BISHOP COLENSO'S DIFFICULTIES:

Not new;

Not formidable;

Derive their interest from the position of the propounder.

PAGE 57

a. On a statement of the Bishop's opinion
Not found in the Text,

Not implied in the Text,

Not warranted by the usus loquendi.

b. On a miscalculation of Judah's age.

c. On a positive misquotation of Scripture.

2.

As to the sacred shekel.

3.

4.

5.

6.

This too, depends entirely on a misquotation.

The Priests' duties. To sustain this objection, the Bishop
a. Violates the canon 'qui facit per

usage of the

c. Contradicts the express letter of the

Hebrew Text.

d. Disregards the usage elsewhere; and

e. The impersonal rendering of the Ver

sions.

Their "perquisites." Objection: What could they do with
them?

Answer: How were they to get them? For

a. Even those which were obligatory were not offered:
b. They could not be encumbered with "flour" when they
had nothing but manna:

c. Nor could they eat 88 pigeons a-day when not a single
pigeon was to be had.

a. The Law was intended for the wilderness, says the objector:
But the Lawgiver says the contrary-at least five
times over.

b. The Feast of Tabernacles: another instance of the grossest
blundering.

Objection: The Author of "Deuteronomy" cannot be the

same as the Author of "Numbers." For the interval
in the change of style is one of "a few days or weeks
at most."

Answer: The interval is one of nearly thirty-nine years.

c. Refutation of his assertion of the meaning of Succah (booth).

xi

PAGE 74

3.

4.

Their canonicity.

Abandonment of the Straussian attacks upon the Gospels, in

favour of the attack on the unity of the Pentateuch.

The Divine Names: Jehovah-Elohim.

a. They present no such distinctions as would be required to
support the theory of disintegration.

b. Even if they did, their character as Inspired Scripture
would remain unchanged.

c. As actually found however, they possess an instructive
significance, such that

d. The widest apparent diversity serves but to demonstrate
the reality of the actual unity.

87

5.

6.

7.

Next-in severity and importance-to the attacks on the
Pentateuch, have been those on the genuineness, the
authenticity, and the canonicity of Daniel.

a. And not without reason: For the authority of this book is
fatal to the very existence of infidelity.

b. Detailed examination of objections:

Demonstration of their futility:

The positive evidence, conclusive and irrefragable.
The Apocrypha, no part of Scripture.

Canonicity of New Testament writings indisputable.

a. Genuineness of those that once were doubted.

b. Origin and extent of such doubts.

c. E. g., The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
d. As in the Old Testament, so in the New, the inspiration of
the canonical writings receives further and conclusive
demonstration from a comparison with those that are
apocryphal.

2.

3.

PAGE 126

The evidence adduced: by which it is proved that in the first
century of the Christian era (and in the case of the
Old Testament, at least two centuries earlier,) there
existed and were known throughout tho Roman world,
books called the Sacred Scriptures, written by inspired
men, and that THE PRESENT TEXT OF THE BIBLE IS

IDENTICAL WITH THE TEXT WHICH THOSE BOOKS CONTAINED.

This conclusion not affected by a comparison of various readings.

c. The supernaturalism of the subject.

E. g., Shakspeare. Eschylus. Dante. The Vedas. The

Koran.

3.

I. 1.

2.

3.

4.

OF CONTENTS.

But the true method-neither arbitrary nor uncertain-can
result only from the recognition of established and
invariable principles.

SECTION II. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

Figurative language not peculiar to the Bible.

The language of nature is the language of figure.

The significance of single words.

The figurativeness of their simplest combinations.
First Rule: Ascertain the general usage.

xiii

PAGE 151

The figurative must be interpreted by the literal: not the
literal by the figurative.

Idiomatic expressions: e. g.,-

To hate to love less.

Son any descendant; and father any ancestor.

Brother any collateral relation.

The use of the future for the imperative.

Semi-Hebraisms:

a. As to numbers;

b. As to names; Of Persons; Of Places.

The illustrative significance of proper names.

II. Second Rule: Ascertain the sense of the general usage in that

1.

2.

3.

particular connection.

For the same word has often (in different connections) a diver-
sity of senses so great as to amount almost to opposition.

But this is no peculiarity of Biblical language;

It is a natural consequence of the growth of the derived

signification from the original.

III. Third Rule: Compare Scripture with Scripture.

4. The neglect of this principle is the most fruitful source of
error; while its observance is the surest guide to truth.

IV. Parables and Allegories:

1. Must be interpreted so that the minor details shall subserve

2.

3.

4.

5.

the general design;

And yet not be systematically overlooked.

Are potent for illustration, but not for argument.

Types: Bp. Marsh's definition.

Fanciful interpretations are the result of the neglect of these

rules: