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 and fruitless. 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 were _possible_. Upon Dr. Colenso it devolves to prove that
they _did not prevail_ in 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 years at 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”, whose _father 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 nations
_sometimes_ intermarried when they lived in _different_ countries, may
we not suppose that they _frequently_ intermarried whilst they were
living in the _same_ country? 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 the _mothers_ of those whose pedigree
was traced, but only the _fathers_.
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 man _have two
wives_, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him
children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-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 country _without_ an invitation (_Gen._, xviii. 1-5):
he _served_ in 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 as _two 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 in
wealth 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 become incorporated 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 larger than
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 they _grew_ and
_multiplied exceedingly_” (_Gen._, xlvii. 27). “And the children of
Israel _were fruitful_, and _increased abundantly_, and _multiplied_,
and _waxed exceeding mighty_; and _the land was filled_ _with 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
increased _beyond the usual rate at that time_ and _in 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 have _no 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 had _twelve 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 children _before_ the descent into Egypt; how
many had they after? Dr. Colenso _assumes_ that 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
him _after he had reached_ the 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. And
_thy 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 who _gave their names to
families_; and it would seem that the grandsons of 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 to
_underestimate the average number of children_ in each family;
secondly, it has led him to _underestimate the number of males in the
first generation_, since _all_ the 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 give
_complete lists of all the sons_ in 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 that _all the members_ of 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 had _sons_; and yet only _one_ is 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 the Pentateuch
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 population _did increase in
point of fact_, we can easily show how it _may 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 been able to lead
forth an army of 318 _trained 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 the all years before
_first_ generation, 125 living 218 the Exodus.
_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 gives examples 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 has _actually occurred_ for 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 following table:――
year of Total number of the
the Sojourn. Hebrew people,
1st 500
18th 1,000
36th 2,000
54th 4,000
72nd 8,000
90th 16,000
108th 32,000
126th 64,000
144th 128,000
162nd 256,000
180th 512,000
198th 1,024,000
216th 2,048,000
Thus it would appear that, if we hearken to the authority of
scientific 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.