the Canaanites remained unbroken; and therefore it soon became Zephath again. This is contrary to Numbers xxi. 3: "The Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities," etc. If the power of the Canaanites remained unbroken, so that Hormah soon became Zephath, what means this language? Is it not obvious that the author of Numbers xxi. 3, writing not only after the devotement of the cities to destruction but the carrying of it into effect, has employed language applicable to both; and speaks of them together, not separately. It is unlikely that the name Hormah should soon be replaced by another; and that it should be afterwards given anew by the Israelites. In Judges i. 17 the words lead us to infer that Hormah was a new name, not an old one re-introduced.

"These are that Aaron and Moses to whom the Lord said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies. These are they which spake to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: these are that Moses and Aaron." (Exodus vi. 26).

This language implies the lapse of a considerable time after Moses, when his name and character had become celebrated. But Hengstenberg maintains that the words "these are that Moses and Aaron" are equivalent in this connexion to "this is the genealogy of Moses and Aaron;" or, "these are Moses and Aaron according to their genealogical relations." Even this supposition, however, does not remove the idea of a later author; the demonstrative pronoun pointing to such. And why should Moses himself, in recording his genealogy, have mentioned that he and his brother were the persons to whom the Lord said, "Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their armies, etc. ?" Surely this were a superfluous addition to the genealogical register, as given by

himself.

The same fact is implied in Exodus xi. 3, "Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people." Individuals are spoken of thus only after a considerable lapse of time. From the pen of Moses himself the words are not appropriate. Every attempt made to shew the suitableness of them in their present place is abortive. Thus it is alleged, that as the Israelites were about to leave Egypt, and when on asking jewels the Lord gave them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, the statement before us is added as an additional reason why the demand was complied with, viz., the man who appeared to

1 Authentie, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 206.

wield the judgments of Jehovah was very great in the land of Egypt. But the whole passage xi. 1-3 interrupts the connexion; because xi. 4-8 manifestly belongs to x. 24-29. And it is the recording of the fact that Moses was a great man in the land of Egypt, which is unsuitable; not the fact itself. Especially unsuitable is it after the words "the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians," because no additional reason for the Egyptians freely parting with their jewels was needed. So far from Moses's greatness being an additional reason, it detracts from and irreverently spoils the one just given. Surely the fact that God gave the Israelites favour in the sight of their enemies, renders any other reason at once unnecessary and derogatory to the Almighty. And would Moses thus introduce himself and his greatness as a reason for the Egyptians freely giving away their jewels, after he had attributed their willingness to do so to Jehovah? Certainly not.

"Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth." (Numbers xii. 3).

These words are inappropriate, if proceeding from Moses himself. The attempt of Hengstenberg to explain them as becoming to the lawgiver is a curious phenomenon of exposition. After giving four reasons to shew that they are intended to guard against a misconception of the expression "and the Lord heard" (xii. 2), he still feels that they wear something of a strange air. But this apparent strangeness vanishes, in his view, if we measure Moses by his own standard, not our own. Whoever can report his own defects and offences, as Moses has done, can speak of what the Lord wrought in him with an openness entirely different from what we can use. And besides, Christ said, referring to the present passage, "I am meek and lowly in heart." If this be not a specimen of special pleading, we know not where to find it. There is no real analogy between the cases of Christ and Moses, for the language of the latter is extravagant commendation; "Moses was very meek above all the men who were upon the face of the earth." A modest and meek man, whatever be his faults, will never employ such self-commendation, exalting his own person above all others in the world. Other analogies are equally groundless, such as David styling himself "the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel," words not written by David; St. John calling himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved;" and St. Paul asserting that he was "in nothing behind the very chiefest apostles," apostles being here false, not true, apostles. In like manner Palfrey finds no difficulty in the text, but

1 Authentie des Pentat. vol. ii. p. 173, et seqq.

renders the word commonly translated meek by distressed, miserable. Moses does not laud himself, but simply speaks of the great trials of his situation. His paraphrase of the verse is, 'Moses, exalted as was his place, was now the most wretched man." This exposition must be rejected as arbitrary; for although the adjective often means distressed or afflicted, it always includes the idea of meekness or humility; and the Hebrew noun man does not convey a sense of dignity except in antithesis to expressed or implied. Besides, Moses, supposing him the writer of the Pentateuch, never puts The common translation must be retained, and others contrived to evade the obvious meaning, whether miserable, unambitious or anything else, be discarded; for the Mosaic composition of the piece is utterly discountenanced by the clause, "above all the men which were upon the

.before his name הָאִישׁ

face of the earth."

"An examination of the context," says Macdonald,” “will at once manifest that the observations referred to (Exodus xi. 3, Numbers xii. 7) occupy a necessary place in the history, being in every instance called forth by the occasion, and that the object of their insertion was by no means to magnify Moses." Rather do the words and their context disown the determination of such apologists to shut their eyes against all evidence contrary to their prepossessions.

The formula unto this day is one that properly and regularly denotes a long interval, as is shewn by its use in Judges vi. 24, 1 Sam. v. 5, xxvii. 6, 2 Sam. xviii. 18, 2 Kings ii. 22, xvii. 23, 41. Hence it is employed as a proof of later composition in the books of Samuel and Kings. It may therefore be rightly used in disproving the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, provided the context harmonize with the application. But it should be applied with discrimination, because it may be employed of a short time, as it is in Genesis xlviii. 15, 1 Sam. viii. 8, and elsewhere. A proper example bearing on our present subject, is in Deut. iii, 14: "Jair called them (the cities of Bashan) after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day." This event belongs to the time immediately before the death of Moses, and therefore it could not have been so spoken of in his farewell discourse; the interval of time being very short. Here Hengstenberg tries to shew that all which occurred from Numbers xxii. to the end, intervened; so that the fact whose continuance is stated was not so very near the present time of the writer. But in this the critic fails; and is therefore obliged

1 Academical Lectures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities, vol. i. p. 344. 2 Introduction to the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 346.

to have recourse to the fluctuating character of the phrase and the common occurrence of new names not remaining fixed to their respective objects soon after their introduction. To say that the phrase was nearly equivalent to our English word "still," is simply absurd.

"Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion; and the Amorites call it Shenir.". (Deut. iii. 9).

Surely the different appellations of Hermon must have been familiar in Moses' time, so that he could have no occasion to mention them. Hengstenberg may ask, How do we know this? to which the answer is easy, by a moment's reflection on the nature of the case. This critic resorts to the most improbable hypothesis, that such new information had probably excited an interest among the Israelities by its very novelty, and therefore appeared worthy of record, though it became familiar soon after and presently lost its charms.

"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubits of a man.' (Deut. iii. 11).

The words follow after the mention of Og king of Bashan. Moses died about this time and may have had no certain information on the subject. A knowledge of the bed's dimensions may have been first obtained when David captured this metropolis of the Ammonites. But we need not have recourse to this supposition, since Og was conquered a few months before Moses's death. Moses could not have considered it necessary to inform the Israelites of Og being a giant; since they had just seen and fought with him. Hengstenberg replies, that Moses wrote for posterity. But it may be gravely questioned whether he would have committed to writing this item of intelligence with posterity in his view. His object, according to Hengstenberg, was to give a striking representation of the greatness of the conquered enemy as well as the greatness of God's grace which secured the victory. How easy it is to find objects when one is in quest of them!

A careful examination of Deuter. ii. 10-12, and 20-23, as also iii. 9-11, shews that they refer to events long past and interrupt the connexion of the discourse. They are parentheses which break the continuity of the composition.

"The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakims; which also were ac

1 Authentie des Pentat. vol. ii. p. 325, et seqq.

2 Authentie des Pentat. vol. ii. p. 244.

counted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the LORD gave unto them..... (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: as he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day; and the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.)" "(Which Hermon the Sidonians called Sirion; and the Amorites call it Shenir;) All the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salchah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”

Hengstenberg, as usual, tries to shew that these passages contain what was exactly suited to the state and disposition of the persons addressed by Moses. He supposes that the intention was to root out the prejudices here expressed, by which the older generation was excluded from the promised land. Moses met them by reasoning a minori ad majus. What God did for the Moabites, Ammonites, etc., etc., will he not also do it for his own people? This is ingenious but wholly improbable, because it does not apply to some of the notices.1 Keil assumes that they were insertions made by Moses when he wrote out his discourses. This is gratuitous.

In different passages allusions are made to Moses having written legal prescriptions, as in Exodus xxxiv. 27, and xxiv. 4. "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning," etc. The latter passage evidently refers to Exodus xx. 23. In like manner Moses is said to have composed a historical list of the journeys of the Israelites, as mentioned in Numbers xxi. 14. So also he is said to have written an account of the marvellous discomfiture of Amalek, in a book (Exodus xvii. 14). Such particulars, re2 Einleitung, pp. 132, 133.

1 Authentie des Pentat. vol. ii., p. 238 et seqq.