chronology of the strictly historical period he is occasionally inaccurate.”—The Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition, Volume 7, page 245.

Then there is Plutarch (c. 46-c. 120 C.E.). “Much has been said of Plutarch’s inaccuracy; and it cannot be denied that he is careless about numbers and occasionally contradicts his own statements.” (Plutarch’s Lives, Introduction, by translator and reviser A. H. Clough, page xviii) He wrote about Themistocles and his times, as well as about other distinguished Greeks and Romans.

As to Livy, a Roman historian who died in the year 17 C.E., it appears that most of his historical works have come down to us only in quotations and epitomes by later writers. Says W. Lucas Collins, M.A., one of his translators: “Unhappily, the lost portion, as containing the later and more authentic history of the Roman people, and more especially of the period with which the writer was contemporaneous, is what we should have most wished to see.” As was customary in his time, Livy introduced into his narration the then-existing traditions.

These first-century historians, we must remember, had to depend upon earlier sources for data relating to the period of the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian monarchies. Some of those sources, we have already learned, were marred by carelessness and chronological inaccuracies. And besides, the process of copying from ancient records introduces additional uncertainty.

It follows, therefore, that the later “classical” historians can produce no stronger case against the Bible count of time than their predecessors of the fifth century B.C.E. Indeed, few of those “classical” writers, early or late, displayed any great concern about accuracy in keeping records of time. They afford modern readers a wealth of information on events, customs and philosophies of their times—valuable background information. For the most part, however, they seem to have paid minor attention to accurate dating.

REFERENCES

¹ The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, Volume 28, page 886.

² Ibid., 9th edition, Volume 24, page 721.

³ Ibid., 9th edition, Volume 6, page 599.

⁴ Ibid., 11th edition, Volume 26, page 894.

Questions From Readers

● Can a woman who has had a stillborn child reasonably expect the baby to be resurrected if she is faithful to God?—J. R., England.

Let us say at the outset that we sincerely sympathize with women who have had such an experience. We realize that it is a very sad event, and it once again underscores our need for God’s new order where “death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be any more.” (Rev. 21:4) Only then will such tragic results of human imperfection be eliminated.

When a woman conceives, an ovum being fertilized by a male sperm, life is passed on. According to God’s view, the living embryo or fetus in the womb is considered a soul, and, under normal circumstances, it will in time be a separate individual before God. According to the Mosaic law, if a man damaged a woman, causing her to lose the child developing in her womb, the punishment was “soul for soul.” (Ex. 21:22, 23) It is for this reason that, from a Biblical standpoint, willful abortion is murder.—Ex. 20:13; 1 Pet. 4:15.

In some cases, though, sickness or accident kills the developing embryo or fetus before it grows to full term and is born. While the immediate causes for such miscarriages and stillbirths