The account of the setting apart of the tribe of Levi has been especially urged as bearing the marks of fiction ; but this account is strongly confirmed by the distribution of the cities of the Levites (Num. xxxv. ; Josh. xxi.) This distribution is an undeni able fact, and the existence of these Levitical towns may be appealed to as a document proving that the Levites were really set apart. Our opponents have vainly endeavoured to find contradictions, for in stance, in the system of tithing (Num. xviii.), which, they say, is not mentioned in Deuteronomy, where the tithes are applied to different purposes (Deut. xii. 6, 7, 17-59 ; xiv. 22, seq.; xxvi. 12-13). But there were two sorts of tithes ; one appointed for the maintenance of the Levites, and the other to defray the expenses of public banquets, of which the Levites also partook on account of their posi tion in society (comp. Nell. xiii. to ; Tobit i. 7).
It has also been asserted that the book of Numbers contradicts itself in ch. iv. 2, 3, and ch. viii. 24, with respect to the proper age of Levites for doing duty. But the first of these passages speaks about carrying the tabernacle, and the second about performing sacred functions in the tabernacle. To carry the tabernacle was heavier work, and required an age of thirty years. The functions within the tabernacle were comparatively easy, for which an age of twenty-five years was deemed sufficient.
The opinions of those writers who deem that the book of Numbers had a mythical character, are in contradiction with passages like x. 26, seq., where Chobab is requested by Moses to aid the march through the wilderness. Such passages were writ ten by a conscientious reporter, whose object was to state facts, who did not confine himself merely to the relation of miracles, and who does not con ceal the natural occurrences which preceded the marvellous events in ch. xi. seq. How are our opponents able to reconcile these facts? Here again they require the aid of a new hypothesis, and speak of fragments loosely connected, The author of the book of Numbers proves him self to be intimately acquainted with Egypt. The productions mentioned in ch. xi. 5 are, according to the most accurate investigations, really those which in that country chiefly served for food.
In ch. xiii., xxii., we find a notice concerning Zoan (Tanis), which indicates an exact knowledge of Egyptian history, as well in the author as in his readers. In ch. xvii. 2, where the writing of a name on a stick is mentioned, we find an allusion characteristic of Egyptian customs (compare Wil kinson, Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, i. p. 388).
The history of the rebellion of the sons of Korah (xvi. 17) has certainly some colouring of the mar vellous, but it nevertheless bears the stamp of truth. It is absurd to suppose that a poet who wrote ch. xvii. 6, seq., in order to magnify the priestly dignity, should have represented the Levites themselves as the chief authors of these criminal proceedings.
This circumstance is the more important, because the descendants of Korah (Num. xxvi. i r) became afterwards one of the most distinguished Levitical families. In this position we find them as early as the times of David ; so that it is inconceivable how anybody should have entertained the idea of invent ing a crime to he charged upon one of the ancestors of this illuStrious family.
Many vestiges of antiquity are found in ch. xxi. The whole chapter, indeed, bears a characteristi cally antique impress, which manifests itself in all those ancient poems which are here communicated only in fragments, so far as was required for the illustration of the narrative. Even such critical sceptics as De Wette consider these poems to be relics of the Mosaical period. But they are so closely connected with history, as to be unintelli gible without a knowledge of the facts to which they refer.
Narratives like the history of Balsam (xxii., xxiv.) furnish also numerous proofs of their high antiquity. These confirmations are of the greatest importance, on account of the many marvellous and enigmatical points of the narrative. Compare, for instance, the geographical statements, which are un commonly accurate, in ch. xxii. 1, 36, 39 ; xxiii. 14, 15, 27, 23. See Hengstenberg's Geschichte Bileams, Berlin 1842, p. 221, seq.
The nations particularly mentioned in Balaam's prophecy—the Arnalekites, Edomites, Moabites, and Kenites—belong to the Mosaical period. In ch. xxiv. 7, it is stated that the king of Israel would be greater than Agag ; and it can be proved that Agag was a standing title of the Amalekite princes, and that, consequently, there is no necessity to refer this declaration to that king Agag whom Saul van quished. The Kenites, at a later period, disap peared entirely from history. A prophet from Meso potamia was likely to make particular mention of Assur (ch. xxiv. 22). There is also a remarkable prediction, that persons sailing from the coast of Chittim should subdue Assur and Eber (ch. xxiv. 23). The inhabitants of the west should vanquish the dwellers in the east. The writers who consider the predictions of Balaam to be vatieinia post eventum, bring us down to so late a period as the Grecian age, in which the whole passage could have been inserted only under the supposition of most arbi trary dealings with history. The truth of the Biblical narrative here asserts its power. There occur similar accounts, in which it is strikingly evident that they proceeded from the hands of an author contemporary with the events ; for instance, ch. xxxii., in which the distribution of the trans Jordanic territory is recorded. Even the account, which has so frequently been attacked, concerning the Havoth-jair, the small towns, or rather tent villages of Jair (xxxii. 41, 42 ; compare Judg. x. 4, and Deut. iii. 14),—even this account, we say, is fully justified by a closer examination.