Jnda.h. 5 74,600 76,500 " 21 'p. G. Js.sachar. Zebulan. 4 s 54,400 67,400 64,300 60,500 18 ,. 5l . Ephraim. Manasseh. 4 8 40,500 32,200 32,600 62,700 20 " 63 .•• Benjamin. Dan. Asher. Naphta.li. 7 1 5 4 85,400 62,700 41,500 45,600 64,400 58,400 29 21 28 . •• 53,400 45,400 15 603,550 601,730 " It is evident that the numbers were ta.ken sta.nces, we cannot even gness at the causes by centuries, as before, although an odd which must have been at work to produce so, thirty appears now in the return for Reuben, striking a. difference. It is evident that each. as a.n odd fifty appeared then in the return tribe had its own history apart from the for Gad. It ha.s been proposed to explain general history of the nation-a history- this on the ground of their both being which ha.d the most important results for its. pastoral tribes; bnt if the members of these own members, but of whioh we know almost tribes were more scattered tha.n the rest, it nothing. It is observable, however, that would be just in their case that we should all the tribes nnder the leadership of Judah expect to find round nnmbel'B. The one increased, whilst all those in the camp or fact which these figures establish in a startling Reuben decreased. way is, that while the nation as a whole re- Ver. 53.-Accorilingto the :a.umber oftha. ma.ined nearly stationary in point of numbers, names. The intention clearly waa that the the varions tribes show a most unexpected extent of the territory assigned to each tribe, 'Vl!.riation. Manasseh, e. g., has increased his and called by its name (ver. 65, b.), should be popnla.tion 63 per cent. in epite of the fact regulated according to it.a numbers nt the: that there is not one man left of sixty years discretion of the rulers. of ege, while Simeon has decreased in the Ver. 65.-Notwithstancli.ng the I.and ehalI same 1>roportion. There is indeed little diffi· be divided by lot. This can only be recon- cnlty in e.cconnting for diminishing numbers ciled with the preceding order by aasuming amiclst so many ha.rdahipe, and after so many that the lot was to determine the situation plagues. The fact that Zimri belonged to of the territory, the actual boundaries being the tribe of Simeon, and that this tribe wa.s left to the discretion of the rulers. Recouree omitted soon after from the blessing of was had as far 1111 possible to the lot in order Moses (Dent. xnili. ), may euily lead to the to refer the matter directly to God, of whose conclusion that Simeon was more than any will a.nd gift they held the land (cf. Prov. other tribe involved in the sin of Baa.1-Peor xvi. 33; Act.a i. 26). The lot would also and the punishment which followed. Bnt remove any suspicion that the more numerollll when we compare, e. g., the twin tribea of tribes, such as Judah or Dan, were unfairly Ephraim and Manasseh, concerning whom favoured (ver. 56). :nothing di.stincti ve is either stated or bin ted, Ver. 58.-Theae are the familie• of the· whether bad or good ; and when we find that Levites. The three Levitical sub-tribes have· the o~e has decreaaed 20 per cent. and the been named in the precedinl{ veree, a.nd the· ~ther mcrea.aed 63 per cent. during the same present enumeration of families Is an inde• .uiterval, and nnder the sa.me general circum• pendent one. The Libnites were Ger&honitea- OB. XXVI. 1-65.] THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. 367
(,eh. iii. 21), the Hebronitee and Korathitee ently maintained through all the extant :(or Korahitee) were Kohathites (eh. iii. 19 ; records (see the note on eh. iii. 28). xvi. 1), the Mahlites and MUBhites were Ver. 62.-Tho■e that were numbered of Merarites (eh. iii. 33). Two other families, them. We have here again a round number the Shimites (eh. iii. 21) and tho Uzzielites (23,000), showing an increase ofl00O since the (eh. iii 27; 1 Chron. l[J[vi. 23, and cf. Exod. former census. It is evident that the males ri. 22; 1 Chron. wv. 24, 25), are omitted of Levi were not counted by anything less here, perhaps because the list is imperfect than hundreds, and probable that they were (see, liowever, the note on ver. 62). counted by thousands (see note on eh. iii Ver. 69.-lochebed, the daughter of Levi, 29). The smallness of the increase in a 'Whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt. tribe which was excepted from the general Rather, "whom she (rll)N) bare." The doom at Kadesh, and which in other ways missing subject is usually supplied, as in the was so favourably situated, seems to point to A. V., and there certainly seems no more some considerable losses. It is possible that difficulty in doing so here than in 1 Kings i. portions of the tribe suffered severely for 6. Some critics take "Atha " e.s a proper their share in the rebellion of Korah ; if so, name--" whom Atha bare;" others render the families of the Shimites and of the Uz- •• who was born ; " this, however, like the zielites may have been so much reduced e.s 'Septuagint, lj fru:e roiirovi; r,j Awi, requires to be merged in the remaining families. a change of reading. Perhaps the text is im- Ver. 65.-There was not lett a man of perfect. The statement here made, what- them. This had been known to be prac- ever difficulties it creates, is in entire agree- tically the case before they left the wilder• ment with Exod. vi. 20 ; 1 Chron. x:xiii 6, ness, properly so called (Dent. ii 14, 15), but 12, 13, and other passages. If two Am.rams, it was now ascertained for certain. For the the later of whom lived some 200 years after necessary exceptions to the statement see note the earlier, have been confused (as we seem on eh. xiv. 2{. -driven to believe), the confusion is consist-