XX. THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE CAMP IN THE WILDERNESS

1. The arrangements of the camp provide us with another coincidence, no less satisfactory than the last—for it may be here remarked, that in proportion as the history of Moses descends to particulars (which it does in the camp), in that proportion is it fertile in the arguments of which I am at present in search. It is in general the extreme brevity of the history, and nothing else, that baffles us in our inquiries; often affording (as it does) a hint which we cannot pursue for want of details, and exhibiting a glimpse of some corroborative fact which it is vexatious to be so near grasping, and still to be compelled to relinquish it.

In the sixteenth chapter of the Book of Numbers we read, “Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan, and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: and they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” [Num. 16:1.] Such is the history of the conspiracy got up against the authority of the leaders of Israel. The principal parties engaged in it, we see, were Korah of the family of Kohath, and Dathan, Abiram, and On, of the family of Reuben. Now it is a very curious circumstance, that some thirteen chapters before this—chapters occupied with matters of quite another character—it is mentioned incidentally that “the families of the sons of Kohath were to pitch on the side of the Tabernacle southward.” [Num. 3:29.] And in another chapter yet further back, and as independent of the latter as the latter was of the first, we read no less incidentally, “on the south side (of the Tabernacle) shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben, according to their armies.” [Num. 2:10.] The family of Kohath, therefore, and the family of Reuben, both pitched on the same side of the Tabernacle—they were neighbours, and were therefore conveniently situated for taking secret counsel together. Surely this singular coincidence comes of truth—not of accident, not of design;—not of accident, for how great is the improbability that such a peculiar propriety between the relative situations of the parties in the conspiracy should have been the mere result of chance; when three sides of the Tabernacle were occupied by the families of the Levites, and all four sides by the families of the tribes, and when combinations (arithmetically speaking) to so great an extent might have been formed between these in their several members, without the one in question being of the number. It does not come of design, for the agreement is not obvious enough to suit a designer’s purpose—it might most easily escape notice:—it is indeed only to be detected by the juxtaposition of several unconnected passages falling out at long intervals. Then, again, had no such coincidence been found at all; had the conspirators been represented as drawn together from more distant parts of the camp, from such parts as afforded no peculiar facilities for leaguing together, no objection whatever would have lain against the accuracy of the narrative on that account. The argument, indeed, for its veracity would then have been lost, but that would have been all; no suspicion whatever against its veracity would have been thereby incurred.

2. But there is yet another feature of truth in this same most remarkable portion of Mosaic history; and this has been enlarged upon by Dr. Graves [On the Pentateuch, Vol. i. p. 155.] . I shall not, however, scruple to touch upon it here, both because I do not take quite the same view of it throughout, and because this incident combines with the one I have just brought forward, and thus acquires a value beyond its own, from being a second of its kind arising out of one and the same event—the united value of two incidental marks of truth being more than the sum of their separate values. Indeed, these two instances of consistency without design, taken together, hedge in the main transaction on the right hand and on the left, so as almost to close up every avenue through which suspicion could insinuate the rejection of it.

On a common perusal of the whole history of this rebellion, in the 16th chapter of Numbers, the impression left would be, that, in the punishment of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, there was no distinction or difference; that their tents and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods, were destroyed alike. Nevertheless, ten chapters after, when the number of the children of Israel is taken, and when, in the course of the numbering, the names of Dathan and Abiram occur, there is added the following incidental memorandum—“This is that Dathan and Abiram who were famous in the congregation, who strove against Moses and against Aaron, in the company of Korah, when they strove against the Lord.” Then the death which they died is mentioned, and last of all it is said, “Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.” [Num. 26:11.] This, at first sight, undoubtedly looks like a contradiction of what had gone before. Again, then, let us turn back to the 16th chapter, and see whether we have read it right. Now, though upon a second perusal I still find no express assertion that there was any difference in the fate of these several rebellious house-holds, I think upon a close inspection I do find (what answers my purpose better) some difference implied. For, in verse 27, we are told, “So they gat up from the Tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side;”—i. e. from a Tabernacle which these men in their political rebellion and religious dissent (for they went together) had set up in common for themselves and their adherents, in opposition to the great Tabernacle of the congregation. “And Dathan and Abiram,” it is added, “came out and stood in the door of their tents; and their wives, and their sons, and their little children.” Here we perceive that mention is made of the sons of Dathan and the sons of Abiram, but not of the sons of Korah. So that the victims of the catastrophe about to happen, it should seem from this account too, were indeed the sons of Dathan and the sons of Abiram, but not (in all appearance) the sons of Korah. Neither is this difference difficult to account for. The Levites pitching nearer to the Tabernacle than the other tribes, forming, in fact, three sides of the inner square, whilst the others formed the four sides of the outer, it would necessarily follow, that the dwelling-tent of Korah, a Levite, would be at some distance from the dwelling-tents of Dathan and Abiram, Reubenites, and, as brothers, probably contiguous; at such a distance, at least, as might serve to secure it from being involved in the destruction which overwhelmed the others; for, that the desolation was very limited in extent, seems a fact conveyed by the terms of the warning—“Depart from the tents of these wicked men” (i. e. the tabernacle which the three leaders had reared in common, and the two dwelling-tents of Dathan and Abiram) [See chap. 16: ver. 27. An attention to this verse shows these to have been the tents meant.] , as if the danger was confined to the vicinity of those tents.

In this single event, then, the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, I discover two instances of coincidence without design, each independent of the other—the one, in the conspiracy being laid amongst parties whom I know, from information elsewhere given, to have dwelt on the same side of the Tabernacle, and therefore to have been conveniently situated for such a plot—the other, in the different lots of the families of the conspirators, a difference of which there is just hint enough in the direct history of it, to be brought out by a casual assertion to that effect in a subsequent casual allusion to the conspiracy, and only just hint enough for this—a difference, too, which accords very remarkably with the relative situations of those several families in their respective tents.

But if the existence of a conspiracy be by this means established, above all dispute, as a matter of fact—if the death of some of the families of the conspirators, and the escape of others, be also by the same means established, above all dispute, as another matter of fact—if the testimony of Moses, after having been submitted to a test which he could never have contemplated or been provided against, turn out in these particulars at least to be worthy of credit—to what are we led on? Is not the historian still the same? is he not still treating of the same incident, when he informs us that the punishment of this rebellious spirit was a miraculous punishment? that the ground clave asunder that was under the ringleaders, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto them, and all their goods; so that they, and all that appertained unto them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation?