תמונות בעמוד

persons, 'out of the loins of Jacob,' mentioned in Gen. xlvi., and no others, went down with him into Egypt” (p. 18). Wherever the Bishop is “certain,” especially when he thinks himself absolutely undeniable,” his reader may be sure of lurking fallacies. Notice carefully the one here; it exists in the words, “and no others.” This all-important fact is innocently assumed; and upon this assumption chapter after chapter is based. Where is it asserted that lineal descendants, and no others, immigrated with Jacob? That no others are mentioned, is what was to be expected. The seventy are mentioned in a family register, and who looks to such a document for the names and births of servants ? Even if silence on this point were not natural, is Dr. Colenso to build upon negative arguments such a theory as cuts off the first five books in the Bible, and makes Christ appear either a deceiver or a deceived person ! Opposed to this assumption are the expressions, “ house” (Gen. xlvi. 31), and "household" (Gen. xlvii. 12), in antithesis to "brethren." Joseph's brethren are “the seventy," the lineal descendants : house and household include all belonging to the tribe of Hebrews. To say they do not comprehend others than lineal descendants, is to beg the whole question. This must be proved, and not assumed in Natal fashion.

We want Dr. Colenso, then, to prove why Isaac should succeed to all his father had (Gen. xxv. 5), and yet Jacob should not inherit what Isaac possessed. We want to know on what principle the laws of inheritance and the natural course of things are to be set aside, in order to strip Jacob of all his possessions, and thus prove the Pentateuch to be a tissue of absurdities.

Now, Abraham had 318 armed retainers, born in his own house (Gen. xiv. 14), and all incorporated into his tribe by circumcision (Gen. xvii. 12, 13). On Dr. Colenso's principles of population we are to quadruple 318 to find the number of the whole house' of Abraham; and thus assume it consisted of more than 1,272 souls. To this household Isaac succeeded, and, in the natural course of things, Jacob inherited Isaac's possessions. To them he brought his acquisitions from Padan-aram, where he had “increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants," &c. (Gen. XXX. 43.) Now, for the pleasure of "impeaching" the veracity of the Pentateuch, Dr. Colenso strips Jacob of a body of retainers without which he, as a normal prince, could not have existed, and sends him to Egypt with only the 70 named in the family register. Jacob is blessed with greater possessions than Esau ; Esau acquires a tribe mustering 400 armed men (Gen. xxxii. 6), and Jacob increased exceedingly.", While Esau's tribe must bave contained some 1,600 souls, Jacob must have 70, "and no others." On assumptions such as these Dr. Colenso founds chapter after chapter, and expresses his “thankfulness” that he has got rid of the Pentateuch, and all “superstitious terrors" (p. 143) about its inspiration.

The distinction between the family and the tribe of Jacob, indicated at the immigration, is as clearly established as the exodus. In Numb. i. 1–46, we have the stations to be taken up by the twelve tribes when encamped in the wilderness. Each prince had “his host," and also “they that were numbered of them.” This statement is repeated, in connection with each tribal head, with studious care and wearisome reiteration. The total of these hosts, and those numbered with them, is 603,550. Now, Dr. Colenso, in face of the distinction between the 70 lineally descended and “the household" that immigrated with them, takes only 70 as his premiss ; and then, notwithstanding a similar distinction between the two classes in the total at the exodus, takes 603,550 as his inference; and then, out comes one of his monstrous absurdities. If such liberties may be taken with the Pentateuch, why not with other ancient and modern documents and then what becomes of all history,sacred and profane!

In his 17th chapter, Dr. Colenso, on an inadmissible basis, as will be shown, allows four generations to 215 years. He then takes 45 as the ratio of progression, on grounds guessed at, but which we need not dispute. Then, instead of taking 70, and multiplying it by 4}, as he ought to do, he multiplies only the 54 grandsons of Jacob. The result of these assumptions is, that at the exodus there would be an increase in the population of 4,923. These lineal descendants, obtained by more than one petitio principii, are compared again, on another petitio principii, with the 603,550, a total of lineal and tribal descendants !

We must now turn to the 16th chapter, to show the curious manner in which Dr. Colenso jumps at his premises. In the 15th he first devotes five

pages to prove that the Israelites sojourned only 215 years in Egypt. This has long been the established opinion both in England and Germany, and might have been taken as a recognized basis for argument. But his 16th chapter will be one of the curiosities of literature, if his book escapes the waste-paper basket. In Gen. xv. 16, the exodus is foretold as to take place in the fourth generation.” A previous verse shows that God thus indicated that event as to happen at the expiration of the fourth century from the time the prediction was made. But, curiously enough, Dr. Colenso takes the meaning of the passage to be, not the end of four centuries, but a standard of the period to be represented by a generation. This mistake was excusable; not so the perverse ingenuity with which it is supported. He takes "all the instances which he has been able to find” (p. 97) of genealogies given in the Pentateuch; and for very good reasons, as will appear, tabulates only the genealogies of four persons, concealing that of the fifth in a paragraph by itself. The argument is this: as Moses was the son of Amram, and Amram of Kohath, and Kohath of Levi, these four names show four stages; hence, Moses lived in the third “generation.” Now, all the cases but one of those tabulated, on his own showing, make Moses, the leader of the exodus, live in the third generation; and hence, over the column of names in which "Moses” is placed, Dr. Colenso puts the words,

“3rd gen"(eration). How, then, can the third be turned into the fourth? By a reference to the case of Pharez,--that stumblingblock of Dr. Colenso. He finds three genealogical tables of this troublesome fellow ; of which one makes the exodus happen in the third, another in the fourth, and the last in the fifth! Tlie awkward fifth is got rid of by a "perhaps,” and the old self-exploded opinion that Hezron was born in Canaan ; and the fourth alone favours the idea that the exodus took place in the third generation. If, again, the appended genealogy of Joseph, prudently kept in a paragraph away from the tabulated list, be taken into account, the confusion becomes beautifully confounded. Joseph's son Manasseh had Machir, and he Gilead, and he Hepher, and he Zelophehad, and this Zelophehad had daughters at Sinai old enough to look after their own business. Here, then, are seven successions, giving, on the Bishop's mode of calculation, a sixth generation as the time of the exodus. Out of five cases one points in his favour, and four refuse to be bribed into acquiescence; and yet, marvellous to say, on this basis Dr. Colenso gets his four generations to show the Pentateuch to be a fable,-a Sikh gooroo to have a species of inspiration, and Christ ill-informed on the Jewish and canonical Scriptures.

If he had gone to Deut. ii. 14, he would have found that in the age of Moses 38 years represented a generation, as in Abraham's time 100 years were reckoned to a generation ; and, if we may take antediluvian statistics, several centuries would stand for a generation. If he had gone to Herodotus, whom he can quote when he pleases, he would have learned that among Greeks, some four centuries before Christ, three generations were reckoned to a century: This Grecian estimate is that which modern European statisticians have universally adopted. Now, first, Dr. Colenso ought to have known that a “generation” is a variable quantity according to varying periods of the world's history; and, as his own tables show most conclusively, can never furnish a basis for an attack on the Pentateuch. Secondly, he ought to have taken either the Mosaic estimate as being nearer to the age, and hence a safer estimate, or to have taken that which appears to have been the rule from the time of Herodotus down to our own days. But neither of these natural premises would have suited his purpose; he therefore takes the thing by the wrong handle, and then, of course, the absurdity of the whole story."

Let us take the best established standard, and see how probable the statistics of the Pentateuch appear. The 70 at the immigration has to be multiplied by 47 as the ratio of progression, and 64 generations as the number of times that 70 has to be multiplied by 4. The first result will be, that in 33 years the Hebrew population, lineally descended, will have increased to 315, and so on till, at the end of 100 years from the immigration, 6,376 (omitting fractional parts); at the end of the second century we shall have 581,013 ; which may be doubled in another 15 years, giving some 1,162,026 lineally descended persons. Now the total given in the Pentateuch is the sum of “ the host," and "them that were numbered with them.” Where, then, is the absurdity of the two millions and a half that Moses states left Egypt? If Dr. Colenso's 2,500,000 are correct figures, there were, at the exodus, 1,337,974 persons who belonged to the tribes, and 1,162,026 lineal descendants, making the total of the Pentateuch.

The same fallacy ruins the argument of the fourteenth and eighteenth chapters. Kurtz takes the whole population, and the census of the firstborn into comparison, and gets 42 boys as the average to every Hebrew family. With this the Bishop is anything but satisfied. Mistaking the conventional phrase-matricis apertores, he gives 42 sons to every "mother of Israel” (p. 84), and wastes seven pages upon a forced construction. Polygamy complicated the question of birthright; and though this materially modifies the average, as suggested by Michaelis, Dr. Colenso will not hear of it. The explanation, however, is found in the nature of the question at issue. The Levites were taken in lieu of every firstborn of Israel, and were cut off from all landed property in the future division of Canaan. Now, the petitio principii in the argument consists in assuming, that not only the lineal descendants of Jacob had land claims, but also the armed retainers of the nomad head of each tribe. The 22,273 firstborns may all be, as insisted by him, on the mother's side ; but he cannot be allowed to assume that they were the firstborns of masters whose property was in question, and of servants, who had no interest at stake. Had he been less anxious to disprove the inspiration of the Pentateuch, he would have judged, from the impossibility of 42 children being born of one mother, that his premises contained some gross fallacy, and the fourteenth chapter would never have appeared in print.

Danites and Levites are compared in a similar manner; and the eighteenth chapter is devoted to prove, on a basis we have shown to be utterly untenable, that there ought to be 27 warriors among the Danites, while Moses makes them 64,400. Dr. Colenso takes only lineal descendants into account, Moses “the host” of Dan, and “them that were numbered of them.” Hence one cause of the great difference, proving the Bishop to be “counting without the host." The blunder lies nearer home than the critic imagined.

The number of the Levites, we are told, " also involves a great inconsistency," because it appears to Dr. Colenso impossible that “they had only increased in number by 1,000 upon 22,000" in 38 years (p. 109). By taking the 23 per cent. increase during the years 1851-1861,-by no means a period remarkable for mortalityand the population of London. whose rate of increase exceeds almost that of any other European city, he comes to the conclusion that the Levites, in 38 years, “should have increased by more than 26,000” (p. 110). This guessing 33 centuries after date—to set aside the knowledge of facts possessed by a leading actor and contemporary—is one of the weakest propensities of the Bishop.

Observe the assumptions on which he bases his hypothetical statistics. “Eleazar was a full-grown priest at Sinai (Exod. xxviii. 1), and was therefore, we must suppose, above the age of twenty, or even that of thirty, at which the Levites were first allowed to do service in the sanctuary, Numb. iv. 47.” (p. 110). This is one of his arguments; look at it. The laborious nature of their future duties was so great, that the Levites were to be exempt from service before thirty, and after fifty, years of age. Now what has this to do with priests, whose age is nowhere limited either in the Pentateuch or anywhere else in the Bible? The very facts, first, that Caleb and Joshua were the only two above twenty who escaped the doom of death in the wilderness (Numb. xiv. 30); and, secondly, that Eleazar was old enough to be a priest, are demonstrative evidence that the limits as to age in the case of Levites do not apply to priests. But we have another curious proof; "in fact, it is repeatedly stated" that the Levites “ were not numbered among the children of Israel,' and the doom is evidently confined to the 'children of Israel,' except Caleb and Joshua” (p. 110). This is a species of logical conjuring-not argument. The phrase--not num. bered among the children of Israel-a thousand times repeated, will not prove that the Levites were not involved in the general doom. The reasons stated why they were not thus included arefirst, because their services were required for the sanctuary, and hence they were not to take their station in the camp with the other tribes (Numb. i. 47–53); and secondly, “there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel” (Numb. xxvi. 62). What on earth has this to do with the general doom of death in the wilderness? The circle may be squared in five minutes, if the terms of a proposition may be turned and twisted after this fashion. Under the curse of the Almighty the increase of 1,000 given in the Pentateuch is high enough ; but the 26,000 guesses of Dr. Colenso are simply absurd.

The 19th chapter is made up of replies to Kurtz, Hengstenberg, and others, which do not concern us; we therefore go back to the 7th chapter, which is the last of the nine on popular statistics which We review in this first affirmative article.

This 7th chapter is full of captious and frivolous objections. He "notices in passing that the expression-shekel of the sanctuary'(in Exod. xxx. 11–13) could hardly have been used in this way until there was a sanctuary in existence” (p. 41). That is, a church can hardly be called a church till it has come into existence. As the new Houses of Parliament were many years building, the Blue books containing the accounts of the sums voted for their construction are all to be impeached by some future Colenso, because the sovereigns and bank notes are spoken of as belonging to a range of buildings before they had sprung into existence. How on such principles could God ever have said to Moses, “ Speak unto the children of Israel, . and let them make me a sanctuary"? (Exod. xxv. 2–8). Part of the cavil is disposed of by reference to common and



« הקודםהמשך »