devoted to annihilation. Grammatically, 'the ships from the coast of Kittim,' are indeed the subject; but we must suppose an inversion or irregularity of construction and explain the singular of the pronoun 1 by remembering that the author had in his mind Asshur alone, the principal of the two nations, which included Eber (comp. ver. 22). N cannot refer to Kittim (D'); for, independently of the syntactical inaccuracy, a Hebrew seer would have refrained from announcing the extinction of those who humbled the dangerous enemies of his own people. But supposing even that the ruin of Kittim were meant, it would not involve the idea that 'before the seer's eye the whole heathen world had become one great Golgotha, over which God's people rises triumphantly' (Oehler, Theol. d. Alt. Test.'s, i. 119): for these verses contain no direct allusion to Israel whatever, much less to a victorions Israel. The Sept. premises this oracle with the words: Kaì idŵr Tòv "Ny, which addition, whatever its origin (comp. supra, p. 239), can certainly not be used to support the very strange and hazardous conjecture that the earlier and genuine reading of this verse

And he saw Agag and took up his parable and said, Woe, who shall live before Samuel'! (so Geiger, Urschrift, p. 367). Though many MSS. write DVD in one word, all ancient versions render two words and not the proper noun (comp. De-Rossi, Var. Lect. in loc.).—It has often been asserted that Balaam's speeches, vague and indefinite as they are, include nothing which, in the time of Moses, any intelligent observer, having seized the idea of Israel's election, and weighed their hostile relations to their weaker neighbours, would have been unable to predict with confidence (so, for instance, Hengstenh., Bil., pp. 17, 19, 259-263, 268–270; Rosenm., Schol. ad xxiii. 7; xxiv. 29, etc.). Granted that, to a certain extent, this might be possible with respect to Moab, Edom, and Amalek, does the same hold good in regard of the Assyrians and Cyprians, with whom the Hebrews, in the fifteenth century, came into no contact, however distant or indirect, whether friendly or hostile? It is even doubtful whether Assyria existed, at so early a time, as an independent empire and, if so, whether her armies crossed

the Euphrates for centuries after the commencement of her rule (comp. Dunker, Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 266 sqq.; Oppert, in Zeitsch. der D. M. G., 1869, p. 144, who places the foundation of the kingdom at B.C. 1318; Records of the Past, iii. 27, etc.; Tiglath-pileser I., about в c. 1150, seems to have made an expedition against certain rebellious tribes of the Kheti or Khatte,' that is the Hittites or Syrians; Records, v. 12, 18, 20. The statements of classical and later writers about the antiquity of Assyria are mere surmises). 'The ships from the coast of Kittim,' which 'humble Asshur,' refer to distinct and special occurrences, which could only be foretold by virtue of supernatural inspiration or announced as vaticinia post eventum.—Nothing but the determined endeavour to vindicate the whole of the story of Balaam to the 'Supplementer' (Ergänzer), and to prove this writer not to have lived later than the time of Solomon, could have induced a scholar of Tuch's critical tact and sound judgment to assert that this section exhibits merely an acquaintance of the Hebrews with the existence of the Assyrians, not a hostile conflict between both nations, and that 'the prophet, in these verses, rises to a general prediction concerning that great power advancing from the east, and as indefinitely opposes to it a western power destined one day to break its influence' (Tuch, Comment. über die Genes., pp. lxxvi., lxxvii., 2nd ed.). What can the sad exclamation, Woe, who may live, when God doeth this!' mean, if it does not refer to calamities actually inflicted by the Assyrians? (comp. ver. 22, 7). And how can 'ships from the coast of Kittim' be considered ideally to represent a power mighty enough to crush the vast Assyrian empire?

25. And Balaam rose, and went away, and returned to his place, and Balak also went his

way.

Previous to the announcement of the tenth and last Egyptian plague, Pharaoh said to Moses in vehement

anger: 'Go away from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more;' upon which Moses replied: "Thou hast spoken right, I will see thy face again no more'-the Divine messenger and the obdurate heathen king could only meet to come into terrible collision, and then for ever to move in opposite directions. Like Moses and Pharaoh, those great primeval types, Balaam and Balak are absolutely without a real tie or bond. The former has been employed as the mouthpiece of the God of Israel, the latter does not comprehend this God and dares to defy Him, although he dreads His power. The community of the 'righteous' and the community of the worshippers of falsehood cannot dwell together in harmony or sympathy; therefore, 'Balaam rose and went away... and Balak also went his way.'

Commenting on the statement of Deuteronomy, that God changed Balaam's intended curse into a blessing for Israel," the Midrash observes: 'The Lord gave power to Balaam's voice, so that it is heard from one end of the world to the other.' Taken in that figurative sense in which this remark is no doubt intended, it implies an incontestable truth. Balaam's words have passed from age to age and from nation to nation, and they will be read and admired as long as men shall delight in sublimity of thought, largeness of soul, and perfection of art.

PHILOLOGICAL REMARKS.-How is it possible even to make the attempt at reconciling the clear conclusion of this verse with the later Elohistic account in the Book of Numbers? (see xxxi. 8, 16; comp. Josh. xiii. 22). Language and logic alike must be violently strained to effect the faintest appearance of plausibility. Balaam is, in those later portions, related to have given to the Moabites and Midianites the fiendish advice to ensnare and corrupt the Hebrews by licentious seduction, and subsequently, fighting in the ranks c Midr. Rabb. Num. xx. 13.

a Exod. x. 28, 29. b Deut. xxiii. 6.

X

of Israel's enemies, to have been killed in battle. Which are the proposals made to harmonise these facts with the verse before us? The words and he returned to his place' (ppb), it is contended, do not mean that Balaam repaired to his home in Mesopotamia—which would be the only possible interpretation, even if Balak had not, immediately before, expressly bidden Balaam, 'Escape to thy place' (pp), and Balaam himself had not distinctly said, 'And now, behold, I go to my people' (" in "In,

vers. 11, 14; comp. Gen. xviii. 33; xxxii. 1; 1 Sam. xxvi. 25; 2 Sam. xix. 40)-but they mean, it is asserted, that Balaam went back to the place in the east of the Jordan, where he had been the day before; or they signify, 'he went away whither he would,' or 'he went to hell,' which is his place' (Talm. Sanhedr. 105a., etc.; comp. Acts i. 25); or 'he resumed his sorceries,' since he prophesied this time only for the honour of Israel (Bechai); or, 'he merely started to return,' or 'went in the direction of his home' (taken in inchoative sense); or 'he intended to go and to return,' but was kept back by the Midianites. It would be unnecessary to refute interpretations which would never have been advanced had this verse been explained from its own context, and not in the light of heterogeneous accounts. But some maintain that Balaam indeed returned to Mesopotamia, but came back again to the plains of Moab. We will not stop to inquire whether there was time for such a double journey, the war against the Midianites being fought very soon afterwards, in the same year, and the distance from Moab to the Euphrates through the desert requiring not less than twenty days; nor what object so shrewd a man as Balaam could have for this waste of time and exertion, if he entertained the plan imputed to him. But the exegetical question is not what the simple words pa ought to mean if the unity of the Book of Numbers is to be upheld, but what they really mean according to all sound rules of interpretation—and in this respect not the slightest doubt can prevail among men who have the Scriptural text more at heart than their own theories or preconceptions.-The Targ. Jon. inserts in these verses explicitly: Balak put the daughters of the Midianites in tavern

rooms at Beth-jeshimoth, by the snow-mountain, where they sold various kinds of pastry (10) below their value, after the counsel of Balaam the wicked, at the parting of the road' (see p. 247).—It is usually contended that Balaam, 'who, as God's mouthpiece, had blessed the Hebrews with inward repugnance, soon returned to his own hostile disposition and joined the Midianites, another enemy of Israel' (so even Winer, Real-Wört. i. 184, see supra, p. 50). In these chapters, Balaam is neither represented as an unwilling instrument of God, nor as an enemy of Israel, and his passive conduct in reference to Balak is in direct contrast to the restless eagerness ascribed to him in his intercourse with the Midianites. And if he indeed played so important and so fatal a part in the following events, it is surprising why, after having once been introduced so conspicuously as the proclaimer of these prophecies, he is in the next sections either not mentioned at all or mentioned quite incidentally. But still more astonishing is the amicable intercourse in which, immediately afterwards, we find the Hebrews engaged with the Moabites (xxv. 1, 2, p. 69). Almost the only point of harmony between the chapters under discussion and those which follow is the alliance or friendship which both the former and the latter state to have existed between Moab and Midian (xxii. 4, 7; xxv. 1, 6, 14–18; xxxi. 1 sqq.). All these circumstances can be satisfactorily explained under no other supposition than that the Book of Balaam,' having originally formed a complete and separate work, was incorporated in the Book of Numbers without being thoroughly amalgamated with the other parts of the narrative. Even the Talmud, in declaring that 'Moses wrote his own Book, and the section of Balaam, and the Book of Job' (Talm. Bab. Bathr. 15a.), seems to intimate that it considers the 'section of Balaam as a composition distinct from the rest of the Pentateuch. Hence it is not sufficient to say that the historian, as if touched with a feeling of the greatness of the prophet's mission, drops the veil over its dark close': the historian had, with respect to Balaam's life, evidently nothing more to add that could be of interest to Hebrew readers, or that was in direct connection with Israel's destinies.