Some weeks ago I received a request from a highly respected brother to explain the apparent discrepancy involved in Paul's statement (Gal. 3:17) of the time between the covenant and the law. I replied that it was my intention to speak of it in connection with Professor Briggs' defense before the New York Presbytery, and that I would do so as soon as some matters in regard to the Old Testament which I had on hand were disposed of. I now fulfill that promise. [43]

      In his attempt to justify his denial of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, Professor Briggs brought forward this alleged example of error with great confidence. He stated the case in the following terms:

      The Epistle to the Galatians contains a serious chronological error, according to the opinion of most scholars. "Now this I say: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect" (Gal. 3:17).

      This four hundred and thirty years from the promise to Abraham until the law-giving, is in accordance with the four hundred years of the prediction in Gen. 15:13, and Acts 7:6; but it is contrary to the narrative (Ex. 12: 40), which gives the sojourn in Egypt as four hundred and thirty years. However, the LXX. version, by an insertion in the text, overcomes the difficulty; but this text is not accepted by the best criticism. This difference in chronology involves an error either on one side or the other. Dillmann shows that the genealogical tables are also widely discrepant in the number of generations during the period from the descent into Egypt until the law-giving. The general opinion is that the four hundred and thirty is correct and that Stephen and Paul are in error.

      The Professor had no occasion to bring the statements of Stephen and of Gen. 15:13 into the account; for they do not stand on the same footing with that made by Paul. If the figures of Ex. 12:40 are exact, then these two are sufficiently so as general statements. That is, if the actual time of the sojourn in Egypt is four hundred and thirty years, it was perfectly legitimate in prediction to use round figures and call it four hundred years, as is done in Genesis; and it was equally legitimate in Stephen's speech. Paul's statement alone is in question, and the mention of the other passages in this connection is calculated only to confuse readers who are not accurately informed.

      The Professor betrays a knowledge of the true [44] explanation of this matter by what he says of the LXX. version, yet what he says about it is misleading. He says: "The LXX. version, by an insertion in the text, overcomes the difficulty; but this text is not accepted by the best criticism." The insertion referred to, instead of overcoming the difficulty, as is here asserted, is really the occasion of it; and the question, whether this insertion is accepted by the best criticism, has nothing to do with the matter in hand. The facts in the case are these. The Hebrew text of Ex. 12:40 reads thus: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." The text of the LXX. reads thus: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." The latter statement, naturally interpreted as including among the people designated their fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, means that it was four hundred and thirty years from the entrance of Abraham into Canaan till the giving of the law, which occurred in the same year with the departure from Egypt. This is the interpretation which was actually accepted by many of the older modern commentators, and they construed the figures in Genesis and in Acts accordingly.

      Now, when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, and all through the period of New Testament literature, the version of the LXX. was the Bible of the whole Jewish and Christian world. It was the only Bible read by Gentiles, and it was the only one read by Jews, except the few who were educated in Hebrew, then a dead language, as it is this day. It is highly probable that Paul was the only one of the twelve apostles who had been educated in Hebrew, and could read with fluency the Hebrew Bible. This must naturally have led him [45] to read it but little; for he would naturally read chiefly for his own edification the version which he was compelled to read when he read to his brethren. It is due to this fact that much the greater portion of the quotations in the New Testament from the Old are taken from this version, as is proved by their agreeing verbally more closely with it than with the Hebrew. There was almost a necessity laid on the apostles to thus quote the Scriptures; for they were engaged in constant controversy with the Jews, and any serious departure, or any departure from this text which could be used to their apparent advantage in controversy, was to be avoided. Men of mature years now living can remember when we were similarly situated with regard to the English version then used universally in this country and by many regarded as the original word of God. If we departed from its text in any particular, we were liable to be severely criticized. In consequence of this state of things, Paul, in the passage under discussion, took the figures of the Septuagint, as he had always read them, and as they were read by friends and foes alike; and it is not at all probable, I think, that he had ever noticed the difference between them and those in the Hebrew. Even if he had, he had not been able, unless a special revelation had made him so, to decide absolutely which text was correct; that is, to determine whether the LXX. had interpolated the text in translating it, or the Hebrew text had been altered since the version of the LXX. was made. Had he followed the Hebrew text, any one of his readers whose only Bible was the Greek, might have supposed that he had committed an error, and undesirable controversy might have been the result--a controversy for which the scholars of that age were ill prepared. [46]

      This is undoubtedly the true explanation of the matter, so far as it goes; but the question whether an error was committed, is not yet reached. Did Paul, in thus quoting figures from the Septuagint which disagree with those in the Hebrew text, commit an error in chronology? Grant that the Septuagint version is incorrect, and how is it with Paul? If it had been the purpose of the latter to state the exact period between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law, he would certainly have committed an error; for the real time included is nearer six hundred years than four hundred and thirty. But was this his purpose? Is this what he was aiming at? His real aim is to show that the giving of the law could not make the covenant of no effect, seeing that it came a long time after the covenant was confirmed; and he says that it came four hundred and thirty years after. This is strictly true, though only a part of the truth. It is the very time which the common readers of the Greek text supposed to be the exact time, and it was long enough to answer the purpose of Paul's argument. If he had said four hundred, or three hundred, years, this would also have been true, and would have suited his argument; and his only reason for fixing upon four hundred and thirty is, that these figures were found in the text commonly read. The difficulty is overcome, then, to use Professor Briggs' phraseology, by finding that Paul was not aiming to give the exact time between the two events, but simply to show by the evidence of the common version of the Scriptures that the one came long enough after the other to serve the purpose of his argument. He is guilty, then, of no error, either in thought or in word, although he makes use of figures which were, I doubt not, mistakenly used by the translators of the Greek version. It is a case like this: I [47] say in conversation that I have not seen a certain man for twenty years. It is discovered afterward that the exact time since I saw him was thirty years. Who would think of charging me with an error? There ought to be no need of all this argumentation to correct such a man as Professor Briggs; for if he were half as solicitous for the vindication of the truthfulness of the Bible as he is for the establishment of his false theory respecting it, he could and would have given the same explanation, and perhaps he would have given it more force than I have, or can.

      I must not pass by without notice what the Professor says about the genealogical tables. His statement that Dillmann has showed that these tables are widely discrepant in the number of generations during the period between the migration into Egypt and the exode, is not strictly correct. There is no discrepancy, and consequently, though I have not seen the work of Dillmann, to which he refers, I can safely call in question the assertion. The genealogy is incomplete, several names having been omitted from the list of the ancestors of Moses and Aaron in Ex. 6:16-20, as in Matthew's genealogy of our Lord, and in Ezra's genealogy of himself; but these involve neither a discrepancy nor a mistake. Here, again, I venture the opinion that Professor Briggs is well enough posted to easily defend the Bible against this charge, if a defense of its truthfulness had been the purpose before him.

      In conclusion, I will say, as I have often said, that when an error of any kind is clearly proved against any writer in the Bible, I will admit it, and let it modify as much as it must my view of the book in which it is found; but I am not ready to admit the existence of errors in any book because of the possibility that there [48] may be some, or because of some theory of inspiration which is consistent with their existence. Show me an error which is not fairly accounted for as the work of an interpolator, copyist or editor, and I will modify my conception of inspiration in accordance with the fact; but do not ask me to admit some loose theory of inspiration in order to account for errors whose existence I am required to admit without evidence.

[SEBC 43-49]