202 JAMES NEIL, M.A., 
statement, that by the Law of Moses “ every man was to receive an 
inheritance,’’ we are shut up to the conclusion that the 601,730, 
if indeed the country was distributed amongst these only, must 
have been given the lands of their respective districts, not as their 
own private WS\c, mulk, or freehold, property, but to be held in 
common by all their “ family,” or clan. 
My critic reads Numbers xxvi. as directing allotment “ Ist to 
Tribes, and 2ndly to Families, MIMDW YD... but also 3rdly, to 
Individuals.” But where is there a hint as to such a threefold 
division? The only verses in this chapter that direct allotment at 
all are as follows: ‘‘ Unto these the land shall be divided for an 
inheritance, according to the number of names. To many thou 
shall give his inheritance much and to few thou shall give his 
inheritance little; to every one shall his inheritance be given 
according to those that were numbered of him. Only the land 
shall be divided by lot; according to the names of the tribes of 
their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the 
possession thereof be divided between many and few” (Numbers 
xxvi. 53-56). And this is the only enactment in the whole Law on 
the subject, repeated, as I have said, once very briefly in Numbers 
xxxiii. 54. My critic inserts the words “him who is” twice in 
verse 54, making it read, by a rendering slightly different from, 
but in virtual agreement with, mine: “To [him who is] many 
shall thou increase his inheritance; to [him who is] few thou 
shall diminish his inheritance.” 
IT admit that these words may be thus understood by the figure 
of ellipsis. But if they apply to the allotment to 601,730 
individuals, what becomes of the allotment to “Tribes” and 
‘‘Hamilies,” for which there is then no command in this passage 
or anywhere else P_ If, on the other hand, “ [him who is] many” 
and “[him who is] few” stand respectively for “the family, or 
clan, which is many,” and “the family, or clan, which is few’”’— 
the “him” understood, though not expressed, being a form of 
metonymy by which the head is put for his house or the chieftain 
is put for his clan—then all is rendered clear and consistent. 
For when we turn to the detailed account of the carrying out of 
this enactment, given in Joshua xiv—xxi—the only account we 
have of any allotment at all, an allotment, too, which is expressly 
said to be that which ‘‘ Jehovah commanded by the hand of Moses” 
(Joshua xiv. 2, 5)—we find that it is spoken of throughout as an 
allotment of considerable districts to ‘‘ Tribes” and ‘‘ Families” 
only, and not in any sense as an allotment.of small freeholds 
