The New Bible commentary by bishops and other clergy of the Anglican Church critically examined

Front matter

OlatncU InttteraUi} Slibratg

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

Introduction To Numbers

THE BOOK OF NUMBERS.

LONDON:

LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO.

PEEFACE.

The following is the notice appended to the Introduction to Numbers in this Commentary : —

The Book of Numbers was allotted in the early arrangements for this Commentary to the Eev. J. F. Thrupp, M.A., Vicar of Barrington, and late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Mr. Thrupp was one of the first to send to the Editor the results of his labours, but died in 1867, before his work could be revised and adjusted with that of his colleagues. His papers on this book -were most considerately placed by his representatives at the disposal of the Editor, and were by him intrusted to the Eev. T. E. Espin to be prepared for the press. As tlie work proceeded, it was found necessary to change and remodel the notes as left by Mr. Thrupp far more than was originally proposed, and ultimately to rewrite the most of them. The scale erentually adopted for the foot-notes was much smaller than that on which Mr. Thrupp had worked ; and the conclusions finally reached were upon several controverted points {e.g. the site of Kadesh) different from those which had recommended themselves to .Mr. Thrupp five or six years ago. The Eev. T. E. Espin must, therefore, with the Editor, be regarded as responsible for the notes on Numbers contained in this volume, though in writing them he has had throughout important aid from Mr. Thrupp's copious and learned annotations. The chief portions which now remain as Mr. Thrupp penned them are portions of the foot-notes to ch.xxii-xxv, and many of the geographical and topographical remarks and illustrations, especially those in ch.xxxiv.

Under the circumstances above described it is impossible to assign with certainty the annotations in this Part of the work to their proper authors ; though anyone acquainted with the style of Canon Cook's comments' upon E.i-xix may without much hesitation pronounce as to the parentage of some of

A 1 PREFACE.

them. I have therefore referred them generally to Mr.EsPiN as the chief commentator. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that no account is given us of Mr.THEUPP's views where he differs from those maintained in this Commentary, e.g. as to the site of Kadesli, a very important and interesting question — whether, for instance, he agreed with Dean Stanley in identifying it with Petra, and whether he regarded it as a different place from Kadesh-Bamea {Num. 53). It would not probably have detracted from whatever merit this work possesses, if Mr.THEUPP's reasons for adopting a different view from that ' eventually adopted ' by his colleagues on this controverted point of the site of Kadesh had been set forth as well as their own, which are not at all convincing — more especially as the ' adjusting ' hand of the Editor has not been able to eliminate all signs of variance between the views of the different writers engaged in the preparation of this volume, or to prevent them occasionally contradicting their own former statements. (Num. 31,36,55,77,86,139,152.)

As in the former portions of this Commentary, so in this, there is not a single trace of acquaintance with the fact that the later post-Captivity origin of some parts of this book — 'more than three-fourths ' (VI. 125)— has been pointed out for some years past by eminent critics, such as Reuss, Gkaf, Kuenen, and maintained by a series of powerful arguments, deserving at least careful consideration on the part of writers who have undertaken to give —

in a concise and readable form, the results of learned investigations carried on in this and other countries during the last half-century Adv. —

and to supply a Commentary —

m which tlie /atest information might 1 e made accessible to men of ordinary cullure. — Pre/.

PREFACE. Vil

Nor in the whole of this Part is there a single attempt to discuss the evidence as to the question of composite authorship, which is yielded by a close study of the style and phraseology of different sections of the Book of Numbers. And yet for all these matters there would have been abundance of room, if so much had not been occupied — 55 pages out of 135 — in merely reprinting the Authorized Version, accessible to any reader in an ordinary English Bible.

There is, of course, a good deal of geographical information to be found in the notes, for which probably they are chiefly indebted to the labours of Mr.THBUPP. But I am obliged to say that for evasive and shallow reasonings in support of traditionary views, and the total absence of any signs of effort or (apparently) desire on the part of the writers to ascertain by careful study for themselves, and set forth before others, the real truth as to the origin and composition of the Pentateuch, this Part stands on quite as low a level as any of the preceding ones.* I say ' as a whole,' because there are a few expressions, which, like those of Mr.CLARK on Leviticus, betray a secret feeling that after all Moses — not Jehovah — is the legislator in the Pentateuch ; so that, when the text says, ' Jehovah spake unto

* Those who cannot afford time to read through the following criticisms may he referred to (141), or more generally —

(it) For instances confirming, directly or indirectly, the results arrived at in my work on the Pentateuch, see Intr. 10,11, Num. 6,15,17,28,47,52,65,61,65,68,95, 97,101,107,114,115,126,126,134,138,144,153.

vui PREFACE.

Moses,' it is not meant that Jehovah communicated orally such revelations to Moses, as the Scripture in L.i.l, N.vii.89, clearly implies, but only that Moses wrote these laws out of his own mind, inspired, as he and others believed — and believed rightly, say these Commentators — ^by the Divine Spirit.

It is true indeed that the Commentator here, as before in Leviticus, is not always consistent with his own theory. He says, for instance —

This seems implied ... by the ground which God is pleased to assign (N.iii.13, viii.l7) for making this claim, ^.664 —

A formula \a provided by God Himself, ^.673 — ■

The office of Moses, of the Priests, and finally of the Levites, was to interpose after rules and limits laid down by God Himself between Him and the people, ^.680—

A special command of God is given to meet the case. ^.681.

The trumpets were now first appointed by God. ^.684.

God speaks to them (Moses and Aaron) while giving judgment upon the evil congregation. p.702.

It appears from the next verse and from God's words in v.l\, &e. ^.750.

But these are only flashes of orthodoxy, which may perhaps satisfy the eyes of the ordinary traditionary reader. When we examine the work more closely we find a very different style prevailing as the usual tone of the Commentary.

The Legislation of Sinai was completed in Leviticus ; but the prolonged exclusion of the people from their future homes [N.B. only after N.xiv] involved some regulations not originally provided . . and further experience suggested [to whom ? to Jehovah or Meses ?] some others of a supplementary or explanatory character. y.651.

This, then, like several other ordinances, was adopted by Moses from existing and probably very ancient and widely spread institutions, jj.669 — viz. v.11-31, introduced with the words, ' Aud Jehovah spake unto Moses saying,' v.W.

A special interposition of God, such as is promised so continually as the ultimate sanction of all the precepts of Moses. y.670.

The licence of divorce tolerated by the Law of Moses. p.670.

The trial by Bed Water, which bears a general resemblance to that here prescribed by Moses. p.670.

PREFACE. IX

There is no evidence to show whether this usage (among the tribes of Western Africa) sprang from imitation of the Law of Moses, or whether Moses himself in this, as in other things, engrafted his ordinance upon a prexiiously existing custom, p.070— w^. V.11-31, as above.

Moses does not expressly require that limits should be assigned to the vow, y.672 — viz. the vow of the Nazarites, introduced by the words, ' And Jehovah spake unto Moses,' v.\.

The administrators of the Law of Moses would here, as elsewhere, have, from the nature of the case, power to order what might be requisite to carry the Law into effect, ^.682 — in other words, they would have power to modify the 'Law of Jehovah,' as the Scripture represents it,

Moses, then, adopted, here as elsewhere, existing and ancient customs, with significant additions, as helps in the education of his people, p.717 — vie. ch.xix, introduced by the words, 'And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,' v.l.

Their practice hitherto would naturally betray itself in the language now employed hy Moses, p.'J 60 — t;t>. xxviii.3-8, introduced by the words 'And Jehovah spake unto Moses,' v.l.

It is plain, therefore, what the Commentators really mean when they speak, as in some of the above instances, of ' the precepts of Moses,' ' the Mosaic Law,' ' the Law of Moses,' of what is 'peculiar to the Mosaic Law,' 'p.^'i.l, of 'the true meaning of the Mosaic Law,' p.762 — expressions which might, of course, be used by writers maintaining the traditionary view in speaking of laws revealed by Jehovah orally and written down by Moses. But this is not what the Commentators mean when they use the above phraseology. Nay, they almost exclude the idea of any direct Divine Eevelation of any kind in the matter — other than such influences from above as may be believed to guide and overrule the wise and good legislators of all ages — when they speak of Moses ' adopting ordinances from existing institutions, as helps in the education of his people,' ' engrafting his ordinance upon a previously existing custom,' ' betraying the practice hitherto in the language now employed by him.'

X PREFACE.

Thus far, at all events, these writers have gone, under the patronage of the Archbishops and Bishops of England, in helping to demolish the popular traditionary view as to the nature of the revelations made to Moses.

J, W. Natal.

BiSHOPSTO'WB, NaTAI.

j,*« Dr. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible is quoted below as B.B. The different Parts of my work on the Pentateuch are quoted as (1.57), (VI.43), &c.

It may be well to mention here that —

In Part III, I have fixed the age of the Deuteronomiet — who may possibly be Jeremiah — in the first years of king Josiah.

In Part V, I have separated the passages due to the different writers in Genesis, have determined approidmately the ages of these writers, viz. the Elohist (E.) in the days of Samuel, the Second Elohist (Ej.) in the beginning of David's reign, the Jehovist (J.) in David's reign and the first part of Solomon's.

In Part VI (just published), I have shown that all Leviticus and large portions of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, with a few passages of Deuteronomy, were written after the Captivity, and I have included these under the designation of the Later or Levitieal Legislation (L.L.) ; and I have further separated throughout Exodus — Joshua the portions due to the different authors, Elohist, Jehovist, Deuteronomist, and Later Legislator, giving at full length the Original Story of the Exodus (O.S.), as it came into the hands of the Deuteronomist.

Contents

„ PAGK

Peepace ....,___ ^ Inteoduction to Ncmbees . . . . .3

He who propagates a delusion, AKD he who COKlflTES AT IT WHEN" ALHEADI KXIriTIN'G, BOTH ALIKE TAJSIPER WITH TRUTH. WE MUST NEITHER LEAD NOR LEAVB MEN TO MISTAKE FALSEHOOD FOR TRUTH. NOT TO UNDECEIVE, IS TO DECEIVE. THE GIVING, OH NOT CORRECTtNG, FALSE REASONS FOB RIGHT CONCLUSIONS, FALSE GROUNDS FOR RIGHT BELIEF, FALSE PRINCIPLES FOR RIGHT PRACTICE — THE HOLDING FORTH, OR FOhTERDfO, FALSE CONSOLATIONS, FALSE ENCOURAGEMENTS, OR FALSE SANCTIONS, OR rON.VIVING AT THEIR BEINQ HELD FORTH OR BELIEVED— ARE ALL PIOUS FRAUDS. TmS SPRINGS PROM, AND IT WILL FOSTER AND INCREASE, A WANT OP VENERATION FOR

Introduction To Niimbee8

1. Mr.EspiN says : —

In oommon with the preceding books and Deuteronomy, Numbers has usually and from the most ancient times been regarded as, in substance at least, the -work of Moses. The grounds for still retaining this opinion as regards the Pentateuch generally have been stated and discussed in the Introduction to this volume. It remains only to inquire herewhethertheBookof Numbers, particularly considered, contributes any items to the argument on the one side or the other, and what value is to be attached to them. p.650.

We have already seen {Intr. to Oen. 4-21) how worthless are the ' grounds,' which Bp.BBOWNE alleges in the Introduction to this volume, ' for still retaining the above opinion as regards the Pentateuch generally,' and have concluded that ' Bp. Browne has not produced a particle of trustworthy evidence, from the time of the Judges down to the Captivity, which shows that the Five Books of Moses even existed, nor has he attempted to show, by testimony however fallacious, that Moses did write the booJcs now known by his name, which is what he undertook to prove.'

We are ready, however, to consider carefully the evidence which Mr.EspiN will now produce from the Book of Number?, ' contributing to the argument on the one side or the other.'

2. Mr.EspiN's first piece of evidence is as follows : —

The catalogue of the stations or encampments during the journeyings from Egypt to the plains of Moab (xxxiii) is specially assigned to Moses in the text, ' Moses wrote it by the commandment of the Lord,' w.2. The great antiquity of this catalogue is universally admitted. Bleek esteems it ' perhaps the earliest

E 2

4 INTRODDCTION TO NUMBERS.

record relating to the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness,' and as ' a list ■which may very well have been written down by an actor in the events.' But to admit thus much of one important chapter, so minute in details, and so intimately connected with the general story, establishes a strong probability that other portions of the book are of the same age and authorship. ^.651.

Mr.EspiN's conclusion may be readily admitted if only he were certain of his premisses. ' The great antiquity ' of the whole Levitical Legislation was till of late years generally admitted, and was especially maintained by Bleek, though he felt compelled by the facts before him to abandon the view, which he also once maintained, as to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch generally, and to admit that more than one author has been concerned in its composition, and that portions of it, and especially almost the whole of Deuteronomy, are of much later date than the time of Moses. {Einl. in d. A. T., 2nd Ed., J3.207, &c.) The opinion of Bleek, therefore, who assigns to Moses the laws of Leviticus, which have been shown in Part VI, as also in Part III, of this series of criticisms, to be the work of a very late age, can have little weight in helping to decide the present question. In (YI.App.3^) is given an analysis of N.xxxiii, from which it will be seen that it clearly belongs to the L.L., and thus the ground of Mt.Espin's whole argument is cut away.

3. Mr.EspiN'5 second point is as follows : —

The Legislation of Sinai was completed in Leviticus ; but the prolonged exclusion of thepcople from their future homes involved some regulations not originally pro\ided, e.g. those respecting purification, 'when a man dieth in a tent,' xix.l4 ; and further experience suggested some others of a supplementary or explanatory character. These are almost always in this book recorded in a living connexion with incidents from which it is wholly impossible to sever them, from which they draw their occasion and their meaning. Evidently the alternations of historical and legislative portions reflect the order of actual transaction. This feature is exactly one which belongs to the work of a contemporary annalist. p.651.

But we find the same 'alternations' in L.x, xxiv.lO, &c., which passages belong to the L.L., the last especially showing

Introduction To Numbbbs. 5

a clear sign of a very late age in the use of ' the Name ' for ' Jehovah ' {Lev. 50). But xv.l-xix.22, according to Mr.EsPiN, is —

a notice of various occurrences and enactments belonging to the 38 years of penal wandering in the desert, p.649.

And it must seem very strange that with such an immense population the regulation in N.xix.l4, ' This is the law when a man dieth in a tent — all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days,' and, indeed, the whole series of directions in xix. 11-14, about contact with a corpse, shotild not have been required at an earlier period — more especially as corresponding laws are already laid down about contact with the carcase of an unclean animal, L.xi.24:-28, 31-40, and in L.xxi.l,N.v.2, vi.6-12, it is recognized that such contact with, or even near approach to, a corpse is ' defiling.'

No doubt, the Legislation in Numbers ' supplements ' in many places that in Leviticus ; and therefore, like the latter, it must belong to the L.L.

4. Mr.EsPiN's third argument is derived from the writer's ' intimate acquaintance with Egypt.'

The purifications of the priests, viii.7, &c. — the trial of jealousy, T.11-31 — the ordinance of the red heifer, xix.1-10 — are all adaptations from Egyptian rites ; the language of the people in xi.5,6, bespeaks a personal relish of Egyptian dainties ; the antiquarian note about Hebron, xiii.22, indicates a knowledge of Egyptian history. Eeferenees to the exodus from Egypt and the circumstances of it are frequent. ^.651.

I must refer to (Intr. to Pent. 22,23, Intr. to Ex. 9) in this series for a full reply to the above argument. Here I will only remark that it is hardly consistent with ' orthodox ' views, to suppose that the above laws were merely copied from the idolatrous practices of Egypt, instead of having been communicated to Moses by direct Divine revelation, 'Jehovah spake unto Mose^s (and unto Aaron),' viii.5, v.ll, xix.l. But

6 INTRODUCTION TO NUMBERS.

Mr.EspiN, like Mr.CLAEK {Intr. to Lev. 4) regards Moses, not Jehovah, as the legislator in these instances and generally throughout the Pentateuch.

5. Mr.EspiN's fourth argument is as follows : —

The statements of this book abound in evidences that the writer and those -nith whom he lived were still in the desert.

And he instances the note in xix.l4, about ' a man dying in a tent,' quoted above in (3), the ' regulations for encamping and marching,' the ' solemn invocation of Moses in x.35,36,' at the moving and resting of the Ark, and the 'directions respecting the transport of the Tabernacle.'

It is obvious also that proximity to the Tiibemacle is tacitly assumed throughout such laws as those of N.vi and N.xix, as it is in many of those given in Leviticus. Tliis proximity existed only whilst the people were in the wilderness. The presence of the Ark in the Tabernacle too is presupposed throughout the book ; but the Ark, after its capture by the Philistines in the days of Eli, never again had .1 place within the Tabernacle. It is obviously to be inferred that Numbers was written before that capture. ^.651.

The above also only repeats the argument of Bp.BROWNE which has been already discussed and answered in (Inlr. to Pent. 24). Of course an author, professing to give an account (whether true or fictitious) of what passed in the wilderness, must refer to the wilderness, and rrdght write as an eyewitness. But in the instances referred to by JMr.EspiN there is nothing whatever to show that the author of this book wrote as one present at the scenes he describes, much less as the prime agent in them.

On our view (VI. 5 74, VII. 124), the ark captured in the days of Eli, though a very ancient ark and probably made in the wilderness, was not the (so-called) Mosaic Ark, which never existed except in imagination, any more than the Mosaic Tabernacle.

6. The following is Mr.EspiN's fifth argument : —

INTKODUCTION TO NUMBERS., 7

There are topographical statements in the book which cannot have been written after the days of Moses.

(i) Such is the notice in xxi.l3, that 'Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites.' The Amorites had clearly not been dispossessed by the two tribes and a half (xxxii) when this remark was made.

(ii) So, too, the settlements of those tribes in the Amorjte territory were not in fact adjusted in all respects as originally designed by Moses and described in xxxii.34, &e. A later narrator would surely not gratuitously vary in such details from the facts before him.

(iii) In the delineation (xxxiv) of the boundaries of the Promised Land far more territory is assigned to the Israelites than they ever permanently occupied, and less than they occasionally ruled over. A historian of later times would hardly ascribe to his people, without explanation or qualification, districts which in fact they did not possess ; a romancer of such times, drawing an imaginary frontier, would certainly not have left out of it the renowned city of Damascus, especially after carrying his border-line almost round this district, and in view of the fact that the city and its territory were in the dominions of David and Solomon, and afterwards of Jeroboam II, ^.651.

Atis. (i) In xxi.l3 ' the Amorite ' is used by the O.S. with reference to the former occupant of the territory, just as in Ju.x.8 we read of 'all the children of Israel that were across the Jordan in the land of the Amorite.' According to Mr.EspiN, Moses must have noted down the passage of the Arnon immediately after it had taken place, v.lS-lo, before making the conq^uest of Sihon and Og, i).21, &c., and never corrected his expression.

(ii) This refers to the fact that some towns of Gad in N.xxxii.34, e.ff, Aroer, Dibon, are reckoned to Reuben in Jxiii.16,17, whereas Heshbon, the most northerly city of Reuben, in N.xxxii.37, J.xiii.17, is reckoned to Gad in J.xiii.26. But these phenomena only show that, at the time when these notices were written (the age of David, as we suppose), the boundaries of the diiferent tribes were very loosely defined or imperfectly known, except those of Judah and Benjamin (VI.528-9).

(iii) Keii (II. /).368-371) has shown that the view adopted in this Commentary and here referred to, that the writer has ' carried his border-line almost round the district ' of Damascus, ' thus forming a great northeastward loop, so as to include all the declivities, both western and eastern, of the northern part of the Anti-Libanus range,' reaching to a place ' forty miles north-east of Damascus,' according to this Commentary, p.782, is utterly untenable, and thus Mr.EspiN's aigument, based upon the omission of Damascus under the circumstances in question, comes to the ground. Why should Damascus be mentioned, and not Edom, Moab, Ammon, or even the Trans -Jordanic territories ?

Tlie boundaries of the land of Canaan in xxxiv are laid down by the L.L. after the Captivity, comp. Ez.xlvii.15-21, in accordance with tlio

8 INTKODUCTIOJ!*^ TO NUMBERS.

notions then entertained as to the proper extent of the Promised Land, except the south border, which is apparently copied from the south horder of Judah in the O.S., J.xv.1-4.

7. Mr.EspiN's sixth argument is as follows : —

The various communications purporting to be from God to Moses are so worded and often of such a, nature, that, unless we go the length of denying their historical, character altogether, we must admit them to have been recorded by the very person who received them. They are also so interwoven with the historical and legislative elements of the book that the whole composition must in reason be accepted or rejected together. ^.652.

We do ' go the length of denying the historical character ' of these supposed Divine ' communications,' and of the ' historical and legislative elements of the book ' altogether.

8. Mr.EsPiN now produces his final argument : —

No other person than Moses has been or can be (!) named with anything like probability, or even plausibility, as the author. Various conjectures have indeed been hazarded by rationalist critics ; but all of them are devoid of evidence, and some of them particularly unlikely, such as e.g. the suggestion that Samuel wrote this book, which includes among its most striking features the rebellion of Korah. Now Samuel was descended from Korah, and it is incredible, especially when we remember how keenly the Jew appropriates the acts of his ancestors, that Samuel if we could suppose him to invent a story at all, would devise one which represents his own forefathers and their kinsmen as flagrant rebels against God and against the great national hero, God's prophet, and as miraculously destroyed for their sin. f>.652.

I have not the least idea to whom reference is here made as having suggested that Samuel was the writer of the book of Numbers. Nor have I ever met with this suggestion in my own critical studies. It is, of course, a totally different thing to say — as I have said (V.131-5) — that there are strong arguments tending to show that Samuel may have written the Elohistic Narrative in Genesis. In Part VI I have given abundant reason for concluding confidently that, while certain portions of Numbers belong to the Original Story, as left by the Jehovistic writer or writers, ' more than three-fourths of the whole book belong to the L.L.' (VI.125).