(Vol. iv., p. 481.; Vol. v., p. 31.)
In order that the readers of "N. & Q." may have an opportunity of
judging for themselves of the question between DR. TODD and myself, as
to the identity of Kibroth Hattavah and Wady Mokatteb, it will be
necessary, in the first place, that a more comprehensive view should be
taken of the camp of Israel than DR. TODD'S criticism seems to imply. A
population of six hundred thousand, besides women and children, must
have occupied a larger extent of ground than a single valley; and the
valley which is called _par excellence_ Wady Mokatteb would by no means
suffice for the accommodation of half the multitude, were it not joined
to many other valleys,--both sides, by means of narrow windings.
In the second place, it must be borne in mind that the "Tabernacle was
pitched without the camp, afar off from the camp" (Exod. xxxiii. 7.); a
circumstance which DR. TODD overlooked, which made him hazard the
strange statement that I "did not explain how Eldad and Medad were in
Wady Mokatteb, more than Moses and the rest of the seventy."
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 unmistakeable evidence against the notion. We are
expressly 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 prophesied
in the camp?" How are these statements to be explained? Very easily, by
a reference to the original Hebrew. The words םיבותכב המהו do
not mean "and they were of them that were written," but "and they were
amongst the writings" or inscriptions, that is Wady Mokatteb, _i.e._ in
that part of the encampment which was pitched there. If the inspired
narrator 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, which
םיבותכב is certainly not. The proper word would have been
either םיפוסאהמ, "of them that were gathered," or םינקזהמ,
"of the elders." We have no account of Moses writing down the
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
םיבותכהמ, and not םיבותכב. It appears that the ב 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
ἐκ and the Latin _de_ are literal translations of the equivalent
Hebrew particle ןמ or מ, and not of ב. It would appear, moreover, that
DR. TODD himself found the ב insurmountable, and therefore omitted it
in his last Hebrew quotation. Again, in the Pentateuch, wherever the
word םיבותכ occurs, it implies 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 long since
learned that opinions are not necessarily true, because they are old
ones, nor doctrines undeniably infallible, because we may have believed
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 DR.
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 "םיבותכ."
Onkelos, however, in his _Chaldee Paraphrase_--DR. TODD evidently
overlooked that, for he grouped the _Chaldee Paraphrase_ amongst the
mistranslators--renders the words םיבותכב המהו literally and
grammatically by the Chaldee words איביתכב ןונאו, "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 interesting 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 in the very centre of the camp of
Israel, which I conceive Wady Mokatteb to have been, being gifted with a
spirit of prophecy, seemed 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
extraordinary event.
The above is a _fair_, _sound_, and _well-digested_ view 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 conclusion is inevitable that _Wady
Mokatteb is mentioned in Num. xi. 26_.