now does," and to assert that "from the small number of its present negligent population no certain conclusion can be drawn as to its former condition."1

Such, on the one hand, are some of the unfounded assumptions, and such, on the other, are some of the facts concerning this region. It would be a pleasant task to follow the scripture narrative, and trace, so far as we can, its general conformity to the geographical situation of the whole region. But we must forbear.

It is important, however, to say a word of the conditions under which this march was performed. Those conditions, considered merely from a human point of view, were the most favorable that could be devised. The leader-the man who could frame in that age such a code of laws, and could devise means so profoundly to impress his institutions for ages on that Hebrew people - must have been a wonderful man. For forty years (Acts vii. 23) he acquired all the wisdom of a residence in the heart of the most organized nation of the old world. Then he became, by long residence, thoroughly familiar with the region of the march. It was previously settled, while he was living in the vicinity of Sinai, that he was to lead the nation by that very route (Ex. iii. 12). He was even there instructed as to some of the details of the plan (Ex. iii. 16-20), including the provision of certain costly articles of small bulk (gold, silver, and apparel, vs. 22) with which purchases could be made, if needful, on the way. In Egypt a definite point of departure was fixed; warning given of the final result, many weeks, perhaps months, beforehand, and the mind of the whole nation kept in anxious expectation, by a protracted struggle with the Egyptian power. All Israel was put in readiness for departure on a given night, by a solemn religious festival, previously arranged for, and including preparation for, instant departure; then on that night they went forth in orderly procession by their "hosts" (Ex. xii. 41, 51). They pursued, after leaving Egypt, the route over which Moses must twice

1 Erdkunde, Vol. XIV. p. 927.

have travelled once with this very expedition in his mind. The people themselves had been trained, in Egypt, to labor and hardship. As they neared Sinai, where they were to spend about a year, they were approaching a region where their leader had spent perhaps near forty years of his life (compare Acts vii. 23; Ex. vii. 7), — a region with an indefinite extent of pasturage in its valleys and on its mountain sides. Here was not only the needful time for legislation, but leisure for future arrangements. And when we actually find the great leader securing a guide from that point onward, sending forward the ark and its attendants to fix the place of encampment (Num. x.), sending spies from the wilderness of Paran as far as Hebron (Num. xiii. 22), making arrangements to buy food and drink of two different nations (Deut. ii. 29) and proposing the same thing to others (vs. 28),- we have no more reason to doubt the farreaching foresight of his plans than of those of Hannibal or Napoleon. We are also not to conceive of the people as traversing the peninsula in one compact body. But while Moses went with the tabernacle surrounded by the elders and formed a central encampment or head-quarters, the cattle with their attendants may have widely dispersed in search of pasturage, like a modern Arab tribe. This view is sustained by the statements that the ark preceded the people to find a resting-place for them (Num. x. 33), that Amalek fell on the rear of the people (Deut. xxv. 18), and perhaps by the statement (Num. xi. 31) that the quails fell about the camp a day's journey each way. That the journey after leaving Sinai must have been for a time oppressive and discouraging, would appear from the aspect of the the country, and is distinctly declared in the narrative. Twice the people complained bitterly at Taberah and

1 Benisch argues that the pits (h) of Jer. ii. 6. were water reservoirs such as the Nabatheans dug in the desert (see Kalisch on Gen. xxv. 13), such as are occasionally found now in rocks, and such as seem to be more than once alluded to even in Palestine. We can only refer to his discussion (Colenso's Objections examined), p. 51.

2 This is the view of Robinson, Kurtz, J. L. Porter, Dr. Benisch, Mr. Drew.

Kibroth Hattaavah- and only the terrific judgments of God quelled their murmurings. But when they reached the northeastern portion of the wilderness, it may be safely assumed that they would spread over the comparatively arable country, and would, with the supernatural aid still continued to them, find a tolerable subsistence.

Now it has been truly remarked by Mr. Drew, that “we find a correspondence absolutely perfect between the details of the narrative and the respective localities of the peninsula to which they are assigned. Those stages of the journey where the people are represented as suffering and exhausted in their enterprise, and consequently as desirous to abandon it, are even now recognized as just the distressing stages in a route which, through a considerable portion of it, would not entail upon them excessive fatigue, or involve them in unbearable privations. When the history alludes to supernatural help, it represents the people as being then in a posi tion where such helps would evidently be required for such a multitude." 1

In view of this accuracy of the narrative, so far as it can be traced; of all the testimony to be gathered from the Bible concerning the occupancy of that region; of the known and established facts relating to its present and former condition, taken in connection with similar changes in other once fertile countries; and of the circumstances of the journey as represented in the narrative,- including the Divine superintendence, we have no hesitation in declaring the objection to be unsustained.

We cannot better close this branch of the subject than with the words of Bunsen, who, while boldly rejecting all the supernatural from the narrative, is therefore the more likely to be heard when he, with equal boldness, declares the objec tion to be null and void. He grants that in the present condition of the peninsula the transaction would be an impossibility. "But wherefore? Because for thousands of years nature has pursued the work of destruction unhin

1 Drew's Examination, p. 47.

dered, washing away the productive soil by great torrents of rain, and filling up the rivulets with earth and sand; while a careful husbandry might, by easy methods, create a paradise almost everywhere in this land. Terraces protect cultivated places on the declivities; canals prevent the formation of bogs; artificial ponds, in high enclosed valleys, secure the means of artificial irrigation. In this manner was Fayoum a paradise; so South Arabia, in the old kingdom of Himjar. Both are now desolate. Is therefore the history of Lake Moeris and the description by Strabo and Herodotus of the inexpressible prosperity of that Egyptian tract a fable; or the account of the blooming kingdom of Lokman in Arabia a fiction? Certainly not for our time, in which the remains of both establishments have been brought to light. But the Sinaitic peninsula contained Egyptian colonies already, fifteen hundred years before Moses; he found there comfort and civilization. Nor must we forget the antiquity of commerce on the water and by caravans. Abu Selimeh on the Red Sea was an excellent harbor; Lepsius has set forth the importance of this place in connexion with the journey of the Israelites. Ezion-geber, also, was a half-way station for caravans and for the naval trade for the Arabian world. There was easy intercourse with the opposite coast of Arabia on the Aelanitic Gulf. The Israelites went out not poor, as is shown by many allusions to the jewels they carried. Moreover their herds were an inexhaustible treasure, both for sustenance and for traffic. Finally, we forget that a nation so vigorous, so accustomed to heat and toil, knew how to help themselves. They cannot create water where it is not, but they can make pure well-water out of a boggy pool. In short, we have only to free ourselves from the unthinking habits of the common belief in miracles, in order to grasp with our hands the groundlessness of the objections of a shallow criticism.” 1

(iv.) It is asserted that the Pentateuch contains "notices

1 Bunsen's Bibelwerk, II. Abtheilung, I. Theil, p. 163. VOL. XXI. No. 83. 67

historical, geographical, archaeological, and explanatory, implying a post-Mosaic time and writer."

On this portion of the subject three things are noteworthy: first, the exceedingly small number of passages that can be forced into the service; second, the singular and inconsistent pertinacity with which the objectors refuse to make any allowance for possible changes, in the course of centuries, by accidental corruption or intentional revision; and, third, the slight occasion which is found by the advocates of Moses to suppose a change of text, the Rabbins admitting some eighteen interpolations; Jahn, ten or twelve; Witsius, four; Hengstenberg, apparently none.

In our judgment, the strenuousness with which Hengstenberg rejects the idea of solving any difficulty on the ground of a possible or probable change of text is uncalled for; and the resistance made to it by such writers as Davidson and Colenso is inconsistent alike with all the antecedent probabilities of the case and with well-known facts in the history of the New Testament text. In the case of the New Testament, the recovery of early manuscripts enables us to prove these things; while in the Old Testament, unfortunately, we cannot to any great extent go back of the Masoretic recension. Such minor additions and alterations in the lapse of time are intrinsically probable. They might take place by the error of transcribers, or by the incorporation of a marginal note into the text. Even the critics are sometimes obliged to assume such changes in order to sustain their objections; as when Thenius would arbitrarily change

,and Gesenius and others ,לַיִשׁ into (דָּנָה יַעַן 6 .Sam. xxiv 2) יַעַן

on the sole guidance of the Vulgate, into. They might be intentionally introduced by authorized persons, as changes required for understanding the text, or for the completeness of the narrative. One such addition is the account of Mo

1 Thus Davidson supposes such a process in Isa. vii. 17 (Bib. Criticism, Vol. I. p. 68), while in the New Testament, e.g. John v. 4 and part of 3 are generally regarded, on manuscript grounds, as interpolations. See a discussion of the subject of changes of text in Davidson's work just cited.