EXACTNESS.

In addition to the historical trustworthiness of the Pentateuch, its accuracy in minute details is to be considered. We regard this minute accuracy as one of its most remarkable characteristics, and it constitutes unmistakable evidence that the book was written by one who witnessed the scenes described. God might, indeed, have employed and inspired, for the purpose of writing an account of the exodus and succeeding events, some one who was ignorant of them, and have imparted to him the necessary knowledge. But this is not God's way of doing. He is disposed to utilize human talent as far as practicable and to work miracles only so far as may be necessary. The minute accuracy of the Pentateuch presents these two alternatives for our adoption: either its author lived in Egypt and was an eye-witness of the exodus, or divine knowledge was communicated to him by the inspiration of the Almighty. It makes little difference which alternative the analytic critic accepts. Either is fatal to his views.

The kind of accuracy to which we refer is virtually conceded to the Pentateuch. We are far from saying that the analytic critics admit it to be accurate in every respect. On the other hand, they charge upon it contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, and almost all sorts of errors. Some of them regard all accounts of miracles as myths, fictions, or incredible stories. But we speak now of geographical, historical, and chronological references and statements — references and statements concerning the history, geography, climate, and soil of Egypt, Palestine, and other countries; the mountains, lakes, seas, and rivers; the inhabitants, their manners and customs; the governments and laws. Inaccuracy in matters of this kind has often been charged upon the Pentateuch, but has never been proved. The charge, however, has been abandoned, or virtually withdrawn. All efforts of this kind have failed. To-day the Pentateuch is virtually admitted to be free from the errors that characterize even trustworthy historians. Not an Egyptologist nor any archaeologist finds a single error in all the Pentateuchal books. The result of the archæological discoveries of modern times, so far as the Pentateuchal books are concerned, has only been to demonstrate their accuracy and vindicate their historical character. Hence "the higher criticism" regards modern archaeology with disfavor, if not with downright hostility.

In the case of other ancient books the result has been very different. Archaeological investigation has been making their inaccuracy more and more evident.

The inaccuracies of Herodotus are notorious. Though truthful himself, and though he gives us more information about Egypt than any other ancient writer, yet he accepted in many cases the incorrect statements of others, and added some mistakes of his own. He is frequently inaccurate in matters that seemingly came under his own observation. He declares that the Egyptians had no vines in their country.¹ This has been conclusively shown to be incorrect by Kenrick, Wilkinson, Brugsch-Bey, and others.² Even Herodotus virtually contradicts himself by referring, as he repeatedly does, to wine and raisins in Egypt.³ In regard to vines and wine in Egypt the Pentateuch⁴ is accurate, the Father of History inaccurate. Herodotus further declares that the use of wheat and barley bread as food was considered disgraceful.⁵ Both Wilkinson⁶ and Kenrick⁷ declare this statement to be incorrect. The inaccuracy of Herodotus in saying that the Egyptians drank only out of brazen cups⁸ is also noticed by Wilkinson,⁹ and is demonstrated by the monuments. The Egyptologist further claims that "but little reliance can be placed on his measurements of the pyramids."¹⁰ Kenrick declares that the history given by Herodotus of all that precedes 800 B.C. "cannot be accepted as true, either in its facts or its dates," and he suggests that the priests, with whom he conversed, were of a very subordinate rank, and ignorant of the history of their country, and that they had invented such a history as would satisfy the curiosity and excite the imagination of visitors.¹¹

Other ancient writers are still more inaccurate. The editor of Brugsch-Bey claims that, "notwithstanding the many attacks which have been made on the veracity of the ancient historian, modern excavations and the deciphering of texts prove that his statements from his own personal knowledge are, on the whole, to be trusted," and then adds, "Next to him in rank, but greatly his inferiors, are Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Josephus, and Plutarch,"¹²

The testimony of Professor Sayce to the inaccuracy of Herodotus and other ancient writers is as follows: "Let us now turn to the classical writers who have left accounts of the ancient history of the East. Among these Herodotus, and Ktesias of Knidos, naturally claim our first attention. Herodotus has been termed 'the Father of History,' since the later classical conceptions of Oriental history were in great measure based upon his work. Ktesias was the physician of the Persian king Artaxerxes, and thus had access to the state archives of Persia; on the strength of these he maintained that Herodotus had 'lied,' and he wrote a work with the object of contradicting most of the older historian's statements. But when confronted with contemporaneous monuments, Herodotus and Ktesias alike turn out to be false guides. In Egypt, Herodotus placed the pyramid builders after the time of Rameses or Sesostris, and but shortly before the age of the Ethiopians Sabaco and Tirhakah, although in reality they preceded them by centuries. Among the Egyptian kings a Greek demigod and Lake Mœris in the Fayüm are made to figure, and the work of Herodotus abounds with small inaccuracies in the explanation of Egyptian words and customs, and in the description of the products of the country. His account of Assyria and Babylonia is still more misleading. The Assyrian and Bab3donian empires are confounded together, just as they are in the Book of Judith; Sennacherib is called king of the Arabians, and Nebuchadnezzar is transformed into Labynétos I. (or Nabonidos), and made the father of the real Nabonidos. The fortifications of Babylonia are ascribed to a queen Nitôkris, who bears an Egyptian name, and is placed five generations after Semiramis, a title of the Babylonian goddess Istar or Ashtoreth; while Ninos, that is, Nineveh, is supposed to be an Assyrian monarch, and termed the son of Belos or Baal. In the fragments of Ktesias Assyrian history fares no better."¹³

Thus is set forth the inaccuracy of the classical writers. In complete contrast with all this is the view presented by the archaeologists in regard to the Pentateuch. They allude to the Pentateuchal history again and again as confirmed by the monuments. The most distinguished of the archaeologists and Egyptologists, Kenrick, Wilkinson, Lepsius, Brugsch-Bey, Naville, Maspero, Palmer, and all the rest, though pointing out the inaccuracies of the classical writers in treating of ancient Oriental affairs, have not indicated a single error in all the five books of the Pentateuch — not a single error in history, chronology, or geography, not a single erroneous statement as to fact or date. Whatever light comes from the ancient monuments, from papyri and inscriptions, from tablets of clay and tablets of stone, from tombs and mummies of the dead, from mounds in Babylonia and ruined palaces in Assyria, whatever light comes from these sources and falls on the Pentateuchal history, serves but to explain, to prove, or to confirm. Not every difficulty has yet been removed, and perhaps never will be, but enough has been done to give assurance that as archaeological investigation advances the accuracy of the Pentateuch, even in minute affairs, will continue to be vindicated.

Among the internal proofs of the minute accuracy of the Pentateuch we may refer to its chronology. Without maintaining at this time its absolute correctness, we propose to point out its remarkable definiteness and self-consistency.

According to Genesis, ten generations preceded the flood. Bach generation is represented by a patriarch. These patriarchs are all mentioned by name; the order of their succession is indicated; the time elapsing between the birth of each predecessor and that of his successor is stated, and the age at which each died is given. It is stated that the deluge took place in the six hundredth year of Noah. These dates and facts are all clearly and definitely stated. They indicate unmistakably that the deluge occurred 1656 A.M., that Methuselah died that very year, and that Lamech died 1651 A.M., five years previous.

According to the sacred history, the deluge was designed to destroy mankind for their wickedness, and only righteous Noah and his family were to be preserved. The history states that, as a matter of fact, these alone were preserved. Now, if the date of the deluge had been fixed at any other year than precisely 1656 A.M., the result would have been confusion and contradiction in the record. Had it occurred one year earlier, it would have destroyed Methuselah, who lived to the year 1656. Lamech lived only seven hundred and seventy-seven years, whereas the average length of life among the antediluvian patriarchs, including Noah, was eight hundred and fifty-seven and one-half years. Had he attained to this average age, he would have lived seventy-five and one-half years after the deluge. Had that event occurred five years before the six hundredth 3'ear of Noah's life, both Lamech and Methuselah must have entered the ark or been drowned with the wicked. As the latter died 1656 A.M., and as the flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month of that year,¹⁴ it is evident that Noah attended the funeral of his grandfather only a short time before the flood came. These conclusions are inevitable, if we accept the facts and dates as given. Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years, and, of course, died 930 A.M. Adding together the times elapsing between the birth of father and of son on down to Noah, we find that Noah's six hundredth year was 1656 A.M.; that Methuselah was born 687 A.M., was contemporary with Adam two hundred and forty-three years, and died the year of the deluge, 1656 A.M.; and that Lamech, being born 874 A.M., died 1651 A.M., five years before the flood.

We thus have an example of remarkable accuracy. If the date of the deluge had been fixed at any year preceding 1656 A.M., it would have involved the Pentateuchal history and chronology in contradiction. On the hypothesis of fiction, or any hypothesis other than that of veritable history, how very shrewd and how carefully exact the author, or authors, of Genesis must have been! Or will the analytic critic assume that in this case there was merely an accidental and fortunate escape from the committal of a damaging blunder?

An example of inaccuracy is furnished by the Septuagint text in this very matter of antediluvian chronology. It adds in most cases one hundred years to the time intervening between the births of father and son, thus placing the flood in the year 2242 A.M., and the birth of Methuselah 1287 A.M. It assigns nine hundred and sixty-nine years as the duration of Methuselah's life, and thus places his death fourteen years after the flood, though it represents, of course, only Noah and his family as having been saved in the ark. The Samaritan text decreases the time intervening between the births of father and son, in one case by one hundred years and in two cases by more than one hundred, and thus places the deluge at 1307 A.M. It succeeds in allowing Methuselah and Lamech to die before the flood (which it thus places in the year 1307 A.M.) by shortening the life of the former from nine hundred and sixty-nine to seven hundred and twenty years, and of the latter from seven hundred and seventy-seven to six hundred and fifty-three, thus representing them as dying 3'ounger than any of the other antediluvian patriarchs, and representing Methuselah's life as being one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half years, and Lamech's as two hundred and thirty-four and one-half, shorter than the average of human life before the flood.

Moreover, the Hebrew chronology of men and generations after the flood is characterized by definiteness and accurate self-consistency Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years, dying three hundred and fifty years after the flood — 2006 A.M.¹⁵ Arphaxad was born two years after the flood, in the one hundredth year of Shem, and died at the age of four hundred and thirty-eight.¹⁶ Thus the account goes on, indicating the time of the birth and death, and the length of life, of the postdiluvian patriarchs on down to Abraham.¹⁷

Possibly some one may claim that there is a discrepancy in the account of Shem's age and Arphaxad's birth. Shem, at the age of one hundred years, begat Arphaxad, two years after the flood. But Noah, being six hundred years old at the time of the flood,¹⁸ was, of course, six hundred and two years old two years after the flood. But it may be claimed that Noah was five hundred years older than Shem; for it is expressly declared that "Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."¹⁹ This doubtless means that Noah was five hundred years old when his oldest son was born. Now, if Shem was the oldest son, there was a difference of five hundred years between his age and that of his father. At the time of the flood, Noah being six hundred years old,¹⁸ Shem must have been one hundred; and at the birth of Arphaxad, two years after the flood, Shem must have been one hundred and two years old. But according to the record he was only one hundred. Thus inaccuracy may be inferred. Shem, however, was not the oldest son, though he had the preeminence and was accounted the first-born, as being the progenitor of Abraham, of the chosen race, and of Christ. Ham was the youngest son,²⁰ and Japheth was older than Shem.²¹ It was Japheth, then, that was born when Noah was five hundred years old; and Shem, according to the record, next in age to Japheth, was ninety-eight years old at the time of the flood.

Inconsistency is claimed also in the record of the ages of Terah and Abraham. "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran."²² The difference, then, between the ages of Terah and Abram was seventy years, if Abram was the oldest son. Terah died at the age of two hundred and five,²³ and the next event mentioned after Terah' s death is the departure of Abram from Haran, at the age of seventy-five.²⁴ If these events are mentioned in the order of their occurrence, either Abram must have been one hundred and thirty-five years old at the time of his departure from Haran, or there must have been a difference of one hundred and thirty years between his age and Terah's. In either case there is a discrepancy in the record. But it is possible that events are not mentioned in the order of their occurrence in this case. The death of Ishmael is recorded more than half a century out of its chronological order.²⁵ Isaac's death is mentioned many years in advance of its actual place in the chronology. So, too, the death of Terah may have occurred many years after the departure of Abram, though mentioned in the history before. Stephen indeed refers to the death of Terah as preceding the departure of Abram from Haran. But the author of the Acts merely quotes the statement of Stephen without approving it. But while the death of Terah maybe mentioned out of its chronological order, and in this way the accuracy of the record be vindicated, we think that this hypothesis is unnecessary. The record does not say that the age of Terah was seventy at the time of Abram's birth, but that he "lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." Certainly all the three sons were not born just when their father was seventy years old. There is no reason to believe that they were triplets. We understand that the record gives the age of Terah at the time of the birth of his oldest son, just as in the case of Noah; and that Abram, like Shem, was not actually the first-born, but was accounted as such. There is reason to believe that Haran was the oldest son. Nahor married his daughter, and probably Abram's wife, Sarai, was also his daughter.²⁶ This suggests that Haran was older than his brothers. Hence the charge of inconsistency is in this case without proof. Abrani may have been born when Terah was one hundred and thirty years old, Abram may have been of the age of seventy-five at the time of his departure from Haran, and Terah may have died immediately before, at the age of two hundred and five.

It may be said that we have here an instance at least of indefiniteness in the fact that we are not at once informed which son was born to Terah in his seventieth year. Be it so. This is the only instance of the kind in the whole record. All the other facts and dates are clear.

Abram left Haran (at or before his father's death) at the age of seventy-five.²⁷ After a residence of ten years in Canaan, Abram, at the age of eighty-five (seventy-five plus ten), took Hagar as his wife.²⁸ Ishmael was born when Abram was eighty-six years old.²⁹ At the time of the circumcision Abram was ninety-nine and Ishmael thirteen.³⁰ The difference between their ages was eighty-six (ninety-nine minus thirteen). At the time of Isaac's birth Abraham was one hundred years old.³¹ The difference between the ages of Ishmael and Isaac was fourteen years. Ishmael died at the age of one hundred and thirty-seven.³² Isaac was married at forty,³³ and twenty years afterward Jacob and Esau were born, when Isaac was sixty years old.³⁴ There was, then, an interval of one hundred and sixty years between the birth of Abraham and that of Jacob. Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five.³⁵ Jacob and Esau were therefore born fifteen years before the death of their grandfather.

Jacob was married at the age of eighty-four, and seven years afterward Joseph was born; for there was a difference of ninety-one years between the ages of Jacob and Joseph, which is shown as follows: When Jacob was one hundred and thirty years old, Joseph was thirty-nine; for Joseph was made prime minister to Pharaoh at the age of thirty;³⁶ and nine years (seven of plenty and two of famine) elapsed after this before the second visit of Jacob's sons to Egypt and the migration.³⁷ Joseph's age at the time of the migration was thirty-nine, and Jacob's age was one hundred and thirty.³⁸ The difference, then, in their ages was ninety-one (one hundred and thirty less thirty-nine). Joseph was born the seventh year after Jacob's double marriage, at the close of the fourteenth year of his residence in Padan-aram.³⁹ Jacob served seven years for Leah, seven for Rachel, and was for six years a partner in business with Laban.⁴⁰ He remained therefore, all together, in Padan-aram twenty years (seven plus seven plus six). Joseph, being born at the close of the fourteenth year, was six years old at the time of the departure of the family from Padan-aram. Jacob, therefore, was ninety-seven (ninety-one plus six). At the time of his flight from Esau he was seventy-seven (ninety-seven minus twenty). At the time of his double marriage he was eighty-four (seventy-seven plus seven). Joseph, at the time of his arrival as a slave in Egypt, was seventeen,⁴¹ and Jacob was one hundred and eight (seventeen plus ninety-one). The difference in age between Joseph and his grandfather Isaac was one hundred and fifty-one (sixty plus ninety-one). At the time of Joseph's sale to the Ishmaelites Isaac's age was one hundred and sixty-eight (seventeen plus one hundred and fifty-one). Isaac died at the age of one hundred and eighty,⁴² twelve years after the sale of Joseph.

The time between the return to Canaan and the sale of Joseph was eleven years (seventeen minus six, or one hundred and eight minus ninety-seven). The time between the return to Canaan and the emigration to Egypt was thirty-three years (thirty-nine minus six, or one hundred and thirty minus ninety-seven).

The time of the sojourn of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan, that is, the time from the entrance into Canaan to the migration to Egypt, is represented as follows: From the entrance into Canaan to the birth of Isaac, twenty-five years; then to the birth of Jacob, sixty years; and, next, to the migration to Egypt, two hundred and fifteen years (twenty-five plus sixty plus one hundred and thirty). All these facts and dates are either stated with unmistakable exactness, or are made out with mathematical precision.

The same precision characterizes the subsequent chronological and genealogical statements of the Pentateuch. In Exodus 12:40, 41 we have a statement as explicit historically and chronologically as could be made in regard to the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. It is declared to have been four hundred and thirty years — no more and no less. The very year, month,⁴³ and day of the month in which the exodus began and the four hundred and thirty years terminated, are indicated. This date, with all its exactness, is again given in Numbers 33:3, which claims to be written by Moses, We do not enter into defense of the absolute correctness of the passage. It is not our business now to notice what the critics say about its authorship. We simply call attention to the fact that this clear and explicit statement is a part of the Pentateuch, and is not inconsistent with anything else contained in it. The initial statement of the Book of Numbers is similar in character: "The first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt."⁴⁴ Here again the year, month, and day are indicated. Again, in Numbers 10:11 is the statement that the Israelites set out from the wilderness of Sinai "on the twentieth day of the second month, in the second year." In both these cases the event referred to is dated from the exodus. In like manner the second celebration of the Passover is dated from the exodus, and hence declared to be in the second year.⁴⁵ This was in accordance with the record of this event itself, the month to be "the beginning of months," and the "night to be much observed,"⁴⁶

Chronological precision characterizes the record concerning the forty years' wandering in the desert. The forty years were emphasized. "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years; and ye shall know my breach of promise"⁴⁷ (rather, "my recall of promise"). But as all events were dated from the exodus, the forty years of wandering were to be counted from that epoch. This was all the more proper for the reason that the Israelites, since their departure from Egypt, had been all the time in the wilderness. In harmony with these chronological views, and marked by the usual exactness, is the record in Deuteronomy concerning Moses, very near the close of the forty years' wandering: "And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel."⁴⁸

The same characteristics mark the chronological record concerning Moses and Aaron. Aaron was the elder of the brothers, and he is named first in the genealogy.⁴⁹ At the time of their first interview with Pharaoh, Aaron was eighty-three years old, and Moses eighty.⁵⁰ Moses lived one hundred and twenty years, and Aaron one hundred and twenty-three. Aaron died on Mount Hor, in the fortieth year after the exodus, on the first day of the fifth month, one hundred and twenty-three years old.⁵¹ But of the death of Moses scarcely any particulars are given. Neither the day, nor the month, nor even the year is mentioned. We infer that he died at the close of the fortieth year after the exodus, or early in the forty-first; for Aaron, who was three years older, died in the fifth month of the fortieth year, aged one hundred and twenty-three. Moses, then, must have died not long after his brother. In the record of his death not even the place is mentioned, except to say that it was somewhere in the land of Moab.⁵² The only information we have as to the particular place of his death is, that God had directed him to ascend Mount Nebo, in order to look across the Jordan, and to die. But this meagerness of information and this absence of particulars that characterize the record of Moses' death are very significant, inasmuch as they set in a stronger light the definiteness, particularity, and precision of preceding statements. It would seem that the account of the great lawgiver's death was not from the hand that wrote the passages to which we have called attention as examples of particularity and precision. This accords with what we conceive to be the truth in the case, namely, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch substantially as we have it, but that, of course, he did not write the account of his own death and burial.

Not only the same definiteness and precision and self-consistency, but also the same chronological ideas and system, pervade the Pentateuch throughout. In the time of Moses, and afterward, events were dated from the exodus. The exodus was preceded by the sojourn of four hundred and thirty years in Egypt. This sojourn and the exodus were associated in the mind of the author of the Pentateuch. The sojourn in Egypt was preceded by the sojourn of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob two hundred and fifteen years in Canaan. These patriarchs were preceded by the ten postdiluvian patriarchs, who filled the period of three hundred and sixty-five years between the flood and the call of Abraham; and these were preceded by the antediluvian patriarchs, who filled the period of one thousand six hundred and fifty six years between the creation and the flood. This is the chronological system of the Pentateuch: forty years between the entrance into Canaan and the exodus; four hundred and thirty years between the exodus and the migration to Egypt; two hundred and fifteen years between the migration to Egypt and the migration to Canaan; three hundred and sixty-five years between the migration to Canaan and the flood; and one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years between the flood and the creation, — all together, two thousand six hundred and sixty-six years from the creation to the exodus.

1. This system is clear, well defined, and self-consistent.

2. So self-consistent, precise, and accurate is this chronological system in its general features and in its details, that there is no internal evidence against its absolute correctness. Assailants are compelled to employ exclusively external proofs.

3. The only doubtful point in all the details of this system is the birth-time of Abraham; that is, whether he was born in the seventieth or one hundred and thirtieth year of Terah. Aside from this, all the dates, facts, figures, and statements are clear and distinct, and are absolutely consistent with one another.

4. The only place in the Pentateuch where definiteness, precision, and particularity in chronological details are not found, is the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which Moses, of course, did not write. Had Moses given an account of his own death and funeral, it would doubtless have been as exact and minute as the account of the death and burial of Aaron at Mount Hor, near to Mosera.⁵³

5. The precision and self-consistency of this chronology are in striking contrast with the alterations, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies of Josephus and of the Samaritan and Septuagint text.

6. The Pentateuchal chronology, if self-contradictory or erroneous in any respect, affords, by its definiteness and particularization, a fine opportunity for attack and refutation. Why do not the critics attack it? Wellhausen merely shakes his lance at it. He remarks that the chronology is carried forward without a break ("lückenlos") from the creation to the exodus.⁵⁴ But instead of attacking it as incorrect or false, he ventures only to sneer at the exactness of details and the boldness with which numbers and names are stated. The manly thing for him to have done was either to point out errors in it, or frankly to admit its seeming correctness.

But further, outside of chronological matters, the statements of the Pentateuch are exact and self-consistent.

Let us take the genealogy of Jacob's family as an example.⁵⁵ Though this genealogical account has often been assailed as false, or at least incorrect, it is at least entirely and precisely self-consistent. Two totals are given in Genesis,⁵⁶ and another in the Acts by Stephen.⁵⁷ These totals are sixty-six, seventy, and seventy-five. Now if we count the children of Leah as named in the register, we shall find the number to be thirty-three, as given;⁵⁸ so of the number of Zilpah's children, sixteen; also of the number of Rachel's children, fourteen; and so, too, of Bilhah's children, seven. If we add these numbers together, we have seventy (thirty-three plus sixteen plus fourteen plus seven). This is the total referred to in the declaration, "All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."⁵⁹ But this total of seventy includes Joseph and his two sons, who did not go with Jacob to Egypt, but were there before his arrival. It includes, also, Jacob himself, who is expressly named as one of the seventy.⁶⁰ Deducting these four from seventy, we have sixty-six (seventy minus four). This accords with the declaration, "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came put of his loins, besides Jacob's son's wives, all the souls were threescore and six."⁶¹ The phrase "came with Jacob into Egypt" excludes Joseph and his sons, and also Jacob himself, from the total sixty-six. The total seventy-five is not mentioned in the Pentateuch,⁵⁷ and therefore does not specially concern us. But if any one should refer to it as evidence of Pentateuchal inaccuracy, we would remind him that Stephen includes in that total of seventy-five all the kindred whom Joseph invited to Egypt: "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."⁵⁷ The phrase "all his kindred" includes Jacob's sons' wives. If there were eight of his sons' wives in addition to Joseph's still living, we would have, including Jacob, the total seventy-five (sixty-seven plus eight). Stephen doubtless quoted the Septuagint, which we shall soon see was inexact in its statements; but he corrected them by including all of Jacob's kindred in the seventy-five.

If it seems strange that Jacob should be counted as a member of his own family, that does not detract from the accuracy of the account. The fact that he is so counted is expressly mentioned, thus: "Jacob and his sons." Accordingly, he must be reckoned with Leah's family, in order to make the totals thirty-three and seventy. Thus this account of Jacob's family is precisely self-consistent, and in this regard is perfectly accurate. In these matters the Septuagint text differs from the Hebrew, and runs into self-contradiction and inaccuracy. It gives the number of the families of Leah, Zilpah, Rachel, and Bilhah respectively as thirty-three, sixteen, eighteen, and seven, which make a total of seventy-four. The Septuagint, however, gives the totals sixty-six and seventy-five. It reads that nine sons were born to Joseph in Egypt.⁶² If we count Joseph and these nine sons as added to the sixty-six, we will have seventy-six; and if we deduct them from the second total (seventy-five), we will have but sixty-five. The Septuagint is inaccurate also in saying that the seventy-five as well as the sixty-six came "with Jacob into Egypt."⁶³ In Exodus i:1-5 the Septuagint reads that "all the souls of Jacob were seventy-five, "and yet in Deuteronomy 10:22 it reads that the fathers of the Israelites" went down into Egypt with seventy souls," Thus at every point the Septuagint is inconsistent and inexact. The contrast between it and the Hebrew text in this respect is marked.

The accuracy of the Pentateuch in its references to Egyptian affairs has already been in part illustrated. Many of the facts mentioned to show the acquaintance of the author with Egyptian affairs serve equally well to prove his minute accuracy. In this case, too, we claim, not, as in some of the foregoing points, simply precision and self-consistency of statement, but real and absolute accuracy. Thus the allusions to Joseph's shaving before his presentation to Pharaoh, to brick-making, to embalming, and other Egyptian affairs, are precisely correct, as is evinced by the statements of ancient authors and the investigations of modern Egyptologists.

In addition to the illustrations of this sort above presented, we will call attention to some others.

The allusion in the chief baker's dream to his carrying three baskets on his head⁶⁴ is in exact accordance with ancient Egyptian custom. Herodotus mentions, as one of the things by which the Egyptians were distinguished from all the rest of mankind, the fact that they carried burdens on their heads.⁶⁵ In Pharaoh's dream, the dependence of the fertility of Egypt on the Nile is correctly assumed, and is accurately represented by the circumstance that both the fat and the lean cows, the rank and good stalk with seven full ears and the stalk with the seven thin and blasted ears, all came up out of the river.⁶⁶ When Joseph's brethren dined with him, they sat⁶⁷ while eating, which was in accordance with Egyptian custom.⁶⁸ The Jews, and also the Grecians and Romans of the later time at least, reclined at meals.

The account of the embalming of Jacob bears marks of correctness. "And forty days were fulfilled for him; for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed: and the Egyptians mourned for him threescore and ten days."⁶⁹ Herodotus speaks of the embalming process lasting seventy days.⁷⁰ ''Diodorus Siculus speaks of the body being prepared " with cedar oil and other substances for more than thirty days," and he further says that the friends of the deceased mourn for him until the body is buried.⁷¹ The author of Genesis, more accurate than either of these classical writers, mentions both periods, forty days ("more than thirty days," says Diodorus Siculus), and seventy days, the whole time of the embalming, and also the time of the mourning.

The closing words of Genesis contain an allusion to an Egyptian custom: "So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt."⁷² The mummy-cases so frequently found in Egypt corroborate the truth and accuracy of this statement.

We have not space, nor is it necessary, to speak of all, or of a majority, of the many accurate allusions in the Pentateuch to the customs and affairs of Egypt. In discussing such points we could only reproduce what has been said by others. This subject has been well discussed by Hengstenberg.⁷³

The geographical statements and allusions of the Pentateuch have of late years received many confirmations. Their accuracy has in most cases been demonstrated. In no instance have they been falsified. Goshen, On, Rameses, Pithom, Succoth, Etham, Migdol, and Pi-hahiroth have been identified. The remains of Pithom, one of the store-cities built by the Israelites for Pharaoh, have been discovered, consisting of huge walls built of bricks made, some with straw, and some without.⁷⁴ The route of the Israelites from Rameses to the Red Sea has been determined.⁷⁴ The Israelites reached the sea by a three-days' march, and it is ascertained that the distance from Memphis to Pi-hahiroth is just three days' journey.⁷⁵ It is in evidence that the allusions to places in the account of the march from the Red Sea to Sinai — the wilderness of Shur, in which they went three days without water; Marah, with its bitter waters; Elim, with its twelve wells and seventy palm trees; the wilderness of Sin; Rephidim, "where there was no water for the people to drink"; and, finally Sinai, the mount of God — the statements and allusions in regard to these places have led scientific observers and experienced travelers to declare, after careful investigation, that "the physical facts accord with the inspired account "and also prove "the accuracy of Scripture details."⁷⁶ Humboldt declared that the historical narratives of the Old Testament (among which are, of course, embraced those of the Pentateuch) * ' are most true to nature, a point on which the unanimous testimony of modern travelers may be received as conclusive, owing to the inconsiderable changes effected in the course of ages in the manners and habits of a nomadic people."⁷⁷ This "unanimous testimony of modern travelers" to the truth of the historical narratives of the Pentateuch and of the entire Old Testament, as well as the testimony of the archeologists and the monuments, "the higher critics" almost entirely ignore. This policy of prudence or of contemptuous silence Professor W. R. Smith broke through so far as to venture to say that "the Pentateuch displays an exact topographical knowledge of Palestine, but by no means so exact a knowledge of the wilderness of the wandering." He further declares that "geographers are unable to assign with certainty the site of Mount Sinai, because the narrative has none of that topographical color which the story of an eye-witness is sure to possess."⁷⁸ But Professor Smith here deals only in assertion. He cites no authorities and gives no proofs. He makes no specifications, except to say that geographers cannot agree as to the site of Mount Sinai. It is, however, almost universally agreed that the mount called by the natives "Jebel Musa" is the ancient Sinai. Lepsius, indeed, opposed this view, but says, "I am not aware that there are any modern travelers and savants who have thrown doubts on the correctness of this assumption."⁷⁹ Thus Lepsius stood alone. Professor Sayce has lately opposed the prevalent view, but he admits that "it may seem a pity to disturb a traditional faith which has supported so many tourists among the desolate wadies and monotonous scenery of the Sinaitic Peninsula."⁸⁰ He has not, however, succeeded in producing any "disturbance," for he speaks not from personal observation, and the testimony of nearly all the travelers and explorers, except that of Lepsius, is against him.

Now as to the opinion of Professor Smith that the Pentateuch does not indicate an exact knowledge of the wilderness of the wandering on the part of its author, we deem it a full refutation to cite the testimony of a trustworthy and competent eye-witness. Professor Palmer, of England, professor of Arabic at Cambridge, had so familiar an acquaintance with that language that he could converse freely with the native Bedouin of the desert. He made two visits to and through the Sinaitic Peninsula. He accompanied the Ordnance Survey Expedition to the peninsula in 1868-69. He also visited Et Tih, Idumea, and Moab in 1869-70, on behalf of the Exploration Fund. He declares that he had the company of scientific men and experienced explorers, and that he wandered over a greater portion of the desert than had been previously explored. This man of learning and science, who could speak the Arabic like a native, and who traveled through the desert in various directions, seeing with his own eyes the sands and the rocks, the streams and wadies, hills, and mountains, and plains, had no difficulty in following the track of the Israelites and in identifying the mount of the law. His testimony is that the desert is a proof and a monument, not only of the truth of the general statements of the Pentateuch, but also of the accuracy of the details. One of his closing declarations is as follows: "We cannot ever hope to identify all the stations and localities mentioned in the Bible account of the Exodus, but enough has been recovered to enable us to trace the more important lines of march, and to follow the Israelites in their several journeys from Egypt to Sinai, from Sinai to Kadesh, and from thence to the promised land."⁸¹

1) 2:77.

2) Egypt Under the Pharaohs, Vol. I., p. 161; Ancient Egyptians, Vol. I., pp. 39-53; Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs, p. 300.

3) 2:37; 2:39.

4) Gen. 40:9-13.

5) 2:36.

6) Ancient Egyptians, Vol. I., p. 179.

7) Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs, Vol. I., pp. 158, 159.

8) 2:37.

9) Ancient Egyptians, Vol. I., p. 280.

10) Ancient Egyptians, Vol. II., p. 256.

11) Ancient Egypt Under the Pharaohs, Vol. II., pp. 60, 62.

12) Egypt Under the Pharaohs, p. 443.

13) Witness of Ancient Monuments to the Old Testament Scriptures, Living Papers, Vol. VI., Essay 32, pp. 42, 43.

14) Gen. 7:11.

15) Gen. 9:28, 29.

16) Gen. 11:10-13.

17) Gen. 11:10-32.

18) 18) Gen. 7:11.

19) Gen. 5 :32.

20) Gen. 9:24.

21) Gen. 10:21.

22) Gen. 11:26.

23) Gen. 11:32.

24) Gen. 12:4.

25) Gen.25:17.

26) Gen. 11:29.

27) Gen. 12:4.

28) Gen. 16:3.

29) Gen. 16:16.

30) Gen. 17:24, 25.

31) Gen. 21:5.

32) Gen. 25:17.

33) Gen. 25:20.

34) Gen. 25:26.

35) Gen. 25:7.

36) Gen. 41:46.

37) Gen. 45:6.

38) Gen. 47:9.

39) Gen. 30:25.

40) Gen. 31:38-41.

41) Gen. 37:2.

42) Gen. 35:28.

43) Ex. 12:2, 18.

44) Num. 1:1.

45) Num.9:1.

46) Ex. 12:2,42.

47) Num. 14:34.

48) Deut. 1:3.

49) Ex. 6:20; Num. 26:59.

50) Ex. 7:7.

51) Num. 33:37-39.

52) Deut. 34:5.

53) Num. 33:38, 39; Deut. 10:6.

54) Prolegomena, pp. 7, 363.

55) Gen. 46:8-27.

56) Gen. 46:26, 27.

57) 57) 57) Acts 7:14.

58) Gen. 46:15.

59) Gen. 46:27.

60) Gen. 46:8.

61) Gen. 46:26.

62) Gen. 46:27.

63) Gen. 46:26, 27.

64) Gen. 40:16.

65) 2:32.

66) Gen. 41:2-6.

67) Gen. 43:33.

68) Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, Vol. I., p. 167.

69) Gen. 50:3.

70) 2:86.

71) 1:91.

72) Gen. 50:26.

73) Egypt and the Books of Moses,

74) 74) Naville, Store-city of Pithom. and the Route of the Exodus, pp. 11, 24-31.

75) Professor E. H. Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, p. 224.

76) Idem, p. 230.

77) Cosmos, Vol. II., pp. 412, 413.

78) Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 324.

79) Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Peninsula of Sinai, p. 532.

80) Higher Criticism and the Monuments, p. 271.

81) Desert of the Exodus, p. 434. 12