between Rameses and Etham, Succoth (i.e. booths)," we have not indeed "the slightest" but the very strongest indication that the dwelling in booths was an undeniable fact. No matter: if the Alps stood in the way of Bishop Colenso's criticism, "so much the worse for them;" "there shall be no Alps!' And therefore he will have it that this mention of booths "conflicts strangely with the mention of tents, Ex. xvi. 16." This assertion is supported by another of those ineffable utterances so common with this writer. "It cannot be said that the word booths means tents, for the Hebrew word for a booth is quite different from that for a tent used in Ex. xvi. 16." Alas, for the bishop's opinion as to what "cannot be said!" "A horse and a quadruped," says Mr. Birks, "are not the same word: they are quite different words, and still a horse is a quadruped. Booth is not the same word with tents, and still booths may be tents of a particular kind: for even the houses in Palestine are called tents very many times."** Dr. McCaul elaborates this argument, and. by a large range of quotations utterly refutes this ignorant opinion both "by the etymology and the usage of the word." He then asks, "Does Dr. Colenso mean that the lair of the lion, or the pavilion of Benhadad, or the tabernacle of David, or the Tabernacle of God, was made 'of boughs and bushes,' or does he presume to call the author of the Book of Kings, or David, or Amos to task, and say they use the word Succah 'improperly?'" It is to be presumed that Dr. Colenso overlooked, and did not suppress, this meaning of Succah. . . . The etymology and the usage show that Succah expresses the genus, of which booth and tent are only species; and the great festival is called "the feast of Succoth," tabernacles, and could not be called the feast of Ohalim, tents, for then the booths of the poor would be excluded, and it would seem as if Israel in the wilderness had dwelt in tents, and tents only; and Dr. Colenso might with some plausibility have asked whence they got them all. The feast of Succoth, taber

45 Ex. xii. 37. For the reason of the name cf. Ge. xxxiii. 17 as to Succoth in Gilead.

46 De. xvi. 7; Jo. xxii. 4, 6, 8;

Ju. vii. 8; xix. 9; 1 Sa. iv. 10; &c. "It seems like it: for contrasting Succah (booth) with Ohel (tent) he says that when as in

DEFICIENCIES IN HEBREW.

71

nacles, embraces both the tents of the rich and the booths of the poor. Some dwelt in one, some in the other, all doubtless in whatever they could procure; and thus Dr. Colenso has thrown away much arithmetic, which might have been prevented if he had enquired into the meaning of words before he invoked the aid of figures."

An example of similar ignorance is found in the sense which he attaches to Hazzeh, "this," in Ex. xii. 12. On which Dr. McCaul-himself one of the very first Hebrew scholars in Europe-justly observes, "Now, as a general rule, this is all very well, and necessary to be observed by beginners in Hebrew;" and then, after shewing its utter inapplicability to the matter in hand, he demonstrates the bishop's Hebrew criticism to be absolutely "of no value, as it proceeds simply from inadequate acquaintance with Hebrew idiom."

More glaring still, though of less importance, is his imaginary distinction between "the door" of the Tabernacle, and "the whole end of the Tabernacle in which the door was.' He thinks that the end was of the nature of a wall or partition, in which the door was hung. But had he carefully read the account of the construction of the Tabernacle, or understood the meaning of the word "Pethach," here translated door, he would have known that no distinction of the kind can be made, but that the end of the Tabernacle is itself what our translators have called the door. The word Pethach signifies opening, and is therefore used of the opening of a tent, or entrance, as well as of a doorway. So with regard to the tent or Tabernacle of the congregation, the end through which the priests went into the Holy Place was entirely open, and the opening is called Pethach. When it was to be closed, it was not by means of a door hung in the end, but by a hanging drawn across, (Ex. xxxvi. 37,) and called Masakh. For door in our signification, the Hebrew has another word, Deleth, from Dalah, to hang. Our translators were not ignorant of the difference,

50

"2 Sa. xi. 11, and one or two other places," it is used of tents, "it is used improperly."

48 Examination," p. 49.

49 The Pentateuch Examined:

Part I. ch. iv.

50 In the Holy Land, the Tabernacle had doors (Dalthoth) added to it. See 1 Sa. i. 9; and iii. 15.

as appears from their translation of Ge. xviii. 1, where they say of Abraham, "He sat in the tent door;" not "at the door." "In the tent door" can only mean in the opening. But the English translators thought that on the whole the word door was the most intelligible for the general reader. The error of Dr. Colenso, both with regard to the structure of the Tabernacle, and the meaning of the Hebrew words, indicates a want of accuracy fatal to his pretensions as a critic." And is it to the demands of a "trashy sciolism" such as this-disingenuous, dishonest, superficial," and partial—that we are expected to surrender the truth of the Bible?

'How big ought a volume to be," asks an able writer on this subject, "in order to be rated as a satisfactory answer, say to an octavo volume full of absurdities, quibbles, and all sorts of impertinences, historical, critical, geographical, theological, arithmetical, and what not? Must an octavo be allowed to stand upon its dignity and never surrender except to a quarto volume? Or may it engage, on equal terms, with another octavo, provided always that the enemy is of equal tonnage. and carries the same number of guns, i.e. page for page, and chapter for chapter? In this warfare, is it allowed to the blockading vessel to refuse to go down, however rifled and battered, if the shot and shell are not of a given weight and size? We have asked ourselves these questions, because we constantly hear a demand for a full answer to the Bishop of Natal, before any further proceedings are taken against him. . . Now, it strikes us, that except on the principle that only an octavo can give battle to an octavo, the infidel bishop is rather over answered than otherwise. We noticed several replies in

51 An Examination of Bp. Colenso's Difficulties, p. 24.

52 See some striking examples of this superficiality in the Second Part of Dr. Mc. Caul's "Examination." E g., The Bishop tells us in paragraph 210 of his second part that "only Jehovah " is used in Ge. xxiv, and that nineteen times; and infers that this chapter cannot have come from the same

hand with other chapters in which "only Elohim" is used many times over. And yet it is a fact as Dr. Mc. Caul points out, and as any one may satisfy himself by taking down a Hebrew Bible, that in this very chapter the name Elohim occurs again and again; and, it might have been added, in some verses twice over!

REPLIES: UNANSWERABLE.

73

our last number; we should fill a whole page with mere titlepages, if we were to recount the pamphlets which have appeared since; and there is probably not one of them which does not give a sufficient-some of them give an overwhelming, crushing -answer to the whole volume. ... What is the difficulty in his volume to which these pamphlets, to go no further, have not supplied a sufficient answer?'

53

Sometimes indeed, he answers himself; and shews us Colenso answered by Colenso. Thus in his attempt to make it out that the "Book of Moses" was a forgery palmed off upon Josiah, by "the priest Hilkiah, and, possibly, Huldah, and one or two others,"" he says first"-"The High Priest 'finds' this Book of the Law in the Temple. If it really had been written by Moses, where, we must ask, had it been lying all this while, during more than eight centuries?" And then, four pages after, he answers his own question :-" Perhaps in the time of Josiah's idolatrous father, the roll of the Pentateuch had disappeared. It may have been lying, little heeded, among the archives of the Temple, and so came into the hands of the successive High Priests, until it reached those of Hilkiah himself."

Sometimes he answers by demolishing the German criticism on which he himself is building :"-always taking good care however, to avoid grappling with the replies of his opponents. Dr. Biber's challenge is admitted, by Dr. Colenso's silence, to be unanswered because unanswerable. The Bishop appeals to the laity, and not in vain; for it is from the laity, and in lay fashion, that he has received several of the most effective answers." The blasphemy about Midian, and that which degrades the Very God of Very God, to the level of an ordinarily pious Jew, will be noticed in their proper place. Mean

58 The Christian Observer: 1863, p. 234.

The Pentateuch Examined: Part III pp. 422—424.

55 Ibid. p. 416.

56 Ibid. p. 589.

"Knobel's account of the matter is not at all

satisfactory." "The very ground

on which Knobel's opinion rests, is gone from under him" (p. 594). "Bleek has been obliged to abandon this view" (p.596), and has now taken up another, which Dr. Colenso holds to be equally incorrect. 57 As a single example we may mention "The Mosaic Origin of

time, enough has been said to show that his "Difficulties" rest on "doubtful premises, unwarranted assumptions, defective information, and even on what, in ordinary men, would be considered want of common sense." "Such difficulties, resting on such slender foundations, would not affect the historic character of any ancient writing, much less of that wonderful Book whose genuineness is attested by an broken series of Hebrew writers, and avouched by the infallible testimony of the Son of God."

58

un

Of difficulties whose solution is furnished by information flowing from other sources, that pertaining to Philippi in Macedonia affords a good example. St. Luke in relating the first introduction of Christianity into Europe (Ac. xvi. 12,) speaks of Philippi as the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony; and in verse 21 implies that it was a Roman colony. The silence of contemporary profane history" as to this fact rendered it a difficulty even to the learned, and threw the suspicion of inaccuracy upon Luke's narrative, especially as the ancient metropolis of Macedonia Prima was known to have been Amphipolis. Some, to remove the difficulty, have preferred, with Michaelis, to translate Tрóтη not as in the Authorised Version," the chief," but "a chief" city. And this translation, from the absence of the article is of course perfectly warrantable. Boothroyd who takes this course says expressly, "this rendering is adopted as it is doubtful whether Philippi or Amphipolis was accounted the chief city of that part, &c." But the discovery of some ancient coins has dissipated the entire difficulty and confirmed the verbal accuracy of the Inspired Record. From the inscriptions on these coins, still extant, it is certain that Philippi was made a Roman colony by Julius Cæsar; and after the great battle fought there its privileges were renewed and augmented by Augustus. Now, as Spanheim

the Pentateuch considered," (Skeffington.) "by a Layman of the Church of England:" a worthy sequel to its predecessor," The Historic Character of the Pentateuch considered."

GO

58 Dr. Mc. Caul's Examination: pp. 154, 156.

59 Although Pliny calls it a colony (H. N. IV, 18).

o Vide Spanheim de usu Num. Diss. IX.