This explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah, he had to _send for_ Dathan and Abiram, and how next morning he left the central Tabernacle, where the men had assembled to offer incense, (and where they were afterwards destroyed, probably by lightning) and _went unto_ Dathan and Abiram (vv. 8-25). It explains how, later on, the _tents_ of Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned, while that of the leading conspirator, Korah, is strangely omitted. It explains how the _families_ of these two were destroyed, though no mention is made of that of Korah; since the destruction was probably limited to the tents of Dathan and Abiram, who were brothers, and the small tabernacle they had erected alongside, and from which alone the people were told to _depart_ (vv. 26, 27). We may therefore conclude that Korah's _family_ was not destroyed, since their tent was at some distance. And this accounts for what some have thought to be a discrepancy in another passage, where we read that the _sons_ of Korah did not die; as well as for Dathan and Abiram, being mentioned alone later on.[100] In fact, the position of these tents is the key to the whole narrative, though we are left to discover it for ourselves. [Footnote 100: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.] Now if the account is true and written by a contemporary, all is plain; for truth, as said before, is necessarily consistent. But if the story is a late fiction, all this agreement in various places is, to say the least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of fiction _accidentally_ arranging these details in different parts of his book, which fit together so perfectly? Or can we imagine his doing so _intentionally_, and yet never hinting at the agreement himself, but leaving it so unapparent that not one reader in a thousand ever discovers it? This single instance may be taken as a sample of numerous others which have been noticed all through the Old Testament; and they certainly tend to show its accuracy. (2.) _Alleged mistakes._ We pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old Testament, and considering the long period covered, and the variety of subjects dealt with, and often the same subject by various writers, the number of even apparent discrepancies is not very great. And it is beyond dispute that many of these can be explained satisfactorily, and doubtless many others could be so, if our knowledge were more complete. Moreover, they are, as a rule, _numerical_ mistakes, such as the incredibly large numbers in some places,[101] and the rather discordant chronology in Kings and Chronicles. But the former may be due to some error in copying, and the latter to the different ways of counting a king's reign. [Footnote 101: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.]