Page images
PDF
EPUB

things a year must be allowed. Then come the nine years,-making, together, ten. So that when Jacob came into Egypt Judah must have been forty-eight or forty-nine. But whatever his age, sufficient reason has been given to show that he was considerably more than forty-two; and that, therefore, the second plea on which D. C. founds his objections has not a more sure foundation than the first. The first rests upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the historian; the second, on a calculation inconsistent with the course and requirements of the facts related; therefore neither can affect the historic character of the narrative. This is all that is strictly required as an answer. But it may be well to add, that if Judah were forty-nine, there can be no difficulty about his having grandchildren, even under the peculiar circumstances of the case. Aben Ezra has shown that Judah's marriage did not take place when Joseph was sold, but may have occurred some years before. A marriage at sixteen, and similar marriages of his sons, would make it possible to have grandchildren. It is hardly necessary to remark, that such marriages are common in the East. They were the usual marriages among the Polish Jews until lately, boys commonly marrying in their fifteenth year. But they are not uncommon elsewhere. Edwy, Edgar, Edward I., Edward III., Prince Arthur, son of Henry VII., all married about fifteen or

sixteen. And a friend reminds me that Edward the Black Prince was born three months before his father had completed his seventeenth year.

BISHOP COLENSO, CHAP. IV. Size of the Court of the Tabernacle.

D. C.'s next objection is found in his fourth chapter, and refers to Levit. viii. 1-4, " And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying. . . . Gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded him. And the assembly was gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation."

Upon these words D. C. observes, first, that "congregation must mean" the whole body of the people at all events, the adult males in the prime of life among them-and not merely the heads of the people, "that is, at least 600,000 persons." Secondly, that the words of the historian imply "that they must all have come within the court." Thirdly, that the court was only one hundred and eighty feet long and ninety broad, and therefore could not hold 600,000 persons. Fourthly, that "if they were to stand as closely as possible, in front, not merely of the door, but of the whole end of the Tabernacle in which the door was, they would have reached nearly twenty miles.”

D. C.'s first assertion is freely admitted. "All the congregation" means "all the congregation," not merely the 600,000 adult males, but women and children. The whole congregation was convoked or summoned (for that is the meaning of the Hebrew word haghel, rendered "Gather thou" by our English translators). And all thus convoked, who were not prevented, turned out of their tents to assist at a great national ceremony, the consecration of the Aaronic priesthood. But the assertion that the historian's words imply that this vast multitude all entered the court is as contrary to common sense as to the meaning of the language employed. Even on infidel grounds, D. C.'s assertion is utterly incredible. Sceptical critics suppose that the book of Leviticus was written before the building of the Temple, whilst the Tabernacle was still standing, by a priest who was interested in and well acquainted with it; who therefore knew the size of the court, not only by measurement, but by the daily performance of the duties of his office, much better than D. C. himself. That such an one should mean that all the congregation entered into the court every time that they are said to have been gathered to the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation, is simply impossible. The author is at least a man of education, intimately acquainted with the sacrificial laws, and

[ocr errors]

not ignorant of arithmetic and mensuration. He was, therefore, not a fool; neither, if a knave, did he write for a nation of fools. The people knew the size of the court as well as the author, and therefore he could never have intended to impose upon the people a story so palpably absurd, ridiculous, and contrary to their own personal experience. Indeed, every one possessed of ordinary understanding wonders how any educated man could have so misunderstood the author's words, even as they are represented in the English version. When the daily papers report that a great crowd was collected at the door of the House of Lords, or of a Police Court, or of St. Paul's, no one supposes that the reporter meant to say that they were all in contact with the door, or even in front; nor would the most hypercritical reject the report as unhistorical. In like manner, when people of common sense have read that "the assembly was gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation," they have understood that as many as could of this great multitude stood at the door; that the princes, elders, and officers had precedency, as is mentioned Levit. ix. 1; that the rest stood behind and about, with their faces turned to the Tabernacle, knowing what was going on, and expecting some manifestation of the Lord's presence, in which they were not disappointed, as at

the end of the ceremonies on the eighth day "the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people."

But this is not merely the sense derived by ordinary readers from reading the account in the vernacular, but also that of great critics, who, though not believing in the Pentateuch as inspired, have had too much knowledge of the original language, and too much good sense, to propound any thing so absurd.

,(אל

Gesenius, in his "Lexicon," explaining the meaning of the Hebrew words rendered "Unto the door," says, first, of the preposition "Unto," (Heb. el ), "A preposition signifying in general to tend, or verge to, or towards, whether one reaches and so enters the place, or not." And under the word Pethach (nn) "door," translates the two words "El Pethach," "Towards the door;" so that, according to him, the meaning of the words commented on by D. C. is, "All the assembly was gathered towards the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation." Knobel, one of the most acute critics and profound Hebrew scholars living, though also unhappily a Rationalist, gives the same sense. his commentary on the passage, he says, "Moses was to take, that is, to cause Aaron and his sons to be brought....and at the same time to assemble the people before the Tabernacle of the congregation;" so that he understood the assem

In

« PreviousContinue »