Part 2

We have reserved for the last place a difficulty on which Dr. Colenso has expended all his powers of persuasion and all his skill in figures--"the number of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus". Here is his argument in a few words:--Jacob and his family numbered seventy persons when they came down into Egypt. His descendants sojourned in that country 215 years, and they went out with Moses in the fourth generation. According to the Scripture narrative, when they were leaving Egypt they numbered 600,000 men of twenty years old and upwards, representing a population of about 2,000,000: but this is absolutely impossible. Dr. Colenso assures us that "the multiplied impossibilities introduced by this number alone, independent of all other considerations, are enough to throw discredit upon the historical character of the whole narrative" (part i. p. 143.) This bold assertion he endeavours to establish by an elaborate argument extending over several chapters. We must be content to present it in a condensed form to our readers; but, in doing so, we shall adhere as closely as possible to the language of the author.

As the groundwork of his objection he lays down:--

"That it is an indisputable fact, that the story as told in the Pentateuch intends it to be understood--(i.) that they came out of the land of Egypt about 215 years after they went down thither in the time of Jacob; (ii.) that they came out in the _fourth_ generation from the adults in the prime of life, who went down with Jacob" (p. 100).

He next proceeds to estimate the average number of children in each family:

"In the first place, it must be observed, that we nowhere read of any _very large families_ among the children of Jacob or their descendants to the time of the Exodus.... We have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of the present day.... The twelve sons of Jacob had between them fifty-three sons, that is, on the average, 4-1/2 each. Let us suppose that they increased in this way from generation to generation. Then, in the _first_ generation there would be 53 males (or rather only 51, since Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan, _Gen._, xlvi. 12, without issue); in the _second_, 243; in the _third_, 1,094; and in the _fourth_, 4,923; that is to say, instead of 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, there could not have been 5,000....

"The narrative itself requires us to suppose that the Hebrew families intermarried, and that girls, as well as boys, were born to them freely in Egypt, though not, it would seem, in the land of Canaan.

"Yet we have no ground for supposing, from any data which we find in the narrative, that the whole number of the family was on that account increased. On the contrary, etc.... If we take all the families given in Exod. vi. 14-25, together with the two sons of Moses, we shall find that there are 13 persons, who have between them 39 sons, which gives an average of 3 sons each. This average is a fairer one to take for our purpose than the former; because these persons lived at all different times in the interval between the migration into Egypt and the Exodus. We may suppose also, that the average of _children_ is still as large as before, or even larger, so that each man may have had on the average six children, three sons and three daughters....

"Supposing now the fifty-one males of the _first_ generation (Kohath's) to have had each on the average three sons, and so on, we shall find the number of males in the _second_ generation (Amram's) 153, in the _third_ (Aaron's) 459, and in the _fourth_ (Eleazar's) 1377, instead of 600,000.

"In fact, in order that the fifty-one males of Kohath's generation might produce 600,000 fighting men in Joshua's, we must suppose that each man had forty-six children (twenty-three of each sex), and each of these twenty-three sons had forty-six children, and so on!--of which prolific increase, it need hardly be said, there is not the slightest indication in the Bible" (pp. 102-5).

From this he concludes,

"That it is quite impossible that there should have been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt at the time of the Exodus as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, representing at least two millions of persons of all ages and sexes; that is to say, it is impossible, _if we will take the data to be derived from the Pentateuch itself_" (p. 101).

Lastly, he anticipates an explanation which some interpreters have proposed, "that there may be something wrong in the _Hebrew numerals_". Such a suggestion, he very fairly observes, will not avail here; because "this number is woven, as a kind of thread, into the whole story of the Exodus, and cannot be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to pieces" (pp. 141, 143).

Such is the elaborate structure which Dr. Colenso has reared with an ability and an earnestness worthy of a better cause. In reply, we purpose to demonstrate that the foundation on which that structure rests, though it may have the outward semblance of solidity, is hollow and unsubstantial within. He assures us that the facts upon which his argument is based are "derived from the Pentateuch itself". We hope to satisfy our readers that they are not contained in the Pentateuch; that they cannot be proved from the Pentateuch; nay, that they are contrary to the evidence which the Pentateuch affords.

I. Let us commence with the "indisputable fact" that the Israelites "came out of Egypt in the fourth generation". By a generation Dr. Colenso understands _a descent from father to son_: and he maintains that there were but four such descents in all the Hebrew families during the period of sojourn in Egypt. In support of this opinion he appeals (p. 96) to the words of God to Abraham:--"in the _fourth_ generation they shall come hither again" (_Gen._, xv. 16). Our readers will naturally inquire what is the precise meaning of the word "generation" in this passage. Does it denote a descent from father to son? Or does it signify a lengthened period of time? On this point our author observes a profound silence. He found the word in the English text; it suited his purpose, and he at once pressed it into his service. We are left to suppose that it can have but one meaning, and that this meaning is the one which he has adopted.

Now, we beg to assure our readers that this is very far from the truth. The Hebrew word [Hebrew: dor] (dor), which is rendered "generation" in the authorized version, admits of various meanings. It corresponds almost exactly with the Latin word _saeculum_. Sometimes it signifies the _circuit_ or _period of a man's life_; sometimes, the _collection of those who are living at the same time_; sometimes, a _period of a hundred_ years.[5] As regards the passage in question, the opinion of the best Hebrew scholars is directly opposed to Dr. Colenso. We pass by the authority of Catholic writers, for whom he would probably have little respect, and we appeal to men of his own school: we appeal to Gesenius,[6] Bunsen,[7] Fuerst,[8] Rosenmueller,[9] Knobel,[10] who certainly cannot be suspected of any undue prepossession in favour of the Bible. Every one of these distinguished scholars expressly asserts that, in _Gen._, xv., 16, the word [Hebrew: dor] must be understood to mean _a hundred years_. We leave our readers to choose between their deliberate judgment on the one hand, and the gratuitous assumption of Dr. Colenso on the other.

If we look to the context we shall find that the meaning of the whole passage, as explained by these writers, is simple, clear, harmonious; as explained by Dr. Colenso, it is forced and unnatural. Abraham had just heard from God that his seed should be "a stranger in a foreign land" four hundred years (v. 13.) Then it is added: "but the _fourth generation_ ([Hebrew: dor]) they shall return hither".[11] That is to say, in our view, _the men belonging to the fourth century_ shall return. In this sense the connection will be clear; the prophecy will be perfectly true, and the meaning easily understood. The four centuries are to be counted from the time of Abraham, and correspond exactly with the four hundred years of exile which had just been predicted. But, according to Dr. Colenso, by "the fourth generation" is meant the fourth descent in _the family of Jacob_ (who was not yet born), counting from _the adults in the prime of life who went down with him to Egypt_. Now there is nothing in the whole chapter about _Jacob_ or _Jacob's family_, or _the adults in the prime of life who went down two hundred years later into Egypt_. Under these circumstances we think few persons will be able to persuade themselves that the prophecy was understood by Abraham in the sense in which it is understood by Dr. Colenso.

He next appeals to the genealogies of the Bible to establish his theory of the "Exodus in the fourth generation":

"If we examine the different genealogies of remarkable men, which are given in various places of the Pentateuch, we shall find that, as a rule, the contemporaries of Moses and Aaron are descendants in the _third_, and those of Joshua and Eleazar in the _fourth_ generation, from some one of the _sons_, or _adult grandsons_ of Jacob, who went down with him into Egypt. Thus we have:--

1st. Gen. 2nd. Gen. 3rd. Gen. 4th. Gen. 5th. Gen. Levi Kohath Amram Moses ... ... E. vi, 16, 18, 20. Levi Kohath Amram Aaron ... ... E. vi. 16, 18, 20. Levi Kohath Uzziel Mishael ... ... L. x. 4. Levi Kohath Uzziel Elzaphan ... ... L. x. 4. Levi Kohath Izhar Korah ... ... N. xvi. 1. Reuben Pallu Eliab Dathan ... ... N. xxvi. 7-9. Reuben Pallu Eliab Abiram ... ... N. xxvi. 7-9. Zarah Zabdi Carmi Achan ... ... Jo. vii. 1. Pharez Hezron Ram Amminadab Nahshon ... Ruth iv. 18, 19. Pharez Hezron Segub Jair ... ... 1 Ch. ii. 21, 22. Pharez Hezron Caleb Hur Uri Bezaleel 1 Ch. ii. 18, 20.

"The above include _all_ the instances which I have been able to find, where the genealogies are given in the Pentateuch itself". (pp. 96, 97).

We shall presently see that these examples are by no means what Dr. Colenso would represent them to be, and that so far from proving his theory to be _true_, they prove it to be _false_. But first we would direct attention to the _character_ of the argument, which seems to us, from its very nature, unsound. According to the Mosaic narrative, there were about 2,000,000 of Israelites at the time of the exodus. If we allow ten to each family, there must have been about 100,000 families. Here, then, is the argument:--In eleven families out of 100,000, there were just _four generations_ during the sojourn in Egypt; therefore there must have been _four generations_, neither more nor less, in the remaining 99,989 families. Our author would have us suppose that during a period of 215 years, there must have been exactly the same number of generations in every family. He does not explicitly say this; much less does he attempt to prove it; he silently _assumes_ it.

Now it is scarcely necessary to observe that such a supposition is in the highest degree improbable. It cannot be true, unless the members of each family married at the same age as the members of every other family, and unless this uniformity was continued from generation to generation for upwards of two centuries. This, however, would be contrary to what we know of the family of Abraham _before_ the sojourn in Egypt; it would be contrary to what we know of the people of Israel _after_ the sojourn in Egypt; it would be contrary to the testimony of all genealogical record; it would be contrary to what we see every day with our own eyes. One man has children born to him at the age of twenty; another, at the age of forty; another, at the age of sixty. The children of the last might easily be contemporaries with the grand-children of the second, and with the great-grand-children of the first. Thus, in the short period of sixty years, there might be, in one family, three descents from father to son, in another two, in another only one. This is, perhaps, an extreme case; but it shows at least how far the disparity may be extended, without exceeding the bounds of possibility. The present Emperor of the French had reached the age of forty-eight, when the Prince Imperial was born: whereas her Majesty Queen Victoria became a grandmother at forty-one. Thus, in the royal family of England we find two descents in forty-one years; in the imperial line of France only one descent in forty-eight years. It is, therefore, quite preposterous _to take for granted_ that, in _all the families of a whole nation_, the number of descents were exactly the same during a period of 215 years.

But this assumption is especially inadmissible, when we consider the peculiar circumstances of the case before us. The first generation, according to Dr. Colenso, was composed of the fifty-one grandsons of Jacob. They were already grown up, and some of them even had children when they came into Egypt. Therefore the whole of the first generation was already in existence, and the second had begun to be born some years, let us say three, before the descent. If we add the 215 years of sojourn in Egypt, we shall have 218 years from the beginning of the second generation to the Exodus. Now, according to Dr. Colenso, all those who were twenty years of age at the Exodus, belonged to the fourth generation. Therefore the fourth generation was not complete until twenty years before that time, or 198 years after the second had begun. Consequently, only three generations, the second, third, and fourth, came into existence during a period of 198 years. In other words, the length of each generation, according to Dr. Colenso's calculation, was sixty-six years. Hence it follows, that we cannot accept his argument, unless we are prepared to _take for granted_ that _all the males_ in _all the Hebrew families_ were without issue until they had reached the age of sixty-six.

Let us now look into the examples of Dr. Colenso in detail. It is important to ascertain what generation is to be reckoned as the _first_. In his argument he allows but fifty-one males to the _first generation_; "supposing now _the fifty-one males of the first generation_" (p. 105). Since Jacob had fifty-one grandsons living at the time of the descent into Egypt, it follows that the _first generation_, according to the argument, was composed of the grandsons of Jacob, _and of them alone_. That this is the position assumed by Dr. Colenso, is also evident from another passage, where, replying to his opponents, he asserts: "The Scripture states that there were 600,000 warriors in the fourth generation from Jacob's _sons_" (p. 119). It is true that, when _proving_ his theory of "the Exodus in the fourth generation", Dr. Colenso counts indifferently from "the _sons_ or _adult grandsons_ of Jacob, who went down with him into Egypt" (p. 96), just as it suits his purpose. But, when he employs this conclusion to demonstrate that the number of the population at the time of the Exodus was impossible, he assumes that there were only four generations from the _sons_ of Jacob.

If we now turn to the examples adduced by the same author, we shall find that seven are counted from the _sons_ of Jacob; namely, from Levi and Reuben; three from the _grandsons_ of Jacob; namely, from Zarah[12] and Pharez; and lastly one, Bezaleel, in order to be brought back to the _fourth generation_, must be counted from Hezron, the great grandson of Jacob; consequently, upon the bishop's own showing, out of his eleven examples only seven prove for the _fourth generation_, three prove for the _fifth_, and one proves for the _sixth_. What must we think, then, when he afterwards quietly assures us, "the scripture _states_ that there were 600,000 warriors in the _fourth_ generation from Jacob's _sons_"? We are at least justified in saying that the examples adduced, not only fail to prove that his assertion is _true_, but demonstrate that it is _false_.

There is another point on which these examples fail. It is plain that to ascertain the number of generations between the Descent and the Exodus, we must not only commence to reckon from the _first_, but we must end with the _last_. The last generation must include all those who had reached the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. And it is necessary for Dr. Colenso to prove that this last generation is counted in the examples he lays before us. On this point, however, he is silent. When he comes to the fourth generation he stops short, and leaves his readers to infer that it must be the last in point of fact, because it is the last on his list. Let us see if this assumption derives any probability from scriptural facts. At the time of the exodus Moses was 80, Aaron, 83. Mishael, Elzaphan, and Korah were their first cousins. It is, therefore, not improbable that they were as old, or even older. These are the first five names we find on the list of Dr. Colenso; and they belonged to the _third generation_. Their grand-children, therefore, would belong to the _fifth_. Is it improbable that among five men of 80, some had grand-children who had attained the age of 20?

Again, Nahshon was in the _fifth generation_, counting from the sons of Jacob: Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon (_Ruth_, iv. 18-20.) His sister was the wife of Aaron. Since his brother-in-law was therefore 83, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he himself may have been at least 60; if so, his sons might surely have been numbered among the 600,000 men of 20 years old and upward. This would give us _six_ generations in the family of Nahshon. And yet, strange to tell, this very family is adduced by our author to prove his theory of "the Exodus in the _fourth generation_." Lastly, we would invite attention to the family of Joseph. He saw the children of his son Ephraim to the third generation (_Gen._, l. 23). Therefore, the fourth generation in that line had commenced before Joseph's death. But this is an event of which we can fix the date with accuracy. When Jacob settled in Egypt, Joseph was about 39, and he lived to the age of 110. His death, therefore, must have occurred about 71 years after the Descent. Consequently, at that time the posterity of Joseph had already reached the fourth generation. One hundred and forty-four years yet remained before the Exodus. Surely during that period there was abundance of time for at least four generations more of the same average length.

It was our intention to analyze the argument of Dr. Colenso more fully by a critical examination of the genealogies from which his examples are derived. But we fear that we have already overtaxed the patience of our readers, and we are sure they will pardon us if we forbear to enter into the complicated details which such an inquiry would involve. We cannot, however, dismiss the subject without one general observation. It is assumed by Dr. Colenso that there are exactly the same number of _descents_ in each family as there are _links in the genealogy_ of that family as it is recorded in the pages of Scripture. This would indeed be true if he could prove that _every link_ in the chain of descent is preserved in the Scriptural genealogies. But it is well known to all Biblical scholars that such was not the usage among the Hebrew people. Every one is familiar with the genealogy of our Lord in the first chapter of St. Matthew's gospel. Three links are manifestly omitted in the eighth verse, between Joram and Ozias--namely, Ochozias, Joaz, and Amasias. We cannot suppose that St. Matthew, himself a Jew, could have been in error about the genealogy of the house of David. Much less can we suppose that he would have attempted, on this point, to deceive the Jews, for whom he wrote his gospel. Above all, it is plain, that if he had fallen into such an error; it would have been at once discovered and have been proclaimed to the world by the enemies of the Christian religion. We must infer, therefore, that it was perfectly conformable to the usage of the Jewish nation to say, "Joram begot Ozias", although in point of fact three generations had intervened between them. Now, Dr. Colenso must admit that his examples will prove absolutely nothing, if omissions of this kind were made in the genealogies from which they are taken. _We_ do not assert that such _was_ the case; but we challenge _him_ to prove that it was _not_.

Take, for example, the text: "And the sons of Pallu, Eliab" (_Num._, xxvi. 8). Can he show that no intervening links are omitted between these two names? He will find, on a close examination of the Pentateuch, from which he professes to derive his data, that Pallu must have been over 110 years of age when Eliab was born. It is, therefore, most likely that there were two or perhaps three links omitted in this genealogy between Pallu and Eliab. If so, we should add two or three generations in the examples which Dr. Colenso has adduced from the family of Pallu. He cannot argue that Pallu was the _immediate father_ of Eliab, because it is said that Eliab was the _son_ of Pallu: for do we not also read: "The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the _son of David_, the _son of Abraham"?_ (_Matth._, i. 1).