclude that the whole is the product of one mind.

The author cites a speech made by Gamaliel before the Jewish council, in which he uses the following language: “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, almost four [142]hundred, joined themselves, who were slain,” etc. (v, 36).

Josephus, who gives an account of this event (Antiq. Bk. xx, ch. v, sec. 1), says that it happened “while Fadus was Procurator of Judea.” This was 45 or 46 A.D.Gamaliel’s speech was delivered, according to the accepted chronology, 29 A.D. Thus the author of Acts makes Gamaliel refer to an event as long past which in reality did not happen until sixteen years after that time.

Continuing his speech, Gamaliel refers to another event, as follows: “After this man [Theudas] rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished” (37).

Here the author makes Gamaliel state that the sedition of Judas of Galilee occurred after that of Theudas, when in fact it occurred in 6 A.D.—forty years before. Such grave discrepancies could have been made only by one writing long after the date claimed.

Holtzmann, a German critic, has shown that the author of Acts borrowed from the Antiquities of Josephus. The Antiquities appeared 93 A.D.—just thirty years after the date assigned to Acts.

This book will not be given up by orthodox Christians without a struggle. The authenticity of primitive Christianity depends largely upon the authenticity of this book. Renan who was a Rationalist, and, at the same time [143]something of an apologist for Christianity, affirms that the last pages of Acts, which are devoted almost entirely to Paul’s missionary labors constitute the only historical record of the early church. At the same time, he admits that it is the most faulty book in the New Testament. The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas concedes the same. He says:

“Of the earliest fortunes of the community of Jesus, the primitive history of the Christian church and the whole of the apostolic age, we should know as good as nothing if we had not the book of Acts. If only we could trust the writer fully! But we soon see that the utmost caution is necessary. For we have another account of some of the things about which this writer tells us—an account written by the very man to whom they refer, the best possible authority, therefore, as to what really took place. This man is Paul himself. In the first two chapters of the epistle to the Galatians he gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design, an attempt—conceived no doubt with the best intentions—to hide in some degree the actual course of events” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 25).

The dissensions which arose in the first century [144]between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians had only increased with time, and these were among the chief obstacles in the way of uniting Christians and establishing the Catholic church. The composition of Acts was one of the many attempts made toward the close of the second century to heal these dissensions. The author was a man who cared little for either Petrine or Pauline Christianity—little for the so-called truths of Christianity in any form—but a man who cared much for church unity and church power.

The book of Acts was little known at first. St. Chrysostom, writing in the fifth century, says: “This book is not so much as known to many. They know neither the book nor by whom it was written.”

[Contents]

James and Jude.

The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and Jude, have been declared spurious or doubtful by eminent Christian scholars in every age of the church. The Fathers were loath to admit them into the Bible, and their right to a place there has always been disputed.

James and Jude, the first and the last of these epistles, orthodox Christians believe, were written by James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus, in 62 and 64 A.D.

Three leading orthodox authorities, representing the three great divisions of the Christian [145]church, Cajetan of the Roman Catholic church; Lucar of the Greek Catholic church, and Erasmus of the Protestant church, have denied the authenticity of James. Luther himself refused to accept it. He says: “The Epistle of James I account the writing of no apostle.”

The composition of Jude and Second Peter are both placed in A.D. 64. There is no proof that either was in existence in A.D. 164. It is only necessary to read Jude and the second chapter of Second Peter to see that one borrowed from the other. While most believe that the author of Second Peter used Jude in the construction of his epistle, Luther contends that Jude is the plagiarist. He says: “The epistle of Jude is an abstract or copy of St. Peter’s Second” (Preface to Luther’s Version).

Jude cites as authentic the apocryphal book of Enoch, and the apocryphal story of Michael the archangel contending with Satan for the body of Moses. Origen, Jerome, and others in ancient, and Calvin, Grotius and others in modern times, have doubted its authenticity. Mayerhoff says it was written in the second century to combat the heresies of the Carpocratians.

[Contents]

Epistles of Peter.

Most Christians contend that the First Epistle of Peter is genuine. Some of the early Christian Fathers, however, rejected it. Irenæus did not place it in his canon. Not until the third century was it accepted as the writing of Peter.

The celebrated Tubingen school of critics rejects [146]the authenticity of the book. Baur and Zeller believe it to be a Pauline document. Schwegler believes that it was written to reconcile the Pauline and Petrine doctrines. The Dutch critics say that it was borrowed largely from Paul and James, and that it was probably written early in the second century. Regarding its authorship, Jules Soury, of the University of France, says:

“Nobody, however, knows better than he [Renan] that the so-called First Epistle of Peter, full of allusions to Paul’s writings, as well as the epistle to the Hebrews and the epistle of James, dates in all probability from the year 130 A.D., at the earliest, thus placing two generations between the time of its composition and the latter years of the reign of Nero, when Peter is fabled to have been in Rome” (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32).

All critics pronounce Second Peter a forgery. Chambers’s Encyclopedia says: “So far as external authority is concerned, it has hardly any. The most critical and competent of the Fathers were suspicious of its authenticity; it was rarely if ever quoted, and was not formally admitted into the canon till the Council of Hippo, 393A.D. The internal evidence is just as unsatisfactory.”

Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” contains the following relative to its authenticity: “We have few references to it in the writings of the early Fathers; the style differs materially from that of [147]the First Epistle, and the resemblance amounting to a studied imitation between this epistle and that of Jude, seems scarcely reconcilable with the position of Peter.... Many reject the epistle altogether as spurious.”

It is believed by some that the original title of Second Peter was the Epistle of Simeon. Grotius argues that it is a compilation from two older epistles. The third chapter begins as follows: “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.” These words clearly denote the beginning of a document. Those who affirm its genuineness consider the second chapter an interpolation. Westcott says there is no evidence of the existence of this epistle prior to 170 A.D. Scaliger declares it to be a “fiction of some ancient Christian misemploying his leisure time.”

[Contents]

Epistles of John.

The so-called Epistles of John, so far as the books themselves are concerned, are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by the Apostle John, nor by anyone bearing the name of John.

Of First John, “Chambers’s Encyclopedia” says: “Of the epistles it is almost certain that the First proceeded from the same writer who composed the [Fourth] Gospel. In style, language, and doctrine, it is identical with it.” If John did not write the Fourth Gospel, and it is conceded by most writers that he did not, then he did not write this epistle.[148]

Referring to the Gospel of John, whose authenticity he denies and whose composition he assigns to the second century, Dr. Hooykaas says: “The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).

Of two passages in the First Epistle, ii, 23, and v, 7, which teach the doctrine of the Trinity, the “Bible Dictionary” says: “It would appear without doubt that they are not genuine.” The Revisers of the King James version pronounced them spurious.

The second and third epistles were not written by the writer of the first. The early Fathers rejected them. Eusebius in the fourth century classed them with the doubtful books. It has been claimed that the second epistle was written for the purpose of counteracting the heretical teachings of Basilides and his followers. Basilides was a famous writer of the second century.

These epistles have the following superscriptions: “The elder [presbyter] unto the elect lady” to the first, and “The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius” to the second. The declaration that they are from an elder or presbyter proves that they are not from an apostle, and consequently not from the Apostle John. If they were written by a writer named John, it was probably John the Presbyter, who lived in the second century. Jerome states that they were generally credited to him. In his account of John the Presbyter, Judge Waite says: “He [149]is also, not without reason, believed to have been the author of the Epistles of John” (History of the Christian Religion, p. 228).

[Contents]

Revelation.

Revelation is the last book of the Bible, and the one least understood. Christians themselves are not agreed as to its meaning. Some believe it to be a series of prophecies which have had their fulfilment in the struggles between Christianity and Paganism; others believe that its prophecies are yet to be fulfilled; still others pronounce it a symbolical poem, representing the conflict between truth and error, while not a few consider it the recorded fancies of a diseased imagination.

The book purports to be from “John to the seven churches of Asia” (i, 4). This John is declared to be the Apostle John and its authority is based upon this claim. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says: “The question as to the canonical authority of the Revelation resolves itself into a question of authorship. Was St. John the Apostle and Evangelist the writer of the Revelation?” If John the Apostle and the author of the Fourth Gospel were one, as assumed by the “Bible Dictionary,” then the question of its authenticity and canonical authority must be abandoned, for the author of the Fourth Gospel did not write it. There is nothing in common between them. The German theologian, Lucke, says: “If all critical experience and rules in such literary questions do [150]not deceive, it is certain that the Evangelist and Apocalyptist are two different persons.” De Wette says: “The Apostle John, if he be the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine epistles, did not write the Apocalypse.” Regarding this conclusion, Ewald says: “All men capable of forming a judgment are of the same opinion.” Among the eminent critics and commentators who take this position are Luther, Erasmus, Michaelis, Schleiermacher, Credner, Zeller, Evanson, Baur, Renan, and Davidson.

The Apostle John wrote neither the Fourth Gospel, the so-called Epistles of John, nor Revelation. That he did not write Revelation is shown by the following:

1. The author does not claim to be an apostle.

2. He refers to the Twelve Apostles (xxi, 14) in a way that forbids the supposition that he was one of them.

3. The Apostle John is declared to have been illiterate and incapable of writing a book.

4. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, and yet the seven churches of Asia, to which it is addressed, rejected it.

The Alogi maintained that it was a forgery which came from Corinth. Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, writing in the third century, says: “Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged.”[151]

Concerning its rejection by modern churchmen, the Edinburgh Review (No. 131) says: “The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines here almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book of Revelation. Calvin and Beza pronounced the book unintelligible, and prohibited the pastors of Geneva from all attempts at interpretation.” Dr. South described it as “a book that either found a man mad or left him so.”

Luther, in the Preface to his New Testament (Ed. of 1522) writes: “In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either prophetic or apostolical.”[152]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XI.

PAULINE EPISTLES.

Fourteen books—Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews—are ascribed, some correctly, some doubtfully, and others falsely, to Paul. They were all written, it is claimed, between 52 and 65 A.D.

[Contents]

Genuine Epistles.

The genuine Epistles of Paul, those whose authenticity is conceded by nearly all critics, are Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians. The term “genuine” is applied to the books as originally written, and not to the text as it now exists. It is probable that they have undergone various changes since they left Paul’s hand. The last two chapters of Romans are believed to be interpolations. The fifteenth consists chiefly of irrelevant matter which detracts from the symmetry of the work. The sixteenth is mostly filled with salutations. In these several women are given a prominence in church affairs that is wholly at variance with [153]Paul’s attitude toward woman. The subscription to the First Epistle to the Corinthians states that it “was written from Philippi.” The 19th verse of the last chapter shows that Paul was in Asia instead of Europe, while the 8th verse expressly declares that he was at Ephesus. The Second Epistle to Corinthians, it is declared, “was written from Philippi” also. That this is doubtful is admitted even by the most orthodox authorities. The subscription to Galatians reads as follows: “Unto the Galatians, written from Rome.” This book was written between 52 and 55 A.D.; Paul did not go to Rome until 61 A.D. This epistle was written from Ephesus.

While critics are nearly unanimous in acknowledging the genuineness of these books, a few, including Professor Thudichum of Germany, Prof. Edwin Johnson of England, and W. H. Burr of this country, pronounce them forgeries, and contend that the Paul of the New Testament is a myth.

[Contents]

Doubtful Epistles.

The doubtful Epistles, those whose authenticity is accepted by some critics and rejected by others, are Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon. Sixty years ago to this list of doubtful books critics would have added three others—Ephesians, Colossians, and Second Thessalonians; but the critical labors of the Tubingen school and others have relegated these to the already burdened shelf of spurious Bible books.

In regard to Philippians, Ferdinand Baur, [154]for thirty years head of the Tubingen school and unquestionably the greatest of Bible critics, says: “The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians ... are spurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of the second century, to heal the strife between the Jew and Gentile factions” (Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ).

Baur also rejects First Thessalonians. He contends that this, as well as the Second Epistle, contains teachings quite at variance with the teachings of Paul. The German critic Schrader is confident that Paul did not write First Thessalonians.

Respecting Philemon, Dr. Hitchcock says: “This brief Epistle was written at the same time with those to the Colossians and Ephesians, and was sent along with them by Tychicus and Onesimus.” As Colossians and Ephesians have both been declared spurious by the ablest Christian scholars, Philemon, to say the least, is placed in bad company. This Epistle was written in behalf of one Onesimus, a zealous Christian, who is also mentioned in Colossians. There was an Onesimus, a zealous church worker, living in 175 A.D.

Holland’s critics, Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Oort, and Dr. Hooykaas, are disposed to accept Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, but admit that there are grave doubts concerning the authenticity of each.[155]

[Contents]

Spurious Epistles.

The spurious Epistles, those whose authenticity is generally denied by the critics, are Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews.

Ewald and De Wette both admit that Ephesians was not written by St. Paul. De Wette thinks it was compiled from Colossians. Davidson and Mayerhoff believe that neither Ephesians nor Colossians is genuine. I have quoted Baur’s rejection of Colossians. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “It is undeniable that the Epistle to the Colossians and the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians differ considerably in language and thought from other Pauline Epistles and that their relation to one another demands explanation.”

First and Second Thessalonians are pronounced the oldest of Paul’s writings, both belonging, it is claimed, to 52 A.D. The author of the Second Epistle is very desirous of having his writing accepted as a genuine Epistle of Paul. Several times he declares himself to be Paul. He warns them not to be deceived “by letter as from us” (ii, 2), and concludes with “the salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every Epistle.” This Epistle affirms the first to be a forgery. The first was probably written at an early date, and, whether genuine or spurious, was accepted as a Pauline Epistle. In it the early advent of Christ—during Paul’s lifetime—is predicted. “We, [156]which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep” (iv, 15). “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds” (17). Generations passed, Christ did not come, and the church was losing faith in Paul and Christianity. To restore confidence, another letter from Paul to the Thessalonians was “found,” and this repudiates the first. He exhorts them not to be troubled, “neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand” (ii, 2). It teaches the second coming of Christ, but carefully leaves the time indefinite. Whatever may be said of the First Epistle, the Second is clearly a forgery.

With respect to these Epistles, the Britannica says: “The predominant opinion of modern criticism at present is that the genuineness of the First Epistle is certain, while that of the Second must be given up.”

First and Second Timothy and Titus, known as the Pastoral Epistles, and Hebrews were not written by Paul. The Pastoral Epistles are forgeries, while Hebrews is an anonymous work. The contents of these books betray a later date. Their teachings are not the teachings of Paul. Their language is utterly unlike that of the genuine Epistles. They contain two hundred words never used by Paul. Marcion, the most noted Pauline Christian of the second century, who made a collection of Paul’s Epistles, excluded [157]them. Tatian and Basilides also rejected them.

Against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles may be cited nearly every modern critic, including the four great names of Baur, Eichorn, De Wette, and Davidson. Baur says they were written in the second century.

While thirteen of the so-called Pauline Epistles claim to have been written by Paul, Hebrews alone is silent regarding its authorship. Tertullian classed it with the apocryphal books, but thought it might have been written by Barnabas. In the Clermont codex it is called the Epistle of Barnabas. According to Origen, some ascribe it to Luke, others to Clement of Rome. Origen himself says: “Who it was that really wrote the Epistle, God only knows.” Dr. Westcott admits that there is no evidence that Paul wrote it. Grotius attributes it to Luke, Luther to Apollos. Luther says: “That the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle, is shown by chapter ii, 3” (Preface to Luther’s N. T.).

Concerning the seven books that we have been considering, Dr. Hooykaas says:

“Fourteen Epistles are said to be Paul’s; but we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name at all.... The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were certainly composed long after the death of Paul.... It is more than probable that the letters to the Ephesians and [158]Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the Epistles to the Thessalonians” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 23).

The Rev. John W. Chadwick, in his “Bible of To-day,” says that the first four Epistles “are his [Paul’s] with absolute certainty.” Four others, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, he is disposed to accept, but admits that their authenticity is doubtful. The remaining books he pronounces spurious.

Persons in this age have little conception of the prevalence of literary forgeries in the early centuries of the church. Now, when books are printed in editions of 1,000 or more, such forgeries are nearly impossible and consequently rare. When books existed in manuscript only, they were neither difficult nor uncommon. Books and letters purporting to have been written by Paul, Peter, John, and other Apostles were readily “discovered” when wanted. Of these Apostolic forgeries Prof. John Tyndall says: “When arguments or proofs were needed, whether on the side of the Jewish Christians or of the Gentile Christians, a document was discovered which met the case, and on which the name of an Apostle or of some authoritative contemporary of the Apostles was boldly inscribed. The end being held to justify the means, there was no lack of manufactured testimony.”[159]

[Contents]

Conclusion.

Of these fourteen Epistles ascribed to Paul, four, then, Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians, are pronounced genuine; three, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, are of doubtful authenticity; while seven, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews, are spurious.

The genuine writings of Paul are probably the oldest Christian writings extant. Admitting the authenticity of these four books, of course, is not admitting the authenticity of Christianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which historical Christianity rests. He was not a convert to Christianity until many years after Christ’s death. He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from his disciples. “The gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it” (Gal. i, 11, 12). Paul accepted only to a small extent the religion of Christ’s disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources—from trances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one single [160]valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class.”

We have now reviewed the books of the Bible and presented some of the historical and internal evidences bearing upon the question of their authenticity. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament, we have seen, is but little better attested than that of the Old. The authors of twenty books—Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, Jude, and Revelation—are unknown. Three books—Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon—are of questionable authenticity. Four books only—Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians—are generally admitted to be authentic.

Of the sixty-six books of the Bible at least fifty are anonymous works or forgeries. To teach that these books are divine, and to accept them as such, denotes a degree of depravity on the one hand, and an amount of credulity on the other, that are not creditable to a moral and enlightened people.[161]

Part II.

CREDIBILITY.

[163]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XII.

TEXTUAL CORRUPTIONS.

“The Bible does not contain the shadow of a shade of error from Genesis to Revelation”—Cheever.

“Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High.”—Bunyan.

Such are the dogmatic assertions of Bibliolaters. So much confidence do they pretend to repose in the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy that they propose the most crucial tests for its submission.

The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, one of the highest orthodox authorities on the canon, lays down this rule in determining the right of a book to a place in the canon:

“That book is apocryphal which contains contradictions; or which contains histories, or proposes doctrines contrary to those which are known to be true; or which contains ludicrous [164]trifling, fabulous, or silly relations; or which contains anachronisms; or wherein the style is clearly different from the known style of the author whose name it bears” (New Methods, Vol. I., p. 70).

The Rev. T. Hartwell Horne, a standard authority in the orthodox church, submits this test in determining the divinity of the Bible as a whole:

“If real contradictions exist in the Bible, it is sufficient proof that it is not divinely inspired, whatever pretenses it may make to such inspiration” (Introduction to the Scriptures, Vol. I., p. 581).

I challenge the verity of Cheever’s and Bunyan’s claims and proceed to apply to this book the tests of Jones and Horne. Instead of not containing the shadow of a shade of error, I shall show that it is so filled with the darkness of error that the truths existing in it are scarcely discernible. Instead of being the direct utterance of the Most High, I shall show that every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, is the direct utterance of man. I shall impeach the authority of the Christian canon and show that all of its books are apocryphal; that they contain histories and propose doctrines that are contrary to what is known to be true; that they contain ludicrous, trifling, fabulous, and silly relations; that they abound with anachronisms. If I have not already shown that the style of these books is clearly [165]different from the known style of the authors whose names they bear, it is because the “known style” of these authors is a myth. I shall adduce enough real contradictions from the Bible to not only refute the claim that it is divinely inspired, but to destroy its credibility even as a human authority.

[Contents]

Errors of Transcribers.

If the Bible were a divine revelation, as claimed, it would have been divinely preserved. Not only the original writers, but the transcribers, translators, and printers, also, would have been divinely inspired. It is admitted that divine inspiration was confined to the original writers. Consequently the Bible, as we have it, cannot be an infallible revelation. If it be not an infallible revelation it cannot be a divine revelation.

It is popularly supposed that the books of the Bible, as originally written, have been preserved free from corruptions. That they are full of textual errors—that the books as they were originally written no longer exist and cannot be restored—is conceded even by the most orthodox of the Lower Critics. The principal causes of these corruptions are the following:

1. Clerical errors. The invention of printing made it possible to preserve the original text of a writer comparatively free from errors. With the works of ancient writers this was impossible. For a period of from 1,200 to 2,200 years preceding [166]the invention of printing the only means of preserving the books of the Bible was the pen of the scribe. However careful the copyist might be, errors would creep into the text. But instead of being careful these copyists, many of them, were notoriously careless. This is especially evident in the case of numbers. Hundreds of errors were made in the transcription of these alone. Probably one-half of the numbers given in the Old Testament, and many in the New, are not those given in the original text, but are errors due to the carelessness of transcribers and a want of divine supervision.

2. Interpolations. There are thousands of interpolations in the Bible. A considerable portion of the words printed in Italics in our version are acknowledged interpolations. Many of them appeared first in the shape of marginal notes intended to explain or correct a statement in the text. Later scribes incorporated these into the text. And thus, while God was engaged in watching sparrows and numbering the hairs in his children’s heads, additions in this and various other ways were made to his word. In many instances whole chapters were added to the original documents.

3. Omissions. Much matter was carelessly omitted. To quote the Bible for Learners, “not only letters and words, but whole verses have fallen out.” Objectionable matter was intentionally omitted. Chrysostom tells us that entire books were destroyed by the Jews. They [167]were on such familiar terms with the Deity that they could obtain other and more desirable ones for the asking.

4. Textual changes. In innumerable places the text has been wilfully changed to suit the religious and other notions of the priests. Let me cite an example. In early copies, and probably in the original text, Genesis xviii, 22, reads as follows: “The Lord yet stood before Abraham.” They thought it detracted from God’s dignity to stand before one of his creatures, and so they changed it to its present form, “Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”

Concerning the corruptions of the scribes, Dr. Davidson says: “They did not refrain from changing what had been written, or inserting fresh matter” (Canon, p. 34).

The facts that I have mentioned apply not merely to the Old Testament, but to the New Testament as well. Westcott, a very high authority on the canon, says: “It does not appear that any special care was taken in the first age to preserve the books of the New Testament from the various injuries of time or to insure perfect accuracy of transcription.... The original copies seem to have soon perished.”

[Contents]

Errors of Translators.

These errors of the transcribers have been immeasurably increased by the translators. A perfect translation is impossible, and for these reasons: 1. No language has words to express [168]perfectly all the words of another language. 2. Languages change with time and the words of one age have a different meaning in the next. 3. Many writers do not express themselves clearly, and it is often impossible to fully comprehend their meaning. This is especially true of Bible writers. 4. No two translators will grasp the meaning of a writer in exactly the same manner, or convey it in the same words.

In regard to the Old Testament the Hebrew language, as anciently written, was the most difficult of all languages to translate. It was written from right to left; the words contained no vowels; there were no intervening spaces between the words, and no punctuation marks. Even with the introduction of vowel points many words in Hebrew, as in English, have more than one meaning. Without these points, as originally written, the number is increased a hundred fold. The five English words, bag, beg, big, bog, and bug, are quite unlike and easily distinguished. Omit the vowels, as the ancient Jews did, and we have five words exactly alike, or rather, one word with five different meanings. The Hebrew language was thus largely composed of words with several meanings. As there were no spaces between words it was sometimes hard to tell where a word began or where it ended; and as there were no punctuation marks, and no spaces between sentences, paragraphs, or even sections, it was often difficult [169]to determine the meaning of a writer after the words had been deciphered.

Here is the best known passage in the Bible printed in English as the Jews would have written it in Hebrew:

In the printed text there is little danger of mistaking one letter for another; in the written text there is, especially if they resemble each other. The Hebrew letters corresponding to our D and R were nearly alike and easily confounded. Consequently in Numbers i, 14, we have “Eliasaph the son of Deuel,” and in Numbers ii, 14, “Eliasaph the son of Reuel.” Only God knows which is correct, and he does not care to enlighten us. Therefore we must believe that both are correct or be damned.

St. Jerome says: “When we translate the Hebrew into Latin we are sometimes guided by conjecture.” Le Clerc says: “The learned merely guess at the sense of the Old Testament in an infinity of places” (Sentim, p. 156). The Old Testament as we have it, then, consists largely of guesses and conjectures.

The title page of our Authorized Version of the Bible contains these words: “Translated out of the original tongues.” The Old Testament is declared to be a correct translation of the [170]accepted Hebrew. In its preparation, however, the Greek more than the Hebrew version was followed. Referring to the King James translators, the historian John Clark Ridpath says: “Following the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew original, they fell into many errors which a riper scholarship would have avoided” (Cyclopedia of Universal History. Vol. II., p. 763). Instead of being a collection of original guesses and conjectures our Old Testament is, to a great extent, merely a bad English translation of a corrupted copy of a spurious Greek translation of the original (?) Hebrew.

On the title page of the Authorized Version of the New Testament appears another falsehood: “Translated out of the original Greek.” The original Greek of the New Testament, it is claimed, belongs to the first century. The “original Greek” out of which our version was translated is less than 500 years old. The Greek version from which it was translated was made by Erasmus in 1516. Referring to the materials employed by Erasmus in the preparation of his work, the Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D., in his “Companion to the Revised Version of the English New Testament,” a work which the Committee on Revision delegated him to write and which was approved, makes the following admissions:

“In the Gospels he principally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth century.”

“In the Acts and Epistles he chiefly followed [171]a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or fourteenth century.”

“For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated manuscript.”

“There are words in the professed original for which no divine authority can be pleaded, but which are entirely due to the learning and imagination of Erasmus.”

Little do Christians realize how much of the Bible is due to the imagination of theologians.

In view of the difficulties that I have mentioned, if the translators had earnestly tried to give us a faithful translation of the Bible their work would have teemed with imperfections. But they did not even attempt to give us a faithful translation. We know that in numerous instances they purposely mistranslated its words. A hundred examples might be cited. One will suffice—sheol.

The translators themselves ought to be the best judges of each other’s work. Of Beza’s New Testament, Castalio says: “It would require a large volume to mark down the multitude of errors which swarm in Beza’s translation.” Of Castalio’s translation, Beza says: “It is sacrilegious, wicked, and downright pagan.” Reviewing Luther’s Bible, Zwingle writes: “Thou corruptest, O Luther, the Word of God. Thou art known to be an open and notorious perverter of the Holy Scriptures.” Luther, in turn, calls the translators of Zwingle’s Bible “a set of fools, anti-Christs, and impostors.”[172]

Our Authorized Version is certainly as faulty as any of the above, and its translators have been the recipients of as severe criticisms as those quoted. The Committee on Revision, while compelled to treat it respectfully, declared against its infallibility in the following words: “The studied variety adopted by the translators of 1611 has produced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principles of faithfulness” (Preface to N. V.).

[Contents]

Different Versions Contain Different Books.

That the charges that I have made concerning the corruptions of the text of the Bible are true, one fact alone amply proves—its many discordant versions and translations. Hundreds have perished, all of them differing from the original and differing from each other. A hundred still exist; no two of them alike. Excepting the English versions, which are mostly revisions of the same version, scarcely two of the principal versions contain the same books.

The received Hebrew contains 39 books (22 as divided), the Samaritan 6 (some copies but 5); the Septuagint about 50. Of the Christian versions of the Old Testament, some contain the Apocryphal books, others do not. The Gothic and Ethiopic versions exclude a part of the canonical books.

The Syriac New Testament contains but 22 books; the Italic 24 (some copies 25); the Egyptian 26; the Vulgate 27. The Ethiopic omits a [173]canonical book and includes an apocryphal book. The Sinaitic and Alexandrian manuscripts each contain 29 books. Each contains two apocryphal books, but the books are not the same.

The Roman Catholic and the Greek Catholic Bibles do not contain the same number of books. The Roman Catholic and the Protestant Bibles do not contain the same number; the Roman Catholic contains 75, the Protestant 66.

[Contents]

Different Versions of the Same Book Differ.

No two versions of the same book are alike. The Samaritan Pentateuch does not agree with the Hebrew Pentateuch; the Septuagint Pentateuch agrees with neither.

The Hebrew and the Septuagint have both been accepted by Christians as authoritative. In a single chapter may be found a dozen important variations:

Hebrew.—“And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah” (Gen. xi, 12).

Septuagint.—“And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years and begat Cainan.”

Hebrew.—“And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years” (13).

Septuagint.—“And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and he begat Salah, and he lived after the birth of Salah three hundred and thirty years.”[174]

Hebrew.—“And Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber” (14).

Septuagint.—“And Salah lived a hundred and thirty years and begat Eber.”

Hebrew.—“And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years” (15).

Septuagint.—“And Salah lived after he begat Eber three hundred and thirty years.”

Hebrew.—“And Eber lived four and thirty years and begat Peleg” (16).

Septuagint.—“And Eber lived a hundred and thirty-four years and begat Peleg.”

Hebrew.—“And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years” (17).

Septuagint.—“And Eber lived after he begat Peleg two hundred and seventy years.”

Hebrew.—“And Peleg lived thirty years and begat Reu” (18).

Septuagint.—“And Peleg lived a hundred and thirty years and begat Ragad.”

Hebrew.—“And Reu lived two and thirty years and begat Serug” (20).

Septuagint.—“And Ragad lived a hundred and thirty-two years and begat Serug.”

Hebrew.—“And Serug lived thirty years and begat Nahor” (22).

Septuagint.—“And Serug lived a hundred and thirty years and begat Nahor.”

Hebrew.—“And Nahor lived nine and twenty years and begot Terah” (24).[175]

Septuagint.—“And Nahor lived a hundred and seventy-nine years and begat Terah.”

Hebrew.—“And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years” (25).

Septuagint.—“And Nahor lived after he begat Terah a hundred and twenty-five years.”

Hebrew.—“And Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife” (31).

Septuagint.—“And Terah took Abram and Nahor his sons, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai and Melcha, his daughters-in-law, the wives of his sons Abram and Nahor.”

The early Christian versions and manuscripts contain an immense number of different readings, at least 150,000. Dr. Mill discovered 80,000 different readings in the New Testament alone.

Origen, writing in the third century, says: “There is a vast difference betwixt the several editions of the scripture, happening either through the carelessness of the transcribers, or else the forwardness of some who pretend to correct and adulterate the scripture” (Commentary on St. Matthew).

Modern versions do not agree. The readings of the Catholic and Protestant versions are quite unlike: The Protestant versions themselves contain a great variety of readings. The New [176]Version is supposed to be simply a revision of the Authorized Version. The committee that prepared it was governed by this rule: “To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized Version consistent with faithfulness.”

How many alterations were made? More than one hundred thousand!

The following are some of the changes made in the New Testament:

Old Version.—“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,” etc. (2 Tim. iii, 16).

New Version.—“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,” etc.

Old.—“And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him” (Luke ii, 33).

New.—“And his father and his mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning him.”

Old.—“These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan” (John i, 28).

New.—“These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan.”

Old.—“God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. iii, 16).

New.—“He [Christ] who was manifested in the flesh.”

Old.—“No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place” (Luke xi, 33).[177]

New.—“No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar.”

Old.—“Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life” (Matt, vii, 14).

New.—“For narrow is the gate and straitened the way that leadeth unto life.”

Old.—“Our Father, which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” (Matt, vi, 9–13).

New.—“Our father, which art in heaven. Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”

One would suppose that if Christians preserved any part of the Bible free from corruption it would be the prayer of their Lord, a little prayer containing but a few lines. And yet they have not. The so-called Lord’s Prayer that our mother’s taught us is not the Lord’s Prayer. The prayer we learned contains sixty-six words. The Lord’s Prayer contains but fifty-five. [178]The revisers have expunged fifteen words, added some, and altered others.

The last twelve verses of Mark, the first eleven verses of John viii, and 1 John v, 8, three important passages, are all admitted to be forgeries.

[Contents]

Different Copies of the Same Version Differ.

Different copies of the same version contain different readings. St. Jerome’s version was declared a forgery, because it differed so much from the Italic version then in use. Jerome anticipated the charge and met the objection in his preface addressed to Pope Damasus:

“Two things are my comfort under such a reproach: First, that ’tis you, the Supreme Pontiff, that have put me upon the task; and secondly, that by the confession even of the most envious, there needs be some falsity where there is so much variety. If they say that the Latin copies are to be credited, let them tell me which. For there are almost as many different copies as there are manuscripts.”

Prof. Wilbur F. Steele, a noted Christian scholar, relates the following relative to our own version: “In 1848 there was such confusion in the office of the American Bible Society, and such impossibility of telling what should be the reading in many places, that a man was set to work to bring order out of chaos. He took four Bibles from as many leading Bible houses of England, a copy of the American Bible Society, [179]and a copy of the original edition of 1611, all claiming to be the same. These were carefully compared throughout; every variation, no matter how minute, was noted. The number of these variations was about 24,000” (Central Christian Advocate). Twenty-four thousand variations found in six copies of the same version!

Thus we see that different versions of the Bible do not contain the same books; different versions of the same book do not contain the same readings, while even different copies of the same versions disagree. Which is the word of God?

If the Bible had originally consisted of authentic and credible documents its credibility would have been greatly impaired by these wholesale corruptions of the transcribers and translators. But if we had the originals, it is doubtful whether their credibility would be much greater than these distorted copies. Enough remains to show the general character of them, and this is bad. They consist mostly of historical and biographical narratives, interwoven with legends, myths, and fables; crude poetical compositions; the ravings of diseased religious minds, called prophecies and revelations; and theological dissertations, no two of which agree in their doctrines. A few of the books possess genuine merit and deserve a place among the literary treasures of the world, but all of them are fallible.

Remarkable, as coming from a theological professor, but fraught with truth and confirmatory [180]of the statements made in this chapter, are these words of Professor Steele:

“Evidently every letter of the English Bible has not been miraculously watched over. He who has neither eyes nor conscience may affirm it, but persons provided with these can not. If the affirmer hedges by saying he did not refer to translations but to the ‘original,’ we note that (1) translations are the only thing most people have to go to heaven on; and (2) that scholars of truth and conscience find equally as much fault with the ‘original.’”

“There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places in which the scholar finds conflicting testimony.”

In discussing the credibility of the Bible the question of authenticity will, for the most part, be waived. With Christians all of its books are genuine—the writings of those to whom they are ascribed—and for the sake of argument, as well as convenience, these ascribed authors will be recognized.[181]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XIII.

TWO COSMOGONIES OF GENESIS.

A stereotyped claim of Bible believers is this: “The account of creation given in Genesis is in harmony with the accepted teachings of science.” But which account? In the opening chapters of Genesis are presented two ancient poems, written by different authors. The first comprises the first chapter and the first three verses of the second chapter; the second comprises the remainder of the second chapter. Each poem contains a cosmogony. But neither of them agrees with the demonstrated truths of science. Above all, they do not agree with each other. The points of disagreement are many, chief of which are the following:

[Contents]

1.

In the first cosmogony the appellation of Deity is uniformly “Elohim” (the gods), translated “God.” This term occurs thirty-five times.

In the second, the appellation of Deity is uniformly “Jehovah (Yahweh) Elohim,” translated “Lord God.” This term occurs eleven times.[182]

The first belongs to the Priestly code, the second to the Jehovistic document. They represent different schools of Jewish thought and different periods of Jewish history.

[Contents]

2.

In the first, earth is a chaos covered with water. The waters must be assuaged before vegetation can appear.

In the second, earth is at first a dry plain. Vegetation cannot exist because there is no moisture. “For the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth” (ii, 5).

[Contents]

3.

In the first, plants are created from the earth—are a product of the earth. “And the earth brought forth grass and herb” (i, 12).

In the second, they are created independent of the earth—are created by God and then transferred to earth. “The Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew” (ii, 4, 5).

[Contents]

4.

In the first, fowls, fish, and aquatic animals form one act of creation—land animals and reptiles another; the former being created on the fifth day, the latter on the sixth (i, 21–25).

In the second, fowls and land animals are created at the same time—form one creation act (ii, 19).[183]

5.

In the first, fowls are created out of the water. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth” (i, 20).

In the second, fowls are created out of the ground. “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” (ii, 19).

[Contents]

6.

In the first, trees are created before man. Trees appear on the third day, while man does not appear until the sixth day.

In the second, trees are created after man. “And the Lord God formed man; ... planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree,” etc. (ii, 7, 8.)

[Contents]

7.

In the first, fowls are created before man—are created on the fifth day, while the creation of man does not occur until the sixth day.

In the second, fowls are created after man. “The Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them” (ii, 19).

[Contents]

8.

In the first, man is created after the beasts. God’s first work on the sixth day was the creation [184]of beasts, his last work was the creation of man (i, 24–31).

In the second, man is created before the beasts. God makes man before he plants the garden of Eden, while beasts are not made until after the garden is planted (ii, 7–19).

[Contents]

9.

In the first, man and woman are created at the same time. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (i, 27).

In the second, woman is created after man. The writer supposes a considerable period of time to have elapsed between the creation of man and the creation of woman. God creates man; then he plants a garden and places the man there to tend it; next he makes the animals and birds and brings them to Adam to name; finally he concludes that Adam needs a helpmate, and taking a rib from his body, creates woman.

[Contents]

10.

The first cosmogony comprises eight distinct creations: 1. Light. 2. The firmament. 3. Dry land. 4. Vegetation. 5. Sun, moon, and stars. 6. Fish and fowls. 7. Land animals. 8. Man.

The second comprises four creations: 1. Man (Adam). 2. Trees. 3. Animals. 4. Woman (Eve).

[Contents]

11.

In the first, the heavens and the earth are created in six literal days.[185]

In the second, no mention is made of this six days’ creation. On the contrary, the writer simply refers to “the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (ii, 4).

[Contents]

12.

In the first, God, from his throne in heaven, speaks earth’s creation into being. “God said, Let the earth bring forth, ... and it was so.”

In the second, God comes down on earth, plants a garden, molds man out of clay, breathes in his nostrils, makes woman out of a rib, makes birds and animals as a child makes mud pies, and brings them to Adam to see what he will call them.

[Contents]

13.

In the first, man at the creation is given both fruit and herbs to subsist upon. “Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, ... and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” (i, 29).

In the second, he is given fruit alone for food. Not until after he sins and the curse is pronounced does God say, “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field” (iii, 18). According to this writer the use of herbs and grain for food was a consequence of man’s fall.

[Contents]

14.

In the first, man may partake of the fruit of all the trees. “Every tree in the which is the [186]fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” (i, 29).

In the second, he is not permitted to partake of the fruit of all the trees. “Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden” (iii, 1). “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” (ii, 17).

[Contents]

15.

In the first, “God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament” (i, 7). When moisture was needed “the windows of heaven were opened” and water discharged from the reservoir above. When enough was discharged “the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained” (viii, 2).

In the second, when moisture was needed, “There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (ii, 6).

[Contents]

16.

In the first, man is given dominion over all the earth. “Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth” (i, 26).

In the second, his dominion is confined to a garden. “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it” (ii, 15).

[Contents]

17.

Both cosmogonies are theological rather than [187]scientific. The real purpose of the first, in its present form at least, is not so much to explain the creation of the universe as to inculcate a belief in the divine institution of the Sabbath. It belongs to the Priestly code, and one of the chief pillars of priestcraft is the Sabbath.

The second contains no recognition of the Sabbath. The chief purpose of this account of the creation, if we include the third chapter, which is really a continuation of it, is to establish the doctrine of the Fall of Man.

[Contents]

18.

According to the first the Creator is an optimist. He views all his works and declares them “good.”

According to the second the Creator is a pessimist. He sees in his works both “good and evil;” the good continuing to diminish, and the evil continuing to increase.

To establish the credibility and divine origin of Genesis it is necessary not merely to harmonize its theories with science, but to reconcile its statements with each other. The latter is as impossible as the former. Dean Stanley, in his Memorial Sermon on Sir Charles Lyell at Westminster Abbey, made this frank admission:

“It is now clear to diligent students of the Bible that the first and second chapters of Genesis contain two narratives of the creation, side by side, differing from each other in most every particular of time, place, and order.”[188]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XIV.

THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.

In disproof of the credibility of the so-called patriarchal history of the Pentateuch, a few of its many incredible and contradictory statements will be presented here.

[Contents]

1.

The following are the recorded ages of the patriarchs: Adam, 930 years (Gen. v, 5); Seth, 912 (8); Enos, 905 (11). Cainan, 910 (14); Mahalaleel, 895 (17); Jared, 962 (20); Enoch, 365 (23) Methuselah, 969 (27); Lamech, 777 (31); Noah, 950 (ix, 29); Shem, 600 (xi, 10, 11); Arphaxad, 438 (12, 13); Cainan, 460 (omitted in Hebrew Version, but given in Septuagint); Salah, 433 (14, 15); Eber, 464 (16, 17), Peleg, 239 (18, 19); Reu, 239 (20, 21); Serug, 230, (22, 23); Nahor, 148 (24, 25); Terah, 205 (32); Abraham, 175, (xxv, 7); Isaac, 180 (xxxv, 28); Jacob, 147 (xlvii, 28); Joseph, 110 (l, 26).

Eleven generations of these patriarchs (twelve if Cainan be included), Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, (Cainan), Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Abraham, were all living at the same time.[189]

Noah died in the year 2006 A.M. When Adam died Noah’s father was 56 years old.

Abraham was the twentieth generation from Adam. When Abraham was 56 years old, Noah, whose father was 56 years old when Adam died, was still living.

When Noah died, his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandson, Abraham, was an old man.

Isaac was the eleventh generation from Shem. When Shem died Isaac was 110 years old.

Jacob was the thirteenth generation from Noah. When Noah’s eldest son died Jacob was 50 years old.

The combined ages of seven patriarchs equal a sum five hundred years greater than the time that has elapsed from the creation of the world to the present time.

[Contents]

2.

“Every one that findeth me shall slay me” (Gen. iv, 14).

“And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him” (15).

“And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod” (16).

“And Cain knew his wife: and she conceived, and bare Enoch; and he [Cain] builded a city” (17).

Cain, believing that he had a plurality of lives, and fearing that every one who found him would take one, appealed to God, who set a mark on him so that his father and mother, the [190]only persons in existence besides himself, would know him. Then going out from the presence of Omnipresence, he went to a country where nobody lived, married a wife, and built a city with a population of three inhabitants.

[Contents]

3.

“And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: and Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years.... And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years” (Gen. v, 25–27).

“And Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: and he called his name Noah” (28, 29).

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (vii, 11).

“And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth” (viii, 13).

“And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years” (ix, 28, 29).

When the Flood began Noah was 599 years (one month and seventeen days) old; when it ended he was exactly 600 years old.

It is commonly supposed that Methuselah [191]died before the Flood. If the foregoing passages be correct, he did not, as will be shown by the following:

1. From the birth of Lamech to the beginning of the Flood was 182 years + 599 = 781 years; and from the birth of Lamech to the end of the Flood was 182 years + 600 years = 782 years. If Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech 782 years, he lived until the end of the Flood.

2. From the birth of Methuselah to the beginning of the Flood was 187 years + 182 years + 599 years = 968 years. From the birth of Methuselah to the end of the Flood was 187 years + 182 years + 600 years = 969 years. At the commencement of the Flood he was but 968 years old, and not until the end of it was he 969.

3. From the birth of Methuselah to the death of Noah was 187 years + 182 years + 950 years = 1319 years. As Noah died 350 years after the Flood, from the birth of Methuselah to the end of the Flood was 1319 years - 350 years = 969 years. If he lived 969 years, he lived until the end of the Flood.

As Methuselah was not one of the eight persons that went into the ark, where was he during the Flood?

According to the Septuagint Genesis, the Flood occurred fourteen years before the death of Methuselah.

[Contents]

4.

“Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [192]sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind; two of every sort shall come unto thee” (Gen. vi, 19, 20).

“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female” (vii, 2, 3).

Referring to the above, the celebrated Jewish commentator, Dr. Kalisch, says: “Noah was commanded to take into the ark seven pairs of all clean, and one pair of all unclean, animals, whereas he had before been ordered to take one pair of every species, no distinction whatever between clean and unclean animals having been made.... We do not hesitate to acknowledge here the manifest contradiction.”

[Contents]

5.

“And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem” (v, 32).

“And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth” (vii, 6).

“Shem was a hundred years old, and he begat Arphaxad two years after the flood” (xi, 10).

If Noah was five hundred years old when he begat Shem, and six hundred years old at the time of the Flood, Shem was one hundred years old at the time of the Flood. If Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood, he was one [193]hundred and two years old when he begat Arphaxad.

[Contents]

6.

“And Arphaxad begat Salah” (Gen. x, 24).

“And Arphaxad begat Shelah” (1 Chron. i, 18).

“And Arphaxad begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Salah” (Genesis, Sept. Ver.).

“Which was the son of Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad” (Luke iii, 35, 36).

According to the Hebrew Genesis and Chronicles, Arphaxad was the father of Salah; according to the Septuagint Genesis and Luke, Cainan was the father, and Arphaxad the grandfather of Salah.

[Contents]

7.

“The woman [Sarah] was taken into Pharaoh’s house” (Gen. xii, 15).

“And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me?” (18).

“And Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah” (xx, 2).

“Then Abimelech called unto Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us?” (9).

It may be claimed that both Pharaoh and Abimelech took Sarah. But it is evident that these are both legends of the same event, or, rather, different and conflicting forms of the same legend. The first belongs to the Jehovist, the second to the Elohist.[194]

[Contents]

8.

“And Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.... And into the land of Canaan they came” (Gen. xii, 4, 5).

“And Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram” (xi, 26).

“And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years” (32).

“When his father was dead, he [Abram] removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell” (Acts vii, 4).

If Abram did not go to Canaan until after the death of his father, he did not go until he was 135 years old, 60 years older than stated in the first account.

[Contents]

9.

“And Abram was four score and six years old when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram” (Gen. xvi, 16).

“And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born unto him” (xxi, 5).

“And the child [Isaac] grew, and was weaned” (8).

“And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child [Ishmael], and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs” (14, 15).[195]

When Isaac was weaned, and Hagar was sent into the wilderness, Ishmael, who was about sixteen years old, is represented as a babe in his mother’s arms.

[Contents]

10.

“And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite” (Gen. xxvi, 34).

“Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; and Bashemath Ishmael’s daughter” (xxxvi, 2, 3).

Did Esau marry two wives, according to the first account, or three, according to the second? Was his first wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri, or Adah, the daughter of Elon? Was Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, or was she the daughter of his uncle Ishmael?

[Contents]

11.

“I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty: but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them” (Ex. vi, 3).

“I [Abraham] have lifted up mine hand unto the Lord [Jehovah] the most high God” (Gen. xiv, 22).

“He [Isaac] said, For now the Lord [Jehovah] hath made room for us” (xxvi, 22).

“He [Jacob] said, Surely the Lord [Jehovah] is in this place” (xxviii, 16).[196]

According to the writer in Exodus, Jehovah did not become the national God of Israel until after the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to the writer in Genesis, he was known to each of these patriarchs.

[Contents]

12.

“All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three score and ten” (xlvi, 27).

“Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, three score and fifteen souls” (Acts vii, 14).

[Contents]

13.

“And the Midianites sold him [Joseph] into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard” (Gen. xxxvii, 36).

“And Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him [Joseph] of the hands of the Ishmaelites” (xxxix, 1).

[Contents]

14.

“Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: the sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi,” etc. (Gen. xxxv, 22, 23).

“And these are the names of the sons of Levi, according to their generations: Gershon, and Kohath” etc. (Ex. vi, 16).

“And the sons of Kohath; Amram,” etc. (18).

“And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses” (20).[197]

“And the children of Israel journeyed from Ramases to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children” (Ex. xii, 37).

Levi was the son of Jacob, Kohath was the son of Levi, Amram was the son of Kohath, and Moses was the son of Amram. Moses was the fourth generation from Jacob. In the time of Moses the adult male population of Israel numbered 600,000, representing a total population of about 3,000,000. Thus in four generations the progeny of Jacob increased from twelve persons to three millions.

[Contents]

15.

Judah, Jacob’s fourth son, married and had three sons—Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er grew to manhood, married Tamar, and died. Onan then married his widow, and died also. Shelah, who was much younger than Onan, grew to manhood and refused to marry his brother’s widow. Tamar then had two sons, Pharez and Zarah, by Judah himself (Gen. xxxviii). Pharez grew to manhood, married, and had two sons, Hezron and Hamil (xlvi, 12), before Jacob and his family went to Egypt. When they went to Egypt, Judah was but forty-two years old.[198]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XV.

THE JEWISH KINGS.

Much of the Bible is devoted to events which are narrated but once. These records may be true, or they may be false. We may question their truthfulness, but it is difficult to demonstrate their falsity. Had all the events of the Bible been recorded but once its credibility could the more easily be maintained. But wherever two or more accounts of the same events occur, such as in Kings and Chronicles, where two histories of the Jewish Kings are given, and in the Four Gospels, where four biographies of Jesus are given, we find them so filled with discrepancies as to make them unworthy of credit.

The following are some of the contradictory statements that occur in the books pertaining to the Jewish kings:

[Contents]

1

Was David the seventh or the eighth son of Jesse?

“And Jesse begat his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, [199]Nethaniel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh” (1 Chron. ii, 13–15).

“Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The Lord hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto Jesse, are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest [David]” (1 Sam. xvi, 10, 11).

[Contents]

2

Who gave David the shewbread to eat when he was a fugitive from Saul?

“Then came David to Nob to Abimelech the [High] priest.... So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread” (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6).

“And he [Jesus] said unto them, Have ye never read what David did when he was ahungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread?” (Mark ii, 25, 26).

[Contents]

3

What relation did the High Priests Abimelech and Abiathar bear to each other?

“Abiathar the son of Abimelech” (1 Sam. xxiii, 6).

“Abimelech the son of Abiathar” (2 Sam. viii, 17).

[Contents]

4

What sons were born to David in Jerusalem?

“And these be the names of those that were [200]born unto him in Jerusalem: Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia, and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet” (2 Sam. v, 14–16).

“Now these are the names of his children which he had in Jerusalem: Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, and Ibhar, and Elishua, and Elpalet, and Nogah, and Nepheg and Japhia, and Elishama, and Beeliada, and Eliphalet” (1 Chron. xiv, 4–7).

[Contents]

5

What was the name of David’s tenth son (twelfth according to Chronicles)?

Eliada (2 Sam. v, 16).

Beeliada (1 Chron. xiv, 7).

“Eliada” means “God knows;” “Beeliada” means “Baal knows.” Did David name his son for the God of the Jews, or for the God of the heathen?

[Contents]

6

How many horsemen did David take from Hadadezer?

“David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen” (2 Sam. viii, 4).

“David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen” (1 Chron. xviii, 4).

[Contents]

7

Was it forty thousand horsemen or forty [201]thousand footmen that David slew of the Syrians?

“David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen” (2 Sam. x, 18).

“David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots and forty thousand footmen” (1 Chron. xix, 18).

[Contents]

8

Who moved David to number the people, the Lord or Satan?

“The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. xxiv, 1).

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chron. xxi, 1).

[Contents]

9

How many warriors had Israel and Judah?

“And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand [800,000] valiant men that drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand [500,000] men” (2 Sam. xxiv, 9).

“And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand [1,100,000] men that drew sword; and Judah was four hundred three score and ten thousand [470,000] men” (1 Chron. xxi, 5).

[Contents]

10

Was David to suffer three or seven years of famine?[202]

“So Gad came to David and said unto him: Thus saith the Lord, choose thee either three years of famine, or three months to be destroyed before thy foes” (1 Chron. xxi, 11, 12).

“So Gad came to David and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies?” (2 Sam. xxiv, 13).

[Contents]

11

What did David pay for the threshing floor?

“And Gad came that day to David, and said unto him, Go up, rear an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Araunah [Ornan] the Jebusite.... So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver [$26.50]” (2 Sam. xxiv, 18, 24).

“Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the Lord in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.... So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold [$3,414]” (1 Chron. xxi, 18, 25).

[Contents]

12

How many overseers did Solomon have while building the Temple?

“And Solomon had three score and ten thousand that bare burdens, and four score thousand hewers in the mountains; besides the chief of Solomon’s officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred” (1 Kings, v, 15, 16).

“And he set three score and ten thousand of [203]them to be bearers of burdens and four score thousand to be hewers in the mountains, and three thousand and six hundredoverseers to set the people awork” (2 Chron. ii, 18).

[Contents]

13

What was the height of the pillars before the house?

“For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece.... And he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz” (1 Kings vii, 15, 21).

“Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty and five cubits high, ... and called the name of that on the right hand Jachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz”(2 Chron. iii, 15, 17).

[Contents]

14

What was the capacity of the molten sea?

“And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other.... And it was a hand-breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths” (1 Kings vii, 23, 26).

“Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim.... And the thickness of it was a handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths” (2 Chron. iv, 2, 5).[204]

[Contents]

15

How many overseers did Solomon have over his other works?

“These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon’s work, five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work” (1 Kings ix, 23).

“And these were the chief of King Solomon’s officers, even two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over the people” (2 Chron. viii, 10).

[Contents]

16

How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?

“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (2 Chron. ix, 25).

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen” (1 Kings iv, 26).

[Contents]

17

How much gold did they bring Solomon from Ophir?

“And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon” (1 Kings ix, 28).

“And they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to King Solomon” (2 Chron. viii, 18).

[Contents]

18

Who was the first to die, Jeroboam or Abijah?[205]

“Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the Lord struck him, and he died. But Abijah waxed mighty” (2 Chron. xiii, 20, 21).

“And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years” (1 Kings xiv, 20).

“And Abijam [Abijah] slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah” (1 Kings xv, 8, 9).

Instead of Abijah waxing mighty after Jeroboam’s death, Jeroboam reigned two years after Abijah’s death.

[Contents]

19

Who was the mother of Abijah?

“He [Rehoboam] took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah” (2 Chron. xi, 20).

“His [Abijah’s] mother’s name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah” (2 Chron. xiii, 2).

[Contents]

20

Was Asa the son or the grandson of Maachah?

“Forty and one years reigned he [Asa] in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom” (1 Kings xv, 10).

“Three years reigned he [Abijam] in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah the daughter of Abishalom.... And Asa his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kings xv, 2, 8).[206]

[Contents]

21

How long did Omri reign?

“In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel twelve years.... So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign” (1 Kings xvi, 23, 28, 29).

From the thirty-first to the thirty-eighth year of Asa’s reign Omri is said to have reigned twelve years.

[Contents]

22

When did Baasha die?

“Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.... In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign” (1 Kings xvi, 6, 8).

“In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah” (2 Chron. xvi, 1).

[Contents]

23

When did Jehoram king of Israel and Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign?

“And Jehoram [of Israel] reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah” (2 Kings i, 17).

“And in the fifth year of Joram [Jehoram of Israel].... Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat [207]king of Judah began to reign” (2 Kings viii, 16).

According to the first account, Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah; according to the second, Jehoram of Judah began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel.

[Contents]

24

When did Ahaziah begin to reign?

“In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah” (2 Kings ix, 29).

“In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign” (2 Kings viii, 25).

[Contents]

25

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem” (2 Kings viii, 26).

“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem” (2 Chron. xxii, 2).

[Contents]

26

How long did Jotham reign?

“In the second year of Pekah ... began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem” (2 Kings xv, 32, 33).

“And Hoshea ... slew him [Pekah] and [208]reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziab” (2 Kings xv, 30).

[Contents]

27

Who was Josiah’s successor?

“Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father’s stead” (2 Chron. xxxvi, 1).

“For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum the son of Josiah king of Judah which reigned instead of Josiah his father” (Jer. xxli, 11).

[Contents]

28

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

“Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign” (2 Chron. xxxvi, 9).

“Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign” (2 Kings xxiv, 8).

[Contents]

29

When did Evil-Merodach release Jehoiachin from prison?

“In the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month” (2 Kings xxv, 27).

“In the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month” (Jer. lii, 31).

[Contents]

30

What relation did Zedekiah, the last of the Jewish kings, bear to Jehoiachin, his predecessor?

1. He was his son. “Jechoniah [Jehoiachin] his son, Zedekiah his son” (1 Chron. iii, 16).

2. He was his brother. “Nebuchadnezzar [209]sent and brought him [Jehoiachin] to Babylon, ... and made Zedekiah his brother king of Judah” (2 Chron. xxxvi, 10).

3. He was his uncle. “The king of Babylon made Mattaniah his [Jehoiachin’s] father’s brother king in his stead and changed his name to Zedekiah” (2 Kings xxiv, 17).

“That Zedekiah, who in 1 Chron. iii, 16, is called ‘his son,’ is the same as Zedekiah his uncle (called ‘his brother,’ 2 Chron. xxxvi, 10), who was his [Jehoiachin’s] successor on the throne seems certain” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Art. Jehoiachin).[210]

[Contents]

CHAPTER XVI.

WHEN DID JEHOSHAPHAT DIE?

At the end of Solomon’s reign the Jewish nation was divided into two kingdoms. Two tribes acknowledged the authority of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam. This was called the kingdom of Judah, of which Jerusalem was the capital. Ten tribes revolted and made Jeroboam king. This formed the kingdom of Israel, of which Samaria was the capital. The following is a brief summary of the reigns of the kings of the two kingdoms from the partition of the empire to the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians:

[Contents]

Kingdom of Judah.

“And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah ... and he reigned seventeen years” (1 Kings xiv, 21).

“And Rehoboam slept with his fathers ... and Abijam his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kings xiv, 31). “Three years reigned he” (xv, 2).

“And Abijam slept with his fathers ... and Asa his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kings xv, 8). “Forty and one years reigned he” (10).[211]

“And Asa slept with his fathers ... and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kings xv, 24). “And he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem” (xxii, 42).

“And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers ... and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead” (1 Kings xxii, 50). “And he reigned eight years” (2 Kings viii, 17).

“And Joram [Jehoram] slept with his fathers ... and Ahaziah reigned in his stead” (2 Kings viii, 24). “And he reigned one year” (26).

“And he [Ahaziah] fled to Megiddo and died there” (2 Kings xi, 17). “And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead she arose and destroyed all the seed royal. But Jehosheba took Joash the son of Ahaziah ... and he was with her [his nurse] hid in the house of the Lord six years. And Athaliah did reign over the land” (xi, 1–3).

“They slew Athaliah” (2 Kings xi, 20). “And they brought down the king [Joash] from the house of the Lord.... And he sat on the throne of the kings” (19). “Forty years reigned he in Jerusalem” (xii, 1).

“His servants smote him [Joash] and he died, ... and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings xii, 21)—“and reigned twenty and nine years” (xiv, 2).

“They made a conspiracy against him [Amaziah] ... and slew him” (2 Kings xiv, 19). “And all the people of Judah took Azariah [212]... and made him king instead of his father, Amaziah” (21). “And he reigned two and fifty years” (xv, 2).

“So Azariah slept with his fathers ... and Jotham his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings xv, 7). “And he reigned sixteen years” (33).

“And Jotham slept with his fathers ... and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings xv, 38)—“and reigned sixteen years” (xvi, 2).

“And Ahaz slept with his fathers ... and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead” (2 Kings xvi, 10) “In the sixth year of Hezekiah ... Samaria was taken” (xviii, 10).

From the division of the empire, then, to the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians, the reigns of Judah’s kings were as follows:

bllwhtmcmdgnkhtmnhtbdllhnvhntrhchwrhtfR

vgrfwsstbdrsvgrfdndrbldrdshtsvgnvhnstshtrnnd

nkhtsnhtrflvmrfsrvldtbnttpmttntnsdldnsrtbdrn

nmrvrfrlghtdnrphtdnmdg