So much for Dr. Colenso as an interpreter of the Bible. He is satisfied that if we accept the narrative we must believe that six hundred thousand men were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle. We have seen that he is mistaken; but let us now concede this fact, and let us see how he proceeds to reason upon it. Since the tabernacle was only eighteen feet wide, this immense multitude must have stood in a line eighteen feet in breadth and twenty miles in length. This is certainly a most extraordinary conclusion. No multitude ever yet stood in such a line; no multitude could stand in such a line unless they had been specially trained during many years for that purpose. There is no conceivable reason why the Jews on this occasion should have stood [pg 370] in such a line. And yet Dr. Colenso will have it that they must have stood in this way, if it be true that they were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle.
We are tempted to offer an illustration of the very peculiar manner in which Dr. Colenso here pursues his critical examination of the Bible. Many of our readers will remember the 15th of August, 1843. In the phraseology of Scripture it might be said that upon that day 100,000 Irishmen were gathered to O'Connell on the Hill of Tara.[4] To the ordinary reader such a statement would present no insuperable difficulty. It would convey, indeed, a pretty correct idea of what we all know actually to have taken place. But when submitted to the Colenso process, this simple narrative will be found to undergo a very startling transformation. O'Connell did not occupy a space more than two feet broad. Therefore there was just room for one full-grown man to stand in front of him. The second must have stood behind the first; the third behind the second; and so the whole multitude must have extended in a single unbroken line over many miles of country. A little boy at school could tell us that, when we say the multitude was gathered unto O'Connell, we do not mean that the multitude occupied a space which was only as broad as O'Connell. Yet Dr. Colenso maintains that this is the only meaning which the phrase admits. Such principles would make strange havoc with history.
Again, Dr. Colenso contends that all who were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle “must have come within the court”. “This, indeed”, he says, “was necessary for the purpose for which they were summoned on this occasion, namely, to witness the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priestly office”. Now it is nowhere stated that this was, in point of fact, the purpose for which the people were gathered together. Certainly, if it were impossible they could witness the ceremony, as Dr. Colenso assures us, we are bound to infer that it was not for this purpose they were assembled. Nor is it difficult to find another, and quite a sufficient reason, for gathering the people together on this solemn occasion. It may have been the design of God that, by their presence in and around the court of the tabernacle, they should make a public profession of their faith, and formally acknowledge the priesthood of Aaron. Thus, in the illustration already introduced, it was impossible for 100,000 people to hear O'Connell speak; but their presence was itself a [pg 371] public declaration that they adhered to his principles and accepted him for their leader.
Was it, however, really impossible that those without the court should witness the leading features of the ceremony? Certainly not. We must bear in mind that the court was not enclosed by stone walls, but by hangings of fine linen. Nothing, therefore, could have been more simple than to loop up these curtains to the pillars by which they were supported, and thus to afford a full view of the tabernacle to those who stood without. Dr. Colenso will probably say that in the scripture narrative there is no mention of any such arrangement. Neither, we reply, is it said that those without the court were intended to witness the ceremony. But if we suppose that this was intended, we must also suppose that the means were adopted which would make it possible.
There is yet another error of Dr. Colenso which we cannot pass by in silence. It is true, the blunder to which we refer has little to do with his argument. But it has much to do with the question whether he is a competent authority on the sacred text, even when he speaks with special emphasis and with unhesitating confidence. “Supposing that ‘all the congregation’ of adult males ... had hastened to take their stand ... in front, not merely of the door, but of the whole end of the tabernacle in which the door was”, etc. It is clear that the writer of this passage was under the impression (which, indeed, he conveys not only by his words, but still more by his italics—for they are his) that the whole end of the tabernacle was wider than the door. Now if he had taken the pains to read even an English translation of the sacred book which he so rashly presumed to condemn, he never could have fallen into so great a mistake. He would have seen that the whole eastern end of the tabernacle was left open, and that the open space was covered only by a curtain which extended across from side to side. Consequently, if mention were really made of a door, it must have been this curtain itself that was called by that name.
But if Dr. Colenso had gone a little further, and had consulted any Hebrew lexicon, he would have discovered that the sacred writer does not speak of a door, but rather of a doorway. The tabernacle had in fact no door properly so called. The word פתח (pethach), which is used by the sacred writers when speaking of the tabernacle, signifies, as Gesenius explains it, an opening, an entrance. It means, therefore, the whole end of the tabernacle, which was left open to the court when the curtain was drawn. In Hebrew the idea of a door is expressed by דלת (deleth). When treating of this word, Gesenius, having first explained its meaning, pointedly remarks: “It differs from פתח, which denotes the doorway which the door closes”. It is quite [pg 372] certain, therefore, that the door and the whole end of the tabernacle, which Dr. Colenso so emphatically contrasts, were in reality one and the same thing.
It is time, however, that we pass to another of Dr. Colenso's arguments:—
“ ‘And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole bullock, shall he (the Priest) carry forth without the camp, unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out there shall he be burned’—(Lev., iv. 11, 12).
“We have seen that the whole population of Israel at the exodus may be reckoned at two millions. Now we cannot well allow for a living man, with room for his cooking, sleeping, and other necessaries and conveniences of life, less than three times the space required for a dead one in his grave.... Let us allow, however, for each person on the average three times 6 feet by 2 feet, the size of a coffin for a full-grown man,—that is, let us allow for each person 36 square feet or 4 square yards. Then it follows that ... the camp must have covered, the people being crowded as thickly as possible, an area of 8,000,000 square yards, or more than 1652 acres of ground.
“Upon this very moderate estimate, then (which in truth is far within the mark), we must imagine a vast encampment of this extent, swarming with people, more than a mile and a half across in each direction, with the tabernacle in the centre.... Thus the refuse of these sacrifices would have had to be carried by the priest himself (Aaron, Eleazar, or Ithamar,—there were no others) a distance of three-quarters of a mile....