II. Integrity and Elements. — This, like the other books of the Pentateuch, is supposed by many critics to con- sist of a compilation from two or three, or more, earlier documents. According to De Wette, the following portions are the work of the Elohist (q. v.) : Chapter i, 1-x, 28 ; xiii, 2-16 (in its original, though not in its present form) ; xv ; xvi, 1-11, 16-23, 24 (?) ; xvii-xix; XX,. 1-13, 22-29; xxv-xxxi (except perhaps xxvi, 8- 11); xxxii, 5, 28-42 (vers. 1-4 uncertain); xxxiii-xxxvi. The rest of the book is, according to him, by the Jeho- vist, or later editor. Von Lengerke {Kenaan. p, Ixxxi) and Stiihelin (§ 23) make a similar division, though they differ as to some verses, and even whole chapters. Vaihinger (in Herzog's Encyklopddie, art. Pentateuch) finds traces of three distinct documents, which he as- cribes severally to the pre-Elohist, the Elohist, and the Jehovist. To the first he assigns ch. x, 29-36 ; xi, 1- 12, 16 (in its original form); xx, 14-21; xxi, 1-9, 13- 35; xxxii, 33-42; xxxiii, 55, 56. To the Elohist be- long ch. i, 1-x, 28 ; xi, 1-xii, 16 ; xiii, 1-xx, 13 ; xx, 22- 29; xxi, 10-12; xxii, 1; xxv, 1-xxxi, 54; xxxii, 1- 32; xxxiii, 1-xxxvi, 19. To the Jehovist, xi, 1-xii, 16 (Jiberarheitet) ; xxii, 2-xxiv, 25; xxxi, 8, etc.
But the grounds on which this distinction of docu- ments rests are in every respect most unsatisfactory. The use of the divine names, which was the starting- point of this criticism, ceases to be a criterion ; and cer- tain words and phrases, a particular manner or coloring, the narrative of miracles or prophecies, are supposed to decide whether a passage belongs to the earlier or the later document. Thus, for instance, Stiihelin alleges as reasons for assigning ch. xi, xii to the Jehovist, the coming down of Jehovah to speak with Moses, xi, 17, 25; the pillar of a cloud, xii, 5; the relation between Joshua and Moses, xi, 28, as in Exod. xxxiii, xxxiv; the seventy elders, xi, 16, as Exod. xxiv, 1, and so on. So again in the Jehovistic section, xiii, xiv, he finds traces of " the author of the First Legislation" in one passage (xiii, 2-17), because of the use of the word illiO, signifying "a tribe," and X'^CJJ, as in Numb, i and vii. But 5<^C3 is used also by the supposed sup- plementist, as in Exod. xxii, 27 ; xxxiv, 31 ; and that tV^'O is not peculiar to the older documents has been shown by Keil {Com. on Joshua, § xix). Von Lengerke goes still further, and cuts off xiii, 2-16 altogether from what follows. He thus makes the story of the spies, as given by the Elohist, strangely maimed. We only
NUMBERS, BOOK OF 2
hear of their being sent to Canaan, but nothing of their return and their report. The chief reason for this sep- aration is that in xiii, 27 occurs the Jehovistic phrase, '•flowing with milk and honey," and some references to other carHer Jehovistic passages. De Wette again finds a repetition in xiv, 2G-o8 of xiv, 11-25, and accordingly gives these passages to the Elohist and Jehovist re- spectively. This has more color of probability about it, but has been answered by Kanke {Untersuc/i. ii, 197 sq.). Again, ch. xvi is supposed to be a combination of two different accounts, the original or P^lohistic docu- ment having contained only the story of the rebellion (if Korah and his company, while the Jehovist mixed up with it the insurrection of Dathan and Abiram, which was directed rather against the temporal dignity than against the spiritual authority of Moses. But it is against this view that, in order to justify it, vers. 12, 14, 27, and 32 are treated as interpolations. Besides, the discrepancies which it is alleged have arisen from the fusing of the two narratives disappear when fairly looked at. There is no contradiction, for instance, be- tween xvi, 19, where Korah appears at the tabernacle of the congregation, and ver. 27, where Dathan and Abiram stand at the door of their tents. In the last passage Korah is not mentioned; and even if we sup- pose him to be included, the narrative allows time for his having left the Tabernacle and returned to his own tent. Nor, again, does the statement, ver. 35, that the 250 men who offered incense were destroyed by fire, and who had, as we learn from ver. 2, joined the lead- ers of the insurrection, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, militate against the narrative in ver. 32, according to wliich Dathan and Abiram and all that appertained to Korah were swallowed up alive by the opening of the earth. Further, it is clear, as Keil remarks {Eitdeit. p. 9-1), that the earlier document {die Gnuidschrift) implies that persons belonging to the other tribes vere mixed up in Korah's rebellion, because they say to Moses and Aaron (ver. 3), ^^ All the congregation is hol\%" which justifies the statement in vers. 1, 2, that, besides Korah the Levite, the Reubenites Dathan, Abi- ram, and On were leaders of the insurrection.
In ch. xii we have a remarkable instance of the jealousy with which the authority of Moses was re- garded even in his own family. Considering the al- most absolute nature of that authority, this is perhaps hardly to be wondered at. On the other hand, as we are expressly reminded, there was everything in his personal character to disarm jealousj'. " Now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth," saj's the historian (ver. 3). The pretext for the outburst of this feeling on the part of Jliriam and Aaron was that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman (a woman of Cush). This was prob- ably, as Ewald suggests, a second wife married after the death of Zipporah. But there is no reason for sup- posing, as he does (Gesch. ii, 229, note), that we have here a confusion of two accounts. He observes that the words of the brother and sister, " Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses, hath he not also spoken by us?" show that the real ground of their jealousy w.is the apparent superiority of Moses in the propheti- cal office ; whereas, according to the narrative, their dis- like was occasioned by his marriage with a foreigner and a person of inferior rank. But nothing surely can be more natural than that the long pent-up feeling of jealousy should have fastened upon the marriage as a pretext to begin the quarrel, and then have shown it- self in its true character in tlie words recorded by the historian.