water which streamed from it has hollowed out a canal, about two inches deep and twenty wide, which is entirely covered with a kind of crust. Besides some spots overgrown with moss, which is still preserved by the dew, a number of holes are visible, some of which are four or five inches deep, and one or two in diameter, and Shaw considers them as clear and convincing traces that they were, formerly, as many fountains, and the effects of a great and extraordinary miracle. Similar accounts are given by Pococke (Description of the Orient, i. p. 215), who remarks, among other circumstances, that the rock has, on each side, twelve apertures, some of which have the appearance of lions' mouths. Instead of every other opinion or judgment, we subjoin the following intelligent observation of Mosheim (Preface to the German translation of Pococke's Orient, p. xvi): "We know the monks of Mount Sinai long since as men of no such sensitive conscience as to shrink from inventing wonders, and deceiving the travellers by fictitious monuments of the old and true miracles. It is not at all impossible, that those good people, in order to allure a greater number of pilgrims, and to enrich their convent, have hewn all those holes into the rock. And who knows whether the European divines have not, in the time of the crusades, improved that master-piece? We could collect a pretty numerous list of such pious impositions devised and executed during the period of the crusades. However, I will not decide in this matter. The green moss round the holes, and on that part of the rock over which the water has passed, seems to support the opinion of those who con

sider these apertures as eternal witnesses of the divine miracle; but the lion-like shape of some of these holes, which Pococke has observed, the order in which they stand, the number of the openings, which is the same on both sides, and which coincides with the number of the tribes of Israel, the exactly identical size of the holes, these, and several other circumstances, render the matter suspected in my eyes, almost against my will." Similar opinions of Büshing, Breuning, Belon, and others, see in Rosenmüller's Orient, ii. pp. 48-50. We have only introduced these remarks to prove how fluctuating and precarious the traditions are, which the mere desire of multiplying the wonders has invented, and which find no basis or justification in the holy text. -The knowledge of that miracle has reached other nations also, although in a disfigured form; thus relates Tacitus (Hist. v. 3): "But nothing distressed them so much as the want of water. And they were already all lying, throughout the whole camp, almost ready to expire, when a herd of wild asses, returning from pasture, approached a rock, shaded with a grove. Moses followed them, conjecturing that he would find a fertile soil, and opened large springs of water." For other passages, in which we can, however, find no clear allusion to the event of our text, see Huetius, Quæst. Lib. ii. cap. 12, § 13; compare, however, Pausan. IV.xxxvi. 5.-Nachmanides connects the beginning of our verse with the end of the preceding one, in the following manner: "Go, and proceed so long till thou perceivest me stand before thee on a rock." As regards the sense, a similar connection certainly exists between both

verses. On the geographical position of Horeb and Sinai, and the abundance of fountains and pastures there, see pp. 62— 64. The words: "Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb," are thus explained by Ebn Ezra: "My strength and my power are in Horeb;" in which again a tendency to a figurative or rational interpretation is visible. From the article in 187, Abarbanel concludes, that here a rock is designated which was already known to Moses, and upon which God had already appeared to him; compare xxxiii. 22. However, the article is, in 7, similarly used as in 37, in ii. 15, which

see.

7. The name of the place where Our occurrence took place was called MDD (trial), because the Israelites had there tried God (see on ver. 2), and

(quarrel), because they murmured against Moses, that he had led them from Egypt.

8. Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim. With this event begins a new epoch in the historical existence of the people of Israel. Till then God had, as it were, Himself combatted for Israel, whilst they observed a quiet passive attitude (see xiv. 14). But now, in their struggle with Amalek, the Hebrews were, for the first time, to oppose the enemy with their own power and valour, and, though lovingly supported by divine assistance, to conquer by human means. The circumstance, that the Amalekites were the first who assumed a hostile position against the Israelites in their wanderings, caused a deadly inde. lible hatred between both nations, which

was, on the part of the latter, the more intense and burning, as they had even not yet touched the proper territory of the Amalekites, who (as the Midrash correctly deduces from N', in our verse) marched to Rephidim to attack the Israelites, without cause or necessity, just as, at all times, wild and warlike tribes of the desert fall upon and plunder the peaceful caravans. It appears further, from Deut. xxv. 17,18, that they insidiously attacked the rear of the Hebrew army, when it was exhausted and weary. The Amalekites are, according to Gen. xxxvi. 12, 16, of Idumæan origin, descending from Amalek, grandson of Esau. If we combine the different statements of the Old Testament concerning them, we find, that their abodes were in the south of Palestine, in Arabia Petræa, in the neighbourhood of the Philistines, of the Mount Seir, and the town Shur (Pelusium); therefore the principal part of the Amalekites seems to have lived between Philistia, Egypt, Edom, and the desert of Mount Sinai, although a part of them inhabited the mountains of Ephraim (Judges v. 14). According to Arabian writers, as Abulfeda, the Amalekites were a very ancient indigenous people of Arabia, which is said to have lived there prior to the Ishmaelites, and even to the Joktanites. They assert also, that the Canaanites emigrated from Arabia to Palestine, and call them Amalekites. These accounts have a doubtful historical value, and they do not justify us in considering the Canaanites and the Amalekites as two nations of the same tribe or stock. Compare Vater, Pent. i. 140; Reland, Palest. p. 78, seq.; Mannert, vi. 1.

he looketh upon it, shall live.' Can a serpent cause or prevent healing? But if the Israelites regarded the heaven and were obedient to the precepts of their God, they were healed; if not, they perished."-This interpretation, although it approaches the spirit of our narrative, is yet too general to apply to this event. For during the combat, piety or impiety were out of the question; and further, the text does not state that the Israelites looked sometimes up to the hand of Moses and sometimes not; but that Moses now raised and now lowered it. Further, the staff of Moses would be of no meaning in that interpretation. The same must be objected to the explanation of Targum Jonathan and Jerusalem, that when Moses raised his hands to pray for the Israelites, they were victorious. Many interpreters have, therefore, proposed the explanation, that Moses raised his staff like a banner (DJ), and when the Israelites saw this banner, they were courageous and victorious; if they did not see it, they were desponding and fled; and therefore the place was called "D", "The Lord is my banner" (ver. 15). Thus, "to raise the hand" would be identical with "to show and display the standard." Joshua and Caleb, they continue, accompanied Moses, to bring his military commands to the army. Now, when Moses let the staff sink, the Israelites thought that he wished them to desist from the combat, and they became thus more languid in their exertions.

This explanation recommends itself from more than one side; and if a plain and natural interpretation is admissible in a passage, which seems to be designedly mysterious, it is no doubt the most acceptable. But questionable is the opinion of those who suppose that this whole account has been composed after a picture, in which Moses was represented as general with his hand raised to heaven.

12. And Moses' hands were heavy (D); they became naturally tired after having been held up for any length of time. Aaron and Hur support his hands, one at each side; and they assist alternately that hand of Moses, with which he happened to raise the staff.And his hands were steady, that is, he could lift them up without feeling fatigue. Rashi explains: "his hands were stretched out in confidence and belief, and with a devout and earnest prayer;" Rashbam: "his hands were firm for all times;" both against the context, which Ebn Ezra has indubitably explained correctly: "his hands stood firm." The dual is construed with the singular of the verb ', which is frequently the case, especially if the verb precedes; see on iv. 29. Ebn Ezra explains the singular

ידיו

either of his ידיו by interpreting ויהי

hands." That Hebrew idiom may, indeed, originally have been the result of a similar consideration. The substantive

, firmness, here the predicate, is used quite in the signification of an ad

Amalek and את עמלק ואת עמו .vanquish

his people, is, as Rosenmüller observes, a Hendiadys, instead of "the people of the Amalekites;" for the king cannot be understood by Amalek, since the monarchs of the Amalekites are called with a common name Agag, like those of the Egyptians, Pharaoh, etc. Compare Num. xxiv. 7; 1 Sam. xv. 8, 20, 32.

14. God commands Moses to record the victory gained over Amalek, which was the first and therefore pre-eminently most interesting event in the military history of Israel, for an eternal memorial in the book (2), by no means in a book, as the English version renders. The definite article, which is implied in 20 (instead of one), shows clearly that here a book known to Moses is alluded to. This was already observed by Ebn Ezra, who further remarks: "And this is the book of the Law, or any other book, which they had, perhaps the Book

;(ספר מלחמות יי') of the Wars of the Lord

municated the laws to the Israelites, wrote all the words of the Lord in the Book of the Covenant, which he read to the whole people (see note on that passage). A similar command is given to Moses by God in Exod. xxxiv. 27. According to Num. xxxiii. 1, 2, Moses wrote down all the journeys of the Israelites on the injunction of the Lord. Compare also Num. xxxvi. 13; Deut. xxviii. 61. It is, therefore, probable, that Moses committed to writing all the occurrences and laws, as they happened and were revealed to him, and that he thus gradually finished the four first books of the Pentateuch. Later, the Deuteronomy, or the repetition of the Law, was added, in which, indeed, the precept concerning the extirpation of Amalek is repeated with great emphasis (xxv. 17-19); as the execution of this decree was several centuries later, commanded to Saul in 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3 (see on ver. 8). It is, therefore, very doubtful to suppose with Ebn Ezra, that this section was written down in the fortieth year of the wanderings of Israel, which conjecture would lead us to very confused ideas concerning the composition of the Pentateuch. But it is still less admissible to assume with Vater and others who deny the universal acquaintance with the art of writing in the time of Moses, that writing (n) always denotes in the Pentateuch engraving in stone. We do not see what those critics gain by such conjecture, as engraving in stone presupposes quite as much the use of the art of writing (see note on v. 6). 11, the accusative of the purpose, instead of 11 for a memorial.—The combat with Amalek was especially to be enjoined to Joshua, because "God knew that he would have to fight with the kings of Canaan" (Ebn Ezra), or as he was

66