WE have already seen, in considering the gospels, that each gospel had a special aspect, or object, and that the Lord is exhibited in each in a particular character, as Son of David, the Messiah; as the faithful servant; as the Son of man; and as the Son of God. If this is once grasped, it removes a number of apparent discrepancies, and the differences are seen to be designed, and to be beauties instead of faults.
It is also to be remembered that there were many other things which Jesus did that are not recorded by John (21:25); and who could have made the selection as to what was to be written but God Himself? Surely He did this for each of the evangelists.
We may well suppose that our Lord, as He traveled about Palestine, had different audiences, and related the same parable and delivered similar discourses more than once; so that what has been considered as one and the same thing may have happened on different occasions. Similar cures also were wrought in different places. If feeding the five thousand had been named in two or three of the gospels, and feeding the four thousand had been in another, many would have declared it a grave error of the writer, and would have said how unlikely that two miracles so similar should have occurred. Believing that the scriptures are divinely inspired helps wonderfully to clear up difficulties.
It must also be remembered that in reporting a statement, the actual words used may be given, or the sense only of what was said. Such is constantly done by every one.
In examining the following apparent discrepancies we can only give what may have happened, without professing that it must have been as here stated; but if it can be shown how events may have occurred so as to meet a difficulty-that difficulty may he said to be met.
The Visit of the Wise Men. From Matt. 2:1-23
it would appear that at or near the birth of Jesus was the visit of the wise men at Bethlehem, and that it was followed by the flight into Egypt, and the return into Galilee. In Luke 2:22-39 the circumcision and presentation follow the birth, and then they return to Galilee. In Matthew there seems no room for the presentation; and in Luke no room for the visit of the wise men.
In the first place, let it be noticed that Matt. 2:1 does not say that the wise men came when Jesus was born: it should read, " Jesus having been born," leaving the time indefinite. In Luke there is the birth, circumcision, and presentation, which would all occur in about forty days, from whence the -holy family, as it is called, returned to their own city, Nazareth in Galilee. It is easy to suppose that they subsequently paid a visit to Bethlehem, ordered of God, so that the wise men might find them there, after which the flight into Egypt would follow. We know that the parents of our Lord visited Jerusalem yearly at the Passover (Luke 2:41), and, being at Jerusalem at the passover following the birth, it was easy for them to reach Bethlehem. This would perhaps be only about three months after the birth, but Herod may have settled on killing the children from two years old by reckoning when the star first appeared, and leaving a large margin, so as to secure his victim, as he thought.
The Census Under Cyrenius (Luke 2:2).
This does not seem to agree with the historians, who place the census under Cyrenius nine or ten years after the birth of Christ.
This is called a taxing' in the above passage, but it was most probably an enrollment or census. If carried out by the Romans, it might seem strange that Joseph had to go to his own city to he enrolled; but, knowing the exceeding jealousy of the Jews, the governor may have tried to do it in a way the least objectionable to them.
Various suggestions have been made to solve the above. difficulty, but Professor Zumpt believes he has discovered the true key to it in that Publius Sulpicius Quirinus (the Cyrenius of Scripture) was twice governor of Syria, and twice made a census, and that in Luke refers to his first governorship (B.C. 4 to B.C. 1), when he was succeeded by Lollius.
In support of the above, it may be remarked that Justin Martyr three times asserts that our Lord was born under Quirinus, and appeals to some register as proof of it.
The Knowledge John the Baptist Had of Jesus.
In Matt. 3:14, when the Lord came to be baptized of John, we read that " John forbad him, saying, I have need to he baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" But in John 1:31 John says, " I knew him not."
It is evident that John had some knowledge of Jesus, they were relatives, and he had doubtless heard of what had been announced to the shepherds at His birth, and also of the inquiries of the wise men, &c.; quite enough to lead him, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and to say to Him, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? " But in John's Gospel our Lord is portrayed as Son of God, and as such the Baptist did not know Him, though he was to know Him thus by the Holy Spirit abiding on Him. By this he was taught that which this evangelist brings out, for he says, " I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God."
Abiathar the High Priest (Mark 2:26)
.Said to clash with 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where Ahimelech was the priest.
The passage in Mark does not really say that the event took place in the high priesthood of Abiathar, but is more indefinite (with ἐπί only, the words " the days of " being added), and may mean ' in [the presence of],' or with the sanction of Abiathar, who may have been present with his father when the shewbread was given to David It was really done in the days of Abiathar, who afterward became high priest. This removes all difficulty. If the Lord had said Ahimelech, His enemies might have said, " Ah, but the priest was slain for his irregularity; " whereas Abiathar lived and reigned with David.
The Blind Men at Jericho (Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43).
Matthew speaks of two blind men, Mark and Luke of only one. Luke represents the miracle as performed when Jesus was approaching Jericho, before He entered it; Matthew and Mark, as when He was leaving Jericho.
This difficulty may be met in several ways. Let us suppose that as our Lord approached Jericho He healed the blind man, as reported by Luke. At the entrance of a city seems a very suitable place for a beggar to sit; hut the city had two entrances, and why should not beggars sit at the entrance towards Jerusalem as well as at the other? Here there were two beggars, Bartimeus being one, who may have been well known, and he only is named by Mark, though both were brought to the Lord at the same time. Matthew mentions the two. If our Lord remained at Jericho the night with Zacchæus, as some suppose, the curing of the blind man as the Lord entered the city would soon have become known, and others would naturally have been at the gate on the following morning. There may have been three cured, or even more. Luke 18:35 means " when He was in the neighborhood of Jericho."
Christ Riding Upon an Ass (Matt. 20:2-7; Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30-35; John 12:14, 15).
It is objected that Matthew represents that there were two animals, a she-ass and a colt, and apparently that Christ rode on them both; whereas the other three gospels speak of only the colt.
The act was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Zech. 9:9, which reads, " Behold thy King cometh unto thee; he is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." In Matthew it does not say that Christ rode upon both animals: garments were placed on both (and we can easily believe that more garments were readily offered on that joyous occasion than were needed for one), and Christ sat on them (the garments). John, who mentions only the colt, also speaks of its being a fulfillment of the same prophecy. The she-ass, which was with the colt, not being used, -was not named by the other evangelists.
Mary Anointing the Lord (Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14: 3-9; John 12:1-9)
1. It is objected that this, according to John, took place six days before the passover; but in Matthew and Mark not more than two days.
2. In John it is apparently in the house of Martha and Mary; but in Matthew and Mark it is in the house of Simon, a leper.
3. According to John, it was the feet that were anointed; in Matthew and Mark it is the head.4. Matthew and Mark say that the disciples complained of the waste; John speaks of Judas only.
As to I, the occurrence was most probably two days before the passover, which agrees with Mark being the most strictly chronological; in John it does not say that it was six days before the passover. Our Lord came to Bethany on that day; hut the supper may have been when the other evangelists place it.2. Let us suppose that the house belonged to Simon the leper, and the others lodged with him. In John it does not say whose house it was, or Martha may have been Simon's wife or widow.3. The anointing may have been both of the head and the feet.
4. Judas may have been the chief and first complainer, and the others were led to join him.
The Last Passover (Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13; John 13:1,2).
The question presented here is, Did our Lord eat the passover on the same day as the Jews? for when He was led to the hall of judgment, the rulers went not in to the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but " that they might eat the passover." (John 18:28.) And the same day is said to be "the preparation of the passover." (Chapter 19:14.) Thus the account in John's gospel does not seem to agree with the other gospels.
This difficulty has been sought to be removed in different ways.1. That our Lord partook of the passover a day before the Jews; and it has been thought that John 13:1, 2, confirms this by the words, "before the feast of the passover.... and supper being ended." But this is not satisfactory, for the other gospels say that our Lord did not partake of the passover till the first day of unleavened bread had come. Mark adds that the day was "when they killed the passover," and Luke " when the passover must he killed." Both Matthew and Mark show that when the right day had come the disciples asked where they should prepare the passover. John 13:1 may simply mean " before eating the passover." Besides, the paschal lambs had to be slain at the sanctuary (Deut. 16:5,6): would the priests have sanctioned this on any other day? We must search for a better explanation than this.
2. It has been supposed that our Lord partook of the passover at the usual time, but that the rulers had been so occupied with arresting and trying our Lord that they had neglected to eat the paschal lamb, and would do it the next evening. This is possible, but it is hardly probable that they would so gravely break the law; and this would not remove the difficulty of John 19:14, which speaks of the day being "the preparation of the passover."
3. If it is clear from the first three gospels that our Lord ate the passover on the appointed day, how are the statements in the Gospel of John to be understood? It must be observed that though the lamb was eaten in one night, the paschal feast lasted the 15th Nizan there were the universal free-will offerings. For the feast bullocks were offered, and these were also called the pass-over: thus in Deut. 16:2 we read, " Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there." (See also 2 Chron. 35:6-14.) So that when the rulers said they would not be defiled that they might eat the passover, they may have meant that they might go on keeping the feast. Lightfoot judges that their language implies that they had eaten the passover, for their defilement would have lasted only to sunset, and then they would have been clean. The term " the preparation of the passover" may mean the preparation of the passover offerings or the paschal sabbath. The name for Friday was παρασκευή"preparation day," and it is so used in John 19:31.
4. Others believe that there is testimony that at the time of our Lord there were two recognized (or rather allowed) times for eating the passover, namely, one at the beginning of the 14th Nizan, and the other at the close of the same day, and each may have been adopted by one of the two great sects. This would at once remove the difficulty, if Matthew and Mark referred to when our Lord ate the pass-over at the beginning of the day, and John to when the rulers intended to eat it at the end of the day.
By our Lord eating the passover on the evening of the 14th Nizan (at the beginning of the day) He also suffered on the same day, in the morning. This has led some to suppose that the injunction to kill the passover " between the two evenings" (Ex. 12:6 margin) embraces 24 hours. But none of it was to be left till the morning, so that the expression cannot mean this. Besides, the daily evening lamb was also to be killed between the two evenings, and the same expression is used for lighting the evening lamps. (Ex. 29:39;30. 8.) The Jews are not agreed as to what is meant by " between the two evenings." Some say it refers to the time when the sun begins to decline, perhaps from three o'clock to sunset; others refer it to the time between sunset and darkness.
Judas Present at the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18; Luke 22:21).
The pointing out Judas as the betrayer appears in Matthew and Mark to be before the Lord's supper; but in Luke it is placed after it.
It is clear that all the accounts cannot be chronologically arranged. The account in John 13 helps to clear up the question. When our Lord had spoken of being betrayed, He was asked in a low voice by John, who was nearest, to whom He referred. He said to John (not to all) that it was the one to whom He would give a sop. He gave the sop to Judas, and it is added, " He then having received the sop, went immediately out, and it was night." (Ver. 30.) Now the sop, or morsel, had reference to the paschal supper, and Judas went out immediately after receiving it. He could not therefore have been present at the Lord's supper. Luke has placed the incidents in moral succession; chap. 22:19, 20, should be read as in a parenthesis, intercalated in the midst of what refers to the passover feast.
The Prophecy of Jeremy (Matt. 27:9,10).
This is not found in Jeremiah, but something similar is found in Zech. 11:12,13. Did Matthew, then, make a mistake?
There is no proof of any mistake. We cannot suppose that all the prophecies of each prophet are recorded; and here it is what Jeremiah spoke, and not what he had written. Jeremiah may have spoken it, and Zechariah committed it to writing. It is also recorded by the Jewish writers that anciently Jeremiah was placed first in the Book of the Prophets: thus, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve minor prophets. Thus Jeremiah may have been a sort of heading for the whole. Zechariah, though quoted, is never named in the New Testament.
The End of Judas.
In Matt. 27:5 we read that Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, "and went and hanged himself." In Acts 1:18 it is said, "This man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
He may have hanged himself on some high tree, and then by the rope or the branch of the tree breaking, he fell down and was dashed to pieces. Matthew merely relates the remorse and suicide of Judas; Luke, the end of the tragedy. Acts 1:18 says he purchased a field, which means no more than that he was the cause of a field being purchased, and this would agree with the chief priests buying the potter's field (Matt. 27:6-8) and with Zech. 11:12,13. He did it as it were by proxy, the priests did it for him with his money.
The Denials by Peter.
All the evangelists agree in recording a threefold denial by Peter, but it is alleged that the accounts differ in1, That the first three gospels say that the denials took place in the palace of Caiaphas; whereas John says they were in the house of Annas.2, That some of the accounts say that Peter was standing; others, that he was sitting.3, That those who accuse Peter are not the same in the different accounts.
Those who bring forth the first as a discrepancy, dispute the translation of John 18:24 as in the Authorized Version: " Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest," and say our Lord was sent to Caiaphas after the denials. There is no doubt that it may be translated " sent " or " had sent." But verse 19 says, " The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples; " and Caiaphas, not Annas, was high priest. (Verse 13.) Others suppose that Annas and Caiaphas resided in the same palace, so that the denials may be said to be in the house of either. As to the other points, it must be remembered that there were a number of people together in the said hall or porch, and it is probable that more than one person spoke at each of the denials. What Peter actually said may have been more than is recorded, for we read that he began to curse and to swear. It may be that he actually denied oftener than three times, but three denials are recorded, as giving full testimony to Peter's weakness. So that all the accounts are doubtless strictly accurate.
Bearing the Cross of Jesus.
In John 19:17 we read: " He bearing his cross went forth." In the other gospels it is said they compelled one Simon a Cyrenian to bear the cross of our Lord.
It was usual to compel the condemned to bear their own cross, and our Lord went forth bearing His cross, but for some reason Simon was compelled to carry it the rest of the way.
The Drink Given to Our Lord.
In Matt. 27:34 it is vinegar mingled with gall, but in Mark 15:23 it is wine mingled with myrrh.
The "vinegar" and "wine" may well mean the same. It was the common sour wine that the Roman soldiers drank. The word for "gall" is χολή, and may have been used by Matthew to signify something bitter without meaning to specify what it was. The word is used in the LXX. in Deut. 32:32, " Their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter;" in Prov. 5:4 and Jer. 9:15 it is used for "wormwood." Therefore while Mark names the article mingled with the wine, Matthew indefinitely refers to it as something bitter. It was usual to give such a mixture to criminals to stupefy them: but our Lord would not drink it. The above passages have been thought to clash with Psa. 69:2;1, where our Lord says, "They gave me also gall for my meat: and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," as representing their ill-treatment of Him, whereas the above, and also the vinegar given when our Lord said " I thirst '' (John 19:28) were offered Him with no ill-feeling, but rather the reverse. But there is another passage that has often been overlooked (Luke 23:36) where vinegar was offered to Him by the soldiers in mockery, and which exactly agrees with the Psalm, and gall may also have been given to Him out of hatred, though it is not recorded in the gospels.
the Hour of the Crucifixion.
In John 19:14 the trial of our Lord is represented as still going on at about the sixth hour; whereas in Mark 15:25 we read " it was the third hour and they crucified him." And both Mark (15:33) and Luke (23:44) speak of there being darkness over the land from the sixth to the ninth hour, and this was after our Lord had been on the cross some time.
There can be little doubt that John used the Roman mode of reckoning the hours, commencing at midnight, and that the sixth hour refers to our six o'clock; and this agrees with all other references as to time. The council met " as soon as it was day " (Luke 22:66); and it was " early " when Jesus was brought before Pilate. (John 18:28.) The trial was proceeding at our six o clock, and the crucifixion would be at nine o'clock. For the other instances in John see The Seasons and Divisions of Time.
Three Days and Three Nights (Matt. 12:40; Mark 8: 31.)
Our Lord was really in the tomb two nights and parts of three days. By a common mode of reckoning among the Jews, a part of a day was always counted as a day, so that the above would be called by them " three days." The " three nights " may seem a greater difficulty, but the Greeks used a compound term for " day and night " in one word (νυχθήμερον), and though this word is not actually employed by the evangelists, the same may be embraced, and any period covering parts of three days may be called three days and three nights. Reference may be made to Esther 4:16, where Esther tells the Jews to " neither eat nor drink three days, night or day," which may well be taken to mean three days and three nights; but in chapter v. 1, the end of the fasting was on the third day, which could have included only two nights and three days. In Mark it is " after three days." But with the Jews this meant the same thing, as may be seen by the Jews saying to Pilate that Jesus had said that He would rise " after three days," but they did not request a watch for four days, but simply " till the third day."
The Inscription on the Cross (Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19).
The inscriptions are said not to agree. The words are not exactly the same in the four Gospels.
The inscription was written in three languages, and may not have been exactly the same in the three; and if they were, the evangelists may not have intended to give all the words, but the substance of the inscription only. They stand thus:
Notice also that Matthew calls it " his accusation "; Mark and Luke " superscription "; and John "a title."
Events Connected With the Resurrection
Various discrepancies are said to be in the accounts respecting the resurrection in the several gospels, such as differences in the times mentioned when the women visited the sepulcher; the number and names of the women; the appearance of the angel or angels; and as to whom Christ first appeared.
It is well to notice that in some places " women " are mentioned without saying who they were, and it is perhaps best not to attempt to say who they were: we can easily suppose that there was more than one party that visited the sepulcher. Some we know were from Galilee. (Matt. 27:55; Luke 23:49,55.)
The events probably followed somewhat thus: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (of Joses) saw where the body was laid. (Matt. 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55.) Some women returned, and prepared spices on Friday evening. (Luke 23:56.) Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary at the close of the sabbath (Saturday evening) come to observe the sepulcher (Matt. 28:1), and return and finish their preparations, buying sweet spices. (Mark 16:1.) Early on Sunday morning is the resurrection, the earthquake, and the removal of the stone. While yet dark, Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher, and ran and told Peter and John that the body of the Lord had been taken away. (John 20 1, 2.) Very early women enter the sepulcher. They are told by angels that the Lord is risen, and they are sent to tell the apostles (Matt. 28:5-7), disconnected from verse 1; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-10). Peter and John go to the sepulcher. (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10.) Mary followed them, and stayed at the sepulcher: two angels appear and speak to her. Jesus makes Himself known to her first, and she is sent with a message to His " brethren.' (John 20:11-18; Mark 19:9-11.) She is not allowed to touch Him. Jesus meets other women, who hold Him by the feet and worship Him. (Matt. 28:9.) The varied visits to the tomb are just what might be expected, when the news was brought that the tomb was empty. The words of Mary, They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him," may have been the devout thought of many.
Stephen's Address.
Various discrepancies are said to exist in Stephen's address, and some Christians are content to say that, while, no doubt, Luke gave an accurate report, scripture does not say that Stephen was inspired. It does not; but it does say that, in his addresses to the Jews, they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spake (Acts 6:10), and twice is it said that he was full of the Holy Ghost, and his face was as the face of an angel. Besides, there was the special promise of God that, when His disciples should be brought before rulers, the Holy Spirit should teach them what they should say; yea, the Spirit should speak in them. (Matt. 10:19; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11) We must believe, therefore, that Stephen made no mistakes. Let us examine those that are alleged.
(1.) That Abraham received his call in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:4); but in Gen. 12:1, he received it at Haran.
It does not say in Genesis that the call was in Haran: but that the Lord had said to Abraham, Get thee out of thy country; and several passages declare that God brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. (Gen. 15:7, &c.) It appears that Abraham started to obey the Lord, but stopped short with his father in Haran till his father died. In fact, it was Terah and not Abram who was leader of the expedition. (Gen. 11:31.)
(2.) When his Father was Dead. -This is said to be inconsistent with Gen. 11:26,32;12: 4. "Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Terah lived to the age of two hundred and five years. Abram left Haran when he was seventy-five. If Abram was Terah's first-born, 70 + 75 = 145, not 205 years; but it is not said that Abram was Terah's first-born: he may have been named first because of his importance. The three sons would not have been born in one year-the year named. Terah might have been 130 when Abram was born, but this would have been an old age, for Abram thought it extraordinary he should have his son Isaac when he was 99. But still, Isaac married Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor, by the youngest son of eight. (Gen. 22:22.) There is another explanation. Abram was told to leave not only his country, but his kindred and his father's house; and Gen. 12:4 may mean that he left Haran for a time only, without entirely breaking away from his father's house until his death, though we do not read of any return to Haran.
(3.) Four Hundred Years (ver. 6).-This period applies to the beginning of the verse as well as the end, that is to the sojourn and to the bondage. It was spoken to Abraham as to his seed (Gen. 15:13), and if we start from the birth of Isaac it stands thus:-
(4.) Seventy-five Souls (ver 14).-Said to clash with Gen. 46:27, which says "seventy." In verse 14 it is, " Jacob, and all his kindred; three score and fifteen souls." The number given being not what Joseph called into Egypt, but " Jacob and all his kindred," and this would include the descendants of Joseph born in Egypt before the Exodus,
(See Num. 26:28-37; 1 Chron. 7:14-20.) In Gen. 46:27 it is, those that " came with Jacob into Egypt " including his sons' wives, 70 souls, which does not include those born in Egypt after Jacob came. In the LXX. it reads, " But the sons of Joseph who were with him in Egypt, were nine souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob which came with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five souls." That is, nine are added to the 66 of verse 26, making in all 75 souls.
(5.) Abraham's Sepulcher at Sychem (ver. 16) and who were buried there.-Said to clash with Genesis, in (10 That Jacob was not buried in Sychem, but at Machpelah. But verse 16 does not say that Jacob was buried at Sychem, but that the " fathers " were. Joseph was buried at Sychem, and doubtless others. Stephen was addressing an audience that was familiar with Old Testament history, and did not stop to give any of the detail but what was needed for his arguments. 2, That the sepulcher at Sychem was not bought by Abraham, hut by Jacob of sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. (Gen. 33:19; josh. 24:32.) The first of these passages does not say that the ground was bought for a sepulcher (though Joseph was afterward buried there), but a place for Jacob to pitch his tent in, and where he could erect an altar. Now, if Jacob did this, why not Abraham also, for he also came to Sychem and built an altar there? This is the more probable, because " the Canaanite was still in the land." (Gen. 12:6,7.) If this was so, as there was a long period between Abraham and Jacob, the Emmor of the Acts must have been a different person from the Hamor of Genesis.
Bengel paraphrases the passage thus: " Jacob died and our fathers (namely Joseph): and (because, after the example of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, they wished to rest in the land of promise [Gen. 50:13,25] for this reason) they were carried over into Sychem or Shechem (and into the sepulcher of Hebron [Gen. 23:19]) and were laid (in `the parcel of ground' at Shechem [Josh. 24:32] and) in the sepulcher (of Hebron), which Abraham had bought (and Jacob) for a price in money (and a hundred lambs) from the sons of Emmor (the father), of Sychem or Shechem (and from Ephron)." He believes that two well-known histories are intertwined, the audience of Stephen knowing well what was meant. " The brevity which was best suited to the ardor of the Spirit gave Stephen just occasion, in the case of a fact so well known, to compress these details in the way he has done."
(6.) Beyond Babylon (Acts 7:43).-In Amos 5:27, it is " beyond Damascus." This is judged to have been an error of Stephen's.
Stephen does not say that he is quoting Amos; but is thus free to quote from any of the prophets what was said concerning the captivity referred to. In 2 Chron. 36:20 and Jer. 20:4, Babylon is named. Babylon must have fallen with great weight on the ears of his audience, who would naturally have expected to have heard the word Damascus. It is worthy of note too, that the same word (μετοικζω) is used in verse 4 for Abraham's removing from Chaldea, as is used in verse 43 for their being carried away beyond Babylon.
Four Hundred and Fifty Years (Acts 13:20)
for the time of the Judges clashes with 1 Kings 6:1, which gives 480 years from the Exodus to the fourth year of Solomon's reign.
Most editors transpose the sentence in the Acts, and then it reads, " He divided to them their lot, about four hundred and fifty years; and afterward he gave them judges." This removes the difficulty.
The Number Which Died of the Plague (1 Cor. 10:8).
This is said to clash with Num. 25:9.
In Corinthians it says, the twenty-three thousand died in one day: in Numbers, it is died of the plague in toto.
To have a firm confidence in the inspiration of the scripture is a wonderful help to surmount any difficulties that may arise in reading the word. Those who do not believe in plenary inspiration are apt to declare every apparent discrepancy to be an error, and therefore irreconcilable: whereas a believer in inspiration banishes the thought of there being errors, and returns again and again to a difficulty, and looks to God for wisdom to solve it; and if we are willing to be taught, He graciously giveth wisdom liberally, and upbraideth not.