The Deuteronomist, in order to have carried out properly the part of Moses, should have written, 'Wherefore Levi shall have no part with his brethren '; for the Israelites are still supposed `to be only on the point of crossing the Jordan, and no partition of the Holy Land had yet been made among them. It is plain that he writes from a later state of things than that of Moses, when the separate position of the Levites, as ministers of the Sanctuary, was recognised in Israel.

633. RIEHM, p.37, tries to distinguish here between the Priests and Levites. He supposes the former to be spoken of in v.1-5, and the latter in v.6-8. But he adds:

The service of the Levites is here denoted by the very same words which are used elsewhere to denote that of the Priests, viz. 'minister in the name of Jehovah,' v.7, (comp.xviii.5,xxi.5,) and 'stand before Jehovah,' v.7, (comp.xviii.5, xvii.12, and the contrary expression, 'stand before the congregation,' used of the Levites in N.xvi.9). So, then, it is here set forth that the ministering Levites received their support out of the Temple income, and through this law the right is maintained for every Levite that used to take part in that ministry. We cannot here think either of the 'tithes' or the 'offerings' and 'firstlings,' which belonged to the Priests alone, and must, consequently, assume that here reference is made to other supplies accruing to the Temple through vows, free-will gifts, and otherwise, and preserved in the treasuries and storehouses, and that from these, in the time of the Deuteronomist, the ministering Levites received their support. How much, however, this is at variance with the directions of the other books is obvious.

634. D.xi.6.

Here the destruction of 'Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben,' is mentioned; but nothing is said about the death of 'Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,' who, according to N.xvi, perished fearfully at the same time, and who was, indeed, as appears from that narrative, the leader in the rebellion in question; nor is any notice taken of the destruction of the 'two hundred and fifty men, (Levites, apparently,) who offered incense.' v.5–11,35.

This, too, agrees with the practice of the Deuteronomist, in making no distinction between Priests and Levites. The sin of Korah and his company is stated to have been this, that, though

only Levites, they sought the Priesthood also,' N.xvi.10. This, it would seem, was considered to be not such a very grievous offence in the days of the Deuteronomist.

635. D.xi.14,15.

'I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.'

Here the writer passes unconsciously, from speaking in the assumed character of Moses, to speaking directly in the person of Jehovah. This single instance- (see also the similar instance in xxix.5,6,)—is sufficient to satisfy us as to the real nature of this book and its unhistorical character.

SCHULTZ observes here, Deut. p.379:

'Moses knows himself to be so entirely at one here, in all that he says, with the Lord, that he involuntarily passes over to introduce the Lord Himself as speaking, without having expressly indicated Him. The discourse gains hence, exactly here in the promise, where it was very appropriate, a special emphasis.'

Ans. There are many such promises scattered throughout the book, and some much stronger than these now before us, as in xxviii.1-14. How is it that in none of those the writer involuntarily passes over' in this way?

The LXX has avoided the difficulty, which probably was perceived by the translators, and reads, And He will give you rain, &c.'

*636. D.xi.29,30.

I have already (242) drawn attention to the anachronism involved in the mention of the name 'Gilgal' in this passage, supposed to have been uttered by Moses in his address, before the name was given to the place by Joshua, as related in Jo.v.9.

One of my Reviewers, however, (Guardian, Feb. 11, 1863,) has remarked upon the above criticism as follows:

'Here is a blunder so gross that the man, who could perpetrate it, ought to be for ever discredited as a caviller against Scripture. For nothing can be clearer than that there are two Gilgals, at least, mentioned in Scripture, one near Jericho, where Joshua crossed the Jordan, and the other mentioned in the above-cited passage of Deuteronomy, and also in Jo.xii.23. This last is identified and dis

tinguished from the former Gilgal as 'beside the plains of Moreh.' The two places are scores of miles apart, and will be found set down quite distinctly in a good map of ancient Palestine. The site of the Gilgal 'beside the plains of Moreh,” over against Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, or in the neighbourhood of the 'coast of Dor,' Jo.xii.23, ‘is still marked by the large modern village of Jilgilia to the left of the Nablûs road, about two hours north of Bethel.' (SMITH'S Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, Art. Gilgal.) Now we could easily pardon Bishop COLENSO's ignorance of the fact that there were assuredly two Gilgals, though certainly, before a man comes forward to except against ancient documents of established credit, he might be expected to inform himself on such matters: we could regard with indulgence his slip as to the locality of the plains of Moreh, though Moreh be not an unfamiliar name, (vide e.g. G.xii.6, Ju.vii.1): but what shall we say as to the stupendous blunder, involved in the above extract, of supposing Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim to be on the banks of the Jordan? Between these two mountains was the famous Shechem, for a time the capital of Ephraim; on the latter of them was in later times the Temple, the chief seat of the Samaritan worship. Yet all, and with them the scene from our Lord's conversation with the woman of Samaria, are by implication transferred by this D.D. to the place where Joshua crossed the Jordan! We don't doubt that the Natal Sunday Schools have more than one sharp Zulu scholar, 'a simple-minded, but intelligent, native-one with the docility of a child, but the reasoning powers of mature age,' who will be enabled to enlighten his Bishop about the geography of the Holy Land. We heartily wish that the exposure of this gross mistake may tend to make the Bishop more careful and more modest for the future.'

Ans. The Reviewer has evidently not observed that in (326) I have distinctly connected the plains (rather, oaks) of Moreh' with mount Gerizim, and have also spoken of that mountain as 'in a central situation, visible to all the country round.' It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that I have committed the stupendous blunder, of supposing Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim to be on the banks of the Jordan.'

Some, it is true, as KNOBEL (on D.xi.30), suppose that the Gilgal here spoken of is different from the Gilgal near Jericho. Even if this were true, the argument in (242) would still remain. If there had been such a place known to their fathers, when they left Canaan to go down to Egypt two hundred and fifty years before, (though no such place is named in the histories of Genesis,) yet how could Moses reckon upon it as still existing, and still called by this name, or how could he speak to the people as knowing these facts? Or, if we suppose Moses to have known of this place by special Divine Inspiration, yet how could it be here mentioned, as a place with which the people were quite familiar, and by reference to which they might determine the site of mounts Ebal and Gerizim?

But what valid reason is there for supposing that the Gilgal in D.xi.30 is different from that near Jericho, where Joshua pitched his camp? The only ground for this supposition, (except, of course, the anachronism which we are now considering,) seems to be that it is imagined that the description here given of the two

mountains would place them near Gilgal, and, therefore, near the banks of the Jordan, whereas their position was nearly central between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. But the expression in D.xi.30 does not imply at all that Gerizim and Ebal were near Gilgal. 'Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down (=towards the west), in the land of the Canaanites which dwell in the Arabah over against Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?' The phrase 'over against Gilgal, aan, mul hag Gilgal,' seems to be used to mark the position of those tribes of the Canaanites, which are here referred to, as not being in the north or south, but about the middle of the Holy Land. In fact, the very mention of the land of the Canaanites which dwell, &c.,' implies, not a place, but a tract of country, which might reach away from the Jordan to some distance, though capable of being described generally as 'over against,'=' about the latitude of,' Gilgal. The more exact position of the mountains is defined by the words 'beside (near) the oaks (terebinths) of Moreh.'

Again, it is plain that some famous Gilgal must here be referred to,--not a place of lesser note, if any such there was, which might happen to bear the name of Gilgal. If there were two, or even three or four, Gilgals, as KNOBEL supposes, existing before the time of Moses and Joshua, the Gilgal here mentioned must surely have been the most distinguished of them all, or else it would not have been merely named, without any further definition, as a guide to the Israelites towards determining the site of the two mountains; and, indeed, unless the place were very notable, it would have been much more natural to have referred to these remarkable mountains as determining the situation of the place, instead of referring to the place in order to identify the mountains. Now the Gilgal near Jericho is, as KNOBEL himself says, (on Jo. xv.7,) 'very often mentioned, e.g. as the place where Joshua erected twelve stones, Jo.iv.19,20, which, in a later day, seem to have been replaced by hewn stones, Ju,iii.19,-where also he circumcised the Israelites, Jo.v.9,10, and had his camp for a long time, Jo.ix.6, x.6,7,9,15,43, xiv.6, Mic.vi.5,-where Samuel held public assemblies, and consecrated Saul, 1S.vii.16, x.8, xi,14,15, — where Saul undertook to offer sacrifice, 1S.xiii.4,7,8,12,15, xv.12,21,33,-whither David came on his return home, 2S.xix. 15,40. As the first place where Israel encamped in Canaan it was a holy town.' KNOBEL considers also that the same place is referred to in Jo.xv.7. And he has here quoted every passage in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel, where the name Gilgal is mentioned, and referred them all to the Gilgal by Jericho,-except one, Jo.xii.23, 'The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one; the king of the nations of Gilgal, one;' and here he supposes another Gilgal to be meant, the same as in D.xi.30. His words are these (on D.xi.30): 'The Gilgal named for the definition of the site of Gerizim and Ebal must have been remarkable, and is, therefore, probably, the seat of royalty mentioned in Jo.xii.23. EUSEBIUS and JEROME speak of a Galgulis six miles, or about two hours, north of Antipatris [on the sea-coast], the modern Kefr-Saba, west of Nabloûs. That would be the modern Kilkilia, a small tract north-east of Kefr-Saba, which, according to others, is called Gilgoul. There is also a Jiljuleh south-east of Kefr-Saba, on the road from Egypt to Damascus,

which formerly must have been remarkable.

One of these two is meant here

[i.e. in D.xi.30],—perhaps, also the district, since it was named after the place. Different from this is the Gilgal by Jericho, as well as the modern Jiljilia, south of Nabloûs, a large village which lies very high, and commands an extensive prospect. Probably this Jiljilia is the same as the Gilgal, from which Elijah and Elisha went down to Bethel, 2K.ii.1, and where Elisha was afterwards found, 2K.iv.38, the same also as the famous place of idolatrous worship, Hos.iv.15, ix.15, xii.11, Am.iv.4, v.5.'

We have now had brought before us every single instance in the Bible, where the word Gilgal is named. All the passages just quoted, however, are referred by Canon STANLEY to the Gilgal by Jericho, Jewish Church, p.230: Gilgal long retained reminiscences of its ancient sanctity. The twelve stones taken up from the bed of the Jordan continued at least till the time of the composition of the Book of Joshua, and seem to have been invested with a reverence, which came to be regarded at last as idolatrous, Ju.iii. 19,26, Hos.iv.15,ix.15,xii.11,Am.iv.4,v.5.' Equally plain it seems to be that the Gilgal named in 2K.ii.1, iv.38, is the same 'Gilgal by Jericho.' It was a place where 'sons of the prophets' lived, 2K.iv.38-41, as they would be likely to do at a place so hallowed; and it was near the Jordan, 2K.vi.4, which seems at once to decide the question. It is not said that Elijah and Elisha 'went down' from Gilgal to Bethel; but 'Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal,' 2K.ii.1; and on the way, apparently, the conversation in v.2 is supposed to have taken place; and so they went down to Bethel.' They may be supposed, therefore, to have reached some place, where Bethel was either below or to the south of them; in which case they would be said to 'go down' to it.

On Jo.xii.23, KEIL writes as follows:-' King of the Goyim at Gilgal. The word Dia, Goyim, 'nations,' generally means Gentiles; but this rendering does not seem appropriate here, since all the Canaanites were, of course, Gentiles. And from the fact that in G.xiv.1 a king of the Goyim (E.V. 'nations') is mentioned in connection with Shinar, Ellasar, and Elam, it seems most natural to suppose that there were certain tribes, called by the Proper Name of 'Goyim,' and that the inhabitants of Gilgal belonged to these tribes. The Gilgal mentioned here is not the city spoken of in Jo.ix.6, x.6, &c., and D.xi.30, which still exists in the village of Jiljilia; but is the town by the name of Galgulis about six miles north of Antipatris, which is still to be seen as a village in Jiljule.'

It will be seen that KNOBEL and KEIL, while both holding that the Gilgal of D.xi.30 is not the Gilgal-by-Jericho, yet are directly at variance with each other in determining what Gilgal it is. KNOBEL says it is the royal city in Jo.xii.23, and not Jiljilia; KEIL says it is Jiljilia, and not the place in Jo.xii.23. From what has been said, it can scarcely be doubted that it really neither one nor the other, but is meant to be the famous Gilgal-by-Jericho, to which so much celebrity was attached in all times of the Hebrew history.

As regards the 'king of the tribes at Gilgal,' it is possible that the place near Antipatris may be meant, as both KNOBEL and KEIL suppose, since the places named in the immediate context before and after, v.20-24, Shimron, Achsaph, Taanach, Megiddo, Kedesh, Jokneam, Dor, Gilgal, Tirzah, were all in this neigh