bal, furnish additional evidence. He also adduces a statement of OSK. FRAAS on the climatic change in the Sinaitic Peninsula within historic times. [Aus dem Orient. Geolog. Beobachtungen am Nil auf der S. H. I. und in Syrien, Stuttg., 1867, p. 27 sqq. PALMER Considers the question: "Was the country more fertile in the time of the Exodus than it is now? While admitting the miraculous manner in which the twelve tribes were supported, we shall disarm many objectors if we can show with reason that there were resources in the country of which they might have availed themselves at certain seasons and at certain places, since this would account for the silence of the Bible upon many points which would otherwise seem inexplicable-I mean in cases where no special miraculous provision is recorded.

That rain actually fell during the passage of the Israelites through the country we learn from Psalm lxviii. 7-9: O God, when Thou wentest forth before the people, when Thou didst march through the wilderness; Selah. The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God; even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel. Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby Thou didst confirm Thine inheritance, when it was weary.' And such passages as the clouds poured out water,' Psalm lxxvii. 17, where the allusion is evidently to Sinai, also tend to confirm the supposition that the Peninsula was better supplied with water at the time of the Exodus.

There are still many groves of acacia and other trees in the Peninsula, and these, like the gardens, form a sort of a barricade against the force of the torrents. Now when one of them is destroyed, and a storm comes, whatever vegetation depended on or was protected by the forest is soon swept away, and barrenness and devastation mark the course of the stream down to the sea. It is a well-known fact that rain falls more gently and regularly where there is vegetation. Now the Bible tells us that there existed a large population in and near Sinai at the time of the Exodus, and the traces of them which still remain indicate that they, like the old monks, did husband to the utmost the resources of the country.

Again, there are abundant vestiges of large colonies of Egyptian miners, whose slag heaps and smelting furnaces are yet to be seen in many parts of the Peninsula. These must have destroyed many miles of forest in order to procure the fuel necessary for carrying on their operations; nay, more, the children of Israel could not have passed through without consuming vast quantities of fuel too. But, if forest after forest disappeared in this way, if population dwindled down to a few non-agricultural tribes, and cultivation were neglected, then the rain that falls so seldom would no longer stay to fertilize the land, but in an unimpeded torrent would find its way down to the sea; a burning summer sun would soon complete the work, and a few ages would make the Peninsula of Sinai what we see it now. I do not think it necessary to reason away the signal miracles by which the Jewish hosts were fed, but I do believe that whatsoever God thought fit, that He did for His chosen people, and that God's servant, Nature, did the rest." PALMER, Desert of the Exodus, pp. 34, 35, HARPER'S Edition.

The Rev. F. W. HOLLAND testifies: "There are evident traces that there has been, owing to various reasons, a very considerable decrease in the amount of vegetation in the Peninsula; although even now the country is not so barren as it has generally been described. The observations of travellers on this point have been chiefly confined to a few of the main valleys and principal mountains; but it is not till one has wandered off the beaten tracks, and explored the slopes of the lower mountains and the less frequented wadys, that one can really arrive at a just estimate of the supply of water, and capabilities of the country for affording pasturage. Long before the children of Israel marched through the wilderness, the mines were worked by the Egyptians, and the destruction of the trees was probably going on. It is hardly likely that the Israelites themselves would have passed a year in an enemy's country, knowing that they were to march onward, without adding largely to this destruction. Their need of fuel must have been great, and they would not hesitate to cut down the trees, and lay waste the gardens; and thus before they journeyed onward from Mount Sinai they may have caused a complete change in the face of the surrounding country.

It is a well-known fact that the rainfall of a country depends in a great measure upon the abundance of its trees. The destruction of the trees in Sinai has no doubt greatly diminished the rainfall, which has also been gradually lessened by the advance of the desert and the decrease of cultivation on the north and northwest, whereby a large rain-making area has gradually been removed. In consequence, too, of the mountainous character of the Peninsula of Sinai,

the destruction of the trees would have a much more serious effect than would be the case in most countries. Formerly, when the mountain sides were terraced, when garden walls extended across the wadys, and the roots of trees retained the moisture and broke the force of the water, the terrible floods that now occur, and sweep every thing before them, were impossible." Rev. F. W. HOLLAND, Explorations of the Peninsula of Sinai, in The Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 424, 425. -TR.].

The second objection is of much less importance: "had the Israelites in the Mosaic age, been a people of several millions, particularly in view of their then bravery, they would have conquered the little land more easily and in quicker time." This argument is based upon the notion that war and victory depend entirely upon numbers.

Under No. 3 the most inconsiderable objections are only touched upon. (KEIL, 190, 191). The consideration that the Israelites out of the forty years' sojourn, had Kadesh as the centre of their settlement for full thirty-eight years, is of particular weight for us. This settlement is indicated by the summary narrative, Deut. i. 46. "So ye abode in Kadesh many days according unto the

days that ye abode there." LUTHER trauslates it, "Thus ye remained a long time in Kadesh," and similarly BUNSEN. In this way DD, etc., is simply left out. ZUNZ renders it: "As the time that you remained." De WETTE similarly: "The time that you remained." But this is pure tautology! As soon as we deal earnestly with the verb , and surrender the fabulous notion of a twofold settlement in Kadesh during the thirty-eight years, the sense of the expression becomes entirely clear. According to chap. xiii. 4 (xii. 16), the Israelites came from Hazeroth and encamped in the wilderness of Paran; thence Moses sent out the spies, according to chap. xiii. 3; but they are also said to have gone out from the wilderness of Zin (which must not be confounded with the wilderness of Sin and just as little Paran with Feiran) according to chap. xiii. 21. The same place of encampment is called Kadesh-Barnea, in Deut. i. 19. From this point the selfwilled army broke forth in the direction of southern Canaan, and was driven back as far as Hormah, which without doubt lay in the region of the wilderness of Paran, whose northerly side was called the wilderness of Zin, and whose southerly and more secure side is surely Kadesh-Barnea. The passage xx. 1 refers to that attack upon Southern Palestine. The sons of Israel had come as far as the wilderness of Zin, but the people then settled down permanently at Kadesh. Then from this point also, after more than thirty-eight years, the march back to the Red Sea took place according to chap. xx. 14, 22; xxi. 1, which must be rendered as a pluperfect because it is a reminiscence.

Thus, too, is explained the glorification of Mount Paran in the blessing of Moses, and why it attains therein a like dignity with Mount Sinai, Deut. xxxiii. 2. In the passage Hab. iii. 3 Mount Paran may even representatively include Sinai. Manifestly it is thoroughly untenable to refer, as KURTZ does, an apostasy to idolatry of many years' duration to this period of the sojourn of Israel in Paran, the very time in which the Korahites developed, with fanaticism even, the doctrine of the universal priesthood of the people. The prophetic rebukes (Amos v. 25, et al.) find their interpretation to some extent here, and somewhat also in the partial apostasy in the Steppe of Moab. Moreover Paran can hardly be meant by "the great and terrible wilderness," Deut. i. 19, as the Bible Dictionary for Christian people assumes. Paran had even a terebinth-grove and a wady, and is still a region rich in springs. Vid. WINER, Art. Kadesh, with reference to ROBINSON, particularly to ROWLAND's researches, 1842 [WILLIAMS' Holy City Extract from letter of Rev. J. ROWLAND, Vol. I., p. 466 sqq.-TR.]. Since roads radiate from Paran in all directions into the remoter regions, the people could make their residence in Kadesh the centre of the great nomadic region, whereby they could eke out their support. That the Israelites in the beginning had occasion to complain of the scarcity of water (chap. xx. 2), does not conflict with the subsequent discovery of springs. But in the end the people in the plains of Moab appear again to be impoverished, in spite of their means of relief, those miraculous ones too, which above all things, supported also the spirit of faith. The avenging expedition against the Midianites was certainly as little a march for mere pillage, as was the exodus of the Jews with the materials which the Egyptians flung to them; still it was rich in booty, and so far, the new and grand outfit at the close of the journey forms a parallel to the rich outfit at its beginning. Concerning ROWLAND'S discovery of Kadesh, see RITTER, Erdkunde 14 Theil., 8 Buch, Westasien, p. 1088 (the entire discussion, p. 1077 sqq.). KNOBEL's Remarks, vid. p. 2 sqq.

(e.) The Journey of the Israelites from Sinai to the Steppe of Moab. See General Introduction. [Comm. Exodus and Leviticus, p. 21 sq.-TR ].

(f.) The Unity of the Book of Numbers.

KNOBEL produces a pretty desperate result for the supplemental hypothesis: "Except chap. iv. 17-20 all these fragments are component parts of the fundamental document." Thus almost an entire book throughout is Elohistic! The Jehovistic character of this excepted portion is readily explained from its internal relations as indicating Jehovah's care for the priestly tribe. Nevertheless there is lacking a proper estimate of the formal unity of the book (see p. 1). Further on he speaks indeed of many Jehovistic supplements (p. 101), and here we are even assured that the Elohist makes the people to go through the northern part of Edom, while the Jehovist speaks of their compassing the Land of Edom. This unity is more strenuously questioned in BLEEK's Introduction (p. 287 sqq., 3d ed., 1870). The section concerning the pillar of cloud and of fire, chap. ix. 15–23, is said to occupy a very unsuitable position; as if the description of the theocratic oriflamme, the banner of the army, were out of position in the very place where the subject matter is the equipment of the army! Its position in Ex. xl. 34-38, he regards as more fitting. There is no trace of any perception of a difference between the two points of view! The relation of chap. i. 1 to ix. 1, BLEEK calls an unchronological statement. According to the first passage, the muster was completed on the first day of the second month in the second year after the Exodus. Of course the time cannot advance from this date to the first month in the second year of the Exodus as given in chapter ix. Hence the date in this passage is to be explained only as in pluperfect time, occasioned by the organic construction of the book, according to which the mention of the Little-passover could be made first in this place. On the twentieth of the second month of the second year the decampment itself began, therefore, twenty days after the completed muster. Now when it says in chap. xx. 1, "they came into the desert of Zin in the first month," this indefinite statement cannot go back of the second month of the second year, when the muster was completed, nor yet jump over to the first month of the fortieth year, as e. g., in DAECHSEL's Bibelwerk, p. 468, because by that time the Israelites had been for a long while familiar with the abundance of water there was in Paran. It is the first month of the settlement in Paran, and therefore the first month in the third year of the Exodus, and the actual motive which prompts the narrator to revert so emphatically to the past, lies in the impending death of the great trio, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. The account of the death of Miriam is first given; then the fall by which Moses incurred his death before the entrance into Canaan; and finally, with a leap over the entire period of the settlement in Kadesh, the death of Aaron. BLEEK perceives correctly that the first month of the third year of the Exodus from Egypt is meant by the first month of the arrival in Zin. It is also correct to say that the time when Aaron died, according to xxxiii. 38, falls in the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Exodus from Egypt, and therefore thirty-seven or thirty-eight years later than the above-mentioned arrival in Kadesh. But if we conclude therefrom that a period of nearly thirty-eight years is embraced here in a few verses, we shall overlook the fact that the account in xx. 1 sqq., for material reasons, refers to a previous time, while the occurrences at Kadesh began already with the fifteenth chapter. Therefore the idea of a great hiatus has no foundation. But, besides, BLEEK discovers a difference between viii. 23-26 and iv., in regard to the time spent in service by the Levites. This entire difference is resolved, if we distinguish between the Levitical official age of twenty-five years in general, and the Levitical official age of thirty years for the charge and the transportation of the sanctuary. There is no contradiction between the two statements that the Levites who did service in the transportation of the sanctuary were, like the priests, first qualified for the charge at the age of thirty, while the Levites ordinarily became bound to service, in a more general sense, already at the age of twenty-five (see KEIL, p. 225). It is said that the contents of chap. iii. do not agree with the two preceding and with the following chapter; but this amounts simply to the difference between more general and more definite ordinances, as appears in the subsequent discussion.

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE TRILOGY OF THE LAW.

NUMBERS:

OR

THE FOURTH BOOK OF MOSES.

(13721 or 12722; 'Apr0μò; NUMERI.)

MOSES AND THE ARMY OF GOD. THE POLITICAL OR KINGLY MESSIANIC THEOCRACY. THE THEOCRATIC ROYAL RULE OF JEHOVAH OVER HIS HOST. THE TYPICAL HOST OF GOD,-ITS RIGID DISCIPLINE-ITS EQUIPMENT-ITS DEPARTURE-ITS DEFEAT AND REJUVENATION IN THE PERIOD OF REPENTANCE-ITS FIRST VICTORIES AND ITS PREPARATION FOR ENTRANCE INTO CANAAN.

FIRST PART.

THE KINGLY HOST OF JEHOVAH.

CHAPTERS I.-X.

FIRST SECTION.

THE ARMY OF THE LORD. THE ENUMERATION OR MUSTER OF THE WARRIORS. THE ARMY'S ORDER OF ENCAMPMENT AND MARCH.

1

CHAPTERS I., II.

Moses and Aaron with twelve princes muster the men of war. Levites exempted and retained to serve the tabernacle.

CHAPTER I. 1–54.

Moses, Aaron, and the Twelve Princes.

AND the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in "the_tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after 2 they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel after their families, by the house of their fathers, 3 with the number of their names, every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron 4 shall number them by their armies. And with you there shall be a man of every 5 tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers. And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you: of the tribe of Reuben; Elizur the son of Shedeur. 6,7 Of Simeon; Shemuliel the son of Zurishaddai. Of Judah; Nahshon the son of 8,9 Amminadab. Of Isaachar; Nethaneel the son of Zuar. Of Zebulun; Eliab. 10 the son of Helon. Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim; Elishama the son of