ff — ( ^ APR 1 1-4^
LETTER ^«'CAL8t^
BISHOP COLENSO,
WHEREIN HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE PENTATEUCH
APvE EXAMINED IN DETAIL.
WITH ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON PART 1 1
BY THE y
REV. WILLIAM H.'llOARE. M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF ST, JOHN's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE \
AUTHOR OF "outlines OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY," "VERACITY OF GENF.SI-
ETC.
TEIRB EDITION.
LONDONT :
RIVINGTONS, WATEELOO PLAOP:.
CAMBKIDGEr-DEIGHTON, BELL. & CO.
1863.
Pn : -rR
^ Price One Shilling. ^~^
( ^ APR 1 ^ 192
LETTER %..„, ^,.,
TO
BISHOP COLENSO,
WHEREIN HIS 0BJECTI0:N^S TO THE PENTATEUCH
ARE EXAMINED IN DETAIL.
WITH ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON PAET II.
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM H.^toARE, M.A.
TATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE ;
AUTHOR OF " OUTLINES OF ECCLESIASTICAL HI&TOBY," '' YF.BACITY OF GENESIS,
ETC.
THIBD EDITION,
LONDON :
RI^^INGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE.
CAMBRIDGE :— DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.
1863.
Price Ove Shining.
V
• LONDON :
CLAY, SON, AND TAYLOR, PIUNTERS,
BREAD STREET HILL.
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE THIRD EDITION.
The very considerable additions made to tliis work (particularly on
Chapters ii. — viii.) in the j)resent Edition, justify the remark, that
there remains now but little, if anything, in Bishop Colenso's First
Part, which has not received a full and free examination from all
sides of the Church. The sheets being already in the press when
Dr. M 'Caul's larger work appeared, the Author has not had the
opportunity of benefiting by what he understands to be the
Doctor's able and intelligent treatment of the subject. With regard
to his own labours, he may be allowed to add, that he has con-
tinued, as before, to keep principally in view the large and in-
fluential class to whom the BishojD has specially addressed himself
as representing the plain good sense of his countrymen, the English
Laily. " I appeal," remarks the Bishop, in his Second Part
(Preface, p. xxvii.), " to the Laity with confidence." If the author
might speak of ' confidence ' too, it is only under the conviction,
that he has endeavoured to treat the Bishop with the respect due
to his oflice, without compromising the truthfubiess due to his
subject.
PEEEACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
Though the work of demolition is not yet complete, we
must now follow the Bishop, while he slowly rears his fabric
out of the ruins which the hand of an unsparing criticism
has thrown heedlessly around. Indeed, if he is right in
his conjectures, the time must be at hand when nothing
but a pure vacuity will be left (!), for he speaks (Part II.,
Preface p. viii.) of "breath spent in vain" in defending the
forlorn cause, " when the composite character of the story of
the Exodus is once distinctly recognised, and the Pentateuch
falls to pieces, as it were, in the reader's hands''
At this point, then, it seems specially necessary to review
our position as affected by Part I. If any one thinks that the
business is disposed of, and the reasonings in the former Part
have little or no bearing on the future aspects of the question,
I fear he will find himself greatly deceived. Bishop Colenso
is quite of another mind, and has no thought of his former
speculations passing away as a mere matter of idle curiosity.
They are to be the basis of all the subsequent deductions,
and will be found to affect seriously, not the Pentateuch
only, but every book of the Old Testament. It is, therefore,
once for all that we must make up our minds, or not com-
plain that these deductions come upon us by surprise. We
must take good heed at the beginning, or we shall find our-
vi PREFAC^E TO THE THIRD EDITION.
selves landed suddenly on strange ground, with a very small
residuum of Scripture truth to stand upon. Speaking, for
example, of the signs there are in the Scripture documents,
which indicate a later date for the Pentateuch than the time
of Moses, the Bishop writes thus— " But these difficulties,
" after all, are by us regarded as only of secondary import-
" ance. They are not those on which we rest the stress of
" our argument. Being satisfied on other sure grounds, as
" set forth in Part /., that the story of the Pentateuch has no
" claim to be regarded as historically true, much less as
" divinely infallible, we are not obliged to have recourse to
" such suppositions as the above, to escape from the conclu-
" sions, to which we should certainly be led, if we were
" discussing a ' classical ' and not a ' sacred ' writer." (247,
Ans. iv.) And, again — " Undouhtedly, as I have shovm, I
" believe, sufficiently in Part I., an unquestioning, implicit faith
" in all the details of the story of the Exodus, as recorded in
" the Pentateuch, involves, again and again, assent to propo-
" sitions as monstrous and absurd as that two and two make
" five "' (490). In Chapter V. (238), the Bishop says, " We
" have already seen reason to conclvde that the account of
" the Exodus, generally, as there narrated, could not have
" been written by Moses, or by any one of his contempo-
" raries." Now, where does the reader think that this has
been * already seen ? ' The nearest I can find to any proof at
all is where we read as follows (222) : "Our lyrevioiis consider-
" ations have forced upon us the conviction, by reason of the
" impossibilities contained in it, that the account of the
" Exodus, generally, is wanting in historical truth. . . . But
" if the last four books of the Pentateuch must be pronounced
" to be, for the most part, unhistorical, it will hardly be con-
" tended that the Book of Genesis can be any other tlian, in
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. VU
" tlie main, imhistorical also." Tims everything runs back to
the '' sv/tr grounds" the " inevious considerations,'' the " con-
" vincing conclusions " of the former Part. These are made
the basis on which the whole fabric is to be erected, which is
to display the Pentateuch in its proper character and original
constitution.
We have now, then, an insight into the general plan and
tenor of the argument before us. The order of the reasoning
is as follows : —
In the First Part, the Bishop claims to have shown the
many manifest 'inaccuracies,' 'contradictions,' 'errors,' and
' absurdities,' which disfigure the pages of the Pentateuch ;
from this he concludes against the 'infallibility,' and, con-
sequently, against the 'inspiration,' of the writers. From
which, again, he infers, that, being no longer ' restrained by
any religious fears or scruples' (216), nor being obliged to
suppose any supernatural qualifications in the authors of the
books, we are henceforth at perfect liberty to assign any sort
of authors, and any number we please !
To accuse the Scripture writers in these broad and uncom-
promising terms, though it is nothing new with the P>ishop —
is, assuredly, paying dear for a theory ! and a theory, after
all, which by no means covers the whole phenomena of the
case even according to his own showing. For ' inspiration '
there must he somewhere, or how else can we account for the
authority which the Bishop liimself attributes to the sacred
writings in matters spiritual and divine? For he says of
the Pentateuch, " It does not therefore cease to ' contain the
" true Word of God,' with ' all things necessary for salvation,'
" to be ' profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction
" in righteousness.' It still remains an integral portion of that
" Book which, whatever intermixture it may show of human
viii PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
" elements, . . . has yet, through God's providence, and the
" 8'pmial wm^hing of His Spirit on the minds of its writers, been
" the means of revealing to us His true Name, the Name of
'' the only Living and True God ; and has all along been, and,
" as far as we know, will never cease to be, the mightiest
" instrument in the hand of the Divine Teacher, for awakening
" in our minds just conceptions of His character, and of His
" gracious and merciful dealings with the children of men." —
Part I. (14). And again. Part II. (515), " The Hebrew Scrip-
" tures are a gracious gift of God, which He, in His provi-
" dence, has ' caused to be written for our learning ' in Divine
" things."
But I would ask further, what does he mean by ' infalli-
hility in the Avriters ? ' The Bishop may deny it if he pleases
{see Part II. Preface, ix. x.) ; but this is far too strong a term
to have any just application in the particular instances before
us — instances involving, perhaps, merely a number, or a name,
or a subordinate incident in the sacred narrative ! There
may have been occasions in the heat of argument, when a
little exaggeration has been indulged on this head among the
advocates of Christian truth ; but this is by no means the
general rule in the Church. '' Infallibility " is no appropriate
term, when the question concerns things ascertainable by
common pains and care, and which require no express reve-
lation. We should remember the discreet advice of a right
reverend prelate of former days, from whose pages I have
quoted in a former part of this "Letter" (p. 9). I would
recommend also to the reader's careful consideration the able
and judicious remarks of the present Norrisian Professor, in
his truly valuable contribution to the Aids to Faith (see
"Letter" 12). To require in the Sacred writers, the same pre-
cision in matters of science, or common history, which Ave justly
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. IX
expect in matters of divine and revealed truth, is to lay the
stress of inspiration on the letter more than on the spirit.
Time itself may alter the letter— may corrupt a reading ;—
but the Word of God, in its inward spirit and truth, is secured
by the Divine promise from ever changing, and from ever
passing away. But this is quite a different thing from im-
puting " errors and contradictions/' and I know not what
other forms of imbecility and utter unreliableness, which, in
the volume before us, we find unsparingly heaped upon the
Sacred writers.
The Bishop appears to have set out with an unfortunate
and unreasonable dread of intolerance in a Church which,
more than any other, has succeeded in uniting, on the broad
basis of the Catholic Creeds, persons of the most opposite
tendencies and habits of mind, who, without feeling that they
are sacrificing the liberty of conscience which each holds dear,
can meet on the great cardinal points of Scripture truth, and,
for the rest, agree to differ— a Church the most tolerant, per-
haps, of any in the world. The very question now before us
in Part II.— viz. the age and autJiorship of the Fentateucli — has
been freely handled by competent men before now. It has
not perhaps attracted so much attention in England as among
our brethren across the Channel ; perhaps, when it does, we
shall find our difficulties as weU as they. But in what has
been attempted hitherto, there has not been, so far as I have
seen, any fear or uneasiness as to its being a high crime and
misdemeanour, rendering one amenable in Ecclesiastical courts,
to review it dispassionately, and to apply to it the just rules of
criticism, provided this be done with due reverence for the
Scriptures, and, thus far, in conformity with the established
rule and order of the Church. I could point to works where
the writers have felt perfectly at liberty, provided they did so
h
X PEEFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
in a really ' becoming spirit/ to argue on the supposition that
the exact authorship of the Pentateuch might be regarded as
a matter of comparative indifference ; and the expression of
such an opinion has passed unreproved. My belief is, that
opinions on this subject are left open to a much greater
extent than the Bishop appears to imagine. And if this was
the chief thing that troubled him, and on which he wanted
to have had something conceded to his doubts, it appears to
me that the court was open, and he might have pleaded with
perfect safety in the ears of candid and right-judging men, if
he had only been willing to proceed in a spirit of greater
reverence and caution — if he had taken more deliberate
counsel with his own friends and equals, and had been carejul
to reserve his conclusions till he had heard the other side of
the question more freely discussed among persons competent
to the task.
But what hope is there* of any good understanding, on
the basis of Scripture and the Catholic Creeds, so long as the
Bishop will persist in his manifest error of imputing igno-
rance to the Blessed Saviour Himself? When will he be
able to see that that Divine 'Word,' the 'Maker of all things '
(John i. 3), who made Moses himself, could not possibly but
Unow whether Moses wrote the Pentateuch ? And if every-
where in His discourses He couples the name of Moses with
the Law, is it not doing Him a dishonour to doubt His Word ?
We may not think it necessary to infer that every ' word '
and every ' letter ' of the Pentateuch is thereby authenticated
as ' infallible ;' but the least degree of reverence for the holy
* The Bishop emphatically repeats the arguments in Part I., which explain
away the expressions of our Blessed Lord when referring to Moses in the
Gospels, on the ground of the imperfect information which He possessed as
the Son of Man. (See Part II. Pref. xv.— xvii.)
PEEFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. m
Gospels, in which our faith is written, would surely make us
reluctant to deny in toto the Mosaic origin of the books.*
The labours, perhaps, of a translator, superadded to the
responsible charge of a Colonial Diocese, may have left the
Bishop but little time to collect his thoughts, while both must
have conspired to raise within him a high ambition to pro-
mote, in a measure worthy of such great opportunities, the
cause of the 'Truth.' The Bishop, assuredly, if any man,
was not the ' good easy brother ' described in his Preface,
" who never knew what it was to have a passionate yearning
'' for the Truth as Truth — who never made a sacrifice in the
" search, or for the maintenance of it ; and never, in fact, gave
"himself an hour's hard thinking in his life." (Part II.
Pref. xxix.)
One might heartily wdsh that in this matter of ' relieving
himself and his readers of all restraint', he had not so entirely
mistaken the temper of the Church, and the spirit of the
times. One could wish, at least, that the nine years during
which he has been in charge of the Diocese of Natal, he had
been able to spend in England — there to witness the growing
spirit of unity and brotherly love, exhibiting itself in the
various modes, which are springing up on every side, of
assembling together for the purpose of mutual counsel and
co-operation — whether in Church Congress, — Diocesan Synod,
* I may here refer to the opinion of a writer who will not be accused by the
Bishop of any want of liberality, and who says, " We fully allow, that the
" testimony of Christ and his Apostles would be decisive with us, were it
" borne unequivocally and clearly on behalf of the Mosaic authorship of the
'• whole Pentateuch. For though their mission into the world was not to
" teach the Jews criticism, and though true faith in Christ is not hasty to set
" limits to critical investigations, yet we remember that they were teachers
" of truth, and would not have allowed any error of importance, or ignorant
" prejudice, to have remained in the minds of the Jews." — Dr. Samuel Davidson,
p. 617, Text of the Old Testament. Longmans : 1856.
xii PKEFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
— Clerical Association, — or Church Institution, where 'the
Laity ' take a principal part. This was not a time when it
was likely that any speculations should be received with
favour, which seemed to indicate a hasty or contentious
spirit — a spirit of impatience with those restraints which
the wise order and discipline of the Church has thrown
around her members, and which are specially binding on
those who have been called to the sacred office of the
]Ministry.
As regards the particular question brought before us in
this last member of the Bishop's work, as to the age and
authorship of the Pentateuch, — it may be of use to some of
my readers to be made acquainted with the general merits of
the question before they enter into the objections alleged
by Dr. Colenso in the Part which has just appeared, against
the view generally received in the Church. With the hope
of satisfying this want, I purpose in a following number, if
God permit, to <lraw up a short and plain account of tlie
principal arguments on behalf of the Mosaic origin of tlie
books ; and then to notice the principal objections on the
contrary part. The Bishop carries over so much of his argu-
ment to ' another Part,' still, and altogether scatters his
observations in so discursive a manner, that it is difficult to
follow him ; but, as far as one can see, it may be expected, I
think, that he will begin his Zulu Bible with the Book of
l^salms ! It strikes me the old-fashioned way is better, of
beginning with Genesis.
CONTENTS.
PAOE
Advertisement to the Thihd Edition iii
Preface to the Third Edition v
Advertisement to the Reader 2
General Observations 3
On Chapters
( The Family of Jddah )
TI. III. ] [ 11
( The Seventy who went down to Egypt )
IV. — The Size of the Court of the Tabernacle compared with
THE Number op the Congregation 21
V. — Moses and Joshua addressing all Israel 23
VI. — The Extent of the Camp, compared with the Priests' Duties
AND THE daily NECESSITIES OF THE PEOPLE 26
VII. — The two Numberings 29
VIII. — The Israelites dwelling in Tents 32
IX. — The Israelites armed 34
( The Institution of the Passover )
X. XL ] [ 37
( The March out of Egypt . . . )
/ The Sheep and Cattle of the Israelites in the Desert \
XII 1 f
{ The Number of the Israelites, compared with the Ex- ) 43
XIII. / \
\ tent of the Land of Canaan ^
The Number of the Israelites who went down into )
XIV. Egypt, compared with the Number who returned
TO -| — The Tbie of their Sojourn — The Number of the \ 50
XIX. Tribe of Levi — The Number of the tribe of Dan —
The Number of the First-borns J
XX ( The Number of the Priests at the Exodus, compared )
XXL ^ WITH their Duties )
XXII. — The last Campaigns before the Death of Moses . . . . QQ
XXIII. — General Observations— Conclusion 74
Appendix . 78
A
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE EEADER.
In replying to a work professedly critical, it may need some expla-
nation, why there is not more of allusion to gi'eat critical works
than will be found in the following pages. The author is not
unacquainted with such works, but agrees with Bishop Colenso in
thinking, that they are often " overlaid with an unwieldy mass of
erudition," unfitting them for general use. (xxxii.)
And besides, the Bishop's appeal is not to the works of the
learned, but to the plain mind and good sense of his countrymen.
" Especially," he says, " I commend this subject to the attention of
the Laity." (xxxv.) And again, (xxxiii.) " The facts have only to be
stated, as I have endeavoured to state them, in a form intelligible
to the most milearned layman." It has been the writer's endeavour
to adapt his remarks to the same class of readers, and especially to
those who are tolerably well acquainted with Scripture History.
The reader will find in the Appendix a convenient Summary of
the Family of Jacob, as we have it in the Hebrew text, and in the
LXX. version, of Gen. xlvi.
L E T T E 1^.
My Lord,
From the prestige of your name in connexion
with mathematical science, expectations were raised high
when it was announced that you were engaged on certain
new calculations, affecting the truth of the Pentateuch and
of some other portions of Holy Scripture. Your work has
since appeared; and no one can be surprised at the ability
with which you handle your figures, or at the formidable
array of statistics which meet us at every page, and which
seem at first sight to imperil the veracity of all that we hold
dear in the word of Revelation. And yet there is nothing
in the problems themselves, so to call them, which you have
here introduced to our notice, beyond the reach of any one
moderately well acquainted with the rules of arithmetic.
I wish, indeed, one could look upon these questions as of
no higher importance than so many arithmetical curiosities ;
but in reality they assume a much graver character,
when one sees that upon them hang conclusions which
affect seriously the foundations of the "current belief" in
the inspiration of the Sacred Volume. You may well, my
lord, under such circumstances, have furnished the world
with some new rules and methods, among which we may
be thankful to see prominent mention of the necessity of
"prayer, and of a reverential spirit." (3, 16, and p. xxii.)
To these prerequisites in the mind and temper of the inquirer,
you properly add a " serious " sense of the supreme import-
ance of the consequences involved." (p. xx.) You do not
underrate the great "labour and special training" required
for the work of a fair and close investigation on botli sides
of the question, (xxv.) In " trying the spirits whether they
be of God " — in " proving all things, and holding fast that
which is good," we must proceed, you faithfully counsel
us, " in watchfulness and prayer, as those who desire only
to know the will of God and do it." And it has been your
own purpose " to set yourself deliberately to find the answer,
with, you trust and believe, a sincere desire to know the
truth, as God wills us to know it, and with an humble
dependence on that Divine Teacher, who alone can guide us
into that knowledge, and help us to use the light of our
minds aright." (7)
Such purposes and counsels — marking sufficiently (if any
evidence were wanted) your own sincerity and good inten-
tions— seemed to give promise of all that was sober in
reasoning and judicious in conclusion. What strange incon-
sistency, then, must it not appear when, after so reverent and
guarded a preamble, we find you, in the sequel, borne rapidly
away, with scarce the expression of a regret, far into the lines
of doubt as to the historical veracity of the earlier books of
Scripture ! I say, emphatically, its '' liistorical veracity : " for
you are not one of those who deal in doubtful insinuations, or
mystify your meaning by ambiguous language. You plainly
confess, that while you regard the question before us as undoubt-
edly "the question of the present day" (3), your conclusion
upon the premises is, that you " can no longer shut your eyes to
the palpable self-contradictions of the narrative ; " but that
"the conviction of the unhistorical character of the (so-called)
Mosaic narrative seems to be forced upon us by the con-
sideration of the many absolute impossibilities involved in
it when treated as relating simple matters of fact, and
without taking account of any argument which throws dis-
credit on the story merely by reason of tlie miracles, or
supernatural appearances, recorded in it, or particular laws,
speeches, and actions ascribed in it to the Divine Being."
(10, 11, 14.) This judgment you pronounce not, indeed,
ex cathedra, as of authority, but simply as an opinion to
which you think proper to lend your name. You have found
objections, you inform us, which affect *' not only one or two
points of the story, but the entire substance of it; and, until
they are removed, they make it impossible for a thoughtful
person to receive, without further inquiry, any considerable
portion of it as certainly true in an historical point of view.
It is plain that .... the narrative of the Exodus is full of
contradictions." (168) Before you ventured in this manner
to find fault with so considerable a portion of God's word,
you were bound to produce reasons little short of certain. It
requires not merely some plausible, but some irrefragable
arguments to support conclusions of this magnitude. For,
observe, it makes a very great difference on which side of the
question one is arguing about the veracity of the Scripture.
On the side of the defence, it is enough if any tolerable pro-
babilities can be shown in favour of a Scripture statement, for
we can back the particular probability thus otherwise ascer-
tained, by the general weight and authority of the whole body
of Scripture, attested as it is by the express teaching of om*
Lord * and His Apostles, and by the concurrent witness of
the Church. But, on the side of the attack, the mere sugges-
tion of an error or a contradiction is not enough; there ought
to be an absolute certainty of it, since here tliere is notliing to
fall back upon except one's own ideas of what is possible or
impossible, rational or absurd — the determination of which
is, of all things, the most uncertain.f
* The single chapter, Heb. xi. in a compendious form, seems enough to
authenticate almost all the Old Testament History, Add such passages as
Acts vii., xxiv. 14; xxvi. 6, 22; 1 Pet. iii. 20; 2 Pet. i. 21, ii. 5—7; Luke
xxiv. 44 ; Joh. i. 45, iii. 14, v. 45, 46, and the argument is complete.
t Suppose a parallel case : If it were argued, for example, " England is a
great country, but its laws are exceedingly unjust and absurd, and reflect little
credit on the ability and wisdom of her legislators." Imagine a discussion
upon this subject, with reasons for and against the laws of England ; and
suppose there seemed little to choose between the arguments on either side.
Under these circumstances, " on the side of the defence " there would be, in
further support of the argument, an apy>eal to the general verdict of history,
and to the opinion of the world at large, an appeal which would be wholly
wanting on the "side of the attack." The latter, therefore, to supply the
disadvantage, ought to produce something like irrefragable proof, to justify the
language in which the laws of England had been defamed.
6
And yet, be it candidly acknowledged, that attacking, as
you have not scrupled to do, the historical credibility of
Scripture, you are able to confess that your faith in Divine
Revelation remains firm and unshaken. Yes ! let the reader
beware how he mistake your meaning — you manfully avow
your belief, that " the Pentateuch does not, upon this
account, cease to contain the true Word of God, with all
things necessary for salvation, and to be profitable for doc-
trine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness; "
that " it still remains an integral portion of that Book, which,
whatever intermixture it may show of human elements — of
error, infirmity, passion, and ignorance — has yet, through God's
providence and the special working of His Spirit on the minds
of its writers, been the means of revealing to us His True
Name, the Name of the only Living and True God, and has all
along been, and as far as we know will never cease to be, the
mightiest instrument in the hand of the Divine Teacher, for
awakening in our minds just conceptions of His character, and
of His gracious and merciful dealings with the children of
men." And, again, "the Bible is still the very Book of Truth,"
— " the best of books " — wliere " God has, in His providence,
laid up in store for our use, food for the inner man, supplies
of spiritual strength and consolation, living words of power
to speak to our hearts and consciences, and wake us up to
daily earnestness of faith and duty." (13, 181.) With so
much in common in our beliefs, would it not have tended mucli
to the peace and harmony of the Church, as well as to the peace
and comfort of your own mind, if you had given less encou-
ragement to the objector to think, that the wonderful increase
of knowledge and critical skill — the discoveries of geology —
the advances in philology, ethnography, and science in general,
which distinguish the present day, were all certain to tell
exclusively on his side of the argument? an assumption
as shallow as it is unfounded ! Would it not have been
better to have imitated the example of a former bishop of
our Church, a man eminent for the liberality of his views,
and yet who, in taking a similar line of argument, took care
to guard it with those limitations and reserves which properly
belong to the expression of a mere private opinion. In his
" Apology for the Bible," Bishop Watson thus refers to St.
Augustine, as saying, " I am of opinion that those men to
whom the Holy Ghost revealed what ought to be received as
authoritative in religion, might write some things, as men,
with historical diligence, and other things, as prophets, by
Divine Inspiration ; and that these things are so distinct, that
the former may be attributed to themselves, as contributing to
the increase of knowledge, and the latter to God speaking by
them things appertaining to the authority of religion." On
\7hich the Bishop goes on to observe ; '* Whether this opinion
be right or wrong, I do not here inquire ; it is the opinion of
many learned men and good Christians ; and if you" (he
is addressing the notorious infidel Thomas Paine) " will
adopt it as your opinion, you will see cause, perhaps, to
become a Christian yourself; you will see cause to con-
sider chronological, geographical, or genealogical errors,
apparent mistakes or real contradictions as to historical
facts, needless repetitions and trifling interpolations — indeed,
you will see cause to consider all the principal objections
of your book to be absolutely without foundation. Receive
but the Bible as composed by upright and well-informed,
though in some points fallible men (for I exclude all falli-
bility when they profess to deliver the Word of God), and
you must receive it as a book revealing to you in many
parts the express will of God, and, in other parts, relating to
you the ordinary history of the times. Give but the authors
of the Bible that credit which you give to other historians ;
believe them to deliver the Word of God, when they tell you
that they do so ; believe, when they relate other things as of
themselves and not of the Lord, that they WTote to the best
of their knowledge and capacity, and you will be in your
belief something very different from a Deist : you may not
be allowed to aspire to the character of an orthodox believer,
but you will not be an unbeliever in the Divine authority of
the Bible, though you should admit human mistakes and
8
human opinions to exist in some parts of it. This I take to
be the first step towards the removal of the doubts of many
sceptical men ; and when they are advanced thus far, the
grace of God, assisting a teachable disposition and a pious
intention, may carry them on to perfection."
With whatever disposition to admit the force of these obser-
vations, are we to be called upon to apply them to every ima-
ginary difficulty, to every fancy, and every crudity, which a
lively wit may suggest, or which may float to the surface in a
vacant mind ? Or, rather, does not their application lie to
such well-matured and well-reasoned conclusions as should
approve themselves generally to the good sense and judgment
of Christian people? But is this the rank, in which you can
expect to see placed the statistical difficulties which figure
so conspicuously in your book? By your own confession,
indeed, ^Hhe result arrived at in Fart I. required comj)aratively
very Utile lahour. Tlie facts have only to he stated, as I
have endeavoured to state them, in a form intelligible to
the most unlearned layman ; and the truth of the conclusions
drawn ivill, as it ajopears to me, he self-evident to most of my
readers who have courage to face the truth, and courage to
confess it." (xxxiii.) My lord, so great a stake deserved less
easy treatment, and you may still live to benefit the Church
if you carefully suppress any other conclusions you may have
come to in your Second Part, until you have devoted more
time and labour to their mature consideration. Unless you
do this, you will not, I think, be likely to make the easy
conquest which you imagine of the English mind, not even
that " of the most unlearned of the laity."
The declaration has been elicited from you since the earlier
impressions of your work, that ' you made no pretence of
bringing forward novelties' (Part TI. Preface, vii.). The
arguments, you intimate, might have been new to yourself,
and, probably, ' to very many of your readers ; ' but you
would rather regard them as what ' must be noticed by every
one who would carefully study the Pentateuch.' Be it so,
then some of your reviewers erred in thinking that you con-
9
sidered your objections ' new.' But in one thing we must all
agree, that the objections, though not new in themselves,
come with new force when recommended in this way by a
Bishop ! From the Bishops and Fathers of the Church, from
the St. Augustines, the St. Jeromes, and the great divines of
former days, one had been accustomed to look for advice and
assistance in support of the faith, and not for arguments in
derogation of it. Pardon us if we looked for the same from
you ; and if we were not quite prepared to see you throwing
yourself upon the verdict of men who professedly have no
time to consult the musty volumes of antiquity, accessible
though they are to any reader who can bestow the requisite
time and labour of research. Was it reasonable or wise to
take up such mere questions of detail, and lead the public to
look upon them as matter of life and death to the cause of
truth — as things essential to the very integrity of the Faith ?
Perhaps, my lord, in the end this will prove to have been really
the wisest and most useful, as it is in appearance the fairest
and most open course. In the interest of truth I devoutly hope
this may be the case. The danger is, that the treatment of
the subject may fall into hands little prepared by previous
habits of careful and patient study, much less by that spirit
of seriousness and reverence which is indispensably requisite
in the search after truth. And it is this apprehension which
makes one wish that you, my lord, who have naturally great
influence from your name and office, had not committed your-
self to your conclusions with so much haste, nor published
them with so little reserve. You might have opened the
question ever so wide ; you might have invited inquiry, and
done all you could to assist it. This would have made it
a less delicate task for others to have entered the lists in fair
argument with you, and to have consulted together for mutual
improvement.
Without further preface, however, and passing over some
little incidents which you mention in connexion with the
Zulus, I propose now to follow you into the details to which
you appear to attach so particular a value in the determination
B
10
of the questions before us. My plan will be to take the
several passages on which your objections are founded, in the
order in which they stand in your book ; and not only to
meet the particular objections as they occur, but also to
suggest what may, in each instance, seem a fair account of
the passage. And in so doing, I shall have occasion to show,,
that many of your criticisms on the Scripture history are
criticisms on some particular view that you have taken up,
— some private construction that you have put upon the
text — rather than on the plain sense of Scripture itself;
and, consequently, that the contradictions and impossibilities
which you impute, on the strength of them, to the Scripture
narratives, are without any certain foundation. 1 shall thus,
I hope, be able to do some little justice to those who have
hitherto professed their belief in the historic accuracy of the
Pentateuch, by showing that they have not been without
some good grounds for so doing, and that the weight of
argument has not been so much on the side of the objector as
you would have us imagine. With this explanation, it is
time we proceed* to the further examination of details.
* I am unwilling to leave these general observations, without suggesting
that it might be an important aid to the faith of some, if they would well
consider the following admirable remai^ks of the Norrisian Professor :—
" If we believe that God has in different ages authorized certain persons to
communicate objective truth to mankind — if, in the Old Testament history
and the books of the Prophets, we find manifest indications of the Creator —
it is then a secondary consideration, and a question in which we may safely
agree to differ, whether or not every book of the Old Testament was written
so completely under the dictation of God's Holy Spirit, that every word, not
only doctrinal, but also historical or scienUfic, must be infallibly correct and
true. . . . Whatever conclusion may be arrived at, as to the infallibility of the
writers on matters of science or of history, still the whole collection of the
books will be really the oracles of God, the Scriptures of God, the record and
depository of God's supernatural revelations in early times to men. . . . ^Yith
all the pains and ingenuity which have been bestowed upon the subject, no
charge of error, even in matters of human knowledge, has ever yet been
substantiated against any of the writers of Scripture. But, even if it had
been otherwise, is it not conceivable that there might have been infallible
Divine teaching in all things spiritual and heavenly, whilst, on mere matters
of history or of daily life, Prophets and Evangelists might have been suffered
to write as men ? Even if this were true, we need not be perplexed or
disquieted, so we can be agreed that the Divine element was ever such as to
secure the infallible truth of Scripture in all things D/n'we." -Pj?of. Harold
Brownk, Aids to Faith, pp. 317, 318.
11
ON CHAPTEES II. III.
" And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had
gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacoh, and
all his seed with him : His sons, and his sons^ so7is ivith him,
his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought
he with him into EgyptP — Gen. xlvi. 6, 7.
" Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten
jpersons ; and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the
stars of heaven for multitude.^' — Deut. x. 22.
The general drift of the passages where the numbers of the
children of Israel, who went into Egypt, are distinctly told,
is not difficult to see. In your own words, which express it
clearly enough (24 vi. Ans.), " The narrative lays no stress
whatever on the mere fact of their ' coming to ' Egypt, in the
case of Joseph's sons, as if they had come because their father
had come [which is the explanation of some commentators].
The fact of their being born in Egypt, or rather being in
Egypt at this time, is all that the writer takes account of;
though, wishing to sum up the seventy souls* under one cate-
gory, he uses (inaccurately, as he himself admits) the same
expression, ' came into Egypt.' So he sums up, inaccurately,
Jacob himself, as one of the seventy souls, Simong his children,
in V. 8, * These are the names of the children of Israel, which
came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons,'' " And, again, you say
(28), "Evidently the sons of Joseph are not reckoned with
those that went down into Egypt with Jacob, because they
* went down in their father,' but because they were born there,
or, rather, were living there, were ' in Egypt already,' at the
time of Jacob's migration. The description is, of course,
* To make out this, however, we have no right — as was done in the first
edition of Bishop Colenso's work (since happily corrected) — to leave out an
important word, and alter the stop, at Gen. xlvi. 12 ; whereas it is there
written distinctly and in a separate clause, "And the sons of Pharez were
Hezrou and Haniul." And N.B., the Hebrew and the Greek have the equiva-
lent verb at full, ">7^] and iyei^ouTo,
12
literally incorrect; but the writer's meaning is obvious enough.
He wishes to specify all those ' out of the loins of Jacob ' who
were living at the time of the commencement of the sojourn
of the Israelites in Egypt, and from whom such a multitude
had sprung at the time of the Exodus. ... In point of fact,
in the writer's view, Joseph himself had not ' gone down ' into
Egypt till his father went. He had been carried down as a
captive many years before ; but from this time dates his true
migration into Egypt, when his father settled there, and he
and his sons shared in *the sojourning of the children of
Israel.' " '
It is, indeed, no more than a common and natural accommo-
dation of language, thus to group particulars under the general
characteristic of the whole. But, to obviate mistakes, we find
in this passage of Scripture, special care on the part of the
writer to explain himself Let us refer for a moment to
the text ; wherein we may note, first, that in this list of
Jacob's family "Jacob " himself is variously included among
" his sons," or reckoned separately {See v. 8, 15 ; and v. 27) ;
and next, that when Jacoh is the chief subject in view, the
children are spoken of not only as '' coming into Egypt," but
as "coming with Jacoh into Egypt ; " when Joseph is chiefly
in view, then it is called "■coming into Egypt"" simply. But
it is understood throughout (as, indeed, in one passage it is
expressly stated), that the "children" spoken of were those
which "came out of his loins;" and it seems implied that,
with the exception of the two sons of Joseph, they were all
•'gotten in the land of Canaan,"* (v. 6.) For greater clear-
ness it is added, "besides Jacob's sons' wives" (ver. 26).
The passages run thus : —
(Gen. xlvi.)
"6. And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they
had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt,
Jacob, and all his seed with him :
* Why else are some of the descendants of the Patriarchs omitted altogether ?
— as Jocliebed, the daughter of Levi (Numb, xxvi. 59)— the descendants of
Manaiseh and Ephraim {ih. v. 29, 2,z,)—Zahdi (or Zimri), and four other sons
of Zcrah, the second son of Judah. hy Tamar, (Josh. vii. 11 ; 1 Chron. ii. 6.)
13
** 7. His sons and his sons' sons with him, his daughters,
and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with
him into Egypt.
" 8. And these are the names of the children of Israel,
which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons."
Mark the same clear distinction in the two following verses,
where the list is summed up at the conclusion of the
account : —
" 26. All the souls that came WITH Jacob mto Egypt\
which came out of his loins, hesides JacoVs sons wives, all the
souls icere threescoke and six.
" 27. And the sons of Joseph, which were horn him in Egypt,
were two souls (repeated from v. 20) : all the souls of the house
of Jacob, which CAME INTO Egypt, were threescore and
TEN."
And we find precisely the same computation, Exodus i. 5,
Dent. X. 22 : " And all the soids that came out of the loins
of Jacoh were seventy souls: for Joseph ivas in Egypt already.'*''
" Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten
persons ; and now the Lord thy God hath made thee as the stars
of heaven for multitude.''^ *
* To some it may appear trifling to enter so precisely into the minutiae of
Jacob's family. But the Scripture itself, by its careful enumeration, and by
its frequent allusion in other places to this original stock of the great Israelitish
families, and to the number Seventy whereof it consisted, specially invites
inquiry ; and the exact numbers here are not indifferent, when once we are
led to think, that *'the historical truth of the whole Mosaic narrative, which
in so many places reiterates the statement in question, is seriously involved in
its accuracy" (25 i.), and when it is the root number of the 600,000 warriors
who eventually proceeded from this stock, and of which Dr. Colenso says : —
*' "We cannot here have recourse to the ordinary supposition that there may
be something wrong in the Hebrew numerals. . . . 'This number' (600,000)
' is woven as a kind of thread into the whole story of the Exodus, and cannot
be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to pieces. . . . The multiplied
impossibilities introduced by this number alone, independently of all other
considerations, are enough to throw discredit upon the historical character of
the whole narrative.'" (169, 170.)
The reader is referred to an article in the Appendix for an exact enumera-
tion of Jacob's family, and for a comparison of the Hebrew and Septuagint
accounts.
14
But now comes the great difficulty at which you stumble.
I shall argue it on your own ground — the ground which we
have just agreed upon, as to the general completeness of
the recorded number of Jacob's children, and the birth of
his two grandchildren before the descent into Egypt. But,
in fairness of argument, it must be noted that this is not
the universal opinion, nor is it necessary to the historical
truthfulness of Scripture to maifitain it. It may, on the con-
trary, be very fairly insisted, that the same latitude of expres-
sion which comprehends *' Jacob" among " his sons," and the
sons of Joseph among those who " went into Egypt," applies
also to the mention of the two grandsons of Judah, notwith-
standing they may have been born in Egypt. But, not to
dwell farther on this point, I am happy, as regards the pre-
misses, to be able here to agree with you, though in your con-
clusion I must entirely differ. Why do you call it " in-
credible" (20 iii.), that all these seventy should have already
come into the world at the time of Jacob's going down
into Egypt? In particular, you object that the two great-
grandchildren of Jacob, Hezron and Hamul (v. 12), included in
the seventy, could not have been born, and had no right to be
included. To make out that they could not have been born, you
say that J udah, their father, was then but forty-two years old —
old enough, one would think, to have had grandchildren ! But
then, you say he was not married till upwards of twenty — that
after that, the story requires him to have had in succession
three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah, two of which sons married
in succession the same wife, and the last should have married
her too, but that meantime she deceived Judah himself, and
had two sons by him, one of whom (Pharez) was the father of
the two children in question, Jacob's great-grandchildren.
{See Gen. xxxviii.) For the birth of all these sons of
Judah and of his two grandsons, you require more time
than you think can possibly be allowed on the strength of
the Scripture account. Now, my lord, if your calculation
were certainly correct when you say Judah married at twenty
years of age, there would, I am ready to admit, be some
15
difficulty here. But I beg you to observe tliat this is a
mere assumption, and the ground of a complete fallacy. Your
argument rests on one little expression at the beginning of
Gen. xxxviii. " And it came to pass at that timt that Judah
went down from his brethren:" subsequently to which, of
course, he became father of the children about whom you
make all this difficulty. From this you conclude — not un-
naturally, I grant, if circumstances would admit, which they
do not — that Judah's marriage took place at a time subsequent
to the events in the chapter preceding, viz. Joseph being sold
by his brethren ; and this gives you a date, since Joseph was
then at the age of seventeen. If 4here was any necessity for
this inference, the case would be altered. But as the phrase *
here made use of places no necessary limit on the time, we are
free to take it as a mere introduction to the narrative fol-
* It is tolerably clear that where the expression "a^ that time''' occurs.
Matt. xii. 1, it is scarcely a note of time at all. But, indeed, the original
words in the Hebrew are much less definite than this expression in the
English — cnrr D'p^, literally meaning '^ in those days," the exact equivalent
of which we have, Matt. iii. 1, "In those days came John the Baptist;" —
where the interval between this and the events of the chapter preceding
was about thirty years. Compare also Matt. xi. 25, with its parallel
passage, Luke x. 21, where the same event is placed in quite a different
connexion, and yet the phrase runs '^ at that time." Bean EUicott observes
that, in the whole group of chapters from Matt. chap. v. to xiii. "the
structure is peculiar ; the EvangeHst by no means being unacquainted with
the correct order of events, but designedly departing from it, and grouping
together the nearly contemporary events and miracles, with such notices
of place as should guard against the possibility of misconception." — EUi-
cott, Historical Lectures on the Life of our Blessed Lord, p. 156. Th&
parallel between these passages and that in Genesis is at any rate remark-
able, as this Gospel is reputed to have been first written in Hebrew ; and
Lightfoot — no inconsiderable authoi'ity on the language and customs of the
Hebrews — thus comments on the text in St, Matthew, chap. xii. 1, " The
expression ^ at that time' doth not always centre stories in the same point of
time, but sometimes hath made a transition betwixt tivo stories, whose times
were at a good distance asunder." And then he instances this vert passage,
Gen. xxxviii. 1, and Deut. x. 8. The incident described in the xii. chapter
is, in fact, closely connected with a Passover, but that Passover had clearly
preceded — and that by a considerable period — the events related before it, such
as the return to Galilee, the assembling of the Twelve, the Sermon on the
Mount, the Message from John the Baptist, &c. see chap. v. — xi. Such a
phrase, therefore, and still more the less definite one " in those days," which
is the literal sense in Genesis, places no necessary limit on the exact time.
16
lowing; the events following being not all of them con-
sequent upon the events of the chapter preceding, but only that
one particular event to which they all lead up, as the matter of
principal interest in the chapter. I find Dr. Kalisch of the same
opinion. " The marriage of Judah would have taken place,"
he says, " about three years after Jacob's return from Mesopo-
tamia . . . and about seven years hefore the selling of Joseph ;
but it is 710W only incidentally mentioned, because the
chief object of this chapter is to relate Judah's unjust con-
duct towards Tamar_, and the birth of Pharez and Zarah,
which events fall after Joseph's abduction." According
to this very reasonable account, Judah would have been
married twenty-nine years before Jacob's going into Egypt.
But the Scriptures give us yet a nearer clue. Very soon
after the return from Mesopotamia, Dinah, the daughter
of Jacob, and his seventh child by Leah, becomes of
marriageable age. Judah, then, her elder brother by three
degrees, must have been marriageable* too; and this not-
withstanding that Joseph was not much above six years old
at this time, since Joseph was younger than these brothers,
who were Leah's children. And now, if we give Joseph six
years of age at the return from Mesopotamia, then, since
he was thirty-nine at the going down of Jacob into Egypt,
there were exactly thirty-three years between these two
events ; i. e. there were thirty-three years f in which Judah,
if he married towards the beginning of this period, ichen
he first became marriageahle, might easily have become a
grandfather before the going down into Egypt. It is true
this latter supposition would make him born at a some-
what earlier date in Jacob's servitude than according to
Dr. Kalisch's reckoning. But as it is by no means certain
that the marriage of Leah was postponed till the expiration
of the -first seven years, this supposition is not precluded.
Dr. Hales [Analysis of Sacred Chronology, vol. ii. p. 135)
* Other reasons for supposing Judah of marriageable age at this time may
be observed in the note to p. 19.
t And these thirty-three, by an easy and natural supposition might be
extended to thirty-six. Comp. the note, p. 19.
17
remarks, ' Wlietlier Jacob married at the beginning or the
end of his first seven years of stipulated service, is a question
which has divided chronologers. The more probable opinion
is, that his marriage with Leah took place about a month
after his aiTival at Charran, at the heginning of the seven
years, and his marriage with Rachel the week after.'
Whichever supposition we adopt (and that of Dr. Kalisch
may, on the whole, be the safest), the time was ample to admit
of Judah being a grandfather, though you have denied it.
It will be naturally asked on what your denial is built. You
shall speak for yourself ;
"Now Judah w&B forty-two"^ years old, according to the
story, when he went down with Jacob into Egypt. But
if we turn to Gr. xxxviii. we shall find that, in the course
of these forty -two years of Judah' s life, the following events
are recorded to have happened : —
" (i) Judah grows up, marries a wife — ' at that time,' v. 1,
that is, after Joseph's being sold into Egypt, when he was
* seventeen years old,' G. xxxvii. 2, and when Judah, conse-
quently, was, at least, ticenty years old, — and has, separately,
three sons by her.
'' (ii) The eldest of these three sons grows up, is married,
and dies.
* "Joseph was thirty years old, when he 'stood before Pharaoh,* as
governor of the land of Egypt, G. xli. 46 ; and from that time nine years
elapsed, (seven of plenty and two of famine,) before Jacob came down to
Egypt. At that time, therefore, Joseph was thirty-nine years old. But
Judah was about three years older than Joseph ; for Judah was born in the
fourth year of Jacob's double marriage, G. xxix. 35, and Joseph in the seventh,
G. XXX. 24-26, xxxi. 41. Hence Judah was forty-two years old when Jacob
went down to Egypt." — Colenso on the Pentateuch (20). But even this is
uncertain : and according to Dr. Hales he was forty-seven at this time, instead
of forty-two. " Judah was about forty-seven years old when Jacob's family
settled in Egypt." — Hales' Analysis, vol. ii. p. 145. Others extend the period,
by assigning a much longer time than the usually supposed twenty years, to
the sojourn of Jacob in Mesopotamia ; whereby, the age of Joseph remaining
unaltered, Judah might be supposed many years older. But the difficulty
turns, not altogether on the total years of Judah's age at the going down into
Egypt, but also, and, I think, chiefly, on the precise time of his marriage, which,
on either of these last suppositions, would still remain undetermined.
C
18
" The second grows to maturity, (suppose in another year,)
marries his brother's widow, and dies.
" The third grows to maturity, (suppose in another year
still,) but declines to take his brother's widow to wife.
" She then deceives Judah himself, conceives by him, and
in due time bears him twins, Pharez and Zarah.
" (iii) One of these twins also grows to maturity, and has
two sons, Hezron and Hamul, born to him, before Jacob goes
down into Egypt." (20)
Which you declare to be incredible.
About the case of Benjamin you make no difficulty ; but it
was too remarkable an one to escape your notice altogether.
You remark upon it — " The expression ' little one ' is used of
Benjamin when he must have been more than twenty-two
years of age : " and to explain the difficulty of his having at
that time ten sons (which is the reckoning in the Hebrew and
in our English version, v. 21), you say, " It is quite possible
he may have had ten sons, perhaps by several wives." This
might have been the case ; but if it was so, the other patriarchs
also may have had a plurality of wives, though, not being of
Jacob's blood, they are not specially mentioned in the list of
Jacob's family. We may here gain a hint, by the way, how
unnecessary it is to limit the number of the Israelites, on
their first entrance into Egypt, to the exact number of the
Seventy, as recorded in the Hebrew, or the Seventy-five, as
the LXX. version and Acts vii. 14 have it. There might
well have been other children born to the patriarchs after their
settlement in Egypt, even as they might have had other
wives besides those mentioned, v. 26, before they went thither.
There is another explanation of this difficulty about the
sons of Benjamin, derived from the LXX. text of Gen. xlvi.
21, where, instead of ten sons of Benjamin, we find mention
of nine children only, in various degrees of descent, viz. three
sons, five grandsons, and one great grandson. We may take
our choice of the two solutions ; but if the latter be the true
one, then we have in v. 26 another example of that sort of
accommodation of language in calling them ' sons,' and in
19
speaking of them as ' going into Egypt,' (though they must
have been born there,) which you have yourself noticed where
Jacob is included among his own sons, and the sons of Joseph
among those of the other patriarchs. And if this be so, we
may observe, in passing, that according to the LXX. version
no difficulty is made about reckoning among the sons some
who were not born at the time of the rest going down.
But to return to the main point of your objection. A little
attention, as I have already pointed out, will show where the
whole strength of your argument lies, viz. on your construction
of the little phrase with which Chap, xxxviii. begins, "At that
time." This, you say, necessarily fixes the time of Judah's mar-
riage to a time after the events of the chapter preceding, viz.
Joseph being sold into Egypt when he was seventeen (Gen.
xxxvii. 2), and consequently when Judah was about twenty
years of age. And thus, since Judah was forty- two years old
at the going down to Egypt (20, note), you leave us only
twenty-two years in which he was to become a grandfather. I
have already removed any such necessity, and have shown,
that we may easily allow Judah, upon Dr. Kalisch's compu-
tation twenty-nine, and upon my own, thirty-three, years from
his marriage to the going down into Egypt ; and thus your
difficulty disappears.*
I have argued on the supposition, which is the usual one
and that adopted by yoa, that Joseph was thirty-nine years
of age when his family were called into Egypt. It has
been suggested (and the suggestion is an important one), by
way of allowing more time for the parentage of Judah's
sons and grandsons, that there is a possibility of error in
* It may further be observed that there was no absolute necessity, in
Dr. Kalisch's computation, or my own, to make Joseph so much as six years
old at the return to Canaan. Gen, xxx. 35 intimates clearly enough the
expiration of the fourteen years of Jacob's service when Joseph was born ; but
HOW LONG after that time he was born, it does not say. Put it three years, as
we know that Jacob stayed for another six years altogether, Gen. xxxi. 38.
By this arrangement, the figures become, instead of twenty-nine and thirty-
three, thirty-two for Dr. Kalisch's, and thirty-six for my own — estimate of
the years from Judah's marriage to the settlement in Egypt, during which
he might have had grandchildren.
20
our present reading of Gen. xli. 46, which would affect
materially the terminal figure in the usual calculation of these
thirty-nine years, and make them sixt2/-mne. This would
leave for the marriage of Judah and of his sons, and for the
birth of the two grandsons, from fifty-two to sixty-three years.
When difficulties concern transactions which occurred so many
thousand years ago, and records which are themselves of such
ancient date, it is difficult to say which solution is best. But,
in fact, either supposition would be sufficient to destroy the
absolute certainty of your position, that there were only twenty-
two years, in which, under circumstances of aggravated impro-
bability, Judah must be supposed to have become a grand-
father.
In either case, and whatever may be the most probable
solution, I cannot but wonder at the extreme confidence with
which you rush to so bold a conclusion, and say — " The
above, being certainly incredible, (!) we are obliged to con-
clude that one of the accounts must be untrue." But what
a ' measuring of ourselves by ourselves ' is this, * which is
not wise ' ! You take your arithmetical glasses, and then hold
the object so near to your eye, that you can but half see it in
its just and true proportions. A passage must be taken
literally, or not literally ; — with allowance for ' inaccuracy,'
because ' the meaning is obvious ' (28 (i) Ans.), or with no
allowance ; — we ' must suppose ' (42, 62), or we must 7iot sup-
pose (61) ; — and all this, just as we are led by our own ideas
or our own imagination ! Only we must take care never to
impute to an opponent any wilful perversion or ' concealment
of truth ' (26, note). What else have you done yourself,
when you say of so great a man as Hengstenherg (29), " It is
painful to mark the shifts to which so eminent an author has
had recourse, in order to avoid confessing (!) the manifest
truth in this matter. Of course, if a writer sets out with the
determination to maintain, at all costs (!), the ' veracity and
authenticity ' of every portion of the Pentateuch, something
must be said in order, if possible, to dispose of such contra-
dictions as those w^hich we are here considering."
21
ON CHAPTER IV.
" A7id Jehovah sjyaJce unto Moses, saying, , . . Gather thou
the Congregation together unto the door of the Tabernacle of the
Congregation. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded him.
And the Assembly was gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle
of the Congregation. — Lev. viii. 1 — 4."
It is strange you should venture here to impute to the writer
such a meaning as would be positively suicidal if he wished
to have any credit for veracity, and was in his sound senses
when he wrote. It is not, however, difficult to see, that he was
thinking more of the sacred meaning of the word " Tabernacle
of the Congregation," than of what exact number of people the
building would contain. You take no notice of the fact that the
very term "Tabernacle of the Congregation, ^FJ/ID /H^^j"
may be understood to bear reference to the idea of "God
meeting His people in the house of prayer," rather than to the
mere fact of the people there meeting together. It is a term
expressive not of a numerical, but of a religious idea. So Mede
and Patrick^ on Ex. xxix. 44, Num. xvii. 4, &c., " the Taber-
nacle of the Congregation was so called, not from the people's
meeting there, as it seems to import in the English, but from
God's meeting them, which is mentioned just before, v. 43,
''And there will 1 meet with the children of Israel.^ " But to
take it in your sense ; — who could seriously have thought of a
dense mass of two millions and a half of people being crowded
into a space of 84 x 18 feet ? or, to take the extreme contents
of the Court of the Tabernacle in front of the door, 84 x 90
feet? Perhaps the wi'iter was not aware that the people
amounted in all to so large a number ! But this is to suppose
22
him ignorant of that which must liave been known to every
reader of the Pentateuch ; for, if the number of "fighting men"
above twenty years of age was 603,550 (as it is so often
quoted), there can be little doubt, adding a due proportion for
old men and male children, and doubling this for the female
population, that the sum total would be at least two or two and
a half millions. (See Townsend, Hales^ Home, Patrick, &c.)
Nor are the other conditions of the problem new. Such an
absurdity, therefore, as is here imputed, upon your version of
the writer's sense, could not have escaped the notice of the
merest scribe i As you justly observe, " not two-thirds of the
Levites " alone, who were of an age to minister in the Taber-
nacle, " could have entered the court," much less stood before
the door, if they all came at once. But this very remark,
which is your own (38), lets us into the whole secret: the
Levites never did enter at once, for it was not at all required ;
neither is it to be understood that " all the congregation," or
the "whole Assembly," came at once; but, like the Levites,
a competent number only, according to the occasion. On
some occasions they might all come, by doing so in turns.
What would be thought of some future historian who should
tell the world "it must have been impossible" for the Commons
of England ever to have sat in a house containing seats for
630 ? Yet ' the Commons ' can possibly be meant to be un-
derstood of the representatives only of that body ! And so,
precisely, in this case of the ' congregation ' of Israel. Your
objections here will trouble no one who reads the Scriptures
with any moderate degree of candour and common sense.
23
ON CHAPTEK V.
" These he the words which Moses spahe unto all IsraeV
— Deut i. 1.
^' And Moses called all Israel j and said unto them'' — Deut.
V. 1.
" And afterward he read all the words of the Law, the bless-
ings and the cursings, according to all that which is written in
the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses
commanded^ which Joshua read not before all the Congregation
of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers
that icere conversant among them.'" — Josh. viii. 34, 35.
*'How is it conceivable," yon ask, ''that a man should
do what Joshua is here said to have done, unless, indeed,
the reading every word of all that Moses commanded was
a mere dumb show, without the least idea of those most
solemn words being heard by those to whom they were
addressed ? For surely no human voice, unless strengthened
by a miracle, of which the Scripture tells us nothing,
could have reached the ears of a crowded mass of people,
as large as the whole population of London." . . . "Espe-
cially after he had been already engaged, as the story
implies, on the very same day, in writing a copy of the Law
of Moses upon the stones set up in Mount Ebal. Josh. viii.
32, 33." As if it could be meant that any one man did all this
duty with his own hand or voice in one day ! But Quifacitper
alium facit per se ; Joshua neither ''wrote" out the law, nor
" read it before all the congregation " himself alone, but with
the assistance of other competent persons. Precisely the
same way of speaking we have in other passages of this
same book of Joshua ; for example, Josh. viii. 28, " And
24
Joshua burnt At, and made it an heap for ever." x. S3, "Then,
Horam, King of Gezer, came up to help Lachish, and Joshua
smote Mm and Jnspeojyhj until he had left him " none remain-
ing." And so in many other places, as Mark viii. 9 : " And
they that had eaten were about four thousand, and he sent
them away^
But you complain (Part II. Pref xii.) that you are only
half met by your critics ; that, it has been the practice to
quote some one or other of your arguments 'partially y so as
to omit altogether the xQdl j)oint of the reasoning.
I am sorry you have found it so ; and, to prevent mistakes,
will here let you speak for yourself. " It may be said that
only a portion of this great host was really present, though
' all Israel ' is spoken of. And this might have been allowed
without derogating from the general historical value of the
book, though, of course, not without impeaching the literal
accuracy of the Scripture narrative." (42.) Indeed, it would
be a thing hardly worth many minutes' consideration, were
it not that such observations as you here make, we find very
constantly repeated by you, in the chapter preceding as well
as here. And as you accuse us of but half entering into your
difficulties, it may be worth while to subjoin a few familiar
illustrations. Would any one, then, object to such language
as the following — that " all London had assembled to witness
the opening of the International Exhibition"? or this of
Gibbon? — "When he" (the Emperor Julian) "reached
Heraclea, all Constantinople was poured forth to meet him " ?
{Roman Empire, ch. xxii.) Or, to take a more familiar
example, suppose a person describing one of our common
English games, and saying that " on such a day, he had seen
Surrey play All England." And now, let us apply your
test, which you shall have precisely in your own language
(See Part II. xxxix. Corrections and additions to Part I.).
" While it is conceivable that a later [reporter] imagining
such a scene as this, may have employed such exaggerated
expressions as occur in [this account], it cannot be believed
that an actual eve- witness .... with the actual facts of the
25
case before hira, could have expressed himself in such extrava-
gant language."
If there are any of your lay friends that mix at all in the
sports of England, they will be able to help you out of this
difficulty, with a laugh, perhaps, besides, at your thinking to
have caught them in so transparent a trap.
"But," says the Bishop, "the point of my argument,
which none of my Eeviewers have touched, is this : that it
is expressly stated in Lev. viii. 1, that Jehovah Himself sum-
moned the congregation together, and that it is impossible to
believe that Almighty God did really issue a command, which
was not meant to be strictly obeyed — by all, at least, who
were able to attend the summons." (Part II. Pref. xiii.)
I the more mention this, because you make the same sort
of reply (Pref. xiv.) as to the offering of the '"' two tm^tle-doves,
or two young pigeons " on the part of the " leper " (Lev. xiv.
22), viz., that they were expressly " ordered by Jehovah Him-
self ^ I can only say, that if you intended the stress to be laid
on the command emanating, in either case, from " the direct
voice of Jehovah Himself," you might well excuse our giving
you credit for more discernment. For I would ask any one —
when the words of Scripture are, " And Jehovah spake unto
MoseSj saying, Gather thou the congregation unto the door
of the Tabernacle,'' — whether the stress of the meaning is,
" that the congregation was summoned by the direct voice of
Jehovah Himself " ? The order to Moses came, if you please,
from ' the direct voice ' of God — the ^ summons to the con-
gregation ' certainly did not. You must have been driven
hard, indeed, for an argument here; and yet, by objections
such as these, you think to break down the credit of the
Mosaic history. Is this what you would call appealing with
confidence to the Laity? {See Part II. Pref xxvii.)
26
ON CHAPTER VL
*' And the sMn of the huUocJc, and all his flesh, with his
head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the
ichole hullock shall he {the Priest) carry forth without the camp
unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and hum
him on the wood with fire : where the ashes are poured out,
shall he he hurntP — Lev. iv. 11, 12.
" And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his
linen hreeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes
which the fire hath consumed loith the hurnt-offering on the
altar, and he shall put them heside the altar. And he shall
put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry
forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean placed — Lev. vi.
10, 11.*
" We must imagine," you say, ^' a vast encampment
covering more than 1,652 acres of ground, more than a mile
and a half across in each direction, with the Tabernacle in the
centre. . . . The refuse of the sacrifices would have had to be
carried ... a distance of three quarters of a mile — and they
could not surely have gone outside the camp for the necessities
of nature, as commanded in Deut. xxiii. 12 — 14."
I might almost omit your notion of the Priest alone having
to carry the skin, &c. of the sacrifice. This is just a part of his
business, which we may properly enough imagine him to have
performed by proxy, or at least to have received competent
assistance in carrying his burden. For most pm'poses the
Levites were to be at the service of the Priests, to do for them
whatever ofiices they might appoint them, Numb. iii. 6 ;
viii. 19. But even in other cases, more peculiarly appertain-
ing to the ofiice of the Priesthood, Necessitas non hahet leges :
* This text has been added at the particular suggestion of the Bishop,
Part II. xxxix., Corrections and Additions to Part I.
27
there would be the same liberty, surely, where it was necessary,
as in the time of Hezekiah, when we read, 2 Chron. xxix. 34,
" But the priests were too feio^ so that they could not flay all
the burnt offerings ; wherefore their hrethren the Levites did
help themy
The remainder of the difficulty is not very considerable,
and would less perplex a quartermaster general than it seems
to have perplexed you. As to the Tabernacle being precisely
and mathematically ''in the centre," there is no more reason to
assume such a thing, than to imagine the heart of a man to
be in the precise centre of his body, exactly equidistant from
each of its extremities, because the Psalmist says, " my heart
also in the midst of my hody is even like melting wax." The
arrangements necessary in the camp would require a little
ingenuity, but nothing more.
If ever you were driven into a corner, it is in this and in
the two preceding chapters. We want nothing more than
your own admissions. " I am quite ready to admit," you
say, in the confession extorted from you in Part II. p. xiii.,
" that the Hebrew word here employed (Lev. iv. 11) may be
used in the sense of carrying out with the help of others, as
in Lev. xiv. 45 : the Priest ' shall carry forth (the stones,
timber, mortar, &c. of a house stricken with leprosy) out of
the city unto an unclean place.' " But you continue: " The
stress of my argument is not laid upon the necessity of the
Priest himself in person doing this, but upon the fact that
it had to he done hy somebody ^^ Perhaps so ; but it looks
very much like an after-thought, inasmuch as you must give
me leave to observe there is 7io hint of the kind in the original
chapter Part I., unless you call it ' somebody doing it' where
you use the words (44), " Th refuse of these sacrifices would
have had to be carried by the Priest himself (Aaron, Eleazar,
and Ithamar ; there ivere no others) a distance of three-quarters
of a miUr Let any one judge whether, in these words, you
were particularly 'laying the stress' on ' somebody doing it,'
who was not one of the Priests'? Soon after follow the
memorable words, under which it could only happen that
28
either the Priest or yourself should break down, viz. " We
have to imagine the Priest having himself to carry, on his
back on foot, the skin, and flesh, and head, and legs, and
inwards, and dung, even the whole bullock [about as far as]
from St. Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis" (45). Here
was your picture ! And what now is your improved version
of it ? In Part II. ( Corrections and Additions, p. xxxix.) you
say, **■ For ' on his back on foot,' read ' perhaps with the help
of others.' " Why, this is all the admission we desired !
And how does the new passage (Lev, vi. 10, 11) help you out?
Coming, as it does, after chap. iv. 11, 12, from which
your former quotation was taken, one would naturally say
that the mode of ' carrying ' in the first case would decide the
mode of carrying in the latter, viz. by your own reluctant
admission — "with the help of others." And accordingly,
this very next emendation of yours relieves us of the neces-
sity of any further disputation on the subject. It is clear,
however, you are not quite satisfied about the sanitary regula-
tions, because there is no mention of water to ' cleanse the
sewage,' and I suppose you would expect to hear of high,
lower, and middle levels, &c. &c., when unfortunately there
is nothing at all but the solitary contrivance (Deut. xxiii.
12 — 14) of a * paddle on the weapon of the men-of-war,'
wherewith they were to turn over the ground at a due dis-
tance from the camp.* At any rate, if we must make Moses
a sanitary commissioner, let us not make things worse than
we need. There was not, surely, but one single 'camp' in
a large station or encampment, though the whole might
sometimes he called ' the camp.' But each tribe would
naturally encamp apart, and wliat could be easier tlian to
have sufficient spaces between? The subject is not very
attractive, but you shall not be obliged to complain of being
only ' partially met in your arguments.'
* You rake up this objection again and again, remarking (Part II. 200) —
*' The rules for maintaining perfect cleanliness in the camp would have been
futile, if laid down for the population of a small English town, as well as for
a much greater multitude."
29
ON CHAPTER VII.
" And Jeliovah spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest
the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall
they give every man a ransom for his soul icnto Jehovah, ivhen
thou numherest them; that there he no plague among them,vjhen
thou numherest them. This they shall give, every one that
passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the
shekel of the sanctuary : an half-shekel shall he the offering of
J.ehovah" — Ex. xxx. 11 — 13.
Those who know the difficulty of taking the exact census
of a population, will think it most probable, though the num-
bers of the children of Israel required to be taken twice for
distinct purposes, in the short interval of half a year, yet that
one census was made to suffice for both occasions. And there-
fore, whether the first was made the basis of the second, *as
Hdvernick thinks, or the second of the first, as Kurtz would
rather have it, there is no reason to be surprised at the num-
bers agreeing, viz. the number stated Ex. xxxviii. 26, and
the number '' six months afterwards," Numb. ii. 32 — being in
both places 603, 550. Of the two, I should be disposed to
prefer the explanation of Kurtz to that of Hdvernick, since the
passage. Numb. i. 18, on which the latter relies, as appearing
to indicate that families and not individuals were the basis of
the second census, must be taken in connexion with a preced-
ing verse, v. 2, where it is further enjoined to " take the sum
of the congregation . . . with the number of their names, every
male hy their polish But, as usual when two differ, there
comes in a third, who hits upon the happy medium, and I can
find nothing in your remarks in this chapter to prevent our
concurring in the extremely fair account of Michaelis. " In
Ex. xxxviii. there is no account of an actual numbering, but
30
every one above twenty years old paid his tax, and was
registered accordingly. But on the present occasion, Num. i. ii.
Moses received instructions to arrange the lists, and sum them
up. The names had been given in before, though the actual
counting only took place now. And therefore Moses did not
hesitate, when recording the account of the tax, to insert what
were afterwards found to be the actual numbers,"
But you appear to intimate that whoever raised the money
(Exod. xxxviii.) must have known the numbers also, as they
were taken six months afterwards (47). And you think it
irregular not to have taken the tax at the same time as the
census was taken (Numb. i. — iii.) in the manner prescribed
in the passage prefixed to this chapter. You are determined
to make out that there were two numherings, though ' nothing
is said ' in Scripture of the former of the two, and that there
ought to have been two taxings^ though * there is no indication '
in the Scripture account of more than one. And then it is
a matter of surprise to you that the numbers in Exod. xxxviii.
26, and Numb. ii. 32, though taken some " six months "
apart, should be identically the same (47).
■But this very consideration might have let you into the
secret, if you had been willing to learn of the sacred writers,
instead of teaching tliem what they ougM to have written, and
prescribhig for yourself how matters ouglit to have been con-
ducted ! It is certainly provoking that the Scripture writers
are continually found not doing what they ouglit ! As far as
we can conjecture, however, and since the arrangements of a
census take a long time, it seems that the whole transaction
was but one tax-gathering and one census, and was spread
over a time not exceeding six months, though it is quite
uncertain how long this interval was, and it might have been
much shorter. Tliere is also no impropriety in supposing —
and it certainly is not ' incredible ' — that persons who may
have been exempted, or been absent, at the first collection of
the tax, were required to pay up at the numbering, when their
names would naturally be called over again. Persons also —
if the time was really so long as you conjecture — who became
31
liable meanwhile by having grown to the rateable age, would
now have to pay like the rest. And all this— being done for
the sake of convenience or despatch, or for some sufficient reason
now unknown — might be regarded as one single numbering
and one single collection of the tax. And the only fault to
be found with the sacred writer is, that he is so correct in his
arithmetic ; for really, as you say, " this purports to be a
strictly accurate account of the matter, and not merely a
rough or even a pretty close estimate, as Kurtz supposes "
(49, iv.) ; and (what makes it worse) it " bears to be checked
in a great variety of ways " (49, iii. 198). I think we may
excuse Moses this fault ! and be careful on our own part not
too hastily to conclude against those who may ' possibly ' in
the end be discovered to know better than ourselves. The
fact is, you are so accustomed to look upon Scripture as in-
correct, that when you find any part of it more correct than
you expected, you instantly conclude that it cannot be Scrip-
ture ! But at this rate we shall shortly have no guide left
us but the pride of our intellects, or the waywardness of our
wills. And these, I fear, will prove but miserable substitutes
for the light which God has given us in the Eevelation of
His own express word and will.
32
ON CHAPTEE VIII.
" Take ye every man for them which are in Ms tents r —
Ex. xvi. 16.
You calculate that " Tents of tlie lightest modern material;
with poles, pegs, &c., sufficient to hold all the families of
Israel, would require at least 50,000 oxen to carry them ; but
as the Hebrew tents were probably made of skins, you add
further, that such tents as these would have required 200,000
oxen to carry them." You think it impossible that this
number of cattle was forthcoming at the time, especially as
there was no time to train them to their work as beasts of
"burden. You also deem it impossible to have procured the
tents, to say nothing of providing the means of transport.
Omitting a little verbal criticism, this is about the substance
of your objections here. Your difficulty, then, principally
turns on the means which the Israelites had at their disposal
for the procuring of these conveniences ? As this is a question
which will be more ripe for solution as we advance in our
inquiries, I may perhaps be allowed to defer the consideration
of it to a later place. (See on chapters X. XI. p. 42.)
You have another difficulty here about the Israelites, in
one place being said to dwell in " tents " (probably of
* skins'), Ex. xvi. 16; and, in another, in "booths" (proba-
bly of ' leaves ' and rough ' sticks '), Lev. xxiii. 42, 43.
And in your late Corrections and Additions, you strengthen
this latter by a fresh passage from Nehemiah, ch. viii. 14 — 17:
" And they found written in the law ichich the Lord had com-
manded hy Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in
booths in the feast of the seventh month. And that they should
publish and i^oclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem,
33
saying, Go forth unto the momd, and fetch olive branches, and
pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and
branches of thick trees, to inake booths, as it is loritten,^^ &c. &c.
Upon which you observe, that there is a hopeless confusion
between ' tents ' and ' booths ' ; and how one sort of tent coukl
be a commemoration of another, you are quite at a loss to under-
stand. But if a camp-life in the wilderness afforded nothing-
better than poor ' tents ' (for it is quite your own fancy that the
tents had 'pegs,' 'poles/ and every modern appurtenance!),
what was there inappropriate, when they came to a land of
plenty and ease, if they should take advantage of the better
means at their command, to make a more cheerful and com-
fortable sort of tent, called in our translation ' booths ' ? and
yet be reminded, with even greater gratitude, of their wilder-
ness-life, and of their happiness in being delivered safely
from the ' land of Egypt and from the house of bondage ' "?
34
ON CHAPTER TX.
" The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land
of Ecjypr—'FiX. xiii. 18.
You allow that instead of "harnessed," the sense given to
the word in the Septuagint version is " in the 5th generation ;"
and that elsewhere the word is rendered TreyLtTrraSe?, or " ranks
of five ; " that at any rate the HebreAv word for *' five" (li^pH)
is very probably the root of the word here rendered '' har-
nessed " (D"]^Dn). The late learned Dr. Townsend thus
comments on the passage : " In the margin of our authorized
translation, the word is rendered ' five in a rank.' This would
limit the meaning to the military order of their march, and
approaches nearer to the probable interpretation. But neither
can this be the right meaning; for, as the number was so
large, their whole column of march, if even confined only to
the 600,000, would have occupied 68 miles." [Let the reader
note this, to show that the objection is by no means new.] . . .
" I think it probable, that each detachment or division of this
immense number, was ordered in companies or parties of 50 in
a rank. This would give 1,000 ranks only to each company of
50,000 men ; and eacli cavalcade would not, therefore, occupy
much less space than a mile; and would be, consequently,
more easily under the direction of their leaders, Moses and
Aaron ; and under the respective heads of their own several
tribes who commanded under them. Thus would each tribe go
out in calm and peaceful array. ' God brought forth Israel
with joy and his people with gladness,' in twelve orderly
religious processions, as the triumphant conquerors of the gods,
the king, the princes, and the people of Egypt. They came
forth in suph array, order, and regularity, that all the texts
which describe their march may thus be reconciled with each
35
other. They were 600,000 in number. They were the hosts
of Jehovah, arranged in their armies according to their tribes,
and ' harnessed ' or provided with arms for battle, with their
flowing robes girded round their loins for their journey,
arranged in their fifties of thousands — ordered, in each 50,000,
in their companies of fifties — with not one feeble person
among their tribes. And so the people of Israel went forth
on that memorable night from Rameses to Succoth, the first
of their wonderful journeys." {Holy Bible, arranged in His-
torical and Chronological Order: Rev. G. Townsend, D.D.)
Instead, then, of the unquestionably awkward, but, as the
reader will have observed, not altogether novel conception of
the order of march, which would make them a corps " perhaps
68 miles long" (60), we are at liberty to divide them, ac-
cording to the number of their tribes, in 12 corps, of 50,000
men each, marching 50 in a rank, and each corps occupying a
space of about 1,000 yards.
But now let us take the word in the sense which you con-
sider preferable; viz. : — '' armed," or " in battle array." I do
not the least dispute your right to make use of this sense of
the word, if you prefer it. It is 7iot the necessary sense of it,
though you support it by ingenious arguments. I quarrel
with you here on a difierent ground. For you proceed to
make the following most extraordinary assertion : " AVe must
suppose," you say, " that the whole body,'' (the italics are
your own,) " of the 600,000 warriors were armed when they
were numbered, (Num. i. 3,) under Sinai." {Q2.) Where is
the necessity ? Where is even the likelihood of this supposi-
tion, that the whole body carried arms? The first passage
you rely upon is that in Exod. xiii. 18, which you prefix
to the chapter. " The children of Israel went up harnessed
{i.e. armed) out of the land of Egifpt''' But this, surely,
speaks of ''the children of Israel" generally; and your
assumption might as well be that all the two and a half
millions of them were armed, since they are all alike spoken
of here as " coming up harnessed," or " armed," if you prefer
this meaning, " out of Egypt." But, perhaps, some other pas-
86
sage will come to your relief. There are two left you ; viz.
Num. i. 3; ii. 32. The first says, " From twenty years old and
upwards, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel, Aaron
shall number them by their armies." In the second we read
only " all those that were numbered of the camps throughout
their hosts were six hundred thousand, and three thousand,
and five hundred and fifty." Extract what you will from these
passages, they give us no reason for putting arms into the
hands of all this number, merely because they are described as
*' able to go forth to war." We are still then to seek for
some authority. But, failing the passage already disposed of,
viz. Exod. xiii. 18, we look round in vain for any other ; and
I ask again, what ground have you for your confident asser-
tion, "We imist suppose that the whole lody of 600,000 warriors
were armed?" It is, indeed, supposition only. You are in-
genious enough at such a resource when it helps your argu-
ment, but if any one ventures to "suppose" that "perchance
the Israelites picked up some quantity of arms among the
spoils of the Egyptians at the Ked Sea " (for which, by-the-
bye, there is the authority of Josephus), you are up in arms at
once, and say, " The Bible story says nothing about this
stripping of the dead, as it surely must have done, if it really
took place." (61.)
Let us be fair on both sides, and let not mere hypothesis be
licensed for the purpose of invalidating the authority of the
Scripture narrative, when it is forbidden in defending it. We
might require more. For, whereas on the side of the defence,
if any tolerable probability can be shown, there is an appeal
for confirmation, not only to the letter of Scripture, but also
to the sense and tradition of the Church in all ages, Jewish
as well as Christian ; on the other side there is no appeal but
to abstract ideas as to what, in the nature of things, may
be considered possible or impossible. Besides which, before
it can be worth while to disturb the whole tenor of the sacred
history, and "the current belief" in the same, there should
be something more than mere probability — there should be
some positive certainty to justify the attempt.
37
OK CHAPTEES X., XI
" Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto
them, Draw out now, and take you a lamb according to your
families, and Mil the Passover. And ye shall take a hunch of
hyssop, and dij) it in the hlood lohich is in the hason, and strike
the lintel and the two side-posts with the hlood that is in the
hason ; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house
till the morning And the children of Israel went aioay,
and did as Jehovah had commanded Moses and Aaron : so did
tlieyT Ex. xii. 21 — 28. " And the children of Israel journeyed
from Rameses to Succoth, ahout six hundred thousand on foot
that were men, hesides children. And a mixed multitude went
up also loith them, and flocks and herds, even very much cattle"
—Ex. xii. 37, 38.
On the former of these passages you observe, ''the first
notice of any such feast to be kept is given in this very
chapter." In speaking thus, many would understand you to
imply, that this was the "first notice given," even to Moses
himself. But, on the contrary, we find at the very beginning
of the preceding chapter (xi. 1), that the Lord expressly said
unto Moses, "Yet will I bring one plague more upon Pharaoh
and upon Egypt ; afterwards he will let you go hence."
Then follows the precept, to take of the Egyptians (who
seemed by this time only too glad to come to any terms with
the Israelites), "jewels of silver and jewels of gold," which
they readily gave in such quantities that the latter are said to
have " spoiled the Egyptians,^^ (xii. 86). But they had only,
it seems, to ask, and they received this abundant sjipply, suffi-
cient to enrich them during all the long march that was before
38
them : for " the Lord " it was that " gave the people favour
in the sight of the Egyptians." (xi. 3.) We must evidently
allow time for these proceedings, and yet your theory of an
immediate start with scarce " a moment's notice," (74) leaves
no room for any considerable interval here for the collection
of these treasures, though it seems necessarily implied in the
original. The narrative seems very emphatically to dwell on
this interval of time as an important one; — "Moreover," it
continues^ '' the man Moses was very great in the land of
Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants and in the sight of
the people." (v. 3.) So widely, indeed, was the terror of the
chosen people spread, after that sore calamity of the plagues,
which for a long season had afflicted the land, that they were
anxious for their departure at any price ; and they would
rather waste their treasures, than all the peace and happiness
of their lives. "The Egyptians," therefore, as the history
emphatically repeats, (xii. 33.) " were urgent upon the people
that they might send them out of the land in haste, for they
said, 'We be all dead men.' " * But, now, let me ask. How
does it tally with this account, which is all from Scripture,
when you say that, besides the difficulty of informing such a
population, there is that " of their horroiving, when summoned
in the dead of nighty (Ex. xii. 29 — 36.) to the extent implied in
the story." Their "borrowing," as you call it, was not in the
dead of the night, as I have just shown, but at least a day,
perhaps many days before.
" It cannot," you think, "be said that they had notice seve-
ral days beforehand," on the mere ground that they "were to
'take' the lamb on the tenth day of the month, and *kiir it
* I may support my view of the passages above quoted from Ex. xi., by
the following from the Commentary of Dr. Kalisch on v. 1 ; — " The close
connexion between this and the preceding chapter is this : After Pharaoh had
threatened Moses with death if he ventured to appear again before him (x. 28) ;
Moses, already informed iy the Lord of the fitted events, noiv so nearly impcndhifj,
answered him that he would willingly obey his commands (v. 29); but, pre-
vious to his departing, he announced to the King the death of all the first-born
^^ Egypt, and . . . the other circumstances with which the event of the
Exodus would be accompanied.'"
39
on the fourteentli, v. 3, 6 ; and that so v. 12 only means to
say, 'on that night'— the night of the fourteenth — 'I will
pass through the land of Egypt.' For the expression in v, 12
is distinctly HTi*!, 'this,' not ^^^^^, ' that' as in xiii. 8." It
is true that the expression ' this day,' and ' this night/ (Heb.
T]^TV) is of frequent occurreuce in Exod. xii. for the night of
the Passover. But in the lexicons we find '' Mc' and ^ iste'
both given as the sense of this pronoun HT : and our trans-
lators must have had some good reason for rendering it at
V. 12, " on that night." The Vulgate agrees, both here and
at V. 12, 'nocte ilia,'' although at v. 14 it renders it 'hunc
diem/ The reader may refer to Poll Synopsis ad Exod, xii. 1,
where he will find it the general opinion of commentators that
the warning here given to Moses was at least given as long
before as the tenth * — probably on the first day of the month.
Certainly, then, if the people were taken by surprise,
Moses was not ; and it is inconceivable but that many knew
of it as well as he. From the central town where they
lived, relays of messengers might easily have been ready to
convey the intelligence throughout the whole land of Goshen.
Moreover, the line of march lying for the most part east-
ward of the chief city, which was the direction in which the
children of Israel were about to effect their escape (see
Kitto on Ex. xii. 37.), the out-lying body of the people
might receive notice to fall in, as the main body came up :
and this Avithout the extreme hurry and confusion of a sudden
panic, though it is granted, they set out with considerable
" liaste,^^ of which they preserved a memorial in the un-
leavened bread, and in other observances of the Paschal feast.
Nor were they in danger of molestation from the people
among whom they lived, whether it were in the chief city of
Rameses, or in the shepherds-tracts, or in other small towns.
Some difficulty, no doubt, must have attended the transport
of women and children, who could not well have followed on
* I am glad to find this interpretation confirmed, in the very clear expo-
sition of this passage (Exod, xii.) by the Lord Bishop of LlandajBT. ^qq. Letter
to the Clergy oj the Diocese of Llandaff. Rivingtons, 1863.
40
foot, or kept up with the men of war ; but as the land of
Goshen, where they dwelt, was near the great highway into
Egypt along the coast of the Mediterranean, and also had an
outlet in another direction round the head of the Red
Sea — there would naturally have been a plentiful influx
from time to time of people from the neighbouring tribes ;
and of these they might have served themselves, to assist
in all menial offices ; and others they might have hired
for the transport of what they most valued, and of what
they required for present exigencies. This is, in fact, the
" mixed multitude which went up with them, with flocks and
herds and very much cattle," alluded to, Exod. xii. 38. It
appears wholly unnecessary, and even an error, to suppose
that the provisions for the Passover (Exod. xii.) were to come
at once into full and immediate operation, on the very night of
the Exodus. As Dr. Kalisch well points out, this chapter
embodies in one account, for the sake of completeness, the
full provisions that were hereafter to he observed, so soon as
the people were sufficiently settled to admit of such obser-
vance. For the present emergency it would, perhaps, be only
necessary that provision should have been made for the killing
of as many lambs as would suffice for the '* sprinkling of the
blood on the doors of the houses where the children of Israel
were," and also to keep such a hasty feast as they were able,
''with the shoes on their feet, with their loins girded, and
with staves in their hands," ready for their journey. The
number of lambs required for this would not be large ; or, if
it were, the people must have received earlier notice to prepare,
than is directly mentioned in the Scripture account of the
event. We are at liberty to adopt whichever supposition we
please. And thus we may dismiss the *'rnany miles of people
marching, with so many miles of sheep and oxen.'' (78) !
And really your idea of scarce *' a moment's notice " is too
palpably absurd. It is to forget a prophecy (Gen. xv. 13, 14.)
which, in no indistinct terms, had predicted this very event of
the Exodus, and the exact time of it — a prophecy to whose
fulfilment every eye would be now anxiously directed, as tlie
41
time was drawing nigh ; and Avliich Moses, the servant of
God, was of all men the least likely to have forgotten or
overlooked. Instead of " one day," we have in fact a notice of
"four hundred years."! It was by a similar prediction that
the Jews of a later day, under the teaching of Daniel, were
sustained in their hope of a return during the seventy years'
captivity in Babylon ; — and why should the Israelites, under
their Egyptian bondage, have been less mindful of the voice
of prophecy, especially when the approaching time of their
deliverance was heralded by the " mighty hand and stretched-
out arm " of their Almighty protector ? For what had been
the express object of the plagues of Egypt but to be one
continued notice to Pharaoh to " let the people go " ? And
must there not have been a strong presentiment in the minds
of all the people, that the time of their redemption was at
hand, when their chief could thus confidently address the
king, some days, at least, before, '' Thou hast spoken well, I
will see thy face again no more." (Exod. x. 29.) And why
should you speak of " a day's notice," even though you wilfully
shut your eyes to this long course and train of preparation ?
The march from Rameses took place *' on the loth day"
(Numb, xxxiii. 3) ; and the Passover night began on *' the
14th at even," i.e. 36 hours before! But if you will still
have it " one single day," (73, 75) we must set against this
the three months of the plagues (see Bryant, Hales^ Toicnsend,
&c.) — besides the four hundred years of the prophecy running
on — which all conspired to give them due warning of an event
so highly important to them all. Though not a man " went out
at the door of his house till the morning," — we may add, though
no telegram was yet known to science, — the Almighty was not
without messengers to proclaim His will, and to announce, as
by a trumpet tongue, that the day of redemption was come.
He was about to " lead His people through the way of the
wilderness by the Eed Sea." "He was about to go before
them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and
by night in a pillar of fire to give them light." (Exod. xiii.
18, 21.) Was it likely He should want means to bring
42
them forward on the first step of their journey, and to prepare
them for their triumphant exit ?
We proposed (vid. on chap. VIII.) to consider, in a later
place, the difficulty of providing " tents '' for so large a
multitude. We may now observe that this, difficulty is allied
to that just considered, p. 32, of procuring transport for the
women and children. And it is obviously met by the same
considerations. We have only to remember the numerous
children of the desert who were at hand, to give their services
for reasonable hire. We have only to realize the notoriety
of the route, and the natural facilities of supply of almost
every article of commerce. We have seen that the means of
purchase were not likely to be wanting to a people who, in
addition to the ordinary earnings of a long and probably an
industrious life in Egypt, had but lately profited by the
wealth unsparingly lavished upon them in the ardour of the
inhabitants to "let them go free." (Consult, if you please,
my Veracity of Genesis, chap. II. pp. 36, 37.)
43
ON CHAPTEES XII, XIII.
" And the children of Israel did eat manna for forty years^
until they came to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna until
they came into the horders of the land of Canaan!' Ex. xvi. 35.
" I will send my fear hefore thee, I will destroy all the ;peoiAe to
whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn
their hacks unto thee. And I will send hornets hefore thee, which
shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from
hefore thee, I will not drive them out from hefore thee in one
year, lest the land hecome desolate^ and the heast of the field
multijoly against thee. By little and little I will drive them out
from hefore thee, until thou he increased, and inherit the land!' —
Ex. xxiii. 27—30.
It may now very fairly be said: However well supplied
with tents and provisions, with flocks and herds, and other
conveniences for the journey, the Israelites might have been at
the time of the Exodus itself, these resources must soon have
been spent — they had nothing but " a waste howling wilder-
ness " before them — and, setting miraculous interposition aside,
if their numbers were really as large as they are represented,
they must soon have been reduced to the lowest and most
necessitous condition. Wood and water, shelter as well
as pasture for their flocks, and all other necessaries, would
soon begin to fail them ; and how they were to subsist with-
out a perpetual miracle, in this destitute condition, it is im-
possible to conceive ! Such might very naturally be the tenor
of thought, as one attempted to follow the chosen people
along their barren and weary way. But this does not content
you. You are not satisfied without a much more sweeping
conclusion. You pronounce it next to impossible that the
means of support could liave been found for so large a body
of cattle and men in the peninsula of Sinai without a special
miracle, of which the Bible says nothing (85). The people,
you allow, may have been supplied with " manna ;" but for the
cattle you utterly despair (79). The impossibility, however,
which you assert, you have entirely failed to prove. You make
out a prima facie improbability for the people having stayed
in one locality (say under Mount Sinai) with their flocks and
herds for any very long period ; but allowing the full force of
your arguments, when you allege the great scarcity in the
desert owing to its exceeding barrenness, it seems to me, for
the reasons that will be given presently, that they prove
nothing against the possibility of their staying there one year,
which is the time stated, and all that the history requires ;
though it might have been a difficulty if they had been related
to have made it their halting-place for a much longer time.
And thus, for anything you have shown to the contrary, we
may still abide by the Scripture account, which gives them
at least a year in the Sinaitic peninsula. It is a strange
thing to imagine that you have shown this account to be in-
credible, when you have not even shown it improbable. In
venturing to assert this, I might be almost contented to
adduce, in proof of it, the admirable reasons on the Scripture
side of the statement which you have yourself brought
forward from Dr. Stanley, whose arguments you have very
imperfectly answered, and have certainly done nothing to
refute. But I will not at present go over this ground with
you or with your readers again. I am really astonished you
should have left out of your consideration so many things
besides *' the manna for the people." One distinct reference
to the line of route along which the Israelites were marching,
would have gone far to dissipate the illusion which makes all
your difficulty here. Were not the Israelites, with some
few diversions to which their own disobedience and unbelief
condemned them, marching for the most part along the high
way which carried tlie chief commerce of Arabia and the
East down to Egypt? Was there not, at the one end of it.
45
the rich and fertile land which they had left, and at the other
the fat pastures of Bashan and of the further Midian ? Is it
to be supposed there were no longer Midianitish merchants
passing that way? We read in Kitto (see Palestine, and
Pictorial Bible, Exod. xii. 37), "From Rameses Moses had
before him the choice of two roads to Palestine ; the direct
one, along the coast of the Mediterranean to el-Aresh ; and
the more circuitous one by the head of the Red Sea and the
desert of Sinai. The Lord directed the latter, Exod, xiii.
17, 18. This would appear to have been a known and
travelled way, by which passed doubtless the commerce that
must have subsisted between Egypt and Arabia, and leading
probably around the present head of the Red Sea, at the
same or nearly the same point where the caravans now pass."
Do you call it an impartial account which leaves entirely out
of consideration such a circumstance as this? A circum-
stance opening out to them a fair prospect of supply, whether
they wanted provender for their cattle, or wood for the Taber-
nacle, or lambs for the Passover. You have shrunk, it seems,
from all mention of their having any such facilities of traffic
at their command. The unwary reader of your account might
conclude, because Egypt was shut against them, that they
had no commimication with any other people to help them
out ! Yet I find in these Midianites the solution of one
chief difficulty on which you rest the incredibility which you
are pleased to charge against the history, viz., the prodigious
number of sheep that the Israelites would be required to
keep in order to supply themselves with a sufficiency of
lambs for the Passover. You reckon them to have needed
*' a flock of at least 200,000 sheep and lambs of all ages "
(71). We may see, however, now, that there was no such
necessity at all. With a little foresight, they might have pro-
cured the requisite number of lainbs alone ; and we have no
occasion whatever to suppose a proportionable number of sheep
to supply the lambs ; or at least they might have made up the
number, partly out of their own flocks, partly by purchase from
the travelling merchants of the East. Had it even been neces-
46
sary to keep a flock, it is a well-known fact that goats will find
subsistence in mountainous and desert tracts where sheep
cannot. From these, therefore, might be obtained a great
part of the supply necessary for any such sacrifices as the yet
imperfect state of the law required, and as the circumstances
of the people would admit ; and why should we overlook the
special provision in the law itself, designed, perhaps, to meet
the very exigency which your objection contemplates, — " Your
lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year : ye
shall take it out from the sheep or from the goatsy Ex. xii. 5.
Besides, this vast number of cattle, of which you make such a
difficulty, is quite of your own imagining. The provisions for
the sacrifices prescribed in the law, were not to come into
operation till the people tvere settled in the land of their rest.
Our attention will have to be directed to this point when we
come to some later chapters (see below, pp. 58, 59). Suffice
it for the present to adduce one passage in which we have the
mind of Scripture on this matter, and which I will cite at
at length — " And the Lord commanded me at that time to
teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in
the land whither ye go over to possess it'" — Deut. iv. 14.
But much as all these considerations affect your argument,
they are not the only things which you ignore or keep out of
sight. Was it nothing that they were under the command of
an experienced leader like Moses ; of one to whom the deserts
of Horeb were no strange country, but who had tended there
the flocks of his own father-in-law, a prince of that country ?
Was it nothing that he was acquainted with the "wells"
where he had himself watered the flocks of Jethro ? (Exod.
ii. 16_20.) Was all his acquaintance with the passes and
intricacies of the way, to go for nothing ? Must we not take
account of the assistances he would derive from all his past
experience for forty years ? from the companionship of Jethro
himself during a part of the way, and of Hobab, Jethro's
son, for a much longer time? These are plain omissions,
which, it seems to me, nothing can excuse, if you had wished
47
to give a complete and impartial account. It is not even
necessary to suppose that the normal condition of the Israel-
ites in the wilderness was one of penury and privation. It
seemed more the purpose of Providence to vary the discipline
under which they were placed ; to try them by every kind of
vicissitude, by sickness and by health, by plenty and by want,
by sudden checks and by unexpected deliverances. Thus
" He led them about, He instructed them ; " — He trained them
up to be " a peculiar people/' who should serve, amidst a de-
generate world, as the depositories of Divine truth. It was
probably quite as much from the jealousy of the neighbouring
tribes, excited by the fame of their successes and adventures,
that the Israelites were often liable to suffer, as from the
actual deficiency of ordinary supplies. Or else it was by the
special act of Divine Providence that they were permitted to
"wander in the wilderness- in a solitary way," and that
"hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them." I am not
pretending to say that they would have had the same facilities
during all the years of the wandering as during the first year,
when their resources were more plentiful, and they were fresh
from Egypt, and still contiguous to it, and when they were on
the highway between Egypt and Midian. But then, as their
resources diminished, their wants must have diminished also ;
since, after the Passover held at the expiration of the first year,
we read of no more Passovers during the remainder of the forty
years in the wilderness ; indeed, it would appear that not only
the Passover, but all the rites of the law, and all the legal sa-
crifices, ceased to be observed, or, perhaps, never came into
use, till the final entrance into Canaan, when the initiatory rite
of circumcision was promulgated, as it were, afresh, and for
the first time strictly observed (Josh. v. 6 ; and see below, on
Chapters XX. XXI.).
But the people are no sooner out of the wilderness, than
a fresh difficulty meets you in the face ; and you wonder how
the Scripture can represent it as a matter of alarm, that,
unless they retained among their population some admixture
48
of the ancient inhabitants of the land, the wild beasts would
multiply upon them, and the land become desolate. There was
no room, you think, for any such apprehension if the number
of the people was really what the Scripture represents, viz.
upwards of two millions. And to make this appear, you
compare the colony of Natal with the land of Canaan. In
the colony, you observe, " the inhabitants are perfectly well
able to maintain their ground against the beasts of the field.
And, in fact, the lions, elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippo-
potami, which once abounded in the country, have long ago
disappeared " (92). Now " the population of the Israelites
in the land of Canaan would have been more than twenty
times as thick as that of Natal ;" and you deem it absurd to
think they could have required any of the old inhabitants to
be left, " lest the land should become desolate, and the beast
of the field multiply against them." Ex. xxiii. 29. There is
no help for it, but to go into the comparative extent of area
and people. The extreme length, then, of Palestine, ac-
cording to Professor Stanley, " From Dan to Beersheba being
about 180 miles," and the mean breadth, if we include the
trans-Jordanic territory, varying from 30 miles to half the
length, the extent in area will be about (180 x 60 =•) 10,800
square miles. Put it at 11,000, as the border was to extend
ultimately to the Euphrates, Gen. xv. 18; Ex. xxiii. 31.
And this agrees with your own computation and that of Kitto
to which you refer. The number of the Israelites, as we have
seen above, was about two millions, i.e. neai'ly equal to the
population of London. But London extends over an area of
about 100 square miles: — Palestine, therefore, would be to
London in the proportion of 11,000 : 100, i.e. 110 times as
large ; space enough, one would think, to hold the Israelites
and a few Canaanites intermixed, with some margin left for
wild beasts to multiply to an inconvenient extent in the more
desert and thinly inhabited parts.
To such subtleties you are driven, in your endeavours to make
out any tolerable case of historic incredibility, against the
49
writers of the Pentateuch ! If such are the grounds on which
the world is to be driven from its propriety, and the credit of
the Holj Scriptures shaken, I think you yourself, my lord,
will soon join the defence, and leave the attack to more ex-
perienced and, I may say, less scrupulous hands. At least,
I persuade myself, it will require arguments of sterner stuff,
before the intelligence of England will be gained over to the
side of denying the historic credibility of the Pentateuch.
50
ON GHAPTEES XIY— XIX.
" Noio the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in
Egypt, was four hundred and. thirty years ^ — Ex. xii. 40. {Heb,
andE. V)
^\The sojourning of the children of Israel, lohich they sc>journed
in Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and
thirty years'' — Ex. xii. 40. {Samaritan and LXX.)
These chapters may be conveniently classed together;
their contents corresponding with those of chapters II. and III.
In chapters 11. and III. a computation was made of the
nmnbers going down to Egypt, the seed, as it were, of the
futm-e harvest of God's chosen people ; and in chapters XIV.
— XIX. are computed the numbers of the population at the
time of their Exodus, and of their final establishment in the
land of promise. By way of detail, we are introduced parti-
cularly to the comparative number of "the first-born in Israel,"
(chap. XIV.) " of the Danites and Levites," (chap. XVIII.)
and of the "entire population of Israel," (chap. XVII.) while
two other chapters explain the principles on which these
calculations are mainly founded, (chaps. XV., XVI.) In
chapter XIX. we have certain replies to Kurtz, Hengstenberg,
and others.
To speak confidently about possibilities and impossibilities,
in such a matter as the increase of population, will not, I am
sure, be expected in this place, though I propose to pass these
chapters carefully in review. Suffice it to repeat, once for all,
the very just and cogent observation of Professor Kawlinson,
that " Egypt was a country where both men and animals
are said to have been remarkably prolific ; where, therefore,
natural laws would have tended in the same direction as the
51
special action of Divine Providence at this time." The dis-
position to early marriages further favoured tliis increase. The
case of Benjamin, whose age at the going into Egypt may
be taken from twenty-two to twenty-six years (vid. Hales'
Analysis, ii. 145), is an instance in point. Dr. Hales ob-
serves : " From such early marriages, in a fruitful country,
finely watered, and a warm climate like Egypt, joined to
the prolific blessing of Providence, the children of Israel, in
the course of 215 years till their exode, multiplied exceedingly
. . . till at last, supposing the men able to bear arms in a given
district amount to about a fourth part of the whole com-
munity, the whole of the Israelites who went out of Egypt
must have exceeded two millions." Next to the prospect
of a final settlement in the land of promise, there was nothing
to which the Israelite looked forward with more sanguine
hope than to a vast increase of the nation, till they should be
as the dust of the earth and as the sand of the sea-shore for
multitude, and till the prophecy to Abraham should be ful-
filled : " Look now towards heaven and tell the stars, if thou
be able to number them, so shall thy seed be." (Gen. xv. 5.)
Hence it was that Jacob exclaimed with evident exultation,
" With my staff I passed over this Jordan, and now I am
become two bands." (Gen. xxxii. 10.) The expectation of
a fruitful offspring was still kept before his eyes. (Gen.
XXXV. 11.) And it is not, therefore, surprising that stress
should be laid on the vast increase of this people on their final
deliverance from Egypt. " And the children of Israel were
fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed
exceeding mighty ; and the land was filled with them."
Exod. i. 7. But we must not stay long on these gene-
ralities, but follow you to the arithmetical details, to which
you draw special attention. Not that I am afraid for the
author to whom I have just had occasion to refer, and
whom you seem rather to accuse of dealing in generalities,
but I am speaking honestly for myself, and hope to omit
nothing, which deserves special notice, in your statements in
this place. You will admit then, I think, that the following
52
are the chief matters of detail involved; viz.: — (1.) The
number of the children of Jacob, who went down to sojourn
in Egypt, and who, including himself, are usually reckoned
at 70. (2.) The time of their sojourn. (3.) Their Exodus in
the fourth generation. (4.) Their numbers at the time of
that Exodus, and especially (as they are usually reckoned in
round numbers) the 600,000 males above twenty years of age,
and fighting men. (5.) The number of the tribe of Daii.
(6.) That of the decendants of Levi; and (7.) The number of
the first-born. These are the conditions of the problem here
before us, and on which I hope now to enter in all the detail
which you require.
(1.) On the first point, I find we are agreed ; viz., that
the number of the persons of Jacob's family — descendants
naturally from him — who went down into Egypt and settled
there, is clearly stated in Scripture to have been " seventy
souls." (See the remarks on a former chapter, p. 13 — 18.)
(2.) On the second point there is more room for difi'erence.
We have no certain account anywhere of the exact duration
of the sojourn in Egypt. The Scriptures leave it free to us
to inform ourselves as best we may on this point. By referring,
however, to the best authorities among the Jews, Josej)lius, the
Seder Olam, Rabhi Abraham Levita, &c., we find this period
computed at 215 years. St. Paul (Gal. iii. 17) makes it 400
years from the promise to Abraham to the time of the Exodus,
and St. Stephen (Acts vii. 6) 430 years ; both which neces-
sarily imply some shorter period for the Egyptian sojourn
included in this larger period. Usher and many Bible chrono-
logists agree in making it 215 years. (Dr. Wordsworth's
Greek Testament, Acts vii. 6 — 14, may be consulted here.)
Still this is only assumption; as neither St. Paul nor the
Scriptures elsewhere determine anything more than that 400
or 430 years was the term during which the seed of Abraham
should be in some sense "a stranger," and without a settled
habitation. For so ran the prophecy, Gen. xv. 13 — 16 :
" Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not tlieirs^ and shall serve them; and they shall afflict
53
them four hundred years .... and afterwards shall they come
out loith great substance. . . . And in the fourth generation they
shall come hither again'' Such was the prediction to Abraham
some twentj-five years before Isaac was born ; and this place
in Genesis is the first Scripture mention of this celebrated
period, called in Exodus (chap. xii. 40, 41), where the next
mention of it occurs, as also by St. Paul (Gal. iii. 17), 430
years. The rest is made up thus : —
From Gen. xii. 4, to birth of Isaac . . 25
To Jacob's birth 60
To Jacob's journey into Egypt . . . 130
Total .... "215
In Egypt 215
Total .... 430
But as opinions are much divided as to the initial date of these
430 years, many of the most celebrated commentators make
the period to begin from the birth of Isaac : this wonld leave
twenty-five years still unaccounted for ; which they add to the
sojourn in Egypt. For my part I am inclined to give you the
benefit of a well-reasoned chapter in your book (chap. XV.)
and to admit, for anything I can see to the contrary, that
the years of the sojourn in Egypt were about 215. I would
put them at 225.
(3.) But what next, about the " fourth generation ? " Bishop
Patrick, Ex. vi. 20, gives us the best and most approved
sense of this expression. " The fourth from Levi," he says,
*' was Moses, for Moses was his great grandson^ And in the
same way Caleb was "in the fourth generation'' from Judah.
But if you prefer to begin a generation later, then "the fourth"
would be from the children of Levi to the children of Moses.
I am sorry that I cannot assist you in bringing this point
to a mathematical certainty; it is not a very material one.
But we now come to the point where the grand mistake
in your argument appears to lie, viz., in the utterly wrong
application which you make of this " fourth generation." You
54
take it for a mere measure of population ! But was it not,
on the other hand, chiefly intended to serve as a measure
of God's faithfulness to His promises ? The circumstance of
its occurring first in a prophecy should lead us to think how
extraordinary an instance we have here of the Divine foreknow-
ledge in predicting, and of the Divine power in bringing it
about, that any ^persons 2c7ia fever in the " fourth generation "
from those who went down to Egypt should have been found
to return to Canaan! It is by no means necessary to the
truth of that prophecy, tliat all the people, at the Exodus,
should have been removed by the same degree from their
ancestors living at the first ^'going-down" of Jacob (here lies
your fallacy) ;^ it was sufiicient that this should have been the
case with some, and who these were the Scriptures take care
to inform us. But I take leave to hold that with the majority
of the people life and death succeeded each other at the usual
rate ; and, accordingly, to divide the period into the ordinary
generations of mankind, i.e. into periods of twenty-five or
thirty years, thereby making altogether, for the Egyptian
sojourn, about nine generations.
(4.) God having, however, in His providence seen fit to order
that the lives of some chief persons should extend over the
whole period by only four generations, the Sacred Historian is
careful in the particular case of the Levite family to notice
(Exod. vi. 16, 18, 20) the exact years of the four Iiats of
Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, viz. Levi, 137 ; Kohath,
133 ; Amram, 137 ; and Moses, who was 80 at the time of the
* We find, on the contrary, that Elisheba, the wife of Aaron, was sixth iu
descent from Judah (Ex. vi. 23, Ruth iv. 19, 20). Again, that Joseph lived to
see his son Ephraim's ' children of the third generation,' Gen. 1. 23 ; but, as
Joseph lived to 110 years, and was probably thirty-nine when his brethren
came down, this 'third generation ' must have begun at latest (110 - 39 =) 71
years after Jacob's arrival there, — leaving 144 years to be divided among the
generations subsequent, and if there were three generations in 71 years, there
wovdd be at least six generations more in 144 years — thus making nine gene-
rations altogether in the total period. It appears, again (1 Chron. vii. 20 —
27), that Joshua was bom in the tenth generation from Joseph (vid. Hales*
Analysis of Sacred Chronology, vol. ii. p. 145) ; and thus the calculation in the
text seems abundantly confirmed.
55
Exodus ; the ages of the parentage, however, in each case
not being particularly specified. The ages in these four
generations of tlie family of Levi being so exactly given in
the Scripture account, is no sign that the people generally
lived so long, and had children at so late an age — or, in short,
that^ as a general rule, so few lives stretched over so many
years in only four generations. The miracle of Providence
was that any did, however few ; and the special mention of
those few tends to show that with the rest it happened as
with men in general, the ordinary term of a generation in-
cluding no more than twenty-five years. It is, however, a
perfectly fair inquiry, what the rate of increase during these
generations was ? Now the eleven sons of Jacob had among
them, before they settled in Egypt, 52 children* (we do not
reckon Joseph and his two sons, as they might have been bom
aftericards) ; {. e. they had increased to about four times and
threefourths of the generation of the eleven patriarchs them-
selves. Your own calculation makes it four and a half
(118). There is not much difference, and we shall be within
the mark if we omit either fractional part, and make the sons
of Jacob to have multiplied in a single generation at the rate
o^ four times their own number. And though this includes
one daughter (v. 17), it is absolutely exclusive of any children
(and we might fairly suppose many) bom to Jacob's sons after
their settlement in Egypt. The omission of the fractional part
will amply make up for our omitting, in the computation,
Joseph and his two sons. Grandchildren have, of course,
been omitted.
* See Appendix, p. 71-73. The two sons of Joseph are omitted here,
because it is uncertain how many he had after the going doAvn into Egypt,
and I am taking those descendants only of Jacob who were born in Canaan.
But the tv:o deceased sons of Judah are inchided, though in the Scripture
account, which refers only to those who were ahve at the going down into
Egypt, these are omitted. And thus we make 52. Bishop Colenso (116) com-
putes thus: "Eeuben had 4 sons, Simeon 6, Levi 3, Judah 5, Issachar 4,
Zebulon 3, Gad 7, Asher 4, Joseph 2, Benjamin 10, Dan 1, Xaphtali 4," —
Total, 53. But as this includes the two sons of Joseph, whom I have pur-
posely omitted above, this total is reduced to 51 ; or, adding the one daughter
of Asher, we have — Sons, 51 ; Children (including daughter), 52, as in the text.
66
We have before seen that 225 is not an extravagant number
to allow for the total years of the sojourn in Egypt, making
nine generations of twenty-five years each. So we have now
a series of nine terins^ or generations ; the rate of increase,
four; and (taking no account of children born after the going
down into Egypt) we have, for the first term in the series, the
fifty-two children, viz. the fifty who survived the above-named
fifty-two, together with the two sons of Joseph himself, — since
these are, in the Scripture account, regarded as the original
stock from which were descended the future generations of
Israel (Gen. xlvi. 27).* And the ninth term of this series
will be the number to which the descendants of Jacob might
naturally have multiplied in the 225th year, i.e. at the end of
their sojourn in Egypt. This number comes to 3,407,872,t —
sufficient, evidently, to allow of the proportion assigned in
Scripture as that of the male population fit to carry arms, viz.
603,550 men.
(5, 6.) We come next to the Levites and tlie Danites.
Xev2*, you observe, had three sons, KohatJi, Oershon^ and
Merari ; these three increased in the next generation (the
second) to eight persons ; in the third to sixteen ; and in the
fourth to forty-eight (126). And this you make out verymucli
to your satisfaction from Exod. vi. 16 — 26. You contrast your
amount with the numbers taken at the census (Numb. iv. 48),
* From this 52, the number 70 may be easily completed thus :—
As above 52
Twelve sons of Jacob 12
Jacob 1
Dinah 1
Grandsons of Judah and Asher (v, 12, 17) . . . . 4
Total 70
Compare The Family of Jacob and his Sons, in the Appendix.
+ Algebraically thus : — If a be the first term of a geometrical series, r the
common ratio, and I the nth term ; — then l = ar^—'^-
Here a = 52 (the number of children of the 12 sous,)
?' = 4, n = 9,
.-. 2 = 48x52 = 65536x52
= 3,407,872.
See Oolenso's Algebra, Pt. I. § 145.
57
wliere the Levites are reckoned at 8,580 ! And you say,
"Whence this contradiction?" which, indeed, seems a very
natural subject of inquiry. But a little closer examination
will show us, I think, that Exod. vi. 16—26, was never
intended for anything like a complete list of the numbers in
that family. The occasion of it was of a different kind, viz.
to introduce, for the first time, the exact parentage of those
distinguished persons, Moses and Aaron, and of some other
principal heads in the order of the Levites. Accordingly, we
find no mention whatever of Hebron {2. fourth son of Kohath)
having any children, although in 1 Chron. xxiii. 9, we find
that he had at least four sons ; and, to make it still plainer,
the Hebronites are mentioned in two places, Numb. iii. 27,
and xxvi. 58, as among the principal " families " of this
tribe.
In like manner to " the two sons of Gershon," Exod. vi. 17,
viz. " Libni and Shtmi,'" you liberally allow two sons apiece ;
but you take no notice that the Libmtes are mentioned else-
where, Numb. xxvi. 58, as one of the most eminent " families "
in Israel— which they could not have been if your meagre
computation were correct, giving only two sons to Libni,
and an increase to these two of six in the next generation !
And, again, we read, Numb. iii. 21, " Of Gershon was the
famili/ of the Libmtes and the family of the Shimites.'' There
were other celebrated "families" in the fourth generation,
from "Kohath, Gershon, and Merari," which would have
made a sorry figure indeed, if Exod. vi. was to be taken as a
complete register of that family. " These are the families of
the Levites— the family of the Libnites, the family of the
Hebronites, the family of the Mahlites, the family of the
Mushites, the family of the Kohathites." (Numb, xxvi, 58.)
(Compare 1 Chron. vi. 33 — 44.)
(6.) Of the Danites. There is nothing to show that the
people of this tribe were under the same providential law of
increase as the pontifical and priestly family of Levi. You
bring them to twenty-seven in the fourth generation, but, let
them have increased at the rate which I have shown to be no
H
58
more than the ordinary rate in Jacob's family, viz, 4 to each
generation, then, as there are nine ordinary generations in 225
years, the numbers of the Danites at the end of this period
(even if we allow only one son to Dan himself) would be the
ninth term of this series, viz. 65,536. The Scripture makes
it 62,700. Numb. ii. 26.
(7) There is left the number of the first-born. But, before
we speak too positively on this head, it will be well to con-
sider a little the history of '' the dedication of the first-born
to the service of Almighty God," because I think their dedica-
tion (Ex. xiii. 12 — 16.) throws great light upon their number,
and is, indeed, the proper clue to explain why that number
seems at first sight so small, viz. in the proportion of about
^th to the whole population. You infer from this (93, 94),
that, throwing into the account the younger sons, each mother
must have had forty-four sons ; and this seems to you such a
height of improbability, as to be well-nigh impossible. But
why impossible ? if we remember carefully that this dedica-
tion was, in the nature of its foundation, a commemoration of
cMldreriy not of adults, having been signally delivered from
imminent danger. We read (Exod. i. 15 — 17), " And the Mng
of Egypt spake to the Helrew midwives, When ye do the office
of a midwife to the Hebrew women If it he a son, then
shall ye kill him : hut if it he a daughter, then she shall live.
But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of
Egypt commanded them^ hut saved the men children alive J"
In just retribution, however, for this murderous intent, the
Egyptians themselves, after a long series of plagues, were
punished by the death of their first-born, on the night of
the Passover. It seems all along as if children had been
contemplated both in the death of the first-born in Egypt,
and also as the special subjects of the Divine interposition
when the houses of the Israelites escaped. In commemoration
of this, the " first-born " among the children were selected to
be specially dedicated to the service of the Temple (Exod.
xiii, 15.), till, after some time, the Levites were accepted in
their place, or, rather, substituted for them, (Numb. iii. 41 — 45.)
59
To me it seems quite inappropriate to have iacluded among
these "first-bom" any beyond the age of children. And,
therefore, there is nothing absurd in taking the explanation
of Kurtz^ and supposing " Heads of families ^'^ i. e. grown-up
people of a certain standing, '* not to have been included in
the reckoning,''' although they were literally the oldest among
their own brothers and sisters, in other words, " the first-
bom:" — nothing, again, absurd, if we prefer to think with
Scott, that the number 22,263 (Numb. iii. 43) includes only
the first-born among the children born since the gi'eat night
of the Passover in Egypt, A slight modification of this plan
of Scott's might, I think, give us a yet nearer approxima-
tion to the truth ; — if, instead of the children of quite recent
marriages (to the probability of which, in that time of danger,
you with some reason object (98 Ans. (ii.) ), we were to sup-
pose the ' first-born ' children to be taken from the young
rising families of the out-going generation, not yet come to
their full complement so as to make a distinct generation of
themselves, twenty-two thousand would be a tolerably high
figure for the first-born of such families, especially if we take
care to exempt from the reckoning the children of mixed or
of illegitimate descent, since these would be unworthy of dedi-
cation to the Priesthood ; for "a bastard must not even
enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deut. xxiii. 2.)
We have in either case a fair way of accounting for the
number being small, out of a population (taking males only)
of about 900,000 men. Again, this number of the first-
bom, 22,263, was found, when the census was taken, nearly
equal to the number of the whole tribe of Levi. Now the
tribe of Levi, being i^th of the whole population of the
twelve tribes, ought to have amounted to about 75,000 men.
In the same manner, since it is calculated (98) " that the
first-born in any company ought, in general amount, to be,
at least, one in eight or ten," the first-born ought to have
been, at least, 90,000. But we learn from these two instances,
that things do not always turn out what (measuring by
our own ideas) they ought to be, A little practical good
60
sense might, however, convince us, that the most reliable
accounts are those which treat of things as they are, not
as we might imagine they ought to be ! I will not, there-
fore, stay to notice your other objections.* It is enough to
observe that, in contending for the strict application of the
term " first-born " to the mother s side, you have against you
the whole law and usage of the Hebrews, You press into
your service the mere dictionary sense of a term, and over-
look the sense and custom of the people : and so you make
out that the almost pleonastic expression DH"! lOD ''opening
the womb/' is decisive on the point of thus reckoning the first-
born, thereby making the number of these the same as the
number of all the mothers in Israel. Now take only one
clear passage of Scripture^ and you will not wonder that the
commentators are almost all against you here, and maintain
that the first-born were so denominated from being the eldest
on the fathers and not on the mother's side. " If a man have
two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have
borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if
the first-horn son be hers that was hated, then it shall be, when
he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may
not maize the son of the heloved first-horn hefore the so7i of
the hated, the first-born ; but he shall acknowledge the son of
* It is scarcely possible to repress some feeling of indignation at the
triumphant air with which every point in the book is assumed to have been
proved by Bishop Colenso in this chapter. He thus winds up, " By this time,
surely, great doubt must have arisen, in the mind of most readers, as to the
historical veracity of sundry portions of the Pentateuch. That doubt will, I
believe, be confirmed into a certain conviction, by its appearing plainly from the
data of the Pentateuch itself, that there could not have been any such popula-
tion as this to come out of Egypt,— in other words, that the children of Israel,
at the time of the Exodus, could not, if only we attend carefully to the dis-
tinct statements of the narrative, have amoimted to two millions, — that, in
fact, the whole body of warriors could not have been hvo thousand.^' It will
have been seen, on the contrary, that these numbers, so far from being incre-
dible, may all of them be brought within the range of probability, and that, even
when we come to the " first-born," there is no such disparity between their re-
corded number, and the probable estimate of it, which might at first sight
very plausibly appear.
61
the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of
all that he hath." (Deut. xxi. 15—17.) *
But even were there nothing at all in the principle on
which I have here estimated the probable increase of the
Israelites in Egypt from seventy to upwards of three millions
of population, there are not wanting other means of account-
ing for so great an increase. We have seen that those only,
who were related by hlood to Jacob, are reckoned among the
seventy who went down with him into Egypt. The " wives,"
certainly, were not reckoned, for so we are expressly informed
Gen. xlvi. 26. And if Jacob himself had several wives, and
among them the two handmaids of Eachel and Leah, it is
presumable his sons had also more than the wives who are
expressly mentioned in the Scripture account. It is very
little likely (though, I observe, you adduce some few argu-
ments to the contrary) that the " three hundred and eighteen
trained servants " of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 14.) had no repre-
sentatives in the household of Jacob his descendant. Jacob
would most likely have inherited his full share of these
dependents of his grandfather ; and if so, there would be a
proportionate number of them that would have intermanied
w^'th his sons, and contributed to the further increase of the
nation during the Egyptian sojourn ; — and this, notwith-
standing that in the narrative itself the blood-relations only
of their father Jacob are reckoned up. It is a mere assump-
tion, that because there is express mention of the seventy that
went down to Egypt being all of Jacob's own family and
lineage, no others could possibly have gone with him. The
inference should rather be the contrary ; that, while many
others went down in their company^ these only were men-
tioned, as claiming descent from the patriarchs ; and it was
desirable to have a perfect registry of their names and number,
lest confusion should afterwards arise in the genealogical tables,
the careful preservation of which was a matter of such par-
ticular pride with the Israelitish people.
* The reader may consult again the Lord Bishop of Llandaff, in Letter to
Clergy of the Diocese, pp. 47, 48.
62
ON CHAPTEES XX, XXI.
Any one would think, in these chapters, that you were
catering for the reader^s amusement, and were not altogether
in earnest. Such work as you give the priests : " eating daily
more than eighty-eight pigeons each'' (156) — not that you
would deny such birds being found here and there in desert
places (152), but, though disposed to make every reasonable
concession of this sort, you cannot but speak doubtfully
of a sufficient supply being forthcoming in such a desert
as the Israelites were then in. Again, you make 150,000
lambs to have been killed in two hours, when the priests could
only muster three hands, i.e.^ four hundred lamhs every minute
for two hours together ! and this within a small plot of ground
that could only have held 5,000 people. (159—161.) By
examples such as these, it seems, diligently weighed and
examined, the credit of the Pentateuch must stand or fall!
There is no choice, then, but to go seriously to work, and ask
how these things can be? Let me not be misunderstood. I
know, my lord, you are as much in earnest as myself. What
you say, you mean seriously, but I am equally sure that others
will make a jest of it ; and I think you might have put these
matters in a less ludicrous light. For it is a serious thing to
charge the writers of Scripture with downright absurdities and
contradictions, and with a total disregard of even common sense!
I say this the rather, because on the plain face of Scripture,
you must own there is none of that palpable absurdity which,
by an ingenious way of putting it together, may be made to
appear.
But I must turn now to the particular details : viz. —
(1) "The number of the priests and their perquisites."
(chap. XX.)
63
(2) Their duties at the celebration of the Passover. Your
manner of treating these subjects will be already apparent
from the specimens that have been given above. That some
difficulty attends them, few would wish to deny. On the
other hand, it is not difficult, among much that is uncertain,
to fix on one or two principles which may serve as a clue to
the leading difficulties of the case. I would observe, then,
first, that the laws which prescribed the "duties" and the
'' perquisites " (if you like the term), or allowances, of the
priests, and such other ceremonial matters, were adapted from
time to time, during the infancy of the Hebrew polity, to the
conveniences and necessities of the occasion. It is so with
all laws. But then are we, or are we not, entitled to affirm
that in the earlier passages (Exod. xxiii. 17 ; Lev. i. 3, 5, 11,
15 ; iii. 2, 8, 13, and Deut xvi, 2, 5, 6, &c.), where regulations
are laid down for the Passover and other legal rites of the
Mosaic covenant, it is often in the way of anticipation, and
not as if designed for immediate observance? Kurtz says
we are ; and I think so too. I see nothing to object to the
observation which you quote from him, "The sprinkling of the
blood, (viz. in all the peace-offerings, sin-offerings, and tres-
pass-offerings as prescribed, Lev. i. 3, 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13, &c.)
by the priests, may have been one of the very numerous
modifications which were introduced into the worship, in
consequence of the erection of the Temple" (164) ; "and thus
the sacrificial system was not meant to be in full operation in
the wilderness " (146). I find the same in Dr. Kalisch ; and
I refer to this author the more, because he is commenting on
the very chapter, which contains the fullest account of the
Passover that is anywhere to be found in Scripture. Kalisch
says, Exod. xii., " This chapter is evidently written aftee
THE EVENT, and the inspired author had already a sufficiently
clear conception of the character of the Passover to enable him
logically to combine the precepts concerning its present and
future celelrationsy And of this v. 25 affords an instance,
where the same commentator observes, " It is evident, from
this verse, that the complete rites of Passover, especially the
64
offering the Paschal lamb, was only to be observed in the
Holy Land, except one Passover, which was celebrated in the
desert, on the second year after the Exodus, by the special
command of God." (Numb. ix. 1 — 5).
Another instance in point is the tithing of all the produce
of the land which was early set apart for the share of the
priests, but which, though enjoined in Leviticus, could not
possibly have come into operation till the Israelites were
already arrived in the land itself. How could they have
received in the wilderness the " best of the oil, and of the
wine, and of the v/heat," "the first-fruits of all the land," to
which they had not yet come ? Even circumcision appears
to have been disused during the forty years' wandering,
and the law enjoining it had to be promulgated afresh,
when the people were come to the land of promise (vid.
Josh. V. 6). We may then fairly suppose that, together
with circumcision, which was the initiatory rite, all the laws
and regulations pertaining to the rites and ceremonies of the
Tabernacle had to be deferred* in their operation till the time
when the people became settled in their own land, and greater
facilities were at hand for carrying them into effect. Some of
these laws, though recorded in some earlier chapters of the
history, might at that later period have been promulgated at
greater length, and with fuller particulars than they were
in the actual time of Moses. Moses might have left them
in writing, just as he describes the nature of the country
before he had ever set foot in it. But it would be unreason-
able to suppose that he would have insisted on all the legal
niceties, and on all the minutise of the ceremonial in hia
own time in the wilderness — for had he attempted to do so,
* I am advised by a friend that the passage, Acts vii. 42, 43, referring tc
Amos V. 25, 26, implies distinctly that sacrifices were, for the most part, not
in use during the forty years' wandering in the wilderness. On which point the
reader may consult Bishop Colenso's Criticism Criticized, by the Eev. Joseph
B. M'Caul, p. 21 — 26. That many of the rites and ceremonies prescribed
were prospective only, follows clearly from a passage before quoted, and which
may here again be profitably consulted. "And the Lord commanded me at
that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the
land whither ye go over to possess it." — Deut. iv. 14.
65
the people would not have been able so much as to under-
stand what he said, much less to carry it out. The impossi-
bility would have been as patent in their eyes as it is in
yours, so long as you are under the false impression which you
appear to entertain of the law having come into operation at
once. We see, on the contrary, that much of the law was
prospective in its nature and provisions, and hence it ceases to
be surprising that so few priests as we know there were in the
time of Aaron's sons, should apparently have had so much to
divide between them, whether as " duty," or "perquisites," or
*' sacrificing," or anything of the like description. When
you ask, therefore, with reasonable surprise, " how could three
or four priests have '' consumed," " carried," '^ or sprinkled the
blood" of such a vast number of animals? the answer is,
'^ the three or four priests you speak of, never did consume
nor carry those animals, nor sprinkle their blood. It was
only when the people were settled in Palestine, and when the
number of the priests was grown adequate to the task, that
those rites of the law (2 Chron. xxx. 5, 16, xxxv. 11) came
into practice. You allege two facts of Scripture, and putting
them together you reduce them to a manifest absurdity,
whereupon you proceed at once to the conclusion that all the
accounts containing them must be infallibly wrong, and must
be given up as incredible ! Your objection is, that here are
two Scripture facts which involve an impossibility; the
answer is, that the facts themselves are open to dispute, and
that one of them at least, so far from being certainly true, is,
most probably, an utterly incorrect version of the Scripture
account.
m
ON CHAPTER XXII.
We come now to a chapter which appears at first sight an
example of the most copious and convincing details. But it
will prove, I apprehend, on close inspection, an example of
the very contrary ! It is actually deficient in the details most
necessary to give anything like a fair and complete represen-
tation of the case. It reads like one continuous scene of
bloodshed, rapine, and war — a record of unbridled cruelty and
licentious passion. This is not said by way of evading the
particular difficulties ; but it is the fair impression which the
chapter makes ; it would probably miss its design if it did
not. But the reader must be on his guard ; he must not mis-
take the view here given for a complete representation of the
Scripture facts. It is the dark side of the picture, unrelieved
by the lighter one. It stirs up bad and resentful feelings, but
leaves the judgment uninformed, because of its omissions and
one-sidedness. Let us see whether this assertion can be made
good ; and that without underrating the force of the objections
themselves, and especially of the imposing statistics whereon
the case is made to rely. First, then, as to the figures gene-
rally. I say generally, because, in the matter of figures, it is
agreed on all hands that very little certainty can be had —
certainly nothing whereon to build any safe and conclusive
argument for either side of the question. There are exceptions,
indeed, to this general remark. It may be perfectly true that
such a number as that of the 600,000 men of war (in Exod.
xii. 37, xxxviii. 51) is one of such frequent occurrence in the
narrative that we can hardly doubt its being the genuine
number intended by the writer. " It is woven," as you justly
observe, " like a thread into the whole story of the Exodus."
67
Like the number of the twelve tribes, or the forty years' wan-
dering in the wilderness, it seems in a manner stereotyped
into the very face of the narrative, and cannot, without unna-
tural violence, be dissevered from it. But we are at liberty
in other cases to make some allowance for the natural errors
of transcribers through many generations as well as for some
confusion in the Hebrew mode of computation. It is your
opinion, indeed, that no allowance of this kind can be admitted
in the case which you place at the head of your present
chapter, viz. "the war on Midian." You will allow any
amount of numerical errors in such passages as Judg. xx.,
where, first, the Benjamites slay of the Israelites 40,000 men,
V. 21, 25, and then the Israelites kill of the Benjamites
43 000, V. 35, 44, all these being " men of valour that drew
the sword!" or again, Judg. xii. 6, 1 Sam. iv. 10, xiii. 5,
2 Sam. X. 18, &c. But you contend that no such observation
can apply to this case of the Midianites, Numb. xxxi.
And why not? Because it is said, " They warred against the
Midianites, and slew all the males" (v. 7). And besides
this, Moses commands them (v. 17), "Now therefore kill
every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that
hath known man." And these latter you compute, by one of
those ready calculations in which you shine, at 48,000
females, and 20,000 young boys, which was "more shocking
than the tragedy of Cawnpore." You add that this bemg the
number of females, the males " must have been," at least, as
many, who were "all" put to death. Here are, at least,
three or four assumptions. But, because there were so many
helpless females taken, "must we" necessarily "believe
they took the same number of men? Some might have
escaped into the wilderness, which was the natural haunt ot
the whole tribe. There are many other ways in which we
can conceive these whole transactions to have taken place,
different to what you suppose. For my part, so far from
assenting to your statistics here, I thoroughly believe this
part of your reasoning to be misound. The description, as
we have it in Scripture, touches little more than the way or
68
rule by which the Israelites were to dispose of their prisoners.
" They slew all the males/' that is, all whom they took
prisoners in war, — a considerable number, no doubt, — for
they took "all the cities," i.e. all that did not surrender of
their own accord ; for they had everywhere great success,
because God was with them, and intended to punish this
people, and particularly the women, for the great corruption
and laxity of their manners. (Numb. xxv. 7 and 8.) And
remember, while the only thing you notice in the account is
that the Israelites come off without the loss of a man, the
Scriptures are careful to record that, besides the Midianitish
women, God punished His own people by a plague (Numb.
xxv. 9), in which there fell some 24,000 Israelites, to which,
also, St. Paul calls our special attention. (1 Cor. x. 8.) But
what a very inattentive reader of Scripture must he be who
imagines that literally all the Midianites were " slain," and
that therefore an utter extermination of this people took
place, when we find, not many generations after, the self-
same people appearing again as one of the most numerous
and dangerous adversaries of Israel, — Gideon being raised
up for no other purpose than to deliver Israel out of their
hands, for so we read in the book of Judges, " The
Midianites came up, and the Amalekites . . . and the children
of the East, and encamped against them, and destroyed the
increase of the earth . . . and left no sustenance for Israel,
neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass. . . . And Israel was greatly
impoverished because of the Midianites." (Judges vi. 3—6.)
And, again, as Israel took all Midian, so very recently
are the Amorites said to have taken ^^ all the land'' of the
king of Moab. (Numb. xxi. 26.) Yet it is not necessary to
suppose either that Moab was utterly dispossessed — we know
he was not — or the Midianites utterly exterminated, as you
would have us suppose !
We proceed to some other qualifications with which you
would have done well to guard and mitigate youi* view of
these dreadful horrors. If you had not wished to put every-
thing in the most atrocious light, why should you have
69
omitted all mention of the remarkable instances where mercy
was shown and good feeling cultivated ? Moses, in Deuter-
onomy, lays quite as much emphasis on the instances where he
had received command to deal friendly with a people, as where
he was commanded to wield the sword. Take, for example, the
case of Edom, or that of the Ammonites : " When Sihon," said
Moses, when afterwards reviewing those times, "came out
against us to fight at Jahaz, we smote him, and his sons, and
all his people ; there was not one city too strong for us ; only
unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor
unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the
mountains, 7ior unto whatsoever the Lord our God forhad usy
(Deut. ii. 32 — 37.) And, again, " Distress not the Moabites,
neither contend with them in battle ; for I will not give thee
of their land for a possession, for I have given Ar unto the
children of Lot for a possession." (Deut. ii. 9.) We may
see, then, a settled purpose and law of the Divine conduct,
throughout these whole transactions. It was no more His
design to encourage, or even tolerate, an indiscriminate thirst
for blood and conquest in the chosen instruments of His
will, than it was to leave the guilty inhabitants of Canaan
to contaminate them any longer by their evil examples. But
all this, you will say, must go for nothing, unless the Scrip-
ture narrative is correct. Of course not. But what pre-
sumption is there against its correctness here ?
But then you have another argument, besides the fearful
numbers of the slain, captive, &c. It is the impossibility
of getting over the ground in the time. You proceed upon the
following calculation : —
" Take down the date of Aaron's death, viz., the fortieth
year of the wandering in the wilderness, the fifth month, the
first day, and see what is supposed to have been done during
the short space of the seven months that remained out of the
year. First, there is the mourning for Aaron, one month
(Numb. XX. 29) ; then the war with Arad (Numb. xxi. 1 — 3),
say another month ; then the scene of the brazen serpent ;
then a march, and ' nine encampments,' say for both these,
70
six weeks. Then the war with Sihon, and the excursion
against Jaazer, say six weeks. Then the war with Og, king
of Bashan, another month ; then the ' march forward [sic]
to the plains of Moab,' Numb. xxii. 1 ; the incidents of
Balaam's journey to Balak ; Israel's abiding in Shittim, and
their sin with the daughters of Moab, Numb. xxv. 1 — 3 ;
the second numbering of the people, and the war upon
Midian, already alluded to. So many events, you say, could
never have been crowded into so small a space of time.
Therefore the narrative is ' unhistorical here as elsewhere.'
We are no longer obliged to believe it." (172, 173.)
The events are crowded, it must be owned, and the people
are likely to have been somewhat harassed by the fatigues of
the way. It is, indeed, a mark of veracity in the sacred his-
torian, that he takes notice of this very circumstance, Numb,
xxi. 4 : " And the people were much discouraged because of
the way." It was, indeed, a great wonder, how out of weakness
they were made so strong, and with feeble means what great
successes they met with ; — it was wonderful, but if we believe
in the power of God's special Providence, it was by no means
" impossible." It is possible, again, that your calculations may
be incorrect. Why should you make the people halt and
draw up for a month's rest because of the mourning for Aaron?
(Numb. XX. 29.) This is your favourite resource, to tell us what
" Scripture must mean; " but what if it means no such thing?
The people might all wear some insignia of mourning, but
march along notwithstanding, as, indeed, soldiers commonly
do, and thus we gain, at starting, one month. Then you bring
them, by " nine encampments " and several incursions north-
ward, as far up as Bashan, and a "forward march from Bashan"
to the "plains of Moab:" all which you tliink enough to
exhaust their time, if not their strength; and, in short, you
think such wonderful doings quite impossible. But on in-
spection of their route, it will appear that they had been close
to the ''plains of Moab" for a long time; and instead of
" marching forward " to this last station, it would be rather
a backward movement from Bashan ; but, as we shall see
71
presently, the probability is they had made these plains their
head-quarters for some time, and had only to return to them
after the conquest of Bashan. At least they had been circu-
lating round about the territory of Moab — now upon its
broad table-lands, now upon the border-country of Moab and
Edom, now upon the defiles commanding the Jordan, now
upon the brook Zered, now upon the banks of the Arnon, now
upon the mountains, now in the wilderness (see Numb. xxi.
11, 20 ; Deut. ii. 37) ; till at last, with more care to avoid en-
croachments than with any insuperable difficulty about the
way, they pitched their camp on the plain between the Jordan
and the ISalt Sea, having Abel- Shittim (or " the field of the
Acacias") on their north, and Beth-Jeshimoth (or "the house
of the wastes ") on their south. Here they made their head-
quarters and principal depot ; and as it would be necessary to
secure themselves on their northern wing from the Amorite
hordes in that direction, it was natural they should carry their
arms beyond the plains where they lay, into the mountainous
districts beyond. And thus began the war with the Amorites:
which was soon succeeded by a similar campaign in Bashan.
After defeating Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, the king
of Bashan, they were at liberty to commence their preparations
for the passage of the Jordan. But, though these operations
would require some time, we know that some of them at least
were managed by detachments from the main body, and not
by a general advance from the plains of Moab. Thus we find
Jair, the son of Manasseh, specially rewarded by Moses
for having headed an expedition which ended in the capture
of Argob (Deut. iii. 18). In the war against Midian we are
expressly informed that 1,000 men only were told ofi'from each
of the twelve tribes (Numb. xxxi. 3, 4) ; all which particulars
lead us to conclude that Moses, with the main body, was for
the most part occupied in preparations at head -quarters for
the approaching entrance into the land of promise. The place
of their encampment was well suited for this object, being in
the plains of Moab, and commanding the approaches to the
Jordan by the way of Jericho (see Deut. xxxiv. 1 ; Numb.
72
xxxiii. 48). In short, out of the "nine encampments," which
you make it (Numb. xxi. 10 — 20), the second found them
already in Moab ; for there was mount Aharini situated ;
on the skirts of which (" Ije-abariin^^) this second encamp-
ment was made, as we find mentioned again (Numb, xxxiii.
44). Ije-Abarim was probably towards the Eastern fron-
tier of the country, as the " plains of Moab " were on the
Western. And it is easy to conceive in what direction the
Israelites were making their way across the river Arnon
to the banks of the Jordan, opposite Jericho. But to
show clearly that they had been making for a long time
a quiet circuit of the land of Moab, we have only to put
together the following places along the line of march indicated
hy yourself where Moah is expressly mentioned. Thus, in
the parallel passage to your very place of starting " by the
way of the Hed Sea, to compass the land of Edom^^ (Numb,
xxi. 4, quoted Colenso, 173, iii.) — viz., Deut. ii. 8, we read,
" WQ passed hy from our brethren the children of Esau, through
the way from Elath, and from Ezion-geber . . . and passed by
the way of the wilderness cf Moabr They soon came to
Ije-Abarim, Numb. xxi. 11, the second (as we have before
seen) of your ^'nine encampments," (173 iv.) and again in
Moah; indeed, both the text and the parallel passage (Numb,
xxxiii. 44) expressly add '-'■in thehorder of Moah ^ Again, Numb,
xxxiii. 47, we find them at another part (probably the western)
of the same "Mountains of Abarim, before Nebo." In the
three following verses, " the plains of Moab " (thrice repeated)
are still the centre of the scene ; — all tending to confirm the
idea that the main body rested throughout, in or about the
country of Moab. and that no very distant or difficult marches
need be imagined, beyond the expeditions against the Amorites
and the people of Bashan. Your " abiding in Shittim " (124),
you will perceive, enters easily into this scheme of their
proceedings, and also Numb. xxii. 1 : ^^ And the children of
Israel set forward, and pitched in the 2'>lains of Moah on this
side Jordan by Jericho. ''''
As I read this part of tlie history, I own myself, upon
73
these accounts, very little impressed with the extreme diffi-
culties, amounting almost to impossibilities, which you speak
of. It seems an easy thing to set down on the one side, one
month's mourning, nine encampments, two campaigns, one
" march forward from Bashan," and a few other incidents of
note — and, on the other, the remaining seven months of the
year in which Aaron died ; and then, to make such a propor-
tion between them as may seem to reduce the whole narrative
to an apparent absurdity ! More profit would have been
found, and the depth as well as beauty of the Scripture narra-
tive would have been made to appear, if you had led us to
observe, through the somewhat intricate accounts of this
passage in the Israelitish history, the numerous '* undesigned
coincidences " which are everywhere discernible — showing
plainly the ordering of Divine Providence, not only in the
fortunes of the chosen people, but also in the records wherein
tlie memory of them is so faithfully preserved.
In the seventh chapter of Professor Stanley's Sinai and
Palestine, the reader may find an agreeable guide to the scene
of this last encampment of the Israelites before they passed
over the Jordan. (See pp. 298, 299.) It was memorable,
among other things, as being immediately overlooked by
the mountain-summit of Nebo, from which Moses obtained
that famous survey of the promised land, which was the first
and last he ever had, for on that mount he died. — (See Life of
Moses in my Veracity of Genesis, chapter III.)
74.
ON CHAPTER XXIII.— CONCLUDING EEMARKS.
There must, my lord, I believe, be an historic basis for the
Faith and Hope that is in us ; revelations once made must be
handed down through historic channels from age to age, and
these channels deserve to be kept and guarded with jealous
care. Reason and conscience, independent of the outward
revelation, however worthy to be obeyed in their proper
places, become blind and uncertain guides. Reason, that
noblest faculty of man, and his guide to action, needs itself to
be guided by the Holy Spirit of God, and by the knowledge
of His holy word ; conscience, the inward monitor, and judge
of actions done, needs the same divine influence, and, with-
out it, ceases to pronounce a true and independent verdict.
Passion and prejudice, pride and self-indulgence, are apt to
step in and exercise a disturbing influence on the unassisted
powers of man. Some imperceptible bias may be carrying
him further and further into the mazes of error, though
conscience gives no alarm, but may even sleep in a fatal
security. It is the same as with the natural eye, whose vision
may be deranged through a feeble constitution, or a dis-
ordered body, and thus we may see things m a false light, or
in those strange and unnatural proportions in which objects
appear in a mist. There must, in short, be some outward
guide — a voice which can make itself heard, though conscience
sleeps, and though reason lead astray. And this is the voice
of an external revelation committed to the keeping of man,
and embodied in the teaching of the Church. It is this voice
which is necessary to supplement the natui'al weakness and
fallibility of the reason ; and it must be a voice which gives
no uncertain sound, but to the ear of faith speaks always a
75
plain and intelligible language. Nothing does this but the
Bible, interpreted in accordance with the sense of good men in
all ages, and especially with the creeds handed down from
Apostolic times. You would not be of the number of those
who would deny to the oracles of God's truth this proper place
in our regard. And yet you can put your hand to the axe which
cuts up their authority, so far as mere history is conceinied, root
and branch ! You have given us, indeed, some scraps of truth
from heathen sources ; and classical antiquity would furnish
many similar examples, creditable to our common humanity,
and not unworthy of comparison with Christian models. But
while it was not your meaning, evidently, to exalt such lesser
lights to a rank of equality with the more highly favoured and
directly-accredited messengers of Heaven, one may easily fore-
see that others, more ready to disparage the Holy Scriptures,
will be glad to quote you to this effect. You have written
generally with a bold disregard of any such misconstructions,
and of the consequences that may follow. Again, therefore, I
would express the hope that, if it be truly your design to pro-
mote God's glory and the advancement of the truth, you will,
in the remaining portion of your work, do something to
strengthen the positive side of your argument, and to vindicate
the position which, among some appearances to the contrary,
you still seem desirous to occupy, when you commend those
who ''believe unfeignedly in the Divine authority of the
Scriptures, relying on the records as an efficient instrument
of communication from God to man, in all that is necessary to
salvation." (180.)
Let us be well on our guard how we venture to throw
discredit on the wisdom and veracity of Him, especially, who
" spake as never man spake." This were, surely, an excess of
liberty in any Christian, worthy to be universally reprobated
in the Church. But let me seriously ask you, whether, in
treating of this subject as you have done cursorily in your
Preface (xxx., xxxi.), you have not confounded slight or
supposed inaccuracies, various readings, &c. &c., with the
main thread and substance of the Bible history ? and thus
70
liave been led on incautiously to speak with something like
irreverence of Christ, who may have quoted passages of
Scripture, with what critics may call some freedom, but whose
words must certainly be regarded as a guarantee for the
general truth of those passages ? Because 8t. Luke describes
Him in the days of His childhood, as " increasing in wisdom
and in stature,"— is this to be thought any ground for con-
cluding, that He entered upon His public ministry and
upon the discharge of His prophetic office without " full and
accurate information," as you term it, — '* about the authorship
and age of the different portions of the Pentateuch " (xxxi.) ?
Surely this — to say the least of it — is not the most reverent
way of characterising the Divine teaching of Christ ! Theolo-
gical distinctions between the Divine and human natures in
our Lord, seem inappropriate in all those instances where no
shadow of an intimation is given us by Himself, that He spake
with any measure of hesitation or uncertainty. That ' ' Word ' ' *
wdiich w^as the " Maker of all things," and which made Moses,
himself, was not likely to be ignorant w^hether Moses wrote
the Pentateuch ; t or, knowing the contrary, to have com-
mitted Himself to a plain error of speech ! There is nothing
in the revealed conditions of the humanity which He assumed
into His own Person, that should lead us to impute to Him
either such ignorance or such misrepresentation. If one Evan-
gelist speaks of Him, during the years of His childhood, as
" growing in wisdom, and in stature, and in favour with God
and man " (Luke ii. 52), we are expressly informed by another,
that " the Father giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him "
(John iii. 34) ; and by an Apostle, " In Him dwelleth all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily " (Col. ii. 9). The whole
mode of Christ's coming was in fulfilment of types and pro-
phecies firmly imbedded in the very framework of the Sacred
* John i. 1 — 3.
t Let it be observed, that the works of ' Moses ' were expressly x'eferred to
by our Blessed Lord, even subsequently to His resurrection (Luke xxiv.
27, 44) — at a time when He must havo been infinitely removed from any of
the possible imperfections in the degrees of knowledge possessed by Him in
His infancy.
77
History; and if the Scriptures are to be broken up and
wrenched asunder by the puny arm of human criticism, then
not only Moses and the Prophets, but Christ and the Apostles,
and, at last, the sacred name of Him who sent them, will be
alike involved in the ruins of an hopeless unbelief. The life
and ministry of our Lord were to a great extent a fulfil-
ment of prophecies going before. The " Scriptures " were
to be " searched whether these things were so." But if
a doubt be thrown upon these Scriptm-es, as to their historic
veracity — who cannot foresee that the prophecies will come
next to be regarded as imaginary prophecies ? — the types and
figui'es of the law as imaginary figures ? the law itself (though
" one iota or one tittle of it was not to pass away, till all be
fulfilled" Matt. v. 18), as nothing but a tissue of myths
and fables ! the Ten Commandments an imaginary code ! — as
uncertain as the fifty-two children of Jacob's sons, or the six
hundred thousand of the Israelitish warriors ! These will be
the downward steps that must await the path of advancing,
we might rather say, of declining science. And then, from
an imaginary law and imaginary Prophets, the transition will
be easy to an imaginary Gospel, and an imaginary Christ.
Surely you will feel it an honour to take part in averting so
grievous a catastrophe ; and that this honour may yet be
reserved for you is the fervent hope and prayer with which
I remain,
My lord.
Your obedient Servant,
William H. Hoare.
APPENDIX I.
The Family of Jacob and his Sons.
N.B. — This List will include only those who, in the
Scripfure reckoning, " came into Egypt " (not including
wives) Gen. xlvi. 26, 27. The family is thus described in
Scripture, Gen. xlvi. v. 6, 7, — " Jacob and all his seed with
him ; his sons and his sons' sons with him, his daughters
and his sons' daughters, and all his seed, brought he with
him into Egypt."
The Sons by Leah,
(1) Eeuben, and 4 sons, v. 9.
(2) Simeon, and 6 sons, v. 10.
(3) Levi, and 3 sons, v. 11.
(and 3 sons, ]
(4) Judah, ^ 2 grandsons, ]^'' ^^•
(5) Issachar, and 4 sons, v. 13.
(6) Zebulon, and 3 sons, v. 14.
i.e .6 Fathers, 23 so7is, 2 grandsons,
and Dinah the daiighter of Jacob.
Total from Leah (v. 15) 32
Add Jacob himself 1
33
The Sons by Zilpah,
(7) Gad, and 7 sons, v. 16.
Tand 4 sons, v. 17.
(8) Asher, j ^ daughter, and 2 grandsons.
i.e. . . . 2 Fathers, Xlsons, 1 daughter, 2 grandsons.
Total from Zilpah, (v. 18) 16
79
The Sons by Eachel,
(9) Joseph, and 2 sons, v. 20.
(10) Benjamin, and 10 sons, v. 21.
i.e. ... 2 Fathers, 12 sons.
Total from Eachel, (v. 22) 14
The Sons by Bilhah,
(11) Dan, and 1 son, v. 23.
(12) Naphtali, and 4 sons, v. 24.
i.e. ... 2 Fathers, 5 soiis.
. Total from Bilhah, (v. 25) 7
Total Family of Jacob — viz. Jacob himself, his sons,
1 daughter, grandsons, and great-grandsons (v. 27) . 70
On comparison with the LXX. we find in this List a little
variation, —
{a) In the number and degrees of Joseph's de-
scendants.
ih) In the number and degrees of Benjamin's.
{a) To Joseph they give 2 sons, 3 grandsons, and
2 great-grandsons.
(h) To Benjamin 3 sons, 5 grandsons, 1 great-grandson.
Thus making the total from Eachel (v. 22), 18 instead of 14.
In the LXX., it would seem, the reckoning was made thus —
33 (v. 15) -f- 16 (v. 18) + 10 (v. 22) (viz. Benjamin and
nine sons, grandsons, &c. v. 21, LXX.) -j- 7 (v. 25)
= 66 (v. 26).
In the Hebrew, thus —
32 (omitting Jttcob from the 33 in v. 15) + 16 (v. 18)
+ 11 (viz. Benjamin and ten sons, v. 21, Heh.) + 7
(v. 25) = 66 (v. 26), as before.
80
rrom which the main number easily follows, viz. —
In the LXX, 66 + 9 = 75 (v. 27, LXX.),
the 9 being Joseph and eight sons, grandsons, &c.
(v. 20, LXX.).
In the Hebrew, 66 + 4 = 70 (v. 27, Heb.\
the 4 being Jacob, Joseph, and two sons of Joseph
(v. 20, Heb.).
I need scarcely add, that from the LXX. is derived the
reckoning in the Acts, ch. vii. 14.
To return to the Hebrew text, and to our former list,
it will be observed that the sons of the twelve Patriarchs,
by the first descent, were 23 + 11 + 12 + 5 = 51. The
sons of eleven of them (if we omit Joseph's two) were 49.
To find the rate of' increase of these eleven (see pp. 49, 50),
add to the 51 the 2 sons of Judah deceased at the going
into Egypt (v. 12), and 1 for the daughter of Asher, and we
have a total of children in the first descent from eleven
patriarchs, 51 - 2 + 2 + 1 = 52, which is the reckoning in
the text, pp. 49, 50. Joseph and his sons are omitted,
because if we added all the sons born to the Patriarchs in
Egypt, w^e should probably have to add a much larger
number, and we may be contented with those born in
Canaan.
N.B. — The Hebrew text exhibits uniformly, the same
number 70, Gen. xlvi. 27; Ex. i. 5; Dent. x. 22. The
LXX. varies : Dcut. x. 22, tlic number being 70, as in the
Hebrew ; in tlie other passages, lb.
THE END.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11