The Pulpit Commentary — Numbers — Section 18

the monarchy; and eh. xxiv. 17, 18, which clearly belongs to the time of David, when Idumea we.s conquered by Israel. But as the most of these have been examined in the Essay on the Authorship of the Pentateuch already referred to (vick • Genesis,' Pulpit 0ommentary), it will be the less needful to subject them at present to separate consideration. It may suffice to remark that though unquestion- ably when thus brought together they appear to have a cumulative force of great value, yet the exact amount of importance to be attached to them depends upon whether they individually will bear the light of candid and impartial investigation , for if when separately taken they break down on examination, the nett result of even an infinite series of such examples will be nil, and it may with confidence be affirmed, as Keil and Hengstenberg have abundantly shown, that every one of the above so-called difficulties is capable of easy solution. Besides, to borrow an arrow from the quiver of an opponent, "he who relies upon the impression made by the whole, without interrogating the parts one by one, repudiates the first principles of all scientific research, and pays homage to superficiality" (Kuenen. 'The Religion of Israel,' vol i. p. 11 ). - But now, on the other hand, the Book of Numbers possesses characteristics which point as unmistakably in the direction of a Mosaic authorship as the foregoing peculiarities are believed to speak in favour of a later origin. 1. The Book of Numbers contains several sections which in their existing shapes were either written by the hand of Moses or belong to the Mosaic age. Of these passages the following is the list prepared by Bleek ('Introduction to Old Testament,' Vol L § 118):--chs. i.,ii.,iii.,iv.; vi. 22-27; x. 1-10; xi.x.; xxi.14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 30; xxxii.i. 1-49; with which in the main Ewald agrees, adding eh. x. 35, 36; xx. 14-22, as fragments "of the earliest accounts of the Mosaio times," at the same time guarding himself, with reference both to eh. xx. 14-22 and eh. :xxxiii., by declining positively to affirm "that these catalogues were kept during the journey, or written down at onco during its last year," though he admits that at a much later period they could not have been attempted (' History of Israel,' Vol. TI. pp. 24, 26). a. The list of camping stations indeed distinctly claims to have been written by Moses (eh. xxxii.i. 2), and though Bohlen (' Introduction to Genesis,'Vol I. p. 88) professes to be able to detect in it everywhere traces of fiction, he may be said to stand alone in the possession of so remarkable a power of vision. The almost unanimous verdict of critical inquirers assigns this ancient catalogue of desert stations to Mosaic times for the simple reason that such a long series of names could not poBBibly have been retained in the memory for any lengthened period, and regards it as perfectly authentic because, as Ewald acknowledges, on examination it appears to be correct. {3. With regard to the songs contained in eh. xxi., "it is so absolutely against all probability that they should be the production of a later age," writes Bleak, "that it has been acknowledged by De W ette that they are certainly derived from the Moeaio age; " and, again, " if we find here songs which bear indications of belonging to the Mosaio age, which, however, ·do not contain any reference at all to the cirou.mstances of a later time, but are, on the contrary, full of features of individuality which are not otherwise intelligible, [1,nd are without meaning except in referenoe to oiroumstances in the time of Moses, it becomes highly probable that they were not only composed in the Mosaic age, but that they were then written down, and have come down to us from thence" (' Introduction to Old Testament,' Vol I. § 79). y. The legislation of eh. xiL bears upon the face o~ it that it was meant for a time when the people dwelt in camps • b2 XX THE AUTHENTICITY AND AUTllORSUlP m•