Here is, indeed, a very serious charge against the credibility of the Pentateuch. But it seems to us a charge which, from its very nature, must refute itself. Dr. Colenso will not deny that the Book of _Leviticus_ was written while the tabernacle was still in existence; and that its author, whoever he may have been, had the tabernacle and its appurtenances constantly before his eyes. If he was not a truthful historian, but an impostor, he was certainly a most skilful impostor. He must have known well, all his readers must have known well—quite as well as Dr. Colenso—that the tabernacle could not hold more than five thousand people. Now it is perfectly incredible that any man of common sense, not to say a most clever and successful impostor, under these circumstances, would have ventured boldly to state that six hundred thousand persons were gathered within its precincts.
Let us, however, examine the argument in detail. The foundation on which it rests is clearly enough stated by Dr. Colenso. “It appears to be certain that by the expressions, used so often here and elsewhere, ‘the assembly’, ‘the whole assembly’, ‘all the congregation’, is meant the whole body of the people—at all events, the _adult males in the prime of life_ among them—and not merely the _elders_ or _heads of the people_”, etc. We deny this assertion. The Hebrew word עדה (heda), which is here translated the _assembly_, the _congregation_, comes from the root יעד (yahad), _to appoint_, and means literally an _assembly meeting by appointment_. It is quite true, as Dr. Colenso contends, that the word is sometimes employed to designate the entire body of the people. But it is also true, though he ignores the fact, that it is sometimes applied to a _select few_, invested with a certain authority and jurisdiction. We shall be content with submitting to our readers one remarkable example.
In the thirty-fifth chapter of _Numbers_ we read of the cities of refuge. They were to be six in number—three upon each side of the Jordan; and were intended to afford shelter to those who had unintentionally shed innocent blood. “And they shall be for you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not until he stand before the _assembly_ (עדה) for _judgment_” (_Numbers_, xxxv. 12).(3) It is then laid down that if the murder have been deliberate, it shall be punished with death (16-21). But if the fatal blow have been struck _without enmity_ or _premeditation_, or _by chance_ (22, 23), “then the _assembly_ (עדה) shall _judge_ between the slayer and the revenger of blood.... And the _assembly_ (עדה) shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the _assembly_ (עדה) shall restore him to the city of his refuge” (24, 25). It is quite impossible to suppose that the judicial tribunal here spoken of could be the entire body of the people, or even the 600,000 male adults. The question to be tried was one of the highest moment, involving the life or death of a fellow-citizen. It was also one of extreme delicacy, having to deal, not with the mere external act, but with the motives and feelings of the heart. To the _assembly_ (עדה) it belonged to pronounce, not merely whether one man had killed another, but whether in his heart he had _committed the crime_ of murder. For this purpose witnesses should be examined, evidence should be carefully sifted, and, perhaps, even the domestic secrets of the accused and of his victim should be laid bare. Was this a task that could be entrusted to a mixed multitude of 600,000 men?