De Moor II:23: The Self-Consistency of Scripture

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.]

In the next place, the Scripture is Consistent with itself in all things that it relates, which Uniformity of Scripture requires a banishment from it of true Contradictions.  We prove this thesis with the following arguments:  1.  All Writers that enjoyed the same heavenly Inspiration of the same Spirit of Truth, are not able to disagree among themselves:  But it so happened to all the blessed Holy Writers, comparing 2 Timothy 3:16.  Therefore.  2.  The Word of God, who cannot lie, contains no true contradiction:  but Scripture is the Word of God, who cannot lie, Psalm 19:7, 8; Titus 1:2.  3.  The Word of Truth, indeed Truth itself absolutely so called, is not liable to Contradictions; because of Contradictories one is always true, the other is always false:  But the Sacred Scripture is the word of truth, James 1:18, indeed, the Truth itself absolutely so called, John 17:17.  4.  What is not able to perish or to be broken, but abides forever, that is free from Contradiction:  But such is the Word of God contained in the Sacred Scripture, comparing Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Romans 9:6; 1 Peter 1:23.  Therefore, it is free from Contradiction.

Now, this Uniformity of Scripture is to be held against the Atheists, Infidels, of which sort among the Gentiles formerly were Porphyry,[1] Lucian,[2] Julian the Apostate;[3] against the Mohammedans, in HOORNBEECK’S Summa Controversiarum, book III, pages 110, 111, in comparison with WALCH’S Miscellanea Sacra, book I, exercitation VI, § 3, 10, pages 145, 146, 156; and again against all Libertines, who are wont studiously to gather many ἐναντιοφανῆ, apparent contradictions, to undermine the authority of Scripture:  but also against the Socinians, who indeed acknowledge that the Scripture is agreeable in matters that have regard to the doctrine of faith; but in matters historical, of less importance, they think that it was possible that the Sacred Writers sometimes failed in memory, and hence Contradictions arose; see HOORNBEECK’S Socinianismum confutatum, book I, chapter I, controversy I, tome I, pages 5-8.

For a Catalog of Passages of Sacred Scripture that they object against us, and all which our limitations prevent us from treating here individually, see these treated at length in FRANCIS JUNIUS’ Parallelis Sacris; JOHANNES SCHARPIUS’[4] Symphonia Prophetarum et Apostolorum; MICHAEL WALTHER’S[5] Harmonia Biblica; GISBERTUS VOETIUS’ Disputatione de Insolubilibus (ut vocant) Scripturæ, Disputationum Selectarum, volume I, pages 47-63; FRANCIS TURRETIN’S Theologia Elenctica, tome I, locus II, question V, pages 78-95; STAPFER’S Theologica polemica, tome 2, chapter X, § 233-277, pages 1034-1067; FRANCISCUS DE RIDDER’S[6] Schriftuurlyk Licht, who in the Præfatione, part I, of this work also sets forth his judgment concerning Walther’s Harmonia Biblica; JOHANNES POLYANDER’S[7] Accord ofte Dereeninge van veele Passagien der Heilig Schriftuure, dewelke schynen tegen malkanderen te stryden, met ene horte verklaringe derzelver, Leiden, 1621, octavo.  To these BUDDEUS adds a good many others, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 12, tome 2, page 1764b-1776.  With respect to the ἐναντιοφανῶν, apparent contradictions, which in particular occur in the comparison of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, especially in arrangement of times, consult SPANHEIM’S Chronologiam Sacram, part II, chapter XIX, columns 235-240; CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Historicos Veteris Testamenti, chapter XIV, § 5, pages 247-268, chapter XVI, § 6, 7, pages 292-296.  See LILIENTHAL’S Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter VII, part 3, chapters XV, XVI, part 8, pages 1-340.  But now in a few words we observe with our AUTHOR:

1.  The ἐναντιοφανῆ, or apparent Contradictions, if we have regard unto the diversity of writers and of the manner of writing, are quite few; and generally they do not occur except in smaller and less necessary matters, which not even the Socinians deny.

2.  Diversity is by no means to be held as Contrariety; since the narration of one is able to be supplemented from the other, which comes into use hundreds of times in weaving together a harmony of the Gospels; and diverse circumstances often come together in the same event, for instance, considered at diverse moments of time, whence that saying, Distinguish the times and you will unite the Scriptures:  thus at one time Circumcision is commanded under penalty of Excision, Genesis 17:10-14, and is proclaimed as the Seal of the Righteousness of faith, Romans 4:11; at another time it is prohibited, and all virtue is denied to it, Galatians 5:2, 3, 6:  of course, the former has regard to the time of the Old Testament, the latter to the time of the New Testament.  But then finally our AUTHOR notes that true Contradiction obtains, when things are said to be opposed concerning the same thing, according to the same point of view, unto the same, and at the same time; as these things are known from the precepts of Logic.

When, therefore, alleged oppositions of passages occur,

              α.  You will eventually observe that these Oppositions are not alleged concerning the same thing, which obtains, a.  when the same word occurs in diverse places, but with a diverse signification; thus Justification in Romans 3:28 is ascribed to faith without the works of the Law, but in James 2:21, 24, 25, to works, not to faith alone:  but the language of Justification in Paul means to be absolved of sins and to obtain a right to eternal life; in James, to be declared and acknowledge as righteous, and is taken for the consequent manifestation of that divine sentence of absolution, of which Paul speaks.  b.  When the subjects of expression are diverse:  these appear opposed:  thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13, and thou shalt not suffer to live, Exodus 22:18; likewise, be ye merciful, Luke 6:36, and thine eye shall not pity, Deuteronomy 19:13, 21:  but the former things are commanded to private individuals, the latter to magistrates.  c.  Or when the objects are diverse, as when the Gospel is said to be a savour of life and of death, 2 Corinthians 2:16.

              β.  Or those Oppositions are not alleged concerning the same thing κατ᾽ αὐτὸ, according to the same point of view.  Thus Christ declares opposite things concerning Himself, Matthew 26:11; 28:20, but the former is agreeable to Him according to His human nature, the latter according to His divine nature.  Paul in Romans 7:15 and following declares opposite things concerning himself, but according to parts or principles.

              γ.  Or those things alleged are not expressed oppositely concerning the same thing πρὸς τὸ αὐτὸ, unto the same, in the same respect or mode, as when one is expressed absolutely, the other comparatively:  thus we are commanded absolutely to honor our parents, Exodus 20:12, to love our wives, Ephesians 5:25; comparatively hatred of these is commanded, Luke 14:26, where to hate is to love and esteem less than Christ.

              δ.  Or those Oppositions are not expressed concerning the same thing τῷ αὐτῷ χρόνῳ, at the same time:  thus some things are agreeable to the Old Testament, others to the New; some to the present life, others to the future.  Thus what things occur in Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 28:19 appear to be in opposition, but the former was to be observed before, the latter after, the resurrection of Christ.

3.  With our AUTHOR we say that God with good reason willed that there be Diversity in the Scripture, α.  both so that all suspicion of hidden collusion in writing might be banished; which in a striking manner is thus removed by the Evangelists, who otherwise would have most easily fallen into the same:  consult § 6 of this Chapter:  β.  and so that we might have exercise for our industry and faith.

4.  If in the ways already proposed in the case of ἐναντιοφανέσι, apparent contradictions, a clear Reconciliation is not soon found, we further observe with our AUTHOR that it is not necessary in the Reconciliation of texts that we assert Positively that thus the matter stands, or assert Proofs, which on account of the want of history or other requisites often is not able to be done:  but it suffices, if we conjecture that the matter is able to stand in this or that way.

5.  Finally, if not even thus does a way of probable or possible Reconciliation appear to be at hand, care is to be taken just the same, lest we at any time attribute to those θεοπνεύστοις/inspired Writers a single, or even a very trifling, error with the Socinians; but the slowness and imbecility of our intellect is to be acknowledged, or the Copyists, not the Writers, are to be blamed.  Which sometimes, although rarely, appears necessary.  And perhaps God willed that one or the other example of this sort of error be on record, so that we might not assign to all the Copyists, equally with the Writers, so special a divine guidance:  at the same time, those cases are so few, in which it appears necessary to have recourse to that, that it might not appear so strange that one or the other example of ἀλύτου, a thing insoluble, or ἐναντιολογίας/contradiction is presented; but it appears much stranger that far more such examples are not presented.  Nevertheless, there is no example of a corrupted passage of this sort that cannot be corrected from a parallel passage.  JUSTIN Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, page 289:  Εἰ δὲ χάριν τοῦ νομίζειν δύνασθαι εἰς ἀπορίαν ἐμβάλλειν τὸν λόγον, ἵν᾽ εἴπω ἐναντίας εἶναι τὰς γραφὰς ἀλλήλαις, πεπλάνησαι·  οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω τοῦτό ποτε, ἢ ἐνθυμηθῆναι, ἢ εἰπεῖν·  ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τοιαύτη τὶς δοκοῦσα εἶναι γραφὴ προβληθῇ, καὶ πρόφασιν ἔχῃ ὡς ἐναντία οὖσα, ἐκ παντὸς πεπεισμένος ὅτι οὐδεμία γραφὴ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἐναντία ἐστὶν, αὐτὸς μὴ νοεῖν μᾶλλον ὁμολογήσω τὰ εἰρημένα, but if you have done so because you thought yourself to be able to cast doubt on the word, so that I might say that the Scriptures are contradicting one another, you have erred:  For I shall not ever venture to suppose or to say such a thing; but if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext that it is contradictory, being entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded.  AUGUSTINE, as he relates in Epistle LXXXII, already cited in § 22:  if I might encounter anything in the Canonical Scriptures, which might appear to be contrary to the truth; it must be the case that either the codex is faulty, or the translator has not followed what has been said, or I have not understood:  compare BUDDEUS’ de Atheismo et Superstitione, chapter VII, § 7, pages 475 at the end, 476.  Such a Passage, in which our intellect hardly finds a way of extricating itself, and hence ought to accuse either itself or the Copyists, is, for example:

Luke 3:36, where τοῦ Καϊνάν, of Cainan, is inserted between τοῦ Σαλά, of Sala, and τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ, of Arphaxad.  The passage, 1.  a great many think to lie in defect:  whether now, α. with BOCHART[8] in Phaleg, book II, chapter XIII, column 89-92, and GROTIUS on the passage, out of verse 37, where mention is of Cainan, son of Enos, they maintain that this name was transferred into the previous verse by the carelessness of Scribes; and, after it was admitted into a number of Codices, was inserted by Greek Christians into the Septuagint Versions also.  Or, β.  they conclude that out of the Septuagint Version it was transferred here by ignorant copyists, from whatever source that Cainan may have first crept into the Septuagint Version.  In neither way is Luke himself treated as if he were liable to hallucination.  Certainly in the Septuagint that generation is expressly found in Genesis 11:13 and 10:24, and also in some Codices of 1 Chronicles 1:18; and in Luke the reading of this Cainan is all but universal.  But that the mention of this Cainan in the Septuagint is to be added to the other grievous faults that they commit in constructing the Chronology of the Patriarchs of that age and of the Ante-diluvian age, not one of us doubts:  since, a.  the Hebrew Codex, omitting this in three different places, Genesis 10:24; 11:12, 13; 1 Chronicles 1:18, is entirely consistent with itself.  Which, b.  the Chaldean Paraphrases uniformly follow.  Just as also, c.  JOSEPHUS, Antiquities of the Jews, book I, chapter VII, page 15, and Africanus[9] in EUSEBIUS’ Greek Chronicle, page 9.  And, d.  reason supports this, since the thirty-fifth year of the age of Arphaxad, in which he begat Salah, completely agrees with the years of the generation of the remaining Patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 11:  on the other hand, the years of generation would be too far ahead of their proper time against the manner of that age, if in the space of thirty-five years between Arphaxad and Salah some middle generation be inserted; which also is directly against the Mosaic text.  Therefore, the reading in Luke ought to be emended out of Moses, as it is evident.

2.  But, that this Cainan is indeed to be rejected, but that this passage in Luke is nevertheless uncorrupted, the Most Illustrious GOUSSET determines, in Veritate salutifera contra librum Rabbi Isaaci dictum Chizzouk Emouna, part II, chapter I, page 362, since he believes that those words, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as it was supposed, in verse 23, do not only have regard to the Lord Jesus mentioned immediately before, but thinks that those are to be referred to diverse men mentioned in the following genealogy in a sense in some measure diverse.  Jesus was the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, because Joseph had taken His mother Mary as wife, and most Jews were ignorant of the miraculous generation of the Lord Jesus.  Joseph was the son of Heli, as it was supposed, because he had taken his daughter as wife; or because he was Joseph’s Legal father, to whom, having died without children, Joseph was raised up by the uterine brother of the deceased, even Jacob.[10]  Adam was the son of God, not properly, but as it was supposed, on account of the agreement which comes between Creation and generation.  But Cainan was the son of Arphaxad, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as it was supposed, namely, by those that were reading that most widely circulated Greek Version, in which they were finding him after Arphaxad:  compare WESSELIUS’ Nestorianismum et Adoptianismum redivivum confutatum, chapter XXII, § 270, pages 496-499.  Certainly these conjectures are not unworthy of the genius of the Most Illustrious Gousset, and in this manner that passage of Luke is preserved unblemished.

On this passage, the erudite Dissertatio of JAMES USSHER of Armagh,[11] inserted in tome 9 of Bibliorum Criticis Londinensium, columns 4003 and following, in which, 1.  the solution of Gousset, just now mentioned, is now found proposed, column 4011.  Who, 2.  relates that he saw a Græco-Latin Codex of Luke, written on most ancient parchments, in majuscule letters, without breathings and accents, in which in the Greek, του Φαλεκ, του Εβερ, του Σαλα, του Αρφαξαδ, του Σημ, was read in an extended manner in the Latin, who was of Phalec, who was of Eber, who was of Sala, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Shem:  see column 4012.  But, 3.  in addition he thinks that in the primitive Greek Version of the Mosaic Pentateuch that Cainan was not found, although it crept into the κοινὴν/common Edition of the Septuagint already at a most ancient time:  both because that pericope of the Septuagint, concerning which the question is here raised, varies so much in numbers, see column 4006, and because the most ancient Christian Chronologists, although they establish the reckoning of years according to the Septuagint, are nevertheless found to pass over the times of Cainan.  But an account, explaining how Cainan, with time passing, was intruded into the Septuagint Version, and thence into the text of Luke, he believes to be demanded no less unjustly of us than the same might be done in all the other pericopes omitted or added to the Hebrew verity in the same Version:  see columns 4008-4010.  In addition, read in SPANHEIM’S Dubiis Euangelicis, part I, doubt XXIII, pages 137-192, his discussion, similar to the others, concerning this imported Cainan.

Of this sort also is the passage in 2 Chronicles 22:2, in which Ahaziah is said to be a son of forty-two years, when he took possession of the kingdom of Judah in the place of his Father Jehoram, now dead, and that he reigned one year.  But in 2 Chronicles 21:20, his Father Jehoram is said to have been thirty-two years old when he advanced to the administration of the kingdom, and that he reigned eight years, who hence had only reached the age of forty when he met his death.  On the other hand, in 2 Kings 8:26, Ahaziah is said to have seized the reigns of the kingdom in his twenty-second year, and to have reigned one year.  The ways of reconciliation that Interpreters have undertaken certainly appear to be too harsh, referring those forty-two years to the end of the verse by trajection, or to his mother, Athaliah; or to Omri and the time from which his family had begun to reign in Israel, which would expire in this forty-second year.  Neither are twenty years able to be subtracted from those forty-two years, during which he had reigned together with his Father; which neither agrees with the years of the Kingdom of Jehoram, 2 Chronicles 21:20, nor with the parallel place in 2 Kings 8:26, while in both places he is said to have reigned for only one year.  Therefore, one passage appears to lie in defect, and indeed the reading of the passage in 2 Kings 8 is concluded as more worthy to be kept, because according to 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah the son would be obliged to exceed the age of his own Father by two years, and to have been a son of forty-two years when his Father died at the age of forty.  Various Versions also, the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek abandon the present reading of the Hebrew text in this passage of 2 Chronicles 22.  But if it be understood that a βραχυγραφίαν/short-hand had formerly obtained in the recension of the number, let us hold it as evident how that exceedingly slight mutation from twenty-two to forty-two was able to happen, since כב is thus set down in the place of twenty-two, but מב in the place of forty-two; now, the slightest stroke being added to כ changes that into מ:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XVIII, Part V; STAPFER’S Theologicam polemicam, tome 2, chapter X, § 277, pages 1066, 1067; ALPHONSE DES-VIGNOLES’[12] Chronologie de l’histoire sainte, tome I, book II, chapter II, § 20, pages 326-331; BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period II, section IV, § 15, tome II, pages 379-383, who supplies a method of reconciliation received from his colleague ANDREAS DANZ as more commendable than others, according to which the number of forty-two years is not referred to Ahaziah, but to his father Jehoram:  but you might say that even this fails on account of those things that our AUTHOR now observed, Exercitationibus textualibus XVIII, Part V, § 5.  Let the Reader also weigh carefully a new method of reconciling this ἐναντιοφανὲς, apparent contradiction, which the most Illustrious LILIENTHAL, having received it, relates to Doctor Stein, and which he attempts at length to render probable, and furnishes to be read in Oordeelk Bybelverklar, chapter VII, § 212-219, part 3, pages 263-281.  According to this conjecture, Ahaziah was not the proper son of Jehoram by the daughter of Ahab; but begotten of a lesser known son of Asa, a brother of Jehoshaphat, by Athalia, daughter of Omri, sister of Ahab; but adopted first by Jehoshaphat, then by his son Jehoram:  he was actually forty-two years old when he took the kingdom, while in the other passage he is said at the same time to be twenty-two years of age, with respect unto the time at which he had first been adopted into the family of Jehoshaphat; and thus he had obtained greater hope for the succession in royal dignity, confirmed to him thereafter by Jehoram.  But I fear that this conjecture also appears after serious consideration to be covered with very grave difficulties.

Our AUTHOR judges that it is to be thought in almost the same way concerning the passage in 1 Kings 6:1, in which it is related that the Temple began to be founded in the four hundred and eightieth year from the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt, and in the fourth of the reign of Solomon; which computation you will scarcely be able to reconcile with the passage in Acts 13:20, in which it is thought to be affirmed that God for four hundred and fifty years gave Judges to the Israelites, unto the time of Samuel:  καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, ὡς ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, ἔδωκε κριτὰς ἕως Σαμουὴλ, and after that, about the space of four hundred and fifty years, He gave Judges, until Samuel, just as out of the Book of Judges also, with the forty years of the Judge Eli regarded out of 1 Samuel 4:18, those four hundred and fifty years are accomplished, to which in the next place are certainly to be added the forty years of lodging in the wilderness, the forty years of Samuel and Saul, the forty years of David, three years of Solomon, which totals one hundred and twenty-three, besides the uncertain time to be assigned to Joshua and the Elders:[13]  but thus the number recorded in 1 Kings 6:1 shall lack more than a hundred years:  see our AUTHOR in Mantissa Observatione after Analysem Exegeticam in Jesaiæ 53 textu, IV, pages 397-407.

Yet others assert a reconciliation of the number recorded in 1 Kings 6:1 both with the account of the times, and with Acts 13:20, a reconciliation not so difficult that hence we think it necessary to pronounce that passage corrupt.  Unto which end they observe, not so much that the years of servitude and oppression are to be comprehended under the years of peace, which are clearly opposed and distinct in the Sacred text, which certainly appears too harsh:  but that there were often various Judges raised up at the same time in the various tribes and parts of the land of Israel, so that at the same time some might judge in Ephraim, others liberate Israel from the Ammonites, others fight for them against the Philistines; hence their years are not to be subordinated, but coordinated; as they judge the time of servitude and affliction of one Judge to come together unto the same point of χρόνου/time with the years of this or that Judge; and in this manner they display to the eye with the calculations balanced that from the exodus out of Egypt unto the founding of the temple not more than four hundred and eighty years passed.  And they assert that thus the passage in Acts 13:20 does not hinder, since there the Sacred text relates, not how long God gave Judges, but when, that is, in the four hundred and fifty years after God had elected the fathers, which in verse 17 Paul had named in the first place as the foundation of all the benefits bestowed upon the Israelite nation in after-times, and also to be remembered in turn by the Apostle.  Which Election of Israel unto a holy nation, peculiar to God, indeed is able to be initiated from the promise, Genesis 12 and 13, but with greatest reason is also able to be drawn down from the birth of Isaac, the son of the promise, and the father of the people of God, according to Genesis 17 and 21.  Now, from that nativity of Isaac unto the time when God gave Judges to Israel are reckoned approximately, ὡς, four hundred and fifty years, with which accomplished, μετὰ ταῦτα, after the other things narrated before, God gave Judges.  Unless some trajection obtains here in the text, and it is to be read in accordance with a number of Codices:  κατεκληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς τὴν γῆν αὐτῶν, ὡς ἔτεσιν τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἔδωκεν κριτὰς, He divided to them their land by lot, about the space of four hundred and fifty years, and after that He gave judges:  in which manner the time, not of the giving of the Judges, but of the division of the Israelite land by lot, is indicated, which, drawn down in the same way from the nativity of Isaac, is able to be reckoned agreeably; when at the same time with the promise made to Abraham the fulfillment of the same in the giving of the land of Canaan after about four hundred and fifty years shall be mentioned, and these two shall be aptly connected:  consult SPANHEIM the Younger’s Chronologiam, part II, chapter XIX, in Canone Epochæ IV, Veteris Testamenti, columns 231, 232, opera, tome I; and JOHANNES ENS’ Disputationem de Chronologia Sacra Veteris Testamenti, Epoch IV, pages 12-16.  But without a trajection of this sort the integrity of the text of Acts 13:20 is able to be preserved, and also the explication of it proposed immediately before concerning the time when God gave the Judges, only let an ellipsis of a participle be admitted, easily to be supplied from the sense, either πραχθέντα, having been accomplished, or, what is perhaps even simpler, γενόμενα, having come to pass; of which LOUIS DE DIEU has the former on this passage, As if it were written, says he, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὡς ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα πραχθέντα, ἔδωκε κριτὰς, and after those things having been accomplished about the space of four hundred and fifty years, He gave Judges.  He relates the latter from the consent of others, and then FRANCIS JUNIUS himself proves it, Parallelis Sacris, book I, opera, tome I, column 1082, where it reads, And, that that outline of times indeed pertains to the what precedes, certain most learned men in our recollection have thought, as if in the Greek context of Luke it should thus be read, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ὡς ἔτεσι τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα γενόμενα, and after those things having come to pass about the space of four hundred and fifty years; always under ἔτεσι/year ἐν/in is understood.  He greatly extols that latter supplement, γενόμενα, having come to pass, and LEONARD OFFERHAUS[14] commends this sentence, and after these things (which Luke had said from verse 17 concerning the fathers and the division of the land), about the space of four hundred and fifty years, were accomplished or conducted, He gave Judges until Samuel the Prophet:  Spicilegio historico-chronologico, book I, chapter II, § 14, pages 31, 32, in which he rightly advises that a diverse construction of verse 18 is observed by VAN ALPHEN, pages 20, 21, in designating the time when and how long:  yet it was not the case that he asserted that the most illustrious VAN ALPHEN received this from heaven concerning the obvious ellipsis of the word γενόμενα in Acts 13:20:  in that we saw that that supplement of the participle γενόμενα was already indicated and commended by FRANCIS JUNIUS.  (See also concerning this passage below in Chapter VIII:20.)  And in this manner there shall not be any necessity to acknowledge a corruption of number in this passage.

Neither does it seem necessary that it come to this point, when in Acts 7:14 πᾶσα συγγένεια, all the kindred, of Joseph is said to consist ἐν ψυχαῖς ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, in seventy-five souls; while, on the other hand, you see that they are numbered as sixty-six souls in Genesis 46:26, and as seventy souls in verse 27:  wherefore some maintain that πέντε/ five in Acts 7 is a corruption of πάντως, in all; others maintain that πέντε/five was introduced here from the Septuagint Version of Genesis 46:27;[15] see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales III, Part II, § 3.  But a way of reconciliation, with the integrity of the text preserved, is not altogether impossible.  Namely, those that occur in the genealogy of Jacob, Genesis 46:8-25, with Jacob himself enumerated with the rest, are seventy-two, from which, if you subtract the two sons of Judah that had already died in the land of Canaan, Er and Onan, according to verse 12, those shall remain that went down together with Jacob into Egypt, constituting the house of Jacob, seventy in number according to verse 27:  where perhaps in the place of כָּל־הַנֶּ֧פֶשׁ לְבֵֽית־יַעֲקֹ֛ב הַבָּ֥אָה מִצְרַ֖יְמָה, all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, you might better read, every soul of the house of Jacob coming into Egypt, that is, of the house, which came, than every soul that came.  From which, if you again subtract both Jacob, the head of the family, and Joseph, who was already in Egypt, together with his two sons born there, sixty-six souls, according to verse 26, proceeding from the loins of Jacob, went down, who together with Jacob entered Egypt.  When it is now expressly added in verse 26 that there were sixty-six souls besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, there are those that think Stephen to be reconciled easily with Moses, with the nine wives of the sons of Jacob added to those sixty-six souls, which figures taken together make the number seventy-five.  But the wife of Judah, the daughter of Shuah, was already dead, according to Genesis 38:12.  And thus the matter was able to be with several of the wives of the sons.  But the place of these the wives of the grandsons of Jacob were able to take.  And thus, in one manner or another, the συγγένεια/kindred of Jacob was easily able to make up the number seventy-five.  But perhaps there is no necessity to flee to the wives of the grandsons; if, as is fitting, to the wives of the sons of Jacob we add not the wife of Joseph, who was an Egyptian, and did not have any necessity to come into Egypt; nor the wife of Judah, as having already died; and if we then posit that it is hardly improbable that Benjamin was not yet joined to a wife at the time of the coming of Jacob with his family into Egypt, then nine wives of the sons of Jacob shall remain, together with the family of sixty-six men, making up the number of seventy-five.  And indeed the ten sons of Benjamin, enumerated in Genesis 46:21, are able to have been born thereafter in Egypt, with their grandfather Jacob yet living; so that the descent of Jacob with his family into Egypt ought to be extended unto his death:  but only in this should the express exception of the two sons of Joseph, as born in Egypt, verse 27, be allowed, which sort of exception with respect to the sons of Benjamin is not found:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales III, Part II, § 4; and HARENBERG’S Spicilegium II, de Pericopis Bibliciis recte ordinandis, § 4, in Bibliotheca Bremensi, classis III, fascicule II, chapter III, pages 292-296.

Cave of the Patriarchs

Finally, that I might not heap together more, a defect is not necessarily discerned in Acts 7:16, as if Abraham is there said to have bought a sepulchre from the sons of Emmor τοῦ Συχέμ, of Sychem:  while, on the other hand, from Genesis 23:8-18 it is known that Abraham bought the sepulchre from Ephron the Hittite near the city of Hebron; but, that Jacob bought a field from the children of Hamor in the region of Shechem, is narrated in Genesis 33:19:  whence some maintain that Ἀβραὰμ/Abraham has been incorrectly substituted here in the place of Ἰακὼβ/Jacob, or think that for the sake of supplementing the text Ἀβραὰμ/Abraham was inserted in the place of Ἰακὼβ/Jacob by some ignorant scribe, in which place previously there was no name in the text.  Others that uphold the integrity of the text think that actually Ἀβραὰμ/ Abraham, as grandfather and eminent head of the family, is set down here in the place of his grandson, Jacob, as David in the place of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:16, David in the place of Christ, Ezekiel 37:24, 25.  Yet for this no sufficient reason is here produced; on the other hand, Stephen in context again and again mentions Jacob by name, indeed immediately before in verses 14 and 15.  So also it is too harsh, what others thought was to be read here in the place of Ἀβραὰμ/Abraham, namely, ὁ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ, he of Abraham, that is, ἔκγονος, the grandson of Abraham, Jacob.  But there is another, twofold, easy reconciliation at hand, which SPANHEIM supplies, and one of which he prefers to the others, Historia Jobi, chapter XI, § 19, Miscellanearum Sacrarum Antiquitatum, book I, opera, tome 2, columns 91, 92.  Namely, he thinks that the speech concerning the sepulchre truly belongs to Stephen, which sepulchre Abraham bought from Ephron, in these words:  ἐν τῷ μνήματι ὃ ὠνήσατο Ἀβραὰμ τιμῆς ἀργυρίου, in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of silver.  But then, as far as the following words are concerned, παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ τοῦ Συχέμ, from the sons of Emmor of Sychem, Spanheim recognizes, that from them Abraham did not buy the μνῆμα/sepulchre; but that from them Jacob bought a field, not for the sake of burial, but of habitation.  And so he thinks, 1.  that παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ, from the sons of Emmor, is able to mean the same thing as παρὰ τὸ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ, besides that of the sons of Emmor, by a common ellipsis.  Our Fathers, says Stephen, were laid up in the sepulchre that Abraham had bought with a sum of silver; besides that of the sons of Emmor, that is, in which Joseph alone was buried, because the field, in which this sepulchre was, passed to Joseph by a special grant of his father Jacob, Joshua 24:32; Genesis 48:22.  Or, 2.  παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ, from/by the sons of Emmor, is to be referred, not to the verb ὠνήσατο, he bought, but to the more remote ἐτέθησαν, they were laid.  That is, Jacob and his sons, the fathers of the Jews, were not buried in the Shechemite field, but all, with the exception of Joseph, were buried at Hebron in the sepulchral monument of Abraham, which is related concerning Jacob in Genesis 49:29, 30; 50:13; but JOSEPHUS also mentions the same concerning the sons of Jacob, Antiquities of the Jews, book II, chapter IV, near the end.  So that the Patriarchs might be buried there, they were first carried over unto Shechem, where were the sons of Hamor, friends from of old, allies, where was the hereditary possession of the Israelites; and thence παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμμὸρ, from/by the sons of Emmor, with the help and guidance of the Shechemites, the transfer was then made unto the place of burial, Hebron and the cave of Abraham, in the midst of the descendants of Heth, an impious and alien nation.  And thus our Fathers with Jacob were carried after their deaths to Shechem, καὶ ἐτέθησαν παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ἐμὸρ ἐν τῷ μνήματι ὃ ὠνήσατο Ἀβραὰμ, etc., and they were laid by the sons of Emmor in the sepulchre that Abraham bought, etc.  Which twofold solution, one or the other, MARCKIUS also mention as worthy of admittance, in his Analysi Exegetica of Genesis 48:22, § 20, page 61, and on Genesis 49:29, 30, § 19, pages 348, 349.  And that we are not in any respect bound to say that the text in Acts 7:16 lies in defect, WESSELIUS also teaches in Dissertationibus Sacris Leidensibus VI, § 6, against Le Clerc.

With this ἐναντιοφανεῖ, apparent contradiction, a second, which results from a comparison of Genesis 33:19 with Genesis 48:22, cleaves:  in which in the former place Jacob is said to have bought the portion of a field, in which he had spread his tent, from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechm, for one hundred silver pieces or lambs:  but in the second, which is not without reason judged to be referred to the former, dying Jacob says to Joseph:  And I have given to thee one shoulder, or one portion,[16] above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.  It certainly appears to dispute with itself, that the same field is said to have been bought with a price from the sons of Hamor, who was an Hivite, Genesis 34:2, and is related to have captured by sword and bow from the Amorites.  In the resolution of this question, lest anyone hesitate, receive also a twofold solution in a few words, the latter being more probable than the former, which MARCKIUS suggest in his Analysi Exegetica in præcipuas partes Pentateuchi on Genesis 48:22, § 20, pages 53-61, where you will also be able to see several other solutions less worthy of admittance related with strictures added also.  The twofold solution:  1.  Perhaps the price of one hundred silver pieces or lambs, with which he had purchased the Shechemite field, Jacob figuratively called his sword and his bow:  just as the Latins are wont to say by my prowess, by my own supplies, similitudes taken from warfare, by which they signify what they are able to effect by their own effort; and this they distinguish from that in which they needed the help or industry of others.  For, even if Jacob has nothing that he does not acknowledge to have received from God, nevertheless he was able thus to distinguish between those things that he had immediately from God, whether promised or given, and those things that he bought for himself with his own resources, called his bow and sword; as elsewhere money is also wont to be called a hook, by which fish are caught.  Now, thus the name of Amorite, Genesis 48:22, either shall be taken more broadly, because of the foremost power of that nation among the Canaanites, by comparison with Genesis 15:16; Amos 2:9; or it is to be said that the Hivites were similar to or mixed with the Amorites in such a way that the same prince was able to be referred in different respects to both tribes.  2.  Or, if that exegesis perhaps appears too artificial, if I might make use of the words of MARCKIUS, “after all things it appears that it is best said that Jacob in these words has regard entirely unto something past, but that it was not mentioned elsewhere in the sacred history, not thereby deserving less confidence coming from the mouth of the dying, just as often on suitable occasions are narrated matters conducted previously and passed over in their own place.  When by his sword and his bow, striking from near and from far, he signified whatever arms of war, of which Abraham had also made use, Genesis 14:14, 15, and Jacob is plainly not to be thought to have been without his necessary defense, etc.  And when in the capture of that one shoulder from the hand of the Amorite he indicated, not so much the preservation and defense of the occupied, as indeed a war-like occupation, which happened after the purchase and the violence of Jacob’s sons against the Shechemites, rather than before those things.  Unto preservation have regard those things which Pererius adduced out of Jarchi and Lyra:  Since because of the slaughter of the Shechemites and the destruction of the city Jacob exceedingly feared an attack of the neighboring nations against himself, he, trusting in the help and protection of God, armed himself and his own, and stood in the gate of Shechem, expecting the arrival and assault of enemies.  But those, having been terrified and thoroughly frightened by God, did not dare to rise against him.  And in this manner Jacob obtained that land by right of war, which is to have acquired it in bow and sword, with them destroying the life and city of Shechem with good reason because of the violation of Dinah.  Moreover, that that region of the Shechemites was in the power of Jacob after the slaughter of them, there is clear proof, for the sons of Jacob thereafter were feeding their flocks in Shechem, as it is read in Genesis 37, as in a land under the right and power of Jacob.  But unto that occupation, which we prefer, pertain the final comments of Andrew Masius, after he had previously disputed for an improper understanding of sword and bow:  But if one thinks, but is not able to prove, those things to be cleverer, let him think it, although, that Jacob first purchased with money a small piece of land from the compatriots of Hamor in which he might be able to abide with his own, for a hundred coins that are called Cessitæ,[17] but then from the neighboring field gradually drove out the Amorites, which those had seized from the Shechemites, not by right but by arms, since the wasters had passed over Jordan.  For Jacob does not say that he obtained that field from Hamor with sword and bow, but from the Amorites; now, Hamor and Shechem were Hivites, which is testified to by the sacred words themselves, Genesis 34:2.  The following things from our Rivet are able to make for the greater illustration of this opinion (Exercitatione CLXXVI in Genesi, opera, tome I, page 668):  Much more probable is the opinion of those that refer it to a past time, and maintain that by the right of war he acquired or received that land for himself, not indeed through the unjust action of his sons, which even then he abhorred, but because the Amorites, after Jacob had withdrawn, and had departed toward Hebron, captured the Shechemite field by force, and at the same time seized upon that part that Jacob had bought, which, when they were unwilling to restore, Jacob expelled them with arms, and claimed for himself that property detained by the unjust usurpers.  And Pererius himself, after long and laborious disputation, returns to this at last, teaching:  When, and upon what cause or occasion, and how this was done by Jacob is no where related in the sacred books, but what Masius said is likely, that first the field was purchased by Jacob, then afterwards from the neighboring and bordering field, which the Amorites had seized from the Shechemites by force, Jacob expelled them with military force, and in this way enlarged the former field.  Or, when after his departure from the city of Shechem the Amorites had invaded and occupied that very field, Jacob by arms, his and those of his own, with those expelled, recovered his field.  In any event, it is certain that concerning this Shechemite Shoulder Jacob willed not only to note by this description something peculiar, but also to show that he formerly came into true possession of it by the right of war, war not unjust but legitimate, so that consequently he is able to gift it to another.”  To confirm the solution of this doubtful case just now given, IKEN labors even further, Dissertationibus philologico-theologicis IV, pages 37-50.  Upon the twofold ἐναντιοφανὲς, apparent contradiction, just now mentioned resulting from the comparison of Acts 7:16 with Genesis 23:8-18, and Genesis 33:19 with Genesis 48:22, VAN RIE is also able to be consulted for the sake of greater illustration, tydrekenkundige Bybel-openingen, part I, question 15, § 11, 12, pages 310-313.

There is a conspicuous ἐναντιοφανὲς, apparent contradiction, that occurs in the Evangelical History of the Lord’s Passion, if you compare Mark 15:25 with John 19:14:  but concerning this I spoke at length in a Disputatione on these passages, which I shall exhibit to the Reader at the end of this volume.

And thus far concerning the ἐναντιοφανείαις, apparent contradictions, of Sacred Scripture.  I shall end this argument with the fitting words of AUGUSTINE, which I already commended above out of Epistle LXXXII ad Hieronymum, opera, tome 2, column 144; now, these are read in book XI contra Faustum Manichæum, book XI, chapter V, opera, tome 8, columns 158, 159, “The excellence of the Canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments is distinct from the books of those coming latter, etc.  There, if (the intellect) moves anything as absurd, one ought not to say, The Author of this book did not hold to the truth:  but, either the codex is faulty, or the translator erred, or you are not understanding.”  Consult also on § 23 DINANT’S de Achtbaarheid van Godts Woord, chapter V, § 67-72, 74, pages 535-551, 555.

[1] Porphyry (c. 232-c. 304) studied in Rome under Plotinus.  He endeavored to make the obscure Neoplatonism of Plotinus intelligible to the popular reader.  Porphyry was one of the most able opponents of the Christianity of his day, leveling his attack upon the Scriptures themselves.

[2] Lucian of Samosata (c. 120-c. 180) was a trained rhetorician, particularly skilled in satire.  In his The Passing of Peregrinus, he presents the early Christians as comically gullible.

[3] Julian the Apostate (331-363) was the last pagan Emperor of Rome.  He was raised as a Christian, but rejected Christianity in favor of Theurgy, a form of Neoplatonism.  As Emperor, he sought to revive paganism and reduce the influence of Christianity.  Julian died after a battle with Persian forces, and it is said that his dying words were, Vicisti, Galilæe, Thou hast conquered, O Galilean.

[4] Johannes Scharpius (1572-1648) was a Scottish Presbyterian theologian and pastor.  After banishment from his native land for maintaining the liberties of the church against encroachments of the state, he served as Professor of Theology at Die, France (1608-1629).  After being ordered to leave France by Cardinal Richelieu, he was permitted to return to Scotland, and he served as Professor of Theology at Edinburgh (1630-1648).

[5] Michael Walther (1638-1692) was a German mathematician and an orthodox Lutheran theologian.  He served as Professor of Theology at Wittenberg (1687-1692).

[6] Franciscus de Ridder (1620-1683) was a Dutch Reformed pastor and theologian.

[7] Johannes Polyander (1568-1646) was a Dutch Reformed theologian of French extraction.  He served as Professor of Theology at Leiden (1611-1646), in the aftermath of the Arminian controversy.  Although orthodox, Polyander was of an irenic and conciliatory spirit.

[8] Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) was a French Protestant pastor and scholar with a wide variety of interests, including philology, theology, geography, and zoology.  Indeed his works on Biblical geography (Geographia Sacra) and zoology (Hierozoicon, sive Bipertitum Opus de Animalibus Scripturæ) became standard reference works for generations.  He was on familiar terms with many of the greatest men of his age.

[9] Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160-c. 240) was a chronographer and the first Christian to attempt a history from the creation.  His Chronographai significantly influenced Eusebius.

[10] Matthew 1:15, 16.

[11] James Ussher (1580-1655) was an Irish churchman and scholar of the first calibre, who eventually rose to the office of Archbishop of Ireland.  He is most remembered for his Annals of the World.

[12] Alphonse des Vignoles (1649-1744) was a Reformed Theologian, laboring in Germany, but of French extraction.

[13] Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:7.

[14] Leonard Offerhaus (1699-1779) served as a professor of history and eloquence at Groningen University. 

[15] Genesis 46:27b:  “…all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (שִׁבְעִים; ἑβδομήκοντα πέντε, seventy-five, in the Septuagint).”

[16] Hebrew:  שְׁכֶ֥ם אַחַ֖ד.

[17] Genesis 33:19:  “And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money (קְשִׂיטָה/Cesitah).”