THE IRISHECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.SEPTEMBER, 1865.DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.NO. IV.Who is there amongst our readers that has not at some time in his life stood upon the sea-shore to watch the rising tide? Two mighty powers meet, as it were in conflict, and each in its turn seems for a time to prevail. Wave rolls after wave, but each again recedes as if baffled in the struggle and exhausted by the effort. At one moment the waters gain upon the land; then in the next the land wins back all that it had lost; and sometimes even more besides. It is only when some prominent landmark is reached, which a little while ago stood high and dry upon the beach, that we can no longer entertain a doubt of the sure and steady progress of the advancing flood.Such, as it seems to us, is the conflict which it is the lot of our age to witness between the flood-tide of infidelity and the Established Church in these countries. The one is aggressive, the other is struggling hard to hold its own. On both sides the contest is carried on with energy and power. To a casual observer it might perhaps seem that the fortunes of each are almost equal, and the victory uncertain. But to one who extends the range of his vision and takes in the distant landmarks, it is plainly evident that one by one they are fast disappearing, and that the waves of infidelity are sweeping, slowly indeed, but irresistibly, over the face of the Established Church.In the person of Dr. Colenso they have reached at length the episcopal bench. His brethren, it is true, have taken the alarm, and have made a show of resistance, but they only demonstrate their own weakness. Like Canute of old, they command the waters to advance no further, but their command is vain andfruitless. The great flood is still coming in, and they who but yesterday were considered, from their high position, far removed from danger, are to-day surrounded by the waves. In this perilous crisis the Catholic Church alone affords a home of undisturbed tranquillity to its children, a safe refuge to the stranger. It stands indeed in the midst of the danger, but its walls are too strong to be shaken, its foundation too solid to be undermined. It has been built by its Divine Founder on a rock, and the rain may descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow and beat upon that Church, but it falleth not. We have the promise of God, that her enemies shall not prevail against her; and therefore we may look out from our impregnable fortress upon the surging billows with the same calm sense of security as Noah had when he looked out from the window of the ark on the waters of the deluge. But though God had resolved that Noah should be saved from destruction whilst all around were perishing, yet Noah was not saved without the toil and labour of his own hands. And so, too, though by a decree of God, error cannot prevail against His Church, yet has he ordained that the true faith should be ever defended by human skill and industry. We hope, therefore, our readers will pardon us if we return once again to the charges which Dr. Colenso has brought against the truth of the Bible.The increase of the children of Israel in Egypt, as represented in the Mosaic narrative, is Dr. Colenso’s favourite objection. It is dressed out with the most elaborate ingenuity and care. It is set forth with even more than his usual confidence. It is held up as, in itself, sufficient to destroy the historical character of the whole narrative. By this objection, therefore, we may fairly suppose that he is willing to stand or fall. We have already pointed out two fundamental errors in the data from which it is deduced; many others yet remain, which we now proceed to expose.III.There are two suppositions which would contribute very much to account for the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt; first, intermarriage with the Egyptians; secondly, the practice of polygamy. For the purpose of our defence it is quite sufficient that these two customs werepossible. Upon Dr. Colenso it devolves to prove that theydid not prevailin point of fact. We may observe, however, that the Pentateuch indicates clearly enough the existence of such practices. Judah married a woman of Canaan (Gen., xxxiii.2); so did Simeon (xlvi.10); Joseph married an Egyptian (Gen., xli.25). Why then may we not suppose that their children intermarried with foreign nations? Was it impossible for them to imitate the example of their fathers? We must bear in mind, too, that for 100 yearsat least, the Hebrew people were high in favour at the court of Pharaoh. During the years of famine they were supported at the royal expense (Gen., xlv. 11; xlvi. 12) while the Egyptians had to part with their money, their cattle, and even their land, to pay for food (Gen., xlvii.13-26): they had “the best of the land” for their dwelling (Gen., xlvii.6, 11): above all, they had for their patron and friend, their kinsman, Joseph who was “lord of all the house of Pharaoh, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (Gen., xlv.8). An alliance with a race so wealthy and so favoured must have been eagerly courted by the Egyptians: and, on the other hand, the Israelites would not have been disposed to decline a connection which would have strengthened their position in the country and increased their influence.It does not appear that intermarriage with the Egyptians was forbidden or even discouraged. On the contrary, an intimate social intercourse seems to have existed between the two nations. Even at the very time of the Exodus, we find that it was not unusual for the Hebrews to receive the Egyptians as guests or tenants into their houses.[1]It is not an improbable supposition that such close domestic relations might in many instances lead to marriage. But we have positive evidence that marriages of this kind actually did take place, and are in no way reprehended. Thus we find mention made incidentally of “the son of an Israelitish woman”, whosefather was an Egyptian(Lev., xxiv.10). He was condemned to death for blasphemy when the Israelites were encamped under Mount Sinai: he must, therefore, have been born during the sojourn in Egypt. Again we are told of an Israelite who gave his daughter in marriage to an Egyptian servant (I. Paralip., ii.34, 35). This occurred certainly after the Exodus. But if the two nationssometimesintermarried when they lived indifferentcountries, may we not suppose that theyfrequentlyintermarried whilst they were living in thesamecountry? Hence we conclude (1ᵒ) that the mutual relations which subsisted between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, would naturally lead to frequent intermarriage; (2ᵒ) that there is not a particle of evidence to make such a supposition improbable; (3ᵒ) that there is positive testimony in its favour.As regards the plurality of wives or concubines,[2]the Israelites had before them the example of Abraham, who had at least three (Gen., xvi.1, 3;xxv.1, 6), and of Jacob, who had four (Gen., xxix.20, 30;xxx.4, 9). The practice of polygamy, therefore,had the highest and the holiest sanction in the eyes of the Hebrew people. It cannot be objected that, during the sojourn in Egypt, there is no explicit mention of polygamy in the Mosaic narrative. Moses did not undertake to write a history of the period. A single chapter in the beginning of Exodus, contains all that he records of what took place from the death of Jacob to the birth of Moses. Neither could we expect much information on this point from the genealogies which are given elsewhere in the Bible. Every one knows that it was not the ordinary custom of the Jews to mention themothersof those whose pedigree was traced, but only thefathers.Yet we are not left altogether without distinct testimony to the practice of polygamy among the Hebrew people in Egypt. In one family alone of the tribe of Judah we find the following examples: Hezron, the son of Pharez, had two wives, Abiah, and the daughter of Machir (I.Paralip., ii.21, 24). Caleb, the son of Hezron, had three, Azuba, Jerioth, and Ephrath (I.Paralip., ii.18, 19).[3]Jerameel, another son of Hezron, had two, one whose name is not given, and another called Atarah (I.Paralip., ii.25, 26). Ashur, likewise a son of Hezron, had also two, Helah and Naarah (I.Paralip., iv.5). Lastly, we find that Moses himself clearly recognizes this custom as prevalent. He makes laws regarding it, to prevent abuses, but he does not forbid it, nor does he even censure it. “If a manhave two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated,… he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath” (Deut., xxiv.15, 17). With these facts before us, we may judge what weight is to be attached to the authority of Dr. Colenso when he states: “There is no indication that polygamy did prevail among the Hebrews of those days” (p. 120).IV.Another very probable source of the rapid increase in population was the accession of fresh servants from without. The early history of Jacob affords a remarkable illustration of such an increase. He went into a foreign countrywithoutan invitation (Gen., xviii.1-5): heservedin it for twenty years (Gen., xxxi.41): and yet at the end of that time he tells us, “With my staff passed over this Jordan, and now I am become astwo camps” (Gen., xxxii.10). The Israelites during the first half of the sojourn in Egypt, were much more favourably circumstanced. We have seen that, immediately upon their descent into Egypt, they received an enormous increase both inwealth and importance. This change in their fortunes would naturally prompt them to add largely to the number of their servants. On the other hand, the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were sore pressed with famine. They were obliged to give up first their money, then their cattle, then their land, in exchange for bread (Gen., xlvii.13-20). Many must thus have been reduced to extreme necessity, and nothing would seem to have remained for them but to accept of service in the households of their rich and prosperous neighbours. These dependants, according to the command of God, should have been circumcised, and thus have been made sharers in the covenant of which that rite was a token. Their posterity would, therefore, be reckoned among the 600,000 who followed Moses into the desert.To the increase by servants we may add a further increase by proselytes. It would seem that every facility was offered to those who wished to becomeincorporated with the Hebrew people. Even in the celebration of the Passover, all were freely to be admitted if they would submit to the rite of circumcision. “And if a stranger sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let every male of his be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land” (Ex., xii.48). It is manifest that Moses thought it likely, even after a century of bondage and persecution, that many would still be found to join the fortunes of this oppressed people. Is it unreasonable, then, to suppose that such converts were more numerous in the days of their prosperity?V.The average number of children in each family, according to the calculation of Dr. Colenso, was 4½, or, at the outside, 6—3 sons and 3 daughters. The manner in which he arrives at this conclusion is singularly characteristic. He prepares the way by assuring us that “we have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the sacred books themselves, to assume that they had families materially largerthan those of the present day” (p. 102). If, however, we turn from the pages of Dr. Colenso to the pages of the sacred books themselves, we are told a very different story. “And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night,… and he said: I am God, the God of thy father; fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will make of thee a great nation” (Gen., xlvii.2, 3). Such was the promise of God; here is the fulfilment: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they held possession of it, and theygrewandmultiplied exceedingly” (Gen., xlvii.27). “And the children of Israelwere fruitful, andincreased abundantly, andmultiplied, andwaxed exceeding mighty; andthe land was filledwith them…. The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew” (Ex., i.7-12). These words clearly imply that the people of Israel increasedbeyond the usual rate at that timeandin that country. We are told, however, by several ancient writers that the people of Egypt were wont to increase with extraordinary rapidity.[4]And yet, in the face of all this, Dr. Colenso asserts that “we haveno reason whatever, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of the present day”.He next proceeds to establish his average. The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 54 children, which gives on an average 4½ to each. It is worthy of note that in making this estimate, he studiously excludes the family of Jacob himself, who hadtwelve sons. If this family had been added to the others, the average would have been considerably increased. But there is yet a more radical defect in his argument. The 12 sons of Jacob had 54 childrenbeforethe descent into Egypt; how many had they after? Dr. Colensoassumesthat they had none. His assumption is not only without proof; it is contrary to every probability. These men were at the time in the full vigour of life. Reuben the eldest, if we take Dr. Colenso’s own computation, was about 46; Joseph was but 39; Benjamin younger still. It is, therefore, most reasonable to suppose that several of them, if not all, had children born to them during the sojourn in Egypt. This will be the more evident when we remember that Jacob, their father, had 12 sons born to himafter he had reachedthe age of 80; and that Isaac, their grandfather, was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born.Moreover we can produce a distinct statement with regard to Joseph, that he had children born to him after the descent, “And Jacob said unto Joseph: … Thy two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto the land of Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, as Reuben and Simeon shall be mine. Andthy issue which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance” (Gen., xlviii.3, 5, 6). It may be objected that in the twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers, where the grandsons of Jacob are enumerated, no mention is made but of those born before the descent. We answer, that in that chapter those only are enumerated whogave their names to families; and it would seem that the grandsonsof Jacob born after the descent, did not give their names to families, but, like the younger sons of Joseph, were “called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance”. We may observe that this oversight of our author has drawn him into a twofold error. First, it has led him tounderestimate the average number of childrenin each family; secondly, it has led him tounderestimate the number of males in the first generation, sinceallthe grandsons of Jacob, according to his argument, belonged to the first generation.Dr. Colenso refers, however, to the genealogies in the sixth chapter of Exodus (verses 14-25), and elsewhere, to show that the families during the sojourn in Egypt were not remarkably large. This argument is of no value if he do not prove that these genealogies givecomplete lists of all the sonsin each family. It appears to us that there is no evidence to this effect. The genealogies were generally introduced for some specific purpose, as for instance, to trace the pedigree of the most remarkable men; and for this purpose it was quite unnecessary thatall the membersof each family should be distinctly enumerated. A striking illustration occurs in a passage already quoted: “And the sons of Pallu; Eliab. And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel and Dathan, and Abiram” (Num., xxvi.8, 9).[5]It is here explicitly stated that Pallu hadsons; and yet onlyoneis named. Eliab is probably selected from the rest as he was the father of Dathan and Abiram; for of them it is immediately added that they were “famous in the congregation”, and that “they strove against Moses and against Aaron” in the rebellion of Korah.Enough, we think, has been said to satisfy our readers that Dr. Colenso has completely failed in his argument. He has failed to show “beyond a doubt, that it is quite impossible that there should have been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt, at the time of the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, if we will take the data to be derived from thePentateuch itself” (p.101). On the contrary, we have proved that there are many circumstances overlooked, misstated, or denied, by Dr. Colenso, which are quite sufficient to explain what he regards as impossible. More than this we cannot do. How far each circumstance in particular contributed to swell the number of the people, must for ever remain uncertain. While the sacred narrative is silent on the subject, it would be unreasonable to ask such a question, and absurd to undertake to answer it. If we wished to imitate the example of Dr. Colenso,we might easily form conjectures, and set them down as facts. But we believe that such a course would be injurious to the cause of truth, which we defend. It is much better candidly to admit that we cannot determine with accuracy the number of servants that accompanied Jacob into Egypt, or the number of servants and proselytes that afterwards became incorporated with the Hebrew people; that we cannot ascertain the precise number of generations in each family, or the average number for the entire nation; lastly, that we cannot estimate how far polygamy and intermarriage with the Egyptians may have conduced to the wonderful increase of population.But, though we are unable to say how the populationdid increase in point of fact, we can easily show how itmay have increased. For this purpose we venture to lay before our readers a calculation by which we account for the fact in a manner perfectly conformable to all the “data of the Pentateuch”. First, as regards the number of generations. Since a generation is descent from father to son, the length of time to be allowed for a generation will be determined in each particular case by the age of the father when the son is born. This of course will vary for different families, and even for different members of the same family. We may, however, fairly suppose that, among the Hebrew people in Egypt, taking one family with another, every man on an average had children born to him at the age of 32. Thus 32 years would be the average length of each generation. The males of the first generation, as we have before seen, were all living at least three years before the descent into Egypt, or 218 years before the Exodus. For each succeeding period of 32 years we must add, according to our calculation, one generation more. In 218 years there are just six periods of 32 years each, and 26 years over. Therefore the whole of the seventh generation must have been living 26 years before the Exodus.Next we may estimate the number of males in the first generation at a hundred and twenty-five. To this generation would belong all those, who, at the time of the descent, were above the age of three, and under the age of thirty-five. Those who were three, or less than three, should not be counted, since they belonged to the second generation: those above thirty-five should be excluded, because when the first generation was completed, they had already reached the age of thirty-two; therefore, according to our calculation, they must at that time have had children who would belong to the first generation; they could not then belong to it themselves. Now we may suppose that, amongst the followers of Jacob, there were at least sixty males of various ages between these two extremes. This estimate will appear moderate indeed, when we remember that Abraham had beenable to lead forth an army of 318trained servants, born in his house(Gen., xiv.14). It will not be unreasonable to compute the accession of extra servants and proselytes at 15. If to these 75 we add 50 as the number of males within the prescribed limits, in Jacob’s own family, we shall have attained our estimated figure, 125. Lastly, our readers will find little difficulty in admitting an average of four sons in each family.From these data we obtain the following results:Number of males in theall livingyears beforethe Exodus.firstgeneration,125„218„second„500„186„third„2,000„154„fourth„8,000„122„fifth„32,000„90„sixth„128,000„58„seventh„512,000„26„It is certain that a large number of the sixth, and probably a few of the fifth generation were still living at the time of the Exodus. Moreover, since the eighth had been coming into existence during the last period of twenty-six years, many of that generation must have already attained the age of twenty. If to all these we add the entire of the seventh generation, we shall have no difficulty in making up 600,000 men of twenty years old and upward.Now we admit that all this calculation is founded on conjectures; and that it is very likely these conjectures do not in every respect represent what actually took place. But we maintain that they are at least possible in themselves, and perfectly consistent with the narrative of the Pentateuch. Consequently, the number of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus does not involve any contradiction, and the thesis of Dr. Colenso is false.There is another process of calculation by which we may arrive at the same conclusion. Scientific men have been able to throw some light on the principles which conduce to a rapid increase of population. With much research they have collected statistical tables, which afford results very applicable to our present inquiry. They have conducted their studies on purely scientific grounds, and without any special reference to the Bible narrative. We may, therefore, avail ourselves of their conclusions as representing the unbiassed opinion of competent and impartial judges. “It has been constantly remarked”, says Malthus,[6]“that all new colonies, settled in healthy countries, where room and food were abundant, have constantly made a rapid progress in population. Many of the colonies from ancient Greece, in the course of one or two centuries, appear to have rivalled, and even surpassed their mother cities”. He givesexamples also from the colonies that first settled in North America. Without any fresh immigrants, the population was doubled sometimes in twenty-five years, sometimes in twenty-two, sometimes even in fifteen.[7]From a table given by Euler, it appears that a population may double itself in 12⅘ years; and the author does not hesitate to say that this “is not only a possible supposition, but hasactually occurredfor short periods in more countries than one”.Now the circumstances of the Israelites in Egypt were peculiarly favourable to an unusually rapid increase. To say nothing of the special blessing of God which attended them, they were dwelling in a country of which the inhabitants were noted for a remarkable fecundity; the climate was genial; the land fertile; the means of living abundant. Let us then take a medium between the extreme figures mentioned above, and suppose that during the whole period of the sojourn in Egypt, the population was doubled every eighteen years. This supposition may or may not be true; but it is certainly not less in harmony with the repeated declarations of the Pentateuch, than it is with the cold calculations of science. If our former estimate be accepted, the total population at the commencement of the sojourn in Egypt would be about 500; that is to say, four times the number of males between the ages of three and thirty-five:—125×4=500. Upon this foundation we may construct the followingtable:—year ofthe Sojourn.Total number of theHebrew people,1st50018th1,00036th2,00054th4,00072nd8,00090th16,000108th32,000126th64,000144th128,000162nd256,000180th512,000198th1,024,000216th2,048,000Thus it would appear that, if we hearken to the authority ofscientific men, who have made the principles of population the subject of their special study, we may still further confirm the accuracy of those figures which to the mind of Dr. Colenso present nothing but “multiplied impossibilities”.We have led our readers a long and weary journey. We have conducted them through a bewildering labyrinth of names and numbers, of intricate genealogies and complicated calculations. Our way indeed lay through the midst of a beautiful country; and as we passed along, we now and then caught a glimpse, as it were, from a distance, of some sublime or touching scene which has many a time inspired the genius of the poet, the painter, or the sculptor. But we had an end in view which forbade us to turn aside from our rugged and toilsome path, even though it were to enjoy the varied charms of the most ancient, the most simple, the most sacred of histories. Like the soldiers of Saul, we might not even put forth our hand to taste of the honey that was dropping from the trees around us. If, however, like them, we have gained the victory and driven the enemy from his stronghold, our labours have been richly rewarded, and our readers have not toiled after us in vain.Erratum.—We beg to call attention to an error which occurs in the last article on Colenso, page 517. The passage to which we refer is printed thus:—“According to the Mosaic, etc.… 99,989 families”. Our readers will observe that the number of families in the case supposed would be 200,000 instead of 100,000. By this alteration the character of the argument remains unchanged, but its force is considerably increased.
THE IRISH
SEPTEMBER, 1865.
NO. IV.
Who is there amongst our readers that has not at some time in his life stood upon the sea-shore to watch the rising tide? Two mighty powers meet, as it were in conflict, and each in its turn seems for a time to prevail. Wave rolls after wave, but each again recedes as if baffled in the struggle and exhausted by the effort. At one moment the waters gain upon the land; then in the next the land wins back all that it had lost; and sometimes even more besides. It is only when some prominent landmark is reached, which a little while ago stood high and dry upon the beach, that we can no longer entertain a doubt of the sure and steady progress of the advancing flood.
Such, as it seems to us, is the conflict which it is the lot of our age to witness between the flood-tide of infidelity and the Established Church in these countries. The one is aggressive, the other is struggling hard to hold its own. On both sides the contest is carried on with energy and power. To a casual observer it might perhaps seem that the fortunes of each are almost equal, and the victory uncertain. But to one who extends the range of his vision and takes in the distant landmarks, it is plainly evident that one by one they are fast disappearing, and that the waves of infidelity are sweeping, slowly indeed, but irresistibly, over the face of the Established Church.
In the person of Dr. Colenso they have reached at length the episcopal bench. His brethren, it is true, have taken the alarm, and have made a show of resistance, but they only demonstrate their own weakness. Like Canute of old, they command the waters to advance no further, but their command is vain andfruitless. The great flood is still coming in, and they who but yesterday were considered, from their high position, far removed from danger, are to-day surrounded by the waves. In this perilous crisis the Catholic Church alone affords a home of undisturbed tranquillity to its children, a safe refuge to the stranger. It stands indeed in the midst of the danger, but its walls are too strong to be shaken, its foundation too solid to be undermined. It has been built by its Divine Founder on a rock, and the rain may descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow and beat upon that Church, but it falleth not. We have the promise of God, that her enemies shall not prevail against her; and therefore we may look out from our impregnable fortress upon the surging billows with the same calm sense of security as Noah had when he looked out from the window of the ark on the waters of the deluge. But though God had resolved that Noah should be saved from destruction whilst all around were perishing, yet Noah was not saved without the toil and labour of his own hands. And so, too, though by a decree of God, error cannot prevail against His Church, yet has he ordained that the true faith should be ever defended by human skill and industry. We hope, therefore, our readers will pardon us if we return once again to the charges which Dr. Colenso has brought against the truth of the Bible.
The increase of the children of Israel in Egypt, as represented in the Mosaic narrative, is Dr. Colenso’s favourite objection. It is dressed out with the most elaborate ingenuity and care. It is set forth with even more than his usual confidence. It is held up as, in itself, sufficient to destroy the historical character of the whole narrative. By this objection, therefore, we may fairly suppose that he is willing to stand or fall. We have already pointed out two fundamental errors in the data from which it is deduced; many others yet remain, which we now proceed to expose.
III.There are two suppositions which would contribute very much to account for the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt; first, intermarriage with the Egyptians; secondly, the practice of polygamy. For the purpose of our defence it is quite sufficient that these two customs werepossible. Upon Dr. Colenso it devolves to prove that theydid not prevailin point of fact. We may observe, however, that the Pentateuch indicates clearly enough the existence of such practices. Judah married a woman of Canaan (Gen., xxxiii.2); so did Simeon (xlvi.10); Joseph married an Egyptian (Gen., xli.25). Why then may we not suppose that their children intermarried with foreign nations? Was it impossible for them to imitate the example of their fathers? We must bear in mind, too, that for 100 yearsat least, the Hebrew people were high in favour at the court of Pharaoh. During the years of famine they were supported at the royal expense (Gen., xlv. 11; xlvi. 12) while the Egyptians had to part with their money, their cattle, and even their land, to pay for food (Gen., xlvii.13-26): they had “the best of the land” for their dwelling (Gen., xlvii.6, 11): above all, they had for their patron and friend, their kinsman, Joseph who was “lord of all the house of Pharaoh, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (Gen., xlv.8). An alliance with a race so wealthy and so favoured must have been eagerly courted by the Egyptians: and, on the other hand, the Israelites would not have been disposed to decline a connection which would have strengthened their position in the country and increased their influence.
It does not appear that intermarriage with the Egyptians was forbidden or even discouraged. On the contrary, an intimate social intercourse seems to have existed between the two nations. Even at the very time of the Exodus, we find that it was not unusual for the Hebrews to receive the Egyptians as guests or tenants into their houses.[1]It is not an improbable supposition that such close domestic relations might in many instances lead to marriage. But we have positive evidence that marriages of this kind actually did take place, and are in no way reprehended. Thus we find mention made incidentally of “the son of an Israelitish woman”, whosefather was an Egyptian(Lev., xxiv.10). He was condemned to death for blasphemy when the Israelites were encamped under Mount Sinai: he must, therefore, have been born during the sojourn in Egypt. Again we are told of an Israelite who gave his daughter in marriage to an Egyptian servant (I. Paralip., ii.34, 35). This occurred certainly after the Exodus. But if the two nationssometimesintermarried when they lived indifferentcountries, may we not suppose that theyfrequentlyintermarried whilst they were living in thesamecountry? Hence we conclude (1ᵒ) that the mutual relations which subsisted between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, would naturally lead to frequent intermarriage; (2ᵒ) that there is not a particle of evidence to make such a supposition improbable; (3ᵒ) that there is positive testimony in its favour.
As regards the plurality of wives or concubines,[2]the Israelites had before them the example of Abraham, who had at least three (Gen., xvi.1, 3;xxv.1, 6), and of Jacob, who had four (Gen., xxix.20, 30;xxx.4, 9). The practice of polygamy, therefore,had the highest and the holiest sanction in the eyes of the Hebrew people. It cannot be objected that, during the sojourn in Egypt, there is no explicit mention of polygamy in the Mosaic narrative. Moses did not undertake to write a history of the period. A single chapter in the beginning of Exodus, contains all that he records of what took place from the death of Jacob to the birth of Moses. Neither could we expect much information on this point from the genealogies which are given elsewhere in the Bible. Every one knows that it was not the ordinary custom of the Jews to mention themothersof those whose pedigree was traced, but only thefathers.
Yet we are not left altogether without distinct testimony to the practice of polygamy among the Hebrew people in Egypt. In one family alone of the tribe of Judah we find the following examples: Hezron, the son of Pharez, had two wives, Abiah, and the daughter of Machir (I.Paralip., ii.21, 24). Caleb, the son of Hezron, had three, Azuba, Jerioth, and Ephrath (I.Paralip., ii.18, 19).[3]Jerameel, another son of Hezron, had two, one whose name is not given, and another called Atarah (I.Paralip., ii.25, 26). Ashur, likewise a son of Hezron, had also two, Helah and Naarah (I.Paralip., iv.5). Lastly, we find that Moses himself clearly recognizes this custom as prevalent. He makes laws regarding it, to prevent abuses, but he does not forbid it, nor does he even censure it. “If a manhave two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated,… he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath” (Deut., xxiv.15, 17). With these facts before us, we may judge what weight is to be attached to the authority of Dr. Colenso when he states: “There is no indication that polygamy did prevail among the Hebrews of those days” (p. 120).
IV.Another very probable source of the rapid increase in population was the accession of fresh servants from without. The early history of Jacob affords a remarkable illustration of such an increase. He went into a foreign countrywithoutan invitation (Gen., xviii.1-5): heservedin it for twenty years (Gen., xxxi.41): and yet at the end of that time he tells us, “With my staff passed over this Jordan, and now I am become astwo camps” (Gen., xxxii.10). The Israelites during the first half of the sojourn in Egypt, were much more favourably circumstanced. We have seen that, immediately upon their descent into Egypt, they received an enormous increase both inwealth and importance. This change in their fortunes would naturally prompt them to add largely to the number of their servants. On the other hand, the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were sore pressed with famine. They were obliged to give up first their money, then their cattle, then their land, in exchange for bread (Gen., xlvii.13-20). Many must thus have been reduced to extreme necessity, and nothing would seem to have remained for them but to accept of service in the households of their rich and prosperous neighbours. These dependants, according to the command of God, should have been circumcised, and thus have been made sharers in the covenant of which that rite was a token. Their posterity would, therefore, be reckoned among the 600,000 who followed Moses into the desert.
To the increase by servants we may add a further increase by proselytes. It would seem that every facility was offered to those who wished to becomeincorporated with the Hebrew people. Even in the celebration of the Passover, all were freely to be admitted if they would submit to the rite of circumcision. “And if a stranger sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let every male of his be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land” (Ex., xii.48). It is manifest that Moses thought it likely, even after a century of bondage and persecution, that many would still be found to join the fortunes of this oppressed people. Is it unreasonable, then, to suppose that such converts were more numerous in the days of their prosperity?
V.The average number of children in each family, according to the calculation of Dr. Colenso, was 4½, or, at the outside, 6—3 sons and 3 daughters. The manner in which he arrives at this conclusion is singularly characteristic. He prepares the way by assuring us that “we have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the sacred books themselves, to assume that they had families materially largerthan those of the present day” (p. 102). If, however, we turn from the pages of Dr. Colenso to the pages of the sacred books themselves, we are told a very different story. “And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night,… and he said: I am God, the God of thy father; fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will make of thee a great nation” (Gen., xlvii.2, 3). Such was the promise of God; here is the fulfilment: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they held possession of it, and theygrewandmultiplied exceedingly” (Gen., xlvii.27). “And the children of Israelwere fruitful, andincreased abundantly, andmultiplied, andwaxed exceeding mighty; andthe land was filledwith them…. The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew” (Ex., i.7-12). These words clearly imply that the people of Israel increasedbeyond the usual rate at that timeandin that country. We are told, however, by several ancient writers that the people of Egypt were wont to increase with extraordinary rapidity.[4]And yet, in the face of all this, Dr. Colenso asserts that “we haveno reason whatever, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of the present day”.
He next proceeds to establish his average. The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 54 children, which gives on an average 4½ to each. It is worthy of note that in making this estimate, he studiously excludes the family of Jacob himself, who hadtwelve sons. If this family had been added to the others, the average would have been considerably increased. But there is yet a more radical defect in his argument. The 12 sons of Jacob had 54 childrenbeforethe descent into Egypt; how many had they after? Dr. Colensoassumesthat they had none. His assumption is not only without proof; it is contrary to every probability. These men were at the time in the full vigour of life. Reuben the eldest, if we take Dr. Colenso’s own computation, was about 46; Joseph was but 39; Benjamin younger still. It is, therefore, most reasonable to suppose that several of them, if not all, had children born to them during the sojourn in Egypt. This will be the more evident when we remember that Jacob, their father, had 12 sons born to himafter he had reachedthe age of 80; and that Isaac, their grandfather, was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born.
Moreover we can produce a distinct statement with regard to Joseph, that he had children born to him after the descent, “And Jacob said unto Joseph: … Thy two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto the land of Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, as Reuben and Simeon shall be mine. Andthy issue which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance” (Gen., xlviii.3, 5, 6). It may be objected that in the twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers, where the grandsons of Jacob are enumerated, no mention is made but of those born before the descent. We answer, that in that chapter those only are enumerated whogave their names to families; and it would seem that the grandsonsof Jacob born after the descent, did not give their names to families, but, like the younger sons of Joseph, were “called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance”. We may observe that this oversight of our author has drawn him into a twofold error. First, it has led him tounderestimate the average number of childrenin each family; secondly, it has led him tounderestimate the number of males in the first generation, sinceallthe grandsons of Jacob, according to his argument, belonged to the first generation.
Dr. Colenso refers, however, to the genealogies in the sixth chapter of Exodus (verses 14-25), and elsewhere, to show that the families during the sojourn in Egypt were not remarkably large. This argument is of no value if he do not prove that these genealogies givecomplete lists of all the sonsin each family. It appears to us that there is no evidence to this effect. The genealogies were generally introduced for some specific purpose, as for instance, to trace the pedigree of the most remarkable men; and for this purpose it was quite unnecessary thatall the membersof each family should be distinctly enumerated. A striking illustration occurs in a passage already quoted: “And the sons of Pallu; Eliab. And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel and Dathan, and Abiram” (Num., xxvi.8, 9).[5]It is here explicitly stated that Pallu hadsons; and yet onlyoneis named. Eliab is probably selected from the rest as he was the father of Dathan and Abiram; for of them it is immediately added that they were “famous in the congregation”, and that “they strove against Moses and against Aaron” in the rebellion of Korah.
Enough, we think, has been said to satisfy our readers that Dr. Colenso has completely failed in his argument. He has failed to show “beyond a doubt, that it is quite impossible that there should have been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt, at the time of the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, if we will take the data to be derived from thePentateuch itself” (p.101). On the contrary, we have proved that there are many circumstances overlooked, misstated, or denied, by Dr. Colenso, which are quite sufficient to explain what he regards as impossible. More than this we cannot do. How far each circumstance in particular contributed to swell the number of the people, must for ever remain uncertain. While the sacred narrative is silent on the subject, it would be unreasonable to ask such a question, and absurd to undertake to answer it. If we wished to imitate the example of Dr. Colenso,we might easily form conjectures, and set them down as facts. But we believe that such a course would be injurious to the cause of truth, which we defend. It is much better candidly to admit that we cannot determine with accuracy the number of servants that accompanied Jacob into Egypt, or the number of servants and proselytes that afterwards became incorporated with the Hebrew people; that we cannot ascertain the precise number of generations in each family, or the average number for the entire nation; lastly, that we cannot estimate how far polygamy and intermarriage with the Egyptians may have conduced to the wonderful increase of population.
But, though we are unable to say how the populationdid increase in point of fact, we can easily show how itmay have increased. For this purpose we venture to lay before our readers a calculation by which we account for the fact in a manner perfectly conformable to all the “data of the Pentateuch”. First, as regards the number of generations. Since a generation is descent from father to son, the length of time to be allowed for a generation will be determined in each particular case by the age of the father when the son is born. This of course will vary for different families, and even for different members of the same family. We may, however, fairly suppose that, among the Hebrew people in Egypt, taking one family with another, every man on an average had children born to him at the age of 32. Thus 32 years would be the average length of each generation. The males of the first generation, as we have before seen, were all living at least three years before the descent into Egypt, or 218 years before the Exodus. For each succeeding period of 32 years we must add, according to our calculation, one generation more. In 218 years there are just six periods of 32 years each, and 26 years over. Therefore the whole of the seventh generation must have been living 26 years before the Exodus.
Next we may estimate the number of males in the first generation at a hundred and twenty-five. To this generation would belong all those, who, at the time of the descent, were above the age of three, and under the age of thirty-five. Those who were three, or less than three, should not be counted, since they belonged to the second generation: those above thirty-five should be excluded, because when the first generation was completed, they had already reached the age of thirty-two; therefore, according to our calculation, they must at that time have had children who would belong to the first generation; they could not then belong to it themselves. Now we may suppose that, amongst the followers of Jacob, there were at least sixty males of various ages between these two extremes. This estimate will appear moderate indeed, when we remember that Abraham had beenable to lead forth an army of 318trained servants, born in his house(Gen., xiv.14). It will not be unreasonable to compute the accession of extra servants and proselytes at 15. If to these 75 we add 50 as the number of males within the prescribed limits, in Jacob’s own family, we shall have attained our estimated figure, 125. Lastly, our readers will find little difficulty in admitting an average of four sons in each family.
From these data we obtain the following results:
It is certain that a large number of the sixth, and probably a few of the fifth generation were still living at the time of the Exodus. Moreover, since the eighth had been coming into existence during the last period of twenty-six years, many of that generation must have already attained the age of twenty. If to all these we add the entire of the seventh generation, we shall have no difficulty in making up 600,000 men of twenty years old and upward.
Now we admit that all this calculation is founded on conjectures; and that it is very likely these conjectures do not in every respect represent what actually took place. But we maintain that they are at least possible in themselves, and perfectly consistent with the narrative of the Pentateuch. Consequently, the number of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus does not involve any contradiction, and the thesis of Dr. Colenso is false.
There is another process of calculation by which we may arrive at the same conclusion. Scientific men have been able to throw some light on the principles which conduce to a rapid increase of population. With much research they have collected statistical tables, which afford results very applicable to our present inquiry. They have conducted their studies on purely scientific grounds, and without any special reference to the Bible narrative. We may, therefore, avail ourselves of their conclusions as representing the unbiassed opinion of competent and impartial judges. “It has been constantly remarked”, says Malthus,[6]“that all new colonies, settled in healthy countries, where room and food were abundant, have constantly made a rapid progress in population. Many of the colonies from ancient Greece, in the course of one or two centuries, appear to have rivalled, and even surpassed their mother cities”. He givesexamples also from the colonies that first settled in North America. Without any fresh immigrants, the population was doubled sometimes in twenty-five years, sometimes in twenty-two, sometimes even in fifteen.[7]From a table given by Euler, it appears that a population may double itself in 12⅘ years; and the author does not hesitate to say that this “is not only a possible supposition, but hasactually occurredfor short periods in more countries than one”.
Now the circumstances of the Israelites in Egypt were peculiarly favourable to an unusually rapid increase. To say nothing of the special blessing of God which attended them, they were dwelling in a country of which the inhabitants were noted for a remarkable fecundity; the climate was genial; the land fertile; the means of living abundant. Let us then take a medium between the extreme figures mentioned above, and suppose that during the whole period of the sojourn in Egypt, the population was doubled every eighteen years. This supposition may or may not be true; but it is certainly not less in harmony with the repeated declarations of the Pentateuch, than it is with the cold calculations of science. If our former estimate be accepted, the total population at the commencement of the sojourn in Egypt would be about 500; that is to say, four times the number of males between the ages of three and thirty-five:—125×4=500. Upon this foundation we may construct the followingtable:—
Thus it would appear that, if we hearken to the authority ofscientific men, who have made the principles of population the subject of their special study, we may still further confirm the accuracy of those figures which to the mind of Dr. Colenso present nothing but “multiplied impossibilities”.
We have led our readers a long and weary journey. We have conducted them through a bewildering labyrinth of names and numbers, of intricate genealogies and complicated calculations. Our way indeed lay through the midst of a beautiful country; and as we passed along, we now and then caught a glimpse, as it were, from a distance, of some sublime or touching scene which has many a time inspired the genius of the poet, the painter, or the sculptor. But we had an end in view which forbade us to turn aside from our rugged and toilsome path, even though it were to enjoy the varied charms of the most ancient, the most simple, the most sacred of histories. Like the soldiers of Saul, we might not even put forth our hand to taste of the honey that was dropping from the trees around us. If, however, like them, we have gained the victory and driven the enemy from his stronghold, our labours have been richly rewarded, and our readers have not toiled after us in vain.
Erratum.—We beg to call attention to an error which occurs in the last article on Colenso, page 517. The passage to which we refer is printed thus:—“According to the Mosaic, etc.… 99,989 families”. Our readers will observe that the number of families in the case supposed would be 200,000 instead of 100,000. By this alteration the character of the argument remains unchanged, but its force is considerably increased.