Page images
PDF
EPUB

As one of the most instructive examples, we may turn our attention to the first chapter of Matthew, where, in the first verse, Christ is called in the same breath "the son of David" and "the son of Abraham," after which the complete list is seemingly given in close column, extending from Abraham down. But it is noticeable that the names are divided into three groups of fourteen each. To bring them within the limits of these exact numbers, however, we find that three names are omitted in verse 8. It is said that "Joram begat Ozias" (Uzziah), when we know from the book of Kings that three names have been omitted-Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; while again, in verse II, Jehoiakim is omitted after Josiah.

What now is it reasonable to conclude from these passages? Shall we say that the writer of this chapter did not know of the existence of those links which he dropped out? Certainly not, for this is the Gospel that was written by a Hebrew, and both he and his readers had ready access to, and were devoted believers in, the Old Testament, and they were surrounded by Jewish opponents who would readily find fault with any serious misuse of it. The only explanation, therefore, is that all were so familiar with the use of genealogies to indicate simply lines of descent, without any reference to chronology, that nobody thought of raising any question concerning such use. Interpreters, therefore, should learn from this passage to be on their guard against making chronological use of similar tables in other portions of Jewish literature.

I

Turning to the Old Testament, itself, we notice, among others, one of the clearest examples in 1 Chron. xxvi. 24, where we read that "Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures," and again in 1 Chron. xxiii. 15, 16, we read that "the sons of Moses were Gershom and Eleazer. Of the sons of Gershom Shebuel was the chief." But Shebuel was appointed over the treasury

by David four hundred years after the time of Moses; so that six or seven generations must have intervened between Gershom and Shebuel. Still, notwithstanding this, the identical term is used twice over in expressing the relation between Moses and Gershom, that is used in expressing that between Gershom and Shebuel. Again, in Ezra vii. 1-5, the writer of this book, doubtless with full knowledge of what was written in the Chronicles before him, gives Ezra's genealogy in the line of Aaron, but in the table skips from Meraioth to Azariah, omitting six names which appear in the parallel passage in 1 Chron. vi. 3-14. Here, again, it would be absurd to suppose that such omissions were made through ignorance, since they created no disturbance in the minds of the Jews in general who read them. They simply illustrate what were the familiar usages of speech among the Jews.

And so we might go on enumerating a dozen other instances in which similar free use is made of genealogical tables where it is clear that the chronological questions connected with them are not taken into account in the least. The condensation of genealogical tables was with the Jews the rule, and not the exception. Manifestly they were used as we may use the phrase "sons of the Pilgrims," where everything but the line of descent is left out of view. Until, with Professor Green, one takes pains to go through the long list of genealogies abbreviated in the same manner in the Old Testament, he cannot have any proper conception of how frequent this use is, and how clear the point we are making appears from the facts.

In Professor Green's discussion he goes on farther to show, that not only is there no difficulty in supposing that the genealogical tables in Gen. v. and xi. are abbreviated, but that there are many special reasons in the tables themselves and in the contexts in which they occur, to show that this is really the case. In the first place, a strict lit

eral interpretation of the first genealogical table (v. 3) might naturally lead us to infer that Seth was Adam's first child. The only way in which we find out that he was not, is from the history of Cain and Abel and the mention of a wife to Cain in the preceding chapter.

Secondly, no chronology is ever deduced from these tables by the sacred writers. "There is no computation anywhere in the Scriptures of the time that elapsed from the creation or from the Deluge, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the Exodus (Ex. xii. 40), or from the Exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kings vi. 1).” At the same time, the prominence given to the length of the individual lives after the birth of the son mentioned shows that something else than chronology was what the writer wished to impress upon the reader.

Thirdly, in the convincing words of Professor Green,

"The structure of the genealogies in Gen. v. and xi. also favors the belief that they do not register all the names in these respective lines of descent. Their regularity seems to indicate intentional arrangement. Each genealogy includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah. And each ends with a father having three sons, as is likewise the case with the Cainite genealogy (iv. 17-22). The Sethite genealogy (chap. v.) culminates in its seventh member, Enoch, who walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.' The Cainite genealogy also culminates in its seventh member, Lamech, with his polygamy, bloody revenge, and boastful arrogance. The genealogy descending from Shem divides evenly at its fifth member, Peleg; and in his days was the earth divided.' Now as the adjustment of the genealogy in Matthew i. into three periods of fourteen generations each, is brought about by dropping the requisite number of names, it seems in the highest degree probable that the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is artificial rather than natural. It is much more likely that this definite number of names fitting into a regular scheme has been selected as sufficiently representing the periods to which they belong, than that all these striking numerical coincidences should have happened to occur in these successive instances."

"The notion of basing a chronological computation upon these genealogies is, therefore, a fundamental mistake. It is putting them to a purpose that they were not designed to subserve, and to which from the method of their construction they were not adapted. But, when it is

said, for example, that 'Enosh lived ninety years and begat Kenan,' the well-established usage of the word 'begat' makes his statement equally true and equally accordant with analogy, whether Kenan was an immediate or a remote descendant of Enosh; whether Kenan was himself born, when Enosh was ninety years of age, or one was born from whom Kenan sprang."

In other words, Kenan may simply have been a remote descendant of the branch which put off from the line of Enosh in the ninetieth year.

"We conclude, therefore [says Professor Green], that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world." "If, therefore [he goes on to say], any really trustworthy data can be gathered from any source whatever, which can be brought into comparison with these genealogies for the sake of determining the question, whether they have noted every link in the chain of descent, or whether, as in other manifest instances, links have been omitted, such data should be welcomed and the comparison fearlessly made. Science would simply perform the office, in this instance, which information gathered from other parts of Scripture is unhesitatingly allowed to do in regard to those genealogies previously examined."

Whereupon he goes on to give reasons, from archæology and from the narrative in Genesis itself, going to show that the Flood was much earlier than would appear from the chronology ordinarily obtained from the scriptural language.

After this much of attention to preliminary questions relating to the proper understanding of the biblical account, we will turn, in following numbers, to consider the vast amount of evidence which has recently come to light showing (1st) that there has been a period of instability of the earth's crust extending down to comparatively recent times, which, from a scientific point of view, renders the scriptural account of the Flood easily credible; (2d) that there is much positive geological evidence that some such wide-spread catastrophe has actually occurred since man came into the world.

ARTICLE VI.

THE STEEL STRIKE.

BY PROFESSOR ERNEST LUDLOW BOGART, PH.D.

II.

CONCLUSIONS.

THE history of the steel strike has already been narrated; it is proposed in this article to consider briefly the mistakes which marked this strike, and its effect upon the cause of trade-unionism. And, first, the conclusion is irresistible, even after the briefest survey, that the steel strike was unwisely inaugurated and badly managed. The men were throughout peaceful and orderly, and, in general, obedient to the commands of the leaders. The mistakes that were made were those of leadership. Mr. Shaffer vastly over-estimated the strength of the Amalgamated Association, and under-estimated the power of resistance of the Steel Corporation. He, in common with many other labor leaders, did not appreciate that, while an employer is in a relatively weaker position than the laborers before a strike, and can often be forced to large concessions by fear of a strike; yet, when once the struggle is begun, the capitalist can hold out much longer than the laborer. As a matter of fact the Steel Corporation claimed that it lost but little, if anything, by reason of the strike, for it gave them an opportunity to make needed improvements in the closed mills, while the orders were transferred, as far as possible, to the non-union mills which continued in operation.

1 In the Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1902.

2 Cf. Talcott Williams, "The Steel Strike," Review of Reviews, Aug., 1901.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »