Egyptians had not been cancelled by subsequent ill-treatment. A further reason may be found in the fact that the Egyptians and Jews had, to some extent, intermairied in Egypt, whereby it happened that a portion of the Hebrew host was composed of persons descended on one side from Egyptians.* The law in respect to the Egyptians, therefore, was, "Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children that are begotten of them may, in the third generation, enter into the congregation of Jehovah." This put the Egyptians on a level with the most favoured nation; for there was no other, saving the Edomites, equally privileged. The EDOMITES are, indeed, mentioned together with the Egyptians, and in precisely the same terms. A disposition was manifested to regard the tribes allied to the Hebrews with as much distinguishing favour as consisted with the preclusion of social intercourse. The descendants neither of Lot nor Esau were to be molested; and as to the Edomites, their forbearance, and even kindness, while the Hebrew host marched along their eastern borders, seems to have been regarded as a sufficient atonement for their churlishness in refusing to let them pass through the mountains. Hence, war against them was forbidden, and they might be admitted, in the third generation, to the congregation of the Lord. But this implied a corresponding peaceableness on their part, and this condition they observed till the time of David; when their aggressions caused a war, in which they were overcome. From that time they cherished a secret hatred against the Israelites, which they failed not to manifest when occasion offered. Although the MOABITES and AMMONITES did not go to open war with the Hebrews, their bitter malice and deep-laid plots for their ruin, which had been attended with such disastrous consequences, were remembered against them, and determined their position among the nations. They were never to be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; and although the Hebrews were not commanded to war with them, and, perhaps, the original prohibition was considered in force, they were ordered to take no interest in promoting the future prosperity of the descendants of Lot. However, we shall see that the latter took the first opportunity of commencing hostilities themselves against the Israelites, and sometimes distressed them greatly, but were, in the end, completely subdued by David, as Balaam had foretold. No particular law was given concerning the MIDIANITES. The tribes which allied themselves with the Moabites against Israel were, as we have seen, destroyed or dispersed. But against the nation at large there was no decree of hereditary enmity; and those tribes which did not participate in the atrocious plot against the Hebrews, seem to have been included among the nations with whom political alliances might be formed. But in later times they acted in so hostile a manner that no permanent peace could be preserved with them.* The AMALEKITES were, for the reasons already shown, put under a ban of utter extermination, to be executed as soon as the Israelites might find it in their power. The manner in which this was executed will, in due season, come under our notice. This was the only nation not settled in Canaan against which this doom was pronounced; but all the Canaanitish tribes were subjected to it. The principles which dictated this course towards the Canaanites are, however, too important, and belong too properly to the very substance of the history, to be disposed of in this place. () HESHBON, p. 326.-The site of this ancient capital of the Amorites is still recognisable under the same name, about eight miles to the east of Jebel Attarous, or Mount Nebo. Here are the ruins of a considerable town, covering the sides of an insulated hill; but scarcely a single edifice remains entire. The view from the summit of the hill is very extensive, embracing the ruins of a vast number of towns, standing at short distances from one another, and the names of some of which bear strong resemblance to those which the Scripture assigns to places in this quarter. (7) EDREI, p. 327.-This site is found, in the land of Bashan, at the distance of about twenty-five miles from the southern end of the Lake of Gennesareth. Ed-Draa, the present pronunciation, is quite identical with the name it anciently bore. This is a deserted place, seated in a deep valley. There are many buildings and constructions more or less ruined; but most of them appear to be of Moslem origin. The most conspicuous is a large rectangular building, in the middle of which there is a cistern. This seems to have been made with the materials of some more ancient, as the pillars, which are of the Ionic and Corinthian orders, promiscuously intermixed, are only one-third their original length. This building seems to have been at one time a Christian church, and afterwards a mosque. The ruins of this place cover, altogether, a Judg. vi.-viii. space of about two miles and a half in circumference. We know not that the site of AshtarothKarnaim has been ascertained, but it seems not to have been far from Edrei. (8) POPULATIOn of Israel, p. 327.—A population which affords 600,000 men fit to bear arms, cannot well be estimated at less than 2,400,000; that is, to the 600,000 men we must allow an equal number of females, making 1,200,000; and then we must double that to include the males and females under twenty years of age, which are generally found to form about one-half of any population. There are circumstances which show that this estimate cannot be above the truth, and is very probably under. So many objections have been started to this increase of the Hebrews in Egypt that some very sincere persons have been made willing to believe that, in some way or other, a cipher or two has been added, and would not be reluctant to read 60,000, or even 6,000, instead of 600,000; but they forget that the larger number is sustained throughout the narrative. Not only are there two enumerations, at intervals of thirty-nine years, supporting each other in their sums and particulars; but the losses which the Israelites sustained through the judgments of God were such as would have sufficed to ruin a less numerous people. As it is, the effect is naturally exhibited in decrease rather than an increase of the population at the second census. We have already touched slightly on the subject and should not have returned to it here but for the sake of introducing the following extract from Jahn, by which it is made to appear that the assigned increase was possible, even without reference to that divine blessing through which their great increase in Egypt had been promised and foretold. The increase of the Hebrews in 430 years from seventy persons to 603,550 males and upwards, of twenty years of age, besides 22,000 males of a month old and upwards among the Levites, has appeared to many incredible. The number of 600,000 men capable of bearing arms necessarily makes the whole number of people amount to 2,400,000. An anonymous writer in the Literarischen Anzeiger,' 1796, Oct. 4, § 311, has demonstrated that the Hebrews, in 430 years, might have increased from seventy persons to 977,280 males above twenty years old. He supposes that of those seventy persons who went down to Egypt, only forty remained alive after a space of twenty years, each one of whom had two sons. In like manner, at the close of every succeeding period of twenty years, he supposes one-fourth part of those who were alive at the commencement of that period to have died. Hence arises the following geometrical progression. After twenty years, of the seventy there are forty living, each having two sons:— Consequently = 80 120 180 and so on. 80 Thus the first term of the progression is 80 AFTER the death of Moses the Israelites remained encamped in the plains of Moab, with the river Jordan before them, prepared for, and expecting, the order for their advance into the land promised to their fathers. This pause on the borders of that land affords us a very suitable opportunity of considering the grave questions-What claim had the Hebrews to the land they were about to invade with The costume is Egypto-Syrian-that is Egyptian, with such modifications as the Syrians appear to have given it in adopting it from the Egyptians. It has been very carefully studied. the intention to retain it for their own use?-what right had they to declare a war of utter extermination against nations who had never given them any cause of offence? * The answer which is now much relied upon is that of Michaelis, and, more lately, of Jahn. This answer alleges, that the Canaanites had appropriated to their own use the pasturegrounds occupied by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and expelled from their possessions those Hebrews who had occasionally visited Palestine during their residence in Egypt; and now the Israelites were about to recover, sword in hand, the lands, wells, and cisterns which the Canaanites had usurped. This is very ingenious, particularly in the attempt to show that the Israelites had, during their residence in Egypt, endeavoured to keep possession of the pasturegrounds in Canaan. But, from the passage referred to in proof of this, it does not seem to us easy to gather this information; and the whole statement seems to us so hollow and insubstantial, that, in the persuasion our readers will at once see it to be so, we shall spare the room which its refutation would occupy, and merely observe that no such claim, if substantiated, would justify the avowed intention to exterminate the original inhabitants of the land,—who were there before Abraham came from beyond the Euphrates; and that the Hebrews themselves exhibit no anxiety about these pasture-grounds, of which so much is said; but tell us plainly that, intending to become an agricultural people, they wanted the cultivated lands, the fields, the vineyards, the towns of the Canaanites. Besides, those who were most in want of pasture-grounds had already secured them on the other side Jordan. Dr. Hales takes still higher ground, which once seemed to us more stable than we are now inclined to regard it. He relies much upon an Armenian tradition recorded by Abulfaragi. This tradition states that Noah, before his death, divided the whole earth among his sons; and Dr. Hales thinks he can find allusions to such a partition in such passages as those referred to below. According to this account, the land of Canaan was in the portion assigned to Shem; but we find it in the actual occupation of tribes descended from Ham; and from this it is argued that the Hebrews, as being descended from Shem, had a prior claim to the land, and were therefore perfectly justified in taking it, if in their power, from the nations by which it had been usurped. Now, however desirable it might be to find some such ground to stand upon, we fear that it will not be found possible, on close inspection, to stand with confidence on this. In the first place, it does not seem likely that Noah knew much of the world, or concerned himself about dividing the earth among his sons, when, as yet, his descendants were few in number, and remained in their original tents. Besides, an unsupported Armenian tradition is a very precarious authority to rest upon; and it is hard to find what support it receives from the Scriptural texts which have been adduced. And, if this original partition might be relied on, the Hebrews would have derived no particular claim to the land of Canaan from it,—that is, no better claim than any other of the many races descended from Shem might have produced. Taking all these things into account, together with the distance of time since the supposed assignment of the land, we may very safely conclude that no such claim was made by the Hebrews or apprehended by the Canaanites. The want of solidity in both these explanations rather damages than assists the question they were intended to elucidate. In this transaction there were, so to speak, two parties, God and the Hebrews. It occurs to us that a clearer view of it may be obtained if we consider,-first, the conduct of the Jews apart from their position as a peculiar people acting under the special directions of God; then to view the proceedings of God, apart from any connection with the Hebrews; and, lastly, show how the interests and objects of both parties concurred in the same course of proceeding. We may then, for the moment, view the Hebrews as an army of oppressed people, escaped from Egypt, and seeking a country in which they might settle down as an agricultural nation; and whose leaders had it in view to keep up among them a particular system of religion and 1 Chron. vii. 20-29. Deut. xxxii. 7-9; Acts xvii. 26. law, through which only the people could be prosperous and happy, and through which only one peculiar and grand object which they had in view could be accomplished. This being their object, the direction which they did take was the only practicable one in which such a country as they sought could be found. The Nile and the Lybian deserts beyond cut off their retreat westward, as the Mediterranean did on the north, and a southern route would only have involved them deeper in the Egyptian territory. Now in this direction, which was the only one the liberated nation could take, Canaan was the only country which suited their purpose. The Arabian deserts were of course not suited to become the permanent residence of a settled people; and, consequently, during the forty years which they spent in those deserts, they were compelled to remain a nomade people, and to sustain the hardships and privations incident to that mode of life. The country of Seir, although, as being mountainous, desirable from its capabilities of defence, was not suited either for agriculture or pasturage, and was, besides, in the occupation of a nation closely related to themselves, and whom they had no desire to molest. The country east of the Jordan was less suitable for agriculture than pasturage, and it was too open, and wanted those natural borders and defences which were essential to a people destined to live apart among the nations. Part of it they did however take possession of for pastoral uses; but the remainder was in the occupation of the descendants of Lot, with whom the Hebrews had no desire to interfere. The land of Canaan was in every way most suitable for them. The mountains and the sea, by which it was in every part enclosed, rendered it easy of defence against all invasion. It abounded in corn, oil, and fruits-in all productions and capabilities essential to settled life. Besides, this was the land which attached to itself all the memories capable of exciting the enthusiasm of such a people as the Hebrews. It was the cradle of their race. It was their historical land—the land in which their renowned forefathers fed their flocks for more than 200 years, and which was still the country of their fathers' sepulchres. Such considerations would direct their attention to Canaan rather than to any other of the neighbouring countries. And, their attention being directed to it, let us consider first the Hebrews in their simple character, as ancient Asiatics who had no country, and felt that they must obtain one, and whom we would not expect to take any other course than other ancient Asiatics would take in similar circumstances. Now in those times the doctrines of international law, and of the balance of power were certainly in a very crude condition. If we were not very anxious to confine our statement within the narrowest possible limits, we could accumulate instances to show that long after this date no nation was considered entitled to hold its territories by any other right than that of being able to defend them. If one people desired the lands of another, the practical law was, " You have a right to our lands if you can take them; but if you cannot we have the better right. You have a right to try, and we have a right to resist! Let success determine the right." Nor was such a law so injurious as it would be now. In the first place, the actual occupants had such advantages of defence as would suffice to protect them from merely vexatious aggressions; and, as then, for the most part, nations were divided into small independent princedoms, few great monarchies having been formed, the obstacles among them to a combination for any common object were so great, that established nations had little reason to fear invasion from any overwhelming force. Under this system we are convinced that no one questioned the right of the Israelites to try to get possession of Palestine-not even the nations against whom they acted. Let it also be borne in mind that the Canaanites were very far from being a defenceless set of people, whom the Israelites had nothing to do but to treat as they pleased. They were, for the most part, a numerous, brave, and warlike people, with fortresses and walled towns, with cavalry and chariots of war; and that, so far was it from being an unequal match, that all the natural advantages were on the side of the Canaanites; who had to encounter a not very highly disciplined multitude from the desert, encumbered with women, children, and flocks; and of whom not more than one-fourth were fit to take a part in warlike operations. Thus much for the claim or right of the Israelites, if we place them on the same ground as that on which any other nation would at that time have stood in corresponding circumstances. VOL. I. 2 x |