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 בכתובים והמה 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 בכתובים is certainly not. The proper word would have been either מהאסופים, "of them that were gathered," or מהזקנים, "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 מהכתובים, and not בכתובים. 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 מן 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 כתובים 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 "כתובים."
Onkelos, however, in his Chaldee Paraphrase—DR. TODD evidently overlooked that, for he grouped the Chaldee Paraphrase amongst the mistranslators—renders the words בכתובים והמה literally and grammatically by the Chaldee words בכתיביא ואנון, "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.
MOSES MARGOLIOUTH.