117 
order to counteract the infidel publications that are sent out from London in 
large quantities by every mail, and read very extensively by educated 
Hindus all over the country. (Applause.) 
Rev. H. G. Tomkins. — I will endeavour to occupy but very little time in 
replying to what has been said by the Rev. Prebendary Row. There is no 
one in this room who can possibly feel with more acuteness than I do, the 
immense importance of maintaining all that is contained in Holy Scripture, 
or that, if we are to draw distinctions, what is called the supernatural 
element is the cause and warrant of all the rest. But the historical basis 
is the support of the supernatural superstructure, and it is because if the 
basis should be destroyed the superstructure would fall with it that I have 
felt so very much the necessity of devoting what leisure God has given me 
to the most minute investigation of the historic evidence. (Hear, hear.) 
Now I have a thorough answer to what has fallen from Prebendary Row 
with regard to the supposed want of necessity, if I understood him rightly, 
for such investigations as these. It would appear that he thinks we are 
beating the air and slaying the slain ; but we are neither doing the one nor 
the other. I will address myself to two points only. One is the mytho- 
logical theory. If Mr. Row has happened to see the paper to which, for the 
sake of brevity, I have merely referred this evening, he will have noticed — 
and in my book also, to which I have prefixed the same remarks — that I 
have already had to tussle with that adversary, the mythological theory. 
It so chanced that just at the time I read my first paper,* Goldziher’s 
book, which made a stir in the literature of biblical history, came out. 
And I say that there was such a thing as a great body of negative 
opinion which had formed itself in the direction of approval of the mytho- 
logical explanation, but that to some extent at least that approval has been 
modified. With regard to the particular character whose history I have 
taken up — Joseph — I have this to say : my subject being Joseph, the 
narrative with regard to him does not bring me across the supernatural 
excepting as it regards the dreams, and I suppose I really need not stop to 
argue that God Almighty may communicate knowledge to those who sleep 
as well as to those who are awake. That I have thought unnecessary, and 
I expressly guarded myself by stating that I did not want to enter into 
argument ; what I desired was to give you, ladies and gentlemen, the means 
of arguing — the groundwork for criticism. In the fashionable books of 
philosophical explanation Joseph is resolved into a merely mythical 
character. It is assumed that he was not a human being that ever lived, 
but the son of the “ rain-cloud,” which was Rachel. Rachel was the “ rain- 
cloud” and Joseph was nothing but the rain that was produced by the 
“ rain-cloud ” ; but there was fanciful ground put forward for the mytho- 
logical explanation. With regard to the other matter, as to the historic 
accuracy of the Scripture narrative being admitted, all I can say is 
* “ The Life of Abraham, Illustrated by Recent Researches.” Transactions, 
vol. xii. p. 110. 
