Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

had to be made by Laban, who of course could not have known in the first instance whether Jacob had gone towards Mount Gilead, or in any other direction. For a pursuing, and therefore mounted, Arab, 400 miles in seven days would have been much too little." How many gratuitous assumptions are here made in order to obscure, rather than to explain, the plain words of the text! Of these assumptions, that of comparing Laban to a mounted Arab, or Bedoween, is, perhaps, the most pregnant with error. I know full well that it is much the fashion to regard the manners of the times described in the book of Genesis as being represented by those of the Arabs of the present day; but the only authority to which we can refer upon the subject most assuredly leads to a directly contrary conclusion. The wandering life led by Abraham (who has poetically been described as an Arab Sheik !) and his descendants, Isaac and Jacob, will be adduced as an instance; but the whole scripture history manifests that this was not the rule, but the exception. When Abraham left Chaldea with his relatives, they first came unto Haran, and dwelt there" (Gen. xi. 31); and when that patriarch, with Lot, subsequently proceeded into Canaan, Nahor and his family remained permanently fixed at Haran, in which identical spot they continued to reside during a period of nearly two centuries, (see Gen. xxiv. 4, 10; xxviii. 2, 10; xxix. 4; xxxi. 55;) without the slightest appearance of migration or wandering. So Lot, when he separated from Abraham in Canaan, at once relinquished a migratory life, and " dwelled in the cities of the plain" (Gen xiii. 12); and the comparison of Gen. xviii. 1-9, and xix. 1-3, will plainly shew how very different was the manner of living which he then adopted, from that which Abraham continued to retain. So also from the descriptions given of the "children of Heth" (Gen. xxiii. 3—18), and the inhabitants of the "city of Sichem" (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19; xxxiv. 20-23), may be inferred what was those people's usual manner of living, in contradistinction to the wandering lives of the patriarchs. I will say nothing here of the reason which is given in Heb. xi. 9, for Abraham's "dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob:" all I have now to do with is, the fact that the mode of living of the inhabitants of Syria and Canaan, generally, was widely different from that which was adopted by the patriarchs during their "sojourn in the land;"--which fact I dare Dr. Paulus to deny, unless he at the same time think fit to reject the evidence of the scriptural history altogether; and (with reference to the particular subject of the present argument,) I assert that Laban, the permanent resident in the city wherein his father Bethuel and his grandfather Nahor had constantly resided before him, is not, in any manner whatever, to be compared to a wandering Arab of the desert.

But let us leave these fancies, and proceed to the consideration of the verbal import of the text; which is, in fact, the real point in dispute, notwithstanding that the reviewer has needlessly mixed up with it so many wholly irrelevant matters. Now the text says, that Laban pursued after him [Jacob] seven days' journey" 777 —that is to say, (as I have already expressed it in Orig. Bibl. p. 130, although the reviewer does not in the least allude to it,) "not

as meaning a journey seven days in duration, but as a measure of distance, a seven days' journey in the same way as Laban is said (Gen. xxx. 36) to have set [a distance of] three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob." This seven day's journey, therefore, has (in itself) no more relation to the time which Laban may have employed in travelling it, than it has to the time which Jacob had taken to go it before him. Even in the Hebrew language, one may suffi ciently distinguish between a distance of a day's journey, and the actual journey during a day's time (comp. Numb. x. 33, and Exod. xv. 22)

in like manner as one may distinguish in German between the stunde as a measure of distance, and a journey during a stunde's time.* It is in the former of these senses, I repeat, that the words "seven days' journey" apply; and this, and this alone, is to be our guide (as I have stated in p. 130,) in " computing the distance gone by Laban, without considering the time which may actually have been employed either by him in the pursuit, or by Jacob in his flight, which is not mentioned." At what length the standard of measurement, a day's journey, is to be computed, remains to be determined. I have considered it (p. 130) as equal to about 15 English miles, which is certainly not far removed from the truth at all events it would be as absurd to estimate the "day's journey" of scripture at the distance which " a mounted and pursuing Arab" can go in a day's time, as it would be to suppose that, in Germany, a stunde is measured by the distance which a horseman can gallop in an hour.

But it is really surprising what inconsistencies the reviewer is guilty of in his attempts to support his untenable hypothesis. Having first decided that the distance which Laban went is to be measured by the time which he employed upon it, he is at the next moment compelled to admit, that the actual distance between his Rabbinical Haran and Gilead does not at all correspond with that time :-" four hundred miles" (he says) "in seven days was much too short a distance for Laban, -the mounted and pursuing Arab !” Hence he is driven to take the words of the text not in their plain import and commonsense meaning," and pursued after him,"-in precisely the same manner in which the identical words are used in the account of Pharaoh's pursuit of the Israelites (Exod. xiv. 9), and in many other places of scripture, but as conveying the further meaning of " looking for," "going in search of," and "making circuits," in order to account for the circumstance that Laban was seven days employed upon a pursuit which ought not to have occupied him half the time. Independently of which, it is not to be forgotten that the whole of these ingenious speculations are founded upon the illogical assumption of the very point which the reviewer has to prove, namely, that Charro is Haran, and Gilead, consequently, not the direct road from thence to Canaan.

From the sum of the reviewer's arguments (such as they are), it appears, therefore, that there are two points (and two only) which

The German word “stunde” (an hour) independently of its primary signification as a measure of time, is used to denote the distance which a foot passenger commonly travels within the time of a stunde or hour. Hence, distances are usually calculated by stunden, two of which are equal to a German mile.

So

are regarded by him as positively fixed; the others being such reasonable and probable assumptions as ought to satisfy the mind of any rationalist! These two fixed points are; 1st, the position of Haran, which is established upon that tradition in which the reviewer is so sincere a believer; and 2ndly, the time which Laban took to go from Haran to Gilead, which is determined by a misrepresentation, or at least a misconception, of the verbal import of the Hebrew text. But even let these two fundamental points be conceded,—and what then? The distance and time of Laban's journey are settled in an entirely rationalist, and consequently most satisfactory, manner. too is the distance gone by Jacob. But what is to be said about the time in which the latter went that distance? The reviewer remarks, indeed, that" in how many days Jacob was able to travel the direct road with his slow-footed flocks and herds is not to be ascertained from the text;" but whether the text expresses it or not, it may not the less assuredly be affirmed that many more than seven days would have been absolutely requisite. For a large drove of mixed cattle, 20 consecutive days would be too short a time, even in Germany or England, to travel 400 English miles. This point the reviewer has evidently well considered, although in framing his argument he is most careful to suppress any thing like allusion to it. For he knows full well that the whole of the quickly-moving Laban's time must be accounted for, up to the moment of his overtaking at Gilead" the slow-footed flocks and herds of Jacob;" and it is, in fact, in order to fill up this time which weighs so heavily upon him, that he finds it convenient to assert, (in direct contradiction of the words of the text,) that "Laban went to shear his sheep at so great a distance, eastward of Haran, that he did not receive intelligence of Jacob's flight until three days afterwards;"-and to assume (without the slightest grounds for so doing,) that Laban could not return quickly;-that he did not at once commence his pursuit of Jacob;-that he did not immediately find out that Jacob had gone in the direction of Gilead; - that Gilead was not the nearest way to Canaan;-that Laban was a mounted Arab;-and yet that he employed seven days to do what any mounted and pursuing Arab of the present day would have done in half the time. Is it possible that there should have existed such a rationalist expounder of scripture?

"How, then, does this only self-tied knot become undone? As soon as the text is examined a little more closely, and not merely for the purpose of discovering something new, every reason vanishes for the creation of a second Haran, and for the removal of Padan Aram, which, according to the Syriac and Arabic, as well as in Hosea xii. 13, is called Aramoea Campestris." It is simply from this closer examination of the text that I oppose the creation of a second Haran at Charro, and the removal of Padan Aram into Mesopotamia; both of which have been effected by the Jews of Alexandria, at probably the worst period of their national existence, and both of which, in this present age of reason, are so strenuously, and so consistently, I leave others to say how ably,-advocated by the reviewer.

With respect to the meaning of the of Hosea xii. 13, I confess myself unable to perceive what advantage is afforded by it to

the reviewer's argument more than to my own, unless the extent of Aram be first determined;-that is to say, until it be decided whether or not Mesopotamia be correctly comprised within that designation.

Upon this subject, I have not formed the opinion expressed by me merely from the consideration of the single text which Dr. Paulus has so rationally expounded. In my arguments in pp. 124, 125, I have mentioned that the several cities enumerated in 2 Sam. x. 6, as belonging to Aram,-of which "Damascus was the head" (Isa. vii. 8),

were all, like that city itself, situate at a short distance only from the north-eastern extremity of the land of Canaan:-see for Bethrehob, Judg. xviii. 28; Zobah, 2 Chr. viii. 3; Maacah, Josh. xiii. 13; and Ish-tob (Tob), Judg. xi. 3. Why, then, is the plain country of Aram,-Padan-Aram, or Sedeh-Aram,-alone to be placed at so great à distance from the other portions of Aram? I have also remarked (p. 132,) that the kingdom of Cushan-rishathaim (Judg. iii. 8,) is, with far more reason, to be regarded as a country in the vicinity of Canaan, (like those of Moab, Ammon, and Amalek, mentioned at the same time with it in the text,) than as the distant land of Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates. And, lastly, I have referred (also p. 132,) to the fact that "Pethor of Aram-Naharaim" was the residence of Balaam (Deut. xxiii. 4 ;) " which is by the river of the land of the children of his people" y (Numb. xxii. 5)—or more correctly "of the children of Ammon", as the Samaritan and Syriac versions, and many Hebrew MSS. have it. Should, however, this text be not considered sufficient in itself, I may farther refer to Numb. xxiv. 25, in which it is said, that " Balaam rose up, and went, and returned to his place;" and to Numb. xxxi. 7, 8, from which we find that when the detachment under Phinehas went and "warred against the Midianites," they not only "slew the five kings of Midian," but "Balaam also, the son of Beor, they slew with the sword." How, then, could "his place" have been beyond the Euphrates, or anywhere, indeed, except close to Midian?

In spite, then, of the opinion of the Jewish Rabbis of Alexandria, however long those opinions may have been allowed to remain unquestioned, and notwithstanding, also, the arguments of their proselyte and champion, my rationalist reviewer, I have in conclusion to repeat, that the position attributed by me to Padan Aram or Aram Naharaim -a country in the neighbourhood (to the south) of Damascus, and at no great distance from the other cities of Aram above enumerated -in which country was Haran, the residence of Laban, situate seven days' journey (about 100 English miles) from Gilead-in which also was Pethor, the residence of Balaam, situate by the river of the land of the children of Ammon, and close adjoining to the territories of the Midianites and which, at a later period, formed the neighbouring kingdom of Cushan-rishathaim, the oppressor of the Israelites -is, in every respect, more in accordance with the whole tenour of the scriptural history, unbiassed by tradition, than is any portion of the distant country of Mesopotamia, beyond the Euphrates.

C. T. BEKE.

ON THE DAYS OF CREATION.

SIR, I have read, with some attention, the observations of the Rev. W. B. Winning on the Days of Creation, and will confess that, so far as they go, they offer the most plausible explanation I have seen of the subject. But there are several difficulties connected with his views, which must not be lost sight of. As truth, and the elucidation of Scripture, is the only object which Christian men and ministers can have before them, Mr. Winning will pardon a few remarks upon his paper in the two last Numbers of this Magazine, where those difficulties appear. I shall reserve any further remarks upon the subject, and confine myself, at present, to those difficulties.

Mr. Winning concedes at once to those who conceive that, by "days," indefinite periods of time are meant, one of the great arguments of the mere geologist. But, at the same time, he reverts (page 166) to the usual interpretation of the word day, where he confines the day to a revolution of the earth upon its axis, but extends the terms "evening" and "morning" to many regular alternations of day and night. It is clear, however, that though such a use of these terms may be consistent with themselves, the objectors to geology will not be satisfied with such a phraseology. My own opinion is, that, before this interpretation can be firmly established, the facts relating to the creation in the 1st chapter of Genesis, (from 3rd to 25th verse) must be shewn to be in unity with themselves, as to the propriety of the order pursued. This is easy; but there will still be the necessity of shewing why the word day can be employed in two such differing modes without doing violence to the unity of language.

Mr. Winning observes, on the third day, that the earth brought forth a vegetation totally different from that which it produced on the sixth and he introduces the coal measures as illustrating the fact. Geologists, as he observes, have certainly believed that the vegetation of the ancient earth was solely confined to what we now call tropical vegetation; and that "the gigantic rushes, ferns, palms, bamboos, &c., indicate, not only a tropical, but an insular climate." Will Mr. Winning pardon me remarking, that, if the ancient earth was subject to convulsions of such a nature as we may suppose, under the idea of days implying periods of a kind totally distinct from anything we know now, that we have nothing better than conjecture to go upon when we assume, that the "first vegetation of the earth must have grown on islands in a very moist atmosphere, and in a heat as great, or even greater, than that of the West Indies"? (page 167.) The Mosaic account distinctly states, that (to use Mr. W.'s own version) this occurred "when the Lord God rained not on the earth; but there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.” I may hereafter attempt an explanation of this phenomena upon natural principles, but I now merely point Mr. Winning's attention to it. It is evident, that if the vegetation of the ancient earth was simply such as we have traces of in the coal measures, and if it did not rain when that vegetation grew upon the earth, the climate in which it grew was not exactly a tropical climate; for rain is one of the most usual of

« AnteriorContinuar »