1 foot might pass safely over it. This conjecture is founded on the expressions in Exodus xiv. 24, 25, "In the morning-watch, the Lord looked into the host of the Egyptians, and troubled it, and took off the chariot wheels, and made them to go heavily;" and, Ch. xv. 10, "Thou didst blow with thy wind; the sea covered them. They sunk as lead in the mighty waters." This latter wind which brought the sea upon the Egyptians must be different from that which drove the sea back from the Hebrews; and as the first is said to rise at the motion of the "arm and rod of Moses," on one side of the passage; the other followed from the like motion, when Moses was on the other side. The Egyptians might be well acquainted with the passage, and with the usual ebbing and flowing of the sea at that place, yet have no conception of so unusual, and indeed miraculous, conspiration of the winds at that juncture, to favour the passage of the Israelites, and obstruct their own pursuit, in a manner so singular and destructive. It is readily acknowledged that the expressions in scripture describing that wonderful event, may appear to many readers as implying something greater and more astonishing than is consistent with the preceding account. But if this be admitted, we are still under a necessity, either of allowing at the same time a very great reduction of the number mentioned, or of supposing a second miracle wrought, to enable so vast a multitude with their flocks, herds, &c. to pass in so short a time. But this would be weakening instead of supporting the credit of one miracle, by adding another to it, unnecessary, unwarranted by the scripture narration, and therefore not credible. If the reader will grant only that the expression of the "water being a wall unto them, on the right hand and on the left," is poetical or figurative, and means no more than the protection, which the sea on one hand and the bay on the other afforded them, the above representation corresponds exactly with the original narration. VI. All the territories which they conquered and got possession of, during the lives of Moses and Joshua, on both sides of the river Jordan, were very far from being of an extent suffi cient for the habitation and maintenance of so prodigious a number of people. After the death of Joshua, though some of the tribes made some little conquests, the rest made none, and all lived intermixed with the very people or nations, whom they had in part subdued; and whose territories they had possessed; viz. the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perrizites, Hivites and Jebusites, with whom they intermarried and by whom they were seduced to idolatry. They were also surrounded and hemmed in by the Hivites on the north, by the Sidonians, Tyrians and Philistines on the west, and by the Amorites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites and Edomites on the south-east and south; who made frequent and successful incursions upon them. Even the Canaanites, with whom they were partly intermixed, became so powerful as to subdue them, and hold the whole nation in a state of great oppression for twenty years. They could possess therefore, or inhabit at that time, but a small part of all the territories comprehended afterward in the kingdom of David and of Solomon, who not only completed their conquest over the nations with whom the Israelites were partly intermixed, but extended their dominion largely on every side. In the reigns of those kings there still remained a great number of strangers scattered among them; for the laws frequently and expressly referred to the strangers within their gates. These were commonly domestic servants or field-labourers, or like the "Gibeonites, hewers of wood and drawers of water;" though some are mentioned as promoted by David, and serving him with honour and fidelity; as for instance, Uriah the Hittite. Solomon, in his book of Proverbs, warns the young men of the nation against having any commerce with the women strangers, whom he describes as subtle, treachcrous and rapacious, as well as lewd, which might be their true generał character, as the descendants of those who had, in former times, corrupted the Israelites and seduced them to idolatry. What number of strangers might remain intermixed with the Hebrews in Solomon's time is uncertain; but probably it was very considerable. We find it said, 1 Kings ix, 20, "All the people that were left of the Amorites, Perrizites, Hittites, Hivites, and Jebusites which were not of the children of Israel; their children which were left after them in the land whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy; upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service unto this day." Now if we examine the maps of that part of the earth, we shall find that (the whole country inhabited wholly or chiefly by the Hebrews, is not more than two hundred miles in length, and scarcely one hundred in breadth, measuring to the utmost extent from north to south, and east to west, including the parts which were or had been in the possession of the Sidonians, Tyrians, Philistines: And if we consider that the Hebrews were not a commercial people, but subsisted wholly or chiefly by agriculture, we cannot suppose the country was ever very populous. Comparing it then to any tract of country in Europe of equal extent, in which there are few manufactures, aud little or no commerce; we cannot reasonably suppose that it ever contained more than two millions of inhabitants.* If we may depend upon the numbers of years, specified in the book of Judges (which may also be magnified), the first of which commences many years after the death of Joshua, there was a period of above four hundred years between his death and the time of Samuel the prophet; of which more than one hundred was spent at different times in a state of oppression and servitude, in consequence of several great defeats; the remainder in rest and peace, consequent to victorics; during the former parts of the time we cannot reasonably allow any increase or multiplication, but should rather suppose a diminution, by the numbers slain in battle, and the severity of oppression, from the wars of Joshua and those after his decease, * Swisserland, is the country in Europe which seems to bear the greatest resemblance to that of the ancient Hebrews, as it is an inland mountainous country, in which the people subsist almost wholly by agriculture, as it is almost equal in extent and number of inhabitants; and as it is divided into several cantons which have each a separate jurisdiction. But along with liberty, it is blessed with a policy, union and strength of national government, such as the Hebrews unhappily wanted. especially the intestine wars, and above all, that in which the whole tribe of Benjamin was utterly destroyed excepting six hundred men ; we may infer, almost with certainty, a great diminution of the nation at large. Supposing then the whole number at the conclusion of the war against Benjamin, to be sixty thousand, and that number to be continually doubled in a period of fifty years spent in peace, it would amount in two hundred and fifty years to one million nine hundred and twenty thousand. Allowing also a second diminution by the wars, the bloody defeats, and severe oppressions, in the time of Samuel and Saul, the civil war for seven years between the house of Saul and David, and the many wars, though they were successful, carried on by David; the whole number, at the commencement of Solomon's reign, cannot be reasonably estimated at much more than two millions, if at so much; especially if we consider that the more numerous any nation becomes, the multiplication proceeds the slower from various causes, which might easily be assigned; and that the increase here admitted, exceeds that of any nation now existing in Europe, even in the most peaceable and healthful times, none of which are ever supposed to become double the number, in a period of fifty years. In It is by no means pretended that the preceding calculations have any certainty or exactness in them, as to the real multiplication of mankind, in any instance, but they may answer the purpose which the author intended, namely, to prove beyond all reasonable contradiction, that the numbers specified in the Old Testament of nations, tribes, armies and men slain in battle are generally magnified, to a surprising excess. what proportion they are magnified, it may be impossible to determine with precision; but by probable conjecture, not much less than ten to one in most instances, and in some vastly more. The number which migrated from Egypt is reduced by the preceding calculation more than forty to one. If the number of the Benjamite forces be reduced from ten to one there will remain two thousand three hundred and seventy; out of which number, if no more than six hundred escaped in the battle, it was certainly a bloody engagement: and it shocks imagination, as well as reason, to conceive that no more should Jescape out of twenty-six thousand and seven hundred. If we divide in the same proportion the four hundred thousand men of the other tribes, there will remain forty thousand which may still be thought a number exceeding probability; and though twelve thousand are said to be detached to surprise and destroy the small defenceless town of Jabesh Gilead, twelve hundred would certainly have been sufficient for the purpose. When Rehoboam is said to raise an army of one hundred and eighty thousand chosen men, out of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin; (Kings xii. 21), if we reduce them by ten, the remaining eighteen thousand seems to be a much more probable number. In the second book of Chronicles, ch. xvi. there is a far more extravagant account, which is, that Abijah, son and successor to Rehoboam, raised an army consisting of four hundred thousand chosen men, out of the same two tribes; and. Jeroboam, King of rael, au army of eight hundred thousand chosen men, out of the other ten tribes; and: that five hundred thousand of the latter army were slain in the engagement." This account is added only to convince the reader that the transcribers of copies set no bounds to their vanity in magnifying the number, and consequently power and grandeur, of their nation. To add an instance or two more in which the numbers appear to be exceedingly magnified. It is said in our Version, 1 Sam. vi. 19. that "Fifty thousand and threescore and ten men" were punished with death for the crime of" looking into the ark of the Lord." But beside the improbability of the country supplying so great a multitude to visit the ark, or of a tenth part of such a number getting near enough to look into it, the authors of the Arabic and Syriac Version seem to have read in their Hebrew manuscripts no more than five thousand. Josephu reduces them to seventy only; and the learned Dr. Kennicott has lately informed the public that he found the number to be no more than seventy, in two ancient manuscripts which he collated. In Ex. xxxii. 28. it is related that the armed Levites by the command of Moses "slew about three thousand men" of those who worshipped the golden calf, and who were celebrating a religious festival on the occasion. The number here cited from our English Version is agreeable to Hebrew manuscripts, and several antient versions; yet in some copies of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, we finds twenty-three thousand, and in some thirty-three thousand. These are: instances of an aptness in translators or transcribers to make arithmetical mistakes, which are always found to be of a magnifying kind. It is a very probable conjecture, though ever so destitute of support either from mas nuscripts or versions, that the number 7100 also of" thirty-two thousand young 4600 female captives, of six hundred seven3000 ty-five thousand sheep, seventy-two thousand heads of cattle, and sixty-one! thousand asses," said to be taken from the Midianites, (Num. xxxi.)are great The following note, was found in the MS. by another hand. ED. The proportion of men from each tribe, who, according to the same author, attended David at Hebron, to support his election to the whole kingdom, and were with him three days eating and drinking, 1 Chron. xii is as follows: Men of Judah Simeon. Benjamin.. 6800 Levi. half tribes- Manasseh 20800 On the other side of Jordan the rest unnumbered. Zebulon, perfectly armed and trained Manasseh repeated 50000 Let the reader compare this list of num37000 bers, and the sum total, with those men28600 tioned above. Let him also consider that 40000 these three hundred thousand men in arms, (not to mention the odd thousands) are all 120000 said to have feasted with David at Hebron for threee days successively, and then let him judge what credit is due to the accounts of numbers which we meet in several passages of the Hebrew history. 335900 ly magnified. This may be inferred, with some appearance of reason, from the mountainous nature, barren soil, and narrow extent of the country of Midian; though the ingenious and learned authors of the Jewish Letters to Voltaire, have laboured to remove this objection with much strength, excepting the weakness of comparing that poor rocky country, to the rich and level soil of the Campania of Rome. But the chief argument is to be drawn from the 48th and 49th verses of the same chapter, in which it is said that the Hebrew forces consisted of twelve thousand men (sup posing then this number not magnified) returning from the conquest and plunder of Midian without the loss of one man. Yet the country is described as containing some towns, and even castles, which were taken and destroyed. The Midianites must therefore have been able to make but a very weak resistance, or rather none at all; consequently must be inferior in number and substance to the preceding magnified account. SIR, That the authority or power exercised by our Saviour was a given, a received power from his Father and our Father, his God and our God, is, I am firmly persuaded, a truth which can be discredited only by impeaching the credibility of his own repeated and unvarying asseverations, and can therefore scarcely be permitted to rank, with scriptural Christians, amongst the topics of theological controversy. But, with regard to his own construction of the particular title which he was pleased to assume, ħthe following contrast may not per aps have so forcibly struck some of them as it always does your correspondent. When the chief priests challenged him, "Art thou then the Son of God?" he replied, as categorically, Ye say that I am." When they that were in the ship worshipped him, i. e. did him homage under that appellation, he does not appear to have evaded or rebuked so proper a mark of their re 66 spect. When the devils fell down before him with a like salutation, he charged them only not to make him known. To Martha's memorable confession of her faith (would it had been universally deemed as exemplary !) his silence gives implied assent. And Peter's received from him a similar testimony of approbation. But mark now the difference, when the Jews with that propensity to misunderstand his meaning, so familiar on all occasions to those advocates for another kind of Messiah than he seemed likely to prove, charged him also in so many words, with "making himself equal with GOD,” by assuming the apellation of his Son: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are GOD (Elohim). If he called them GOD, unto whom the word of GOD came," &c. Conscious of being GOD the Son, could he at such a moment have made such a reply? Is there any point, any applicableness in the retort, but upon the admission, the open avowal that he considered himself man, man only, man as they were men, to whom the word of GÖD came? If this be not to disclaim divinity in point of nature, what could have been? Can more unequivocal interpretation be given to the import of the title, Son of GOD, on the ground on which he presumed to adopt it? Against such unambiguous evidence, would the hypothesis of an apostle, if such could be found, weigh one feather in the scale? Yours, TE TACE. Illustrations of Scripture. [From an interleaved Bible.] Heb. ii. 17. " It behoved him to be made like unto his brethren," i. e. it was fit and right, the obligation not pressing on Christ, but being spoken of absolutely. In exactly the same way, Cæsar in his Commentaries, § 3. Damnatum pœnam sequi oportebat, ut igni cremaretur, viz. It behoved him, being condemned, to be punished, by being burned. REVIEW. "Still pleas'd to praise, yet not afraid to blame."---POPE. Art. I.-The Book of Job, literally THE In the present number we shall examine his introductory Dissertation, To his eulogium on this noble poem--to his general estimate of its character and importance---we feel little hesitation in subscribing. And we shall now accompany him in his inquiry into "the scene" of the book, "its scope, object and arrangement; its language, and the difficulties attending a translation of it; its author and æra; and the doctrines which it incidentally developes." I. "Nothing," says Mr. Good," is clearer than that all the persons introduced into the ensuing Poem were Idumæans, dwelling in Idumæa, or, in other words, Edomite Arabs." Bochart, Spanheim, and the writers of the Universal History, place the land of Uz in Sandy Arabia, which Rosenmüller, whose Prolegomena, &c. in Jobum have now reached this country, considers as likely to be its position. Indeed, on looking into Jer. xxv. 20, 21, we find that Uz and Edom are spoken of as distinct from each other. Of the spot upon which Job dwelt, Blayney† remarks, "It was most probably on the confines of Idumæa, if not a part of it:" and in this opinion we are disposed to ac quiesce. We do not differ greatly from Mr. G's., which is well supported by the authority and reasoning of Bishop Lowth. But we submit, whether the Dissertator has not expressed hin self with somewhat too much of confidence? He justly commends the "modesty" of Eusebius: and in the event of his printing a second edition of his Translation, he will perhaps at once imitate and praise this learned ecclesiastical historian, and enable us to verify the quotation made (ix.) from his works; of the substantial correctness of which, however, we do not doubt, though it has the appearance of being inaccurately printed. The manners of the Poem are, beyond controversy, Arabian; a fact of far more importance than our answer to the question, In what district are Job and his friends described as living? Not that even this investigation is without its use; nor that we judge it unworthy of the notice of studious men. Still, we think it the least momentous of the matters which occupy our Translator's preliminary discourse, and not among the clearest. II. Île states the subject proposed by the writer of the Poem to be "the trial and triumph of the integrity of Job." Such, no doubt, is the general argument of the book. Its scope, nevertheless---the object of its author ---seems to have been higher; to vindicate the ways of God to man, by shewing that severity of affliction is no proof of the sufferer's guilt. The individual case of Job is subservient to this moral. Whether he really existed, has been a topic of dispute among scholars and divines. But we believe that historical truth is the basis of this work. The nature of the references in Scripture to its principal character, afford a strong presumption that he is not the offspring of the poet's * Prælectiones, &c. xxxii. not. sub. init. † Ezek. xiv. 14, 20. James v. 11 .. |