The obvious objection to the view given above is the same that has been successfully objected to views that preceded it, viz., that it creates a difficulty greater than the one it claims to have solved. Granted that it has explained the origin of the literature we have; what then accounts for the entire absence of another school of literature that such a condition of things must have produced? For if there were true prophets, there were also false prophets. The authors of this view think proper, indeed, to use terms less invidious, and adopt instead the terms "canonical prophets, and the so-called 'false-prophets,' or the other prophets." They honor both classes, ascribing good faith to both. They make them differ essentially only in this, that "the Israelite could either make his religion subordinate to his national feeling, his patriotism, or let that religion rule over the latter. Now the first way was followed by the false prophets,' in the second we find the canonical prophets." Let it be so. The difference is well stated; but it is evident the difference is estimated very differently by an orthodox thinker from what it is by the authors of the view we are considering. The latter mean to say, that the so-called false prophets were not as bad as they are made to appear by the ex parte and only evidence that has come down to us, viz., their opponents the canonical prophets. But then the mystery appears: how is it that we have nothing from the so-called false prophets?" Why have we only a literature of the canonical prophets? "The other prophets" were evidently the popular prophets of their day. They were the more numerous. As they had a ready hearing, so what they wrote would have a wider circulation. If they were so respectable after all, then they could not have been the least inferior to the canonical prophets in literary ability, and their zeal would not suffer them to be behind in employing their pens to propagate their convictions. They too must have "made history" in their own interest. And what those popular prophets would write had a thousand chances of being handed down to one chance of the canonical prophets. The objection now urged is so obvious as not to need amplification. The fact of there being no such literature is a demonstration that there could have been no such literary activity as that ascribed to the 8th and 7th centuries B. C. Moreover, how is it possible to conceive that any men, with honest or dishonest intent, could make history in the way and under the circumstances represented by this view? Of course we can conceive of men speaking and writing thus. If we were slow to believe it, these writers of the critical school would dispel all doubt by their own performances. But this is not a question merely of how men may write, but also of the public acceptance of what they wrote. How could men gain credit by such writing, or commend their opinions in this way? The facts they manipulated could only serve their purpose if they were commonly accepted by the public to which they addressed their writings. Otherwise these facts could point no moral. Granted that what they wrote reproduced a mere skeleton of reality; they would not be allowed, without challenge, to dress up the skeleton with invented details to suit their purpose. This might be done by popular prophets chiming in with the patriotism and fashion of the day. It might be, also, if there were only one class of men to write the records. Much history has been falsified this way. But it could never be successfully done by unpopular prophets, who had not only the mass of the nation against them, but also another and larger class of popular prophets, whom this view assumes to have been deservedly respectable for their patriotic aims and for their ability to teach the people The very condition of things assumed by the view would imply that there was such "a public opinion as would hold the individuality of the historical writer in check, and demand of him the truth and nothing but the truth." Or if we must assume a public indifferent to facts and only interested in the didactic aims they were made to subserve, then we should find not only the traces of a prophetic and of a priestly manipulation of these and kindred facts, but also traces of similar productions, not merely of the false prophets, but also of purely political and other authors. Other objections might be urged to the view in question. But it is enough to refer to the admirable note of Dr. T. LEWIS on the same subject in the vol. on Genesis, p. 99. What he says is applicable to the present case, and is likely to be applicable to all other efforts to explain the origin and composition of the books of the Bible, except that which ascribes to them a divine and supernatural origin. 23. ANTIQUITY OF THE BOOK OF NUMBERS. A brief statement of proofs of the antiquity of the book of Numbers will be in place here. This is more profitable labor than the attempt to answer the objections that are made to the claim of antiquity. For, as has been shown, any writing of this sort soon needs to be written over again. The positive proofs, however, are of lasting value. Moreover, if they are convincing, the mind will rest in them, and not be troubled at the suggestion of difficulties that are hard or even impossible to explain. Such difficulties attend all records of the past. Advantages attend the exhibition and appreciation of the proofs relating to a single book that are missed in the defence of the Pentateuch as a whole. For this reason the following are offered here. The testimony of the other Scriptures. The other four books of the Pentateuch are of course not appealed to. But all the other Old Testament Scriptures may be appealed to, and they afford convincing proof of the pre-existence of Numbers. This evidence, in such books as are known to have been written long after the events recorded in Numbers, proves that Numbers must have existed as a book long anterior to the origin of the latter books. Attention is asked to the following citations from other Scripture (excluding the Pentateuch) that reflect the matters recorded in Numbers. JOSHUA presupposes Numbers in almost every chapter. But take the following: Josh. i. 7 comp. Num. xxvii. 23. Josh. ii. 10 comp. Num. xxi. 24, 34, 35. Josh. v. 4 comp. Num. xiv. 29; xxvi. 64, 65. Josh. xvii. 3 sqq. comp. Num. xxvi. 33; xxvii. 1. Josh. xvii. 3 sqq. comp. Num. xxxvi. 2. Josh. i. 12 sqq. comp. Num. xxxii. 20–28. Josh. ix. 14 comp. Num. xxvii. 21. JUDGES. Compare the oft-recurring expression "they did evil in the sight of the Lord," Jud. iii. 7, 12, etc., with Num. xxxii. 13. Judg. i. 20 comp. Num. xiv. 24. Judg. xi. 12-27 comp. Num. xx. 14-21. 1 SAM. x. 25 comp. Num. xvii. 7 (22). 1 Sam. xv. 29 comp. Num. xxii. 19. 1 Sam. xviii. 13, 16 comp. Num. xxvii. 17. Jud. ii. 3 comp. Num. xxxiii. 55. 1 Sam. xv. 6 comp. Num. x. 29, 32. 1 Sam. xviii. 17 comp. Num. xxxii. 20, 27, 29. Notice the frequent mention of inquiring of the LORD by the High Priest 1 Sam. xiv. 19; xviii. 9; xxx. 7, etc., and comp. Num, xxvii. 21. 1 KINGS xxi. 3 comp. Num. xxxvi. 7 2 Kings xviii. 4 comp. Num. xxi. 5-10. PSALMS iv. 6; xxxi. 16; xlvii. 1; lxxx. 3, 7, 19; cxix, 135; cxxi. 7 comp. Num. vi. 22-26. Psalms lxviii. 1, 2; cxxxii. 8 comp. Num. x. 35, 36. PROVERBS i. 12 comp. Num. x. 35, 36. HOSEA ix. 10 comp. Num. xxv. 3. Ps. lx. 12 comp. Num. xxiv. 18. AMOS ii. 11, 12 comp. Num. vi. 2, 3. ISAIAH xlviii. 21 comp. Num. xx. 11. MICAH VI. 5 comp. Num. xxii.—xxiv. Amos ii. 9 comp. Num. xx. 24; xiii. 28, 32, 33. TUOH (Die Genesis, p. xc.) is quoted as saying (in opposition to DE WETTE and VON BOHLEN, who deny that there are any references to the Pentateuch in the earlier prophets) that there are found about eight hundred indications of the pre-existence of the Pentateuch in the prophets of that period. This assertion has great probability. If true of the earlier prophets it is equally true of the books commonly supposed to precede them. Of these indications Numbers has its due share. Thus the citations given above will not be understood as representing in the least degree the proportion of such traces of the pre-existence of Numbers. They are only proofs that such traces exist, and serve as illustrations of their nature. The greater the familiarity with the Scriptures, the more does this relationship of its parts appear in many indications that can only be appreciated by familiarity. Of this sort are the archaisms which appeal only to one acquainted with Hebrew (see art. PENTATEUCH in SMITH's Bib. Dict., and J. MACDONALD, Introd. vol. i. pp. 300-314, who also refers to HAEVERNICK's General Introd., translation pp. 155-171, and to EDWARDS' The Authenticity and Genuineness of the Pentateuch, ¿ 5; and to the Biblioth. Sacra., ii. 387–398). Other indications of this sort are peculiar phrases and turns of expression, that are explained by the pre-existence of Numbers, just as similar usages in the English tongue now are explained by the existence of the authorized English version of the Bible, or the existence of a classic like Shakspeare. Some of this sort of indications are embraced in the foregoing list. It is especially such traits that indicate a long pre-existence of the book that is evidently their original source. For it requires a long time for such forms of expression to merge into the common language of the people. Take only the references given above and we have recovered a considerable part of the substance of the book of Numbers. Num. ii. 3. Judah first in war. Num. vi. 2, 3. Institution of Nazarites. Num. vi. 22-26. The Aaronic blessing. Num. x. 29, 32. The kindness of Jethro and Hobab, the Kenites of Midian. Num. x. 35, 36. Moses' words for the march and the halt. Num. xiii. 28, 32, 33. The Anakim. Num. xiv. 24. Caleb to possess Hebron of the Anakim. Num, xvi. 30-33. Destruction of Korah. Num. xvii. 7. Moses laying up the rods before the LORD, Num. xx. 11. Water brought from the rock. Num. xx. 14-21. Request to pass through Edom. Num. xxi. 5-10. The Brazen Serpent. Num. xxi. 17. The song of the well. Num. xxi. 27, 28. The song relating to Heshbon. Num, xxi. 24, 34, 35. The fate of Sihon and Og, kings of the Amorites and of Bashan. Num. xxii.-xxiv. The history of Balaam. Num. xxiii. 55. A snatch of Balaam's prophecy. Num. xxiv. 18. A snatch of Balaam's prophecy. Num. xxv. 3. Israel and Baal-Peor. Num, xxvi, 33. {Num. xxvii. 1; xxxvi. 7. Inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad. Num. xxvi. 64, 65. The new generation after the perishing of those that came out of Egypt. Num. xxvii. 17. Moses' prayer for a captain. Num, xxvii. 21. Inquiring of the LORD, through the High Priest, by Urim and Thummim, Num, xxvii. 23. Moses commanded to ordain Joshua captain. Num. xxxii. 20-28. Settlement of tribes east of Jordan, and their covenant to aid in the conquest of West Jordan. Num. xxxiv. 55. Remnants of Canaanites to be thorns in Israel's side. Num. xxxvi. 7. The inheritance of fathers not to be given up. This collection would not help in any degree to reconstruct the book were it missing; nor could any amount of such hints of some existing record found in the other books of Scripture. But the existence of such a book as Numbers explains the passages where these hints are found, while the coincident thoughts and expressions meet as concentrated rays of light upon this book as their focus. Consider the amount and variety of the matter reflected in these citations. We have transactions with historic nations such as Edom, Moab, Bashan. We have the origin of relations among the twelve tribes of Israel, like the settlement of East Jordan by the two and a half tribes. We have the origin of social institutions such as the laws of inheritance. We have the account of sins of Israel and their punishment that we find appealed to ages after as warnings. We have miracles, such as water from the rock, and healing by the Brazen Serpent. We have snatches of ancient songs and prophecy. We have the origin of religious usages such as the appeal to Urim and Thummim, and the institution of the Nazirites. We have the origin of the Aaronic blessing of which so many traces appear in all the later Hebrew literature. When we have so much, and a little industry may collect much more, we have convincing proof that the book which so explains them all must have existed previous to all this literature in a form as complete as we now have it. It is easier to think that it may have suffered some curtailment than that later hands have added to it, and that the mutilation of this or some similar record explains why we have no documentary proof of many other things in the later books of Scripture relating to the same period of which Numbers treats. It must be borne in mind, that the present question has nothing to do with the credibility of the things recorded in Numbers, but merely with the existence of such a written record. The observance of this necessary distinction greatly simplifies the investigation. It is mostly by confounding with this the credibility of what is recorded, that the investigation is embarrassed, and many are led helplessly astray in making the investigation. When this distinction is observed, the foregoing proof becomes irresistible, that Numbers existed previously to all this literature that reflects its existence. It is this sort of proof that is justly relied on in establishing the antiquity and apostolic authorship of the New Testament Scriptures. It is to be noticed that the foregoing only proves the relative age of Numbers. It is older than this other literature. But if all this other literature should appear to have originated in the 8th and 7th centuries B. C., then not much is gained. Numbers was then only written before the 8th century B. C. It may have been in the 9th century B. C. But it may be confidently urged that the foregoing proof involves a more satisfactory conclusion. The foregoing citations, with little exception, give matter peculiar to Numbers. Nothing else claims to be the original record of them. Unless the subsequent literature, shown to be such by its reflection of this book, were the work of one man, or of a few men working in collusion (a most unreasonable if not impossible assumption), these various books could never betray such common familiarity with Numbers. Such familiarity, common to such different productions, can only be explained by the book which all reflect. It must have been so much older and thus so generally known, that no one could be ignorant of it that would write such books as follow, nor write such books without allusions to matter contained in Numbers. Numbers must have been in fact, just what it has been traditionally alleged to be, viz., a sacred book of the Israelites of a date much older than the books that were written long after the matters it records. It must have been such a book to David, since it is reflected in his Psalms-five of the Psalms cited above being ascribed to him. But this refers Numbers to a period so long previous to the time when literature at all flourished in Israel, that it is easier to ascribe its authorship to the age of Moses himself than to any other generation preceding Samuel. Of course, if the literature subsequent to Numbers is proved to be as old as the traditional belief has maintained, then this throws the age of Numbers back to the period to which tradition has always assigned it. And we may, in this estimate, disregard Joshua, which, being so near the same period, might be taken as reflecting the same events independently of any written record. We cannot of course in this place touch on the subject of the genuineness of the later books of Scripture. The internal proofs of the antiquity of Numbers. These are so numerous and so manifest that one can have no other idea than that he is reading the account of an eye-witness of the matters recorded, until criticism points out alleged anachronisms and other discrepancies. These are so few and inconsiderable that they can have little weight. It can only enhance the force of the argument in favor of the antiquity of Numbers to review these objections (see below & 7). First, the book assumes to be the account of a contemporary and eye-witness of the events. Parts of it are expressly claimed to be the production of Moses himself (xxxiii. 2). This point is too manifest to need amplification. The details of the account down to minutiæ correspond with the assumption. It describes what befell a numerous people during a period of migratory life. It does this not only with fidelity to the situation, but there is an entire absence of any reference that betrays any acquaintance with any other condition of the people except the sojourn in Egypt that preceded it. For example all references to solidly built houses and walls relate to other people, or to a prospective condition of the nation. The Tabernacle was a monument that lasted till the days of David, and as such it alone affords satisfactory proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch, that is worthy of being made a distinct treatise. It was reproduced in the temple of Solomon, which was only an enlarged copy of the Tabernacle (see article TEMPLE in SMITH's Bib. Dict.) the peculiar construction of which can only be accounted for by the pre-existence of the Tabernacle and such a history as we have of the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch. The peculiar contribution to this evidence as it relates to Numbers, is seen in chapters iii., iv. that give account of the Levites being charged with the care of the Tabernacle, and its transportation on the journey. Some of the most The orders for remarkable of the arrangements there described are reflected in 1 Chron, xv. bearing the ark described in the latter place are satisfactorily explained by the account in Numbers. It is impossible that the account in Numbers could have been invented at a later date to suit the representation in 1 Chron. Moreover, if the regulations of which Numbers gives account, were the ground for those described in 1 Chron. xv., then they must have been handed down by a written record. For in no other form could details so copious and so minute be handed down. And this leads to the remark, that the detailed accounts of various things in Numbers give evidence of being from an eye-witness and participator in the transactions. The first five chapters abound in this evidence: the numbering of the people, the arrangement of the encampment, the offerings of the princes at the dedication of the Tabernacle, the order of march. No other No motive can be conceived for reference is ever made in later times to most of these matters. a writer of later times mentioning them, much less for inventing them. They were matters of present interest and could only be recorded, not only while fresh in the memory, but also while of actual importance. Various institutions of later ages among the Israelites can only be accounted for by records in Numbers. The silver trumpets (x.), the laws of inheritance (xxvii.); the Little Passover (ix.), the Sabbath-breaker (xv.). No later writer could be supposed to invent such accounts of the origin of these institutions; and if they are true, none but a contemporary can be supposed to have recorded them. The accuracy of the account in respect to geographical data gives most convincing proof of Numbers having been written on the spot. Modern explorers of the Sinai peninsula have often verified this accuracy, and in the effort to identify the localities and course of the wanderings of Israel in the desert, no progress has been made except where explorers have assumed that this account is correct. In illustration of this see the commentary on xiv. and xxxiii. 10. Another illustration, combining also historical accuracy, is seen in xiii. 22, where see the commentary. If this geographical accuracy be admitted, then it involves the inference that the account must have been written on the spot. In this age of travellers, a common experience teaches that it is very difficult to observe such accuracy in one's accounts of his journeys without one has made his record on the spot. And this leads to the remark, viz., that "many portions of the narrative have all the appearance of a journal of daily transactions, or at least a summary of such. This is discernible in the precise specification of time and place given in connection with the more important incidents, particularly in the list of encampments in chap. xxxiii. 1-49, and with regard to which it is stated (ver. 2) Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys;' and, indeed, the document bears all the marks of its having been written at the time thus intimated. This will be sufficiently apparent from the following observations: First, even the contradiction alleged to exist between the statement in vers. 30, 31, according to which the Israelites journeyed from Moseroth to Bene Jaakan, and Deut. x. 6, which makes the march to have been in the reverse order from Bene Jaakan to Moseroth, however it may be explained, is certainly rather unfavorable to the assumption that the narrative is the work of a later writer, and one of course freely inventing the circumstances of the case. For such a writer would not, by any possibility, have admitted so glaring a discrepancy. Further the historical notices of vers. 4, 9, 14, 38 could only have proceeded from a contemporary writer, for they are natural only in such a case, bespeaking an eye-witness, being in fact lively reminiscences summoned up in association with the names of localities." J. MACDONALD, i. p. 277, "Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments," xxxiii. 4, mentions a fact not otherwise recorded, though such a judgment was announced (Exod. xii. 12). And this record seems to be appealed to by Isaiah xix. 1. "Behold the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt; and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at His presence." Typical and Doctrinal proof. A peculiar proof of the genuineness and authenticity of Numbers, that will appeal to Christian experience, may be presented in connection with the typical matters contained in it. Numbers is distinguished from the other books in this respect by the large proportion of remarkable historical types it furnishes. The events it narrates have a deep spiritual significance. Some of them are singled out by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, and their typical import is interpreted, e. g., the Brazen Serpent, xxi. 7-9, comp. Jno. iii. 14, 15; the |