"That it is an indisputable fact, that the story as told in
the Pentateuch intends it to be understood--(i.) that they
came out of the land of Egypt about 215 years after they
went down thither in the time of Jacob; (ii.) that they came
out in the _fourth_ generation from the adults in the prime
of life, who went down with Jacob" (p. 100).
He next proceeds to estimate the average number of children in each
family:
"In the first place, it must be observed, that we nowhere
read of any _very large families_ among the children of
Jacob or their descendants to the time of the Exodus.... 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.... The
twelve sons of Jacob had between them fifty-three sons, that
is, on the average, 4-1/2 each. Let us suppose that they
increased in this way from generation to generation. Then,
in the _first_ generation there would be 53 males (or rather
only 51, since Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan,
_Gen._, xlvi. 12, without issue); in the _second_, 243; in
the _third_, 1,094; and in the _fourth_, 4,923; that is to
say, instead of 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, there
could not have been 5,000....
"The narrative itself requires us to suppose that the Hebrew
families intermarried, and that girls, as well as boys, were
born to them freely in Egypt, though not, it would seem, in
the land of Canaan.
"Yet we have no ground for supposing, from any data which we
find in the narrative, that the whole number of the family
was on that account increased. On the contrary, etc.... If
we take all the families given in Exod. vi. 14-25, together
with the two sons of Moses, we shall find that there are 13
persons, who have between them 39 sons, which gives an
average of 3 sons each. This average is a fairer one to take
for our purpose than the former; because these persons lived
at all different times in the interval between the migration
into Egypt and the Exodus. We may suppose also, that the
average of _children_ is still as large as before, or even
larger, so that each man may have had on the average six
children, three sons and three daughters....
"Supposing now the fifty-one males of the _first_ generation
(Kohath's) to have had each on the average three sons, and
so on, we shall find the number of males in the _second_
generation (Amram's) 153, in the _third_ (Aaron's) 459, and
in the _fourth_ (Eleazar's) 1377, instead of 600,000.
"In fact, in order that the fifty-one males of Kohath's
generation might produce 600,000 fighting men in Joshua's,
we must suppose that each man had forty-six children
(twenty-three of each sex), and each of these twenty-three
sons had forty-six children, and so on!--of which prolific
increase, it need hardly be said, there is not the slightest
indication in the Bible" (pp. 102-5).
From this he concludes,
"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, representing at least two millions of persons
of all ages and sexes; that is to say, it is impossible, _if
we will take the data to be derived from the Pentateuch
itself_" (p. 101).
Lastly, he anticipates an explanation which some interpreters have
proposed, "that there may be something wrong in the _Hebrew numerals_".
Such a suggestion, he very fairly observes, will not avail here; because
"this number is woven, as a kind of thread, into the whole story of the
Exodus, and cannot be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to
pieces" (pp. 141, 143).
Such is the elaborate structure which Dr. Colenso has reared with an
ability and an earnestness worthy of a better cause. In reply, we
purpose to demonstrate that the foundation on which that structure
rests, though it may have the outward semblance of solidity, is hollow
and unsubstantial within. He assures us that the facts upon which his
argument is based are "derived from the Pentateuch itself". We hope to
satisfy our readers that they are not contained in the Pentateuch; that
they cannot be proved from the Pentateuch; nay, that they are contrary
to the evidence which the Pentateuch affords.
I. Let us commence with the "indisputable fact" that the Israelites
"came out of Egypt in the fourth generation". By a generation Dr.
Colenso understands _a descent from father to son_: and he maintains
that there were but four such descents in all the Hebrew families during
the period of sojourn in Egypt. In support of this opinion he appeals
(p. 96) to the words of God to Abraham:--"in the _fourth_ generation
they shall come hither again" (_Gen._, xv. 16). Our readers will
naturally inquire what is the precise meaning of the word "generation"
in this passage. Does it denote a descent from father to son? Or does it
signify a lengthened period of time? On this point our author observes a
profound silence. He found the word in the English text; it suited his
purpose, and he at once pressed it into his service. We are left to
suppose that it can have but one meaning, and that this meaning is the
one which he has adopted.
Now, we beg to assure our readers that this is very far from the truth.
The Hebrew word [Hebrew: dor] (dor), which is rendered "generation" in
the authorized version, admits of various meanings. It corresponds
almost exactly with the Latin word _saeculum_. Sometimes it signifies
the _circuit_ or _period of a man's life_; sometimes, the _collection of
those who are living at the same time_; sometimes, a _period of a
hundred_ years.[5] As regards the passage in question, the opinion of
the best Hebrew scholars is directly opposed to Dr. Colenso. We pass by
the authority of Catholic writers, for whom he would probably have
little respect, and we appeal to men of his own school: we appeal to
Gesenius,[6] Bunsen,[7] Fuerst,[8] Rosenmueller,[9] Knobel,[10] who
certainly cannot be suspected of any undue prepossession in favour of
the Bible. Every one of these distinguished scholars expressly asserts
that, in _Gen._, xv., 16, the word [Hebrew: dor] must be understood to
mean _a hundred years_. We leave our readers to choose between their
deliberate judgment on the one hand, and the gratuitous assumption of
Dr. Colenso on the other.
If we look to the context we shall find that the meaning of the whole
passage, as explained by these writers, is simple, clear, harmonious; as
explained by Dr. Colenso, it is forced and unnatural. Abraham had just
heard from God that his seed should be "a stranger in a foreign land"
four hundred years (v. 13.) Then it is added: "but the _fourth
generation_ ([Hebrew: dor]) they shall return hither".[11] That is to
say, in our view, _the men belonging to the fourth century_ shall
return. In this sense the connection will be clear; the prophecy will be
perfectly true, and the meaning easily understood. The four centuries
are to be counted from the time of Abraham, and correspond exactly with
the four hundred years of exile which had just been predicted. But,
according to Dr. Colenso, by "the fourth generation" is meant the fourth
descent in _the family of Jacob_ (who was not yet born), counting from
_the adults in the prime of life who went down with him to Egypt_. Now
there is nothing in the whole chapter about _Jacob_ or _Jacob's family_,
or _the adults in the prime of life who went down two hundred years
later into Egypt_. Under these circumstances we think few persons will
be able to persuade themselves that the prophecy was understood by
Abraham in the sense in which it is understood by Dr. Colenso.
He next appeals to the genealogies of the Bible to establish his theory
of the "Exodus in the fourth generation":
"If we examine the different genealogies of remarkable men,
which are given in various places of the Pentateuch, we
shall find that, as a rule, the contemporaries of Moses and
Aaron are descendants in the _third_, and those of Joshua
and Eleazar in the _fourth_ generation, from some one of the
_sons_, or _adult grandsons_ of Jacob, who went down with
him into Egypt. Thus we have:--
1st. Gen. 2nd. Gen. 3rd. Gen. 4th. Gen. 5th. Gen.
Levi Kohath Amram Moses ... ... E. vi, 16, 18, 20.
Levi Kohath Amram Aaron ... ... E. vi. 16, 18, 20.
Levi Kohath Uzziel Mishael ... ... L. x. 4.
Levi Kohath Uzziel Elzaphan ... ... L. x. 4.
Levi Kohath Izhar Korah ... ... N. xvi. 1.
Reuben Pallu Eliab Dathan ... ... N. xxvi. 7-9.
Reuben Pallu Eliab Abiram ... ... N. xxvi. 7-9.
Zarah Zabdi Carmi Achan ... ... Jo. vii. 1.
Pharez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon ... Ruth iv. 18, 19.
Pharez Hezron Segub Jair ... ... 1 Ch. ii. 21, 22.
Pharez Hezron Caleb Hur Uri Bezaleel 1 Ch. ii. 18, 20.
"The above include _all_ the instances which I have been
able to find, where the genealogies are given in the
Pentateuch itself". (pp. 96, 97).
We shall presently see that these examples are by no means what Dr.
Colenso would represent them to be, and that so far from proving his
theory to be _true_, they prove it to be _false_. But first we would
direct attention to the _character_ of the argument, which seems to us,
from its very nature, unsound. According to the Mosaic narrative, there
were about 2,000,000 of Israelites at the time of the exodus. If we
allow ten to each family, there must have been about 100,000 families.
Here, then, is the argument:--In eleven families out of 100,000, there
were just _four generations_ during the sojourn in Egypt; therefore
there must have been _four generations_, neither more nor less, in the
remaining 99,989 families. Our author would have us suppose that during
a period of 215 years, there must have been exactly the same number of
generations in every family. He does not explicitly say this; much less
does he attempt to prove it; he silently _assumes_ it.
Now it is scarcely necessary to observe that such a supposition is in
the highest degree improbable. It cannot be true, unless the members of
each family married at the same age as the members of every other
family, and unless this uniformity was continued from generation to
generation for upwards of two centuries. This, however, would be
contrary to what we know of the family of Abraham _before_ the sojourn
in Egypt; it would be contrary to what we know of the people of Israel
_after_ the sojourn in Egypt; it would be contrary to the testimony of
all genealogical record; it would be contrary to what we see every day
with our own eyes. One man has children born to him at the age of
twenty; another, at the age of forty; another, at the age of sixty. The
children of the last might easily be contemporaries with the
grand-children of the second, and with the great-grand-children of the
first. Thus, in the short period of sixty years, there might be, in one
family, three descents from father to son, in another two, in another
only one. This is, perhaps, an extreme case; but it shows at least how
far the disparity may be extended, without exceeding the bounds of
possibility. The present Emperor of the French had reached the age of
forty-eight, when the Prince Imperial was born: whereas her Majesty
Queen Victoria became a grandmother at forty-one. Thus, in the royal
family of England we find two descents in forty-one years; in the
imperial line of France only one descent in forty-eight years. It is,
therefore, quite preposterous _to take for granted_ that, in _all the
families of a whole nation_, the number of descents were exactly the
same during a period of 215 years.
But this assumption is especially inadmissible, when we consider the
peculiar circumstances of the case before us. The first generation,
according to Dr. Colenso, was composed of the fifty-one grandsons of
Jacob. They were already grown up, and some of them even had children
when they came into Egypt. Therefore the whole of the first generation
was already in existence, and the second had begun to be born some
years, let us say three, before the descent. If we add the 215 years of
sojourn in Egypt, we shall have 218 years from the beginning of the
second generation to the Exodus. Now, according to Dr. Colenso, all
those who were twenty years of age at the Exodus, belonged to the fourth
generation. Therefore the fourth generation was not complete until
twenty years before that time, or 198 years after the second had begun.
Consequently, only three generations, the second, third, and fourth,
came into existence during a period of 198 years. In other words, the
length of each generation, according to Dr. Colenso's calculation, was
sixty-six years. Hence it follows, that we cannot accept his argument,
unless we are prepared to _take for granted_ that _all the males_ in
_all the Hebrew families_ were without issue until they had reached the
age of sixty-six.
Let us now look into the examples of Dr. Colenso in detail. It is
important to ascertain what generation is to be reckoned as the _first_.
In his argument he allows but fifty-one males to the _first generation_;
"supposing now _the fifty-one males of the first generation_" (p. 105).
Since Jacob had fifty-one grandsons living at the time of the descent
into Egypt, it follows that the _first generation_, according to the
argument, was composed of the grandsons of Jacob, _and of them alone_.
That this is the position assumed by Dr. Colenso, is also evident from
another passage, where, replying to his opponents, he asserts: "The
Scripture states that there were 600,000 warriors in the fourth
generation from Jacob's _sons_" (p. 119). It is true that, when
_proving_ his theory of "the Exodus in the fourth generation", Dr.
Colenso counts indifferently from "the _sons_ or _adult grandsons_ of
Jacob, who went down with him into Egypt" (p. 96), just as it suits his
purpose. But, when he employs this conclusion to demonstrate that the
number of the population at the time of the Exodus was impossible, he
assumes that there were only four generations from the _sons_ of Jacob.
If we now turn to the examples adduced by the same author, we shall find
that seven are counted from the _sons_ of Jacob; namely, from Levi and
Reuben; three from the _grandsons_ of Jacob; namely, from Zarah[12] and
Pharez; and lastly one, Bezaleel, in order to be brought back to the
_fourth generation_, must be counted from Hezron, the great grandson of
Jacob; consequently, upon the bishop's own showing, out of his eleven
examples only seven prove for the _fourth generation_, three prove for
the _fifth_, and one proves for the _sixth_. What must we think, then,
when he afterwards quietly assures us, "the scripture _states_ that
there were 600,000 warriors in the _fourth_ generation from Jacob's
_sons_"? We are at least justified in saying that the examples adduced,
not only fail to prove that his assertion is _true_, but demonstrate
that it is _false_.
There is another point on which these examples fail. It is plain that to
ascertain the number of generations between the Descent and the Exodus,
we must not only commence to reckon from the _first_, but we must end
with the _last_. The last generation must include all those who had
reached the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. And it is necessary for
Dr. Colenso to prove that this last generation is counted in the
examples he lays before us. On this point, however, he is silent. When
he comes to the fourth generation he stops short, and leaves his readers
to infer that it must be the last in point of fact, because it is the
last on his list. Let us see if this assumption derives any probability
from scriptural facts. At the time of the exodus Moses was 80, Aaron,
83. Mishael, Elzaphan, and Korah were their first cousins. It is,
therefore, not improbable that they were as old, or even older. These
are the first five names we find on the list of Dr. Colenso; and they
belonged to the _third generation_. Their grand-children, therefore,
would belong to the _fifth_. Is it improbable that among five men of
80, some had grand-children who had attained the age of 20?
Again, Nahshon was in the _fifth generation_, counting from the sons of
Jacob: Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon (_Ruth_, iv.
18-20.) His sister was the wife of Aaron. Since his brother-in-law was
therefore 83, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he himself may have
been at least 60; if so, his sons might surely have been numbered among
the 600,000 men of 20 years old and upward. This would give us _six_
generations in the family of Nahshon. And yet, strange to tell, this
very family is adduced by our author to prove his theory of "the Exodus
in the _fourth generation_." Lastly, we would invite attention to the
family of Joseph. He saw the children of his son Ephraim to the third
generation (_Gen._, l. 23). Therefore, the fourth generation in that
line had commenced before Joseph's death. But this is an event of which
we can fix the date with accuracy. When Jacob settled in Egypt, Joseph
was about 39, and he lived to the age of 110. His death, therefore, must
have occurred about 71 years after the Descent. Consequently, at that
time the posterity of Joseph had already reached the fourth generation.
One hundred and forty-four years yet remained before the Exodus. Surely
during that period there was abundance of time for at least four
generations more of the same average length.
It was our intention to analyze the argument of Dr. Colenso more fully
by a critical examination of the genealogies from which his examples are
derived. But we fear that we have already overtaxed the patience of our
readers, and we are sure they will pardon us if we forbear to enter into
the complicated details which such an inquiry would involve. We cannot,
however, dismiss the subject without one general observation. It is
assumed by Dr. Colenso that there are exactly the same number of
_descents_ in each family as there are _links in the genealogy_ of that
family as it is recorded in the pages of Scripture. This would indeed be
true if he could prove that _every link_ in the chain of descent is
preserved in the Scriptural genealogies. But it is well known to all
Biblical scholars that such was not the usage among the Hebrew people.
Every one is familiar with the genealogy of our Lord in the first
chapter of St. Matthew's gospel. Three links are manifestly omitted in
the eighth verse, between Joram and Ozias--namely, Ochozias, Joaz, and
Amasias. We cannot suppose that St. Matthew, himself a Jew, could have
been in error about the genealogy of the house of David. Much less can
we suppose that he would have attempted, on this point, to deceive the
Jews, for whom he wrote his gospel. Above all, it is plain, that if he
had fallen into such an error; it would have been at once discovered
and have been proclaimed to the world by the enemies of the Christian
religion. We must infer, therefore, that it was perfectly conformable to
the usage of the Jewish nation to say, "Joram begot Ozias", although in
point of fact three generations had intervened between them. Now, Dr.
Colenso must admit that his examples will prove absolutely nothing, if
omissions of this kind were made in the genealogies from which they are
taken. _We_ do not assert that such _was_ the case; but we challenge
_him_ to prove that it was _not_.
Take, for example, the text: "And the sons of Pallu, Eliab" (_Num._,
xxvi. 8). Can he show that no intervening links are omitted between
these two names? He will find, on a close examination of the Pentateuch,
from which he professes to derive his data, that Pallu must have been
over 110 years of age when Eliab was born. It is, therefore, most likely
that there were two or perhaps three links omitted in this genealogy
between Pallu and Eliab. If so, we should add two or three generations
in the examples which Dr. Colenso has adduced from the family of Pallu.
He cannot argue that Pallu was the _immediate father_ of Eliab, because
it is said that Eliab was the _son_ of Pallu: for do we not also read:
"The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the _son of David_, the
_son of Abraham"?_ (_Matth._, i. 1).
II. Dr. Colenso next assumes that the 600,000 men of the exodus were
_all_ descendants of Jacob. We contend, as a far more probable opinion,
that amongst them were counted, not only the descendants of _Jacob
himself_, but also the descendants of his _servants_. If we take up the
book of Genesis, and glance through the brief history of the Patriarchs,
we shall find abundant reason to believe that, when Jacob was invited by
Joseph to come down into Egypt, he must have had a goodly retinue of
servants. His grandfather, Abraham, had been able to lead forth an army
of 318 servants "_born in his house_" (_Gen._, xiv. 14). It is not
unreasonable to suppose that, according to the custom of those times, he
had other servants not born in his house, but "bought with money".[13]
At all events the number was considerably increased by a present from
Abimeleck, who "took sheep, and oxen, and _men-servants_, and
_women-servants_, and gave them unto Abraham" (_Gen._, xx. 14). Upon his
death this immense household passed into the possession of his Son
Isaac; for "Abraham gave _all that he had_ to Isaac" (_Gen._, xxv. 5).
Isaac, too, we are told, "increased, and went on increasing, until he
became very great; and he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of
herds, and a _numerous household_; and the Philistines envied him"
(_Gen._, xxvi. 13, 14). As to Jacob himself, he was sent by Isaac to
Padan-Aram, where he served his father-in-law Laban for twenty years.
While there, it is said, he "increased exceedingly, and had many flocks,
and _women-servants_, and _men-servants_, and camels, and asses"
(_Gen._, xxx. 43). All these he took with him when he set out from
Padan-Aram to return to Canaan (_Gen._, xxxi. 18; xxiii. 5, 7). In
addition to this large retinue, Jacob must also have inherited, in
virtue of his birthright, a double portion (_Deut._, xxi. 17) of the
household which his father had accumulated. Thus, it seems clear that,
within ten years[14] of the Descent into Egypt, the number of servants
who looked up to Jacob as their head and master, must have been very
large indeed.
Now we maintain that, according to the narrative before us, these
servants were _a part of the chosen people of God_, and _sharers in His
Covenant_ with Abraham. This assertion is easily proved. They had all
received the rite of circumcision, and circumcision was the mark of the
chosen people; it was the _sign_ of God's Covenant. "This is my covenant
which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every
male child among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the
flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a _sign_ of the Covenant between
me and you. And the son of eight days shall be circumcised among you,
every male child in your generations, _he that is born in the house or
bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed_. _He that is
born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money_ must needs be
circumcised" (_Gen._, xvii. 10-13). It is clear, therefore, that Abraham
and his posterity were commanded to circumcise not only their
_children_, but their _servants_ and their _servants' children_, who
thus became sharers in the promises of God.
Is it not likely then that, when Jacob came down into Egypt, he took
with him not only his lineal descendants, but also his servants and
their families? Let it be remembered that he was invited by his son,
Joseph, whom God had made "as a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his
house, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt" (_Gen._, xlv. 8):
that Pharaoh himself had promised, that to Jacob and his household he
would give "the good of the land of Egypt", and that they should "eat
the fat of the land" (_Gen._, xlv. 18). Are we to suppose that when the
venerable patriarch heard this joyful intelligence, he took with him
_his flock_, and _his herds_, and _all his possessions_, but left behind
his faithful servants with their wives and children? Would he, in his
old age, when prosperity smiled upon him, desert those trusty followers
who had come with him from a distant country, and had clung to him in
all his varied fortunes? Would he abandon now those men of loyal heart
whom he had known from a boy, and who had grown up with himself in his
father's house? He knew that they were the chosen people of God: would
he have come down into Egypt with his children to "eat the fat of the
land", and have left them to perish of hunger in the land of Canaan?
But Dr. Colenso objects, "there is no word or indication of any such
_cortege_ having accompanied Jacob into Egypt" (p. 114). We reply that
our supposition is still possible and probable, even though no mention
were made of it in the brief summary of Moses. It has been well remarked
that, when it suits his purpose, Dr. Colenso is at no loss to supply the
omissions of the sacred text. Thus, in treating of the "march out of
Egypt"--(pp. 61, 62), he supplies _aged, infirm, infants, women in
childbirth_, of whom there is "no word or indication" in the narrative.
It happens, however, in the present instance, that there is a pretty
clear "indication" in the text, that Jacob was accompanied by "such a
_cortege_". We are informed that "Israel set out _with all that he had_"
(_Gen._, xlvi. 1). It has been shown that he had a large retinue of
servants, and we know that it is the usage of the Pentateuch to reckon
_men-servants and women-servants_ amongst the possessions of the
patriarchs. Therefore, we are justified in supposing that this phrase
included not only the family, cattle, and goods, but also the servants
of Jacob.
Again, it is said that "Joseph nourished his father and his brethren and
_all his father's house_, with bread" (_Gen._, xlvii. 12). And when
Joseph went to bury his father in Canaan, we are told that with him went
"all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his _father's house_;
only their little ones and their flocks, and their herds, they left in
the land of Goshen" (_Gen._, l. 8.) What can be the meaning of the
_house of Jacob_ thus distinguished from _his children_ and _their
little ones_? Does it not seem obviously to point to his _retinue of
servants_? Unless, therefore, we set aside the evidence of the
Pentateuch itself; unless we can believe that Jacob, in the decline of
his life, suddenly snapped asunder the strongest ties of natural
affection and of religious duty, we must admit that he brought down into
Egypt a very large number of servants. We have seen that, according to
the Divine command, their descendants would all receive the rite of
circumcision, and be reckoned among the chosen people of God. They
would, therefore, be numbered with those who, at the time of the Exodus,
went out with Moses into the desert.
It is not true, then, that, in the narrative of the Pentateuch,
2,000,000 of Israelites are represented as having sprung from 70 persons
in 215 years. Neither is it true, as we have shown, that only _four
generations_, in the sense of Dr. Colenso, intervened between the sons
of Jacob and the adult Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus.
There yet remain many serious errors, and gross blunders, and palpable
misrepresentations, in the argument of Dr. Colenso; but these we must
reserve for a future number of the _Record_.