_The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined._ By the
RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D., Bishop of Natal. London:
Longman and Co., 1862-64.
For three hundred years the Catholic Church has been denounced as the
enemy of the Bible. This cry was first raised by Luther; it was taken up
by Protestant sects of every denomination; it resounded through Germany,
through France, through England; it passed from generation to generation;
even at the present day its echoes are still ringing in our ears. No
defence would be admitted; no arguments would be heard. The calumny, when
once disseminated, was received by the enemies of the Church as a fact so
patent, so elementary, that any inquiry would be superfluous, any proof
unnecessary. It was taught by the preacher in his pulpit, by the divine
in his writings, by the pedagogue in his school. Little children learned
it on their mothers' knee; young men found it interwoven with history and
romance; old men clung to it as a truth impressed upon their minds in
tender infancy, and confirmed in the riper years of manhood.
Meanwhile we were told that the Bible had found a home and a refuge
in the heart of the Protestant Church. From the Bible, as from a pure
fountain, the Protestant drank in the refreshing waters of divine faith;
in the Bible he discovered a sure antidote against the idolatry and
superstitions of Popery. To the Protestant, therefore, the Bible became
an object of that religious veneration which was due to its sacred
character. Not alone did he receive its doctrine, its history, its facts
of every kind, but every word, every syllable, every letter, he regarded
as stamped with the impress of Eternal Truth.
But a great change seems to be now impending, and has, indeed, already
commenced. The teaching of the first Reformers is forgotten, or neglected,
by their disciples. The Bible has lost its charm. As Protestantism has
advanced in years it has increased in boldness. The same spirit which
three centuries ago _protested_ against the authority of the Pope, rises
up to-day to _protest_ against the authority of the Bible. And once again
it devolves on the Catholic Church to defend that sacred book, which has
been preserved to the world by the blood of her martyrs, and illustrated
by the eloquence of her confessors and her doctors.
As in the great revolt of the sixteenth century, so likewise in our
time, the first murmurs of rebellion are heard in Germany. It is there
that the spirit of free inquiry is first let loose; it is there that
the Bible is first suspected and brought to trial. The various human
sciences are, in turn, summoned as witnesses against it. It is hastily
judged and rashly condemned. Little heed is paid to the venerable
antiquity of the book, to the consent of all civilized nations, to the
voice of immemorial tradition. True it is that the simple story of
the Hebrew lawgiver contains a more profound wisdom than the proudest
productions of Greek and Roman philosophy. True it is that, when the
whole world was buried in darkness and error, it gave to man a religion
which alone was pure and bright and holy. True it is that for ages it
has withstood unshaken the attacks of hostile criticism. Yet must we now
abandon it for ever as false and delusive, because, forsooth, it seems
to clash with the scarcely intelligible babblings of infant sciences.
The contagion of these principles has, within the last few years,
reached the shores of England. They seem to touch a secret chord of
sympathy in the Protestant bosom. They have met with a ready welcome
from the press. They have penetrated into the hallowed solitudes of
the universities. And now, to the glory of free-thinkers and the shame
of all orthodox believers, they have duly taken their place on the
episcopal bench.
Amongst the advocates of the new opinion in England, there is none more
popular in his style, none more plausible in his arguments, none more
earnest in the cause, than John William Colenso, Protestant Bishop of
Natal. Distinguished among his clerical brethren for his eminent skill
in figures, he became, some few years ago, the chosen candidate for the
see over which he now presides. He set out for his new mission armed
with the Bible, and full of zeal for the conversion of the Zulus. His
first thought was to make himself master of their tongue, and then to
give them a translation of the Bible. While engaged in this latter task,
he is asked by a "simple-minded but intelligent native, 'Is all that
true?' 'Do you really believe that all this happened thus?'"--(Part 1.
Preface, p. vii.). This very captious and subtle question seems to have
taken the bishop by surprise. He is led to reflect and to examine; and
the result of his labours is laid before us in the book to which, for a
brief space, we invite the attention of our readers.
The position assumed by Dr. Colenso is simply this:--That the traditional
reverence with which the Bible has hitherto been received, is no reason
why it should not be submitted to the test of critical and scientifical
investigation: that he has himself applied that test to the Pentateuch
and the Book of Josue: that by that test he has proved the leading facts
in both these books to be false: that the narrative, in general, cannot
be regarded otherwise than as fabulous and legendary; nay, that, even
as a fable, it is inconsistent, impossible, and self-contradictory. So
much for those parts of the Bible to which the bishop's researches have
hitherto extended. He means to proceed with his studies in the same
spirit through the rest of the sacred books; and he is quite prepared
for any consequences to which these studies may lead him.
Such is the general scope and character of a work which we cannot but
regard as one of the most remarkable productions of the age. It has
gained for its author a wide-spread celebrity. His ingenious arguments
are discussed in every literary circle; they find an honoured place in
our own periodical press; they are not unknown on 'change; and even in
our clubs they have been for a time the topic of the day. It is meet,
therefore, that a Catholic should be furnished with the means of
defence, and thus, in the language of St. Peter, be "ever ready to give
a reason of the hope which is in him".
But what an arduous task this would seem even to the most learned; how
utterly beyond the reach of the simple and lowly! Here is an able and
accomplished scholar, who presses into his service Hebrew, and Greek,
and statistics, and history, and books of travels. These are formidable
weapons, which few possess, and fewer still are skilled to use. Yet we
need not, therefore, shrink from the encounter. The Catholic Church has
provided a defence for all; for the unlettered mechanic, no less than
the learned theologian. The one may take shelter beneath the protecting
shield of an infallible authority; the other need not fear to venture
into the open field, and meet the foe upon his own ground and with his
own weapons.
Every Catholic firmly believes that, in virtue of a divine promise,
the Church is reserved free from all error in her teaching. Now, on the
subject before us, the Church has pronounced her judgment in clear and
simple words. In the Council of Trent it is defined that "God is the
author of all the books of the Old and of the New Testament"--(sessio
quarta). And, surely, it would be nothing short of blasphemy to ascribe
to God such a book as the Bible would be in the theory of Dr. Colenso.
Therefore, that theory cannot be true, and the arguments by which it is
supported must be false and delusive.
It may be that the unlettered Catholic cannot cope with these arguments
in detail; cannot tell whether it is that the facts are untrue, or that
the logic is unsound. But he well knows that the grace of faith was
meant for all, though all have not the learning or the power to unravel
the sophistry of error. He may, therefore, in safety cling fast to
that Church which is "the pillar and the ground of Truth", and pass by
unheeded the eloquence and the subtlety of those who would fain draw
him into the arena of controversy. Conscious that he has truth upon his
side, he has nothing to fear from the progress of human learning. New
sciences may, in their infant struggles, seem for a time to clash with
that Revelation which, in God's design, they were meant to confirm,
to illustrate, and to adorn. But he may calmly await the issue of the
conflict, with a firm conviction that, in the end, the cause of truth
must triumph; that, when proof shall have taken the place of conjecture,
when theories shall have been tested by facts, when doubt and uncertainty
shall have been dispelled by new discoveries, science will then prove
to be, as she has ever been, not the enemy of religion, but her friend,
and faithful ally.
It is not fit, however, that all should remain idle spectators of
the struggle between science and Revelation. There are many whose
intellectual acquirements, and whose opportunities, will permit them to
gird on their armour, and to go forth to battle in the cause of truth.
The rich treasures of learning and science which they have amassed
cannot be better employed, than for the ornament and defence of the
Church of God. Such men, if we may borrow a beautiful figure from the
early Fathers, are like the Hebrews of old, who, having carried away the
precious spoils of Egypt, laid them, with a profuse generosity, at the
feet of Moses for the service of the Tabernacle. As for ourselves, we
are sensible that, from our scanty means, we have little to offer. But,
in the temple of God, each one may contribute according to the measure
of his abilities. While others, therefore, bring their gold, and their
silver, and their precious stones, we may humbly venture to make our
simple offering at least of hair and skins.[11]
We do not mean to examine in detail all the views of Dr. Colenso, nor
to refute all his arguments. Such a task would trespass too much on
our limited space, and perhaps we may add also, on the patience of our
readers. It will be more satisfactory to select a few examples, which
may fairly represent the general tone of his book and the peculiar
character of his reasoning. He is undoubtedly an agreeable and a
plausible writer. His style is graceful and simple; his logic is homely
and forcible; his manner is frank and earnest. Above all, he possesses
that peculiar tact of a clever and experienced advocate,--when his cause
is weak he can disguise its weakness; when it is strong he knows how to
exhibit its strength with clearness and vigour. Yet we hope to satisfy
our readers that his arguments cannot stand the test of rigid scrutiny.
They may indeed attract and amuse that numerous class which is ever in
search of what is novel and startling; they may bewilder and perplex
the superficial and careless reader; they may even bring conviction to
the minds of many who hold the gift of faith with an infirm grasp, and
who, in the words of the Apostle, are "carried about by every wind of
doctrine". But when submitted to a minute and careful analysis, they
will be found to be made up, for the most part, of false assumptions
and unsound reasoning.
Let us, in the first place, clearly understand what is the issue we are
called upon to discuss. It must be remembered that we have the most
convincing, unanswerable proofs that the Pentateuch is a trustworthy
history; nay, more, that it is the Word of Eternal Truth. These proofs
have for ages stood the test of critical inquiry, and have been accepted
as valid by the great bulk of the civilized world. They are not impugned
by Dr. Colenso; they are left unshaken, untouched. But he says the
history cannot be true, for it contains "many absolute impossibilities",
and "a series of manifest contradictions and inconsistencies"--(Part i.
p. 11).
Now we certainly admit that if any history relate as a fact that
which is _absolutely impossible_, or if it relate two facts which are
_manifestly inconsistent_ with each other, it is so far untrue. And if
these impossibilities and contradictions are of frequent occurrence, it
must forfeit the character of a truthful narrative. But it would be a
great mistake to reject as impossibilities those facts which we are
simply unable to explain. It often happens that we cannot tell _how_
an event took place, though we are quite sure that it _did_ take place.
No one, for example, has ventured to explain _how_ Franz Müller made
his escape from the railway carriage on the evening that he murdered
Mr. Briggs; and yet all must admit that he _did_ escape. When a fact is
established by indisputable proof, we must accept that fact, even though
we may not be able to point out the means by which it was accomplished.
This is a principle so simple and plain that our readers may, perhaps,
wonder why we stop to enforce it so strongly. We can only say in reply,
that, plain and simple though it is, this principle is often overlooked
by Dr. Colenso, as the sequel of our paper will show.
Again, while we reject as false what is _absolutely impossible_, we
must not regard as _impossible_ what is only _improbable_. Every one is
familiar with the common axiom, that it is _very probable_ a great many
_improbable_ things will come to pass. History abounds with examples to
confirm the truth of this saying. Take, for instance, the exploits of
the first Napoleon, or the career of his nephew, the present Emperor of
the French, or the vicissitudes of the ill-fated Louis Philippe. Here
the history of a single country, and for a very short period, presents
to us a tissue of startling improbabilities. And yet, we all accept the
leading facts of that history, because the evidence by which they are
established is convincing and overwhelming. Now, the evidence in support
of the Pentateuch is of the same character, and of equal weight. Hence,
nothing less than an "absolute impossibility", "a manifest contradiction",
can at all shake our belief in the truth of the story. If Dr. Colenso
prove that such impossibilities and contradictions are to be found in the
Pentateuch, he has established his point; if he fail in this, he has done
nothing.
The first charge against the historical accuracy of the Bible which we
propose to examine, is found in chap. ix. part. i. of Dr. Colenso's work.
We shall let the author speak for himself:--
"'_The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of
Egypt_'--(_Ex._, xiii. 18).
"The word [Hebrew: chamushim], which is here rendered 'harnessed',
appears to mean 'armed', or, 'in battle array', in all the other
passages where it occurs. * * * It is, however, inconceivable that
these down-trodden, oppressed people should have been allowed by
Pharaoh to possess arms, so as to turn out at a moment's notice six
hundred thousand armed men. If such a mighty host--nearly nine times
as great as the whole of Wellington's army at Waterloo--had had arms
in their hands, would they not have risen long ago for their liberty,
or, at all events, would there have been no danger of their rising?
* * Are we to suppose, then, that the Israelites acquired their arms
by 'borrowing' on the night of the Exodus? Nothing whatever is said
of this, and the idea itself is an extravagant one. But, if even in
this, or any other way, they had come to be possessed of arms, is
it conceivable that six hundred thousand armed men, in the prime of
life, would have cried out in panic terror, 'sore afraid' (_Ex._,
xiv. 10), when they saw that they were being pursued?"--(pp. 48, 49).
He afterwards proceeds to argue on other grounds that, according to the
Scripture narrative, the Israelites must have been possessed of arms
when they went up out of Egypt:--
"Besides, if they did not take it with them out of Egypt, where
did they get the armour with which, about a month afterwards,
they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited
them with the edge of the sword'? It may, perhaps, be said that
they had stripped the Egyptians whom they 'saw lying dead upon
the sea-shore' (_Ex._, xiv. 30). And so writes Josephus (_Ant._,
ii. 16, 6):--'On the next day Moses gathered together the weapons
of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews
by the current of the sea, and the force of the winds assisting
it. And he conjectured that this, also, happened by Divine
Providence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons'. * *
The Bible story, however, says nothing about this stripping of the
dead, as surely it must have done if it really took place. * * *
And even this supposition will not do away with the fact that the
stubborn word [Hebrew: chamushim] exists in the text before us.
Besides, we must suppose that the _whole body_ of six hundred
thousand warriors were armed when they were numbered (_N._, i. 3)
under Sinai. They possessed arms, surely, at that time, according
to the story. How did they get them unless they took them out of
Egypt?
"If, then, the historical veracity of this part of the Pentateuch
is to be maintained, we must believe that six hundred thousand
armed men (though it is inconceivable how they obtained their
arms), had, by reason of their long servitude, become so debased
and inhuman in their cowardice (and yet they fought bravely enough
with Amalek a month afterwards), that they could not strike a single
blow for their wives and children, if not for their own lives and
liberties, but could only weakly wail and murmur against Moses,
saying: 'It had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that
we should die in the wilderness' (_Ex._, xiv. 12)--(pp. 50, 51.)
The substance of this objection may be compressed into a few words. It
is stated in the Pentateuch that the Israelites went up _armed_ out of
Egypt. Furthermore it is stated that the number of armed men among them
was 600,000. But these statements are utterly inconsistent with other
facts contained in the same book. Therefore the narrative cannot be
regarded as historically true.
To estimate the value of this argument, it will be necessary to inquire
if Dr. Colenso has proved that these two statements are really to be
found in the Pentateuch. We maintain that he has not. For the first, he
appeals to the words of _Exodus_, xiii. 18: "The children of Israel went
up harnessed out of the land of Egypt". This text is indeed conclusive,
if it be shown that the Hebrew word [Hebrew: chamushim] (Chamushim), which
is here translated _harnessed_, must mean _armed_, and can mean nothing
else. But has Dr. Colenso adduced any satisfactory evidence to establish
this point, so essential to his argument? Far from it. In the whole
Hebrew language there is not a single word of which the meaning is more
uncertain. It occurs but four times in the Old Testament, and never
later than in the Book of Judges. We must, therefore, be content to
conjecture its meaning partly from its etymology, partly from the
authority of early versions, and partly from the context of those
passages in which it is found. We do not, however, mean to inflict upon
our readers the dry details of a philological discussion. Nor could we
presume to set up our own judgment in these matters against the opinion
of Dr. Colenso. It will be less tedious, and more satisfactory, to
appeal to the authority of those who have made the Hebrew language the
subject of their special study, and who have availed themselves of all
the means which the science of philology can supply, to determine the
precise signification of every word in the Bible.
It is quite clear, notwithstanding the ingenious shifts of Dr. Colenso,
that the authors of the English Protestant version regarded the word
[Hebrew: chamushim] (Chamushim) as one of obscure and doubtful meaning.
In the text it is here rendered _harnessed_, and elsewhere (_Jos._, i.
14; _Jud._, vii. 11) _armed_. But in the margin a very different idea is
suggested,--"by five in a rank", "marshalled by five". The Septuagint is
by far the oldest translation we possess of the Hebrew text. It dates
almost from a time when the Hebrew was still a spoken language; and
therefore the biblical scholars by whom it was produced must have enjoyed
many advantages, which all the learning and research of modern times
cannot supply. No one, certainly, will maintain that, if the meaning
of an important Hebrew word were clear and certain, that meaning could
have remained unknown to the authors of this celebrated version. Yet
the seventy interpreters appear to have been curiously perplexed about
the very word on which Dr. Colenso is so flippant and so confident.
Four times it occurs in the text, and each time we find a different
translation. Nay, of the four translations, not one corresponds with
the translation of Dr. Colenso. First it is rendered _in the fifth
generation_--[Greek: pemptê de genea] (_Ex._, xiii. 18). Next, _girt
as for a journey_--[Greek: euzônoi] (_Jos._, i. 14). Then, _prepared_,
_furnished_--[Greek: dieskeuasmenoi] (_Jos._, iv. 12). And in the fourth
place it is translated _of the fifty_--[Greek: tôn pentêkonta] (_Jud._,
vii. 11).
Perhaps, however, Dr. Colenso would appeal to the authority of modern
Hebrew scholars. If so, we can assure him he would appeal in vain.
Amongst lexicographers we may refer to GESENIUS. Under the root
[Hebrew: chamesh] (Chamash) we find the following explanation:--"Hence,
part. pass. plur. [Hebrew: chamushim] (a word the etymology of which
has long been sought for) _i.e. the eager_, _active_, _brave_, _ready
prepared_ for fighting". Again, ROSENMÜLLER in his Commentary, though
he does not reject _armati_, seems to prefer the interpretation generally
adopted by the Jews, and supported by the authority of their paraphrasts.
Here are his words: "Nec igitur rejiciendum, quod Hebraei [Hebrew:
chamushim] _ad quintam costam_;--_i.e._ circa lumbos _accinctos_ proprie
significare dicunt, et hoc Exodi loco Israelitas dici exiisse expeditos
et accinctos paratosque omnibus ad iter necessariis. Quod ipsum
expresserunt Onkelos et duo reliqui Chaldaei paraphrastae", etc.
It would be easy to cite a host of distinguished authorities unfavourable
to Dr. Colenso's interpretation. But we may well be content with these
two. They certainly deserve a place in the very foremost rank of Hebrew
scholars. Moreover, their testimony on the present question is above all
suspicion; for it is well known that they share largely in the opinions
of Dr. Colenso and his school. Nothing, therefore, could be farther from
their purpose than to sacrifice the principles of philology with a view
to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible. We beg to remind our
readers that we express no opinion as regards the genuine meaning of
this disputed word. Our position is simply this: Dr. Colenso's argument
is _totally devoid of foundation_ unless he _prove_ that the word must
mean _armed men_; and we maintain that he has utterly failed to do so;
that, after all he has written, the meaning of the word still remains
uncertain.
He attempts, however, to support his opinion by a fact recorded in the
Pentateuch itself: "If they did not take it with them out of Egypt,
where did they get the armour, with which, about a month afterwards,
they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited them
with the edge of the sword'?" Dr. Colenso undertakes to prove that the
Israelites are represented by Moses to have gone up _armed_ out of
Egypt. And here is his proof. If they did not bring the arms with them,
where did they get them afterwards? That is to say, after the lapse of
thirty-three centuries, when we have nothing to assist us but the very
brief and summary narrative of Moses, he asks us to explain in what way
the Israelites were supplied with arms. And if, with such scanty means
of information, we cannot tell him _how_ that fact took place, he infers
that it was therefore _impossible_. Such is the flimsy reasoning by
which he vainly hopes to shake the foundations of Christian faith.
It seems to us that nothing could be more satisfactory than the
explanation suggested by Josephus, to whom Dr. Colenso has himself
referred. But such conjectures, however probable in themselves, and well
supported by authority, are unnecessary for our purpose. It is not for
us to explain _how_ the facts actually occurred, but for our adversary
to make good his assertion, that they are _absolute impossibilities_ or
_manifest contradictions_.
If the first assumption in Dr. Colenso's argument is uncertain, the
second is manifestly false. He maintains that, not only are the
Israelites said to have been _armed_, but that they are represented
as having 600,000 armed men. It is the existence of _such a mighty
host_--_nearly nine times as great as the whole of Wellington's army at
Waterloo_--_with arms in their hands_, that seems to him irreconcileable
with the condition of a _down-trodden, oppressed people_. It is because
the children of Israel had 600,000 _armed men in the prime of life_
that he cannot conceive it possible they would have _cried out in panic
terror_ "_sore afraid_".
Now let us grant, for a moment, the point which we have just been
disputing, and let us suppose Moses explicitly to declare that the
children of Israel went up armed out of Egypt. Would this statement
convey that there were 600,000 armed men? We know, indeed, that this was
the number of the adult male population. But when we say that a people
is armed, we do not mean that every man of twenty years old and upwards
is under arms. Within the last two years how often have we heard it said
that the Poles were armed against Russia? And yet the number of Poles
actually bearing arms was not one-twentieth part of the adult male
population. Just in the same way, if it were said that the Israelites
were armed, we should understand nothing more than that a certain
proportion of the people was armed for the protection of the whole. It
would, then, be no matter for surprise that such a collection of armed
men, without organisation, without training, should be struck with terror
at the sight of the numerous and well-disciplined troops of Pharaoh, fully
equipped, and provided with horses and chariots and all the accoutrements
of war.
Dr. Colenso, as if anticipating this reply, next appeals to the Book of
Numbers: "Besides, we must suppose that the _whole body_ of 600,000
warriors were armed, when they were numbered (_Num._, i. 3.) under
Sinai. They possessed arms, surely, at that time, according to the
story". Here we join issue with the bishop on two points. First, he
insinuates that Moses makes mention somewhere of 600,000 _warriors_.
Secondly, he asserts that, _according to the story_, all these warriors
_possessed arms_. Now we challenge him to produce a single text from the
Pentateuch in which there occurs any mention of 600,000 _warriors_. We
are told that the Israelites numbered 600,000 _men_ of twenty years old
and upward. But where are these men called _warriors_? And again, where
is it said that all _possessed arms_? These are points which certainly
demand clear and unmistakable evidence. It would be a fact unparalleled
in history that every single man over twenty years of age, in the entire
nation, should have been _a soldier fully equipped for war_. Our author
tells us, indeed, that _we must suppose_ they were armed; that they
_possessed arms, surely_, at that time. But when we look for his proofs,
we find nothing but a naked reference to the third verse in the first
chapter in Numbers.
Let us then look into this passage, and see if it corroborates the
assertion of Dr. Colenso. Here is the text as we find it in the English
Protestant version, to which we must suppose the bishop to have
referred:--"Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of
Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go
forth to war in Israel"--(_Numbers_, i. 2, 3). The people were numbered
accordingly by Moses and Aaron, and the result is given to us in the
same chapter:--"So were all those that were numbered of the children of
Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go
forth to war in Israel; even all that were numbered were six hundred
thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty"--(vv. 45, 46).
If we are to rely upon this version, it is clear that Moses does not say
there were 600,000 _warriors_, nor 600,000 men _possessed of arms_, nor
600,000 men that _went to war_, but, simply, 600,000 men _fit_ to go to
war,--in other words, 600,000 men in the prime of life.
But perhaps Dr Colenso would prefer to be judged by the authority of
the Hebrew text. Those who were numbered are described by the words
[Hebrew: kol yatza tsaba] (kol yotze tzaba)--_every one going forth
to the host_. In the opinion of Dr. Colenso this must mean every one
belonging to the army--every _armed warrior_. Let us see if this
interpretation is borne out by the use of the same phrase in other
passages. We find it prescribed (_Numbers_, viii. 25) that at the age of
fifty the Levites shall return from the _host_ ([Hebrew: tsaba]--tzaba)
of the service". Now, it is well known that the Levites were not
permitted to serve in the
army. Therefore, the word _host_ ([Hebrew: tsaba]) does not here mean the
_army_, but, as all commentators explain it, the body of Levites engaged
in the active service of the Tabernacle. Again, we read (_Gen._ ii. 1).
"The heavens and the earth were finished, and all the _host_ ([Hebrew:
tsaba]) of them". In this passage the word manifestly refers to the works
of the creation which had just been completed. It is also frequently
applied by the prophets to the heavenly bodies,[12] and to the choirs
of angels.[13] This word, therefore, in its primary sense, would seem
to represent a collection of men or things _marshalled in order_.
Frequently, indeed, and most fitly, it was used to designate an army;
but we deny that it was employed exclusively in that signification.
If, then, we seek to ascertain its exact meaning in the first chapter
of _Numbers_, we must examine the context in which it is found, and the
circumstances to which it refers. Moses is commanded by God to number
the people, and the way in which he executed that command is accurately
described. There is not a word, in this, or the following chapters,
about soldiers, or arms, or warfare. The object of the census was simply
to distribute the people of Israel, according to their tribes and
families, around the Tabernacle which stood in the midst of the camp.
The position of each tribe was clearly defined, with a view to the
preservation of strict order and regularity. May we not, then, fairly
infer that by the _host_ is here meant the whole people of Israel
_marshalled_, as they were, _in order_ around the Tabernacle? It is
probable that those only were numbered who were responsible members of
the community, that is to say, all the fathers of families.
We conclude that the argument of Dr. Colenso fails to establish any
inconsistency in the sacred narrative: first, because it is quite
uncertain that the Israelites are said to have been _armed_; secondly,
because it is simply false that they are represented to have had 600,000
_armed warriors_.
Our readers will perhaps be disappointed to find that they have reached
the end of our paper, and that out of the many objections of Dr. Colenso,
we have answered but one. We confess, indeed, we have done but little.
Yet it is something if we have parried even a single blow that was aimed
at the Ark of God. It is something if we have struck down even one of
that daring and defiant host with which Dr. Colenso has essayed to storm
the citadel of truth.