Lectures on the four last books of the Pentateuch

parts of the world. I conceive both these objections rest on so slight a support, that a very little reflection will be sufficient to overturn them.

As to the representation of Josephus, it is clear he believed that the deliverance of the Jews at the Red Sea was aided by Divine power. "The Egyptians (says he) were not aware that they went into a road "made for the Hebrews, and not for others; that this road was made "for the deliverance of those in danger, but not for those that were earnest to make use of it for the others destruction. As soon, there"fore, as the whole Egyptian army was within it, the sea flowed to "its own place, and came with a torrent raised by storms of wind, and encompassed the Egyptians: showers of rain also came down from "the sky, and dreadful thunders, and lightning with flashes of fire; "thunderbolts were also darted upon them; nor was there any thing "which was to be sent by God upon man, as indications of his wrath, “which did not happen at this time, for a dark and dismal night oppressed them; and thus did all these men perish, so that there was "not one man left to be a messenger of this calamity to the rest of the Egyptians."

Assuredly then Josephus believed this event miraculous: writing however for the Heathens, he adduces the instance of Alexander's passage at the edge of the sea on the bay of Pamphylia, which by some was represented as supernatural (doubtless on as good grounds as those on which the hero was worshipped as a god.) "As for myself, (says he) I have delivered every part of the history as I found it in "the sacred books; nor let any one wonder at the strangeness of the "narration, if a way were discovered to those men of old time who were free from the wickedness of modern ages, whether it happened by the will of God, or whether it happened of its own accord, while "for the sake of those that accompanied Alexander king of Macedonia, "who yet lived comparatively but a little while ago, the Pamphylian sea retired and afforded them a passage through itself when they had

"That there was nothing miraculous in Alexander's pass, is evident from the account which the accurate geographer Strabo gives of it. Geog. xiv. p. 666. "Now about Phaselis is that narrow pas66 sage by the sea side through which Alexander led his army: there is a mountain called Climax, "which adjoins to the sea of Pamphylia, leaving a narrow passage on the shore, which in calm wea"ther is bare so as to be passable by travellers, but when the sea overflows it is covered to a great "degree by the waves. Now then the ascent by the mountains being round about a steep, in still wea "ther they make use of the road along the coast; but Alexander fell into the winter season, and "committing himself chiefly to fortune, he marched on before the waves retired; and so it happened "that they were a whole day in journeying over it, and were under water up to the navel.”—Arrian also describes it in such a way as to prove it was not miraculous: "When Alexander (says he) re. "moved from Phaselis, he sent some part of his army over the mountains to Perga, which road the "Thracians shewed him; a difficult way it was, but short. However, he himself conducted those "that were with him by the sea shore; this road is impassable at any other time, than when the "north wind blows, but if the south wind prevail there is no passing by the shore. Now at this time "after strong south winds a north wind blew, and that not without a divine Providence, as both he "and they who were with him supposed, and afforded him a quick and easy passage.' This supposed interposition of Providence, therefore, forms the entire of the miracle.-Calisthenes, indeed, who sccompanied Alexander, represented the Pamphylian Sea, not only as opening for him a passage, but that, by raising and elevating its waters, it did pay him homage as its king; and surely it ought to have done no less, as he was not only a king, but a demigod. This Calisthenes was a true courtier.

no other way to go, I mean when it was the will of God to destroy "the empire of the Persians; and this is confessed to be true by all "those who have written the history of Alexander. But as to these ❝events, let every one determine as he pleases."

It is quite clear from comparing this passage with that immediately preceding, that the former period speaks the real opinion of Josephus; the latter is merely a mode of expression calculated to keep up the attention and conciliate the belief of his Heathen readers, as if he had said, Do not immediately reject my history as fabulous and incredible, because it relates the miraculous passage of the Jews through the Red Sea; while you admit without hesitation an event stated by your own historians as of a similar nature, in the history of Alexander; in judging of these matters you can exercise your liberty. I have derived my history from our sacred books, to them I refer you to decide on its credibility.

Any supposition, of Josephus being a sceptic as to the truth of the Old Testament history, is clearly contradictory to the entire drift and tenour of all his works. The learned and judicious Reland, as quoted by Whiston in his first preliminary dissertation, justly observes, that "Josephus uses the same manner of speaking (Book iii. ch. 10;) after "he had said that it was falsely believed that Moses and the Israelites were expelled Egypt for leprosy, he adds, let every one consider this as he pleases; did he therefore intend to say that this was also un"certain, it being no other than that impudent calumny which he him"self vehemently confutes and exposes at large in his first Book against Apion, page 25 to 31." And Reland adds many other instances of his using this expression, where it is quite certain that he most firmly believed the fact to which he applies it.

Thus utterly ill founded is the objection to the miracle, from the supposition of its having been confessed incredible by Josephus. But after all, this objection is in its very nature futile and inconclusive; for, how can the truth of the Mosaic history, or the miraculous nature of any event which it records, be either materially confirmed or weakened by a writer who lived near two thousand years after the event, and who confessedly derived all his knowledge concerning it, from the very same sacred volume which still remains for our examination ? Most certainly the reality and the miraculous nature of the fact must be decided by the credibility of the original narrative, and of the concurring testimonies which either oppose or confirm it, if any such can be found. To these, therefore, let us direct our attention.

On this subject, it is in the first place an obvious remark, that the Sacred History itself represents this transaction as a clear and stupendous miracle, and declares that it was recognized as such in the hymn of thanksgiving composed at the very time by Moses, and from that period constantly preserved by the whole Jewish nation, and that every allusion to it in the subsequent parts of the Jewish history, the psalms or the prophets, presupposes and affirms its miraculous nature.

"Fear ye not," (says Moses to the multitude, panic-struck at the

sight of the Egyptian army)" stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew you to-day; for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. The Lord "shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace." What language can declare more expressly the certain expectation of a miraculous interposition?

This interposition was manifested in three things: the first, in protecting them from the attack of the Egyptians before their passage through the sea; the second, in opening that passage; and the third, in destroying the Egyptians. As to the first, the sacred historian gives this account: "And the angel of God which went before the camp of "Israel, removed, and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud "went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came "between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of the Israelites ; "and it was a cloud of darkness to them, but it gave light by night to "these; so that the one came not near the other all the night." * Now it is scarcely credible any historian should invent such a circumstance as this, so unlikely to occur even to the most fertile imagination. It is still more incredible he should hope to persuade a whole nation of the truth of such a fiction, and utterly impossible that such a fact, if real, should not be miraculous.

The historian proceeds: "And Moses stretched out his hand over "the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east "wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were "divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea 66 upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their "right hand, and on their left."+ Now this description is utterly inapplicable to any thing like an ebb of the sea. This would carry away the whole body of the waters, and leave a dry space, but it could never divide them; it could never make them stand like a wall upon their right hand and on their left. Or, even admitting Dr. Geddes's remark, "that we need not suppose them to stand upright “like real walls, but only that they were deep enough on each side of "the shoal to prevent the Israelites from being flanked or attacked "from any quarter but from behind;" it is not conceivable how an ebb of the sea alone could produce this effect. The history plainly ascribes it to a divine interposition; and we must either pronounce that totally false, or the event it relates decidedly miraculous.

The third part of this transaction is the destruction of the Egyptians; this is also described in terms which imply a decided miracle. "The Egyptians," says the history, "pursued, and went in after them, "to the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his "horsemen." He adds, “And it came to pass, that in the morning "watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians, through the "pillar of fire, and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyp“tians, and took off their chariot wheels," (or as Dr. Geddes translates it, so entangled them) "that they drave them heavily: so that the

"Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the Lord "fighteth for them, against the Egyptians." *

Here is another circumstance perfectly consistent with, and as it were, regularly connected with, the former part of the narrative, concerning the miraculous cloud which divided the two armies; but yet so unlike any thing mere human imagination would have conceived, that it is scarcely credible any thing but reality could have suggested it. The narrative proceeds: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Stretch out "thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen. And

"Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea; and the sea returned to "his strength when the morning appeared, and the Egyptians fled "against it: and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the 66 sea. There remained not so much as one of them. Thus the Lord "saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians: and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore. And Israel saw that "great work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians: and the people "feared the Lord, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses." +

Nothing can be more clear than that Moses ascribes the sudden return of the waters, at such a critical moment as to destroy the whole host of the Egyptians, to a supernatural power; and states it to have been recorded and believed as such by the whole nation of the Jews, from the moment the event took place; and preserved in their perpetual recollection by that sublime hymn of triumphal thanksgiving, which he himself composed, and has transmitted to posterity in the next chapter. And it has been well remarked, that it is totally inconceivable that such a history could have gained credit with the Jewish nation, as we certainly know it did, had the facts on which it is founded been the consequences of natural causes, or of mere human contrivance; Who can imagine," say the authors of the Universal History, "that in such a case any credit could have been given to his relation, "when he declares that God, who alone knew what passed in Egypt, "did unexpectedly make them take this new route; when he describes "his own surprise and the people's consternation at the sight of the Egyptian army; above all, when he describes the sea miraculously "dividing to let them pass, and suddenly returning to overthrow their "enemies? What opinion must they have had of his sincerity, if these' events, thus ascribed to God, were entirely owing to his own cun"ning and policy? On the other hand, what must they think of his "conduct, that could be guilty of such an oversight as to lead them "into such a danger, though under the pretence of miraculous direc❝tion? And finally, Moses must have been the most impudent and "the most vain man alive, to attempt making such a vast and not "over-credulous multitude believe that their passage was altogether as “miraculous as he affirms it to have been, when they could not but "have been well assured of the contrary, much less appoint a solemn "festival of seven days, and enjoin it to be observed by them and their

* Exod. xiv, 23-25.

+ Ibid. verse 26, &c.

"posterity to all future ages in memory of their pretended miraculous "passing through the sea, when the experience of a much shorter time "than they continued along that coast, could easily have convinced "them that there was nothing in it but what was natural, and what "happened every day." *

Thus unaccountable are the existence and the reception of the Mosaic history of this event, if this deliverance be ascribed to mere natural causes, directed by human contrivance, and misrepresented by artful exaggeration. †

But let us for a moment set aside all the particular circumstances of the history, retaining only the two great facts, even that the Israelites escaped from the Egyptians by passing in some mode or other through or along an arm of the sea, in which their pursuers were destroyed, and try the probability of the explanation given of those facts by those who set aside all miraculous interference.

Moses, say they, took advantage of an ebb of the sea, which, aided by a favourable wind (not as the original states, an East wind, for this, though it corresponds to the history, as it blows across the Gulf of Suez, and therefore if supernaturally increased might divide it across, yet could not answer this hypothesis) left a dry strand to a great ex

* Universal History of the Jews, Book I. chap. vii. note P.

+ As I wish to take the objectors to this miracle on their own statement, I have not judged it necessary to enter into a critical discussion of the spot where this passage took place; particularly as absolute certainty on such a point may not be easily attainable, at the distance of three thousand three hundred years.

- I refer on this subject to the learned Mr. Bryant on the Plagues of Egypt, (p. 358) who, in a dissertation on the place of the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and their subsequent journey and passage over the Red Sea, brings many strong arguments and authorities to shew that the passage took place at Bedea, about six German miles, or about twenty-four English, from Suez, "where and where "only there is a defile, which consisted of a long extended coast, and was bounded by the Sinus Heroo"politanus to the East, by the extremity of the Arabian Mountain to the West; at the end was the "inundation or inlet of the sea called Clymar, and now by the Arabians Colsum: here were they "situated, exactly as the text describes they were, by the sea, and entangled by the land; the wilder"ness had shut them in." "But," says Dr. Geddes, "the sea is here near four leagues broad by "fifty feet deep; to have dried up a passage through such a mass of waters would have been a prodigy "indeed; for my part, who believe there was nothing miraculous in the event, I am positively for the pass at Suez, where at this day there are shallows fordable at low water, and which might in former "times have been frequently dry: we all know what changes happen in the bed of seas, as well as in "the bed of rivers, especially where that bed is sand, which the Gulf of Suez certainly is." There certainly have been such changes, but, unfortunately for the Doctor's system, in this instance the changes have been such as to prove that the spot where the Doctor supposes the Jews to have passed, instead of being formerly more dry than at present, was entirely overflowed by the Red Sea, which at that time flowed into the country, probably thirty miles higher than it does at present, and over. flowed a considerable basin or lake which has been since separated from the Red Sea by a bank of sand gradually accumulating near Suez, and has been dried up, partly by sand and partly by exhalation. While this lake existed, and the communication between it and the Red Sea was open, it would have been more impracticable than now to effect a passage where Dr. Geddes and the other authors, who are only for a half miracle, or for no miracle, placed it. In proof of this former extent of the Red Sea, consult Memoires sur L'Egypte, publies pendant Les Campagnes Du General Bonaparte, par L'Institut. d'Egypte, Tom. iv. p. 218. The gentlemen of this Institute (as might be expected) will have the passage not to be miraculous, for, like Dr. Geddes, they think that the Red Sea at Suez has a strand that is passable at low water, while at the same time it is deep enough, particularly when agitated by tempests, to destroy a considerable army. Quære-If the Red Sea communicated with the Lake, as these writers have proved it did, was this strand so large? But these gentlemen have not pretended to account for the wonderful difference between the fortune of the Jews and of the Egyptians. It was a mere accident from tempests, &c. &c. &c.

« Föregående Fortsätt »

Böcker