CLAIMED DIFFICULTIES

The analysts often employ against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch argumentation of this sort: That it contains statements that are improbable, or that can scarcely be true, or that are difficult to believe; and that therefore Moses is not their author. Generally, when one of these gentlemen says that some things contained in the Pentateuch can scarcely be true, he has already peremptorily decided in his own mind that they are untrue; and when he says that some things contained in the Pentateuch are difficult to believe, he means that such things are incredible by scholarly and candid minds. Expressions of peremptory disbelief and rejection are withheld for the present as inexpedient, while the effort is being made to infuse doubts or suspicions into the minds of readers.

The claimed improbabilities, incredibilities, and impossibilities which are made the basis of objections to the traditional belief we class together as difficulties, and proceed to consider them.

I. Hebrew Genealogy.

One of the difficulties is in connection with Genesis 46:12, where Hezron and Hamul are mentioned among the children of Israel that came into Egypt.¹ They are included among the sixty-six souls that came with Jacob into Egypt.² Now Hezron and Hamul were the sons of Pharez, the son of Judah, and, as the critics say, it is difficult to believe that Judah could have had two grandsons, sons of Pharez, born before the migration to Egypt. Reuss states the difficulty as follows: "Juda, dont les deux derniere fils pourvaient à peine être nés, a déjà deux petit-fils, issus de l'un d'eux"³ ("Judah, whose two last sons could hardly have been born, already has two grandsons, from one of them").

The improbability that Judah had two grandsons at the time of the migration to Egypt is argued as follows: He was only forty-two years old. For Joseph was thirty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh, and since that time nine years had elapsed, seven of plenty and two of famine; Joseph, then, was thirty-nine years old at the time of the migration. Judah was only about three years older, for he was Leah's fourth son, and born, it is inferred, in the fourth year after Jacob's double marriage.⁴ Joseph's birth is recorded next after that of Dinah, who was Leah's seventh child, and born presumably in the seventh year after Jacob's and Leah's marriage.⁵ It is then inferred that Judah, having been born in the fourth year after Jacob's and Leah's marriage, was three years older than Joseph and was forty-two years of age at the time of the migration. And that Hezron and Hamul were not born before that time seems to be proved by the events that occurred in Judah' s family. (1) Judah married and had three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. (2) Er grows up, marries Tamar, and dies without children. (3) Onan marries Er's widow, Tamar, and dies without children. (4) Shelah was not yet grown, and Tamar waits, expecting to marry him. (5) Tamar, having waited in vain for Shelah to marry her, deceives Judah and has by him two sons, Pharez and Zarah. (6) One of these twin sons grows up, marries, and has two sons, Hezron and Hamul.

All these events are mentioned after the account of the selling of Joseph. Events are not always mentioned, in the Pentateuch and elsewhere in the Bible, in the order of their occurrence. But we concede, notwithstanding, that it is difficult to believe that Hezron and Hamul were born before the migration — so difficult, indeed, that we do not ourselves believe it. Yet the names of these two persons are set down in the genealogical register among those that were born in Canaan and went down to Egypt with Jacob.⁶ This is one of the difficulties which our critics employ in the effort to show, in the words of Colenso, that "the books of the Pentateuch contain, in their account of the story which they profess to relate, such remarkable contradictions and involve such plain impossibilities that they cannot be regarded as true narratives of actual, historical matters of fact."⁷

Our reply is as follows: In the genealogical registers of the Israelites there are various omissions, exceptions, substitutions, and imputative reckonings which may seem strange to us with our Occidental ideas, but which were in accord with Hebrew ideas and with Hebrew modes of speech, and which, when rightly construed, are accurate and truthful. The counting of Hezron and Hamul, though born afterward in Egypt, among those who migrated with Jacob, is only one of many examples of this sort. The Hebrew genealogical registers abound with them. Our critics seem to need information on this subject, and to be made to know the facts.

1. The genealogical table in question begins as follows: "And these are the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's first-born."⁸ Here Jacob is placed among the children of Israel — counted as one of his own sons. He is again counted among the sons of Leah. "These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padan-aram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three."⁹ Here Jacob is placed among his sons and daughters — counted as one of his own children. His name, which stands at the head of the list,⁸ must be counted in order to make the thirty-three sons and daughters of Leah,

Also, in this register, Serah, the daughter of Asher, is counted among his sons: "And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah, and Isui, and Beriah," and Serah their sister."¹⁰ Serah is here placed among the sons of Asher. She is again placed among the sons of Zilpah: "These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter; and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls."¹¹ Here Serah, the granddaughter of Zilpah, is counted among Zilpah's sons, and must be so counted in order to make the number sixteen.

2. In this register many who were actually born in Canaan are counted among those born in Padan-aram. "These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padan-aram, with his daughter Dinah; all the souls. . . were thirty and three."⁹ of all these only seven were born in Padan-aram. For Jacob remained there only twenty years and was married at the end of the seventh year. His first-born, Reuben, could then have been only about thirteen years old at the time of the return to Canaan. Hence none of Leah's grandchildren were born in Padan-aram. Yet in the family register they are all, twenty-five in number, set down as born in that country. Even the two sons of Joseph, who are expressly mentioned as having been born in Egypt, are counted among those that came from Canaan. "All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."¹² The sons of Joseph are included among the threescore and ten that came from Palestine into Egypt; for they must be counted to make up that number.

3. Also, some of the sons of Benjamin, born in Egypt, are counted among those that migrated with Jacob. " And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard."¹³ Thus Benjamin is represented as having ten sons. Reuss writes, sneeringly, as follows: "All those who have read the history of Joseph in Egypt imagine Benjamin, the cadet of the family, to be a young boy. His name became proverbial for this reason. Ah! well, from chapter 46:21 we learn that when Jacob went to settle in Egypt, in the second year of the famine, this little Benjamin was the father of ten sons, a number which none of his elder brothers came near attaining."¹⁴ In the light of certain well-known facts the above-quoted piece of criticism is seen to be well nigh ridiculous.

(1) "This little Benjamin," "this young boy," was now about thirty-seven years old.

(2) In this register, and elsewhere in the Bible, grandsons are included among the sons.

(3) As a matter of fact, Gera, Naaman, Muppim, Huppim, and Ard are shown to be grandsons or great-grandsons of Benjamin.¹⁵ Thus the number of his sons is reduced at least to five. It is not difficult to believe that a man thirty-seven years old might have five sons, especially if he lived in a time and place in which a man might have two or more wives. The difficulty, then, does not consist in Benjamin's having an incredible number of children at the time of the migration, but in the fact that his grandsons, although not yet born, are represented, like Judah's, as going with Jacob to Egypt.

(4) These peculiarities of Hebrew genealogy are not confined to the Book of Genesis, but are found in other parts of the Pentateuch. Exodus 1:5; "And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already." Jacob himself was one of the seventy. He is expressly included in that number.¹⁶ Thus Jacob is represented as among those who ''came out of the loins of Jacob." We found him before counted as one of his own children. ¹⁷

4. From this family register of Jacob the names of women are undoubtedly omitted. It contains only two female names — Dinah, who is counted as one of the thirty-three sons of Leah, and Serah, the daughter of Asher, counted as one of the sixteen sons of Zilpah. But were there only two women — one daughter and one granddaughter — among all Jacob's descendants at this time? In the twelve families immediately descended from Jacob, embracing sixty-nine persons, only one girl born? This is one of the things that, some critics would say, are hard to believe. For us, at least, it is easier to believe that in Jacob's company the men and women were about equal in number, and that his daughters and granddaughters, like Jacob's sons' wives, have been omitted from the family register, except Dinah and Serah, who for some special reason (possibly because they became founders of families ) were admitted to the rank and rights of sons. In one place Jacob's daughters are referred to in the plural number.¹⁸ That names which we antecedently would expect to find in the Hebrew genealogies are omitted from them, is an undeniable fact. According to the genealogy in Exodus 6:16-18 we have but four names, — Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses, — apparently representing four generations; but in 1. Chronicles 7:23-27 we have, covering the same space of time, the following names: Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Telah, Tahan, Laadan, Ammihud, Elishama, Non, and Jehoshua — ten in all, representing ten generations. Here we have positive evidence that in the genealogy of Moses five names and generations are omitted. Besides, as we proceed to show, there are other cases of omissions from genealogical registers.

Ezra, in giving his own descent, omits six names between Azariah and Meraioth.¹⁹ These six omitted names represent six generations.

In the genealogy of Christ many names are omitted. At first Christ is declared to be the son of David, and David the son of Abraham.²⁰ In this declaration all the names and generations between David and Christ, and also between David and Abraham, are omitted. The gaps, however, are filled up afterward, but not fully. There are three names omitted between Joram and Ozias. "Joram begat Ozias," says the register in Matthew.²¹ But this is true only constructively, for, according to the history, Joram (Jehoram) begat Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begat Joash, and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Azariah, called also Uzziah (Ozias).²² But all this is omitted in the genealogy given in Matthew, and Joram is there said to have begotten Ozias (Azariah), his great-great-grandson. Matthew also omits the name of Jehoiakim from the record. He says, "Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren."²³ But these were Josiah's grandsons. Jehoiakim, their father, was Josiah's son. But Jehoiachin (Jechonias) is substituted for Jehoiakim, just as, above shown, Uzziah (Ozias ) is substituted for Ahaziah.

In I. Chronicles 24:4 twenty-four men living in King David's time are declared constructively to be the grandsons of Aaron, and in I. Chronicles 26:24 one of the officers of David is declared to be the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, constructively the grandson of Moses.

Such are the facts we have to deal with in these old Hebrew genealogies — omissions, exceptions, substitutions, and imputative reckonings. There is neither sense nor candor in taking one or two of these facts and considering them apart from the class to which they belong and from Hebrew ideas and usages, and founding upon them the charge of impossibility and error.

It is perhaps not possible to explain all the peculiarities and difficulties connected with the Hebrew genealogies, but there is one principle running through the Pentateuch and the Bible which explains many of them, and that is the principle of substitution, representation, vicarious agency. Moses is declared to have spoken to all the congregation of Israel, when he had addressed only their representatives, the elders.²⁴ David is declared to have killed Uriah with the sword of the children of Ammon.²⁵ Nebuchadnezzar is declared to have slain the young men of Jerusalem with the sword and to have carried away the vessels and treasures of the temple to Babylon.²⁶ Levi paid tithes in Abraham to Melchisedec.²⁷ The legal principle that what a man does through his agent he himself does was fully recognized by the ancient Hebrews. They carried into their every-day life the ideas of the responsibilities and liabilities of substitutes, representatives, and agents that are recognized in our civil courts. This fact explains several peculiarities in the Hebrew genealogies. Hezron and Hamul, grandsons of Judah, appear to have been substituted for his sons Br and Onan, who died in Canaan. The two former are therefore placed in the family register among those who went down into Egypt. Hence, too, the grandchildren of Leah are represented as born in Padanaram. If Jacob ever had a legal residence in Canaan, he lost it by an absence of twenty years and by his living in Padan-aram during that time. But we understand that he never had a legal home and residence in Canaan. Abraham, after a stay of about forty years in that country, declared himself a stranger and sojourner.²⁸ After a further stay of some years in Canaan he did not still regard it as his home; for in directing Eliezer to go to Padan-aram to procure a wife for Isaac he said, "Thou shalt go unto my country."²⁹ The only possession he had in Canaan was a burying-place.³⁰ Neither to him nor to any of the patriarchs did the Lord give in Canaan, aside from Machpelah, as much as a foot-breadth of the soil. The grant of Canaan to the Hebrews was all prospective. In the patriarchal age it was theirs indeed, but only in the sense that they sojourned in it.

There were special reasons for regarding Jacob as belonging to Padan-aram. He lived in that country twenty years. He was connected with one of the families of that country, both as an employee and by a double marriage. All his children but one were born there. Padan-aram was then Jacob's home and country. In Canaan he was, like his fathers, a stranger and sojourner; hence Benjamin, though actually born in Canaan, and also his grandchildren born in Canaan, are put down in the family register as born in Padan-aram. This very same thing is done in our times and country. The children born of American parents in foreign lands are counted as born in our own country. All such persons are enrolled as home-born citizens — registered as born at home.

Dinah and Serah are placed among the sons and grandsons doubtless because they were accorded the rights of sons. There was no place in the family register for women, and hence, if recognized at all, their names must be placed among those of the men. To be sure, the names Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, and Bilhah are mentioned, but only incidentally, to designate their sons. They are not counted.

Finally, though perhaps not all difficulties can be removed, we know enough to repel the charge of contradiction and falsehood.

II. The Increase of the Israelites in Egypt.

A second difficulty is found by the skeptical critics in the account of the increase of the Israelites in Egypt. The number of Jacob's company at the time of the migration is said to have been seventy. At the time of the exodus the number of the Israelites is given as about six hundred thousand men, besides a mixed multitude that went up with them.³¹ Counting the whole population as about four times more numerous than the able-bodied men, we have two millions as the number of the Israelites at the time of the exodus. It is maintained by the analytic critics that this presupposes an impossible rapidity of increase during the sojourn in Egypt. Voltaire declared it to be an unreasonable supposition that a nation should increase from seventy persons to two millions in two hundred and fifteen years.³² Colenso, the arithmetical critic, Reuss, and others have urged the same objection.

This objection is based on the hypothesis that the sojourn in Egypt continued only two hundred and fifteen years. If it continued four hundred and thirty years, the objection is without force. The considerations which favor the longer period are as follows:

1. The divine declaration to Abraham, "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years."³³ These words do not fix the precise duration of the sojourn, but of the oppression. The descendants of Abraham were to be afflicted during a period designated by the round number of four hundred years. This is irreconcilable with the hypothesis that the entire residence in Egypt lasted only two hundred and fifteen years. The Israelites were not oppressed during the first years of their stay in Egypt.

2. The longer period is favored by a further declaration made to Abraham: "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again."³⁴ The sojourn in Egypt was to continue during four generations. But what is the duration of one generation? We are not to judge of the length of time thus designated by the duration of the generation in our times, nor even in the time of Moses. Since this language was addressed to Abraham, its meaning to him is its meaning now. Terah, Abraham's father, lived two hundred and five years, and Abraham himself one hundred and seventy-five years. Isaac was born when Abraham was one hundred years old, and died at the age of one hundred and eighty. Abraham's own generation, counted from his birth to the birth of his son, was a century in duration. Four generations are equivalent, therefore, to four hundred years.

3. Clearly. Stephen understood these predictions as indicating that the Israelites, the posterity of Abraham, should endure oppression in a foreign land four hundred years. "And God spake on this wise. That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years."³⁵ Here, and in Genesis, the sojourn is spoken of as to be, not in Canaan, but in a foreign land; and it is not Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, but Abraham's posterity that is to be enslaved and afflicted during four generations and four hundred years, and in a foreign land.

The skeptical critics, of course, contemn all predictive utterances as unreal and fictitious. But aside from their prophetic character, such utterances are valuable as testimonies of Jewish authors and people to the duration of the sojourn and oppression in Egypt.

4. "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."³⁶ The Revised Version reads "which they sojourned in Egypt," instead of "who dwelt in Egypt." Colenso objects to the new rendering, because it clearly makes all the sojourning spoken of take place in Egypt, while he thinks that, according to the old rendering, the sojourning may have been partly in Canaan. Colenso, however, admits that the rendering "who dwelt in Egypt" is awkward, and that the original words may be more naturally translated "which they sojourned in Egypt," as in the Revised Version. He admits, too, that this is the rendering of the Vulgate, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic versions. (He might have added the Septuagint,³⁷ German, Spanish, and French versions.) The reason that Colenso assigns for adhering to the confessedly awkward and less natural rendering is that otherwise he must find the Apostle Paul in error, and must also find some mistakes in the genealogy of Moses.³⁸ Here is an admirable spectacle, indeed. A man who denies plenary inspiration and maintains that the Bible abounds in errors, a man who is engaged in an effort to show that the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua are historically untrustworthy, — such a one adhering to an awkward translation and rejecting a more natural one, in order that he may not charge mistakes on Paul and the Pentateuch! It is evident, however, that Colenso was unwilling to give up *'the awkward" rendering, because, in that case, he would be compelled to admit that the whole sojourn of four hundred and thirty years took place in Egypt, and to give up the argument drawn from the increase of the Israelites against the historical integrity of the Pentateuch.

Reuss, however, who was much superior to Colenso in scholarship, and even perhaps more skeptical, makes no attempt to bend this passage to suit his own views, but translates as follows: "Or, les Israélites avaient séjourné en Égypte pendant quarte cent trente ans, et ce fut an bout de quartre cent trente ans, ce jour-là même, que le peuple de Dieu sortit en corps du pays d'Égypte"³⁹ ("Now, the Israelites had sojourned in Egypt during four hundred and thirty years, and it was at the end of four hundred and thirty years, on the very day, that the people of God went out as a body from the land of Egypt"). Reuss admits that we have here an express and clear declaration that the Israelites sojourned in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, and his way of setting aside this testimony is by asserting that there was a divergent tradition. Kuenen also admits the representation here to be that the sojourn in Egypt lasted four hundred and thirty years, but claims this to be inconsistent with the exodus in the fourth generation, and talks about the passage as being the work of a redactor⁴⁰ But other analytic critics, as Kautzsch and his colleagues, admit the reading, attributing it to P, without saying anything about a redactor.⁴¹ That we have an express declaration in Exodus 12:40 making the duration of the sojourn four hundred and thirty years, is too plain to be denied by most of the critics.

It is true, indeed, that in the Septuagint Version there is a various reading of the passage, as follows: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in Egypt and in Canaan, was four hundred years." The words ''and in Canaan" are without support, and are not insisted on by any of the critics.

5. The genealogies favor the longer period.

We have already adverted to the prophetic declaration that the Israelites should return to Canaan in the fourth generation.⁴² We have already shown that, owing to the length of human life in Abraham's time, a generation must have meant to him a period of one hundred years or more. Besides, in immediate connection with the declaration above referred to, it was expressly said that the descendants of Abraham should be afflicted in a foreign land four hundred years. The four generations, then, must cover four centuries.

We are reminded, however, that there are in the genealogy of Moses but three names (Amram, Kohath, and Levi) between him and Jacob, and that therefore Moses and the exodus must have been much less than four hundred and thirty years after the migration to Egypt.⁴³ But, as we have already pointed out, in the Hebrew genealogies names are frequently omitted, the name of a grandson or of a more distant descendant being substituted for that of the son; and it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that names are omitted in the genealogy of Moses.

We have already called attention to the fact that in Chronicles there are ten names given between Jacob and Joshua.⁴⁴ As Joshua was by one generation later than Moses, the latter must have been nine generations later than Jacob. It is in vain that the skeptical critics cry out against the trustworthiness of the chronicler in this matter, for similar testimony is given elsewhere. In the Book of Joshua⁴⁵ five names are given between Jacob and Zelophehad, the latter of whom died before Moses.⁴⁶ This places Zelophehad at six generations after Jacob. Precisely the same names are twice given in the accounts of the descent of Zelophehad contained in the Book of Numbers, Thus we have four witnesses to the fact that there were more than four generations between the migration to Egypt and the exodus. One witness does, indeed, give four genealogical names as intervening between these two events,⁴⁷ three witnesses give each six such names,⁴⁸ and one gives ten.⁴⁹ In view of the fact that in the Hebrew genealogical registers names were frequently omitted, the name of grandson, great-grandson, or of a still remoter descendant being substituted for that of the son, it is seen that there is no contradiction between these witnesses, and that the testimony of the one who gives the largest number of intervening names may be accepted without impeaching the veracity or the accuracy of the others. This view is confirmed by the testimony of Genesis, which states that the Israelites were to be oppressed in a foreign land four hundred years,⁵⁰ and were to be absent from Canaan during four generations, each of them being of the length of a generation in the time of Abraham.

6. Another consideration in favor of the longer period is the statement of the Apostle Paul, "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul.⁵¹" It is maintained by Colenso that the four hundred and thirty years spoken of by the apostle includes the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan, as well as that of their descendants in Egypt. But the apostle does not allude to the law as given four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was made with Abraham. He does not mention the making of the covenant at all, but the confirmation of it. "The law" which was four hundred and thirty years after. "After what? Not after the making of the covenant, but after it was confirmed.⁵¹ Now the covenant was confirmed several times. The last confirmation before the giving of the law took place just before the descent into Egypt.⁵² The four hundred and thirty years mentioned by the apostle, therefore, date from the migration, and designate the duration of the sojourn in Egypt.

7. Josephus in one place⁵³ (unless we have a false reading) follows the reading or gloss of the Septuagint in Exodus 12:40, but in two other places he expressly declares that the Israelites suffered oppression in Egypt four hundred years.⁵⁴ In one of these he records this declaration as having been previously made by himself in an oral address, thus virtually reaffirming it. Though, then, our Jewish author does indeed quote the declaration of the Septuagint in favor of the shorter period, he just three times contradicts it by affirming that the oppression in Egypt lasted four hundred years. Thus his testimony is decidedly in favor of the longer period of four hundred and thirty years.

We conclude, then, that this was the duration of the sojourn in Egypt.

And this is a complete answer to the objection which the analytic critics draw from the large increase of the Israelites in Egypt. Though numbering at first only seventy persons, they might readily grow into a nation of two millions in four hundred and thirty years. The ratio of increase in that case would not be so great as that of the population of the United States during the last century.

But even on the hypothesis of the shorter period, the increase of the Israelites in Egypt is not by any means incredible. In two hundred and fifteen years there might be six generations, each of the duration of thirty-six years, very nearly. Jacob had twelve sons. These had all together fifty-three sons, or, on the average, four and a half apiece. It is not necessary to assume the ratio of increase in Jacob's immediate family (twelve to one), nor even the half of it, as the standard of increase in succeeding generations. If we assume the average increase to be five to one, which is a fraction above the increase among Jacob's grandsons, provided all the names are given in the family register (which is by no means certain), then in the two hundred and sixteenth year, and in the sixth generation, these fifty-three grandsons would have had a posterity numbering 828,125 males. This number, together with the survivors of the preceding generations, might certainly have furnished six hundred thousand able-bodied men. If the rate of increase in Jacob's immediate family is taken as the standard, then his fifty-three grandsons would have had 1,099,008 male descendants even in the fourth generation. Again, Jacob and his four wives increased from five to seventy persons, male and female, in about fifty years, even on the supposition that he had but one daughter and one granddaughter (which is not probable). The ratio of increase in this case is seventy to five, or fourteen to one, every fifty years. On this basis of calculation, Jacob's company of seventy persons would have increased to 2,689,120 in two hundred years. Thus, even on the hypothesis that the sojourn in Egypt continued only two hundred and fifteen years, the increase of the Israelites to two millions of people was not impossible, and hence is not incredible.

Some of the skeptics confound the improbable with the impossible and the incredible. The impossible is what cannot come to pass; the incredible is what cannot be believed. Many improbable things not only are possible, but do actually come to pass. Indeed, improbable things are occurring almost continually. It was possible, though antecedently improbable, that the Israelites in Egypt should increase from seventy persons to two millions — from sixty-eight males to six hundred thousand able-bodied men. It is so represented in the sacred record, which declares that God caused the very efforts of the Egyptians to restrict the growth of the Hebrew nation to result in their multiplication.⁵⁵ The skeptical critic may, if he chooses, deny the superintending providence of God, but he does so in opposition not only to the consensus of Christian people, but also to the common judgment of mankind.

Besides, the sacred record declares, as the ablest of the analytic critics admit, that the Israelites sojourned four hundred and thirty years in Egypt, and that six or even ten generations intervened between the migration and the exodus. Colenso supposes that the ratio of increase of the males was three to one, and, counting the grandsons of Jacob as fifty-one in number, he finds the males in the fourth generation to number only one thousand three hundred and seventy-seven, instead of six hundred thousand.⁵⁶ But if he had based his calculation on the hypothesis of the longer period for the sojourn (four hundred and thirty years) and ten generations of forty-three years' duration each, he would have found the tenth generation to number in males 1,003,833, and, of course, the whole population to be double that number, or about two millions.

The difficulty we are dealing with exists only in the minds of skeptics and analytics.

III. Number of the First-born.

The critics found one of their objections to the trustworthiness of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic authorship on the number of the first-born among the Israelites, as compared with the whole population. The number of the first-born males a month old and upward is given as 22,272,;⁵⁷ the number of able-bodied men was 603,550;⁵⁸ the whole population was more than two millions, and the number of males presumably over one million. There was, then, only one first-born to eighty-eight of the entire population. As the number of the first-born could not be less than the number of families, and also the number of mothers, there must have been eighty-eight persons in every family, on the average, and each mother must have had, on the average, eighty-eight children. This is a statement of the difficulty in the strongest terms. Reuss makes the average family consist of one hundred persons, but brings the number down to fifty-five, and again to twenty-seven.⁵⁹ Wellhausen fixes the number at forty.⁶⁰ Colenso varies between the numbers forty-two and thirty for each family.

There are several considerations which help to remove the difficulty.

1. One of these is that, in the generation that immediately preceded the numbering, the male children, including the firstborn, had been destroyed according to the decree of the Egyptian king. Doubtless in this way marriage and increase, for some time before the exodus, had been checked, if not prevented. Reuss, on account of "the generation which could not contribute to the increase of births," reduces the proportion of the population to the first-born from one hundred and eleven to one, down to fifty-five to one.⁶¹

2. In many families, perhaps in one-half, the first-born was a girl. It would seem that the oldest son in such cases was not counted as the first-born, for the reason that he did not "open the matrix."⁶² Reuss admits the force of this consideration, and on account of it reduces the proportion from fifty-five to twenty-seven.

3. There were some families in which the children were all daughters. In such cases surely no first-born was counted, at least if the father was not a first-born.

4. In some families the first-born had been removed by death before the census was taken. Even Colenso admits the force of this consideration. He supposes that one out of every four among the first-born had died before the numbering, and he reduces in this way the supposed average number in a family to thirty persons.⁶³

5. It is a question whether the first-born of the wife, or only the first-born of the husband, was counted. Polygamy prevailed to some extent among the ancient Hebrews. If a man had several wives, the first child of his first wife, at least if a male, was counted as his first-born. But was the first child of each of his other wives counted as a first-born? If a man had a dozen wives, who all had children, did he have a dozen first-borns? Again, suppose that a man had two wives in succession, marrying the second after the death of the first, and that both had children; had this man, according to law, two first-borns in his family, both of whom he must redeem by the payment of the prescribed sum?

Certainly the law in some places does seem to require the enumeration and redemption of the first-born not of the husband only, but also of each and all of his wives. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb."⁶⁴ This, at first view, seems to include all the first-born, male and female, both of the husband and of the wife and of all the wives. Yet it is clear that this law is to be understood with limitations. First-born females were not included. "Number all the firstborn of the males."⁶⁵ And a few verses farther on, the enumeration is again restricted to the males among the first-born.⁶⁶ We understand, too, that the enumeration was again limited to one first-born in a man's family, and was not extended to the children of all the wives. Abraham had three wives and issue by them all, yet he had but one first-born. Jacob had but one firstborn among his four sets of children by his four wives. The Hebrew law forbade a man to make the son of a favorite wife his first-born, instead of the real first-born.⁶⁷

We think the evidence preponderates in favor of the view that only one first-born was counted in a man's family, and that the disproportion between the number of the first-born and the whole population is to be correspondingly discounted.

6. In many cases the first-born in his father's family was married and had a first-born son of his own. His father might not have been a first-born or might be dead. His mother, brothers, and sisters might still be living. Was this man counted in the enumeration of the first-born along with his own first-born? Were there two first-borns counted in this man's family? In such cases in Egypt, on the evening of the Passover, did God slay two first-borns in one family, father and son? It seems reasonable to suppose that the first-born, who was himself the head of a family and had a first-born to be counted and redeemed, would be exempt from the enumeration. In that case, then, only unmarried first-borns would be counted, and the enumeration would be limited mainly to the first-borns under twenty or twenty-one years of age.

7. There is reason, we think, to believe that the law in regard to the first-born was not applied to those who were born before its enactment.

It was enacted just before the exodus, at the time of the destruction of the first-born in Egypt. In consequence of this event the Lord claimed the first-born among the Israelites as belonging specially to himself.⁶⁸ The language of the statute seems to indicate that it was intended to apply only to the cases that should occur after its enactment:* whatsoever openeth the womb," "all that openeth the matrix, being males,"⁶⁹ — not those who had already opened the womb, that is, were born before the law was enacted. This law, then, was not ex post facto — it was not retroactive.

Now the time intervening between the exodus and the numbering of the first-born was not much more than thirteen months.⁷⁰ The number of the first-born (22,273) may seem too large to have been all born within that time.⁷¹ It presupposes 44,546 marriages, one marriage to every forty-four of the population, since about one-half of the first-borns would be females; but the oppression in Egypt, and Pharaoh's decree that all newborn Hebrew male children should be drowned, would certainly very much decrease the marriages during the time more immediately preceding the exodus. The result of deliverance from bondage and from the king's cruel decree would naturally be a vast number of marriages immediately after the exodus. The people had not much to attend to besides courtship and marriage.

8. In the last place, according to the law, the first-born males above five years of age. were not included in the 22,273. The proof of this proposition is as follows: The Levites were taken by the Lord instead of the first-born. But there were 22,273 first-borns and only 22,000 Levites. The two hundred and seventy-three over plus first-borns were redeemed at the rate of five shekels apiece. It was expressly enacted, that the ransom price should be "five shekels apiece by the poll, after the shekel of the sanctuary."⁷² It is also stated that the whole amount of the redemption money for the two hundred and seventy-three was one thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, which is five shekels per head. Now the law expressly declared that this should be the ransom price for a person from a month old to five years old.⁷³ Since the over-plus first-borns were redeemed at the price of five shekels apiece, and since this was the ransom price of a male from one month to five years old, while that for a male from five to twenty was twenty shekels,⁷⁴ it follows that the two hundred and seventy-three and the entire twenty-two thousand were not more than five years old. This is corroborated by the view presented above in regard to the law not reaching back beyond the time of its enactment. But, really, no corroboration is needed. The redemption of these first-borns at the rate of five shekels apiece proves that they were not over five yars old. If, then, there were more than twenty-two thousand firstborns five years old and under, the whole number of first-born of all ages must have been twelve or fifteen times as many, and the critics are relieved of all difficulty about the disproportion between the number of this class of persons and that of the whole population, and also about the size of the old Hebrew families. This whole difficulty, as presented by them, is founded solely on their own misapprehension.

IV. Sustenance of the Cattle and Sheep in the Wilderness.

According to the sacred history, the Israelites took sheep and cattle with them out of Egypt. They had "flocks and herds, even very much cattle."⁷⁵ At Rephidim, before they came to Sinai, "the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?"⁷⁶ The number of the sheep possessed by the Israelites at the exodus is suggested by the observance of the Passover. The number of lambs necessary for two millions of people, one lamb for every ten persons, would be two hundred thousand. The number of sheep would be three or four times greater — six or eight hundred thousand. The cattle were probably also numerous.

How did these flocks and herds subsist in the wilderness? How did the Israelites maintain them? Our critics hold that they were not, and could not be, maintained; that the Israelites had no sheep and cattle at the exodus — at any rate not large numbers of them, or, if they had many sheep and cattle, these perished in the wilderness. They infer that in either case the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch is gone, and that therefore Moses is not the author of it.

In reply to the question how the flocks and herds were maintained in the wilderness, we answer, partly by natural and partly by supernatural means.

The Pentateuch represents the Sinaitic peninsula as furnishing sustenance for sheep and cattle, and not as being altogether covered with barren rocks and sand. It was a wilderness or desert, indeed; but a wilderness, in Bible phrase, is merely a country uninhabited, or with few inhabitants. It may be either fertile or barren. Anah fed the asses of Zibeon, his father, in the wilderness, but he could not have done so if there had been no grass nor fodder there.⁷⁷ Our Saviour fed the five thousand in "a desert place," yet there was "much grass" in it.⁷⁸ The first mention made of the wilderness of Sinai is to the effect that Moses used it as a pasture ground for the sheep of his father-in-law. It is stated that "he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb."⁷⁹ Doubtless the Israelites, when they came to Sinai and Horeb, found pasturage where Moses had found it before. This is, indeed, implied in the fact that they were forbidden to let their flocks and herds feed before the mount.⁸⁰

Travelers testify that there are vegetation and pasturage in this region. Lepsius speaks of ascending Mount Sinai,⁸¹ and then says, "Here, to my astonishment, between the points into which the summit is divided, I found a small, level valley, plentifully supplied with shrubs and herbs." He describes the Wady Feiran, in the neighborhood of Sinai, as a fertile valley, abounding in trees, herbs, and flowers.⁸² Ritter speaks of this valley in the same way, calling it a garden, park, and paradise. He also speaks of other portions of the peninsula as fertile and productive, though it is in general a barren waste.⁸³ Professor Palmer testifies that "most of the valleys contain some vegetation," and that "the barest and most stony hillside is seldom entirely destitute of vegetation."⁸⁴

We do not care to push this point any further. We deem it sufficient to show that the representations of the Pentateuch in regard to vegetation and pasturage in the wilderness are fully sustained by modern travelers and investigators. We do not claim that the flocks and herds of the Israelites were sustained, or could have been sustained, wholly by natural means.

Colenso affirms that "there was no miraculous provision of food for the herds and flocks." He even asserts that "they were left to gather sustenance as they could, in that inhospitable wilderness."⁸⁵ Now what the author means is, that according to the representations of the Pentateuch there was no miraculous supply of food for the sheep and the cattle, and that they subsisted wholly by natural means. But does the Pentateuch really or virtually deny that there was any miraculous provision for these animals? Is silence in this case equivalent to a denial? We think that, on the contrary, this silence is to be interpreted, in view of the circumstances, the other way. The Hebrews at this point were under a miraculous dispensation. They were brought out of Egypt by a series of stupendous miracles. They crossed the Red Sea by miracle. The cloud which led them by day, and the fire by night, were miraculous. Their food and drink, the manna and the quails, and the water from the rock were supplied by miracle. Even their clothes and shoes were preserved by miracle and made to last for forty years. And yet are we to assume that every miracle that took place is mentioned, and that silence is virtual denial? It is not mentioned that the sheep and cattle had any miraculous supply of food; therefore, there was none, says the objector. By parity of reasoning he might conclude that the sheep and cattle did not go through the Red Sea as on dry land, but swam through, on the right and left flank of their masters. At Marah the people were about to perish with thirst, and were supplied by miracle, but not a word is said about the sheep and cattle. Did they live without water?⁸⁶ At Massah and Meribah the people did indeed complain that not only they and their children, but also their cattle, were perishing with thirst; and when Moses cried to the Lord, and the answer was, "Thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink,"⁸⁷ not a word was said about water for the sheep and cattle. These poor animals were compelled to live without water, were they? Is that the way in which we are to understand the record? Mention is indeed made of a miraculous supply of water for the sheep and cattle at Kadesh. God said to Moses, "Thou shall bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink."⁸⁸ But the objector, to be consistent, ought here to find additional reason for believing that the silence about the beasts in the other cases proves that they lived on without water or else died. Again, the objector ought to say that though there was a miraculous supply of water for the people, at Beer the beasts were suffered to die again.⁸⁹

The truth is, that generally the; occurrence of miracles is not affirmed, but suggested. It is not said that the sea was divided miraculously. The record is, that "Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided."⁹⁰ The facts are stated; the miracle is only inferred. Moses, at God's command, smote the rock at Horeb, and the water gushed out.⁹¹ These are the facts; the miracle is suggested. Christ said to the man with the withered hand: "Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other."⁹² The facts only are stated. That the healing was miraculous is purely an inference. In general, miracles are recorded in this way. Indeed, we may say that in most cases they are not recorded at all, but the facts which suggest them.

Now we have the facts recorded which suggest the miraculous supply of food and water for the sheep and cattle in the desert. The Israelites took their flocks and herds with them. In the wilderness there was not a sufficient supply of food for the multitude of beasts. But they lived; they did not starve. They must, then, have had a supernatural supply of food. In what special way this supernatural supply of food was furnished, we are not informed. God may have caused grass to spring up in the desert. The Lord does sometimes turn a desert into a fruitful land, as well as a fruitful land into barrenness.⁹³ It seems to us that only those who disbelieve in miracles are likely to have any difficulty in regard to the sustenance of the sheep and cattle in the desert. Such is the real position of Reuss, Graf, Wellhausen, and Kuenen, the ablest and most distinguished champions of the analytic criticism. Why should such men talk or write about the question of food for the sheep and cattle, while they know well that their skepticism in regard to the supernatural and to miracles gives the lie to the whole Pentateuch and to nearly all other parts of the Bible?

1) Gen. 46:8-27.

2) Gen. 46:26.

3) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. I., p. 434.

4) Gen. 29:31-35.

5) Gen. 30:21-24.

6) Gen. 38:1-30

7) Colenso, The Pentateuch, p. 60.

8) 8) Gen. 46:8.

9) 9) Gen. 46:15.

10) Gen. 46:17.

11) Gen. 46:18.

12) Gen. 46; 27.

13) Gen. 46:21.

14) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 97.

15) Num. 26:38-40; I. Chr. 7:6-12; 8:1-7.

16) Gen. 46:27.

17) Gen. 46:8, 15.

18) Gen. 37:35.

19) Ezra 7:3; I. Chr. 6:7-14.

20) Matt. 1:1.

21) Matt. 1:8.

22) II. Kings 8:24; 11:2; 12:21; 15:1.

23) Matt. 1:11.

24) Ex. 19:7-14, 25.

25) II. Sam. 12:9.

26) II. Chr. 36:17, 18.

27) Heb. 7:9, 10.

28) Gen. 23:4.

29) Gen. 24:4.

30) Gen. 23:4.

31) Ex. 12:37, 38.

32) Dictionnaire Philosophique, Moïse, Sec. iii.

33) Gen. 15:13.

34) Gen. 15:16.

35) Acts 7:6.

36) Ex. 12:40.

37) So far as the phrase under consideration is concerned.

38) Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, pp. 149, 150.

39) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. II., pp. 35, 36.

40) Hexateuch, p. 331.

41) Heilige Sehrift des Alten Testaments, p. 68.

42) Gen. 15:16.

43) Ex. 6:16-20.

44) I. Chr. 7:22-27.

45) Josh. 17:3.

46) Num. 27:3.

47) Ex. 6:16-20.

48) Num. 26:28-33; 27:1; Josh. 17:3.

49) I. Chr. 7:22-27.

50) Gen. 15:13.

51) 51) Gal. 3:17.

52) Gen. 46:1-3.

53) Antiquities, 2:15:2.

54) Antiquities, 2:9:1; Wars, 5:9:4.

55) Ex. 1:12, 20.

56) Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, p. 166.

57) Num. 3:43.

58) Num. 1:46.

59) Note on Num. 3:43, and Int., p. 87.

60) Prolegomena, p. 364.

61) L'Histoire Sainte, Int., p. 87.

62) Num. 3:12.

63) Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, pp. 144, 145.

64) Ex. 13:2.

65) Num. 3:40.

66) Num. 3:43.

67) Deut. 21:16.

68) Ex. 13:1-16.

69) Ex. 13:2, 12, 15.

70) Num. 1:1.

71) Num. 3:43.

72) Num. 3:46, 47.

73) Lev. 27:6.

74) Lev. 27:5.

75) Ex. 12:38.

76) Ex. 17:3.

77) Gen. 36:24.

78) Matt. 14:15; John 6:10.

79) Ex. 3:1.

80) Ex. 34:3.

81) Mount Serbal, however.

82) Letters from Egypt, etc., pp. 296, 305.

83) Geography, Vol. I., pp. 301, 303.

84) The Desert of the Exodus, pp. 33, 34.

85) Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, p. 118.

86) Ex. 15:23-25.

87) Ex. 17:1-6.

88) Num. 20:8.

89) Num. 21:16.

90) Ex. 14:21.

91) Ex. 17:6.

92) Matt. 12:13.

93) Ps. 107:34-38.