accounts refer to the same transaction. They are put down in the history, as two different events; and as such there is no contradiction. We can not allow an author to make contradictions, and then expect us to explain them. 4. On one occasion, David flees to Achish, king of Gath; and wishing to remain without being known, he feigns insanity; but being suspected, he is sent away. On another occasion, he goes to the same king, in his own proper character, and is kindly received.. One of these records, says De Wette, excludes the other. I Sam. xxi. 10; xxvii. 2.

Explanation. One of these records does, by no means, exclude the other. In the first instance, David was in doubt whether Achish would receive him; and he put on a disguise, to prevent detection. In the mean time, he satisfies himself that he would be kindly received; and he goes there accordingly.

5. Samuel anoints Saul as king; but at a later period, he is chosen by the people to be king; and at a subsequent period, is again anointed. 1 Sam. ix. 1, to x. 27.

Explanation. It was important that the people should give their sanction to the choice of Saul as King; as in that case they would feel under greater obligation to obey him. The second anointing was as necessary as the first. The one was an initiation service, by the prophet alone, the other an initiation by the people. In the same manner, Solomon was anointed twice; first by the command of David, a few only being present; and on another occasion, in the presence of a vast multitude, attended by magnificent ceremonies, and multitudes of sacrifices. 1 K. i. 32-40; 1 Chron. xxix. 22. Shall we say that one of these passages excludes the other?

6. The death of Samuel is given twice in nearly the same words. 1 Sam. xxv. 1; xxviii. 3.

Explanation. A repetition is not a contradiction. The death and burial of Joshua, we have seen, is twice recorded.

7. The death of Saul is related twice, with variations

and contradictions. 1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6; 8-13; 2 Sam. i. 2-12.

Explanation. One of these passages is the regular account of Saul's death; the other is the story of a selfconstituted messenger, who had his own purposes to accomplish. It is possible both accounts may be true; but there is reason to believe, that one of them is intentionally false. The contradiction is therefore admitted; but it does not affect the integrity of the general history.

We might keep on enumerating many more, just like the foregoing; and they would admit of an equally easy solution; but our space can be better occupied. We have taken the foregoing, in the order of their occurrence; and have not selected those that might seem the easiest. We have not quoted the passages, because they will all be quoted and commented on, in another part of this work, to which the reader is referred. See Index of passages. The instances that are really formidable, and that go far to establish the theory of two documents, as the basis of these books, will now be noticed.

7. Saul is ill. An evil spirit from the Lord has taken possession of him. Other remedies failing, some of his officers recommend music on the harp. David is known to be a fine player, and is sent for. Not only is the result favorable, but Saul becomes attached to David, and insists that he shall leave his home at Bethlehem, and be with him at Gibeah. This proposition is complied with; and David becomes an armor-bearer to the king.

At a subsequent period, according to the record, there is war with the Philistines; and the camp of Israel is not far from Bethlehem. David is now at home, and is sent by his father to the camp, to inquire about his elder brothers, who are in the army, and to carry them some provisions. Arriving at the camp, he learns that Goliath, the Philistine giant, is defying the armies of the liv ing God, and he offers to go and fight him. He is brought to the king, and Saul puts his own armor on him. But he declines the armor, and goes forth to meet

the giant, with simply a sling and a few smooth stones. As he goes forth to fight Goliath, Saul inquires who he is, and puts the inquiry to Abner, his chief captain. He is known to neither; but Abner takes the young man, and brings him to Saul, who, from personal inquiry, learns that he is David, the son of Jesse. 1 Sam. xvi. 14-23; xvii. 55-58.

These are the circumstances; and this is the contradiction.

Explanation. There may be circumstances, of which we are not informed, that would reconcile these passages, if we knew what they were. It is reasonable to conclude, that David did not appear before the king at the camp, precisely as he did at the king's palace. His garments may have been different; and he has changed some since he returned to his father's house. Youths of that age, change greatly, in a few years. Men of mature age would not recognize them, after a brief absence. How often, how long at a time, or under what circumstances, David was present with Saul, can not be known. He may have worn a court dress, or a costume very unlike what he had on at the Hebrew camp.

All these things are pertinent to the question. Again, it is said that Saul put his armor on David. But it does not follow that he did it with his own hands. What is done by the order of the king, is done by the king himself. These considerations go far toward reconciling the two passages. And, as it is not to be presumed that the author or compiler would have put into the history, a real contradiction, we must conclude that some mode of reconciliation was seen. And many circumstances were doubtless known at the time, that are not known to us. The most rational view is, that parts of this history have been misplaced that David's visit to the camp, and his encounter with Goliath, come first in the order of time that his playing on the harp, and becoming armor-bearer to the king, are later.

Many circumstances favor this view, particularly the

fact that he was a mere stripling when he encountered Goliath; and was a valiant man of war, when he became armor bearer. 1 Sam. xvii. 42; xvi. 18. See more on the passages above referred to, as contradictory, in the, next volume.

8. Samuel, it is said, came no more to see Saul to the day of his death, meaning, that he came no more to see him at all. But at a later period, Saul goes to seek Samuel, and is seized with a prophetic spirit, and prophesies before him, all day and night. 1 Sam. xv. 35; xix. 18-24.

Explanation. There is no contradiction. Samuel came no more to see Saul; but Saul went to see him, without invitation or permission.

9. "The statements respecting the occasion of the change, from the government by judges, to that by kings, are at variance; viii. 5, it is because Samuel was old, and his children are not suitable rulers; xii. 12, because the nation is in distress; for Nahash, the king of Ammon, has invaded Judea; while, from xi. 1, we learn this invasion took place after the election of Saul and not before it."

Explanation. This author overlooks the fact that the people could have been influenced by more than one consideration, in desiring a king. It was true that Samuel was old, and that his sons did not judge the people righteously. It was also true, that Nahash was threatening the nation with war. And though the actual attack of Jabesh-Gilead was after Saul was made king, the threatening and the danger existed before, and might well be urged with other reasons for choosing a king at once.

10. In one passage it is said that David slew two hundred of the Philistines to obtain his wife. But in another, David says he obtained her by slaying one hundred. 1 Sam. xviii. 27; 2 Sam. iii. 14.

Explanation. This is no contradiction. David got his wife for slaying one hundred of the Philistines, for that was all that Saul required of him. But he killed

two hundred, which was twice the number stipulated. 1 Sam. xviii. 25.

11. David delivered to the Gibeonites the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, and wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai. But Merab, another daughter of Saul, and not Michal, was the wife of Adriel, and therefore it was her sons, that were delivered to the Gibeonites. Michal was the wife of Phaltiel, and not of Adriel. Hence, it is certain, that some copyist has mistaken one name for the other. 2 Sam. xxi. 8; 1 Sam xviii. 19; xxv. 44.

12. The prayer of Hannah, one of the wives of Elkanah the father of Samuel, is twice or thrice mentioned by De Wette, as unsuited to the circumstances to which it refers; and therefore involving a sort of contradiction. 1 Sam. ii. 1-10. One expression only is considered appropriate, namely, "the barren hath borne seven; and she that hath many children, is waxed feeble. "

We think differently. Hannah was one of two wives. She had no children, while the other wife had several. But she prayed earnestly for a son; and promised to devote him, for the whole of his life, to the Lord. Her prayer was answered; and she had a son, and several other children. The other wife had often taunted her with her barrenness; or as the passage reads, "Her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret. But now it is her turn to exult and provoke. And though she does not allude to the other wife directly, she does it in an obvious and very effective manner.

"

A few expressions will show this. "My heart rejoic eth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord; my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies." Surely that was pertinent to the circumstances. "Talk no more exceeding proudly. Was not that pertinent? Nothing could be "Let not arrogance come out of your mouth.' That is to the point. Ask Peninnah, the other wife. Then the prayer takes a more general turn; but all the while, the idea is kept up, that the Lord smiles upon,

more so.