THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., DEAN OP GLOUCIISTER;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
WITH
INTRODUCTIONS BY THE
VERY REV. F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. RIGHT REV. H. COTTERILL, D.D., F.R.S.E. VERY REV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D. REV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A. REV. A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 t"IIINTIU) BY WILLIAM CLO\\'l!S AND SON$1 LUl:ITEJ:li, 1-0h'f>ON AND 8ECCl..aS. THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITl!:D BY THB
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., l)B.Lll o-. GL01l'OJISTBB I
AND BY THE
REV~ JOSEPH S. EXELLJ M.A.
NUMBERS. Jnfr.ohmfion DY REV. THOMAS WHITELAW, D.D ..
~ip-osition anb Jomiltfics BY REV. R. WINTERBOTHAM, LL.B., M.A., B.So., INOUW3E:NT 011' ST. l'E'l'E]l.'8, J!'RillmllVRGB'.
Jomilits bg ~atious jufgors: REV. PROF. W. BINNIE, D.D. ; REV. D. YOUNG, B.A. S BEV. E. B. PROUT, :M.A.; REV. ;J. WAITE, BA.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON
THE AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHORSHIP OJ'
THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. JrY
THE REV. THOMAS WHITELAW, M.A.
ITS AUTHENTIOITY, Tmc general question of the historic credibility of the narrative cont.a.in.eel in the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures having already been considered in an Essay on the Authorship of the Pentateuch prefixed to the Genesis volume of the present series of Oommentaries, attention needs now to be directed to such difficulties alone as are specifically associated with the Book of Numbers; and these it will be most oonvenient to investigate under the threefold subdivision of seeming chrono- logical inaocuraoies, so-called statistical errors, and alleged physical impossibilities. a. SEEMING 0HRONOLOGIO.AL lNACOURAOIES, I. THE BEOOND PASSOVER. On the ground that eh. ix. 1 appears to relate to a second celebration of the passover in the first month of the second year, while the census (oh. i. 1) was taken in the second month of the same year, Bleak declares it to be "most evidently conspicuous" that the unknown compiler of the history has here inadvertently perpetrated a grievous chronological blunder(' lntrod.,' Vol I. p. 249). It is, however, precarious to assert, in the absence of indication from the writer himself, that he clearly and deliberately designed, in every separate portion of his composition, to adhere strictly to the order of time. The circumstance "that the separate laws, as they were made known to Moses by Jehovah. and to the people by Moses, are interwoven in the history of the journeyings through the wildem8BB," while exceedingly valuable as a note of the historic cn.d.ibility and Mosaic authorship of the entire narrative (vil'.U infra, p. xx), does not justify the conclusion that Bleak desires it to carry-that "we should certainly expect that if Moses wrote the Pentateuch as it is now oonstruoted, all the particulars would have been fitted together in a oonseoutive order and connection in accordance with tAe MUMBEBB, 11
488 ii THE AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHORSHIP OF