Page:Keil and Delitzsch,Biblical commentary the old testament the pentateuch, trad James Martin, volume 1, 1885.djvu/1112

 punishment for their repeated rebellion: that they should bear their iniquity for forty years in the wilderness; that the whole nation that had come out of Egypt should die there, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua; and that only their children should enter the promised land (Num 14:26-39). The people were shocked at this announcement, and resolved to force a way into Canaan; but, as Moses predicted, they were beaten by the Canaanites and Amalekites, and driven back to Hormah (Num 14:40-45). These events form a grand turning-point in the history of Israel, in which the whole of the future history of the covenant nation is typically reflected. The constantly repeated unfaithfulness of the nation could not destroy the faithfulness of God, or alter His purposes of salvation. In wrath Jehovah remembered mercy; through judgment He carried out His plan of salvation, that all the world might know that no flesh was righteous before Him, and that the unbelief and unfaithfulness of men could not overturn the truth of God. According to Knobel, the account of these events arose from two or three documents interwoven with one another in the following manner: Num 13:1-17a, Num 13:21, Num 13:25-26, Num 13:32, and Num 14:2, Num 14:5-7, Num 14:10, Num 14:36-38, was written by the Elohist, the remainder by the Jehovist, - Num 13:22-24, Num 13:27-31; Num 14:1, Num 14:11-25, Num 14:39-45, being taken from his first document, and Num 13:17-20; Num 14:2-4, Num 14:8-10, Num 14:26-33, Num 14:35, from his second; whilst, lastly, Num 13:33, and the commencement of Num 14:1, were added from his own resources, because it contains contradictory statements. “According to the Elohist,” says this critic, “the spies went through the whole land (Num 13:32; Num 14:7), and penetrated even to the north of the country (Num 13:21): they took forty days to this (Num 13:25; Num 14:34); they had among them Joshua, whose name was altered at that time (Jos 13:16), and who behaved as bravely as Caleb (Num 13:8; Num 14:6, Num 14:38). According to the Jehovistic completion, the spies did not go through the whole land, but only entered into it (Num 13:27), merely going into the neighbourhood of Hebron, in the south country (Num 13:22-23); there they saw the gigantic Anakites (Num 13:22, Num 13:28, Num 13:33), cut off the large bunch of grapes in the valley of Eshcol (Num 13:23-24), and then came back to Moses. Caleb was the only one who showed himself courageous, and Joshua was not with them at all (Num 13:30; Num 14:24).” But these discrepancies do not exist in the biblical narrative; on the contrary, they have been introduced by the critic himself, by the forcible separation of passages from their context, and by arbitrary interpolations. The words of the spies in Num 13:27, “We came into the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey,” do not imply that they only came into the southern portion of the land, any more than the fact that they brought a bunch of grapes from the neighbourhood of Hebron is a proof that they did not go beyond the valley of Eshcol. Moreover, it is not stated in Num 13:30 that Joshua was not found among the tribes. Again, the circumstance that in Num 14:11-25 and Num 14:26-35 the same thing is said twice over-the special instructions as to the survey of the land in Num 13:17-20, which were quite unnecessary for intelligent leaders, - the swearing of God (Num 14:16, Num 14:21, Num 14:23), - the forced explanation of the name Eshcol, in Num 13:24, and other things of the same kind, - are said to furnish further proofs of the interpolation of Jehovistic clauses into the Elohistic narrative; and lastly, a number of the words employed are supposed to place this beyond all doubt. Of these proofs, however, the first rests upon a simple misinterpretation of the passage in question, and a disregard of the peculiarities of Hebrew history; whilst the rest are either subjective conclusions, dictated by the taste of vulgar rationalism, or inferences and assumptions, of which the tenability and force need first of all to be established.