88 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 117. 



In the third place, it must be observable to 

 every intelligent reader, that there is not the least 

 shadow of warrant for supposing that Eldad and 

 Medad were two of the seventy elders "gathered" 

 by Moses ; on the contrary, there is unmistake- 

 able evidence against the notion. We are ex- 

 pressly told by inspired authority, that the seventy 

 elders — not sixty-eight — were set round about 

 the tabernacle ; and there and then did Jehovah 

 take of the spirit that was upon Moses, " and gave 

 it unto the seventy elders," — not to sixty-eight 

 only. Another proof that Eldad and Medad 

 cannot be considered as two of the seventy elders, 

 but as persons belonging to the mass of the laity, is 

 derivable from Moses' answer to Joshua, " Would 

 God that all the Lord's people were prophets " 

 (ver. 29.). If they were of the seventy, what 

 cause was there for surprise and consternation ? 

 Would Joshua have asked for a prohibition ? and 

 •would Moses have given such an answer ? 



But what is to be done with the statements, 

 " And they were of them that were written, but 

 went not out unto the tabernacle, and they pro- 

 phesied in the camp ?" How are these statements 

 to be explained ? Very easily, by a reference to 

 the original Hebrew. The words D"'3in3a iioni 

 do not mean " and they were of them that 

 were written," but "and they were amongst 

 the writings " or inscriptions, that is Wady Mo- 

 katteb, i. e. in that part of the encampment 

 which was pitched there. If the inspired nar- 

 rator had meant to convey the idea that Eldad 

 and Medad were two of the seventy elders, he 

 would have employed the proper word for it, 

 whicli nmnan is certainly not. The proper word 

 would have been either QiaiDJ^nO, " of them that 

 were gathered," or D'':pTnD, "of the elders." -^.^ie 

 have no account of Moses writing down^tHg'names 

 of the seventy, to authorise such a translation. 

 Besides, even if we had such an account, and the 

 sacred historian wished to intimate as much in the 

 verse under review, he would assuredly have used 

 the word D''nin3na, and not D''ninD3- It appears 

 that the n was a difficulty to the LXX, as well as 

 to the author or authors of the Vulgate, to Rashi 

 and the translators of the English version. The 

 Greek particle in and the Latin de are literal 

 translations of the equivalent Hebrew particle |0 or 

 D, and not of 1. It would appear, moreover, that 

 Dr. Todd himself found the 3 insurmountable, 

 and therefore omitted it in his last Hebrew quota- 

 tion. Again, in the Pentateuch, wherever tlie word 

 CaiDD occurs, it imj)lies written records, but not 

 written names of persons. 



But do not all the ancient paraphrasts sanction 

 the translation of the authorised version ? What 

 of that. If they happen to be wrong! Such a 

 consideration will never interfere with my own 

 judgment, founded on a thorough knowledge of 

 the meaning of the Hebrew word. I have lono- 



since learned that opinions are not necessarily 

 true, because they are old ones, nor doctrines 

 undeniably infallible, because we may have be- 

 lieved in them from our cradles. I am positive, 

 however, that had the LXX, the authors of 

 the Vulgate, Rashi, and the translators of the 

 authorised version, known the locality of Wady 

 Mokatteb, they would have hesitated before they 

 put so unnatural a construction on the word. 

 Aye, and Dk. Todd too, if he were in the valley, 

 and traced, with his generally correct mind, the 

 wanderings of the people of Israel, would have 

 exclaimed, " Surely this Is none other than the 

 Kibroth Hattavah of Scripture, and rightly named 

 D''3in3." 



Onkelos, however, in his Chaldee Paj'aph-ase — 

 Dr. Todd evidently overlooked that, for he grouped 

 the Chaldee Paraphrase amongst the ralstranslators 

 — renders the words Qtnin^n nDHI literally and 

 grammatically by the Clialdee words X''3>nDl p JXIr 

 " And they were amongst the Inscriptions." 



But do not the words " but they went not out 

 into the tabernacle, and they prophesied in the 

 camp," " completely overturn my hypothesis ? " 

 They may according to Dr. Todd's criticisms, but 

 not according to the correct sense of that interest- 

 ing portion of Scripture. The people in the camp 

 were evidently under the impression that it was 

 not right for any one but the seventy to prophesy, 

 nor was it lawful to prophesy any where else but 

 at the tabernacle, as they were accustomed to hear 

 Moses do ; the fact, therefore, that two men, who 

 were not of the seventy, and far away from the 

 tabernacle, probably,, ifl' the very centre of the 

 camp of IsraeJ, wMcu I conceive Wady Mokatteb 

 to hayabeeri, being gifted with a spirit of prophecy, 

 •ii^med so astounding and unprecedented In the 

 history of Israel's wanderings, that the inspired 

 writer is induced to make a particular note of the 

 few circumstances connected with that extraordi- 

 nary event. 



The above is 2^ fair ^ sound, and tvell-digesied \ievr 

 of the passage in question. Adding to it the 

 stubborn fact — which Dr. Todd ignores — that 

 where the ancient maps have Kibroth Hattavah, 

 the modern maps have Wady Mokatteb, the con- 

 clusion is inevitable that Wady Mokatteb is men- 

 tioned in Num. xi. 26. Moses Margoliouth. 



J^tpUzi t0 Minat caucrt'cif. 



'■'■ Theophania" (Vol. i., p. 174.). — An inquiry 

 is made by your correspondent as to the author of 

 this romance, printed in 4to. in 1655, to which no 

 answer has yet been returned. In my copy, under 

 " By an English Person of Quality," in the title- 

 page, is written, in a contemporary handwriting, 

 " S^ W. Sales." In the same handwriting Is a 

 MS. key, annexed to the book, to all the names. 

 This is too long to copy here, but if your coi-re- 



