Part 7

is simply to say that little or no dependence can be placed upon the narrative, that while there may be at the bottom of it some grains of fact, the main body of it is fiction. This conclusion will not be readily admitted.

(3) No book constructed in this way.—No reliable evidence exists that any book either ancient or modern was ever constructed as, according to

criticism, the Pent, and in particular Nu, was. Volumes have indeed been composed by two or more authors, acting in concert, but their contributions have never been intermixed as those of

J, E, D and P are declared to have been; nor, when

joint authorship has been acknowledged on the

title-page, has it been possible for readers confidently to assign to each author his own contribution. And yet, modern criticism, dealing with documents more than 2,000 years old and in a language foreign to the critics—which documents, moreover, exist only in MSS not older than the 10th

cent. AD (Buhl, Canon and Text of the OT, 28), and the text of which has been fixed not infallibly either as to consonant or vowel—claims that it can tell

(iii) To argue (Driver) for two documents because Joshua is not always mentioned along with

2165 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Numbers, Book of

that the style of composition is throughout the same, or that the book as it stands has never been revised or edited, but is in every jot and tittle the same as when first constructed. In ch 7, e.g., the narrative goes back to the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2d year, and in ch 9 to the 1st month of the 2d year, though ch 1 begins with the 1st day of the 2d month of the 2d year. There are also legislative passages interspersed among the historical, and poetical among the prosaic, but diversity of author-

Caleb is not strikingly convincing; while if Joshua

is not included among the spies in JE, that is obviously because the passages containing his name have been assigned beforehand to P. But if Joshua's name did not occur in JE, why would it have been inserted in the story by a post-exilic writer, when even in Dt 1 36 Joshua is not expressly named as one of the spies, though again the language in Dt 1 38 tacitly suggests that both Caleb and Joshua were among the searchers of the land, and that any partition of the text which conveys the impression that Joshua was not among the spies is wrong?

ship, as already suggested, cannot be inferred from either of these facts unless it is impossible for a writer to be sometimes disorderly in the arrangement of his materials; and for a lawgiver to be also a historian, and for a prose writer occasionally to burst into song. Assertions like these, however, cannot be entertained. Hence any argument for plurality of documents founded on them must be

(iv) If the text-analysis is as the critics arrange, how comes it that in jE the name Jeh does not once occur, while all the verses containing it are allocated to P?

(b) The rebellion of Korah: Chs 16 and 17 are supposed to be the work of " two. if not three," contributors

set aside. Nor is it a fair conclusion against the

(Driver, Kautzsch)—the whole story being assigned to P (enlarged by additions about which the text analysts are not unanimous), with the exception of 16 It. 2a. 1215.25.26.276-34, which are given to JE, though variations here also are not unknown.

literary unity of the book that its contents are varied in substance and form and have been sub-

jected, as is probable, to revision and even to inter-

polations, provided always these revisions and interpolations have not changed the meaning of the book. Whether, therefore, the Book of Nu has or has not been compiled from preexisting documents,

It is admitted that the JE verses, if read continuously, make out a story of Dathan and Abiram as distinguished from Korah and his company; that the motives of Dathan and Abiram probably differed from those of Korah and his company, and that Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by an earthquake, while the 250 incense-offerers were destroyed by fire. To conclude from this, however, that three or even two narratives have been intermixed is traveling beyond the premises.

it cannot be justly maintained that the text-analysis suggested by the critics has been established, or that the literary unity of Nu has been disproved.

///. Historical Credibility.—Were the narrative in this book written down immediately or soon after the events it records, no reason would exist for challenging its authenticity, unless it could be shown either from the narrative itself or from extraneous sources that the events chronicled were internally improbable, incredible or falsified. Even should it be proved that the text consists of two or more preexisting documents interwoven with one another, this would not necessarily invalidate its truthfulness, if these documents were practically contemporaneous with the incidents they report, and were not combined in such a way as to distort and misrepresent the occurrences they related.

(i) If JE contained more about the conspiracy of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, than has been preserved in the verses assigned to it, what has become of the excised verses, if they are not those ascribed to P; and,

if they are not, what evidence exists that P's verses are better than the lost verses of JE ? And how comes it that in P the Divine name used throughout, with one exception, ver 22, is Jeh, while in JE it occurs only 6 t ?

(ii) If JE contained only the parts assigned to it and nothing more happened than the Reubenite Smeute, why should the Korahite rebellion have been added to it 4 cents, later, if that rebellion never happened ? (iii) If the Korahite conspiracy did happen, why should it have been omitted in JE, and nothing whispered about it till after the exile ? (iv) If the two conspiracies, ecclesiastical (among the princes) and civil (among the laymen), arose contemporaneously, and the conspirators made common cause with one another, in that there was nothing unusual or contrary to experience, (v) If Moses addressed himself now to Korah and again to Dathan and Abiram, why should not the same doctunent say so ?

If, however, these preexisting documents were prepared 500 (JE) or 1,000 (P) years after the incidents they narrate, and were merely a fixing in written characters of traditions previously handed doi\Ti (JE), or of legislation newly invented and largely imaginary (P), it will not be easy to establish their

(vi) If Dathan and Abiram were engulfed by an earthquake, and the 250 princes were constuned by fire from the tabernacle, even that does not necessitate two documents, since both events might have occurred together,

(vli) It is not certain that P (vs 3.5-43) represents Korah as having been consumed by fire, while JE (vs 31-33) declares he was swallowed up by the earth. At least P (26 10) distinctly states that Korah was swallowed up by the earth, and that only the 250 were consumed by

historical validity. The credibility of this portion of the Pent has been assailed on the alleged ground that it contains chronological inaccuracies, statis-

tical errors and physical impossibilities.

(1) The second Passover (9 1-5)—The critical argument is that a contemporary historian would

fire.

Wherefore, in the face of these considerations, it is not too much to say that the evidence for more docmnents than one in this story is not convincing.

naturally have placed this paragraph

1. Seeming before 1 1. The answer is that posChronosibly he would have done so had his

leniently at the hands of analysis, being all left with JE, except 22 1, which is generously handed over

logical Inobject been to observe strict chronoaccuracies logical order, which it manifestly was not (see chs 7 and 9), and had he when commencing the book deemed it necessary to state that the Israelites had celebrated a second Passover on the legally appointed day, the 14th of the 1st month of the 2d year. This, however, he possibly at first assumed would be understood, and only afterward, when giving the reason for the supplementary Passover, realized that in after years readers might erroneously conclude that this was

to P. Uncertainty, however, exists as to how to par-

tition ch 22 between J and E. Whether all should be given to E because of the almost uniform use of Elohim rather than of Jeh, with the exception of vs

22-3.5a, which are the property of J because of the

use of Jeh (Driver, Kautzsch); or whether some

additional verses should not be assigned to J

(Cornill, HUB), critics are not agreed. As to chs 23 and 24, authorities hesitate whether to give both

to J or to E, or ch 23 to E and ch 24 to J, or both to a late redactor who had access to the two sources

all the Passover that had been kept in the 2d year. So to obviate any such mistaken inference, he pre-

surely an unsatisfactory demonstration in this case

at least of the documentary hypothesis. Comment on the use of the Divine names in this story is

fixed to his account of the Little Passover, as it is sometimes called, a statement to the effect that the statutory ordinance, the Great Passover, had been observed at the usual time, in the usual way, and that, too, in obedience to the express commandment of Jeh.

reserved till later.

Yet, while declining to accept this hypothesis as

proved, it is not contended that the materials in Nu are always arranged in chronological order, or

Numbers, Book of THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2166

(2) The thirty-seven years' chasm.—Whether 20 1 be considered the beginning of the 3d or of the 40th year, in eitlier case a period of 37 years is passed over—in tlie one case in almost unbrolcen silence; in the other with scarcely anything of moment recorded save Korah's rebeUion and the publication of a few laws concerning offerings to be made when the people reached the land of their habitation. To pronounce the whole book unhistorical because of this long interval of absolute or comparative silence (Bleek) is imreasonable. ^Most histories on this principle would be cast into the wastebasket. Besides, a historian might have as good reason for passing over as for recording the incidents of any particular period. And this might have been the case with the author of Nu. From the moment sentence of death was passed upon the old generation at Kadesh,

several difficulties emerge which have led to the sug-

gestion (Eerdmans, Couder, Wiener) that the 600,- 000 should be reduced (to, say, 6,000), and the

entire population to less than 30,000. The following

alleged impossibilities are believed to justify this

reduction: (a) that of 70 families increasing to 2

millions between the descent into, and the departure from, Egypt; (6) that of 2 J millions being led out

of Egypt in one day; (c) that of obtaining support

for so large a multitude with their flocks in the

Sinaitic desert; {d) that of finding room for them

either before the Mount at Sinai, or in the limited

till the hour when the new generation started out for Canaan, he may have counted that Israel had practically ceased to be the people of Jeh, or at least that their fortunes formed no part of tiie history of Jeh's kingdom; and it is noticeable that scarcely had the tribes reassembled at Kadesh in preparation for their onward march than Miriam and Aaron, probably the last of the doomed generation, died. Accordingly, from tliis point on, the narrative is occupied with the fortunes of the new generation. Whether correct or not, this solution of the 37 years' silence (Km'tz) is preferable to that which suggests (Ewald) that the late compiler, having found it impossible to locate all the traditions he had collected into the closing years of the wanderings, placed the rest of them in tlie first 2 years, and left the interval a blank a solution which has not even the merit of being clever and explains nothing. It does not explain why, if the narrator was not writing history, there should have been an interval at all. A romancer would not have missed so splendid an opportiinity for exercising his art, would not have left a gap of 37 years unfilled, but like the writers of the apocryphal Gospels would have crowded it with manufactured tales.

territory of Pal; and (e) that of the long time it took to conquer Pal if the army was 600,000 strong.

(a) Multiplication of people: As to the possi-

bility of 70 souls multiplying in the course of 215 years or 7 generations (to take the shorter interval rather than the longer of 430 years) into 2\ millions

of persons giving 600,000 fighting men, that need not be regarded as incredible till the rate of increase in each family is exactly known. Allowing

to each of Jacob's grandsons who were married

(say 51 out of 53), 4 male descendants (Colenso allows 4|), these would in 7 generations—not in 4 (Colenso)—amount to 835,584, and with surviving fathers and grandfathers added might well reach 900,000, of whom 600,000 might be above 20 years of age. But in point of fact, without definite data about the number of generations, the rates of birth and of mortality in each generation, all calculations are at the best problematical. The most that can be done is to consider whether the narrative mentions any circumstances fitted to explain this large number of fighting men and the great size of the congregation, and then whether the customary objections to the Bib. statement can be satisfactorily set aside.

On the better theory, not only is the silence explained, but the items inserted are accounted for as well. Though the unbelieving generation had ceased to be the people of Jeh, Aaron had not yet been sentenced to e.xclusion from the promised land. Ho was still one of the representatives of the kingdom of Jeh, and Korah's rebellion practically struck a blow at that kingdom. As such it was punished, and the story of its breaking out and suppression was recorded, as a matter that vitally concerned the stability of the kingdom. For a like reason, the legislative sections were included in the narrative. They were .Teh's acts and not the people's. They were statutes and ordinances for the new generation in the new land.

As for confirmatory circumstances, the Bible expressly states that dm'ing the years of the oppression the Hebrews were extraordinarily fruitful, and that this was the reason why Pharaoh became alarmed and issued his edict for the destruction of the male childi'en. The fruitfulness of the Hebrews, however, has been challenged (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) on the ground that were the births so numerous as this presupposes, two midwives (Ex 1 15) would not have sufficed for the necessary offices. But if the two to whom Pharaoh spake were the superintendents of the midwives throughout Goshen, to whom the king would hardly address himself individually, or if they were the two officiating in Heliopolis, the statement in Ex 1 15 will appear natural enough, and not opposed to the statement in Ex 1 10 that Pharaoh was alarmed at the multiplication of the Hebrews in his land. And, indeed, if the Hebrews were only 30,000 strong, it is not easy to see why the whole might of Egypt could not have kept them in subjection. Then as to the congregation being 2 J millions if thefighting men were 600,000, that corresponds with

(3) The fortieth year.—The events recorded as having taken place between the 1st of the 5th month (the date of Aaron's death) and the 1st of the 11th month (the date of Moses' address) are so numerous and important as to render it impossible, it is said, to maintain the credibility of this portion of the narrative. But (a) it

is not certain that all the events in this section were finished before Moses began his oration; neither (6) is

it necessary to hold that they all occurred in succession; while {c) lintil the rapidity with which events followed one another is ascertained, it will not be possible to decide whether or not they could all have been begim and finished witliin the space of 6 months.

(1) Numher of the fighting men.—This, which may be set down roughly at 600,000, has been challenged on two grounds: (a) that the

2. So-called number is too large, and (b) that the Statistical censuses at Sinai and in Moab are Errors too nearly equal.

The first of these objections will be considered in the following section when treating of the size of the congregation. The second will not appear formidable if it be remembered (a) that

it is neither impossible nor unusual for the population of a country to remain stationary for a long

the proportion which existed among the Helvetii, who had 92,000 men capable of bearing arms out of a population, including children, old men and women, of 368,000 souls (Caesar, BG, i, 20). This seems to answer the objection (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) that the unschooled Oriental is commonly addicted to exaggeration where numbers are concerned.

series of years; (6) that there was a special fitness in Israel's case that the doomed generation should be replaced by one as nearly as possible equal to that which had perished; (e) that had the narrative been invented, it is more than likely that the numbers would have been made either exactly equal or more widely divergent; and (d) that so many variations occurring in the strength of the tribes as numbered at Sinai and again in Moab, while the totals so nearly correspond, constitutes a watermark of truthfulness which should not be overlooked.

(b) Exodus in one day: The second difficulty would be serious were it necessary to suppose that the Israelites had never heard about their projected journey till the 14th of the 1st month. But the idea of gomg forth from Egypt must have been before them since the day Moses went to Pharaoh to demand their liberation; and at least 4 days before the 14th they had begun to prepare for departure. In circumstances such as these, with a

(2) The size of the congregation.—Taking the fighting men at 600,000 and the whole community at 4 1 times that number, or about 2| millions,

2167 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Numbers, Book of

member of the host required to be in full view of Sinai. As to not finding room in Canaan, it is doubtful if, after the conquest, the remnants of both peoples at any time numbered as many persons as dwelt in Pal during the most flourishing years of the kingdom. It may well be that the whole population of Pal today amounts to only about 600,000 souls; but Pal today under Turkish rule is no proper gauge for judging of Pal under David or even under Joshua.

people thirsting for liberty and only waiting the signal to move, aware also of the hour at which that signal would be given, viz. at midniglit, it does not appear so formidable a task as is imagined to get them all assembled in one day at a foreappointed rendezvous, more esp. as they were not likely to delay or linger in their movements. But how could there have been 2^ millions of fugitives,

it is asked (Eerdmans, Wiener), if Pharaoh deemed 600 chariots sufficient for pursuit? The answer is that Pharaoh did not reckon 600 chariots sufficient, but in addition to these, which were "chosen chariots," he took all the chariots of Egypt, his horsemen and his army (Ex 14 7.9), which were surely adequate to overcome a weaponless crowd, however big it might be. And that it was big, a vast horde indeed, Pharaoh's host implies.

(e) Slow conquest of Canaan: The long time it took to conquer Pal (Eerdmans, Vorgeschichte Israels, 78) is no solid argument to prove the unreliable character of the statement about the size of the army, and therefore of the congregation. Every person knows that in actual warfare, victory does not always go with the big battalions; and in this instance the desert-trained warriors allowed themselves to be seduced by the idolatries and immoralities of the Canaanites and forgot to execute the commission with which they had been intrusted, viz. to drive out the Canaanites from the

(c) Support in wilderness: The supposed difficulty of obtaining support for 2i millions of people with the flocks and herds in the Sinaitic desert takes for granted that the desert was then as barren a region as it is now, which cannot be proved, and is as little likely to be correct as it would be to argue that Egypt, which was then the granary of the world, was no more fertile than it was 10 years ago, or that the regions in which Babylon and AssjTia were situated were as desolate then as they are now. This supposition disregards tlie fact that Moses fed the flocks of Jethro for 40 years in that same region of Sinai; that when the Israelites passed through it, it was inhabited by several powerful tribes. It overlooks, too, the fact that the flocks and herds of Israel were not necessarily all cooped up in one spot, but were most likely spread abroad

land which had been promised to their fathers. Had they been faithful to Jeh, they would not have taken so long completely to possess the land (Ps 81 13.14). But if instead of having 600,000 stalwart soldiers they had only possessed 6,000, it is not

difficult to see how they could not drive out the Canaanites. The difficulty is to perceive how they could have achieved as much as they did.

(3) The number of the firstborn.—That the 22,273 firstborn males from 1 month old and upward (3 43} is out of all proportion to the 603,5.50 men of 20 years old and upward, being much too few, has frequently (Bleek, Bohlen, Colenso and others) been felt as a difficulty, since it practically involves the conclusion that for every firstborn there must have been 40 or 4.5 males in each family. Various solutions of this difficulty have been offered. The prevalence of polygamy has been suggested (Michaelis, Hiivernick). The exclusion of firstborn sons wlao were married, the inclusion only of the mother's firstborn, and the great fruitfulness of Heb mothers have been called in to surmount the difficulty

in districts where water and vegetation could be found . And it ignores the statement in the narrative that the IsraeUtes were not supplied exclusively by the produce of the desert, but had manna from heaven from the 1st day of the 2d month after leaving Egypt till they reached Canaan. Ration-

alistic expositors may relegate this statement to the limbo of fable, but unless the supernatural is to be eliminated altogether from the story, this statement must be accorded its full weight. So must the two miraculous supplies of water at Horeb (Ex 17) and at Kadesh (Nu 20) be treated. It is sometimes argued that these supplies were quite insufficient

(Kurtz). But perhaps the best explanation is that only those were counted who were born after the Law was given on the night of the departure from Egypt (Ex 13 2; Nu 3 13; 8 17) (Keil, Dchtzsch. Gerlach). It may be urged, of course, that this would require an exceptionally large number of births in the 13 months; but in the exceptionally joyous circumstances of the emancipation this might not have been impossible. In any case, it does not seem reasonable on account of this difficulty, which might vanish were all the facts known, to impeach the historical accuracy of the narrative, even in this particular.

for 2} millions of people with their flocks and herds; and that therefore the congregation could not have been so large. But the narrative in Nu states, and presumably it was the same in Ex, that the smitten rock poured forth its water so copiously and so continuously that 'the people drank abundantly with their flocks.' Wherefore no conclusion can be drawn from this against the reported size of the congregation.

(Note.—In Scotland, with a population of nearly double that of the Israelites, viz. 4,877,648, the marriages in 1909 wore 30,092, the lowest on record for 55 years. At this rate the births in Israel during the first 12 months after the exodus might have been 15,046. assuming each marriage to have had issue. As this marriage rate, however, is excessively low for Scotland in normal years, the number of marriages and tlierefore of births in Israel in the first year after the exodus may well have been twice, if not 3 times, 15,046, i.e. 30,092, or 45,138. Reckoning the half of these as males, viz. 15,046 or 22,569, it does not appear as if the number of the firstborn in the text were quite impossible, on the supposition made.)

(d) Room at Mt. Sinai: As to the impossibility

of finding room for 2 J millions of people either

before the Mount at Sinai or within the land of Canaan (Conder), few will regard this as self-

(1) The duties of the priests.—These are supposed

evident. If the site of their encampment was the Er-Rahab plain (Robinson, Stanley)—though the

to have been so onerous that Aaron and his sons could not possibly have performed

plain of Sebayeh, admittedly not so roomy, has been mentioned (Ritter, Kurtz, Knobel)—estimates differ as to the sufficiency of accommodation

3. Alleged them. But (a) the Levitical laws. Physical though published in the desert, were Impossinot necessarily intended to receive

to be found there. Conder gives the dimensions of

bilities full and minute observance there, but only in Canaan, (b) In point of fact,

the plain as 4 sq. miles, which he deems insufficient,

forgetting, perhaps, that "its extent is farther in-

as Moses afterward testified (Dt 12 8), the Levitical laws were not scrupulously kept in the wilderness,

creased by lateral valleys receding from the plain

itself" (Forty Days in the Desert, 73; cf Keil on Ex 19 1.2). Kalisch, though putting the size of

of the 2d year was celebrated otherwise than it had been in Egypt before the exodus, the slaughtering

the plain at a smaller figure, adds that "it thus furnished ample tenting ground for the hosts of

Israel"—a conclusion accepted by Ebers, Riehm and others. In any case it seems driving literal

of the lambs being performed by the heads of

families. And {d) as the Levites were set apart

to minister to the tabernacle (Nu 1 50), they would be able in many ways to assist the priests.

interpretation to extreme lengths to hold that camp-

ing before the Mount necessarily meant that every

Numbers, Book of THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2168

(2) The assembling of the congregation.—The assembling of the congregation at the door of the tabernacle (10 3.4) has been adduced as another physical impossibility; and no doubt it was if every man, woman and child, or even only every man was expected to be there; but not if the congregation was ordinarily represented by its "renowned" or "called" men, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands of Israel (1 16). To suppose that anything else was meant is surely not required. When Moses called all Israel and spake unto them (Dt 5 1; 29 2), no intelligent person understands that he personally addressed every individual, or spoke so as to be heard by every individual, though what he said was intended for all. An additional difficulty in the way of assembling the congregation, and by implication an argument against the size of the congregation, has been discovered in the two silver trumpets which, it is contended, were too few for summoning so vast a host as 2-2millions of people. But it is not stated in the narrative either (a) that it was absolutely necessary that every individual in the camp should hear the sound of the trumpets any more than it was indispensable that Balaam's curse should reecho to the utmost bounds of Israel (Nu 23 13), or that a public proclamation by a modern state, though prefaced by means of an "Oyez," should be heard by all within the state or even within its capital; or (6) if it was necessary that everyone should hear, that the trumpeters could not move about through the camp but must remain stationary at the tabernacle door; or (c) that in the clear air of the desert the sound of the trumpets would not travel farther than in the noisy and murky atmosphere of modern cities; or (d) that should occasion arise for more trumpets than two, Moses and his successors were forbidden to make them.

ing (which might be possible), and occupied 4 hours

in completing these, they might begin to advance at

10 o'clock and cover 10 miles in another 4 hours, thus bringing them on to 2 PM, after which 4 hours more would enable them to encamp themselves for the night, if that was necessary. The other two divisions falling into line, say at 2 o'clock, would arrive at 6 PM, and by 10 PM would be settled for the night, (d) It does not seem certain that every night upon the march they would arrange themselves into a regularly constructed camp; rather it is reasonable to conclude that this would be done only when they had reached a spot where a halt was to be made for some time, (e) In any case, in the absence of more details as to how the march was conducted, arithmetical calculations are of little value and are not entitled to discredit the truthfulness of the narrative.

(4) The victory over Midian.—This has been objected to on moral grounds which are not now referred to. It is the supposed impossibility of 12,000 Israelites slaying all the male Midianites, capturing all their women and children, including 32,000 virgins, seizing all their cattle and flocks, with all their goods, and burning all their cities and castles without the loss of a single man (31 49), which occasions perplexity. Yet Scripture relates several victories of a similar description, as e.g. that of Abraham over the kings of the East (Gen 14 15), in which, so far as the record goes, no loss was incurred by the patriarch's army; that of Gideon's 300 over the Midianites at a later date (Jgs 7 22)

that of Samson single-handed over 1,000 Philis (Jgs 15 15) ; and that of Jehoshaphat at the battle of Tekoa (2 Ch 20 24), which was won without a blow—all more or less miraculous, no doubt. But in profane history, Tacitus (Ann. xiii.39) relates an instance in which the Romans slaughtered all their foes without losing a single man; and Strabo (xvi. 112S) mentions a battle in which 1,000 Arabs were slain by only 2 Romans; while the life of Saladin contains a like statement concerning the issue of a_ battle (Hiivernick, Intro, 330). Hence Israel's victory over Midian does not afford sufficient ground for challenging its historic credibility.

(3) The marching of the host.—The marching of the host in four main divisions of about half a million each (2; 10 14-20) has also been pronounced a stumbling-block (Colenso, Eerdmans, Doughty), inasmuch as the procession formed

(i.e. if no di^dsion began to fall into line till its predecessor had completed its evolutions) would require the whole day for its completion, and would make a column of unprecedented length—of 22 miles (Colenzo), of 600 miles (Doughty)—and would even on the most favorable hypothesis travel only a few miles, when the whole line would again need to reconstruct the camp. The simple statement of this shows its absurdity as an explanation of what actually took place on the march, and indirectly suggests that the narrative may be historical after all, as no romancer of a late age would have risked his reputation by laying down such directions for the march, if they were susceptible of no other explanation than the above. How precisely the march was conducted may be difficult or even impossible to describe in such a way as to obviate all objections. But some considerations may be advanced to show that the march through the desert was neither impossible nor incredible. (a) The deploying of the four main divisions into line may have gone on simultaneously, as they were widely apart from each other, on the E. (Judah), on the S. (Reuben), on the W. (Ephraim) and on the N. (Dan), (h) There is no gi-ound for thinking that the march would be conducted, at least at

IV. Authorship.—Restricting attention to evidence from Nu itself, it may be remarked in a general way that the question of authorship is practically settled by what has been advanced on its literary structure and historical credibility. For, if the materials of the book were substantially the work of one pen (whoever may have been their first collector or last redactor), and if these materials are upon the whole trustworthy, there will be little room to doubt that the original pen was in the hand of a contemporary and eyewitness of the incidents narrated, and that the contemporary and eyewitness was Moses, who need not, however, have set down everything with his own hand, all that is necessary to justify the ascription of the writing to him being that it should have been composed by his authority and under his supervision. In this sense it is believed that indications are not wanting m the book both against and for the Mosaic authorship; and these may now be considered.

(1) The alternating use of Divine names.—This usage, after forming so characteristic a feature in Gen and largely disappearing in Ex 1. Against and Lev, reasserts itself in Nu, and the Mosaic more particularly in the story of Authorship Balaam. If chs 23 and 24 can be explained only as late documents pieced together, because of the use of "God" in ch 23 and of "Lord" in ch 24, then Moses was not their author. But if the varying use of the Divine names is susceptible of explanation on the assumption that the two chapters originally formed one docu-

first, with the precision of a modern army, or that each division would extend itself to the length of 22 miles. It is more than likely that they would follow their standards as best they could or with such order as could be arranged by their captains,

2169 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Numbers, Book of

ment, then most distinctly the claim of Moses to authorship is not debarred. Now whether Balaam was a false or a true prophet, it is clear that he could hope to please Balak only by cursing Israel in the name of Jeh, the Elohim of Israel; and so it

the silver trumpets; ch 19, the legislation which obviously presupposes the wilderness as the place for its observance (vs 3.7.9.14). If criticism allows that these and other passages have descended from the Mosaic age, why should it be necessary to seek another author for them than Moses? And

is always Jeh he consults or pretends to consult before replying to the messengers of Balak. Four times he did so (22 8.19; 23 3,15); and 3 t it was Elohim who met him (22 9.20; 23 14), while every time it was Jeh who put the word in his mouth. Can any conclusion be fairer than that the historian regarded Elohim and Jeh as the same Divine Being, and represented this as it were by a double emphasis, which showed (a) that the Jeh whom Balaam consulted was Elohim or the supreme God, and (6) that the God who met Balaam and supplied him with oracles was Israel's Lord? Thus explained, the alternate use of the Divine names does not require the hypothesis of two single documents rolled into one; and indeed the argument from the use of the Divine names is now generally abandoned.

if Moses could have composed those passages, a presumption at least is created that the whole book has proceeded from his pen. (&) The patriotic songs taken from the Book of the Wars of the Lord

(ch 21), which some critics (Cornill, Kautzsch and others) hold cannot be later than 750 BC, are by equally competent scholars (Bleek, De Wette, E. Meyer, Konig and others) recognized as parts of Israel's inheritance from the Mosaic age, whensoever they were incorporated in Nu. (c) The list of camping stations (ch 33) is expressly assigned to him. Whether "by the commandment of the Lord" should be connected with the "journeys" (Konig) or the "writing" makes no difference as to the authorship of this chapter, at least in the sense that

(2) Traces of late authorship.—Traces of late authorship are believed to exist in several passages

it is based on a Mosaic document (Strack). It is true that even if this chapter as it stands was prepared by Moses, that does not amount to conclusive evidence of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book. Yet it creates a presumption in its favor (Drechsler, Keil, Zahn). For why should Moses have been specially enjoined to write so comparatively uninteresting and unprofitable a document as a list of names, many of which are now incapable of identification, if that was all? But if Moses was already writing up a journal or history of the wanderings, whether by his o^vn hand or by means of amanuenses, and whether by express command or without it (not an unreasonable supposition), there was no particular need to record that this was

(a) 15 32-36 seems to imply that the writer was no longer in the wilderness, which may well have been the case, if already he was in the land of Moab.

(6) 20 5 suggests, it is said, that the people were then in Canaan. But the language rather conveys the impression that they were not yet come to Canaan; and in point of fact the people were at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. (c) In 21 14.15. 17.18.27-30, certain archaic songs are cited as if the people were familiar with them, and the Arnon

is mentioned as the border of Moab long before

Israel reached the river. But that poets were among the people at the time of the exodus and probably long before, the song of Moses (Ex 15) shows, and that a Book of the Wars of the Lord was begun to be composed soon after the defeat of Amalek is not an unreasonable hypothesis (Ex 17

so. If, however, Moses was not thinldng of preserving an itinerary, and God for reasons of His own desired that he should do so, then there was need for a special commandment to be given; and need that it should be recorded to explain why Moses incorporated in his book a list of names that in most people's judgment might have been omitted without imperiling the value of the book. Looked at in this way, the order to prepare this itinerary rather strengthens the idea of the Mosaic authorship of the whole book.

14). As for the statement that "Arnon leaneth upon the borders of Moab," that may have been superfluous as a matter of information to the contemporaries of Moses when they were about to

cross the stream (Strack, EM, 25), but it was quite

in place in an old prophetic song, as showing that

their present position had been long before anticipated and foretold, (d) 24 7, according to criticism, could not have been composed before the rise of the monarchy; and certainly it could not, if prediction

(2) Acquaintance on the part of the author ivith Egyptian manners and customs.—This points in the direction of Moses, (a) The trial by jealousy

(5 11-31) may be compared with the tale of Setnau, belonging probably to the 3d cent. BC, but

of future events is impossible. But if reference to a coming king in Israel was put into Balaam's mouth by the Spirit of God, as the narrator says, then it could easily have been made before the monarchy; and so could (e) 24 17.18 have been written before the reign of David, though the conquest of the Edomites only then began (2 S 8 14;

relating to the times of Rameses II, in which Ptahnefer-ka, having found the book which the god Thoth wrote with his own hand, copied it on a piece

of papyrus, dissolved the copy in water and drank the solution, with the result that he knew all the book contained {RP, IV, 138). (h) The consecration of the Levites (8 7) resembled the ablutions

1 K 11 1; 1 Ch 18 12.13). Examples such as these show that many, if not most, of the like objections against the Mosaic authorship of this book are capable of at least

of the Egyp priests who shaved their heads and bodies every 3d day, bathed twice during the day and twice during the night, and performed a grand ceremony of purification, preparatory to their seasons of fasting, which sometimes lasted from 7

possible solution; and that Kuenen's caution should not be forgotten: "He who relies upon the impression made by the whole, without interroga-

to 40 days and even more {WAS, I, 181). (c) Uncleanness from contact with the dead (l9 11) was not unknown to the Egj'ptians, who required

tion of the parts one by one, repudiates the first

principles of all scientific research, and pays homage

to superficiality" (fleZ.o//sraeZ, I, 11).

their priests to avoid graves, funerals and funeral

(1) Certain passages have the appearance of having been written by Moses.—These are: (a) those which bear evidence of having been

feasts (Porphyry, De Abst. ii.50, quoted in Speaker's

Conim.). (d) The fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic referred to in 11 5 were articles of

2. For the intended for a people not settled in Mosaic cities but dwelling in tents and camps. Authorship as e.g. chs 1-4, describing the arrangements for the census and the formation

diet in Egypt (Herod, ii.93). (e) The antiquarian statement about Hebron (13 22) fits in well with a

writer in Mosaic times. "A later writer could have had no authority for making the statement and no

of the camp; 6 24-26, the high-priestly benedic-

possible reason for inventing it" (Pulpit Comm. on Nu). On a candid review of all the arguments pro

tion; 10 35.36, the orders for the marching and the

halting of the host; 10 1-9, the directions about

Numenius Oak THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2170

and con, it is not too much to say that the preponderance of evidence lies on the side of the substantial Mosaicity of the Book of Numbers.

Ahab) and in Est 2 7 (AV "and he brought up,"

i.e. he [Mordecai] adopted, his niece). Deutero-Isa uses both terms together (49 23) to describe the exalted position of Israel in the future when foreign kings and queens will offer their services and wait upon the chosen people.

LiTEBATuHE.—Comms. on Nu by Bertheau (ET), Knobel, Keil (ET), Dillmann, Strack, Lange (ET) ; in Speaker's Comm., Pulpit Comm., ICC (Gray); Bib. Intros of De Wette. HcnKstenberg, Havernick. Bleek, Konig, Strack, Cornill, Driver; in encs, etc, RE. HDB, EB, Sch-Herz; critical comms.: Reuss, Die Gcschichie der heih'aen Srhriftea AT; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel (ET) ; Wellhausen, Gesehiehte Israels and Proleoomena (ET) ; Klostermann, Der Pentateuch: Eerdmans, Alttest. Sludien: Addis, Documents of Hezateuch: Olford Hexateuch; EPC.

In the solitary passage in the NT where "nurse" occurs, it renders the Gr word Tpo06s, trophos. In

this case the word does not mean a hired nurse, but a mother who nurses her own children (1 Thess 2 7). T. Lewis

T. Whitelaw NUMENIUS, mi-me'ni-us (Noii|iTivi.os, Noumenios) : The son of Antiochus, and Antipater were the two ambassadors whom Jonathan sent to the Romans, "to the Spartans, and to otherplaces," after his victory in the plain of Hazor (Galilee) over the princes of Demetrius (1 Maco 12 1 ff) about 144 BC Their mission was to confirm and renew the friendship and treaty which had existed from the days of Judas (8 17 ff). They were well received and successful, both at Rome (12 3 f) and at Sparta (12 19 ff; 14 22f). After the death of Jonathan, the victories of Simon and the establishment of peace, Simon sent Numenius on a second embassy to Rome (14 24), again to confirm the treaty and present a golden shield weighing 1,000 minae—apparently just before the popular decree by which Simon was created high priest, leader and captain "for ever" (1 Mace 14 27 ff), September, 141 BC. The embassy returned in 139 BC, bearing letters from the senate to the kings of Egypt, Syria and "all the countries," confirming the integrity of Jewish territory, and forbidding these kings to disturb the Jews, and requiring them also to surrender any deserters (14 15 ff). See also Lucius; Schiirer, Gesch. des judischen Volkes (3d and 4th edd), I, 236, 250 f. S. Angus

NURTURE, nt^u-'tnr: The word occurs in AV in Eph 6 4 as the tr of traiSela, paideia, but RV changes to "chastening," and uses "nurture" (vb.)

for AV "bring up" (iKTp4(pw, ektrepho) in the first part of the verse. Paideia has the idea of training and correction; in RV 2 Esd 8 12 for Lat erudio; and cf AV Wisd 3 11; Sir 18 13 {paideuo), etc.

NUTS, nuts:

(1) (T1!5X, 'eghoz; Kapia, harua; Axah. jauz, "the walnut" [Cant 6 11]): This is certainly the walnut

tree, Juglans regia, a native of Persia and the Himalayas which flourishes under favorable conditions in all parts of Pal; particularly in the moun-

NUN, noon (3, ): The 14th letter of the Heb alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopaedia as n. It came also to be used for the number 50. For name, etc, see Alphabet.

NUN, nun (1^3, nun, "fish," derivative meaning "fecundity"): Father of Joshua (referred to thus 29 t) (Ex 33 11; Nu 11 28, etc; 1 Ch 7 27, m "Non"; Sir 46 1, m "Nave").

NURSE, nurs, NURSING, nurs'ing: "Nurse" in AV represents two different Heb words: In 8 passages (Gen 24 59; 35 8; Ex 2 7 bis.9; 2 K 11 2; 2 Ch 22 11; Isa 49 23) the word—noun or vb.— renders some form of the vb. p3^ , ydnak, "to suck." The fem. causative part, of this vb. is commonly used to denote nurse or foster-mother. According to Ex 2 7 Moses' mother—"a nurse of the Heb women"—became, at Pharaoh's daughter's request, the foster-mother of the foundling. Joash, the son of Ahaziah, was in charge of a nurse until he was 7 years old (2 K 11 2; 2 Ch 22 11). But it is obvious that the term was used in a more general way, e.g. of a lady's maid or tire-woman. Rebekah was accompanied by her nurse when she left home to be married (Gen 24 59; 35 8). In 5 passages (Nu 11 12; Ruth 4 16; 2 S 4 4; Isa 49 23; 60 4 AV) "nurse" represents the Heb word, l^N

PistacMo Nut (Pistacia vera).

tains. In such situations it attains the height of from 60 to 90 ft. A grove of such trees affords the most delightful shade.

(2) (O'ljipa, hotnlm; Tepi^tvBoL, terebinthoi [Gen 43 11, m "pistachio nuts"]): The Heb is perhaps aUied to the Arab, hutm, the "terebinth," which is closely allied to the Pistacia vera, N.O. Anacardiaceae, which produces pistachio nuts. These nuts, known in Arab, as fiatuk, are prime favorites with the people of Pal. They are oblong, -J in. long, with green, oily cotyledons. They are eaten raw and are also made into various sweets and confectionery. They are a product of Pal, very likely to be sent as a present to Egypt (Gen 43 11). E. W. G. Masterman NYMPHAS, nim'fas (N«[,.<t)as, NumpMs; Lachmann, Tregelles [m], WH read Niip.<J)a, Numpha, the name of a woman [Col 4 15]): A Christian resident in Laodicea, to whom Paid sends salutations in the ep. which he wrote from Rome to the

'aman, "to support," "be faithful," "nourish." The part, of this vb. denoted a person who had charge of young children—a guardian or governess. Naomi took charge of Ruth's child "and became nurse unto it" (Ruth 4 16). In Nu 11 12 Moses asks whether he has to take charge of the Israelites "as a nursing-father carricth the sucking child." The same word is found in 2 K 10 15 (AV "them that brought up," i.e. guardians of the sons of

2171 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Numenius Oak

This fact, that the church met there, also shows that Nymphas was a person of some means, for a very small

church in Colossae, the latter city being only a very few miles distant from Laodicea. Indeed, so near were they, that Paul directs that

house could not have accommodated the Christian men and women who gathered together on the first day of every week for the purposes of Christian worship. The church in Laodicea—judging not only from the Ep. to the Eph, which is really Paul's Ep. to the Laodiceans, and which indicates that the church in Laodicea had a numerous mnmbenship, but also from what is said of it in Rev 3 17AV—must have been large and influential :

2. The Church in His House

1. A Christhe Ep. to the Col be read also in tian in Laodicea. Nymphas—or if Nympha Laodicea be read, then it is a Christian lady who is meant—was a person of outstanding worth and importance in the church of Laodicea, for he had granted the use of his dwellinghouse for the ordinary weekly meetings of the church. The apostle's salutation is a 3-fold one to the brethren that are in Laodicea, that is to the whole of the Christian community in that

' Thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." The house of Nymphas, therefore, must have possessed a large room or saloon sufficiently commodious toallowthe meeting of a numerous company. Nymphas would bo a person both ot Christian character and of generous feeling, and of some amount of wealth. Nothing more is known regarding him, as this is the only passage in which he is named. John Ruthehpurd

city, and to Nymphas, and to the church in his house.

OABDIUS, 6-ab'di-us (A, "HapSCos, Oahdios, B, -eios, eios, Fritzsche, 'IwopSCos, loubdios, om. in AV): One of the sons of Ela who put away

There are, according to Post {Flora of Palestine, 737-41), no less than 9 species of oak (N.O. Cupu-

liferae) in Syria, and he adds to these 2. Varieties 12 sub-varieties. Many of these have of Oak no interest except to the botanist. The following species are widespread and distinctive: (1) The "Turkey oak," Quercus cerris, known in Arab, as Ballul, as its name implies, abounds all over European Turkey and Greece and is common in Pal. Under favorable conditions

their "strange wives" (1 Esd 9 27) = "Abdi" of Ezr 10 26.

OAK, ok: Several Heb words are so tr"', but there has always been great doubt as to which words should be tr"* "oak" and which "terebinth." This uncertainty appears in the LXX and all through EV; in recent revisions "terebinth" has been in-

creasingly added in the m. All the Heb words are

closely allied and may originally have had simply the meaning of "tree," but it is clear that, when the OT was written, they indicated some special kind

of tree.

The words and references are as follows

(1) nbX. 'llah (in LXX usually -repi^iveoi, terebin-

thos. in Vulg terebinlhus, or. more commonly, quercun) (Gen 35 4; Jgs 6 11.19; 2 S 18 9.10.14; 1 Hebrew l K 13 14; l Ch 10 12; Isa 1 30; Ezk

riT ,A^ ^„A 6 13—in all these m "terebinth"). In Isa Words and g jj (^y „teii tree") and Hos 4 13 (AV References "elms") the tr is "terebinths" because of the juxtaposition of 'allon, tr<i "oaks." "Vale of Elah" (m "the Terebinth") is found in 1 S 17 2 19; 21 9. The e.Kpression in Isa 1 30, "whose leaf fadeth," is more appropriate to the terebinth than the oak (see below).

(2) nix, 'atlah (terebinthos, quercus [VulgD, appar-

ently a 'slight variant for 'llah: only in Josh 24 26; Gen 35 4 ('ildh) and in Jgs 9 6 {'Hon).

(3) D^'5S or D''b^S . 'elim, perhaps pi. of 'elah, occurs

in Isa 1 29 (m "terebinths"); 57 5, m "with idols," AV "idols," m "oaks"; 61 3, "trees"; Ezk 31 14

Oak at Gilcad, the Sindeeyan (Quercus cocci/era).

(text very doubtful), " height," AVm " upon themselves "

; bis. 'eZ, inEl-paran(LXX (ere5i;ilAos) (Gen 14 6), prob-

it attains to great size, reaching as much as 60 ft. in height. It is distinguished by its large sessile acorns with hemispherical cups covered with long, narrow, almost bristly, scales, giving them a mossy aspect. The wood is hard and of fine grain. Galls are common upon its branches.

' tree " or " terebinth "of Paran. Celsius (Hicrob. 1.34 ff) argues at length that the above words apply well to the Tekebinth (q.v.) in all the passages in which they occur.

ably means the

(4) "libiS. 'elon (usually JpO?, drus, "oak"), in Gen

12 6; 13 18; 14 13; 18 1; Dt 11 30; Josh 19 33; Jgs 4 11; 9 6.37; 1 S 10 3 (AV "plain"); in all these references m has "terebinth" or "terebinths." In Gen 12 6; Dt 11 30 we have "oak" or "oaks" "of the teacher" (Moreh) ; "oak in Zaanannim" in .Igs 4 11; Josh 19 33; the "oak of Meonenim," m "the augurs' oak (or, terebinth) " in Jgs 9 37.

(2) Quercus lusitariica (or Ballola), also known in Arab, as BalMt, like the last is frequently found dwarfed to a bush, but, when protected, attains a height of 30 ft. or more. The leaves are dentate or crenate and last late into the winter, but are shed before the new twigs are developed. The acorns are solitary or few in cluster, and the cupules are more or less smooth. Galls are common, and a variety of this species is often known as Q. infec-

(5) ^"1355. 'allon (commonly 5pus, drus, or ^d\ayo^,

bdlanos), in Gen 35 8 (cf ver 4); Hos 4 13; Isa 6 13. is contrasted with 'Hah. showing that 'allon and 'eldh cannot bT identical, so no marginal references occur; also in Isa 44 14; Am 2 9, but in all other pa.ssages, m "terebinth" or "terebinths" occurs. "Oaks of Bashan" occurs in Isa 2 13; Ezk 27 6; Zee 11 2.

loria, on account of its liability to infection with

galls.

(3) The Valonica oak (Q. aegolops), known in Arab, as MellM, has large oblong or ovate deciduous

If (1) (2) (3) refer esp. to the terebinth, then (4) and (5) are probably correctly tr'^ "oak." If we may judge at all by present conditions, "oaks" of Bashan is far more correct than "terebinths" of Bashan.

leaves, with deep serrations terminating in a bristle-

like point, and very large acorns, globular, thick cupules covered with long retiexed scales. The

Oak Obadiah.Bookof 'THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2172

and "the oak of weeping," Allan bacuth, of Gen 35

cupules, known commercially as valonica, furnish one of the richest of tanning materials.

S. E. W. G. Masterman

(4) The Evergreen oak is often classed under the general name "Ilex oak" or Holm (i.e. holly-like) oak. Several varieties are described as occurring in Pal. Q. ilex usually has rather a shrublike

OAK OF TABOR (^i^n 'jibX, 'Hon iabhor): Thus RV in 1 S 10 3 for'AV "plain of Tabor" (RVm "terebinth"). Tabor was famous for its groves of oak, but what "oak" is meant here is not known. Ewald thinks that "Tabor" is a different pronunciation for "Deborah," and connects with Gen 35 8; but this is not likely. See Oak, 3.

OAR, or. See Ships and Boats, II, 2, (3).

OATH, oth (nyilTB, sh'bhu'ah, probably from shebha\ "seven," the sacred number, which occurs frequently in the ritual of an oath; opKos, horkos; and the stronger word nbs , 'aldh, by which a curse

is actually invoked upon the oath-breaker [LXX dpa, ard]): In Mt 26 70-74 Peter first denies his Lord simply, then with an oath (sh'bhu^ah) , then invokes a curse ('dlah), thus passing through every stage of asseveration.

The oath is the invoking of a curse upon one's

self if one has not spoken the truth (Mt 26 74), or

if one fails to keep a promise (1 S 19

1. Law Re6; 20 17; 2 S 15 21; 19 23). It garding played a very important part, not only Oaths in lawsuits (Ex 22 11; Lev 6 3.5) and state affairs (Ant, XV, x, 4), but also in the dealings of ever3'day life (Gen 24 37; 50 5; Jgs 21 5; 1 K 18 10; Ezr 10 5). The Mosaic laws concerning oaths were not meant to limit the widespread custom of making oaths, so much as to impress upon the people the sacredness of an oath, forbidding on the one hand swearing falsely (Ex 20 7; Lev 19 12; Zee 8 17, etc), and on the other swearing by false gods, which latter was considered to be a very dark sin (Jer 12 16; Am 8 14). In the Law only two kinds of false swearing are mentioned : false swearing of a witness, and false asseveration upon oath regarding a thing found or received (Lev 5 1; 6 2ff;cfProv 29 24). Both required a sin offering (Lev 5 Iff). The Talm gives additional rules, and lays down certain punishments for false swearing; in the case of a thing found it states what the false swearer must pay (Makkoth 2^3; Sh'bhiTdth 8 3). The Jewish interpretation of the 3d commandment is that it is not concerned with oaths, but rather forbids the use of the name of Jeh in ordinary cases (so Dalman)

"Joshua's Oak"—a Terebinth (Near Abord in Ephraim.

Supposed to Be the Largest Tree in Palestine).

growth, with abundant glossy, dark-green leaves, oval in shape and more or less prickly at the margins, though sometimes entire. The cupules of the acorns are woolly. It shows a marked predilection for the neighborhood of the sea. The Q. cocdfera (with var. Q. pseudococcifcra) is known in Arab, as Sindian. The leaves, like the last, usually are prickly. The acorns are solitary or twin, and the hemispherical cupules are more or less velvety. On the Q. cocdfera are found the insects which make the well-kno\vn Kermcs dye. These evergreen oaks are the common trees at sacred tombs, and the once magnificent, but now dying, "Abraham's oak" at Hebron is one of this species.

Swearing in the name of the Lord (Gen 14 22; Dt 6 13; Jgs 21 7; Ruth 1 17, etc) was a sign of loyalty to Him (Dt 10 20; Isa 2. Forms 48 11; Jer 12 16). We know from of Swearing Scripture (see above) that swearing by false gods was frequent, and we learn also from the newly discovered Elephantine papyrus that the people not only swore by Jahu

Oaks occur in all parts of Pal, in spite of the steady ruthless destruction which has been going on

for centuries. All over Carmel, Tabor,

3. Oaks in around Banias and in the hills to the Modern W. of Nazareth, to mention wellPalestine known localities, there are forests of oak; great tracts of country, esp. in Gal-

( = Jeh) or by the Lord of Heaven, but also among a certain class of other gods, e.g. by HercmBethel, and by Isum. In ordinary intercourse it was customary to swear by the life of the person addressed (1 S 1 26; 20 3; 2 K 2 2); by the life of the king (1 S 17 55; 25 26; 2 S 11 11); by one's own head (Mt 5 36) ; by the earth (Mt 5 35); by the heaven (Mt 5 34; 23 22); by the angels (BJ, II, xvi, 4); by the temple (Mt 23 16) and by different parts of it (Mt 23 16) ; by Jcrus (Mt 5 35; cf K'thilbhoth 2 9). The oath "by heaven" (Mt 5 34; 23 22) is counted by Jesus as the oath in which God's name is invoked. Jesus does not mean that God and heaven are identical, but He desires to rebuke those who paltered with an oath by avoiding a direct mention of a name of God. He teaches that such an oath is a real oath and must be considered as sacredly binding.

ilee and E. of the Jordan, are covered by a stunted brushwood which, were it not for the wood-cutter, would grow into noble trees. Solitary oaks of magnificent proportions occur in many parts of the land, esp. upon hilltops; such trees are saved from destruction because of their "sacred" character. To bury beneath such a tree has ever been a favorite custom (cf Gen 35 S; 1 Ch 10 12). Large trees

like these, seen often from great distances, are frequently landmarks (.losh 19 33) or places of meeting (cf "Oak of Tabor," 1 S 10 3). The custom of heathen worship beneath oaks or terebinths (Hps 4 13; Ezk 6 1.3, etc) finds its modern counterpart

in the cult of the Wehj in Pal. The oak is sometimes connected with some historical event, as e.g. Abraham's oak of Mamre now shown at Hebron,

2173 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Oak Obadiah, Book of

throw of Edom is the enlargement of the borders of Judah and the establishment of the kingship of Jeh. Thus far all scholars are agreed; but on questions of authorship and date there is wide divergence of opinion.

Not much is told us as to the ceremonies observed in taking an oath. In patriarchal times he who took the oath put his hand under the

3. The thigh of him to whom the oath was Formula taken (Gen 24 2; 47 29). The most usual form was to hold up the hand to heaven (Gen 14 22; Ex 6 8; Dt 32 40; Ezk 20

(1) Jeh summons the nations to the overthrow of proud Edom. The men of Esau will be brought down from their lofty strongholds;

5). The wife suspected of unfaithfulness, when brought before the priest, had to answer "Amen, Amen" to his adjuration, and this was considered to be an oath on her part (Nu 5 22). The usual formula of an oath was either: "God is witness betwixt me and thee" (Gen 31 50), or more commonly: "As Jeh [or God] liveth" (Jgs 8 19; Ruth 3 13; 2 S 2 27; Jer 38 16) or "Jeh be a true and faithful witness amongst us (Jer 42 5). Usually the penalty invoked by the oath was only suggested

1. Contents their hidden treasures will be rifled;

of the Book their confederates will turn against them; nor will the wise and the mighty men in Eclom be able to avert the crushing calamity (vs 1-9). (2) The overthrow of Edom is due to the violence and cruelty shown toward his brother Jacob. The prophet describes the cruelty and shameless gloating over a brother's calamity, in the form of earnest appeals to Edom not to do the

selfish and heartless deeds of which he had been guilty when Jcrus was sacked by foreign foes (vs 10-14). (3) The day of the display of Jeh's retributive righteousness upon the nations is near. Edom shall be completely destroyed by the people whom he has tried to uproot, while Israel's captives shall return to take possession of their own land and also to seize and rule the mount of Esau. Thus the kingship of Jeh shall be established (vs 15-21).

"Jeh [or God] do so to me" (Ruth 1 17; 2 S 3 9. 35;1K2 23;2K631); in some cases the punishment was expressly mentioned (Jer 29 22). Nowack suggests that in general the punishment was not expressly mentioned because of a superstitious fear that the person swearing, although speaking the truth, might draw upon himself some of the punishment by merely mentioning it.

Philo expresses the desire (ii.l94) that the practice of swearing should be discontinued, and the Essenes used no oaths {BJ, II, viii, 6; Ant, XV,

The unity of Ob was first challenged by Eichhom in 1824, vs 17—21 being regarded by him as an appendix attached to the original exilic prophecy o TTnitv rtf in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (104—78

tC n t EC). Ewald thought that an exilic tne i)OOK prophet, to whom he ascribed vs 11-14 and 19-21, had made use ol an older prophecy by Obadiah in vs 1-10, and in vs 15-18 of material from another older prophet who was contemporary, like Obadiah, with Isaiah. As the years went on, the material assigned to the older oracle was limited by some to vs 1-9 and by others to vs 1-6. Wellhausen assigned to Obadiah vs 1-5.7.10.11.13.14.15!), while all else was regarded as a later appendix. Barton's theory of the composition of Ob is thus surmned up by Bewer: "Vs 1-6 are a preexllic oracle of Ob, which was quoted by Jeremiah, and readapted with additions (vs 7-15) by another Obadiah in the early post-exilic days; vs 16—21 form an appendix, probably from Maccabean times" (ICC, 5) . Bewer's own view is closely akin to Barton's. He thinks that Obadiah, writing in the 5th cent. BO, "quoted vs 1^ almost, though not quite, literally; that he commented on the older oracle in vs 5-7, partly in the words ol the older prophet, partly in his own words, in order to show that it had been fulfilled in his own day; and that in vs 8.9 he quoted once more from the older oracle without any show of iiteralness." He ascribes to Obadiah vs 10-14 and 156. The appendix consists of two sections, vs 15a. 16-18 and vs 19-21, possibly by different authors, ver 18 being a quotation from some older prophecy. To the average Bible student all this minute analysis of a brief prophecy must seem hypercritical. He will prefer to read the book as a unity ; and in doing so will get the essence of the message it has for the present day.

That oaths are permissible to Christians is shown by the example of Our Lord (Mt 26 63 f), and of

Paul (2 Cor 1 23; Gal 1 20) and 4. Oaths even of God Himself (He 6 13-18). Permissible Consequently when Christ said, "Swear

not at all" (Mt 5 34), He was laying down the principle that the Christian must not have two standards of truth, but that his ordinary speech must be as sacredly true as his oath. In the kingdom of God, where that principle holds sway, oaths become unnecessary.

Paul Levertoff OBADIAH, o-ba-dl'a (n^'l^j? , 'obhadhyah, more

fully ^n^l5i^ , 'obhadhyahu, "servant of Yahweh")

(1) The steward or prime minister of Ahab, who did his best to protect the prophets of Jeh against Jezebel's persecution. He met Elijah on his return from Zarephath, and bore to Ahab the news of Elijah's reappearance (1 K 18 3-16).

(2) The prophet (Ob ver 1). See Obadiah, Book OF.

(3) A descendant of David (1 Ch 3 21).

(4) A chief of the tribe of Issachar (1 Ch 7 3).

(.5) A descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8 38; 9 44).

Certain preliminary problems require solution before the question of date can be settled.

(6) A Levite descended from Jeduthun (1 Ch 9

(1) Relation of Ob and Jer 49.—

16), identical with Abda(Neh 11 17).

(7) A chief of the Gadites (1 Ch 12 9).

3. Date of (a) Did Obadiah quote from Jer? the Book Pusey thus sets forth the impossibility of such a solution: "Out of 16 verses of which the prophecy of Jeremiah against Edom consists, four are identical with those of Obadiah; a fifth embodies a verse of Obadiah's; of the eleven which remain, ten have some turns of expression or idioms, more or fewer, which recur in Jer, either in these prophecies against foreign nations, or in his prophecies generally. Now it would be wholly improbable that a prophet, selecting verses out of the prophecy of Jeremiah, should have selected precisely those which contain none of Jeremiah's characteristic expressions; whereas it perfectly fits in with the supposition that Jeremiah interwove verses of Obadiah with his own prophecy, that in verses so interwoven there is not one expression which occurs elsewhere in Jer" {Minor Prophets,

(8) A Zebulunite, father of the chief Ishmaiah

(1 Ch 27 19).

(9) One of the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the law in Judah (2 Ch 17 7).

(10) A Merarite employed by Josiah to oversee the workmen in repairing the temple (2 Ch 34 12).

(11) The head of a family who went up with Ezra from Babylon (Ezr 8 9).

(12) One of the men who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10 .5).

(13) A gate-keeper in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12 2.5). The name "Obadiah" was common in Israel from the days of David to the close of the OT. An an-

cient Heb seal bears the inscription "Obadiah the servant of the King." John Richard Sampey

OBADIAH, BOOK OF: Obadiah is the shortest book in the OT. The theme of the book is the de-

I, 347). (6) Did Jeremiah quote from Ob? It is almost incredible that the vigorous and wellarticulated prophec;y in Ob could have been made

struction of Edom. Consequent upon the over-

Obadiah, Book of Obedience of Christ THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2174

by piecing together detached quotations from Jer; but Jeremiah may well have taken from Ob many expressions that fell in with his general purpose. There are difficulties in applying this view to one or two verses, but it has not been disproved by the arguments from meter advanced by Bewer and others, (c) Did both Obadiah and Jeremiah quote from an older oracle? This is the favorite solution among recent scholars, most of whom think that Obadiah preserves the vigor of the original, while Jeremiah quotes with more freedom ; but Bewer in ICC, after a detailed comparison, thus sums up: "Our conclusioyi is that Obadiah quoted in vs 1-9 an older oracle, the original of which is better 'preserved in Jer 49." The student will do well to get his own first-hand impression from a careful comparison of the two passages. With Ob vs 1-4 of Jer 49 1416; with Ob vs 5.6 cf Jer 49 9.10a; with Ob ver 8 cf Jer 49 7; with Ob ver 9a cf Jer 49 226. On the whole, the view that Jeremiah, who often quotes from earlier prophets, draws directly from Ob, with free working over of the older prophets, seems still tenable.

though the disaster in the days of Jehoram must have been terrible, (c) The silence as to Edom in 2 Ch 21 16 f . But so also are the historic books silent as to the part that Edom took in the destruction of Jerus in 587. It is true that exilic and post-

↑ Back to top