The Truth of Christianity

ter Old Tes

greements; the re

d mistakes;

eries; these suppo

ld Testame

puted, if miracles at all are credible; the sile

examples, Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and the destru

ch also claims to have been confirmed by miracles. So we will first notice (very briefly) the Ol

ter Old Tes

at of the Pentateuch, and most critics who admit the one, admit the other. But a few remarks may be made on three subjects, those of undesigned a

signed ag

nts are true, each writer may know them independently, and their statements would thus be in perfect, though unintentional agreement. But if the events are not true, then either one writer must have made his account agree with the other, or else both must have derived their information from a common source. In the former case, there

rom this it follows that an undesigned agreement between two statements-provided of course it is too minute to be accidental-is a sure sign of truthfulness. It shows, moreover, that both writers had independent knowledge of

told,[99] belonged to the family of Kohath and the other two to that of Reuben; and from incidental notices in another part of the book, we learn the position of the tents of these

16; 2. 10,

ading conspirator, Korah, is strangely omitted. It explains how the families of these two were destroyed, though no mention is made of that of Korah; since the destruction was probably limited to the tents of Dathan and Abiram, who were brothers, and the small tabernacle they had erected alongside, and from which alone the people were told to depart (vv. 26, 27). We may therefore conclude that K

26. 11; D

Can we imagine a writer of fiction accidentally arranging these details in different parts of his book, which fit together so perfectly? Or can we imagine his doing so intentionally, and yet never hinting at the agreement himself, but lea

leged m

is not very great. And it is beyond dispute that many of these can be explained satisfactorily, and doubtless many others could be so, if our knowledge were more complete. Moreover, they are, as a rule, numerical mistakes, such a

26. 11; D

ons, when the census of the tribes is given, it totals up to about the same number.[102] This is no doubt a serious difficulty; as anyone can see, who will take the trouble to calculate the space they would require on the mar

. 12. 37.

tance,[104] instead of having forty-six thousand five hundred men, would have forty-six families, (making about) five hundred men. The chief arguments in favour of this are,

and Israel,

Num.

is would occur in an ordinary census, but the proposed theory explains it at once. For the hundreds could scarcely be 0, or 1, as this would mean too few men in a family; or 8 or 9, which would mean too many; while the other digits always work out to what (allowing for servants) is

urring would be only (6/10)

ern disc

ment. In the case of the Pentateuch, as we have seen, there is very little dire

onia, Syria, and elsewhere, it was the custom, and had been for centuries, to record all important events, at least all those that were creditable to the people concerned; so it is almost c

unding nations, had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely; as well as being contrary to the Books themselves, where the recorders are frequently mentioned, even by name.[106]

8. 16; 2 Kings 18.

1908, have shown that the place was merely a small fortified hill, the length of the surrounding wall being about half a mile, so there was no difficulty in the Israelites walking round it seven times in the day.[107] And much the same may be said of the historical notices. The monumental records of the Kings of Judah and Israel have not at present been discovered, but we can often check the history by the records of other countr

Josh.

gs 10. 29;

andson (margin, A.V.) called Belshazzar, who was slain at night when the city was captured (about B.C. 538). But according to Berosus, who wrote about the third century B.C., all this appears to be wron

Dan.

dukshazzar, about this time (not otherwise identified), which is not unlikely, as we know Marduk was sometimes called Bel-i.e., Baal, or Lord. And another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to show that he was slain at Babylon in a night assault on the city (or some portion of it) as described by Daniel, s

Times, April, 191

Institute, vol. xxxviii., 1906,

a Jew in Palestine about B.C. 160, which is the rationalistic theory, as the wars between Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold, how did he know the name of Belshazza

lt to maintain in the face of arch?ology that Dr. Pinches, Lecturer in Assyriology at University College, London, said recently 'I am glad to th

Yet the very existence of such a king was unknown to secular history, till the last century; when his pala

rr's Problem of Old

nd. It looked like a serious discrepancy, and was even spoken of as 'almost the only important historical difficulty' between the Bible and the monuments.[115] But it has now been discovered that Pulu was the original name of a usurper, who changed it to

Kings

al Illustrations of the O

ict. of the Bible

cording to the Bible he was no relation whatever. But it has now been shown that the words translated son of O

Schweich Lectu

of statements in the Bible, giving the lengths of different reigns, etc., at B.C. 721 and 588 respectively.[118] And now the inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia fix

ings 17.

ict. of the Bible

heir alleged mistakes, which are unimportant; and the effect of modern discoveries, which has undoubtedly been to support their accu

ld Testame

through the historical books of the Old Testament. A few of them have been already noticed in the last chapter, bu

eir cre

s equally; and of course the Superhuman Coincidences have no difficulties of this kind whatever. Among these may be mentioned most of the Ten Plagues, the

ral events (such as the growth of grass[120]), it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And the statement, the waters were a wall unto them, need not be pressed literally, so as to mean that they stood upright. It may only mean here, as it obviousl

Ps. 14

21, 22; Nahum 3.

it had been entirely driven away, and men were walking about on the mud, where the day before the fishing-boats had been floating.[122] Moreover, on this theory, the miracle would not lose any of its evidential value. For the fact of such a strip of dry land being formed just whe

viii., 1894, p. 268. It is vouched for by Major-G

Exod.

his is often thought to mean that the earth's rotation was stopped, so that the sun and moon apparently stood still. But a miracle

osh. 10

forth, when Joshua prayed to the Lord that it might be silent, i.e., remain obscured behind the clouds, which it did during the rest of the day. The Hebrew seems capable of either meaning. For the important word translated stan

ured, the rest of the passage can only mean that this is what took place. And it may be mentioned that, as early as the fourteenth century, a Jewish writer Levi ben Gershon maintain

in 'A Misunderstood Miracle,' by R

they are just coming out from behind a dense bank of clouds, due, of course, to the clouds really moving. And to stand still in such a case, would mean to stay behind the clouds, and remain obscured, the same se

ua, with the enemy already defeated, and nearly all the day before him, should have wished to have it prolonged. Secondly, just before the miracle there had been a very heavy thunderstorm, involving (as here required) thick clouds and a dark sky; and this is stated to have been the chief cause of the enemy's

ich caused the sun to remain silent or invisible all day. And if the Canaanites were sun-worshippers (as many think probable), it was most suitable tha

head to float;[126] and hence it is urged they are most improbable. And no doubt they would be so, if we regard them as mere acts of kindness to individual persons. But if we regard them as so many signs to the Israelites (and through them to the rest of the world), that E

ngs 2. 22;

's agents. But if we exclude some doubtful cases, we have only one instance to judge by. It is that of the magicians of Egypt, who imitated some of the earlier miracles of Moses and Aaron; and here the inference is uncertain. For we are told that this was due to their enchantments (or secret arts, ma

7. 11, 22; 8

can be pronounced incredible; though some of the

ir truth

atly in evidential value, the followi

tion of Kor

the Jordan, J

of Jericho,

on Mount Carmel,

man's leprosy,

f the Assyrian ar

the dial, 2

in the furnace

ossible, before the King of Israel and thousands of spectators. And as a miracle, or rather superhuman coincidence, it presents no difficulty whatever. The ligh

aal; and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express purpose of settling the point. So, if miracles at all are credible, there could not have been a more suitable occasion for one; while it was,

een well known, and remembered; and if untrue, no one living near the time and place would have thought of inventing it. And (what renders th

God of Israel to deliver the city out of his hand (probably about B.C. 701).[128] We then read how Isaiah declared that God accepted the challenge, and would defend Jerusalem, and wo

s 18. 28-35;

ugh there is no real inconsistency in God's preserving the city in the one case, and not in the other. For Nebuchadnezzar is a

ded till long afterwards; yet, as we have seen, the narrative could not have been written long afterwards. Sennacherib does not of course allude to it himself in his inscriptions, for kings never like to record their own defeats; but this is no reaso

Kings 19. 35;

by Josephus

before crowds of persons, or else so affecting public men that their truth or otherwise must have been well-known at the time. And they were all of such a kind that any mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the question. It is, then, on the face of it, most unlikely that miracles, such as th