for inserting many of tl10 details, and would have had strong motives for explaining many things which now arouse, with,1Ut gratifying, our curiosity; The antiquarian information incidentally given about Hebron and Zoan (oh. :xiii. 22) seems thoroughly incompatible with a later age than that of Moses, and points to one who had had access to the pu blio archives of Egypt ; and the list of, chelip delicacies in eh. xi. 5 is evidence of the same sort. The boundaries assigned to the promised land are indeed too obscure to be made the basis of much argu- ment, but the one plain fact about them-that they exclude the trans-J-o:rdanic territory-seems inconsistent with any subsequent period of Jewish national feeling. Until towards the close of the monarchy the regions of Gilead and Bashan were a part, and an integral part, of the land of Israel ; J ord.an could only have been made the eastern frontier at a time when the· self-willed choice of the two and a half tribes had not yet obliterated (so to speak) the original boundary of the promised possession. Moreover, the obvious want of coincidence between the settlements record.ed in eh. xxxii 34-38 and those afterwards-held by these tribes tells strongly in favour of the contemporary origin of this reoord. If, on the other hand, we look at the legislation included in this Book, we have no, indeed the same assurances, but we have the fact that very much of it is on the face of it designed for a wilderness life, and required to be adapted to the times of seUled habitation : the camp and the tabernacle are constantly assumed, and directions given (as e. g. in eh. xix. 3, 4, 9) which could only be replaced by some equivalent ritual after the temple was set up. It is ofcouxse possible (though very improbable} that some later writer might have imagined himself to be living with the people in the wilderness, and have written accordingly; but it is eminently unlikely-that. he would have succeeded in doing so without betraying himself many times. The religious fictions of a much later and more literary age, such as the Book·of Judith, continually blunder, and if the Book of Tobit escapes the charge, it·i& because it restricts itself to domestic scenes. Against this strong internal eviden~all the stronger because it is difficult to reduce it to definite statement -there is really nothing to be set. The theory, which once seemed so pla11Sible,. that the use of the two Divine names, Jehovah and Elohim, pointed to a plurality of authors whose various contributions might be distinguished, has happily been long enough in the hands of its advocates to have reduced itself to absurdity. If there be any one left who is disposed to pursue this ignis jatuus of Old Testament criticism, it is not possible for soberness and common sense tc, follow him-he must chase his phantoms until he be weary, for he will always find some one more foolish than himself to give him a reason why" Jehovah" should stand here and " Elohim" there. The argument from the use of the word nabi (prophet -eh. xi. 29 ; xii 6) seems to be founded on a misunderstanding of 1 Sam.'ix:. 9,. and the few other exceptions which have been taken refer to passages which may well be interpolations. The conclusion, therefore, is strongly warranted that the- bulk of the material containen in this Book is from the hand of a contemporary► THE BOOK OF NUMBERS :rl
and· if llo, fron1 the hand of Moses himself, since no one else can even b& suggested: • S, There ia every reaeon to believe, and no neceseity to deny, that interpolations were•made either by the original compiler or by aome later reviser. Instances will be found in eh. xii 3; xiv; 25, and in eh. xv. 32-36. In the last ta86 it may be reaaonably contended that the incident is narrated in order to illustrate the sternness of:the ·law age.inst the preeumptuoua sinner, but the words •• when the children of larael were in the wilderness" seem to show conclusively that the illus- tration was interpolated by some one living in the land of Canaan. No one perhaps would have· dc,ubted this except under the strangely mistaken idea that it is an article of- the' Christian faith that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch. In chsi· xiii_:,, xiv.;' and xvi. there are signs not so much of interpolation, but of a revieion-of·tbe-narrative which baa disturbed its sequence, and fD the latter caae baa made it- very obscure in parts. These phenomena would be accounted for if· we could suppose that one who had himaelf been an actor in these scenes (such aa Joshua) had ,altered and revised, not very sk:iliully, the 1'8CO?d left behind by Moses. We have, however, no evidence to substantiate such a supposition. In eh. cl 1-3 we have an apparent example neither of interpolation nor of revision, but of accidental dislocation. •The notice of King A.rad and his defeat ia evidently very.ancient, but it is,gen61'6lly agreed that-it is-out of· plaoe where it stands ;i nevertheless, the displacement would seem to be older than. the preeent,foIID. .of the. Itinerary:, for the.passing.allusion in eh. xxitii. 40: i:efers to the same."e:vent in the same geographical connection,. The repetition of the genealogy of .Aaron in eh. xxvi. 58.-61 has all the appearance of an interpola- tion. l'h,e. ohara.cter of eh. xxxiii 1-49 has been already W!ICussed. . . 4. i There remain two important passages on, which objections have; been founded _against the Moaaio authorship of the Book. .The one -i4 the IWr!'tive of the.march.ro.und.Moab in eh. xxi.,.with its quotatio:µs of,a.Qcient.aong!I and sayings., The objectl.oD indeed that no "book of the wars of the Lord'.'. could have, been then in.existence is arb.itrary, for we have no mEl8Il8 of pl.'oving a negative of this kind. That writtenncords were very rare in that age,~ really no reason for denying that Moses (who had received the highest education of the most civilised country in the .then world}, was,able to write down ]llemorials of his own time, or to, make a collection of. popular songs. But . that Moses should have quoted from one of those songs, which could only just have. been added to the collection, seems very unlikely ; and this fac~ -together ,with the different character of. the narrative in .this .part, may incline us. to /believe that the compiler hare added to the (perhaps m1:1agre) record left; by Moses by drawing upon some of .that .. popular lore, partly ,oral, partly written,,which happened to illustrate hidext. The other passage is. the long and striking episode of Balaam, which has been ,already spoken of, There is no difficulty in supposing that this ume from the hand of Moses, if we look uoon it ,aa an epio poem .baaed upon INTRODUCTION TO