but none entire; and the only conspicuous objects among the ruins are the remains of a temple or palace (of which one wall and several niches are still standing), the gate of another building, two Corinthian columns, and an insulated altar in the plain. Burckhardt says that the walls of the larger buildings are built like those of Beit-Kerm; that is, if we understand his reference, of large stones five feet long by two broad. As there are no springs in this spot, the town had two birkets or reservoirs, the largest of which is cut entirely out of the rocky ground, together with several cisterns. In Isaiah (ch. xvi. 7, 11) the place is called Kir-hareseth and Kir-haresh, meaning the city with walls of burnt brick, which is a curious circumstance, as indicating a distinction and seeming to imply that the walls of towns were generally, as at present, of sun-dried bricks. Captains Irby and Mangles could find no traces of walls, and seem altogether disappointed as to the importance of the capital of Moab. But they estimated its ancient extent by the visible ruins, without recollecting that cities which have so long lain in ruins often have so much of their extent buried under the soil that their limits cannot be determined without digging. Jerome says that the city was overthrown by an earthquake when he was a young man.

13. "Brook Zered."-In the note to Num. xxi. 12, we referred to a note in this place, not having been at that time able to convince ourselves that the brook Beni-Hamed, described in the note to verse 15 of that chapter, could be identified with the brook Zered, as it commonly is. We inclined to the opinion that the brook in question might, with more probability, be found in the river Ahsa, the largest of several streams that flow into the back-water at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. It is not only the largest river south of the Arnon, but is the first which the Israelites would meet with in coming from the south; whereas, the Beni-Hamed is so very inconsiderable, that, as they must have crossed it near its source, it would be as surprising to see it mentioned at all as to see the river Ahsa not mentioned. We therefore are still inclined to think that the latter, rather than the former, is the Zered, which seems mentioned as a sort of boundary river. But we are content to register this conjecture without discussion.

19. "The children of Ammon."-These also were descended from Lot, and their history has been partly mentioned in the note concerning the Moabites. Indeed their history is so closely connected with that of their brethren, that having just noticed the latter, it is scarcely requisite to do more than mention the points in which the former differed. They dispossessed the ancient people, the Zuzims, or Zamzummims, and occupied their country. It appears in the end that they were in turn dispossessed, like the Moabites, of the district between the Arnon and the Jabbok by the Amorites, from whom it was taken and retained by the Hebrews. From the circumstantial manner in which Moses relates this history, here and in Num. xxi. 21-26, concerning the Moabites' portion, which was the most considerable in that district, it would appear that they had, in the time of Moses himself, urged some claim to the lost lands, so as to render it necessary for the sacred historian to inform posterity in a particular manner by what right the Hebrews held the lands in question. We do not indeed find the Moabites urging such a claim, unless by this implication; but three hundred years later (Judg. xi. 13-26), we find the Ammonites laying claim to all the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok, which shows that part of that country had belonged to them, although in the original narrative the Moabites only are mentioned. How they came to claim the whole of this domain, thus interfering with the superior pretensions of the Moabites, the history does not relate. Jephthah met this demand by a recapitulation of the history of the region in question, contending that it having been taken by the Hebrews from their enemies the Amorites, who then occupied it, they were by no means bound to restore it to the previous possessors. Indeed when we recollect the unhandsome manner in which the children of Lot treated the Israelites, it does not appear on what grounds they could have expected that the latter would reconquer their lost territory, and bestow it on them. The Ammonites, however, being dissatisfied with the reply of Jephthah, a battle ensued, in which that general was completely victorious. In after-times they acted with the Moabites in nearly all their measures against Israel, and are on all occasions marked for the peculiar savageness of their disposition. They sometimes, also, acted on their own account. Saul's first military exploit consisted in defeating the Ammonites before Jabesh-Gilead, which was besieged by them, and to which they offered no other terms of capitulation than that each of the inhabitants should have his right eye put out. They were also severely punished and brought under subjection by David, whom they had greatly provoked by their scandalous treatment of his ambassadors. Being more distant than the Moabites, they probably shook off the yoke on the separation of Israel into two kingdoms. We have seen in the preceding note that they joined the Moabites in the invasion of Judah, and partook in the defeat. They do not, however, seem to have been permanently subdued; but, many years after, Jotham, king of Judah, overcame them in battle, and laid upon them a tribute of a hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and as many of barley. But they are only said to have paid this the second and third years. The remainder of their history is almost identical with that of the Moabites, and may, with the alteration of name, be read in the note to verse 9. They lost no opportunity of manifesting their peculiar hatred of the Jews, and when the two and half tribes were carried away captive, took possession of the towns of Gad, apparently in their own ancient territory, for which they were reproached by Jeremiah. After their own presumed return from captivity, they, like the Jews, rebuilt and fortified their towns. Antiochus the Great took their capital Rabboth, or Philadelphia (see note to Jer. xlix. 2), demolished the walls, and put a garrison into it. But, upon the whole, they throve so well during their subjection to the great monarchies, that the books of Maccabees speak of their "mighty power and much people;" and it was only after several battles with them that Judas Maccabeus succeeded in punishing their implacable hatred and injurious treatment of the Hebrew nation. (1 Macc. v.) Justin Martyr says there were many Ammonites remaining in his time (the second century); but Origen, in the following century, states that they were only known under the general name of Arabians.

The country which the Ammonites occupied lay to the east of Reuben and Gad, beyond the hills which bounded on the east the territories of the trans-Jordanic tribes. Whether they went there after the Amorites had expelled them from between the Arnon and Jabbok, or this eastern territory had before belonged to them, we do not know. Dr. Wells is of the latter opinion, and thinks that, as it is said in Num. xxi. 24, that "the border of the children of Ammon was strong," the hills formed the barrier which prevented the Amorites from disturbing them in their eastern territory. It is more likely that the Amorites did not want the country in question, as the hills form a much less formidable obstacle than Dr. Wells imagined.

2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Hesh-border even unto the river Jabbok, which is bon.

Num. 21. 33.

Verse 3. "From the river of Arnon unto Mount Hermon."-Mount Hermon is obviously here mentioned as the northern boundary of Palestine, and still more distinctly in Joshua xi. 17. It would therefore seem to be a name not of any mountain or range of mountains distinct from Lebanon, but to be applied in a particular designation to that part of the anti-Libanus which forms the northernmost frontier of the country, and also the eastern frontier of the northernmost portion of the country. The map will render this intelligible. It is there seen that the range of anti-Libanus, in descending (so to express it) from the north to the border of Palestine, divides into two branches, one of which inclines off towards the Mediterranean, while the other descends southward for about forty miles. This last branch is now called Djebel Esheikh, and the other Djebel Safat. It seems to be the whole of the southward prolongation, and the nearer part (not the whole) of the westward, to which the name of Mount Hermon was applied. Or perhaps it will be enough to say that it described particularly that lofty part of the range where the bifurcation commences, and was continued along a portion of each branch, if it did not include the whole of the southward branch, which is far more lofty than the other. Thus understood, it need not be particularly described, as it necessarily resolves itself into Mount Lebanon, of which a general description will be given. There seems to have been, however, another Hermon, consisting of a small range of isolated hills in the plain of Esdraelon; for which, see the note on Psl. cxxxiii. 3.

11. "Only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants."-Instead of being translated "giants," the original should perhaps be retained as a proper name, "Rephaim." Og was certainly a giant, but not the last of the giants, only the last of the gigantic race called the Rephaim. This verse has been quoted by sceptics as a proof that Moses was not the author of this book, and that it was written in times considerably posterior. The objection is, that Moses would scarcely have noticed the dimensions of Og's bedstead, obviously in evidence of his extraordinary size, since the Israelites, who had seen and fought with him, would have needed no evidence, or even information, on the subject. To this it is well answered by Bishop Patrick, that Moses did not write for the information of his own generation only, but of future generations also. The statement as to its being at Rabbath Ammon is also mentioned as an objection, first, because it was not likely to have found its way there so soon after Og's death; and next, because if so, it was not likely to have been known that it was at Rabbath till that city was taken by David. To this it is answered, that Og himself, fearing the event, may have entrusted his bedstead and other valuable effects to the Ammonites, as he might have known that the children of Lot were safe from the attacks of the Hebrews; or else that Moses himself sold it with other plunder to the Ammonites, who are not mentioned at this time as unfriendly to the Israelites. The verse is, however, generally given up as an interpolation, and we rather concur in that opinion, but would retain the first clause. The whole seems to have the air of a marginal remark, which had crept into the text. Og being mentioned as the last of the race of the gigantic Rephaim, it was natural for some person, after Rabbath had been taken by David, to affix the remark, in proof of his extraordinary size, that his iron bedstead, then at Rabbath, was no less than nine cubits long, and four cubits broad. In mentioning this and other passages which, even more obviously, seem to have been interpolated, it is important that no wrong inference should be drawn, as affecting the truth and accuracy of the sacred text. On this subject we may quote the following important observation, which Horne cites from Bishop Marsh:-" So far, however, is the insertion of such notes from impeaching the antiquity and genuineness of the original narrative, that, on the contrary, it rather confirms them. For, if this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records, such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original: since the entire history would have been composed with the same ideas and views as these additions were; and such explanatory insertions would not have been made, if length of time had not rendered them

necessary.

"A bedstead."-It has been questioned whether this y (eres) was a bedstead at all, as rendered in our version. Boothroyd, after Michaelis, renders it by "coffin;" but the word nowhere occurs with such a context as to show that a coffin must be one of its senses, and it generally does occur in the sense of a couch or bed. Some of the Rabbins hold an opinion antithetical to this, namely, that this eres was the cradle in which Og was nursed when a child, his fullgrown stature not being less than 120 feet. Taylor, the editor of Calmet, however, contends that Og's eres was nothing else than the duan or divan, which is a part of the room raised above the floor, and spread with carpets or fine mats, on which the Turks and other Orientals sit or recline, their backs being supported by cushions placed against the wall. Now this duan is not proportioned to the size of an individual, but, being intended for the accommodation of several persons, often extends the whole length or breadth of a room; and we have certainly ourselves seen them of greater length than this eres of the king of Bashan. This explanation, Taylor remarks, "takes off much of the wonderment of ignorance on the dimensions of this bedstead." It does indeed; but it gives occasion to other wonder that he should have read the text without perceiving that the measurement could be given for no other purpose than to afford an idea of the vastness of Og's person. It is true that these duans do very commonly serve for sleeping on; but while there are also bedsteads in the East (which Taylor seems not to have known), it appears perfectly absurd to prefer that which will not give any idea of stature to that which will. We therefore believe that the eres of Og was neither a coffin, nor a cradle, nor a duan-but a bedstead, as our version has rendered. An Oriental bedstead is, however, not like any in use among ourselves. It consists of a platform raised on posts and beams two or three feet above the ground. The platform for supporting the bedding is not of sacking, but of wood, or whatever else may be the general material of this heavy contrivance; and it is boarded up at the sides, head, and foot, to retain the bedding, as in a trough. Such bedsteads are generally of wood; but where the palm-tree is common, its strong leaf-stems are applied to this among many other purposes. These Oriental bedsteads are not longer, in proportion to the human figure, than our own; indeed we doubt if they are so long.

1

-" of iron.”—Og's bedstead was probably of iron, for the purpose of better supporting the extraordinary weight of

his person. We, who have iron bedsteads ourselves, and find them in many respects preferable to those of wood, do not so much wonder at an iron bedstead, as did the early commentators. The desire to prevent the breeding of bugs and other vermin would, in the warm climates of the East, naturally induce a preference of metal for bedsteads; even in ordinary circumstances, we find such bedsteads mentioned in ancient writings. In Esther i. 6, we see beds or couches of gold and silver in use at the Persian court: this indeed would seem to have been a privilege of Persian royalty. Alexander found the coffin of the great Cyrus deposited on a golden bedstead; and a bedstead of the same metal we know to have been a regal distinction among the Parthians, who, in after-times, ruled Persia. Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus mention the beds of silver and gold which they saw in temples. Thucydides says, that when the Thebans took Plateæ, they caused beds to be made of the brass and iron which they found there, and made them an offering to Juno: and lastly, not to multiply examples, Livy, and also St. Augustine, speak of the beds of gold and brass which the Romans brought from Asia, after their wars in that part of the world.

"Rabbath...Ammon."-See Jer. xlix. 2.

"— nine cubits....after the cubit of a man."-The cubit of a man means the popular measure, being the length of the arm from the top of the middle finger to the elbow, or about eighteen inches. Og's bedstead was therefore thirteen feet six inches long, and six feet broad; or, if we take with some the larger measurement of the cubit, fifteen feet and a half long, by six feet ten inches broad. Therefore, taking Maimonides' reckoning, that a bed is usually a third part longer than a man, Og would be six cubits high, that is, either nine feet high, or at most ten feet and a half. The allowance of six cubits, or thereabout, is very probable; for the height of Goliah was six cubits and a span, and he also was of the race of the old giants of Palestine. We thus see that the Sacred books, in their highest statements concerning gigantic statures, speak with a moderation of which there is no example in the most ancient books of any nation, and particularly of no Oriental nation. The report which the spies brought back to Kadesh-barnea concerning the giants of Canaan, instructs us well as to the sort of account we should have had from the Jews if they had been left to themselves, as the profane historians and poets were; and the Rabbins, in their accounts of this very Og, more completely illustrate this. We have seen above that they declare the iron eres to have been his cradle when an infant; and they inform us that, in the battle in which he was defeated, he clutched up a mountain six miles in breadth, intending to throw it on the camp of the Israelites and crush them all to pieces. But his own head being caught in a cavity which the ants had made in this mountain, an opportunity was offered to Moses to slay him by a wound in his ancle. Even so high as his ancle, Moses, though himself more than twenty feet high, and armed with a battleaxe of the same length, could not reach without leaping another twenty feet high. This account is of course different from that which makes Og's stature only one hundred and twenty feet. We venture to think that we point out an important line of evidence for the truth and authority of the Sacred books, when we suggest, that thus, by comparing the simplicity of the Scripture narrative with the Talmudical stories and comments, it will be quite apparent that the ancient Jews, uninfluenced and unrestrained by Divine power, could never have left to the world such a book as the Bible. The Talmud and traditions bear the impress of the Jewish mind in all its Oriental tendencies to exaggeration and marvel; whereas the Bible gives us the impress of the mind of God, either as directly declared, or as transmitted through minds constrained to simplicity and truth.

13. "The land of giants," or, "the land of the Rephaim."—It is, however, remarkable that the Arabians still retain a tradition that Bashan was formerly inhabited by giants, but whom, of course, they make far taller than this chapter makes Og. It will be recollected that the Arabians have considerable second-hand acquaintance with the Jewish history and traditions.

14. "Called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day."-The concluding clause, "unto this day," is obviously an interpolation, made long after the Jews originally settled in Palestine. Moses had said that Jair called his district after his own name," to which some person, at a long subsequent period, finding the district still retained this name, thought proper to record the fact by adding, "unto this day." This also accounts for the same words appearing with similar impropriety elsewhere.

CHAPTER IV.

1 An exhortation to obedience. 41 Moses appointeth the three cities of refuge on that side Jordan. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of 'Baal-peor: for all the men that followed Baal-peor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.

4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.

1

my

5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and manded me, that ye should do so in the judgments, even as the LORD God comland whither ye go to possess it.

6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest

6 Or, imparted.