Thus, in Numb. xiv. 30. it said that none of the Israelites should come into the land of Canaan, save Caleb and Joshua; and yet, in Josh. xiv. 1. and xxii. 13, we read, that Eleazar and others entered into that land. But this seeming repugnance will disappear when it is recollected that nothing is more common in the most serious and considerate writers, than to speak of things by way of restriction and limitation, and yet to leave them to be understood with some latitude, which shall afterwards be expressed and explained when they treat of the same matter. So, here we read that none but Caleb and Joshua entered into the land of promise, this being spoken of the chief leaders, who had that privilege and honour: but if we consult other passages where this subject is more particularly related, we shall find that a more comprehensive meaning was not excluded. It is not to be supposed that the tribe of Levi were denied entrance into Canaan: because it is evident from the history that they did not murmur: and it is equally evident that against the murmurers only was the denunciation made, that they should not see the land which God sware unto their fathers (Numb. xiv. 22, 23.): therefore Eleazar and Phineas, being priests are excepted. Again, the threatening cannot be intended to include those who were gone as spies into the land of Canaan, for they were not among the murmurers: and, consequently, the denunciation above mentioned could not apply to them. Thus, the statement in the book of numbers, is perfectly consistent with the facts recorded in the book of Joshua.

SECTION II.

APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN CHRONOLOGY. 1

CHRONOLOGY is a branch of learning, which is most difficult to be

exactly adjusted; because it depends upon so many circumstances and comprehends so great a variety of events in all ages and nations, that with whatever punctuality the accounts of time might have been set down in the original manuscripts, yet the slightest change in one word or letter may cause a material variation in copies. Besides, the difference of the æras adopted in the computations of different countries, especially at great distances of time and place is such, that the most exact chronology may easily be mistaken, and may be perplexed by those who endeavour to rectify what they conceive to be erroneous; for that which was exact at first is often made incorrect by him who thought it false before. Chronological differences do undoubtedly exist in the Scriptures, as well as in profane historians; but these differences infer no uncertainty in the matters of fact themselves. It is a question yet undetermined, whether Rome was founded by Romulus or not, and it is a point equally litigated, in what year the building of that city commenced; yet, if the uncertainty of the time when any fact was done imply the uncertainty of the fact itself, the necessary inference must be, that it is uncertain whether Rome was built at all, or whether such a person as Romulus was ever in existence. Further, differences in chronology do not imply that the sacred historians were mistaken, but they arise from the mistakes of transcribers or expositors, which may be obviated by applying the various existing aids to the examination and reconciliation of the apparent contradictions, in scriptural chronology. I. Seeming contradictions in Chronology arise from not observing, that what had before been said in the general, is afterwards resumed in the particulars comprised under it.

1 Concerning the extravagant chronology and antiquity claimed by the Egyptians, Chaldæans, Hindoos, and Chinese, see pp. 172-176. of this volume.

2 Jenkin on the Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, vol. ii. p. 151. It would require too extensive an inquiry for the limits of this work, to enter into a detail of the various systems of chronology extant: the most recent is the elaborate Analysis of Dr. Hales, in 3 vols. 4to. to which we can confidently refer the reader.

:

For, the total sum of any term of years being set down first, before the particulars have been insisted on and explained, has led some into mistake, by supposing that the particulars subsequently mentioned were not to be comprehended in it, but were to be reckoned distinctly as if they had happened afterwards in order of time, because they are last related in the course of the history. Thus, in Gen. xi. 26. it is said that Terah lived seventy years and begat ABRAM and in verse 32. that the days of Terah were two hundred and five years; and Terah died in Haran. But, in Gen. xii. 4. it is related that Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran; which is inconsistent, if we suppose Abram to have resided in Haran till the death of his father Terah. But, if we consider that the whole number of years, during which Terah lived, is set down in Gen. xi. 32. and that Abram's departure from Haran, which is related in Gen. xii. 4. happened before his father's death, there will be no inconsistency; on the contrary, if Terah were only seventy years old when Abram was begotten, and if Abram were only seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran, it will be evident that Abram left his father Terah in Haran, where the latter lived after his son's departure, to the age of two hundred and five years; "although during Terah's life, Abram occasionally returned to Haran, for his final removal did not take place until the death of his father, as we learn from Acts vii. 4. Now, if this way of relating the general first, which is afterwards particularly set forth, be attended to in the interpretation of the Scriptures, it will afford a natural and easy solution of many otherwise inexplicable difficulties. Another explanation has been offered for the above apparent chronological difference, viz. that Abram was Terah's youngest son though first mentioned. What renders this solution probable is, that it is no unfrequent thing in Scripture, when any case of dignity or pre-eminence is to be distinguished, to place the youngest son before the eldest, though contrary to the usage of the Scriptures in other cases. Thus, Shem the second son of Noah is always placed first; Abram is placed before his two elder brothers Haran and Nahor; Isaac is placed before Ishmael; Jacob the youngest son of Isaac has the pre-eminence over Esau; and Moses is mentioned before his elder brother Aaron. Whatever chronological difficulties, therefore, arise upon this supposition, that the son first named must necessarily be the first-born, must consequently proceed from mistake.

II. Sometimes the principal number is set down, and the odd or smaller number is omitted; which, being added to the principal number in some other place, causes a difference not to be reconciled but by considering that it is customary in the best authors not always to mention the smaller numbers, where the matter does not require it.

Of this we have evident proof in the Scriptures. Thus, the Benjamites that were slain, are said in Judges xx. 35. to be 25,100, but in verse 46. they are reckoned only at 25,000. So the evangelist Mark says, xvi. 14. that Jesus Christ appeared to the eleven as they were sitting at meat, though Thomas was absent. The observation already made, on the use of round numbers in computations,1 will apply in the present instance; to which we might add numerous similar examples from profane writers. Two or three however will suffice. One hundred acres of land were by the Romans called centuria; but in progress of time the same term was given to double that number of acres.2 The tribes, into which the population of Rome was divided, were so denominated, because they were originally three in number; but the same appellation was retained though they were afterwards augmented to thirty-five; and in like manner the judges, styled centumviri, were at first five more than one hundred, and afterwards were nearly double that number,3 yet still they retained the same name. Since, then, it is evident that smaller numbers are sometimes omitted 1 See § 3. Remark I. p. 541.

2 Centuriam nunc dicimus (ut idem Varro ait) ducentorum jugerum modum : olim autem ab centum jugeribus vocabatur centuria: sed, mox duplicata, nomen retinuit: sicuti tribus dictæ primum a partibus populi tripartito divisi, quæ tamen nunc multiplicatæ pristinum nomen possident. Columella de Re Rust. lib. v. c. 1. tom ii. p. 199. ed. Bipont. Ernesti, in his Index Latinitatis Ciceroniana, article Tribus, has adduced several similar instances.

3 In Pliny's time they were one hundred and eighty in number Ep. lib vi ep 33

both in the Old and in the New Testament, as well as in profane writings, and the principal or great numbers only, whether more or less than the precise calculation, are set down, and at other times the smaller numbers are specified;-nay, that sometimes the original number multiplied retains the same denomination: therefore it is reasonable to make abatements, and always to insist rigorously on precise numbers, in adjusting the accounts of scriptural chronology.1

not

III. As sons frequently reigned with their fathers, during the Hebrew monarchy, the reigns of the former are not unfrequently made, in some instances, to commence from their partnership with their fathers in the throne, and in others from the commencement of their sole government after their fathers' decease: consequently the time of the reign is sometimes noticed as it respects the father, sometimes as it respects the son, and sometimes as it includes both. Thus Jotham is said (2 Kings xv. 33.) to have reigned sixteen years, yet in the preceding verse 30. mention is made of his twentieth year. This repugnance is reconcileable in the following manner; Jotham reigned alone sixteen years only, but with his father Uzziah (who, being a leper, was therefore unfit for the sole government) four years before, which makes twenty in the whole. In like manner we read (2 Kings xiii. 1.) that, "in the three-and-twentieth year of Joash the son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned seventeen years :" but in verse 10. of the same chapter it is related that," in the thirty-seventh year of the same Joash began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign over Israel in Samaria." Now, if to the three-and-twenty years of Joash, mentioned in the first passage, we add the seventeen years of Jehoahaz, we come down to the thirty-ninth or fortieth year of Joash; when on the death of Jehoahaz, the reign of Jehoash may be supposed to have begun. Yet it is easy to assign the reason why the commencement of his reign is fixed two or three years earlier, in the thirty-seventh year of Joash, when his father must have been alive, by supposing that his father had admitted him as an associate in the government, two or three years before his death. This solution is the more probable, as we find from the case of Jehoshaphat and his son (2 Kings viii. 16.) that in those days such a practice was not uncommon."2 The application of the rule above stated, will also remove the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings xxiv. 8. and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. Jehoiachim being eight years old when he was associated in the government with his father, and eighteen years old when he began to reign alone. The application of this rule will reconcile many other seeming contradictions in the books of Kings and Chronicles: and will also clear up the difficulty respecting the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius mentioned in Luke iii.I. which has exercised the ingenuity of many eminent philologers who have endeavoured to settle the chronology of the New Testament. Now, we learn from the Roman historians that the reign of Tiberius had two commencements: in the first, when he was admitted to a share in the empire (but without the title of emperor,) in August of the year 764 from the foundation of the city of Rome, three years before the death of Augustus; and the second when he began to reign alone, after that emperor's decease. It is from the first of these commencements that the fifteenth year mentioned by Saint Luke is to be computed; who, as Tiberius did not assume the imperial title during the life of Augustus, makes use of a word, which precisely marks the nature of the power exercised by Tiberius, viz. in the fifteenth year Tns nyeμovias of the administration of Tiberius Cæsar. Consequently, this fifteenth year began in August 778. And if John the Baptist entered on his ministry in the spring following, in the year of Rome 779, in the same year of Tiberius, and, after he had preached about twelve months, baptised Jesus in the spring of 780, then Jesus (who was most probably born in September or October 749) would at his baptism be thirty-three years of age and some odd months, which perfectly agrees with what St. Luke says of his being at that time about thirty years old.3

1 Jenkin's Reasonableness of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 157.

2 Dick's Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 299.

3 Lardner's Credibility, part 1. book ii. chap. iii. (Works, vol. i. PP. 339-382. 8vo.) Doddridge's Family Expositor, vol. i. sect. 15. note (b). Macknight's Harmony, vol. i. Chronological Dissertations, No. iji.

IV. Seeming chronological contradictions arise from the sacred historians adopting different methods of computation, and assigning different dates to the same period.

Thus in Gen. xv. 13. it is announced to Abraham that his "seed should be a stranger in a land that was not theirs, and should serve them, and that they should afflict them four hundred years." But in Exod. xii. 40, 41. the sacred historian relates that "the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self-same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." Between these two passages there is an apparent contradiction: the truth is, that both are perfectly consistent, the computation being made from two different dates. In Gen. xv. 13. the time is calculated from the promise made to Abraham of a son, or from the birth of Isaac: and in Exod. xii. 40, 41. it is reckoned from his departure from "Ur of the Chaldees," his native country, in obedience to the command of Jehovah.1

By the application of this rule many commentators reconcile the difference between Mark xv. 25. who says the hour of Christ's crucifixion was the third, and John xix. 14. who says it was about the sixth hour, that he was brought forth. Notwithstanding the authorities above adduced,2 they observe that none of the antient translators read the third hour in John: they therefore solve the difficulty (imperfectly it must be confessed), by considering the day as divided into four parts answering to the four watches of the night. These coincided with the hours of three, six, nine, and twelve, or, in our way of reckoning, nine, twelve, three, and six, which also suited the solemn times of sacrifice and prayer in the temple: in cases, they argue, in which the Jews did not think it of consequence to ascertain the time with great accuracy, they did not regard the intermediate hours, but only those more noted divisions which happened to come nearest the time of the event spoken of. Adopting this method of reconciliation, Dr. Campbell remarks, that Mark says it was the third hour, from which we have reason to conclude that the third hour was past. John says it was about the sixth hour, from which he thinks it probable that the sixth hour was not yet come. "On this supposition, though the evangelists may by a fastidious reader be accused of want of precision in regard to dates, they will not by any judicious and candid critic be charged with falsehood or misrepresentation. Who would accuse two modern historians with contradicting each other, because in relating an event which had happened between ten and eleven in the forenoon, one had said it was past nine o'clock; the other that it was drawing towards noon.3 From the evidence before him, we leave the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the reading which is preferably to be adopted. We apprehend that the weight of evidence will be found to preponderate in favour of the solution given in p. 542. supra.

V. The terms of time in computation are sometimes taken inclusively, and at other times exclusively.

Thus in Matt. xvii. 1. and Mark ix. 2. we read that, after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart. But in Luke ix. 28. this is said to come to pass about an eight days after which is perfectly consistent with what the other evangelists write. For Matthew and Mark speak exclusively, reckoning the six days between the time of our Saviour's discourse (which they are relating) and his transfiguration: but Luke includes the day on which he had that discourse, and the day of his transfiguration, and reckons them with the six intermediate days. So, in John xx. 26. eight days after are probably to be understood in

1 See p. 541. supra, where it is shown that the proper reading of Exod. xii. 40. is, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. The reader who is desirous of seeing this subject fully discussed, is referred to Koppe's Dissertation, in Pott's and Ruperti's Sylloge Commentationum Theologicarum, vol. ii. pp. 255-274.

2 See p. 542. supra.

3 Campbell on John xix. 14. vol. ii. pp. 572, 573. 3d. edit. 1807.

clusively; it being most likely on that day se'nnight on which Jesus Christ had before appeared to his disciples. It were unnecessary to subjoin additional examples of a mode of reckoning which obtains to this day in common speech, and in almost every writer, except those who professedly tread on chronology. This mode of computation is not confined to the evangelical historians. The rabbins also observe, that the very first day of a year may stand in computation for that year; 1 and by this way of reckoning mistakes of years current for years complete, or vice versa, in the succession of so many kings, and in the transactions of affairs for so long a time, as is narrated in the Scriptures, may amount to a considerable number of years. For this reason Thucydides says, that he computes the years of the Peloponnesian war, not by the magistrates who were annually chosen during that time, but by so many summers and winters: whereas Polybius, Josephus, and Plutarch, have been supposed to contradict themselves because they reckon, sometimes by current and sometimes by complete years.

The preceding, and various other ways by which disputes in chronology may be occasioned, are a sufficient argument to us, that they do not imply that there were, originally, chronological mistakes in the books themselves. And if mistakes might arise in so many and such various ways, without any error in the original writings ;-if the same difficulties occur upon so very nice and intricate a subject in any or all the books which are extant in the world ;-and if it could by no means be necessary, that books of divine authority should be either at first so penned as to be liable to no wrong interpretations, or be ever after preserved by miracle from all corruption, it is great rashness to deny the divine authority of the Scriptures, on account of any difficulties that may occur in chronology.

APPARENT

CONTRADICTIONS

SECTION III.

BETWEEN PROPHECIES AND THEIR FUL-
FILMENT.

I. "WHEN both a prediction and the event foretold in it are recorded in Scripture, there is sometimes an appearance of disagreement and inconsistency between them.

"This appearance generally arises from some difficulty in understanding the true meaning of the prediction; it may be occasioned by any of those causes which produce the peculiar difficulties of the prophetic writings; and it is to be removed by the same means which serve for clearing these difficulties. It may proceed from any sort of obscurity or ambiguity in the expression, or from any uncertainty in the structure of a sentence."3

Thus, there is a seeming difference in Matt. xii. 40.4 between our Lord's prediction of the time he was to be in the grave, and the time during which his body was actually interred. Now this difference is naturally and easily obviated by considering, that it was the custom of the Orientals to reckon any part of a day of twenty-four hours for a whole day, and to say it was done after three or seven days, &c. if it were done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Compare 1 Kings xx. 29. and Luke ii. 21. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek vuxSnutpov, to signify a natural day of twenty-four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it so that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights, was the same as to say that it happened after three days, or on the third day. Compare Esther iv. 16. with v. 1. Gen. vii. 4. 12. 17. Exod. xxiv. 18. and xxxiv. 28. and Dan. viii. 14.

1 Lightfoot's Harmony of the New Testament, fix.

2 Thucydidis Historia Belli Peloponnesiaci, lib. vi. c. 20. tom. iii. p. 237, 238. edit. Bipont.

3 Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 434. 4 Doddridge, Macknight, &c. on Matt. xii. 40.