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 םיבותכב המהו 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 םיבותכב is certainly not. The proper word would have been either םיפוסאהמ, "of them that were gathered," or םינקזהמ, "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 םיבותכהמ, and not םיבותכב. 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 ןמ 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 םיבותכ occurs, it implies written records, but not written names of persons.