*: ' . p

Mi

V MEMORIAL^
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

A JEWISH REPLY

To

DR. COLENSO'S

CRITICISM ON THE PENTATEUCH.

ISSUED by the

JEWISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE DIFFUSION OF
RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE.

LONDON:
TRUBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1865.

ENTERED AT STATIONERS' HALL.

|yUx3Q5

4f

ADVERTISEMENT.

It had been originally tlie intention of the Association
to give a general reply to the whole of Dr. Colenso's
work; and considerable progress had been made in
preparing a rejoinder to the second and third volumes.
It appeared, however, that the later volumes, con
taining matter which could scarcely attract the general
reader, had not been very extensively read. The first
volume contained by far the most important strictures
upon the Pentateuch, and was written in so popular a
style that it undoubtedly produced a remarkable effect
upon the public mind, — an effect which the numerous
rejoinders hitherto published have not yet removed.
It has, therefore, been deemed expedient to issue this
reply to the first part alone ; and it will be a matter for
future deliberation whether the publication of a rejoinder
to the later volumes be desirable.

PREFACE.

Suppose that you had a friend whom you dearly loved
and esteemed, a friend whom you had trusted all your
life as your counsellor and guide, consoling you tenderly
in times of adversity and sorrow, and admonishing you
wisely in times of prosperity and joy, — a friend whom
you believed to be the embodiment of truth, of virtue, and
of wisdom. And suppose that one day you were told
you had been grievously mistaken in this friend : that
he had gone into a foreign land : that, there, some
clever people had discovered him to be an impostor,
who had built up his position upon falsehood and deceit,
and that his impostures had been proved, beyond a doubt,
by his own words and deeds.
You would be astounded at the mere idea of an impu
tation upon the character of such a friend. You would
indignantly tell your "informant that it was impossible ;
that no one should dare, in your presence, to breathe a

vi PREFACE.
word of calumny against your dear friend, whose honour
you were prepared to vindicate to the last drop of your
blood. Gradually, however, the foam of your indignation
would subside, and the sense of a more serious and
practical duty make itself felt. You would say, I will
go abroad and see that my dear friend has fair play,
that no doubtful evidence be taken against him, that his
words, spoken in a tongue unfamiliar to his accusers, be
not mis-interpreted, and that his actions be not mis
represented by those who do not understand the spirit
of his pure life.
The Bible is this our friend ; to the Jew how great
a friend, none but a Jew can tell. It has been his
guide, his counsellor, his never-failing friend, endeared
to him as the sole relic of the ancient glory of his race ;
beloved as the great solace of his exile; guarded as the
mainspring of his dearest hopes on earth and in heaven.
Nor is this love a mere selfish love. For the Bible,
which has been the friend of the Jew, has become the
friend of the whole world ; and, devoutly believing him
self to be accredited as its custodian, the Jew regards it
as his duty to protect it, not merely for his own sake,
but for the sake of humanity at large.
This friend, then,— this Bible— has gone abroad into
foreign lands ; its influence has spread far and wide,
and it has afforded, for ages, a standard of action for the

PREFACE. Vii
best and wisest of men. The virtues it teaches, the
morals it inculcates, the precepts it enjoins, have formed
the basis of the best codes of the civilized world, and
taught men justice, charity, and love.
Suddenly, its character is assailed; its veracity is
impugned. The accuser quotes the words of the Bible
itself, as evidence against itself; strives to prove incon
sistencies, incongruities, and contradictions, as the result;
seeks to sap the foundation of the belief in its Divine
origin by an appeal to its own facts.
The Bible, then, is on its trial, and ours is the task to
defend it. It will be our duty to sift carefully the
evidence of the assailant, to examine well the analogies
on which he bases his attack, to see whether he
correctly interprets the words of Holy Writ, whether he
properly represents the spirit of the Sacred Volume.
From such a trial we shall have nothing to fear for our
Bible. And here we may remark, that, to the Jew, the
criticisms of Dr. Colenso present few points of novelty.
Centuries ago, most of the difficulties raised by the bishop,
and by the German critics whom he follows, were per
ceived by the authors of the Talmud and Midrashim,
and by the later Jewish commentators ; by Maimonides,
Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, Isaac Arama, and
others. These men were true biblical critics ; but they
did not criticise with an imperfect knowledge. They

Viii PREFACE.
were complete masters of the language— then still a
living tongue — in which the Bible was written; and
they were well acquainted with the ancient manners and
local circumstances with which a large portion of the
Bible History is connected. They brought to bear
upon their work all the learning of the past, all the
philosophy of their own times, and a thorough know
ledge of the book itself. That learning, that philosophy,
and that knowledge enabled them to explain every diffi
culty that criticism could raise ; and the Bible came
from their hands like gold from the furnace. To them
it was indeed a well-tried friend, for they had tested it
with their inexorable criticism, and had found it true
and trustworthy.
And so, we feel assured, it will be found by the
earnest and conscientious critic of the present day, when
he conducts his criticism in a fair and proper spirit.
We shall endeavour in this rejoinder to indicate,
rather than to assert dogmatically, the arguments which
may be used in defence of the Bible. Many points of
difficulty may admit of various answers, besides those
which we shall venture to advance. The light of science
is daily waxing brighter, and may, at some future time,
render clear and lucid that which is now intricate and
obscure. What we shall say, then, we shall put forward with
all humility, conscious of the imperfection of human

PREFACE. IX
knowledge, mindful that the future must have a store
of information greater than the past ; but yet confident
that the Bible will never be affected by time, that its
teachings will be ever young, that its authority will
be daily more and more acknowledged, and that the
increasing wisdom of the world will but signify an
approximation to the Divine truths of that Law which
we devoutly believe to be the Word of the One True
God.

CONTENTS.

CHAP. I.
Dr. Colenso's Introductory Remarks . . 11
CHAP. II.
The Family op Judah ... . 31
chap. m.
The Explanations of Expositors considered .... 38
CHAP. IV.
The Size op the Tabernacle compared with the Number op
the Congregation . ... 39
CHAP. V.
Moses and Joshua addressing all Israel .... 43
CHAP. VI.
The Extent op the Camp compared with the Priest's Duties
and the daily necessities op the people . . 48
CHAP. VII.
The Number op People at the First Muster compared with
the Poll-tax raised Six Months previously . . 53
CHAP. VIII.
The Israelites dwelling in Tents . . . . 59
CHAP. IX.
The Israelites armed . 
CHAP. X.
The Institution of the Passover

63

07

contents. PAGE
CHAP. XI.
The March out op Egypt  75
CHAP. XII.
The Sheep and Cattle op the Israelites in the Wilderness 81
CHAP. XIII.
The Number op the Israelites compared with the extent
of the Land op Canaan  87
CHAP. XIV.
The Number op the First-born compared with the Number
op Male Adults  90
CHAP. XV.
The Sojourning op the Israelites in Egypt . . . .103
CHAP. XVT.
The Exodus in the Fourth Generation .... 104
CHAPS. XVH., XVIII., XIX.
The Number op Israelites at the time op the Exodus. The
Danites and Levites at the time op the Exodus.
Replies to Kurtz, Hengstenberg, and others . . 107
CHAP. XX.
The Number op Priests at the Exodus compared with their
Duties and with the Provision made for them . . 129
CHAP. XXI.
The Priests and their Duties at the Celebration op the
Passover .  13
CHAP. XXII.
The War on Midian  139

CHAPTER I.
DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
In this chapter, Dr. Colenso indicates how doubts as to
the veracity of parts of the Pentateuch took possession
of his mind, and gradually drove him to the conviction
of the general unhistorical character of the Mosaic
narrative. He informs his readers that the arguments which led
him to this conviction were derived, neither from occa
sional petty variations and contradictions, nor from the
more formidable difficulties suggested by the accounts of
the creation, the deluge, the standing-still of the sun, &c,
nor by the apparent inconsistency of the Mosaic code
with our natural ideas of justice and mercy j1 but that the
conviction of the unhistorical character of the Pentateuch
narrative was forced upon him by the consideration of the
many " absolute impossibilities " and " manifest contradic
tions and inconsistencies" involved in the narrative.
These impossibilities, contradictions, and inconsisten
cies, he proposes to bring to light in the succeeding
chapters ; and, meanwhile, he consoles his readers for the
presumed inevitable loss of their beloved Bible as a
Divine revelation, with the surmise that natural religion
will prove all-sufficient. He tells us : —

See chap. xxii.

12 BR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
" It is, perhaps, God's will that we shall be taught in this our
day, among other precious lessons, not to build up our faith upon a
Book, though it be the Bible itself, but to realise more truly the
blessedness of knowing that He Himself, the living God, our Father
and Friend, is nearer and closer to us than any book can be,— that
His voice within the heart may be heard continually by the obedient
child that listens for it, and that shall be our teacher and guide in
the path of duty, which is the path of life, when all other helpers-
even the words of the best of Books — may fail us."
Dr. Colenso concludes his introductory chapter by
indicating the spirit in which he proposes to enter upon
the subject, affirming that the spirit cannot be better
described than in the words of Burgon : 1 —
" Approach the volume of Holy Scripture with the same candour,
and in the same unprejudiced spirit, with which you would approach
any other famous book of high antiquity. Study it with, at least,
the same attention. Give, at least, equal heed to all its statements.
Acquaint yourself at least as industriously with its method and prin
ciple, employing and applying either, with at least equal fidelity in
its interpretation. Above all, beware of playing tricks with its plain
language. Beware of suppressing any part of the evidence which it
supplies to its own meaning. Be truthful, and unprejudiced, and
honest, and consistent, and logical, and exact, throughout, in your
work of interpretation."
We venture to think that if Dr. Colenso had followed
these instructions of Burgon, " The Pentateuch and
Book of Joshua critically examined" would never
have been published.
It maybe well, before considering Dr. Colenso's work in
detail, to understand clearly the conclusions to which it
tends, so that we may duly estimate the importance of
the present discussion.

Inspiration and Interpretation, p. cxli.

DR. COLENSO S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13
It need scarcely be said that the questions, whether a
certain genealogy as set forth in the Pentateuch be true
or false, or whether certain numbers mentioned in the
Holy Writ be accurate or not, are only so far of import
ance that they bear upon the historical veracity of the
whole Pentateuch.
But a still larger question is at issue. If, as Dr.
Colenso would wish us to believe, the history of the Pen
tateuch is false, we should be irresistibly led to the
conclusion that its teachings are destitute of that Divine
character which we have always attributed to them, and
we should regard them with suspicion and distrust. The
very foundation of Revelation — its history — being under
mined, the whole structure, would fall, and we should be
left without a guide and without a standard, save that
which unaided reason might afford.
This is the inevitable result, — a result which even Dr.
Colenso would evidently fain avoid ; for, here and there,
he makes a feeble attempt at proving that religious truth
may, after all, be found in a book pronounced by him to
be false, and asserts that he fully believes that the Mosaic
narrative, with all the falsehood he would attribute to
it, imparts to us "revelations of the Divine will and
character." But, in truth, there can be no such compromise. What
ever impairs the credit of the Pentateuch as a narrative
must impair its credit as a religious and moral code. In
deed, it is evident that Dr. Colenso himself does not believe
in such a compromise ; for, in his concluding remarks,1
1 Chap, xxiii.

U DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
where he talks of filling up the void occasioned by the loss
of revealed religion, all he can offer as a substitute is the
prompting of the inner voice; and to show how all-
sufficient this is, he gives a specimen of the truth taught
by Cicero and by certain Sikh Goroos,--writers "who had
no Pentateuch or Bible to guide them."
Some ofthe sentiments of the writers quoted are very
fine ; and, indeed, we do not know whether they may not
have been, in part, derived indirectly from the Bible.
But others of these sentiments are far from being unex
ceptionable. In one place, for instance, a blind fatality
is preached.1 And whether the doctrine involved in the
writings of these authors be good or bad, it must be
admitted that the passages quoted deal in mere vague
generalities, and inculcate no special duties. Even the
noble words of Cicero, preserved by Lactantius2 are open
to this objection. Do they teach any one positive duty \

1 " Whatsoever hath been made, God made. Whatsoever is to
be made, God will make. Whatsoever is, God maketh. Then why
do any of you afflict yourselves ? " — § 189.
2 Law, properly understood, is no other than right reason agreeing
with nature, spread abroad among all men, ever consistent with
itself, eternal, whose office is to summon to duty by its commands, to
deter from vice by its prohibitions, — which, however, to the good,
never commands or forbids in vain, never influences the wicked either
by commanding or forbidding. In contradiction to this law, nothing
can be laid down, nor does it admit of partial or entire repeal. Nor
can we be released from this Law, either by vote of the Senate or decree
of the people. Nor does it require any commentator or interpreter
besides itself. Nor will there be one law at Athens, and another at
Rome, one now, and another hereafter : but one eternal, immutable,
Law will both embrace all nations and at all times. And there will be
one common Master, as it were, and Ruler of all, namely, God, the

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15
Could such vague statements check the evil passions when
really aroused %
And even if the doctrines so quoted were unimpeach
able, and if their origin could be proved to be quite
independent of the Bible, there would still remain the
undeniable fact, attested by history, that even the most
enlightened and civilized nations were, in the absence of a
Divine revelation, sunk in the depths of immorality.
Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, when in the zenith of
their worldly excellence and power; when greatest in
science, in literature, and in art ; when mightiest in
statecraft and grandest in philosophy, were yet, with the
exception, perhaps, of a few enlightened minds, plunged
in abject superstition ; and deeds of shameful obscenity
and immorality were, at times, practised by them in open
day in the name of religion, and as a part of Divine
worship. The fact is that, as a rule, reason alone is powerless to
restrain the evil passions of man, and the cravings of the
heart. The " inner voice of conscience " would be mute,
if conscience itself were not formed and educated by
principles received from without. The imperfection of
human nature, and the instability of human institutions and
morals demand, for the guidance of man, such a permanent
standard as that afforded by Divine Revelation. Of this
standard Dr. Colenso would deprive us. He would either
Great Originator, Expositor, Enactor, of this Law ; which Law who
ever will not obey, will be flying from himself, and, having treated
with contempt his human nature, will in that very fact pay the
greatest penalty, even if he shall have escaped other punishments,
as they are commonly considered. — Lactantius, Div. Inst. vi. 8.

16 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
leave us a revelation without its history —in which case the
revelation, as such, would fall from sheer want of founda
tion — or he would leave us to that unaided reason, which,
biassed, as it ever must be, by prejudice, passion, conven
tionalities, convenience, interest, or inclination, is neither
a safe nor an unfailing guide, even with the best of men.
Seeing, then, that there can be no compromise, and
that disbelief in the history of Divine revelation involves
disbelief in the substance of that revelation, we can esti^
mate the full import of the question now at issue. Not
that the momentous conclusion to which Dr. Colenso's
arguments point should in any way deter us from a candid
and impartial inquiry, but, that in the prosecution of such
an inquiry, we should be actuated by the right spirit
of criticism.But it will be seen that it will need a very heavy blow,
a mighty array of indisputable facts, to overturn the belief
in the Divine revelation, as recorded in the Pentateuch.
The existence ofthe Jews at the present day, with all their
special customs and observances — customs and observances
commemorative of the events recorded in the Pentateuch
— affords one of the strongest proofs of the truth of the
history of revelation ; and the existence of the Pentateuch,
handed down among the Jews, from father to son, as the
pure and sacred expression of God's truth and God's will,
is, of itself, strong evidence of the historical truth of the
Pentateuch. In spite of oppression and persecution, which would
have trodden out the life of any other nation, the Jews still
exist, dispersed far and wide, but everywhere distinguished
by the same customs, customs all of which commemorate

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17
facts narrated in the Pentateuch. And no slight argu
ment in favour of the historical truth of the Pentateuch
is drawn from the longevity of this people, and from the
persistence, peculiar to themselves, with which they have
adhered through all periods and in all climes, to one system
of religious observances.
Can we imagine a system of observances, such as those
of the Passover as now celebrated, to be based upon a
mere myth 1 Or can we imagine a festival like the Feast
of Tabernacles, as now observed amongst the Jews, founded
upon a mere fable 1 If there had been no real Passover,
no real exodus from Egypt, no real dwelling in booths in
the wilderness, when or how could these commemorative
observances have been instituted % And, if gratuitously in
stituted, how would they have been so implicitly and per
sistently observed, involving, as they undoubtedly do, con
siderable personal trouble and inconvenience ? Can we
imagine such a state of things, as an entire nation assem
bling for the first time, by common consent, to perform
the Passover observances, as the celebration of an event
of which they had just heard for the first time, or just
found written in a book \ Such a state of things would
be impossible. Such observances, distinguished by abso
lute uniformity of practice, could only have originated in
one way — viz., in the event itself. Each individual of
every generation of Jews has received the traditions of
these observances from his father. Could there have been
a whole generation of fathers so unnaturally wicked as to
have foisted upon a whole generation of children a false
hood, and to have told them to perpetuate a mere myth
by a religious observance ? Such a thing would be im-
B

18 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
possible : and if so, how else could the observances have
originated but in the events themselves ?
This fact alone renders the truth of the Pentateuch in
the highest degree probable; for, no father would deceive
his children in such a matter as religious truth ; so that
the first generation of fathers who handed down the Pen
tateuch to their sons must themselves have been the wit
nesses of Divine revelation.
And, when to this is added the evidence afforded
by the accomplishment of all which the Pentateuch
foretold, it must be admitted that the veracity of the
narrative of the Pentateuch is much more fully established
than many facts of secular history which are universally
admitted. Whoever, therefore, commences to attack the veracity
of the Pentateuch, must produce arguments supported by
facts that are not merely probable, but absolutely certain.
Not until a statement in the Pentateuch can be proved to
be absolutely impossible, should we be asked to resign our
belief in it. Mere improbability will not suffice, for it will
be balanced by the still greater improbability that any
thing so well attested can be false.
Now Dr. Colenso seems to have admitted this prin
ciple; for all his efforts are concentrated upon the attempt
to prove that facts stated in the Pentateuch are incon
gruities, or inconsistencies, or impossibilities. Yet these
attempts at certain proof teem with assumptions by no
means warranted by the words of Scripture, nor to be
fairly or reasonably deduced therefrom. Yet when a
defender of the Pentateuch puts forth any hypothesis
which would explain a difficulty, the author becomes

DR. COLENSO S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19
sternly and rigidly logical, and will admit nothing that is
not clearly stated in the narrative.
Now it must be admitted that the onus probandi lies on
the assailant. We, who believe that the Pentateuch is
verily the word of God, true and faithful in every parti
cular, are entitled to demand of the assailant, before
yielding up our belief, clear and decisive proofs, founded
upon facts and free from assumptions, however plausible.
Nor can we allow the critic to forget that in dealing
with the Bible, he is not dealing with an ordinary history.
The narratives contained in the Book are not a connected
and systematic chronicle, homogeneous and complete in
all its parts, such as we expect to find in the work of a
modern historian ; but here and there are to be encoun
tered long and unaccountable breaks which sever the
narrative, and render it rather a series of episodes than a
continuous history. For example, the Bible passes over
in silence the transactions of about thirty-eight of the
forty years during which the Israelites wandered in the
wilderness, contenting itself with a mere catalogue of
their successive encampments. Yet we may well imagine
that such a period, during which a whole generation died
out, must have been pregnant with events of the highest
interest. Of these events we know nothing. For some
reason, into which we cannot penetrate, the chain is
broken, and a mere thread unites the parted links.
So, too, we frequently find events placed on record
without regard to chronological succession. A narrative
breaks off, and a genealogy is commenced ; then the long
catalogue of names is carried on to a far distant date, and
the narrative is resumed at a point far antecedent to the
b 2

20 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
close of the genealogy just chronicled. In all such cases
the rules of modern criticism are totally inapplicable to
the sacred history.
Again, we must not, in a critical examination ot the
Bible, be guided in our estimate of matters of ancient
history bymodern analogies, or presumed modern analogies,
In three thousand years the distinctive features of places,
the meanings of 'words, the modes of action, and the habits
of thought,_change.As to the features of places, we know that many
localities, now barren, were once fertile.1
As to words, we cannot be too cautious in building up
theories upon words whose true meanings may have been
lost. Many learned treatises have been written upon the
true nature and signification of a Greek particle, and the
Greek language is a mere babe compared with the Hebrew.
Can we, then, wonder that there should occur occasionally
in the Bible words of doubtful meaning 1 When such
words occur in the precepts, the Talmud, which indicates
the mode of procedure by which those precepts were
carried out in the days when many of its authors wrote,
affords sufficient and trustworthy interpretation ; but
when such doubtful words occur in the narrative, there
may be great difficulty in determining their correct signi
fication.2 We have no right to assume (Colenso, chap, xii.) that the
Sinaitic wilderness of the Mosaic period was as barren as the Sinaitic
desert of the present age.
2 It is, therefore, clearly wrong to build up such an argument as
that contained in Dr. Colenso's 9th chapter, " The Israelites armed,"
upon the very doubtful translation of a word like QHJJDD found only
three times in the whole Bible.

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21
As to the modes of action, we have no right to argue
by modern analogies. The mode of life in Biblical times
was so simple as to bear no comparison with that of the
present age, with all its acquired and conventional wants.
It may have approximated more nearly to that of the
nomadic tribes of the present day.1
With regard to habits of thought, we have still less
right to argue by modern analogy. They change in
a century, in a generation, frequently in a decade.
Nay, they vary according to our " stand -point," often
depending upon whether we be plaintiffs or defendants,
or indifferent witnesses.
In reading of a bull-fight, we experience a feeling of horror.
The Spanish lady sees the matador gored with perfect
equanimity. Again, we cannot understand, in these prosaic
times, the chivalry ofthe middle ages. Many of thenarratives
of that period, if not well authenticated matters of history,
would certainly seem "unhistorical." We cannot com
prehend]; them, because our habits of thought have
changed. Just as there is a genius bei appertaining to
every place, there is, so to speak, a genius seeuli apper
taining to every age ; and into this genius, this spirit, we
must enter, before we can appreciate the tone of feeling
then and there prevailing. By the light of this spirit all
history must be read, sacred as well as profane.
We may find an application of this principle of criti
cism, m considering the remarks upon certain parts of the
Mosaic slave-code, which Dr. Colenso has introduced into
his first chapter.
1 We can thus draw no analogy between the exodus of two million
Israelites from Egypt and the imaginary exodus of a like number of
Englishmen from London. (Colenso, chap, xi.)

22 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
He quotes from the 21st chapter of Exodus : —
'If the master (of a Hebrew servant) have given him a wife, and
she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall
be her master's, and he shall go out free by himself.' Ex. xxi. 4 :
"The wife and children," continues Dr. Colenso, "being
placed under the protection of such other words as these :"
' If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die
under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he
continue a day or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money.'
Ex. xxi. 20, 21.
" I shall never," exclaims Dr. Colenso,1
" forget the revulsion of feeling, with which a very intelligent Chris
tian native, with whose help I was translating these words into the
Zulu tongue, first heard them as words said to be uttered by the same
great and gracious Being, whom I was teaching him to trust in and
adore. His whole soul revolted against the notion that the Great
and Blessed God, the Merciful Father of all mankind, would speak of
a servant or maid as mere ' money,' and allow a horrible crime to go
unpunished, because the victim of the brutal usage had survived a
few hours. My own heart and conscience at the time fully sympa
thised with his."
Let us interpret these passages of Scripture in the
right manner and spirit of criticism, and we shall find
that, far from being a subject for "revulsion of feeling,"
they afford a striking proof of the humanity of the Mosaic
code, and of the goodness of the Lawgiver.
In reading the 21st chapter of Exodus, the command
given in verse 4 must not be taken by itself, but must be
interpreted in connection with the context, and with its
recapitulation elsewhere. The law relating to the He
brew slave is stated in Exodus in the following terms : 
'If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall
1 Colenso, page 9.

DR. COLENSO S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23
serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself : if
he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If
his master have given him a wife, and she have borne
him sons or daughters ; the wife and her children shall
be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the
servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and
my children ; I will not go out free. Then his master
shall bring him unto the judges ; he shall also bring him
to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall
bore his ear through with an awl ; and he shall serve him
for ever.'1
Now, in the first place, we must consider that the only
means whereby a Hebrew could become a slave were
these. He must have been either a malefactor2 or an
insolvent.3 In neither of these cases was his servile
condition a permanent one ; for, in the seventh year his
liberty was restored to him. But it frequently happened
that the master assigned to his Hebrew slave a Canaan-
itish bondswoman, as a concubine, during the period of
his servitude. The words of the Hebrew text (verse 4.)
ft&it V? \N Y^lii DK, are in direct antithesis to those of
the previous verse fcOH MEW 7^5 BX ; and the word
nK'K, in verse 4, must therefore be rendered " woman," not
"wife." The object of the master, in so assigning a Canaan-
itish woman to his Hebrew slave, would probably be the
increase of his slave-gang. It would, in the eyes of the
people of that age, have been an act of great injustice and
hardship to the owner, if the Hebrew slave had been
1 Exod. xxi. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 2 Exod. xxii. 3.
3 Lev. xxv. 39, 47.

24 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
permitted to take with him out of bondage the woman
who was the master's absolute property, and the chil
dren, who, during the first years of their lives, must have
entailed upon the slave-owner a large expense for main
tenance without any corresponding profit.
In most cases, the tie uniting the Hebrew slave with
the bondswoman would, doubtless, be so slender as to be
severed without regret. But when the contrary was the
case, when a true attachment had grown up between the
Hebrew slave and the bondswoman assigned to him, and
he had learnt to regard her as his wedded wife, and her
children as his, the law humanely permitted the voice of
Nature to be obeyed. He had to tell his master, 'I
love my master, my wife, and my children ; I will not
go out free.' Then his master had to bring him before
the judges, who would investigate and determine whether
the slave was subject to a prior claim upon his person ;
and, if it were found that he was not claimed by any one
as a husband, nor by a creditor as a chattel, nor by justice
as a malefactor under a further sentence of servitude, then
he was permitted to unite his destiny with that of the
female slave, and with her be a slave for ever.1
Imagine, for a moment, the law to have been otherwise.
Imagine the Hebrew slave taking with him into liberty
the Canaanitish bondswoman and four or five little chil
dren. First, it would have been an act of injustice to
the master ; secondly, it would have been almost impos
sible that the husband, just manumitted, and having to

1 More correctly, till the jubilee, at which epoch all slaves were
manumitted.

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 25
rely wholly upon his own exertions, would have been
able to provide adequately for such a family. If he had
been enslaved as a debtor, he would, in all probability,
again have sunk into penury, and again have to be sold
to satisfy the demands of his creditor ; and if he had
been previously enslaved as a malefactor, he would, in all
probability, again have lapsed into crime, and have
become again enslaved to meet the demands of justice.
There could have been no more merciful law than
that which restored the slave to liberty unencumbered,
and thereby rendered him capable of retrieving his posi
tion. And if we look to the recapitulation of this same
ordinance in Deut. chap, xv., we shall see further the
humane spirit of the law. The master is told, ' In the
seventh year, thou shalt let him go free from thee. And
when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not
let him go away empty. Thou shalt furnish him liberally
out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine
press ; of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed
thee thou shalt give unto him.' '
Our Holy Law teaches here a lesson which England,
with all her vaunted civilization, has yet to learn and
apply : — that society owes a duty to the discharged
prisoner, be he debtor or criminal, — the duty of affording
him some assistance when set free, so that he may have
it in his power to earn a livelihood by honest means.
We have next to consider Dr. Colenso's view ofthe 20th
and 21st verses of Exodus xxi. We shall find that, by

1 Deut. xv. 12, 13, 14.

26 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
blindly following the authorised English version, he has
entirely misapprehended the meaning of the original text.
First, the word £33^3, in Exod. xxi. 20, cannot be
translated "with a rod," but "with the rod;" that is,
with the instrument that was customarily used, and suf
ficient to bring a refractory slave to obedience, but not to
injure him severely. If it were " a rod," the Hebrew
word would be 13^3. Secondly, Dj?3* DpJ does not sig
nify, " he shall surely be punished ; " but " it shall surely
be avenged." Even though the master used a light instru
ment of punishment, if he carried the chastisement to
such extremes that the servant died under his hands,
capital punishment was to be inflicted upon him. This is
the correct interpretation of the words DM* DM. If a
mere fine were to be the punishment, the words BOJ^ B>i3JJ
would have been used, as in verse 22.1
The succeeding verse (21) is also wrongly rendered. It
can only be translated, " But if he (the injured slave)
stand one or two days ; " that is, if he survive at least a
day, " it shall not be avenged, for he is his (master's)
money."8 In this case, all the Bible tells us is, that the
master was not to be put to death ; assigning as a reason
that the bondsman was his master's property. This bare
fact was strong presumptive evidence that the master had
not designed to inflict any serious injury upon the person

1 Vide Sanhedrin, fol. 526. That the word DfU implies a punish
ment of the severest kind is amply proved by such passages as
nna opj njpga niri (Lev. xxvi. 25), *r*» W nspi q|» (Numb
xxxi. 2), &c. '
2 Vide Nachmanides, who asserts that the slave must have risen
from his sick bed and walked about within that time.

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 27
of his slave, inasmuch as to have done so would have been
to inflict a pecuniary injury upon himself.
And if the slave survived the punishment a day or two,
it could not be asserted, with positive certainty, in the then
state of science, that the death was the result of the chas
tisement.1 If, on the other hand, the master used an instrument of
punishment likely to produce fatal results (and not the light
rod), he was put to death if the slave eventually died, even
if the slave had survived the blow a considerable time.2
So much, then, for these particular articles of the
Mosaic slave code. But the most superficial review of the
laws appertaining to slavery will convince even the most
prejudiced reader that a spirit of the purest humanity per
vades them. Thus, in the same chapter, (xxi., ver. 26, 27),
we read, that the master forfeited his slave if he deprived
him of any member of his body, even of a tooth.
We find everywhere in the Pentateuch that, in religious
matters, the slave was placed upon an equality with his
master. The Sabbath was to be a Sabbath for the slave.3
The Passover, the great festival of freedom, was to be a
festival to all alike — the slave included.* The Feast of
Tabernacles was to be a time of rejoicing for all, for the
bondsman and bondswoman also.
Then look at the laws of the Mosaic code, concerning
fugitive slaves, and contrast them with the same laws in
1 Even, according to English law, " it is not homicide unless death
takes place within a year and a day after the injury." Pennt Cy
clopaedia, Art. " Murder."
2 Maimonides, nxn "hn II. 14.
3 Exod. xx. 10, Deut. v. 14. ' Deut. xvi. 11.

28 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
the most merciful slave-holding states of ancient or
modern times. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master
the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.
He shall dwell with thee, even among you, m that place
which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh
him best ; thou shalt not oppress him."1 Will such a law
be found in the code of any other nation that ever recog
nized slavery %
Let us further contrast the state of the slave living
under the Mosaic code with that of his contemporary, the
slave of Egypt. In Egypt, the life of a slave was as
little valued as that of an insect. The mere sound of the
words (whatever meaning may then have been connected
with them), that if a master take the life of a slave
" it shall surely be avenged," must have appeared to the
hearer of those times the sublimest revelation of liberty.
The contrast between slavery under the old system,
and slavery under the Mosaic code, must have been such,
that the words ofthe law which gave protection to the slave
must have sounded in his ears almost as sweetly as the
trumpet of the Jubilee, which made him and his children
free men. Under the Mosaic dispensation, though a slave,
he was recognized as a man, enjoying many legal rights
in common with the highest in the land. The tribunal of
justice, before which the High Priest had to appear, was
the same tribunal which tried the slave.
But the contrast need not be confined to slavery con
temporaneous with the Mosaic dispensation, for it will be
found equally striking when we note the position of the
1 Deut. xxiii. 15,16.

DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 29
slave in later times. Aristotle defines a slave to be " a
living, working tool and possession." The Greek slave
was not believed upon his oath, and his evidence in courts
of justice was never taken without torture. In Rome, the
slave was looked upon as a thing, not as a person ; his
master could use him as he pleased. Under the Roman
republic, the law did not, in any manner, protect the person
or life of slaves. Their offences were punished with severity,
and frequently with the utmost barbarity. A common
punishment was to hang them up by their hands, with
weights suspended to their feet. Any one who protected
or concealed a fugitive slave was punished as a thief.
We have already shown how mild was the Mosaic
slave code, and if we need a proof that it was obeyed in
all its leniency, we may find it in the fact, that there does
not exist on record a single case of insurrection of slaves
among the Israelites. We know how prevalent were
such occurrences among the Greeks and Romans. With
the Israelites, the slave could scarcely be considered a
slave, as we understand the term. His condition rather
resembled that of a vassal.
With what deep veneration would that Zulu have
regarded the Holy Book, if the Bishop, who had been
sent to teach him, had, instead of violently wrenching a
few distorted words from their context, laid open before
him the whole slave-code, as given by the Almighty to
His people and to the world ; contrasted its principles and
practices with those of other codes, and so led him to
see the beauty, humanity, and perfection of the Divine
Law; if he had shown him, further, the laws relating to
the treatment of the widow and the orphan, of the poor

30 DR. COLENSO'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
and despised, of the very Egyptian, descended from the
cruel taskmasters of the Israelites !
How soon would the " revulsion of feeling" have disap
peared, and have given place to the profound conviction,
that that code of mercy, of charity, of justice, and of huma
nity, which constituted (without ostentatiously proclaim
ing itself as such), a true religion of love} was indeed an
emanation from the " Great and Blessed God, the Mer
ciful Father of all mankind !"

1 Singularly enough, Dr. Colenso, in more than one place, claims
for Christianity the introduction of the doctrine " Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself." He writes §492, "It was said to them
of old, ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, with
all thy soid, and with all thy strength? Deut. vi. 5. It is Christianity
which adds, ' and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself'
Luke x. 27." Again, in § 540, after quoting the words of Deut.
vi. 4, 5, he designates them as "words which one greater than Moses
declared to contain the essence of all the Law and the Prophets, adding
to them the new(\) command ofthe Gospel ' Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself,' Matt. xxii. 37 — 39.
Has Dr. Colenso ever read the 19th chapter of Leviticus ? for there
he will find (verse 18) the identical command, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself."
The world had not to wait for Christianity to propound this law
as a new doctrine. The world received it from Sinai, amid a host
of other laws, all instilling the same principle— the principle of social
virtue ; all breathing the same spirit— the spirit of universal love.

(31)

CHAPTER II.
THE FAMILY OE JUDAH.
Dr. Colenso's first difficulty is based upon Gen. xlvi. 12,
in which the descendants of Judah, who went down into
Egypt with Jacob, are enumerated in the following
words : —
" And the sons of Judah : Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez,
and Zarah ; but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan : and the
sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul."
Dr. Colenso endeavours to show, upon very doubtful
evidence, that Judah could not have been more than forty-
two years of age, at the time of the migration to Egypt.
He then states that, according to the representations of
the Bible, the following events took place within these
forty-two (1) years of Judah's life.
"(i) Judah grows up, marries a wife — ' at that time,'*\ 1, that is,
after Joseph's being sold into Egypt, when he was seventeen years
old,' Gen. xxxvii. 2, and when Judah, consequently, was at least
twenty years old, — and has, separately, three sons by her.
"(ii) The eldest of these three sons grows up, is married, and dies.
"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.

32 THE FAMILY OF JUDAH.
"(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." Whereupon he remarks —
« The above being certainly incredible, we are obliged to conclude
that one of the two accounts must be untrue."
One of the accounts certainly is untrue ; not the bib
lical account, but some or all of Dr. Colenso's assump
tions. He assumes that Judah did not marry before the
age of twenty, basing this assumption upon the statement
of Gen. xxxviii. 1, where, immediately after the narration
of the selling of Joseph (at the age of seventeen years),
Judah (whom he assumes to have been only three years
older than Joseph),1 is stated to have married " at that
1 This he attempts to prove as follows : —
"Joseph was thirty years old when he ' stood before Pharaoh,' as
governor of the land of Egypt, G. xii. 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."
It will be at once seen that Dr. Colenso here actually assumes
that Judah was only three years older than Joseph ; for he assumes
that Joseph was born in the seventh year of Jacob's double mar
riage, — a very doubtful fact, by no means a consequence of the nar
rative, but rather opposed to it. It is true that Jacob tells Laban
that he has served him twenty years, fourteen for his "daughters, and
six for the cattle ; but he does not say that the six years be<»an
directly that the fourteen were at an end. It is hardly credible that
Jacob would have desired to return home empty-handed, and there
was probably an interval which elapsed after the fourteen
and during which interval he was his own master, anj . '
° ' ua acquired

THE FAMILY OF JUDAH. 33
time." He further assumes that twenty was the general
age of puberty in the East at that period.
As to the first assumption, we say that the expression
" at that time " (KVin rty3) cannot here imply literally
that the events related in chapter xxxviii. occurred after
those described in chapter xxxvii., and before those related
in chapter xxxix. ; for chapter xxxvii. describes how
Joseph was sold by his brethren; and chapter xxxix. how
he was brought by his purchasers to Egypt. Between
these two events, occupying at most but a few weeks, all
the occurrences related in the intermediate chapter
(xxxviii.) could not possibly have taken place. We are,
therefore, compelled by the context to ignore here all idea
of chronological sequence, and to understand that the
phrase " at that time " (N^H I"IJ?S), embraces a wide
period. All that is fairly implied is, that the events
related in chapter xxxviii commenced when Jacob was
already sojourning " in the land wherein his father was a

sufficient possessions to induce him to think of returning to his own
country. Dr. McCaul (Examination of Bishop Colenso's Difficulties)
ingeniously shows that the narrative of the birth of Jacob's children
needs and supports this hypothesis of an extension of time. He shows
that it would be difficult to imagine Gad and Asher, the two sons of
Zilpah (Leah's handmaid), and Issachar, Zebulon, and Dinah, Leah's
own children, all to have been born within three years, which
would have been the case if only three years intervened from the
birth of Judah to that of Joseph. We are told (Gen. xxix. 35) that,
after the birth of Judah, Leah "left bearing;" but she could
scarcely be said to have "left bearing," if she gave birth to three children
in the three following years. These facts point to the conclusion that
considerably more than three years elapsed from the birth of Judah
to that of Joseph, so that Judah would have been much more than
forty-two years of age at the time of the migration to Egypt.
C

g^ THE FAMILY OF JUDAH.
stranger," and were being enacted contemporaneously
with the events of Joseph's life.1
With regard to the assumption that the age of puberty
was about twenty, it is sufficiently well known that, in
the East, boys and girls of twelve years of age not only
marry, but have children at the usual period after
marriage. Thevenot, in his travels,3 states that, among
the Indians, there are found fathers at the age of ten.8 ^
Now, taking for granted, for a moment, Dr. Colenso's
assumption that Judah was only three years older than
Joseph, and, therefore, forty-two years old at the time of
the migration, we propose to show that all the events,
stated to have occurred, might have occurred within the
forty-two years.
Suppose that Judah married when he was 12 years of
age; that his son Er was born when he was 13 years of
age; that his son Onan was born when he was 14 years of
age ; and that his son Shelah was born when he was 15
years of age.
Suppose next that Er married Tamar when he was 12,
and when Judah would consequently be 25 ; that Er died

1 As an example of the extended meaning to be attributed to the
phrase " at that time," we may (following Ebn Ezra) quote Deut. x. 8.,
where we read, "At that time (*Wn nV3) the Lord separated the
tribe of Levi." In the preceding verse we are told that the Israelites
encamped at Jotbath, — an event which occurred in the fortieth year
of the wanderings, while the separation of the tribe of Levi took place
in the second month of the second year after the exodus.
2 Vol. iii., p. 165.
3 See, also, in proof of the physiological fact of early puberty in the
East, "Kuppel's Nubians," p. 42, "Kuppel's Abyssinians," 1.201,
and " Hymer's Beobachtungen," IL, p. 312.

THE FAMILY OF JUDAH. 35
just after his marriage;1 and that, after the lapse of a
year, Onan, who would then be 12, married Tamar.2 At
this time, Judah would be 26. From Gen. xxxviii. 9, 10, it
is evident that Onan died immediately after his marriage.
It also appears that Tamar, the widow of Er and Onan,
was then requested to wait till Shelah had reached
puberty; that she waited, but finding that there was no
intention of marrying her to Shelah, she deceived Judah,
as related in chap, xxxviii. 14, 15, and the result was the
birth of Perez and Zarah. Allow that she waited one
year, by which time Shelah would have been marriageable,
and that another year elapsed before the birth of the
twins, Perez and Zarah. By this time Judah would have
been 28. Suppose, again, that Perez married at 12, and
that his two sons, Hezron and Hamul, were born to him
by the time he was 14 years old, Judah would then have
been only 42, the age which Dr. Colenso makes him at
the time of the migration to Egypt.
There is nothing impossible in these calculations. Dr.
Colenso will, no doubt, say that they are so improbable as
to border closely upon an impossibility ; yet, even admit
ting this, we have done enough if we have demonstrated
the mere possibility of the events recorded having hap
pened within the period stated.
But, it will be seen that the fact once admitted that
Judah and Er might have married at 12, everything else
follows quite as a matter of course ; for, it having been
deemed in the East a duty to marry the widow of a de-

1 Gen. xxxviii. 7. 2 Gen. xxxviii. 8.
c 2

36 THE FAMILY OF JUDAH.
ceased brother, the consecutive marriages would follow
with all possible speed.
In the above calculations, an entire year has been, in
every case, allowed after marriage for the birth of a child,
when nine months might have been sufficient. Again,
two whole years have been allowed from the marriage of
Perez for the birth of Hezron and Hamul, when they
might possibly have been twins; in which case, nine
months would have been sufficient instead of two years.
It would thus have been quite within the range of pos
sibility for Hezron and Hamul to have been born when
Judah was between 39 and 40 years old, so that, in reality,
so far from our calculations involving a very close escape
from an impossibility, we have two or three years to
spare. If, moreover, Judah was more than three years older
than Joseph (as we have shown in the footnote to page
32 to be highly probable), the alleged difficulty vanishes
altogether. In giving this reply to Dr. Colenso's objection, we claim
uo originality. Ebn Ezra, a Jewish author, who lived in
the thirteenth century, and wrote a most valuable com
mentary upon the sacred volume, plainly puts forth this
"difficulty" as to the family of Judah, and answers it in
the manner we have shown. He further sagaciously re
marks upon the words «m nj£ « at that time » that
the holy penman must have placed the events recorded
m chap, xxxviii., out of their proper chronological order
so as to afford a powerful contrast between the character
of Judah and his family, and the character of Joseph as
related in the succeeding chapter.

THE FAMILY OF JUDAH. 37
It may be well, also, to remark that Dr. Colenso's
objections as to the genealogy of Judah are not even new
to English literature. Two hundred and thirty-nine
years ago, the same difficulty was raised and answered
by Henry Ainsworth, in his Annotations upon the First
Book of Moses. 1626.

( 38)

CHAPTER III.
THE EXPLANATIONS OF EXPOSITORS CONSIDERED.
We pass over this chapter of Dr. Colenso's work, as it
contains no objections to the facts of the Pentateuch
itself, but only criticisms upon the explanations of the
preceding difficulty given by Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Haver-
nick, and others.
Dr. Colenso, the prosecutor, reserves to himself the
right of choosing what witnesses may be called for the
defence of the Bible, and, having heard the evidence of
these select witnesses, takes a delight in upsetting their
theories, and then chuckles over his easy conquest. But
would it not have been more fair and reasonable in an
inquirer after truth, to have studied and considered in
this, and indeed in every other instance of difficulty and
doubt, all expositors and commentators who preceded
him % Would it not have been more especially desirable
to have consulted those ancient and modern Hebrew
expositors who were naturally far more familiar than
himself with the language and style of the Bible, and who
had made its study the business of their lives % Could
Dr. Colenso, a novice in Hermeneutics, and a still greater
novice in the Hebrew language, learn absolutely nothing
from such authorities ?

(39 )

CHAPTER IV.
THE SIZE OF THE TABERNACLE COMPARED WITH THE
NUMBER OF THE CONGREGATION.
Dr. Colenso quotes the following passage from Lev.
viii. 1 — 4 : "And the Lord spake unto Moses saying,
.  Gather thou all the congregation together
unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And
Moses did as the Lord commanded him, and the assembly
was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation."
Dr. Colenso tells us that the entire width of the taber
nacle was 18 feet, and says : —
" Allowing two feet in width for each full-grown man, nine men
could just have stood in front of it. Supposing, then, that ' all the
congregation' of adult males in 'the prime of life had given due
heed to the Divine summons, and had hastened to take their stand, side
by side as closely as possible, in front, not merely ofthe door, but ofthe
end of the Tabernacle, in which the door was, they would have
reached, allowing 18 inches between each rank of nine men, for a
distance of more than 100,000 feet, — in fact, nearly twenty miles."
He further explains, that, before they could have stood
at the door of the tabernacle, they must have stood in
the court of the tabernacle ; that, as the space available
in the court was only 1,692 square yards, it could not
have held more than 5,000 men, whereas the able-bodied
men alone exceeded 600,000.

40 THE SIZE OF THE TABERNACLE COMPARED WITH
He concludes by saying :—
«It is inconceivable how, under such circumstances, • all the
assembly,' 'the whole congregation,' could have been summoned to
atLTd' at the door of the tabernacle' by the express command of
Almighty God."
So it is. Quite inconceivable, if we take Dr. Colenso's
interpretation. Everything depends upon the meaning of the Hebrew
words in the original text. The words translated as "all the
congregation," are Tr®) hi n«. The words "and the
assembly was gathered together" stand in the original,
rnyn Snjpni ; so it appears that the English version
renders HTJ?. indifferently by the words " congregation "
and " assembly."
The real meaning of iT$ is " an appointed assembly," l
consisting of representatives of the people, and not the
entire mass of the people, which is termed ?nj? or DJJ.
That the word i"n#. does not generally mean the entire
population, may be proved by examining those passages
of the Pentateuch where reference is unquestionably
made to the whole population. In such cases, we shall
find that the word tVT$, is not used, but either b$~p\ \53
(children of Israel), 7*n&*. \)3 tVSSL ^ (tlie whole con
gregation of the children of Israel), or, more frequently,
DJ7 (people). In the narrative of the miraculous passage
of the Red Sea, in which the whole nation took part, the
first and third of these phrases are used, the word !"!"$.
never. In the account of the wanderings2 of the children

1 Vide Kimchi, D'EnBTl "IBD " Radicum Liber."
2 Exod. xvi. 1, xvii. 1. Numb.xx. 12, xxxiii.5.

THE NUMBER OF THE CONGREGATION. 41
of Israel, in which, without doubt, all the nation took
part, the first two of the above phrases only are used.
In the narrative of the revelation on Mount Sinai, at
which the whole population were present, the words DJ?
(people), and D$7n S| (all the people), are used eleven
times1 — the word Pnj? not once. Again, in a command
precisely parallel to that cited by Dr. Colenso, where we
read, " Gather the people together, men and women, and
children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that
they may hear," &c.,s and where the whole context implies
that the entire population was included in the mandate,
the phrase is not TH$ff) HK VnjXl, but CtyH m ^PljXI.
The history of Korah's rebellion8 affords an illustration
of the view we have here taken as to the signification of
rnj^. In the 2nd verse of the chapter, we see that the
250' " men of renown" who joined the rebellion were
fny W^l " princes of the assembly." Throughout the
narrative, Korah's company is called !"!"$, and Korah
claims for the whole assembly (H "$) * the rank of priest
hood, which would have been an absurd claim if rnj?
meant the entire population. In the 19th verse, Korah
is said to gather the congregation (or assembly, rnj?) at
the door of the tabernacle. Cod threatens to consume
the whole n"$, but Moses intercedes. Then God says,
"Speak unto the congregation (1"!*$), get you up from
about the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan and Abiram,"
whereupon, not the whole population, but the " elders of
Israel " follow him.

1 Exod. xix. 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25, xx. 18, 21.
2 Deut. xxxi. 12. :l Numb. xvi. 4 Numb. xvi. 3.

42 THE SIZE OF THE TABERNACLE COMPARED, ETC., ETC.
The narrative describes the destruction of Korah and
his friends, and finishes with the words "and they
perished from among the congregation." * But, here, con
gregation evidently means the entire population, and hence
the words are ^H ^frlO HSM not JVC?!} ^tt& VtM*»l
In the next verse2 is described the general panic which
followed the earthquake, and the words used are, " And
all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of
them," and, as might be. expected, the word !*njJ is not
used. It will be evident, from the examples adduced, that the
word rny is limited to a representative assembly of the
people, and cannot refer to the whole population.
There may be a few cases where the word iTTJ£ is not
restricted ; but where a word of this kind has a double
signification, we must be guided as to its meaning by the
context. Hence we conclude, (and there is nothing in the text
cited to contradict the conclusion), that the command,3
which is the subject of Dr. Colenso's objection, applied
not to the whole people, but to a representative assembly.
These would congregate inside the court in front of the
door of the tabernacle, and there would be ample room
for such an " appointed assembly."

' Numb. xvi. 33. 3 Numb. xvi. 34. 3 Lev. viii. 1, 4.

(43)

CHAPTER V.
MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL.
Dr. Colenso quotes from Deuteronomy and Joshua the
following passages : —
" These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel." Deut. i. 1.
" And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them." Deut. v. 1.
" And afterward he read all the words of the Law, the blessings
and cursings, according to all that 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 were conversant
among them." Jos. viii. 34, 35.
He then states, that "all Israel" comprised certainly not
less than two millions of souls, most probably a still larger
number. "How then is it conceivable," asks he, " that a man should do
what Joshua is here said to have done, unless, indeed, the reading
every ' word of all that Moses commanded,' with the blessings
and cursings,' according to all that is written in the book of the Law,'
was a mere dumb show, without the least idea of those most
solemn words being hecvrd 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

44 MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL.
London. The very crying of the 'little ones,' who are expressly
stated to have been present, must have sufficed to drown the sounds
at a few yards' distance."
The quotations from Deuteronomy tend so little to
Dr." Colenso's purpose, that he himself lays but little
stress upon them ; but he evidently imagines, that, in
Joshua, he has really caught the Bible asserting a positive
impossibility. Here, again, an unwarrantable assump
tion forms the basis of his arguments.
Contrary to all analogy, he assumes that any acts
ascribed to a leader must have been actually performed
by the leader himself, in his own person, and unaided by
any one else. If the words, " Joshua read," be taken to
imply that he himself, personally and unaided, read the
Law so as to be heard by all the congregation, why
should not also the immediately preceding words, " then
Joshua built an altar," imply that the leader actually
did the work of a common mason, and built an altar
with his own hands, while his people idly looked on 1
The altar must have been of considerable size, for ft was
large enough to have " a copy of the law " written on it.
And do the words, " and he wrote," necessarily imply that
he, with his own hands, performed the laborious task of
writing every word himself \
Joshua, no doubt, actually read the law " before all
the congregation," but not necessarily without assistance.
Even his own unaided voice might well have been
heard by a large proportion of the people ; for, as Dr.
McCaul remarks, no amphitheatre could have been more
favorably arranged for the distribution of sound than the
place selected for the reading of the Law— the plain

MOSES AND. JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL. 45
between Ebal and Gerizim. The bases of the two moun
tains almost touch. Joshua, standing in the narrow
valley, and addressing an eager throng crowding the
slopes of the two mountains,1 tier above tier, could have
been heard by thousands ; for we are told by travellers
of the present day how the voice can be heard from the
very summit of Ebal to that of Gerizim.2
If, however, we refer to Deut. xxvii. 14,15, where Moses
charges the people as to the ceremony to be performed
by them at Ebal and Gerizim, on entering the Land of
Promise, we shall find that at least in the most important
part of the proceedings — the pronouncing of the bless
ings and curses — the Levites certainly assisted. Moses
there says, " And the Levites shall speak, and say unto
all the men of Israel with a loud voice, Cursed be the man
that maketh any graven or molten image," &c, &c. We
may, therefore, conclude that Joshua merely took the
lead in these proceedings, and that his voice, aided by
the voices of 8,580 3 Levites, did not require to be
"strengthened, by a miracle" to be heard by two millions
of people.
But we are not positively bound to believe that because
Joshua, assisted by the Levites, read the words of the
1 Josh. viii. 33. 2 " Stanley's Sinai and Palestine."
3 There were 8,580 ministering Levites at the first numbering,
(Numb. iv. 47, 48). On the occasion in question, the Levites, who
spoke the awful words " with a loud voice," were no doubt limited
to those who were either priests, or who assisted in the service of the
tabernacle : viz., those from the ages of 30 to 50, for we find them
there called (Josh. viii. 33) "the priests, the Levites." The tribe of
Levi (non-ministering Levites) were stationed on Mount Gerizim
among those who were to bless the people.

46 MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL.
Law "before all the congregation," every individual
heard them, then and there. If only a tenth part of
ofthe assembled people heard them, and if only 200,000
voices gave response to the fearful curses threatened to
the disobedient, it must, as Dr. McCaul truly remarks,
have been a terrible spectacle, even to those who could
not hear the "words of the Law:" the 'Amen' of so
many thousands, echoing and re-echoing from hill-side to
hill-side, must have sounded like an unearthly thunder;
and if nine-tenths of the spectators heard nothing but
the responses, they would not long remain without learn
ing from those who did hear, what was the import of the
words which had produced so profound an impression.
Or, the ceremony over, they would quickly descend into
the valley, and there read from the stones " all the words
of the law."1
How Moses addressed " all Israel," we know from the
words of the Bible itself. There was an organized
system of communication between Moses and his
people by means of the elders ; and as such an or
ganization existed, and in time became a matter of
course, it was quite unnecessary to make special refer
ence to it, upon every occasion when Moses addressed
them. We find such a system of communication frequently
alluded to. Thus, when God commands Moses and Aaron
to speak to all the congregation of Israel, and to command
them to slay the paschal lamb,2 they merely call upon the
elders and deliver to them the Divine command.8 When

1 Deut. xxvii. 8. » Exod. xii. 3. » Ibid. xii. 2L

MOSES AND JOSHUA ADDRESSING ALL ISRAEL. 47
Moses is instructed to proclaim to the people their high
mission, to be " a kingdom of priests and an holy nation,"1
he merely convenes the elders,2 and delivers to them the
message of God.
So, too, when Moses commands the performance of the
ceremony of Ebal and Gerizim, we find that he, with
the elders of Israel, commanded the people,3 and that
"Moses and the priests, the Levites, spake unto all
Israel."4 Again, we find that when Moses wrote the
beautiful song, which was to be his death song, he taught
it to the children of Israel.5 How he taught it is plainly
shown in the 28th verse of the 31st chapter of Deutero
nomy, where Moses says, ' Gather unto me all the elders
of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these
words in their ears."
If the Pentateuch is unhistorical because Dr. Colenso
cannot understand how Moses communicated the Divine
will to two millions of people, every history which relates
how a general addressed his army is equally unhistorical.
But Dr. Colenso, though so fond of adhering to the
letter of the Pentateuch, when convenient to him, is not
so particular when a deviation from both the letter and
the spirit will suit his purpose. In order to enhance the
imaginary difficulty, Dr. Colenso does not hesitate to assert
that the reading took place on the same day as the writing.
The words in the text are, " and afterward Joshua read,''
&c, not "on the self-same day Joshua read." Such
misrepresentation is in the highest degree culpable.

Exod. xix. 6. " Ibid. xix. 7. 3 Deut. xxvii. 1-
4 Ibid, xxvii. 9. " Ibid. xxxi. 22.

( 48)

CHAPTER VI.
THE EXTENT OF THE CAMP COMPARED WITH THE PRIEST'S
DUTIES AND THE DAILY NECESSITIES OF THE PEOPLE.
In this chapter, Dr. Colenso tells his readers that " it is
our duty to look plain facts in the face."
The following are the " plain facts " with which, he
amuses his readers. He tells them that the camp of the
Israelites in the wilderness must have occupied at least
three square miles, but that, in all probability, it occupied
about twelve miles square.
He tells them that by the sacrificial laws in Lev. iv.
11, 12, and Lev. vi. 10, 11, the offal and ashes of the
sacrifices having to be carried forth " without the camp,"
the distance they would have to be conveyed would be
about six miles, and, therefore, we must imagine the
priest himself having to carry on his back, on foot,
from St Paul's to the outskirts of the metropolis, " the
skin and flesh, and head, and legs, and inwards, and dung,
even the whole bullock." He tells his readers further,
that all this had to be done by the priest himself ; and
that there were only three priests, Aaron, Eleazar, and
Ithamar, and no more.
He states, further, that under the law, as laid down in
Deut. xxiii. 12—14, all persons were obliged to go out-

EXTENT OF CAMP COMPARED WITH PRIESTS' DUTIES, ETC. 49
side the camp for the necessities of nature, and innocently
suggests to his readers, that there were "aged, and in
firm, women in child-birth, sick persons, and young
people, who could not have done this."
"The supposition involves, of course, an absurdity,"
says Dr. Colenso ; and upon this point we quite agree with
him. But we deny his premises. We too, find it our
duty to " look plain facts in the face," and we shall then
find the " plain facts " to be absurd fictions, created by
the fancy of the critic. Dr. Colenso thinks it likely that
the whole camp covered an extent of twelve miles. We
do not object to this dimension ; but the camp was not, as
he surmises, a compact square of twelve miles long and
twelve miles broad, but a space of irregular shape, with
intervening spots of open ground between the encamp
ments of the various tribes. In the centre was the
Tabernacle, around which the Levites were commanded
to pitch their tents. On the four sides of this central
camp were to be pitched four other encampments, each
extending over about three miles. Thus, instead of going
six miles to carry their refuse, each tribe would have to
go but a short distance outside its own camp. But it
must not be imagined that the command to have a place
outside the camp for the necessities of nature, applied to
the general community. If we refer to the ordinance,1 we
find that it alludes especially and exclusively to the sani
tary arrangements of the army, "when the host goeth
forth against thine enemies."2 Indeed, Dr. Colenso him
self stumbles over this truth, when he reminds himself of
1 Deut. xxiii. 12—14. ! Deut. xxiii.9. d

5Q EXTENT OF CAMP COMPARED
the « paddle " being upon the " weapon," thereby indicat
ing that the rule in question was only to apply to the
encampment of an army on active service.
Of the priest's duties we shall hereafter speak more
fully, and shall show that the bulk of the sacrificial laws
were not intended to be carried into practice during the
wanderings in the wilderness. But let us assume that
the especial offerings, which form the subject of Dr.
Colenso's "critical examination," were actually performed
in the wilderness. Do the absurdities which he points
out inevitably follow 1 Were there only three priests, as
he tells us \ Did one of these three priests have to carry
a whole bullock " on his back," a distance of six miles, as
Dr. Colenso would make the Bible assert 1
As to the number of the priests, the Bible is silent.
But we know that there were more than the three enume
rated by Dr. Colenso. We know that Eleazar had a son
named Phinehas ; and both he and Ithamar, most pro
bably, had several sons. The name of Phinehas is only
incidentally mentioned in an early genealogy,1 and in
connection with an episode which had no reference to the
priestly calling.2 But for this, we might have been igno
rant of the existence of a priest named Phinehas ; and, in
like manner there might have been many more descendants
and contemporaries of Aaron, whose names are not
mentioned. But however few, or however numerous, were the priests,
there is nothing in the facts quoted, to indicate that the
actual drudgery of carrying forth the whole bullock, or
1 Exod. vi. 25. ' Numb. xxv. 7.

WITH PRIESTS' DUTIES, ETC. 51
the ashes of the burnt offering, was performed by the
priest himself. The words of the Hebrew text are
MS? *?3 m Wtl1) and f#Xj Hi* N\Xini. These words,
literally translated, are, " and he shall cause the bullock
to go forth," and " he shall cause the ashes to go
forth." There is nothing to imply that the priest did
this drudgery himself. He might have called to his aid
any of the 2,750 Kohathites,1 who were appointed to
assist Aaron and his sons in their priestly office. In the
service assigned to the sons of Kohath2, during the
march through the wilderness, it is particularly men
tioned, "And they shall take away the ashes from the
altar."3 Nor need it be supposed that the " clean place with
out the camp" was, of necessity, beyond the general
encampment. It might have been, and no doubt was,
immediately outside the camp of the Levites, no great
distance for the bullock, or for the ashes, to be carried.
To prove that the word WifiTI) does not imply the
personal service of the priest, let us take other examples of
its use. God commanded Moses S^p^ri J1X NXiPl,4 which
is translated in the English version, " Bring forth him
that hath cursed." Was it intended that Moses himself
was to carry him on his back? We find what was
implied by the sequel ; for we read that Moses spake to
the children of Israel, typGn N$ W#*[ "that they
should bring forth him that had cursed."5
Again, in the command for the destruction of the

1 Numb. iv. 36. 2 Numb. iv. 13. 3 See also 'Joma,' p. 53.
* Lev. xxiv. 14. 6 Lev. xxiv. 23. D 2

52 EXTENT OF CAMP COMPARED WITH PRIESTS* DUTIES, ETC.
leprous1 house, the priest is ordered to " break down the
house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the
mortar of the house, and he shall carry them forth (K^iT))
out of the city," &c. Surely it is not here intended that
the priest should do more than superintend the removal
of the leprous house.
But who told Dr. Colenso that the priest had to carry
the whole -bullock " on his back, on foot ? " Is there a
hint in the Bible of anything so absurd 1 Is not this
remark rather a feeble attempt at vulgar wit, unworthy
of a critic of Biblical history 1 Is such criticism con
sistent with the principle laid down in his preface, that
his work must be taken in hand, " not in a light and
scoffing spirit, but in that of a devout and living faith,
which seeks only truth and follows fearlessly its foot
steps." Were these fine words written by the bishop who drew
the ludicrous picture of a priest of God, trudging a dis
tance of six miles, and carrying on his back a whole
bullock with its " skin, and flesh, and head, and legs, and
inwards, and dung 1"
Behold the promise and the performance side by side !

1 Lev. xiv. .45.

(53 )

CHAPTER VII.
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THE FIRST MUSTER COM
PARED WITH THE POLL-TAX RAISED SIX MONTHS
PREVIOUSLY.
The main difficulty raised by Dr. Colenso in this
chapter is a numerical one. He cannot understand how
it is possible that the number of adult males, included
in the census taken " on the first day of the second month
in the second year" after the exodus,1 could have been
identically the same (603,550) as the number of individ
uals who paid the poll-tax six months previously.2
Certainly, at first sight, this would appear a very
remarkable coincidence. It would imply that the num
ber of males, who attained the age of twenty within the
six months, was precisely equal to that of the adult males
who died during that period. Such a coincidence of
increase and decrease w,ould be, without doubt, just with
in the range of possibility ; but, as Kurtz remarks, it
would be " something striking."
Now, it appears to us, that the very fact of the result
of the poll-tax and the result of the numbering being
identical, points to the conclusion, that the two processes
1 Numb. i. 1—46. 2 Exod. xxxviii. 26.

54 NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THE FIRST MUSTER
together formed one and the same census. Surely there
was no special necessity for two numberings within so
short a period as six months. There is no record of any
great war or plague in the interval, such as would have
decimated the nation, and so rendered a second census
expedient. We cannot suppose that the (so-called) second
numbering was the actual census, and that the (so-called)
first numbering had for its only object the collection
of silver for the service of the tabernacle ; for we are
distinctly told that the contributions of the people were
excessive, and that Moses was compelled to restrain
their liberality. Nor can we imagine that any unneces
sary or superfluous proceeding could have been ordained
by Divine command.
It would seem, then, that the census was actually
taken once only; namely, when the poll-tax was paid;
and that the total number was then ascertained, and
only incidentally mentioned ; but that the command in
Numb. i. was an order to prepare a classified return of
the census already taken, with a view to the proper
arrangement of the tribes in camps,1 at the time when
their wanderings were about to commence.
And here be it observed, that God scarcely com
manded even one census; that, in fact, He merely
ordered the "return" of a census which had been
already taken.3 In Exodus we do not find any Divine
order for a numbering of the children of Israel. It

Numb. ii.

'Contrast the command in Numb. i. 2, to bring up the return—
"Take the sum" (nn ft, «*), with the direct JJ^ ^
number the first-born or to number the Levites. In the latter case.

COMPARED WITH THE POLL-TAX RAISED, ETC. 55
would seem that Moses, like a skilful general, sponta
neously contemplated a census with a view to a proper
reorganization for the march through the wilderness,
and that God therefore told him, " When thou takest
(KB>n >3) the sum of the children of Israel after their
number, then shall they give every man a ransom."1 The
command is not "take the sum," but merely "when
thou takest the sum."
We know that when the " ransom " was collected, the
census was taken. Dr. Colenso tells us that nothing is
there said of any census being taken ; but, if we refer to
the account of the material used for the tabernacle, we
find that " the silver of them that were numbered of the
congregation was an hundred talents, and a thousand
seven hundred and threescore and fifteen shekels, after
the shekel of the sanctuary."2 In the following verse
it is further explained, that this amount was the result
of the payment of half a shekel "for every one that
went to be numbered}'' and there can be no doubt from the
phraseology here adopted, that the numbering was the
primary process, and the payment of the half-shekel a
mere incident of the numbering.
It might, however, be asked, how was it that six
instead of " Take the sum," we read " Number all the first-born "
of the males of the children of Israel ("Of 133-^3 IpB), and " Num
ber the children of Levi" (^ '.??""£ Ipf). Where, however, the
command refers to a subdivision of the Levites into three groups of
Kohathites, Merarites, and Gershonites, since the numbers had
been already taken in the general Levitical census, and a mere
" return " was necessary, we find the phrase " Take the sum of the
sons of Kohath," &c.
1 Exod. xxx. 12. ' Ibid, xxxviii. 25.

56 NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT THE FIRST MUSTER
months elapsed between the taking of the census, as
narrated in Exod. xxxviii., and the return and classi
fication ordered in Numb. L? A glance at the words of
the Bible will show that the latter must have been a
very laborious process, for which six months were cer
tainly not too long a period. The appointed chieftains
(riTg) had not merely to count the people. They had
to register the names, to investigate the pedigree of each
individual, to diseover his tribe and family, and to satisfy
themselves that he was qualified "to go forth to war."
These details were most important, seeing that the whole
nation was to be divided into separate camps, classified
by their tribes. That these details were all carried out,
we know by the words of Numb. i. 18, where we read
that "they assembled all the congregation1 together on
the first day of the second month, and they declared
their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their
fathers, according to the number of the names, from
twenty years old and upward by their polls." We find
in the particulars given of the number of each tribe, that
in every case the same complex details are expressly
referred to. We read " of the children of Simeon, by
their generations, after their families, by the house of
their fathers, those that were numbered of them accord
ing to the number of the names, by their polls, every
male from twenty years old and upward, all that were

1 The words ^npn rnyn ^S m\ should be rendered "and they
assembled all the appointed chieftains." Tor the meaning of the
word "75! see our remarks in Chap. IV.

COMPARED WITH THE POLL-TAX RAISED, ETC. 57
able to go forth to war," &c. ' And the same phrase is
repeated in the case of every tribe.
The particulars to be taken of each individual tribe
were then as follows :— (1) pedigree, (2) tribe, (3) clan,
or family, (4) name, (5) age, (6) military qualification.
Could such a census, embracing the classification of a
population as large as that of London, be organized and
carried out, and its return published, in less time than six
months ? We know that, now-a-days, with all our facili
ties of communication, many months elapse between a
census and the publication of its results. Certainly the
twenty days, which elapsed between the command given
in Numb, i., and the first journeying of the classified
camps,2 would not have sufficed, more especially as we
know that the very same twelve men, who were respon
sible for the numbering, were engaged, during at least
a part of the interval, in presenting offerings3 on behalf
of their respective tribes.
We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion, that at the
time of the command to " take the sum of all the con
gregation of the children of Israel," the actual work of
the census had been completed, that the individual
details had been collected, that the " numerical return "
was already known by the sum total of the ransom
money, and that it then only remained to the enumerators

1 Numb. i. 22.
s The command to take the " sum of the congregation " was given
on the first day of the second month, in the second year of the
exodus. (Numb. i. 1.) The first journey was taken on the twentieth
day of the second month, in the second year. (Numb. x. 11.)
3 Numb. vii.

58 NUMBER OF PEOPLE AT FIRST MUSTER COMPARED, ETC.
to bring up their "nominal return," with all its details.
We have, in modern practice, an analogous mode of
dealing with the statistics of large bodies of men. To a
general's despatches sent immediately after a battle, we
shall find appended a " numerical list " of killed and
wounded. The "nominal list" follows some time after.
Divine sanction was, without doubt, necessary to the
rendering of such a return, so as to effect the camp
organization consequent upon the census. The members
of the various tribes had, no doubt, intermarried, and the
first result of the tribe arrangement of the four camps
would be to sever many families intimately allied. To
many, such a classification would be unpalatable, and to
enforce it the Divine authority given to the census would
become necessary.
We need scarcely advert to Dr. Colenso's objection that
the expression V?*pT\ 7(5^ (translated "the shekel of
the sanctuary") involves an anachronism, seeing that
the sanctuary was not yet in existence. V}~p is not
necessarily a noun, signifying the sanctuary, viz., the
Tabernacle erected in the wilderness, but is also an
adjective, simply meaning " sacred" or " holy," and the
shekel might well have been called BhjPH bp# from
being used for the redemption of the first-born,1 or any
other sacred purpose.
The LXX is therefore quite correct in the rendering
to SiSpa-xjiov ayiov the " sacred shekel."

1 Exod. xiii. 15.

(59 )

CHAPTER VIII.
THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS.
Dr. Colenso asserts that the statement in Exod. xvi. 16,
" Take ye every man for them which are in his tents}'1
conflicts with that in Lev. xxiii. 42, 43, where the
reason assigned for the dwelling in booths for seven days
at the Feast of Tabernacles, is, that " your generations
may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in
booths .*" and he endeavours to explain that by the word
" booths " in the second quotation, tents cannot be
meant, because the Hebrew for a booth made of boughs
and bushes is PI3D, while the Hebrew for a tent is 7HX.
Here, again, he has made an egregious mistake. There
is nothing in the word !""I3D which implies a booth
made of boughs and bushes ; H3D is a generic term, sig
nifying any shelter ; and ^TVA is merely a species of PI3D.
Dr. Colenso would have discovered this by referring to
any Hebrew dictionary, e.g., that of Gesenius, who
derives the word from ^|3D "to cover.-'
That the term ^130 includes /Hi*, and that the two
words are sometimes used as synonymous, may be seen
by reference to 2 Sam. xi. 11, and vii. 6. In the first of

60 THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS.
these passages, it is stated that " the ark, and Israel,
and Judah, abide in tents" (ni3D3). In the second, God
tells David that since He brought up the children of
Israel from Egypt, He has "walked in a tent, and in a
tabernacle." (J3f 031 -^3). Dr. Colenso, indeed, tells
his readers that, in the first of the above-cited
passages lT}ii is "used improperly for tents."
The blunder is evidently due to his supposition that
Lev. xxiii. 40/ contains the description of the mode of
erecting the booths for the Feast of Tabernacles. Cer
tainly we are quite at a loss to discover for what pur
pose the fruit of the goodly tree Tin fj? Hfj) (erroneously
translated in the authorized version " boughs of goodly
trees") could have been used in constructing the Taber
nacle. The bishop gets over this difficulty by following
the faulty translation of the authorized version, and ren
dering '"IB "boughs."
If, however, we refer to Josephus,2 we shall find that
the vegetable products referred to in Lev. xxiii. 40, were
not used in the construction of the booths, but were car
ried into the temple by the worshippers who rejoiced
with them before the Lord.
The practice of the Jews of modern times accords with
this. Their tabernacles or booths are covered with com
mon evergreens. But they carry round their synagogues

1 " Ye shall take you on the first day the fruit (English version
" boughs ") of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs
of thick trees, and willows of the brook."
5 Antiq. iii. 10.

THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS. 61
the four products referred to in Lev. xxiii. 40, viz., palm
branches, myrtle branches, willow boughs, and citrons.
The present practice of the Jews, which is everywhere
the same, is the best interpretation of Lev. xxiii. 40. '
- Let us now proceed to the principal difficulty raised
by Dr. Colenso in his eighth chapter. He says that two
million Israelites would have required at least 200,000
tents, and asks, how they could have acquired so many,
and how they could have carried them, seeing that they
must have formed a load for 50,000 oxen.
There is no reason whatever for assuming that all the
Israelites had tents. Again, we believe that Dr. Colenso
is wrong in assuming that the Israelites, when they left
Egypt, had tents with poles, pegs, and skins, such as
are afforded by the luxury of modern travel. He surely
cannot be ignorant of the rude, simple tent of the Arab.
Even at the present day, in Syria and Palestine, we see
at the corners of the flat house-tops, four sticks set
upright, and carrying a piece of matting, which forms an
awning, and supplies sufficient shelter from the sun
by day and the dew by night.

1 One of Dr. Colenso's apologists, writing in the Athenaeum of the
13th Dec-, 1862, under the nom de plume of " Philobiblius," quotes
Nehemiah viii. 15, to prove that the vegetable products referred to
were actually employed in the construction of the booths, the words
being " Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine
branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of
thick trees, to make booths, as it is written." But the truth is, that
n2p niti>j6 does not necessarily imply " to make booths" but to eelebrate
the feast of fl3D, just as we find the expression na^n nt< TW'J?_ "to
observe (not make) the Sabbath," or np§ ftfe>5>> « to observe (not
make) the Passover."

62 THE ISRAELITES DWELLING IN TENTS.
Dr. Colenso must surely have seen a gipsy tent con
structed of a few sticks and a sheet of canvas, and
affording cover and sufficient protection for a whole
family. There is little doubt that even at the exodus
such shelter was provided, in the first instance, only for
the women and very young chil dren. The Israelites were
a vigorous race, and had, during their sojourn in Egypt,
been used to all manner of hardships. Later, perhaps,
their artificers supplied them with more efficient shelter
during the winter.
That they had artificers, both male and female, and
plenty of material, is proved by the details of the con
struction of the tabernacle. Their tents might have
been at first of the roughest kind, but it is certain that
later they were remarkable for their beauty. Else,
wherefore the involuntary eulogy of their enemy, Ba
laam, " How goodly are thy tents, 0 Jacob, and thy
tabernacles, 0 Israel ! As the valleys are they spread
forth, as gardens by the river's side, as the trees of Hgn-
aloes, which the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees
beside the waters." 1 1 Numb. xxiv. 5, 6.

( 63 )

CHAPTER IX.
THE ISRAELITES ARMED.
The process by which Dr. Colenso establishes the un
historical character ofthe Pentateuch is well, exemplified
in this chapter. He attributes expressions to the Bible
which the Bible never uses, and then tries to prove that
those expressions are false.
He quotes from Exod. xiii. 18, " The children of Israel
went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt." He
says, that the word D^fifi which is here rendered " har
nessed," appears to mean ' armed,' or 'in battle array,' and
gives some so-called reasons in support of this hypothesis.
But Dr. Colenso does not believe that the Israelites
were armed when they went up out of Egypt, for he
says, that —
"It is inconceivable that those down-trodden, oppressed, people
should have been allowed by Pharaoh to possess arms, so as to turn
out at a moment's notice 600,000 armed men."
And because it is inconceivable, Dr. Colenso would
have us believe that the Bible history is untrue.
He would not let us suspect that his assumptions
may be false ; that possibly the word D*B#3H does not
mean 'armed;' that possibly not the whole 600,000 men
were armed, but only a fair proportion of them ; and that
possibly they possessed themselves of arms without

64 THE ISRAELITES ARMED.
Pharaoh being able to prevent them. No. Dr. Colenso
finds it much easier, and much more agreeable to his
preconceived plan, to say, "therefore the Bible is false."
Sooner such a conclusion than that his assumption should
be wrong.
The fact is, that the word C&tiTl. is one of those terms,
which, from their rare occurrence, are most difficult to
translate with anything like certainty. This word has
been the subject of controversy amongst the linguists of
all ages ; and upon a word of such doubtful meaning
no critic should build up an argument to show that
the Bible is false.
The word D^&tf means literally, "girded on the
fifth rib," or "equipped," and mayor may not mean also
" armed." Onkelos, the Chaldaic paraphrast, translates
it pni& ("active" or "eager"), and this rendering ac
cords with all the few passages where the word D^fiH
occurs in the Bible.
But, even if we were to assume that the word here
really means "armed," there would be no difficulty.
It were a gratuitous assumption to suppose, as Dr.
Colenso does, that every one of the 600,000 carried
weapons. When we say, "England is armed," we do not
mean that every member of the population is armed, but
only the army, navy, and volunteers, amounting in the
aggregate to not more, perhaps, than a sixtieth part of
the entire population. The assertion that the 600,000
men were able to go forth to war, does not by any means
imply, that they were all armed soldiers, but simply
that they were capable of using arms and liable to be
drawn for the military service, when occasion might

THE ISR^iELITES ARMED. 65
require. Dr. Colenso tells us, " we must suppose that
the whole body of 600,000 warriors were armed, when
they were numbered (Numb. i. 3) under Sinai. They
possessed arms, surely, at that time, according to the
story." But, in truth, the " story " tells us nothing of
the sort. That a body of the Israelites possessed some
arms, is proved by the narrative of -the battle with
Ama^ek;1 and the phrase then used by Moses, when he
bids hj.s adjutant, Joshua, " Choose us out men," seems
to imply that the fighting men were merely a selection
from the "600,000 " able to go forth to war."
How the Israelites obtained their arms is not so diffi
cult to imagine. Although Dr. Colenso ridicules the
*
idea, many might have obtained them by "borrowing,"8
on the night of the exodus. It would have been much
more ridiculous if they had "borrowed" other things
in preference to weapons of war.
But Dr. Colenso cannot understand how the Israelites,
if they were really armed, could have been so cowardly
as to tremble at the approach of Pharaoh. This is not
very difficult to understand. The Bible tells us that
Pharaoh "took six hundred chosen chariots and all the
chariots of Egypt,"3 "and his horsemen and his army,"4
and overtook the Israelites. Now, was not such a host
of war-chariots and cavalry sufficient to excite the dis
may and despair of an undisciplined multitude, even pre-
1 Exod. xvii. 8—13.
2 It may be well to remark here that the word ¦l«tt?J3, which is
translated "borrowed" in the authorized English version, is incor
rectly so translated. The proper translation is "they asked."
3 Exod. xiv. 7. ' Exod. xiv. 9. E

66 THE ISRAELITES ARMED.
suming that a large proportion were well armed ?x The
bravest men might well quail, placed in the position of
the Israelites. The Bible makes no secret of the faults
and failings of our ancestors, but it never hints at the
idea that they were cowards.
It will be seen farther, that although there might
have been abundant means of acquiring arms, we are not
bound to believe that even all the fighting soldiers were
armed with the best appliances of war. We know that
swords, spears, and shields are not the only weapons that
can be used in warfare. If we refer to Macaulay,2 we
shall find how Monmouth's rustics were armed. " They
had no other weapons but such as could be made out of
the tools which they used in husbandry and mining
operations. Of the rude implements of war, the most
formidable was made by fastening the blade of a scythe
erect on a strong pole." In our times, the insurgents
in Poland were armed in the same way; we all know
with what effect. And had not the children of Israel
their tools of husbandry ? An ox-goad might have served
as a spear, a plough-share as a sword, and sharpened
spades as battle-axes.

1 Herodotus tells us (Lib. II. c. 166) that the Egyptians applied
themselves wholly to military affairs. 2 Vol. I., 587 — 8.

(67)

CHAPTER X.
THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
The main questions raised in this chapter are : —
1. How could the Israelites, numbering about two
millions of souls, and scattered about in cities and in
pasture lands, all have been informed, within twelve
hours, of the ordinance of the Passover, and of the mode
in which it was to be celebrated ?
2. How could they have obtained 150,000 lambs, the
number of lambs imagined by Dr. Colenso as necessary
for the celebration of the Passover ?
3. How could they, within so short a time as twelve
hours, have borrowed so extensively of the Egyptians ?
4. How could so large a number of people have been
suddenly warned at midnight to start at once in hurried
flight for the wilderness ?
I. In reply, we must first ask — How does Dr. Colenso
know that within one single day all the Israelite
population were commanded to keep the Passover, and
actually did keep it ?
He states as his reason that he finds the command of
the Passover given in Exod. xii. 3 ; and that in the 12th
verse of the same chapter, God says, " I will pass
through the land of Egypt this night" (H-H rtyf?%)
E 2

68 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
We shall see how far Dr. Colenso is justified in this
view. Whoever carefully peruses Exodus, chapters xi. and
xii., will inevitably conclude that Moses's forewarning to
Pharaoh of the intended destruction of the firstborns,
occurred before God gave the command of the Passover.
It is curious to see how Dr. Colenso assumes that in
Moses's warning to Pharaoh, " About midnight will I go
out into the midst of Egypt, and all the firstborn in the
land of Egypt shall die," " the midnight then next at
hand is intended." As if the expression "about mid
night," fixed anything beyond the hour of night at which
the event would occur. • The fixing of the hour was an
important part of the answer to Pharaoh's haughty
threat.1 The tyrant had the effrontery to say to God's
messenger, "Presume not again to enter my palace."
To which Moses replied, "I will never trouble you
again with my presence ; but in the dead of night, your
ministers will have to search me out, and on their knees
to implore me, in your name, to depart with all my
people. Only then will I condescend to go." It cannot
be doubted that this is the true sense of the words "about
midnight."
', After the warning, God commands Moses and Aaron
to tell the children of Israel that on the tenth day they
shall take a lamb, and that on the fourteenth they
shall kill it. Consequently Moses must have told the
people some days before the tenth, otherwise the com
mand would have been nugatory. In aU probability, the

Exod. x. 28.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER. 69
command was given upon the first day of the month ;
for it begins with the words, " This month shall be unto
you the beginning of months ; " and it would have been
a strange thing if so important a change in the calendar
had been postponed till the month had half expired.
In any case, the tenth day was devoted to choosing the
lambs ; and the interval between the "tenth and four
teenth gave the people ample time for preparing, and for
familiarising themselves with the ceremonial upon which
their safety depended. This is plainly implied in the
text, " Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, say
ing, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to
them every man a lamb, according to the house of their
fathers a lamb for an house." " And ye shall keep it up
until the fourteenth day of the same month, and the whole
assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in
the evening."1
The assumption, therefore, that the three events, viz.,
Moses informing the people, their getting the lambs and
their killing them, were crowded within twelve hours, is
positively opposed to the plain words of Holy Writ.
As to the words " this night" (i"WPl ri7y?3) upon which
Dr. Colenso builds his whole speculation, it is evident,
on a perusal of the context, that they allude to the same
night as that on which the lambs were to be roasted
and eaten.
As an example of this mode of using the word H-TH, we
may quote Lev. xxiii. 6. Here we find, " On the fifteenth
day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread,"
1 Exod. xii. 3, 6.

70 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
and the words iTTPl VTfh are used. Here certainly the
month alluded to does not mean that on which the
command was given. Again, in Lev. xvi. 30, we read,
" For on that day shall the priest make an atonement ; "
and the words PITH di*3 *3 are used, certainly not mean
ing the day on which God was speaking, but the day
to which allusion- is made in the context.
II. The second " difficulty" raised by Dr. Colenso is
one of the most remarkable kind, and is produced by
a feat of arithmetic performed upon the Paschal lamb.
Assuming that every Israelite, men, women, and children,
ate of the Paschal lamb, and that each of these would be
able to eat about a thirteenth part of a lamb, he startles
us with the fact that 150,000 male lambs were required
for the Passover, and that if these could have been
spared for such a purpose, there must have been a flock
of rams, ewes, and lambs of both sexes, numbering
at least two millions. He then tells us that " in New
Zealand there are few spots where sheep can be kept
two to an acre ; " but being of a liberal turn of mind, he
says, let us allow five sheep to an acre ; and thence con^
eludes that the Israelites would have required 400,000
acres of grazing land for their sheep only, a space more
than twice the size of Middlesex. Thence he infers,
that the difficulty of communicating the Divine behest as
to the Passover, and the order for the departure from
Egypt in so short a time as the assumed twelve hours is
immensely increased.
Now the whole argument is nothing more than a string
of assumptions.
M Dr. Colenso asssumes that all the 2,000,000 Israel-

THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER. 71
ites ate of the Paschal lamb. It is well known that the
males only partook of the Passover; the words "every
man according to his eating,"1 "an ordinance to thee
and to thy sons,"2 sufficiently imply this; and tradition
confirms this interpretation.
2ndly. He assumes that every person could and did
eat a thirteenth part of a lamb, — rather a large quan
tity, if an Egyptian lamb in the month of April was as
large as an English one now is, in the same month. The
Egyptian spring being earlier, one would rather be
disposed to believe, that a lamb of the first year in the
month of April would have been a large animal. But
be that as it may, we are informed by tradition, that it
was not necessary to eat more of the lamb than a piece
of the size of an olive,3 and that it might not be eaten as
a meal to satisfy hunger.4 Therefore, one lamb would
have served for several large families.
3rdly. He assumes that we may judge of the space
occupied by the flocks in Egypt by the sheep-runs of
Australia and New Zealand.
We know well that the New Zealand average of two
sheep to an acre would be absurdly low here in England.
A fortiori, we cannot compare the soil of such colonies
with that of Egypt, whose fertility has always been
proverbial. 4thly. He assumes that the Paschal sacrifice must
have been a lamb. This need not have been the case.

1 Exod. xii. 4. 2 Ibid. xii. 24.
3 Maimonides on the "Paschal Lamb," VIII., 3.
4 " Pesachim," p. 70, 85S., 9 1 .

72 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
It is expressly stated, "Ye shall take it out from the
sheep, or from the goats."1 The goat might have been,
as in many places at the present time, a domestic animal,
not fed in the fields.
5thly. He assumes that the Israelites were obliged to
take the Paschal sacrifices from their own flocks. For
aught the Bible tells us, they might have been all taken
from the Egyptian flocks. Certainly the bulk of the
Israelites were not shepherds, but, being engaged upon
large works of construction, must have been residents in
cities. These, no doubt, procured the lambs or goats
from their Egyptian friends in whose sight they had
" found favour."
Take away the five assumptions of Dr. Colenso, and
what becomes of his argument? What, becomes of his
assertion, which he makes elsewhere, that the Israelites
must have possessed at least 2,000,000 sheep and oxen?
and what becomes of his conclusion, that the Israelites
must thus have spread over an area equal in size to the
whole county of Hertfordshire ; and that it would thus
have been impossible to communicate the word of com
mand in so short a time as the wrongly assumed period
of twelve hours ? .
III. Dr. Colenso's notion, that the borrowing only
took place at the same time as the preparation of the
Paschal lamb, probably originated in his ignorance of
Hebrew grammar and consequent adhesion to the au
thorized English version. The preterite in Exod. xii.
35, W% ?K Mt^ \}3!| has the same sense as the English

1 Exod, xii. 5.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER. 73
pluperfect. The true grammatical reading of the verses
is, "And the children of Israel had done according to
the word of Moses, and had borrowed, &c."
It would be enough for our purpose, if we only
showed that such might be the meaning of the passage.
But we go further. We contend that there is here a
peculiarity of expression indicating that such must be
the sense. Eor, if verse 35 had been merely a continu
ation of what occurred on that night, then the context
would have continued in the same form, and, as in all
the preceding verbs, the historic future would have been
used. Thus, instead of *t% htpt*. _\D*, which com
pletely breaks the "historic" structure, the words used
would have been !&*)&*, *53 ^5?*!. This abrupt change
of grammatical structure proves, beyond the possibility
of doubt, that the acts described had already occurred
before the previously mentioned incidents took place,
that the children of Israel had already "borrowed"
before the fulfilment of the command of the Paschal
lamb. Moreover, we know full well that there was no lack
of time for this process of borrowing ; for they had been
commanded to borrow at the very commencement of the
plagues, or some months before the exodus. The very
first time that God promised a deliverance, He informed
Moses of the intended borrowing of vessels of silver and
gold, of raiment, &C.1 Immediately afterwards, Moses
and Aaron assembled all the elders, " and Aaron spake
all the words, which the Lord had spoken unto Moses,"2
1 Exod. iii. 21, 22. 2 Ibid. iv. 29, 30.

74 THE INSTITUTION OF THE PASSOVER.
and thus, during all this long interval, the Israelites had
ample time for carrying out the command.
As to the repetition of the command in Exod. xi.
2, 3, it implied, that as the climax was approaching,
the people were, in earrying out the command, to execute
it with greater activity.
IY. Dr. Colenso cannot understand how the order
for the departure of the Israelites could have been con
veyed to them in so short a time. The natural answer
is, that they were in expectation of this event — the
crisis of the wonderful events of the past year. Were
they not to eat the Passover with their loins girded,
their shoes on their feet, and their staves in their hands ?
What did this mean, but that they should be ready for
the word of command, bidding them to march out from
the house of bondage ?
And must not the terror-stricken Egyptians, in whose
houses the angel of death had done such fearful work,
and was yet lurking, have gladly helped, at all cost and
hazards, to hurry out the Israelites, thinking them the
cause of their firstborns' death ? Read the fearful nar
rative of the tenth plague,1 and it needs no vivid imagin
ation to conceive the truth of the statement, that "the
Egyptians were urgent upon the people that they might
send them out of the land in haste, for they said, We be
all dead men."2
So urged by the frantic Egyptians, the Israelites must
have needed no further intimation that the hour for their
departure had arrived.

Exod. xii. 29—33. « Ibid. xii. 33.

(75)

CHAPTER XL
THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT.
The main difficulties newly raised in this chapter are
two : —
1st. How could all the Israelites in one night have
assembled at Rameses, and made- their preparations for
a journey ?
2ndly. How could they all have started next day ?
Let us ask another question. How does Dr. Colenso
know, and how can he prove, that they did all assemble
at one place ? The only passage he can adduce, is the
37th verse of Exod. xii. But there it is not stated that
"they gathered at Rameses," but only that they "jour
neyed from Rameses about 600,000, &c." On the other
hand, we read in the 41st verse, "And it came to pass
at the end of the 430 years, even the self-same day it
came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from
the land of Egypt A Again, in the 42nd verse we read,
" It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for
bringing them out from the land of Egypt." These two
passages evidently show that the term Rameses in v. 37
does not indicate one particular spot or town, but a
province ; and as by leaving Rameses the Israelites left
Egypt, we must presume that Rameses was a province
on the confines of Egypt. That there was a province

76 THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT.
called Rameses, as well as a town of that name, we know
from Gen. xlvii. 11, where we find that Joseph gave his
father and brothers " a possession in the land of Egypt,
in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses A
The phrase " all the hosts of the Lord" clearly implies
that the Israelites left in many hosts or bodies— that
they were not all assembled in one body. That they all
started on the same day is clearly asserted in the text.
But in this there is no difficulty. As we have already
shown, the Israelites were prepared for the event several
days before. They fully expected it, and had made all
their preparations, having even kneaded their flour into
dough. At midnight, the terrible death of the first-borns
took place simultaneously throughout the whole land of
Egypt,1 so that wherever the Israelites were, their frantic
neighbours placed no difficulties in the way of their
going when the appointed time came, but, giving them
whatever they asked, insisted only upon their imme
diate departure.
Nor were the Israelites at a loss whither to turn
their steps. Not to mention the very fair presumption
that Moses had, in all probability, appointed a general
rendezvous, we know for certain that they expected to go
to the land of Canaan.2 All who intended to go to the
land of Canaan had a certain route by which they would
proceed : all the bands started towards the same point —
they may have met at Succoth or Etham. Nothing
whatever is mentioned in Scripture about the time occu
pied in these journeys. For aught the Bible tells
1 Exod. xi. 4, 5, 6 ; xii. 12, 13, 29. 2 Exod. iii. 17 ; vi. 8.

THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT. 77
ns, some days may have elapsed from the time of their
starting from Rameses till they arrived at Succoth, and
thence again some days more till they came to Etham.
All we know, as to time, is that in a month they came
to the wilderness of Sin,1 and surely this allows ample
time for the march.
But Dr. Colenso, not satisfied with creating difficulties,
adopts the difficulties created by others. He quotes
from Kurtz, that the shortest road from the point of the
Israelites' departure "to the sea, taking into account the
circuitous road by which the Israelites went, would be
so long, that it would be necessary to travel 17 or 20
miles a day in order to accomplish the whole in three
days. Others may believe it if they please. But I can
not believe that such a procession as we have described,
could keep up a journey of 17 or 20 miles a day for
three days running."
But the Bible says nothing about three days only hav
ing elapsed from the departure from Egypt (Rameses) to
the encampment at the Red Sea. It is a matter of Jew
ish tradition that the passage of the Red Sea took place
seven days after the night of the exodus ; but there is,
in fact, no record of the time, in any part of the biblical
narrative. Again, Dr. Colenso bids us imagine that " the people
travelled through the open desert in a wide body, fifty
men abreast, as some suppose to have been the practice in
the Hebrew armies," and then, by another arithmetical
feat, discovers that such a column would occupy the
1 Exod. xvi. 1.

78 THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT.
impossible length of 22 miles. But the whole idea that
the Israelites marched in such a long narrow column is
a mere fancy. The Bible says nothing about it. It is
quite true that some have supposed that the word D'EJ'On,
translated 'harnessed,' signifies 'in rows of 50' (D^QH
fifty) or ' in companies of 50 ; ' but no one was ever so
insane as to hint at the notion, that such a supposed
arrangement necessitated the formation of a long thin
line of procession, 50 men abreast, and 22 miles long.
A classification in fifties (if such an interpretation of the
ambiguous word be accurate) is not inconsistent with any
form. Possibly a square would have been found most
convenient. But, in truth, there is not a word in the
Scriptures to warrant the idea of Dr. Colenso.
Dr. Colenso's imaginative power, however, takes a
very limited range upon some occasions. He can com
pare the departure of the Israelites from Egypt to
nothing better than his own flight from his home in
Natal, when aroused at night by an alarm that some hos
tile Zulus were coming. He says that, remembering the
confusion in his own small household of 30 or 40 persons
on that occasion, he does not hesitate to declare the
whole statement of the exodus of 2,000,000 people with
their flocks and herds, to be utterly incredible and im
possible. But, it will be seen, there are some important differ
ences between the circumstances of the exodus of Israel
and that of Dr. Colenso.
1. The Israelites expected that they were to march
out. They were prepared, their loins girt, their staves in

THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT. 79
their hands, and their shoes on their feet. Dr. Colenso
was taken by surprise.
2. As stated before, the Egyptians helped them to
march out with all possible speed. Dr. Colenso was not
aided by such kind enemies.
3. The Israelites were elated with the prospect of
freedom, and therefore hope and joy quickened their
footsteps. Dr. Colenso and his party were, no doubt,
half paralysed with fear, thinking that death was at their
very door.
4. The exodus of the Israelites was under the special
guidance of the Almighty.
This is the first time in this work . that we ac
count for an extraordinary fact by calling it a miracle;
but in this case we feel that we not only may call the
Exodus a miracle, but that we must so call it, for it is
part of our creed. The Bible teems with expressions in
which God's special intervention in the Exodus is de
clared. God opens the Decalogue with the words, " I
am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt." l The Almighty says to His people,
"Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how
I bare you on eagles' wings."2 And in the narrative
itself, where certainly no mere figure of speech could be
implied, we find that " it came to pass the selfsame day,
that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt by their armies."3
We reply to Dr. Colenso, then, that the Exodus was
unquestionably, even in its minutest detail, a miracle,
1 Exod. xx. 2. a Ibid. xix. 4. 3 Ibid. xii. 51.

80 THE MARCH OUT OF EGYPT.
that is, brought about by a special interposition of
Providence, all apparent obstacles notwithstanding. If
he cannot understand what became of the sick and
infirm, or the women in or near childbirth, we reply to
him in the words of the Psalmist, " There was not one
feeble person among their tribes."1 No doubt a startling
miracle, but it is only one of the great chain of miracles
which attended the exodus from Egypt, and the wander
ings of our ancestors in the wilderness.

1 Psalm cv. 37.

( 81 )

CHAPTER XII.
THE SHEEP AND CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE
WILDERNESS.
In this chapter, Dr. Colenso argues that it is incredible
that such vast flocks, as the Israelites must have pos
sessed, could have found means of sustenance during the
forty years' wanderings in the wilderness.
It will be found that the incredibility depends upon
the following . assumptions, all of which it is necessary
that Dr. Colenso should prove : —
(1.) That the locality known as Sinai at the present
time is really the Sinai of Scripture.
(2.) That the immense flocks and herds were actually
preserved during the wanderings of the Israelites.
(3.) That the wilderness was then in precisely the
same sterile state as at present.
(4.) That there was no miraculous interposition.
The first of these propositions Dr. Colenso makes no
attempt to prove ; and, yet, it is a most important point
to show that the very Sinai, which was selected as an
encampment for nearly a whole year, and which, he tells
us, the Israelites must have found bitterly cold during
the winter months, was identically the same Sinai that is
at present so called. He believes that the Israelites E

82 THE SHEEP AND CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES
must have found it bitterly cold, because Ruppell says
that " in the mountainous districts it is very cold in
the winter nights." But, even taking for granted Dr.
Colenso's assumption that the identity of the locality is
established, how are we to know that the Israelites
encamped on the mountains about Sinai ? Does an army
usually choose the coldest winter quarters it can find ?
The second proposition, that the sheep and cattle of
the Israelites constituted, according to the Bible narra
tive, an enormous herd, amounting to at least two mil
lions of sheep and oxen, is founded, principally, upon
the assumption (which we have already combated) that
200,000 male lambs were required for the celebration of
the passover. We have already stated that a very small
piece of the paschal lamb was required to be eaten by
each individual. A mere fraction only of the 200,000
would therefore be sufficient.
But Dr. Colenso further says that it is certain the
Bible story represents the Israelites as possessing the
flocks and herds during the whole of the forty years
which they passed in the wilderness. He tells us that
this is proved by Moses' question, when the people mur
mured for animal food, " Shall the flocks and the herds
be slain for them to suffice them ? m Dr. Colenso, how
ever, forgets to quote the context, " or shall all the fish
of the sea be gathered together for them to suffice
them?" If the words he quotes could prove that the Israelites
possessed flocks and herds, the words which he takes

1 Numb. xi. 22.

IN THE WILDERNESS. 83
care not to quote would show that they had at their
command all the fish of the sea !
He tries also to prove that the flocks were preserved
throughout the wanderings, by the fact stated that " the
children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very
great multitude of cattle."1 He owns that this is stated
after the capture of the extensive flocks and herds of the
Midianites; but he objects, that as the spoil was equally
divided among the people, the tribes in question could
not have been distinguished for the possession of any
extraordinary number. He forgets, however, that they
might easily have exchanged their other booty for flocks,
and so acquired " a very great multitude."
The next assumption, that the wilderness was a desert
at the time of the journeyings of the children of Israel,
is also gratuitous. Dr. Colenso says, "the state of the
country through which they [the Israelites] travelled
has not undergone any material change from that time
to this. It is described as being then — what it is now — a
' desert' land." But we must protest most emphatically
against this notion that the word 13*10 signifies a de
sert or a sterile waste. If we refer to Gesenius' Lexicon,
we shall find the first signification he gives to the word
is " regio vasta, plana, gregibus pascendis apta, non de-
serta." In Joel we find the words "13*10 rtW IK^T
"the pastures of the wilderness do spring;"2 and in
Psalms we read 1310 PliX} '3?"!' " They drop upon
the pastures of the wilderness."3 A wilderness, 13**£),

1 Numb, xxxii. 1. 2 Joel ii. 22. * Psalms lxv. 13.
F2

84 THE SHEEP AND CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES
was generally uninhabited, though we find that Joab
had a "house in the wilderness."1 But, although, as
a rule, uninhabited and uncultivated, grass for cattle
would certainly grow in a wilderness. We read hrGen.
xxxvi. 24, that Anah " found the mules in the wilder
ness, irto, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father."
In 1 Samuel xvii. 28, we read that Eliab asked David,
" with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wil
derness?" In all these cases the word ")3"-£ is used.
It is clear, therefore, that the "wilderness" of the Bible
is not what we conceive now under the name of desert.
Granting the assumption that the path of the Israelites
was really that which modern travellers indicate, we
have really no proof that, at the time of the exodus, the
wilderness was utterly barren and destitute of water.
We know well that the physical features of different
districts vary altogether in a few centuries. No one can
trace in the Canaan of modern times, "the land flowing
with milk and honey." About 300 trees are all that
remain of the proud cedars of Lebanon. The ordinary
course of nature frequently causes changes still more
startling. It is well known that the long-continued and
ever recurring sand-storms could eventually dry up
every particle of moisture in a fertile forest, and convert
it at last into a dreary waste.
The very passages from Dean Stanley's work which
Dr. Colenso quotes plainly indicate that, whatever the
•present condition of the so-called desert, water abounded
there at some time or other. The numerous wadys,
1 1 Kings ii. 34.

IN THE WILDERNESS. 85
which Dean Stanley describes as being " exactly like
rivers, except in having no water, " and the " appearance of
torrent beds and banks, and clefts in the rocks for tributary
streams, and at times even rushes and shrubs fringing
their course," show distinctly that the now parched soil
was once plentifully irrigated. Stanley tells us that this
succession of dry water-courses is exactly like the dry
bed of a Spanish river. How do we know when living
waters ceased to flow in these now thirsty river beds ?
Quite incidentally, the Pentateuch bears evidence to
the abundant presence of water in the course of the
wanderings. In Numbers xxxiii. 33, the Israelites are
said to have encamped in Jotbath. Nothing is there
said of any remarkable characteristic of this or any other
encampment ; but in Deut. x. 7, where Moses" gives a
resume of the history of the wanderings, he incidentally
describes Jotbath as "a lq-nd of rivers of waters."
Where there was water, there was surely no scarcity of
pasture. And the very fact of the merely occasional murmurings
of the Israelites at the want of water, shows distinctly
that the want was only occasional ; a temporary want,
probably contrived by the Divine Leader of Israel to pre
vent His people from regarding the supply of their daily
necessities as a natural matter of course.
But Dr. Colenso appeals to the Pentateuch to prove
that there was no water. He quotes Deut. viii. 11 — 15,
" Beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God . .
who led thee through that great and terrible wilder
ness, wherein were fiery serpents and scorpions and
drought, where there was no water." Here Dr. Colenso

86 THE SHEEP AND CATTLE OF THE ISRAELITES, ETC.
stops, and forgets that this sentence is immediately fol
lowed by the words, "who brought thee forth water out
of the rock of flint." So, too, he quotes Numbers xx.
4, 5, to show that the Israelites said, " neither is there
any water to drink ; " but he forgets to quote the con
text to show that "water came out abundantly" from the
rock. So, also, he quotes from Jeremiah ii. 6, to show
that the wilderness " was a land of drought," but he
forgets to point out that the whole tendency of the quo
tation is to show the great power of that God, by whose
interposition the Israelites surmounted the terrors of
the wilderness.
Truly, this is a convenient mode of quotation. Dr.
Colenso reads his Bible through a polariscope. He
catches half a ray, and all he sees is darkness. So let
us remind him of a few famous words which he himself
quotes, in his introductory chapter, to show the public
the line of criticism he proposes to adopt. " Beware,"
Says Burgon, " of playing tricks with its [the Bible's]
plain language. Beware of suppressing any part of the
evidence it supplies to its own meaning."

( 87 )

CHAPTER XIII.
THE NUMBER OF THE ISRAELITES COMPARED WITH THE
EXTENT OF THE LAND OF CANAAN.
The objection raised in this chapter is founded upon
Exod xxiii. 29, where God tells the Israelites that when
He will drive out the nations of Canaan to make way for
His chosen people, He "will not drive them out from
before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and
the beast of the field multiply against thee."
Dr. Colenso says that the whole territory divided
amongst the tribes was about 11,000 square miles; that
a population of two millions of Israelites (about the
number who entered the promised land with Joshua)
would have rendered Canaan as populous as Norfolk,
Suffolk, and Essex, at the present time ; and that, with
such a population, there was no danger of the beasts of
the field multiplying to any alarming extent. He tells
us that Natal, with an extent of 18,000 square miles,
and a population of only 150,000, suffers no inconve
nience from wild beasts, and he cannot see any reason
why Palestine should be different from Natal.
For which cogent reason, Dr. Colenso would have us
believe, either that the > number of the Israelites stated
in the Bible is unhistorical, or that the fear expressed
was unfounded.

88 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES COMPARED
As usual, Dr. Colenso here seizes a verse or
two, and forgets all about the context. If he had
looked one verse further, he would have perceived that
the territory from which the aborigines were to be
driven, little by little, extended "from the Red Sea
even to the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert
unto the river," (Euphrates), J a region of much greater
extent than that which was divided among the tribes by
Joshua. The country of which the Israelites took
immediate possession, did not, perhaps, greatly exceed
the area stated' by Dr. Colenso ; but the territory which
they were promised in Exod. xxiii., and which they in
herited eventually,2 contained 50,000 square miles, and
was consequently nearly five times as large as Dr. Colenso
would make it.
Two millions of people, spread over 50,000 square
miles, would certainly not form a dense population ; and
when we consider that, in those primitive times, there
were no fire-arms, we may well imagine that dread of
the beasts of the field would seriously interfere with the
quiet enjoyment of a vast territory. That in spite of the
gradual driving out of the aborigines, wild beasts
still existed, and frequented the haunts of men, we know
from several passages in the Bible.3 To judge from the
language of the poetical books of the Bible, the lion
alone must have been a constant object of terror ; and,
perhaps, we may find no better illustration of this than
the simple fact that in the Hebrew language, distin-

1 Exod. xxiii. 31. 2 2 Chron. ix. 26.
3 Judg. xiv. 5, xv. 4 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 34 ; 2 Kings ii. 24.

WITH EXTENT OF THE LAND OF CANAAN. 89
guished as it is for the poverty of its vocabulary, there
are no fewer than seven words to express " lion."1
It will be at once admitted, by any reasonable person,
that no analogy can be drawn between the prevalence of
wild beasts in Canaan and Natal. We know nothing of
their relative prevalence when undisturbed by the in
vasion of man. We know nothing of the relative number
of species of wild beasts in the two countries. But one
thing we do know, that the means of extermination
now-a-days are fearfully effectual. No wild beast can
withstand the rifle. In ancient times, with the sling,
the arrow, and the spear, as the only weapons, an en
counter with a wild beast was a terrible adventure.
We can, therefore, see nothing wonderful in the fear
expressed that the beasts of the field might multiply if
the conquest of Palestine w:ere too rapid. It seems
quite natural, and quite justified by the circumstances
of time and place.
We repudiate altogether^ and we believe every candid
student of the Bible will likewise repudiate, the authority of
Natal experiences in such matters. Indeed, we are not even
sure that the information afforded by Dr. Colenso is reliablej
If we are to believe Mr. Shuter,2 wild beasts are by ne
means extinct in Natal. May not the assertion of Dr.
Colenso that " lions, elephantSj rhinoceroses, and hippo
potami have long ago disappeared " from Natal, be
unhistorical ? 1 fi}*?, tia, b~ntj>, tS&^ s*!&, i>S3, nvis .
2 Shdtee's tl Kaffifs of Natal;"

( 90 )

CHAPTER XIY.
THE NUMBER OF THE FIRST-BORN COMPARED WITH THE
NUMBER OF MALE ADULTS.
The difficulty raised in this chapter is by no means new.
Dr. Colenso has unfairly increased it by a process of
exaggeration, which we shall presently disclose. But
the difficulty is one which, even when reduced to its
true and proper dimensions, may be legitimately raised
as a point of biblical criticism. It is, however, by no
means insuperable.
It appears, according to Numb. iii. 43, that " all the
first-born males, by the number of names, from a month
old and upward, of those that were numbered of them,
were twenty and two thousand two hundred and three
score and thirteen " (22,273). Adopting the words of
Kurtz, Dr. Colenso says, —
" If there were 600,000 males of twenty years and upwards, the
whole number of males may be reckoned at 900,000, in which case
there would be only one first-born to forty-two males. In other words
the number of boys in every family must have been on the average
forty-two." And Dr. Colenso adds the following words in italics : 
" according to the story of the Pentateuch, every mother
of Israel must have had, on the average, forty-two sons A

THE NUMBER OF THE FIRST-BORN COMPARED, ETC. 91
He says nothing here about female offspring ; but he
leaves his readers to imagine about a like number of
daughters, thus making the total average number of
children of each mother, 84.
In a later part of the chapter, in analysing the very
weak reply of Kurtz, Dr. Colenso admits that there may
have been an equal number of first-born females, and
then says, " 44,546 first-born children [of both sexes]
among a population of 1,800,000, would imply that each
mother had, on the average, forty- two children, as before,
but twenty-one sons and twenty-one daughters." We
have italicised the words "as before," to show how
cleverly Dr. Colenso shifts his ground, and then asserts
that his position is "as before." At first he maintains
that, "every mother in Israel must have had, on the
average, forty-two sons ;" afterwards he admits that the
number must be reduced to twenty-one, and yet has the
hardihood to assert that "this, however, will not, by
any means, get rid of, or at all diminish, the essential
difficulty of the question now before us." If division by
two is not diminution, Dr. Colenso will have to publish
an amended edition of his far-famed Arithmetic. But it
must be candidly admitted that, after allowing for the
exaggeration, there yet remains the difficulty that,
according to the superficial interpretation of the text,
each mother would, on an average, be the parent of 42
children, sons and daughters. This is, of course, highly
improbable. Whatever the rate of increase, and how
ever miraculously the children of Israel multiplied, such
numbers appear almost incredible. How then can we
account for them ?

92 the number of the firstborn
Reply 1.
We submit that the first-born, of whom Moses was
ordered to take a census, were not first-born children in
the sense in which we ordinarily understand the term.
Dr. Colenso, very rightly viewing the command for
the numbering of the first-born in connection with the
Ordinance for their sanctification, (the whole object of
their numbering being their redemption, man for man,
by the Levites,) quotes Exod xiii. 12, 13, and Numb. iii.
12, to show the necessary qualification. But he makes a
great mistake in interpreting the meaning of these texts.
He says that the firstborn sons numbered were " not the
first-born on the father's side, as Michaelis supposes, so
that a man might have many wives and many children,
but only one first-born. They are expressly stated to
have been the firstborn on the mother's side — ' all the
firstborn that openeth the matrix.' "
The fact is that the very words quoted are not words
of interpretation, but words of limitation. The first
born to be redeemed was not to be a mere primogenitus.
He was to be not only 1133 — firstborn of his father — but
also D**n ")t3S, the firstborn of his mother. If the one
qualification only were necessary, why should the two
(*YI33 and D**l*l 1t5|) be placed side by side in all passages
Where the redemption of the firstborn is commanded ?
Or if, as Dr. Colenso imagines, *li33 and DPn *ttDQ
mean the same thing, the words would have been
" every son that openeth the matrix ; " for the text, as it
stands, would be a tautology, and would be equivalent
to saying, " every firstborn that is a firstborn."

COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER iOF MALE ADULTS. i95
We must, therefore, inquire what is /the meaning of
1133 and what the meaning ^of-CITl -*)t2S, .and we shall
•find that the 'two terms ;earry with them .two -.totally dif
ferent qualifications.
First, as to 1133; Gesenius translates it, "the firstborn
of the father." A reference to the following .texts, Gen.
xxv. 13, xxxv. 23, xxxvi. 15, xlix. 3, Deut. xxi. 15,
17, Judg. viii. 20 and 30, 1 Sam. viii. 2, 1 Chron. iii. 1,
Psalms cv. 36, will invariably show that though, in the
cases referred to, there were other sons firstborn on the
mother's side, the firstborns on the father's side only
were called D*"li33.
But the expression Drn "It?"*, the child "that openeth
the matrix," evidently has a -special reference to primo
geniture on the mother's side.
Having thus considered the meanings of the terms
-themselves, let us now ;see what limitations are implied
by a combination of both; for it is evident, by reference
to Numb, iii 12, that the -sons to be redeemed were to
carry the double qualification of *li33 and QPI*1 IDS —
were to be firstborn of the father, and also firstborn of
the mother.
(a.) In cases of polygamy, there might have been
many instances of sons who were DITl 1£fl — firstborn of
the mother, without being also "1133 — firstborn of the
father, and such sons would not have to be redeemed.
That poly gamy^ prevailed we know by the fact that it was
at least recognised as an existing institution by the Mosaic
code.1 In the absence of any positive knowledge of
1 Exod. xxi. 9, 10; Lev. xviii.; Deut. xvii. 17, xxi. 15, 16, 17,
xxiv. 5. ».«-"*¦¦

94 THE NUMBER OF THE FIRST-BORN
the extent to which polygamy prevailed, it is impos
sible to assert how far such a circumstance tended to
reduce the number of the firstborn sons to be re
deemed; but the reduction must certainly have been
considerable. (5.)But there is another limitation to the term DH*1 *l£S.
In all cases where a mother had had stillborn issue, or
where a miscarriage had happened, the first living
offspring could not have been strictly called Drn "ItDS,
and would thus have been exempt from the law of
redemption. The practice of the Jews of modern times,
based on the right understanding of the Bible, accords
fully with this interpretation. The " redemption of the
firstborn," |3n }V""S, is still celebrated by a service
which includes a money payment to a descendant of the
priestly family of Aaron ; but this ceremony is always
omitted when the firstborn has been preceded by abortive
issue, and thus has no claim to be considered Drn 1t?3.
Upon a moderate calculation, one-tenth, at least, of the
total number of firstborns would have been exempt
through this limitation.
(p.) It will be moreover observed that the firstborns
were numbered only from one month old and upward.
Now, modern statistics show that, in the first month, ten
per cent of all children die,1 and that the mortality
at this early age is greater among the male children
than the female.2 These circumstances will admit a
further limitation to the extent of one-tenth.

1 Dr. Hbtsham, "On the Bills of Mortality of Carlisle; " also Dr.
Hatgarth, " On the law of Mortality at Chester."
' Moser, " Die Gesetze der Lebensdauer.''

COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER OF MALE ADULTS. 95
(d.) Dr. Colenso admits1 that an allowance of one in
four may be made for those firstborns of the current gene
ration who had died before the numbering, or who had
been drowned by the order of Pharaoh ; and this would
give a further important reduction.
(e.) A larger reduction would be caused by a
startling circumstance, which we learn from several works
on modern vital statistics; viz. : that of a given number of
firstborn children of both sexes, the females are by far
more numerous than the males. A celebrated statist,
Bueck, finds,2 that of 100 firstborn children, 65 are girls,
and 35 only boys.
(/.) Allowance must also be made for firstborn
children otherwise qualified, but disqualified only by
being under one month old.
(g.) According to a law which obtains even among
the Jews of the present day, the firstborn of a Levite, or
of a Levite woman, was exempt from redemption. This
would involve a still further reduction of about 8,000
firstborns, male and female.3
(h.) It must also be remembered that there might have
been very many cases in which (both parents being dead)
doubts might naturally have arisen whether a man was
really qualified both as a 1133 and a D*!""} *lt33 under
limitation referred to in clause (b).
All these considerations would tend to reduce to an
enormous degree the number of firstborn males to be

1 Page 87.
s Gekson and Julius' Magazine. Part 15, page 602.
8 There were 8,580 between the ages of thirty and fifty.

number (22„273) **& &&&«*, *<* » a^ maRW?*
represent ,the aotual ©rpp^tion ,of fi^es-
Let us see^what #ese figures really imply, .and to
what extent they must, beineee^ed before they can, .hi
:any way, represent tinly ;the -number of families.
22,273 first-born males-would, according to (e) imply also
41,364 first-born females,

Or- 63,637 male and female first-borns living at the time of
the census.
Add £=21,212 for the quarter of the original number supposed to
have died (d).

84,849
Add i= 9,428 for the 10 per cent, due to limitation (b).

94,277
Add |=10,475 for the 10 per cent, due to limitation (c).

104,752
Add 8,000 for first-borns of Levites and Levite women (g).

112,752 approximate total number of first-births, male and
female, before reduction by the considerations set
forth in (6), (c), (d), (e), and (g).
Thus we see that the 22,273 firstborn males, actually
counted at the redemption census, might have represented
112,752 firstbirths, or 112,752 families. This would
give an average of 16 children to each family, instead of
84 as represented by Dr. Colenso. The reduced average
is certainly high, although by no means impossible. But

COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER OF MALE ADULTS. 9.7
it will be seen that we have not taken into account the
reduction consequent upon the considerations (a), (/),
and (h), it being manifestly impossible even to surmise
the extent to which they would affect the calculation.
Still, it must be admitted that some allowance must be
made for (a) polygamy; (/) the firstborns under one
month old; and (h) the cases of doubtful firstbirth.
Probably, these cumulative details would tend to a further
limitation of those qualified for the redemption-census, to
such an extent as to reduce the average number of
children in each family to 10 or 11.

Reply 2.
Another reply might be given to Dr. Colenso's objec
tions, quite independent of the statistical arguments
above adduced.
It seems highly probable that the 22,273 enumerated
in Numb. iii. do not represent the whole body of the
firstborn sons from one month old existing at the time,
but only a portion of them, namely, those who were
actually devoted to God by consecration to His service ;
and it seems possible — indeed highly probable — that the
total number of firstborn sons may have been three or
four times as great as stated in the passage under con
sideration. In Exod. xiii. 2, we read the command to sanctify to
God "all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb
among the children of Israel." Sanctification to God im
plied the devotion of a person or thing, wholly and
G

98 THE NUMBER OF THE FIRSTBORN
entirely, to the service of God.' The firstborn, no
doubt, at first exercised those functions, which, at a later
period, appertained to the priests and Levites. For m
Exod. xxiv. 5, we read of the "young men of the chil
dren of Israel who offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed
peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord." At that time, there
was no priesthood; and all our commentators agree m
considering that the "young men" there alluded to, were
the firstborn sons who had been consecrated to the Divine
service. It is obvious that it may not, in all cases, have been
agreeable to parents to devote their firstborn sons, or
to the firstborn sons themselves to be devoted to the
sacred ministry. Hence Exod. xiii. 13, permitted that
" the firstborn of man among thy children mayest thou
redeem." And many would, no doubt, have availed them
selves of this alternative.
That the word n*"lSfi has to be translated "thou
mayest redeem," and not "thou shalt redeem," as in the
authorised English version, is obvious from the context;
for if it were obligatory that every firstborn should be
redeemed, none would have remained to be consecrated
and to minister to God. Besides, in referring to the
firstling of the ass, which was to be redeemed with a
lamb,2 the word "T^ipFl must necessarily imply "thou
mayest redeem," not "thou shalt redeem ;" for immediately
afterwards follows the alternative, "and if thou wilt not
redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck," clearly show
ing that n*"jg5J"l is permissive, not obligatory ; and if it
1 Deut. xv. 19. * Exod. xiii. 13.

COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER OF MALE ADULTS. 99
has this sense in the first part of Exod. xiii. 13, in the
case of the firstling of the ass, it must surely have the
like sense in the second part of the same verse, where the
word applies to the firstborn of man, the two parts of the
sentence being in apposition.
So, likewise, in the same verse, since " every firstling of
an ass " can only mean every firstling which required to
be redeemed, "all the firstborn of man" must imply only
those firstborn who required to be redeemed, that is, who
had not been devoted to the service of God. The word
"all," therefore, must have some limitation.
Now it must be borne in mind that the commandment
for the sanctification and redemption of the firstborn of
man, in Exod. xiii., was to take effect at once,1 and it
thus took effect before the appointment of a priesthood.
But when the priesthood had been established, and the
tribe of Levi had been elevated, it was pointed out z how
the redemption, or alternative sanctification, of the first
born of man was to be thenceforward understood, and
we read, "Everything that openeth the matrix in all
flesh, which they bring unto the Lord, shall be thine [the
priest's], nevertheless the firstling of man mayest thou
redeem outright,3 and the firstling of unclean beasts
mayest thou redeem." The text then proceeds to describe

1 Exod. xxii. 29. 2 Numb xviii. 15, 16.
8 The form iVl.sn HIS, the infinitive preceding the finite verb, does
not here imply a command emphasised, but imparts to the ransoming
a meaning of completeness or thorough outright action. Examples
of a like use of this grammatical form may be found in Job vi. 2,
Gen. xxxi. 30, Lev. xix. 20. G 2

100 THE NUMBER OF THE FIRSTBORN
the amount of ransom money for " those that are to be
redeemed." How the unclean beasts could be redeemed, has been
already described. The text then points out that though
an alternative is given in the cases of the firstborn among
men, or the firstlings of unclean animals, no such alter
native was to exist in the case of clean animals.
The law respecting the firstborn of man consequently
stood thus after the establishment of the priesthood ; — by
virtue of their birth they belonged to the priests, but by
payment of five shekels, they could be ransomed.1
Admitting this alternative, it follows that the 22,273 re
ferred to in Numbers iii 43 would be the firstborn in
whose behalf the ransom had not been paid, and who were
devoted to the service of God ; while those (probably
many thousands) who had declined to join the holy
ministry, and for whom consequently the ransom had been
already long ago paid, having been " redeemed outright,"
had ceased to be regarded as D**li33 or " firstborn."
It may appear, at first sight, strange, that by the mere
payment of a ransom, the term " firstborn" should cease
to be applied to the individuals so released; but, in
truth, the proper meaning of the word 1133 is not so
much "firstborn," as one entitled to, or possessed of, the
rights of primogeniture.
In the case of Jacob and Esau,2 the !Tp3 was the
subject of barter ; and after Esau had parted with it, he
was no longer called a 1133, and no longer enjoyed'the
rights of primogeniture.

See Ezek. xliv. 30, and Neh. x. 36. • Gen. xxv. 33.

COMPARED WITH THE NUMBER OF MALE ADULTS. 101
Again, we hear of Reuben being deprived of the *T133,
and we find it the subject of transfer ; ] " Now the sons of
Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn ;
but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birth
right was given (VT"p3 H*ip3) unto the sons of Joseph, the
son of Israel, and the genealogy is not to be reckoned
after the birthright (HlbS1? Vtyitfih &)). For Judah
prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief
ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's" (^pvb n*l33**n).
Again, in Deuteronomy, where the law provides for the
contingency of a man having two wives not equally
beloved, we find that the father " may not make the son
of | the beloved firstborn 0337 73*1* N7) before the son of
the hated, which is indeed the firstborn2." Surely no act
of a father, after the birth of his children, can alter the
order of their birth.
From all these instances, then, it follows that by the
term 1133 is implied, not, of necessity, the son who is first
born, primogenitus, but he who is entitled to and enjoys
all the rights, and has to fulfil all the duties, of a firstborn.
There is thus no difficulty in the words 133 73 *lp>9
T'K'lb* '33? "13T "Number all (those regarded as) firstborn
ofthe children of Israel,"3 for those only are directed to be
numbered here who had not lost their ministerial birth
right by having been previously redeemed. If, on the
other hand, the phrase Dn*l ItOS had been here used, instead
of 1133, it is quite clear that by no process could a man
once regarded as a firstborn, cease to be so regarded after
wards ; but no such phrase is anywhere used with reference
1 1 Chron. v. 1, 2. ' Deut. xxi. 16. 3 Numb. iii. 40.

102 THE NUMBER OF THE FIRSTBORN COMPARED, ETC.
to the numbering. The phrase BH"1 ItSS occurs only
twice in connection with the substitution of the Levites
for the firstborn;1 and there it was absolutely neces
sary to use it ; for not only was the case of the 0**1133
(those firstborns already consecrated to God's service)
altered by the elevation of the Levites to the holy
ministry, but the position of all primogeniti was changed,
for thenceforth they were to become the property of the
priests. To sum up, then : — All who were ransomed before the
edict required no further redemption ; for they were in
a similar position to that of the 273 who had to pay the five
shekels, except that in their case the five shekels had
been paid some time before. Of the 22,273 who had
not been previously ransomed, 22,000 were exchanged
for, and redeemed by, an equal number of Levites who
stepped in their places, while the balance of 273 were
redeemed by the money payment. The number ran
somed before the edict might have been, and probably
was, very large ; and, if so, the 22,273 exchanged for
the Levites, or redeemed by the money payment, would
not in anyway represent the absolute number of primo
geniti; and so Dr. Colenso's difficulty would altogether
vanish.

1 Numb. iii. 12, and viii. 16.

( 103 )

CHAPTER XV.
THE SOJOURNING OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT.
We agree fully with the views expressed by Dr. Colenso
in this "chapter. He finds that the words, " Now the
sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt,
was four hundred and thirty years,''1 cannot refer to the
actual residence of Jacob and his descendants in Egypt,
but to the entire sojourning of them and their forefathers,
Abraham and Isaac, " in a strange land."
In this view, there is involved neither difficulty nor dis
crepancy, nor, indeed, anything that militates against the
historical character of the Bible. The conclusion arrived
at, centuries ago, by numerous Hebrew commentators,
is, that the 430 years date from God's covenant with
Abraham. 1 Exod. xii. 40.

(104)

CHAPTER XVI.
THE EXODUS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION.
Taking, as a starting point, the words of God's promise to
Abraham, " the fourth generation (of Abraham's descend
ants) shall come hither again,"1 Dr. Colenso attempts to
show that only three generations intervened from the
migration into Egypt till the exodus. His ultimate
object is to prove that it would be utterly impossible for
the Israelites, who numbered only seventy souls at the
immigration, to have increased at the exodus to two
millions. Certainly, such an increase, Avithin three genera
tions would be impossible.
We shall, however, see that many more generations
intervened, and that the increase was no more than con
sistent with the words of the Bible itself.
The promise that the fourth generation of Abraham's
descendants should return to Canaan cannot be inter
preted by the meaning we now ascribe to the word " gene
ration." Dr. Benisch has shown admirably2 that the
word "VR, translated " generation," must have a more
1 Gen. xv. 16. Erroneously translated, "in the fourth generation
they shall come hither again."
8 " The Pentateuch Critically Examined,' page 128. He quotes
Exod. i. 6, as an example.

THE EXODUS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION. 105
extended signification than the mere interval between the
birth of a father and the birth of a son, the modern
meaning of the word. He tells us, very justly, that it
means primarily, " the space or period within which a
number of persons live, or all those persons who are
contemporaries, from the eldest to the youngest." Thus
the *tn, or " generation " of Joseph, might include
the whole period from his birth till the death of his
youngest contemporary.
We do not mean to assert that, in this particular instance
the word 111 must be, but that it may be, held to have such
a signification. Perhaps, our word "age " approaches most
nearly to the meaning of the word 111. We speak of the
Augustan age, without limiting the period to any specific
number of years. And so the *S%',3"1 *1H, or "fourth genera
tion,'' in the case before us, may well mean a fourth
series of descendants, each series occupying more than
100 years.
In Gen. vii. 1, where God tells Noah, " Thee have I
seen righteous before me in this generation," the word
" generation " ("li"**) clearly means " age " ; for we know
that in those days of remarkable longevity there must
have been many generations, or successive sets of de
scendants comprised in the phrase ; and we know also
from the context, and from the facts which followed, that
God's denunciation of that generation (in) applied to
all mankind then living.
So, too, in Judges ii. 10, where we read that " all that
generation were gathered unto their fathers," it is quite
clear, from the context, that the word " generation " in-

106 THE EXODUS IN THE FOURTH GENERATION.
eludes the whole of Joshua's contemporaries, and even
those " that outlived Joshua."1
Jeremiah (ii. 31) says to his people, " 0 generation,
see ye the word of the Lord." Surely, he does not confine
his remarks to a single set of descendants, but applies
them to all his contemporaries.
It is quite clear, from these and many similar passages,
that no information as to time could be conveyed by the
word IH " generation/' if we attribute to it the meaning
we at present ascribe to the word. Everything would
depend upon the age at which the members of the succes
sive generations begat children ; and we know that in this
matter there was a great disparity in ancient times.
It will further be seen that there is no attempt at any
thing like arithmetical precision in the promise to Abra
ham. In part of this promise,2 the sojourning in the
strange land, or the period of affliction, is foretold as
400 years, while in Exod. xii. 40, we read that the precise
number of years was 430.
We shall have occasion, in treating of the number ofthe
Israelites at the time of the exodus,3 to revert to the
argument used by Dr. Colenso in this chapter, and more
especially to point out that the table of genealogies given
by him, in pages 96 and 97, is most fallacious and imper
fect. It is sufficient for our present purpose to have
shown that the prophecy of the return of the *y*31 111
"fourth generation," does not at all affect the question of
the number of successive generations which intervened
between the immigration and the exodus.

1 Judg. ii. 7. > Gen. xv. 13. 3 Chap. xvii.

(107)

CHAPTERS XVII., XVIII., XIX.
THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS.
THE DANITES AND LEVITES AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS.
REPLIES TO KURTZ, HENGSTENBERG, AND OTHERS.
The object of Dr. Colenso in these three chapters is to
show, generally, that the 70 souls who went down to
Egypt could not possibly have increased in 215 years to
two millions of souls; that the descendants of Dan (whom
he alleges to have had only one son) could not possibly
have multiplied to such an extent as to have produced
62,700 adult males in 215 years ; and that, in the like
time, it would be utterly impossible for the male adult
descendants of Levi to have attained so prodigious a
number as 22,000.
We consider these chapters the most important in Dr.
Colenso's work. The facts are laid before the reader in so
simple and easy a guise, that he is likely to adopt the
author's views, with scarcely, an effort of reasoning or
thought. It will be our task, in this chapter, to expose
the utter fallacy of Dr. Colenso's premises, and to show
that the numerical results, which at first startle us by
their magnitude, are not only consistent with, but actually
consequent upon, the admitted facts of the Pentateuch
Narrative.

108 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
As many of our arguments apply equally to all the
three chapters XVII., XVIII., and XIX., we include
them in one group for the sake of convenience.
The difficulties raised by Dr. Colenso in these three
chapters resolve themselves into two points — (1) the rate
of increase ; (2) the number of generations.
As to the rate of increase, Dr. Colenso surprises his
readers by telling them that " we have no reason what
ever, from the data furnished by the sacred books them
selves, to assume that they (the Israelites) had families
materially larger than those ofthe present day."1
We will let the Bible answer for itself. It tells us that
"the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased
abundantly, andmultiplied and waxed exceedingly mighty,
and the land was filled with them."2 It tells us, further,
that the increase of .the Israelites was so great that the
king of Egypt declared, in alarm, they " are more and
mightier than we ;"3 and that this fact induced the king
to persecute them. And, lest we might naturally con
clude that their growth was checked by this oppression,
the text takes care to inform us that " the more they
afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew."4
Later in the narrative, where Moses recounts to the
children of Israel the great and unmistakable evidences
of God's special protection, he says,, " He is thy God that
hath done for thee these great and terrible things, which
thine eyes have seen. Thy fathers went down into Egypt

1 §H6. 2Exod.i. 7.
3 Exod. i. 9. J-Exod. i. 12.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 109
with threescore and ten persons, and now the Lord thy
God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude."1
So far, then, from the Bible being silent as to the
rapidity of increase of the descendants of Jacob in Egypt,
it insists upon the fact as a special act of Providence.
Let us, however, so far anticipate by stating that, in
calling to aid an exceptional state of things to account
for the rapid rate of increase, we shall not draw upon the
credulity of the reader by asking him to believe that
each individual had an average of 80 children.2 We
shall ask him to believe that the families were somewhat
beyond the modern average, but yet limited to moderate
dimensions. Dr. Colenso, however, appeals to some recorded in
stances where genealogies are actually given in the Bible,
and endeavours to prove therefrom that those families
were not remarkably large, and hence infers that those
not recorded could not be larger.
Let us, in the first place, examine his genealogical
tables and catalogues of children. He gives us but three.
First, the children of Jacob's sons, who went down to
Egypt, as enumerated in Gen. xlvi., from which he con
cludes that the numbers there given do not afford a larger
average than modern experience would allow. He says
that it is certainly strange that only two females should
have been enumerated among 69 of Jacob's descendants
who migrated with him to Egypt, forgetting that there
might have been many more females who did not migrate,
having been married in Canaan.
1 Deut. x. 21, 22. 2 Colenso, § 125.

110 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
Then he quotes the list in Exod. vi., which he clearly
considers to be a complete catalogue of the family of Levi
up to the time of Moses, although (as we shall presently
show) it is evidently an incomplete genealogy, having
for its sole object to trace the parentage of Moses and
Aaron. Further, he gives the family roll of Numb, xxvi., which
may be considered as forming, in a rough manner, no
more than a repetition of the list in Gen. xlvi.
Upon these slender genealogical data, Dr. Colenso
founds the whole of his arguments.
Now, we deny, altogether, that the genealogical tables
of the Bible have the meaning which Dr. Colenso assigns
to them. They were never intended to record all the
members of each family. As a rule, only those children
were mentioned who held, at the time, distinguished
positions ; and when the names of all were recorded, it
was quite exceptional. Nor must we be misled by the
apparently explicit words, " these are the generations of,"
which precede many of the genealogical lists. In all
cases where these words occur the leading idea is history,
not genealogy. In many cases, historical narrative only
is implied by them, as in Gen. vi. 9, where the words,
" These are the generations of Noah," are followed, not
by a list of his children, but, by a narrative of Noah's
life. So, too, in Gen, xxxvii., we read similarly, " These
are the generations of Jacob," and, instead of a list of his
children, we find an account of his favourite son, Joseph.
It requires no profound research to show that the
genealogical lists of the Bible are not, and never were
intended to be, complete tables.

REPLIES TO KURTZ AND OTHERS. Ill
We find in the genealogies only two sons of Joseph,
Manasseh and Ephraim, and a superficial reader might
infer that Joseph had no more children. But we know
the contrary ; for we find that Jacob tells Joseph, "And
now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born
unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto thee
into Egypt, are mine, as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be
mine. And thy issue, which thou hast begotten1 after them,
shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their
brethren in their inheritance."2 From this it is evident
that Joseph had more children besides the two enumerated;
but they were not mentioned,* because they were called
" after the name of their brethren."
In all probability, the same must have been the case
with all the sons of Jacob. At the time of the migration
to Egypt, Joseph was only 39 years old ; so Reuben, the
eldest brother, could not have been more than 45. It is
barely possible that all the sons of Jacob, who came down
to Egypt in the very prime of manhood, and lived to a
good old age in the highest prosperity, could have had no
more children after their arrival in Egypt.
Now, if they had children in Egypt, all Dr. Colenso's
calculations fall to the ground. Suppose that they had
as many children after, as they had before, the migration,
a supposition fully warranted by the assertion of Holy
Writ.8 Then, instead of 54 being the number of the
second generation from Jacob, there would be 108, and

1 The English version renders f)"\?in, " which thou begettest." But
this is manifestly wrong ; for fl""?*"" is clearly in the past tense.
s Gen. lxviii. 5,6. 3 Exod. i.7.

112 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
the rate of increase, instead of being 4j (ff, as Dr.
Colenso maintains), would be ^ = 9.
The point here at issue is so important, that it may be
well to pursue the investigation further, to show how our
conclusions are warranted by other well admitted facts.
In the genealogies given in Exod. vi. 14-^-25, we
read, " These be the heads of their fathers' houses ;" and
then follow all the names of Reuben's, Simeon's, and
Levi's sons, which are enumerated in Gen. xlvi., thereby
plainly indicating that their names are mentioned because
they were heads of families. So, too, we find, in Exod.
vi. 1 6, " And these are the names of the sons of Levi,
according to their generations," DITTpirn, i.e., according to
their historical importance. But even this seemingly com
plete genealogical table is, in reality, very incomplete, as
may be instanced by the following important omissions : —
(I.) Although the names of Korah's children are men
tioned (v. 24), those of Moses' children are omitted; yet
we know that Moses had children already.1 It is certain,
also, that they were yet alive, for we find them spoken of
afterwards.2 Probably, Korah's sons were already men of
some importance, while the sons of Moses were still of
tender age. But, whatever the cause of the omission,
there yet remains the important fact, that the children of
the great hero of the exodus are omitted in the genealo
gical record.
(2.) Not a word about Miriam is said in the genealogy.
We read, " And Amram took him Jochebed, his father's
sister to wife, and she bare him Aaron and Moses."3 "We
¦•  JUtMH J  ¦  . 
' Exod. ii. 22. a Exod. xviii. 3, 4. 3 Exod. vi. 20.

REPLIES TO KURTZ AND OTHERS. 113
know that Miriam was much older than Moses, for she
watched over him when he was an infant. It is difficult to
account for such an omission ; but, unquestionably, the name
of Miriam, a sister of the great hero, a prophetess, and
a woman who evidently exercised some influence upon the
nation, is omitted.
(3.) In the same genealogical table, the names of
Kohathis grandchildren are enumerated, but not of all.
The children of his son, Hebron, are not named, and yet
we know that he must have had issue, for we read in
Numb. iii. 19, 27, among the great Levitical stock "of
Kohath the family of the Hebronites." If Hebron was
the head of a considerable family at the time of the
census, one year after the exodus, he must have been
already the father of some children at the time referred
to in Exod. vi.
A similar remarkable omission occurs in the genealo
gies of Numb. iii. 1 — 4. We read, " These also are the
generations of Aaron and Moses, in the day that the
Lord spake with Moses in Mount Sinai," but we do not
find a word about Moses' children, though we know that
they were then living.1
Again, in Numb, xxvi., the genealogies of all the
tribes appear to be given. Now, in verse 20, we observe
Pharez himself forming a family of Pharzites ; and in
verse 21, his sons Hezron and Hamul form two families,
the Hezronites and the Hamulites. This indicates that
Pharez had children besides Hezron and Hamul. The
other children, not being distinguished, were called after

1 1 Chron. xxiii. 14—17, and xxvi. 24—26.

114 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
their father, " sons of Pharez," and their descendants Phar
zites; while these two, being for some reasons distinguished,
were called by their own names, Hezron and Hamul, and
their descendants Hezronites and Hamulites. The same
may be observed in verses 29—32. Machir establishes a
family, the Machirites ; his son Gilead, the only son men
tioned, not only establishes for himself the family of
Gileadites, but begets children who establish families.
This, again, indicates that Machir had many children
besides Gilead, who were called " sons of Machir," and
whose descendants were " the Machirites ; " and, indeed,
in 1 Chron. vii. 16, two other sons of Machir are men
tioned, named Peresh and Sheresh. The like remarks
apply to Gilead. The children specially mentioned formed
distinct families ; the others were named Gileadites. So,
too, in Numb. xxvi. verse 35, the Shuthelhites are described
as a family ; and in verse 36, we read that Eran, son of
Shuthelah, formed a separate family, the Eranites. Con
sequently, Shuthelah must have had more children, who
were called after his name, while his son Eran founded
a separate family.1
If we compare the list ofthe families of the Levites in
Numb. xxvi. 58, 59, with that in Numb. iii. 17 — 20, we
shall find remarkable differences. The families of Shimei,
Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel, are omitted, while that of the
Korathites is added. Moreover, here (v. 59) Miriam is men
tioned. This is satisfactorily explained by our hypothesis.
' This argument is used in a treatise written by Solomon ben Adereth,
in reply to a Mahomedan Colenso of the 13th century, published
recently by Dr. Pekles " R. Salomo ben Abraham _ben Adereth, sein
Lebenund seine Schriften." Breslau, 1862.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 115
Inasmuch as the family of Shimei had, through some
cause, no longer retained its distinctive position, it lost its
distinctive appellation, and is therefore here considered
as part of the Gershonites. Similarly, Uzziel is now in
cluded under the Kohathites. Again, the descendants of
Moses, not being conspicuous, are not specially desig
nated, but are included in the generic term of Kohathites.
The sons of Korah, on the other hand, being distin
guished, and Korah himself having attracted much atten
tion by his rebellion, all the Izharites are now called
Korathites. Miriam is also now mentioned, probably
because she had become a distinguished character.
We have thus shown that the genealogical tables give
no data for producing an estimate of the number of
children born of the respective parents. There is nothing
in Scripture to indicate that Jacob's sons had no more
children than those enumerated. It was not the writer's
object to describe the number of their progeny.
To sum up our arguments upon this head — When we
consider (1), that the ages of Jacob's sons, at the time of
the migration, were such that they probably had children
after that date ; (2), that such additional progeny is
distinctly alluded to by Jacob, in Gen. xlviii. 5, 6 ; (3),
that the genealogical records were not intended to be
complete records of every individual ; (4), that Exod. i. 7,
tells us pf an extraordinary increase; — we cannot but
conclude that the number of the original stock— the
grandchildren of Jacob— was far greater than that which
Dr. Colenso would make the Bible declare, and that the
rate of increase was far beyond the modern average.
We proceed, next, to consider the number of genera-
h 2

116 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
tions which intervened between the migration into Egypt
and the exodus.
According to general statistics, about thirty years is
the period assigned to a generation. In 210 years
there would thus be seven generations. Let us then see
whether there is anything in Scripture to prove that in
the particular case before us — the interval between the
migration and the exodus — there was any material
departure from this rule of general statistics.
First, let us examine Dr. Colenso's data. He actually
traces eleven genealogies, which he confesses to be all he
can trace. Here they are ! Let us see what they show
us.

1st Gen.

2nd Gen.

3rd Gen.

4th Gen.

5 th Gen

Levi . .

Kohath

Amram

Moses . .

B.vi. 16,18,20

Levi . .

Kohath

Amram

Aaron

,
E.vi. 16,18,20
Levi . .
Kohath
TJzziel
Mishael
,
Lev. x. 4.
Levi . .
Kohath
Uzziel
Elzaphan
Lev. x. 4.
Levi . .
Kohath
Izhar
Korah
#
N. xvi- 1.
Reuben
Pallu
Eliab
Dathan
.
N. xxvi. 7-9.
Reuben
Pallu
Eliab
Abiram
t
IS", xxvi. 7-9.
Zarah
Zabdi
Carmi
Achan
.
Jos. vii. 1.
Pharez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab Nahshon
Ruthiv.18,19.
Pharez
Hezron
Segub
Jair ....
lCh.ii.21,22.
Pharez
Hezron
Caleb
Hur
TJri
Be
zaleel
ICh.ii. 18-20.
Of these eleven, there is a column seven strong1 in the
third generation from Jacob's sons, four in the fourth,2
two in the fifth3 (Nahshon and Uri), one in the sixth*
(Bezaleel).
1 Moses, Aaron, Mishael, Elzaphan, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
The four others belong properly to the fourth generation.
* Achan, Amminadab, Hur, and Jair, were in the fourth generation
from Judah. » Called above, the fourth generation.
' Called above, the fifth generation.
REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 117
Fancy any one attempting to establish a rule for a
whole nation from eleven examples taken at hazard, and
those chosen examples not eleven independent instances.
Even if there were no indications of something exceptional
in the examples so taken, it would be most unwarrantable
to generalize from such slender data, and still more
unwarrantable to establish thence a conclusion opposed
to general statistics, common experience and common
sense. And when it shall have been shown that these
examples are quite exceptional, it will be admitted that
to derive therefrom a general rule, would be absurd to
the last degree.
Taking the first examples, we know that Moses and
Aaron were eighty and eighty-three years old, respec
tively, at the time of the exodus. Men of that age
usually have adult children and grandchildren, so that,
even in their case, five generations, instead of three, must
be considered to have elapsed at the exodus. Indeed,
we know that this was the fact in the case of Aaron ;
for Aaron had a grandson, Phinehas, at the time of the
exodus. Secondly, Dr. Colenso admits (pp. 93 — 95) that
Kohath must have been very old when his eldest son
Amram was born, and consequently still older when his
younger children, Uzziel and Izhar, were born. Indeed,
reckoning 210 years as the term of the actual sojourn in
Egypt, Moses must have been born1 at the end of 130
years from the migration.1 Amram, then, must have
been born when Kohath (who was, at least, an infant at
the migration, being mentioned among those who went
1 For he was eighty years old at the time of the exodus.

118 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
down with Jacob to Egypt) was far advanced in life.
Say, then, that Kohath was sixty-five when Amram was
born, and Amram sixty-five when Moses was born. Can
any one pretend that such exceptional cases fairly repre
sent the average 1 It will further be seen that five out
of Dr. Colenso's seven cases of the third generation are
those of the children of Kohath, who has been proved to
have been a remarkable exception.
Let us now take the two remaining examples of the
third generation, Dathan and Abiram. It is quite evident
that they must have been very old at the exodus. For
when Reuben came to Egypt, Pallu was already born. A
period of 210 years between Pallu, Eliab and Abiram, gives
an average of seventy to each ; i.e. Pallu would be seventy
when Eliab was born, Eliab would be seventy when
Abiram was born, and Abiram would be seventy at the
exodus, old enough to have sons and grandsons. But
even if he had issue, must not the case of Pallu and his
descendants be considered the exception, and not the
rule? Altogether, then, we have eleven cases, out of which
seven are evidently exceptional.
We note, incidentally, that in Exod. vi. 24, Korah (one
of the exceptional seven) is stated to have had sons, and
that these sons were already called the families of the Kor-
hites, implying that each of the sons was a father of
a family. Also Hur, who seems to have been a com
panion of Aaron and Moses,1 had a grandchild Bezaleel,2

' Exod. xvii. 10, xxiv. 14. 2 Exod. xxxi. 2.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 119
who was an adult at the exodus, for he was entrusted
with the very responsible post of superintending the con
struction of the tabernacle. This Bezaleel is admitted to
have been of the sixth generation from Judah,1 and
Joshua is mentioned as being of the ninth from Eph
raim,2 or tenth from Joseph. Probably, Joshua was an
exception the other way.
Remembering that the sacred writer's object was not
the mention ofthe number of generations, but merely the
mention of those who became persons of note, it is but
natural that such few examples, taken at hazard, should
present remarkable exceptions.
To sum up. there is nothing in the names produced, to
justify the conclusion that, with the general bulk of the
population, there was a departure from the average num
ber of generations within the period, viz. seven.
Arguing, then, from our conclusions, that there were
more grandchildren of, Jacob than those enumerated ;
that the rate of increase was beyond the modern average ;
and that the average number of generations was seven ;
let us see how easily there may have been two millions of
Israelites — men, women, and children, — existing at the
time of the exodus.
Commencing with Jacob's twelve sons, and taking the
rate of increase as ten only — (a number certainly above
the average, but not extravagantly so, considering the
Scriptural authority for admitting an extraordinary rate),

1 We have also Joseph, Manasseh, Machir, Gilead, Hepher, Zelo-
phahad, daughters of Zelophahad, Numb, xxvii. 1.
2 1 Chron. vii. 20—27.

120 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
we have to multiply each successive generation by 10,
and since one half of each may be supposed to be males,
and the other half females, we must divide each result
(except the last) by two ; then we have —
Jacob's sons 12
1st generation 12x10= 120 ") = 60 couples
2nd generation 60x10= 600 K = 300 „
3rd generation 300x10= 3,000 <f | = 1,500 „
4th generation 1,500x10= 15,000 | f = 7,500 „
5th generation 7,500x10= 75,000 | | = 37,500 „
6th generation 37,500x10= 375,000 g- j = 187,500 „
' 7th generation 187,500x10=1,875,000 j
The seventh generation, by itself, thus exhibits a
population of nearly two millions, and as we may fairly
presume that the bulk of the sixth generation, and even
a portion of the fifth, were alive at the time of the
exodus, we should have a total population far exceeding
two millions, the number which the Bible narrative
requires. It will be seen that the above calculation is made upon
the most moderate suppositions. We have made no extra
allowance for marriages with women of other nations, as
we know was the case with Judah, Simeon, Joseph, Moses,
andMered ; no allowance for polygamy; and no allowance
for the fact that an average number of generations yields a
result far below an average between the results of the
highest and lowest number.
In illustration of this last point, which is of some im
portance, we may remind the reader, that, although the
number of generations which we have taken (7) is an
arithmetic mean between the lowest and highest (4 and 10,,

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 121

the cases of Eleazar and Joshua), yet, when the same
rate of increase is applied to the two extremes, and to
the mean (say, for example, 2) the result of successive
multiplication on the mean (lx27), does not give any
thing approaching the arithmetic mean of the two results
of successive multiplication on the two extremes [vis.
1 x2* and 1 x210). The result of the arithmetic mean
is, in fact, the geometric mean between the two results on
the extremes.
To see how seriously this question of averages affects
the point at issue, let us take a case. Let us suppose
that Ephraim and each of his descendants down to
Joshua (who was in the ninth generation from Eph
raim) had ten children ; then the issue of this single one
of Jacob's grandsons would amount, in the ninth
generation (that of Joshua), to [1 x ('|)8 x 10, i. e. to]
3,906,250. In other words, less than one seventieth part
of the producing power might have yielded a population
twice as large as the whole producing power is required to
have yielded according to the Bible narrative. It will
thus be clearly seen, (1) that the rapid increase of one
family would more than counterbalance the slow increase
of another ; (2) that a greater number of generations in
one tribe would much more than counterbalance a
smaller number in another.
"We have taken the example of Joshua and his pro
genitors as an extreme case; but we must not overlook
the fact that Dr. Colenso doubts our right to avail our
selves, at all, of this case. After quoting the genealogy of
Joshua as given in 1 Chron. vii. 20—27, as follows :—
" Joshua, the son of Nun, the son of Elishama, the son

122 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
of Ammihud, the son of Laadan, the son of Tahan, the
son of Telah, the son of Rephah, the son of Beriah, the
son of Ephraim," he remarks : — " that is to say, Joshua
is given in the ninth generation from Ephraim, or the
tenth from Joseph." And he considers this genealogy
to be false for the following reasons : —
" (1) This is an exception to the rule, which prevails mwversally1
in the Pentateuch.
"(2) We are not here concerned with the books of Chronicles,
but with the narrative in the Pentateuch itself and Book of Joshua,
and must abide by the data which they furnish.
" (3) The book of Chronicles itself exhibits the rule of the Penta
teuch in other cases."
In other words, Dr. Colenso does not believe the
genealogy of Joshua given in Chronicles, (1) because
it would be an exception to a rule which he has deduced
from four examples ; (2) because he is writing about the
Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, not about Chronicles,
and therefore discredits the chronicler, or, at least, does
not care what he has to say; (3) because the chronicler
generally agrees with Dr. Colenso's so called rule2 of the
Pentateuch. Such reasons are, perhaps, unique in the whole range
of criticism.
But the stern sense of critical justice, which bids us
remember that " we are not here concerned with the
Books of Chronicles," does not prevent the critic from

1 We have seen that this universal rule means the rule derived
from the four cases into which all his genealogies resolve themselves.
2 The rule of four.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 123
doing his best to undermine the evidence of the
chronicler by the following attack : —
"Let us now," says Dr. Colenso, "examine more closely this state
ment in the book of Chronicles.
" Since Joseph ' saw Ephraim's children of the third generation,'
Gen. 1. 23, Telah, one of these, may have been born about seventy
years after the migration into Egypt (110).
" We have no express statement of the age of Joshua at the time
of the Exodus. But we may suppose it to have been about the same
as that of Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, with whom he is so often
coupled ; and Caleb was forty years old, when sent to spy the land
at the end of the first year after the Exodus. Josh. xiv. 7. We
may, therefore, adopt the estimate of Josephus, Ant. v. 1, 29, who
reckons the age of Joshua as forty-five at the time of the Exodus.
This will agree well with the fact, that, shortly after leaving Egypt,
while still young enough to be the ' minister ' or servant of Moses,
Exod. xxiv. 13, he was old enough also to command the host of Israel
in the fight against Amalek, Ex. xvii. 9, 10.
"Hence, since the Exodus took place 215 years at most after the
migration into Egypt, there must have intervened between the birth
of Telah and that of Joshua 215 — 70 — 45, that is, 100 years ; so that,
according to the chronicler, there must have been six complete gene
rations in 1 00 years, which is hardly credible.
" Again, according to the chronicler, ' Elishama, the son of Ammi-
hud,' was the grandfather of Joshua. But 'Elishama, the son of
Ammihud,' was himself the captain ofthe host of Ephraim, Num.ii. 18,
about a year after his grandson, Joshua, had commanded the whole
Hebrew force which fought with Amalek, Ex. xvii. 8 — 16, which
also is hardly credible."
Now it will be evident, at a glance, that Dr. Colenso's
statement consists of a mere string of assumptions.
(1) He assumes that Telah may have been born about
seventy years after the migration, but the fact is, he
may have been born sixty-five years after the migration.
(2) He assumes that Joshua was forty-five years of age

124 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
at the time of the exodus, merely because Caleb was
nearly forty years old at that time, and Caleb and
Joshua are usually spoken of together; but Joshua
might have been only twenty years old at that time,
and still have been old enough to command the host of
Israel.1 (3) From the two first assumptions he con
cludes that one hundred years only were left for six
whole generations. Now, six whole generations mighty
be produced in one hundred years ; but we have shown
that there may have been a much longer time than one
hundred years left for these six generations; for if
Telah, one of Ephraim's great-grandchildren, had been
born sixty-five years after the migration (seventy-five
years after Joseph's marriage), and if Joshua were
only twenty years old at the exodus, we should have
215 — 65 — 20=130 years for the remaining six genera
tions, — much more than sufficient.2 And thus the whole
attack upon the chronicler is based upon assumptions
which have not even the air of probability.
Dr. Colenso further attempts to cast ridicule upon the
chronicler by making him assert that "Ephraim him
self, after the slaughter by the men of Gath, of his
descendants in the seventh generation 'mourned many
days,' and then married again, and had a son, Beriah,
who was the ancestor of Joshua." This absurdity he
deduces from 1 Chron. vii. 20 — 22, which we will
quote : — " And the sons of Ephraim ; Shuthelah, and
Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son,

David was not twenty when he killed Goliath.
1 See our remarks in Chap. II.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 125
and Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah
his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath
that were born in that land slew, because they came
down to take away their cattle. And Ephraim their
father mourned many days, and his brethren came to
comfort him."
Now first be it observed, that Ezer and Elead are not
described at all as the sons of the second Shuthelah. If
they had been his sons, the text of verse 21 would have
been, " And Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and
Ezer and Elead his sons." But there is no mention of
such relationship between Ezer and Elead and the second
Shuthelah. On the other hand, in verse 22, Ephraim is
described as ""their father." Hence we conclude that
Ezer and Elead were sons of Ephraim, not descendants
in the seventh generation. The genealogy from Bered
to the second Shuthelah would thus be parenthetical
only, describing merely the descendants of the first
Shuthelah. Such a parenthetical genealogy we remark
elsewhere, as in 1 Chron. vii. 6 — 12, where we find
first three of Benjamin's sons, then their descendants,
and then (verse 12) the list of Benjamin's sons resumed.
Reading, then, the genealogy of Ephraim without this
parenthesis, it would be : " And the sons of Ephraim,
Shuthelah ; and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath
that were born in that land slew." We can then well
account for Ephraim being described as "their father,"
and need not wonder at his mourning for their death.
The text, therefore, neither favours nor even permits
the absurd rendering which Dr. Colenso would attribute
to the chronicler.

126 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
Dr. Colenso also finds a difficulty in believing the
statement of the chronicler that Elishama was captain
of a tribe, a year after his grandson Joshua commanded
the whole Hebrew force. But there is really no diffi
culty involved in this, other than of Dr. Colenso's own
creation. Such a coincidence is just as possible as the
parallel one (for which we have the authority of the
Pentateuch), of Hur assisting Moses and Aaron, while
his grandson, Bezaleel, who was filled with the spirit of
God in wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, was
constructing the tabernacle.1
One word more with respect to the "chronicler;"
Dr. Colenso rejects or accepts his authority, according as
it suits his argument or not. Thus, in one place (§158),
he contemptuously refuses to believe in his assertions,
while in another (§159) he actually quotes from him in
support of his own views. This mode of proceeding
sufficiently indicates the spirit of his criticism. Justice
would say : if the book of Chronicles be an authority on
one side, it must be held of equal authority on the
other. The difficulty raised by Dr. Colenso as to the number
of Danites and Levites at the time of the exodus
(chap, xviii.), is fully cleared up by our reply to his
objections as to the number of the Israelites generally.
He cannot understand how the one son of Dan, Hushim,
could have been the ancestor of all the 62,700
Danites, numbered just after the exodus ; and how the
three sons of Levi, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, could
1 Exod. xxxi. 1 — 4.

REPLIES TO KURTZ, AND OTHERS. 127
have been the ancestors of all . the 22,000 Levites,
numbered at the first census. We have already shown
that, with respect to the nation generally, there may
have been more progenitors than those enumerated as
having been brought down into Egypt, and many more
generations than allowed by Dr. ColensO; and the same
argument, which applies to the general population, of
course applies to the particular tribes.
With respect to the increase of the tribe of Levi
between the first and second census — a period of thirty-
eight years, — Dr. Colenso points out what he calls "a
great inconsistency," viz., that the increase of the num
bers of that tribe was only 1,000 in that period, while
the other tribes increased to a much greater extent:
further, that the population of England increases at the
rate of about 23 per cent, in ten years, and that, there
fore, the Levites "should have increased by more than
26,000 in the thirty-eight years."
It is remarkable how cleverly modern statistics are
drawn into the question when they favour the attack,
and how sedulously they are concealed when they favour
the defence. Why not allude to the statistics of the
French population, which would exhibit a very dif
ferent result, showing a decrease rather than an increase?
In truth, modern statistics of a particular race are of
little use in such cases as this ; for equally good statis
tical evidence might be adduced on both sides. But we
are at a loss to conceive what constitutes the " great
inconsistency " in the small increase of the tribe of Levi.
We might as well call it a great inconsistency that one
man should have twelve children, and another only one

128 THE NUMBER OF ISRAELITES, DANITES, ETC.
child. We might call the small increase of the Levites a
strange fact, but it is certainly no inconsistency. And
a glance at the peculiar condition of the tribe will show
us that it is even scarcely a strange fact.
For the Levites, who ministered in the sanctuary, were
obliged, during the time of their service,' to keep away from
all causes of uncleanness. ' Now, in the Bible, one of
the causes of uncleanness is, that which is essential to
increase of population; and this abstinence from all
occasions of uncleanness, which could render them unfit
for their office, must have produced a vast difference
in the number of their progeny.
We also find, that the Levites were specially sub
ject to supernatural deaths in consequence of an irreve
rent or careless ministration. We would refer, in proof
of this assertion, (1) to Numb. iv. 17 — 20, where a
special provision is made for the protection of the Kohath
ites from such violent deaths ; (2) to Lev. x. 1, 2,
where even the two sons of Aaron die through deviating
from the prescribed ritual; (3) to 1 Sam. vi. 19, where
we find 50,070 of the men of Beth-shemesh die by the
hand of God, " because they looked into the ark of the
Lord."2 The Bible sufficiently indicates, in these pas
sages, that proximity to the holy things was attended
with great danger, and this circumstance, added to that
first detailed, will sufficiently account for a compara
tively small increase of the Levitical population.

1 Lev. xv. » See also 2 Sam. vi. 7.

( 129 )

CHAPTER XX.
THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS AT THE EXODUS COMPARED WITH
THEIR DUTIES AND WITH THE PROVISION MADE FOR
THEM.
The objection urged by Dr. Colenso, in this chapter, is
to the following effect: — How could the three priests,
Aaron and his two sons, discharge all the duties con
nected with the immense number of offerings ? " The
single work of offering the double sacrifice for women
after childbirth must have utterly overpowered three
priests, though engaged without cessation from morning
to night.''
We dispute, entirely, Dr. Colenso's premises : (1) We
deny that there were only three priests ; (2) We also
deny that the sacrificial system was in full operation
during the wanderings in the wilderness.
Dr. Colenso asks, " How many priests were there?"
and replies, " The answer is very simple. There were
only three, — Aaron (till his death), and his two sons,
Eleazar and Ithamar." But this is a most unwarrant
able assertion. He is not even correct in alleging that
these are the only priests mentioned in the Pentateuch,
for there was Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, who is re
peatedly mentioned. There is, moreover, every reason to

130 THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS AT THE EXODUS
suppose that both Eleazar and Ithamar had several sons.
Of the other sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Scripture
tells us that they had no children, and we might fairly
infer, from the mention of this fact, that the remaining
sons of Aaron had children. The absence of names from
the genealogical list proves nothing, as we have already
shown. Aaron was eighty-two years of age at the time
of the exodus, and might well have had, at that time, not
only several grand-children, but also a large number of
adult great grand- children old enough to be priests.
At the conclusion ofthe chapter, Dr. Colenso expresses
his astonishment at so many as thirteen cities having
been assigned to the descendants of Aaron, the whole
number of such descendants being so small. But it will
be seen at once that these cities were not necessarily in
tended for the priests to live in, but that they may have
served as a source of revenue. When we read in Thucy-
dides1 that Artaxerxes assigned three cities to Themis
tocles, we should not suppose that the hero actually
occupied these three towns, but merely that he derived
an income therefrom, by letting the houses and adjacent
lands. We have now to consider how the sacrifices were per
formed, during the period ofthe forty years' wanderings.
That the sacrificial laws were not intended to come into
positive operation as obligatory laws, until after our an
cestors had arrived in Palestine, is evident from a great
number of facts which we shall presently adduce. In the
wilderness, the sacrificial laws were intended to have the

1 Lib. I., C. 138.

COMPARED WITH THEIR DUTIES, ETC. 131
effect of weaning our ancestors from sacrificing to idols.
The only rule solemnly laid down, and enforced by the
penalty of death, was, that no one should sacrifice to any
other Deity except the Lord, or in any other place
except the Tabernacle. . No individual was compelled to
bring any offering; and even the congregation were
only commanded to bring a daily offering of one lamb
in the morning and one in the evening.
Let us examine the position of the sacrificial laws in
the Pentateuch. The system of sacrifices, and the laws
of purification, extend from the beginning of the 1st to the
end of the 1 6th chapter of Leviticus. After the completion
of all these details, the 17th chapter solemnly and posi
tively lays down, as it were, the one great object of the
whole sacrificial system. It prohibits, under pain of death,
the slaughtering or offering up of any sacrifice at any other
spot except the tabernacle ; the purpose of the command
being, "That they shall no more offer their sacrifices'
unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This
shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their
generations." l
This indicates that what the Almighty especially
desired was, not so much the offering of sacrifices on His
altar, as the abstaining from offering them to false gods.
That this was the main principle is rendered clearer by
the following chapter (the 18th), which first generally
prohibits the doings of the lands of Egypt and Canaan,
and then specifies incest, adultery, and other abomina
tions ; as if to say,— Behold the result of idolatrous
1 Lev. xvii. 7. »

132 THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS AT THE EXODUS
worship, and think not that the punishment I award to
those who sacrifice to demons is needlessly severe ; think
not that the superstitious practices of the Egyptians were
harmless follies ; for see how they led to all kinds of
abomination. The only public sacrifices which appear to have been
enjoined to be carried out in the wilderness were : (1)
the daily offering (Exod. xxix. 38 — 42), consisting of a
lamb in the morning and a lamb in the afternoon ; (2)
the sacrifice on the day of atonement, consisting of one
bull, two rams, and two goats.
In Numb, xxvii, the approach of Moses' death and
the appointment of Joshua are mentioned. In Numb.
xxviii. and xxix., the command for the additional
offerings is given. It is remarkable that in Levit.
xxiii. a list of the festivals is given, just as in
Numb, xxviii., xxix, but with this difference, that in
Leviticus it is merely ordained in each instance, "Te
shall offer an offering by fire unto the Lord."
There is, however, one exception only, viz., the
offering of the sheaf, of the first-fruits, and the accom
panying lamb, which were only to be brought, " when
ye be come into the land which I give unto you and
shall reap the harvest thereof.'' 1
In Numbers xxviii. and xxix, when the Israelites were
approaching Palestine, a long list of sacrifices is, in each
instance, given. It is evident from this, that in the
wilderness it was not considered obligatory to offer all the
sacrifices ; in fact, no number of sacrifices was prescribed

Lev. xxiii. 10.

COMPARED WITH THEIR DUTIES, ETC 133
for the festivals only; but an additional offering was
implied. With regard to personal sacrifices, we read
in Deuteronomy, "Ye shall not do after all the things that
we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his
own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest, and to
the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you.
But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which
the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when He
giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so
that you dwell in safety. Then there shall be a place
which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name
to dwell there ; thither shall ye bring all that I com
mand you ; your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your
tithes, and the heave-offerings of your hand, and all your
choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord." 1
These words clearly indicate that all. the sacrifices
commanded were not then obligatory, and were indeed
not practised. At various periods of Bible history, the
Israelites fell into the error of supposing that the mere
offering of sacrifice, though unaccompanied by rectitude
of conduct, would be pleasing to God. The prophet
is then commanded by the Almighty to reprove the
people, and in various forms to proclaim, " that to obey
is better than sacrifice;" that sacrifice is only acceptable
when it is a token of devotion, a humble expression
of penitence or gratitude.
Of this, we have numerous examples, in Samuel,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets. Two of these
allude to sacrifices in the wilderness, in language which

Deut. xii. 8—11.

134 THE NUMBER OF PRIESTS AT THE EXODUS
strongly confirms our position. Jeremiah says : " Thus
saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel. Put your
burnt offerings unto your sacrifices and eat flesh. For I
spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out from the land of Egypt
concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing
commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be
your God, and ye shall be my people : and walk ye in
all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be
well unto you." x In Amos, also, we read, " I hate, I
despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your
solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings
and your meat offerings, I will not accept them ; neither
will I regard the peace offering of your fat beasts.
Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs ; for I
will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judg
ment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty
stream. Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings
in the wilderness forty years, 0 house of Israel ? " J
These passages assert clearly, (1) that the Israelites
were not commanded to offer sacrifices in the wilderness;
(2) that they actually did not offer them. Dr. Colenso
assumes from this passage in Amos that sacrifices were
expected. This is but an assumption, and the context
certainly bears quite an opposite construction. But, in
any case, the passage distinctly asserts this fact — that the
sacrifices were actually not offered during the wanderings.
To sum up, then, we conclude that the numerous offer-

1 Jer. vii. 21— 23. 2 Amos v. 21—25.

COMPARED WITH THEIR DUTIES, ETC. 135
ings ordained in Leviticus were actually not brought
during the wanderings of the Israelites. It was neces
sary to give these sacrificial laws when and where they
were given, in order to complete a system of religious
discipline which was to wean the nation from idolatry.
To a people who had beheld all sorts of abominations
practised in the name of religion, there was a simple
grandeur in the system of propitiation, which needed, for
its formal part, but the sprinkling of a few drops of the
blood of an innocent animal.
Moreover, the whole practice of blood-sacrifice was
calculated to make life a more sacred thing in the esti
mation of the people. In the East, in those times as in
ours, life was held of small value. Surely a law which
would enjoin that the slaughter even of a beast should
be accompanied by a simple religious rite — itself an
acknowledgment that all life comes from God — would
induce a greater respect for human life, and a less dis
position to deeds of violence and blood.
The great aim and end of the sacrificial system,
as indeed of all other ceremonial ordinances of the
Mosaic code, was to spiritualise the every-day acts of
every-day life.

( 136

CHAPTER XXI.
THE PRIESTS AND THEIR DUTIES AT THE CELEBRATION OF
THE PASSOVER.
The objection raised in this chapter is — how could three
priests manage to sprinkle the blood of 150,000 lambs
in two hours, and how could all the lambs have been
killed in the court of the tabernacle ?
Not one of the three assertions embodied in the ques
tion is founded on fact.
It must be remembered that there is mention of only
one paschal celebration in the wilderness, — vis., in the
second year of the exodus.1
We have already shown2 that the estimate of 150,000
lambs must be considered a gross exaggeration. The
Talmud tells us that the Passover rite was considered
as duly performed if each male partook of a piece of
the sacrifice as large as an olive ; and the number of
lambs sacrificed need not thus have been very large,
even though all were qualified to partake of it.
But how does Dr. Colenso know that there were only
two hours in which to perform all the duties of sprink-

1 Numb. ix. 5. » Chap. X.

THE PRIESTS AND THEIR DUTIES AT PASSOVER. 137
Hng the blood ? The expression D^n ^ is explained
by most of the Jewish commentators as embracing the
period between the first decline of the sun (imme
diately after noon) to the actual sunset. The interval
would give four or five hours at least. Again, how are
we to know that the lambs were slain in the court of
the tabernacle, as Dr. Colenso would wish the Bible
to assert ? He thinks that the Bible states this, because,
according to the Chronicles, at the Passover of Josiah and
Hezekiah, "the lambs were manifestly killed in the
court of the temple."1 But surely the court of the
temple in the days of Hezekiah and Josiah bears no
analogy to the court of the tabernacle in the wilder
ness, which was merely a temporary structure. More
over, an examination of the text of the Chronicles
xxx. 15, 16, will distinctly show that the blood which
the priests sprinkled was the blood of the burn ^-offerings,
not of the paschal lamb.
So the whole fabric of the difficulty raised by Dr.
Colenso falls to the ground. (1) We know there were
more than three priests. (2) We know that 150,000
lambs were not sacrificed. (3) We know the lambs
need not have been killed in the court of the tabernacle.
But we will go further. We maintain that Scripture
does not tell us that, at the celebration of the Passover
in the wilderness, the priests officiated at all. We
are simply told that " they kept the Passover on the
fourteenth Lday of the first month, at even, in the
wilderness of l Sinai, according to all that the Lord
1 2 Chron. xxxv.

138 THE PRIESTS AND THEIR DUTIES AT PASSOVER.
commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel." J Now,
previously to this time, the paschal ordinances had
been only given in two places, — at the exodus,2 and
among the sacrificial laws.3 The paschal ordinances,
as given in Exod. xii., make no allusion to any priestly
intervention. Indeed, the priest's office was not then
established. And, if we look further, and examine the
sacrificial laws of the feast of Passover, as detailed in
Lev. xxiii., we find there is no mention of the paschal
lamb among the priest's duties appertaining to that
festival. We read there of " an offering made by fire
unto the Lord." And we read of the sheaf of first-fruits
which was to be offered by the priests with a he-lamb
for a burnt-offering, fine flour mingled with oil as a
meat-offering, and wine as a drink-offering; but not a
word is said of any priestly duty relating to the
paschal lamb. Tradition tells us that at a later period,
during the existence of the temple, the rite of sprink
ling the blood of the paschal lamb was performed by
the priests.
1 Numb. ix. 5. 2 Exod. xii. * Lev. xxiii.

( 139 )

CHAPTER XXIT.
THE WAR ON MIDIAN.
This chapter embraces several objections. The critic
first calls attention to the enormous figures with which
the Scripture history deals, more especially the immense
numbers of men represented to have been slain in
the battles recorded in Holy Writ. He compares these
gigantic figures with the number of 4,172 allies, slain at
the battle of Waterloo. We can only reply to this, that
the battle of Waterloo must have been a comparatively
bloodless victory, especially when we consider its im
portant results.
But the truth is that the loss of life in a battle bears
no proportion to the importance of the result. The
two have no connexion. Weber relates x that at the
battle of Preussich Eylau — a battle of which, perhaps,
few Englishmen have heard — there were 60,000 killed
and wounded.
Indeed, now-a-days, a decisive battle is not one in
which there is great carnage, but one in which a great
position is held or gained; in which the loser loses not
men but morale; in which he is panic-stricken, and
1 " Weltgeschichte, ' p. 379.

140 THE WAR ON MEDIAN.
seeks safety in flight. In such cases, the victorious
army will pursue, but, unlike the warriors of old, they
will not pursue to the edge of the sword. They will
have mercy upon the wounded, and only pursue the
vanquished so far as necessity requires. Happily, wars
of extermination are rare in modern times. Hence the
vast difference between the numbers of victims of ancient
and modern wars.
Still, we must not under-rate the numbers of those
who fall in modern warfare. It must have struck every
one that the returns of the killed and wounded in the
American civil war are frightfully large. We may
also recollect the lamentable fact that one million lives
were lost in the Crimean war. J
The war on Midian was essentially a war of extermi
nation. Its professed object was the utter annihilation
of the Midianite race, and we need not therefore be sur
prised at the number of those who fell. Certainly, it
was a most wonderful circumstance that, in this war
not a single Israelite lost his life ; and this can only be
accounted for by the miraculous interposition of God. 2
We shall resume this subject presently.

1 Kinglake, p. 5.
2 We are well aware of Dr. Colenso's antipathy to the accounting for
circumstances in the Biblical narrative by the agency of miracles.
But in Exod. xxiii. 20, we are expressly told that God's angel would
go before the Israelites to keep them in the way, and bring them to
their destination ; he would cut off the different nations. God's
fear would go before them to destroy all the people to whom they
would come, and the hornets would be sent before them to drive
their enemies out. Surely all this must have taken place by the

THE WAR ON MIDIAN. 141
The Bishop, in conclusion, attempts to prove the in
credibility of the Pentateuch narrative by alleging that
more events than could possibly have happened are
crowded together in the short interval between the
death of Aaron and the parting address of Moses, which
forms the substance of Deuteronomy. We propose to
prove. that all those events could have happened in the
time in which the Pentateuch represents them to have
happened. !
I. We are told that Aaron died on the 1st day of
the 5th month, in the 40th year of the wanderings, and
the Israelites mourned for him a month.
II. While at Mount Hor, the battle with the Canaa-
nite, King Arad, took place. Dr. Colenso says, "After
this [the thirty days mourning for Aaron], King Arad, the
Canaanite, fought against Israel," but it will be observed
that Scripture says nothing about the attack of King
Arad being after the period of mourning. It might
have been immediately after the death of Aaron. This
even might thus have taken place in the 5th month.
III. Dr. Colenso allows a fortnight for the journey from
Mount Hor to compass the land of Edom, and
IV. A month for the succeeding nine encampments.

miraculous interposition of God. We are fully justified, then, in as
suming a miracle in this case.
But does not history present to us many examples of bloodless
victories ?
Napoleon, without any loss to himself, captured at Ulm, with
22,000 of his own men, above 30,000 Austrians. (Thiers, Book XXII.,
30. Becker's Weltgeschichte, XIII., p. 234.)
1 Colenso, §173.

142 THE WAR ON MIDIAN.
We allow these assumptions, and thus these events
would bring us to the middle of the 7th month.
Y. The capture of the cities of the Amorites in
Heshbon would, according to Dr. Colenso, have occupied
another month. If we allow this also, we shall be
carried down to the middle of the 8th month.
YI. The capture of the cities of the Amorites in
Jaazer would, in all probability, have taken place at the
same time as the conquest previously recorded. It
seems to have been part of the same military operation.
Dr. Colenso inserts the words, " after that,'' between
each detail of the conquest, as if two military operations
could not be carried on at the same time.
VII. For the battle with Og, and the conquest of
Bashan, we allow, as Dr. Colenso does, another month.
This brings us to the middle of the 9th month.
But Dr. Colenso makes this last event bring him
down to the first day of the eleventh month, the very day
on which Moses addressed the people in the plains of Moab ;
and then he asks, "What room is there for the other
events which are recorded in the book of Numbers as
having occurred between the conquest of Bashan and
the address of Moses, viz. :
(1) The march forward to the plain of Moab, xxii. 1.
(2) The affair of Balak and Balaam, xxii. xxiv.
(3) Israel's abiding in Shittim, xxv. 1 — 3.
(4) The plague, xxv. 9.
(5) The second census, xxvi.
(6) The war in Midian, xxxi. ?"
We have already shown that Dr. Colenso proceeds
too fast by six weeks. And now we would call attention

THE WAR ON MIDIAN. 143
to the fact that he stops short five weeks too early. P0r
the Pentateuch does not state that all these events, in
cluding the war in Midian, took place before Moses
began to address the children of Israel in the land of
Moab, i.e., before the first day of the eleventh month.
There are no grounds for believing that Moses delivered
his address continuously, commencing on that date ; but
rather, that he delivered it at intervals, and that during
the intervals between the several parts of his address
many of the events took place. The words of Deut. i. 3, 4,
confirm this view ; for they give the exact date when
Moses began his address, and then tell us that it was
" after he had slain Sihon .... and Og," plainly
indicating that the events subsequent to the death of
Sihon and Og took place after the commencement of
Moses' address, i.e., after the first day of the eleventh
month. Now, Moses died on the seventh day of the twelfth
month,1 so that there intervened between the commence
ment of his address, and his death, five weeks. This
period, added to the six weeks' margin left before the
first day of the eleventh month, would give eleven weeks
for the march to Moab, the prophecies of Balaam, the
stay at Shittim, the plague, the census, and the war
upon Midian, which would certainly be quite sufficient
time. We know that the war upon Midian must have been
immediately prior to Moses' death ; for we read in Numb.
1 Compare Deut. xxxiv. 8, Josh. i. 11, and Josh. iv. 19.

144 THE WAR ON MIDIAN.
xxxi. 1, 2, that God thus addressed Moses : " Avenge
the children of Israel of the Midianites, afterwards shalt
thou be gathered unto thy people."
The whole difficulty arising from the crowding of events
thus vanishes. We must certainly admit that the con
quests were rapid, and that events fell thickly ; but, it
was but a foretaste of the rapid march of conquest,
which was to signalize the entrance into the Promised
Land. We have combated the figures adduced by Dr. Colenso
in this remarkable chapter, and now quit the region of
dry numerals to criticize our critic in the realms of
sentiment. The war on Midian horrifies Dr. Colenso. The terrible
details of the slaughter of all the males in battle, and of
the subsequent butchery in cold blood, by command of
Moses, of all the women and children, except the
virgins, arouse in the sensitive mind of our critic the
feeling that the history is too horrible to be true. He
tells us that the slaughter of these women and children
(estimated at 68,000), is such a terrible affair that the
tragedy of Cawnpore would sink into insignificance
when compared with it. Then he reminds us of the
Lord's tribute of slaves — thirty-two persons reserved
from the human spoil— and, forgetting tiiat the Lord's
tribute of slaves would certainly not remain slaves, asks
how is it possible," with such a fact, to quote the Bible as
in any way condemning slavery ?
Let us first straightforwardly admit that the details of
this war are terrible indeed. No man, with his heart
m the right place, can read such a narrative without a

THE WAR ON MIDIAN. 145
shudder. And, be it further admitted that this narrative
is not an isolated instance of wholesale massacre, in
which the Israelites were the executioners. It was part
of the mission of God's chosen people to be the
exterminators ofthe people of Canaan. They were to
wage a ruthless and unpitying war of extermination;1
and woe to him who showed mercy ! Pity for the king
of the Amalekites cost Saul his crown and his life.
The divine fiat had gone forth, — the race of sinning
Canaanites was to be utterly destroyed. The measure of
their iniquity was full.
Almost every historical book of the Bible teems with
commands for such wars of extermination, or with the
details of their execution. We cannot discredit the
facts without throwing aside the entire Book as worth
less; and Dr. Colenso himself would not do this. These
terrible facts are so interwoven in the substance of the
Bible narrative that they must be true, if there be a
word of truth anywhere. The historical books teem
with the details, the Law insists upon the performance of
the terrible work, the Psalmist and the Prophets glory
in these deeds, as an act of Divine retribution.
How then can we reconcile such deeds with our ideas
of the infinite mercy of the Infinite God ?
Truly, a difficult problem. But if we might be per
mitted, with all reverence, to lift up a corner of that
veil which covers the workings of Providence in the
government of this world, we might possibly discern
the most refined mercy in all this apparent cruelty.
1 Deut. vii, 16 K

146 THE WAR ON MIDIAN.
We see a large flock of sheep, and, among them, a
certain number stricken with a terrible disease, so loath
some, and so infectious, that, for the sake of the sufferers,
and for the sake of those which are sound, it is a mercy
to slay the poor afflicted brutes. The shepherd would
gladly spare their lives ; but he hesitates not ; "he slays
the diseased sheep, and thus stays the plague amongst
his flock. A child passes by — sees the blood flow —
knows nothing of the cause — and cries out in pity, "How
can that shepherd be so cruel ?" But still the shepherd
is right. May it not be the same with that terrible war of exter
mination which God caused the Israelites to wage against
the people of Canaan ? We know the Canaanites were
sunk into the very depth of degradation. But we know
not the full extent of their sins. There must have been
pollution in everything they touched; for we read that
Moses ordered all the spoil of Midian to be destroyed,
except such things as could pass through the fire, and thus
be purified. There are mental and moral diseases as
loathsome and as infectious as any which affect the body.
May it not have been even an act of supreme mercy that
God, by a terrible act of extermination, prevented the
evil from increasing and spreading till the whole
world became a mass of corruption? And shall the
child of earth stand by, and, seeing the blood flow, ask
the Great Shepherd of the universe, how He can be so
cruel, as if any could love His flock with a holier love
than He ?
And if, after all, we cannot reconcile such dreadful
facts with our ideas, innate or taught, of the Creator's

THE WAR ON MIDIAN. 147
mercy; if all our speculations fail to find an answer to
our doubts-what then? Shall we say, the facts are
false? Is this the only problem in the book of Divine
revelation? Is not the book of nature, too, full of
problems no less difficult? Why do the tiger and the
serpent live? Their life is death to hundreds. What
means the dread volcano vomiting its molten lava on a
world of life, and making it a heap of dust and ashes ?
What mean the crippled form, the idiot brain, the
thousand forms of suffering in the world? All are
problems greater, far greater, than the war on Midian.
And yet, who, looking at nature, will doubt the Great
ness, the Goodness, the Supreme Mercy of God ? There
is enough in the revelation of nature, enough in the
revelation of the Bible, to make us stand amazed at
the boundless Mercy of our Creator; and the clouds,
which here and there terrify us, may one day be
removed, discovering to our admiring gaze the fulness of
the Creator's love, which no mortal can fully appreciate.
Till then, let us humbly imitate the first missionary
that the world beheld — let us imitate Abraham, the
faithful and the just; and when, like him, we see
extermination which our mortal eyes cannot reconcile
with mercy, let us, like him, exclaim — " Shall not the
Judge of all the earth do right ?" 1
END.

1 Gen. xviii. 25,

London :
Printed by P. Vallentine, 34., Alfred Street, Bedford Square

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 7843

AAA':\

¦ '¦ . uuUHuvsMHM*wOTO«l*twlii*OT

AAAvMhtui

IHHIiii

mWmi

III: :liiiwSH

y'.yoooyvtmEBmmo