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