6 have been of a very deliberate kind. For not only are the twelve tribe-numbers in the first two instances, N.i,ii, so fixed that their sums, taken in different ways, give accurately the first sum-total, 603,550, but in the third case, N.xxvi, they are all changed, each being either increased or diminished by a certain amount, yet so judiciously changed that the result is obtained, which was apparently desired, of having the sum-total nearly the same as before, 601,730. It is very plain that this Hebrew author, whoever he may have been, was not so ignorant and helpless in matters of arithmetic as some have imagined. 195. Finally, we read E.xxxviii.25,26, that 'the silver of them that were numbered of the Congregation was 100 talents, and 1,775 shekels,' that is, (since 1 talent=3,000 shekels,) altogether 301,775 shekels, at the rate of a bekah, that is, half a shekel, for every man,' representing, therefore, a total number of 603,550 men. And each of these talents and shekels is accounted for in the construction of the Tabernacle, v.27,28. 196. We are thus, it would seem, compelled to adhere to the Scripture number of 600,000 warriors, as that which was intended by the sacred writer, whatever contradictions and impossibilities it introduces into the story; and, therefore, these 'arithmetical' arguments are really of the greatest importance, in the consideration of the present question. And they have this special advantage, that they can be clearly stated in definite terms, so as to be readily appreciated by practical men, and are not mixed up with those other difficulties of a moral nature, which, however strongly felt by very many, are not realised in the same degree by all devout readers of the Bible. 197. I am obliged to lay a special stress upon the above point, because not only have most of my anonymous reviewers taken refuge in some loose rhetorical expression, about the general uncertainty of Hebrew numbers,' and the probability of these particular numbers being wrong' in the story of the Exodus, but a similar suggestion has been publicly made, since the publication of my first volume, by one distinguished as a theologian and a scholar, Dr. C. J. VAUGHAN, who, in his Sermons before the University of Cambridge, recently published, The Book and the Life, p.106, speaks of my book as containing— A series of apparent discrepancies in the arithmetical computations of the Pentateuch, resting for the most part on the basis of a single fundamental number, and capable, to that extent at least, of reconciliation on the supposition of a single clerical error, in a department peculiarly liable to mistake. 198. Amicus Plato, magis amica Veritas. I am compelled to reassert, in opposition to the statement of the above eminent writer, that, whatever process of reduction may be applicable to the immense Hebrew numbers which occur everywhere throughout the Bible, (and my belief is that these numbers are merely set down loosely at random, in oriental fashion, not exaggerated systematically by mistake, or design, or accident, as some suppose,)—yet, with regard to these particular numbers in the story of the Exodus, there can be no mistake, and no uncertainty. There can be no uncertainty, because the number, 600,000, is checked in so many ways, by so many different statements-especially by the statement of the amount of silver contributed for the Tabernacle*-that there can be no doubt as to the number of warriors actually intended by the writer of the story. There can be no mistake-at least, if Moses wrote the story of the Exodus; because, we are told, he himself personally took a careful census of the people, the results of which, for each tribe, are set down exactly in N.i, repeated carefully in N.ii, and again, with variations, in N.xxvi. 199. It remains only to suppose that Moses did not write these chapters at all, (as we believe,) or did not write them as * Suppose it were stated on authority that the receipts at the International Exhibition for ten days, at a shilling a head, amounted to 30,1777. 10s., would any one doubt that it follows as a necessary consequence that the number of persons, who entered on those days at a shilling a head, was 603,550? This is exactly the inference to be drawn from E.xxxviii.25-28. they now stand, so that these passages, and all the others, where these numbers are involved, have been systematically and deliberately falsified in later days, which would indicate that they were not regarded as so unspeakably sacred and divine, as to be secured from such free handling.' I confidently challenge investigation on this point; and I call upon any, who are prepared to maintain the possibility of the story being true, although these numbers may be wrong, not merely to suggest that the numbers may have to be reduced, but to point out in what way it is conceivable that they can be reduced, so as to get rid of the contradictions and impossibilities which they involve, without, at the same time, introducing other difficulties. into the question, as grave as any which the numbers themselves occasion. Until this is done, I must assume that I have proved above that such a reduction is impossible, without sacrificing some of the most essential details of the story, and, in fact, its general historical character. 200. But the reasonings, adduced in Part I, are by no means all arithmetical, though they are all of a practical character. Thus, for instance, it requires only the application of common sense, and no arithmetical calculation whatever, to see that even a small body of men, women, and children, must have needed water (82), during the long interval of nearly forty years between the miracles at Horeb, E.xvii, and Meribah, N.xx. They wanted also firewood (44,85.vii) for daily use, and must have perished, if exposed to the bitter cold of the desert of Sinai during the severe winter months (88), without such constant supplies of fuel, as were not to be obtained in that desolate waste. Further, their sheep and cattle, however few in number, must have needed grass (85, 86) as well as water; and the rules for maintaining perfect cleanliness in the Camp (44) would have been futile, if laid down for the population of a small, English town, as well as for a much greater multitude. Nor would a small body of such fugitives (56), any more than a large one, have been able to carry tents with them; and it would have been just as impossible for ten poor men, as for ten thousand, to have supplied themselves easily with pigeons or turtle-doves (151) under Sinai. 201. Once more, therefore, I repeat, it is vain to argue that the story is in the main correct and historically true; only the mistake is made, so common to Eastern writers, of exaggerating, perhaps a hundredfold, the numbers of the people, and placing this large body under laws, and in circumstances, which were only possible for a small community. In fact, we have only to realise for once to our own minds the idea of a City, as large and as populous as modern LONDON, set down, if that be conceivable or possible, in the midst of the Sinaitic waste, and not at one place only in that Desert, but at more than forty different places, N.xxxiii, if such places can be imagined in the wilderness, where the thing supposed is feasible, without any kind of drainage, with no supplies of water for purposes of cooking or cleanliness, brought round, as in a modern town, by running streams or waterpipes to the neighbourhood, at least, of every house, with no supplies of fuel for warmth, during the frost and snow of forty winters, -even if we allow that the miraculous manna,' together with the flesh of their flocks and herds, which must have been supported, however, without water or pasturage, may have sufficed for all their wants as food, that they needed no salt, nor required fresh stores of raiment, for their clothes waxed not old upon them, nor their shoes upon their feet,' D.xxix.5-we have only, I repeat, once for all, deliberately to face this question, and to try to realise to ourselves such a state of things as this, and we shall see the utter impossibility of receiving any longer this story of the Exodus as literally and historically true, whatever real facts may lie at the basis of the narrative. 202. The one only cause, indeed, for astonishment is this not that a Bishop of the Church of England should now be stating that impossibility-but that it should be stated now, by a Bishop of the Church, as far as I am aware, for the first time -that such a belief should have been so long acquiesced in by multitudes, both of the Clergy and the Laity, with an unquestioning, unreasoning faith-that up to this very hour, in this enlightened age of free thought, in this highly-civilised land, so many persons of liberal education actually still receive this story in all its details at least, in all its main details-as historical matter-of-fact, and insist on the paramount duty of believing in the account of the Exodus, among the 'things necessary to salvation' contained in the Bible, as essential to an orthodox faith in the True and Living God. Still more strange is it, and sad, that our Missionaries have been sent to teach in our name such a faith as this to the heathen, and to require them also, on the pain of eternal perdition, to believe that this history, in all its parts, with all its contradictions and impossibilities, has the seal of Divine Authority set upon it, as truly as those words, D.vi.5, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.' The consequences of such teaching are, I fully believe, most detrimental to the success of Missionary labours.* 203. Now, however, that we are able to feel that we stand on sure ground, when we assert that these books, whatever be their value, with whatever pious purpose they were written, and what The last illustration which I have seen of the effect of such teaching, is given in the following statement, derived from a Report upon the native runangas or councils, laid before the Legislative Council of New Zealand, which I copy from the Nelson Examiner of Aug. 11, 1862:-'Higher up the Thames, Mr. TURTON found a runanga determined to govern by the Levitical Law. Thus, cursing, adultery, and witchcraft, were to be punished by stoning, and so on throughout. And, in answer to his explanations, the simple reply was that, 'if God had commanded it, it must be right,' and that, if it was right then, it could not be wrong now.' |