A Commentary on Numbers: Narrative, Ritual, and Colonialism (Routledge Studies in the Biblical World) 9781138706576, 9781315201740, 1138706574

Citation preview

A COMMENTARY ON NUMBERS

“Pekka Pitkänen provides an exciting new commentary to the book of Numbers that approaches the material with finely tuned interdisciplinary skill and close critical exegesis. The commentary is thoroughly researched and the arguments are careful and clear. This book is a very helpful tool for anybody wishing to engage with the material in the book of Numbers.” – Katherine Southwood, University of Oxford, UK

This book provides a new reading of the biblical book of Numbers in a commentary form. Mainstream readings have tended to see the book as a haphazard junkyard of material that connects Genesis–Leviticus with Deuteronomy (and Joshua), composed at a late stage in the history of ancient Israel. By contrast, this book reads Numbers as part of a wider work of Genesis–Joshua, a carefully crafted programmatic settler colonial document for a new society in Canaanite highlands in the late second millennium BCE that seeks to replace pre-existing indigenous societies. In the context of the tremendous influence that the biblical documents have had on the world in the last 2,000–3,000 years, the book also offers pointers towards reading these texts today. This volume is a fascinating study of this text, and will be of interest not only to biblical scholars, but to anyone with an interest in the history of the ancient Levant, and colonisation and colonialism in the ancient world more broadly. Pekka Pitkänen is Senior Lecturer in the School of Liberal and Performing Arts at the University of Gloucestershire, UK. He is the author of Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel (2003) and Joshua (2010). His current interest remains in the study of Genesis–Joshua, together with the study of migration and colonialism in the ancient Near East, ritual studies and other sociological and anthropological approaches to the study of the ancient world.

ROUTLEDGE STUDIES IN THE BIBLICAL WORLD

Also available: MASCULINITIES IN THE COURT TALES OF DANIEL Brian Charles DiPalma

A COMMENTARY ON NUMBERS Narrative, Ritual and Colonialism

Pekka Pitkänen

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Pekka Pitkänen The right of Pekka Pitkänen to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pitkanen, Pekka, author. Title: A commentary on Numbers : narrative, ritual, and colonialism / Pekka Pitkanen. Other titles: Numbers Description: First edition. | New York : Routledge, 2017. | Series: Routledge studies in the biblical world | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016055883 | ISBN 9781138706576 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315201740 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Numbers—Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS1265.53 .P58 2017 | DDC 222/.1407—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016055883 ISBN: 978-1-138-70657-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-20174-0 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

T O G O R D O N W E N H A M , A LWAY S W I T H T H A N K S A N D A P P R E C I AT I O N

CONTENTS

List of figures List of tables Preface Abbreviations and glossary 1

x xi xii xiii

Introduction

1

Place in the canon and the interpretative context of Numbers 1 History of scholarship 3 Main problems with the current state of Pentateuchal and Numbers research 8 Social processes and scholarship 11 Towards a new interpretation 14 The literary structures of Numbers as part of Genesis–Joshua 16 Legal backgrounds and implementation 33 Textual issues 35 Date, provenance and historicity 36 Message of the book and reading Numbers today 40 2

Commentary

53

Departure from Sinai (1:1–10:36) 53 Preparations for departure (1:1–10:10) 53 Census of the first (Exodus) generation (1:1–54) 53 Arrangement of the camp (2:1–34) 58 Priests and Levites (3:1–4:49) 61 Exclusions from the camp (5:1–4) 72

vii

CONTENTS

Interlude I: miscellaneous laws/instruction (5:5–6:27) 74 Cultic actions and regulations (7:1–9:14) 83 Accoutrements during the march through the wilderness (9:15–10:10) 97 Departure (10:11–36) 101 Departure (10:11–28) 101 Moses’s brother-in-law (10:29–32) 103 The ark (10:33–36) 104 Between Sinai and Moab (11:1–22:1) 106 Rebellion and punishment (11–14) 106 People’s rebellion, help for Moses, quail and plague (11) 107 Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion and Miriam’s leprosy (12) 111 Spies sent, with rebellion and punishment of the first generation at Kadesh (13–14) 114 Interlude III: miscellaneous laws (15) 122 Further rebellion: Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron, their punishment and the confirmation of Aaron’s primacy (16–17) 126 Interlude IV: priestly matters, purification (18–19) 133 Generational shift and departure towards the promised land by the second generation (20–21) 140 Kadesh, death of Miriam (20:1) 141 Water from the rock, the punishment of Moses and Aaron (20:2–13) 142 From Kadesh on, past Edom (20:14–21) 145 Kadesh to Hor, death of Aaron (20:22–29) 147 King of Arad (21:1–3) 149 The bronze serpent (21:4–9) 150 Northwards past Wadi Arnon, arrival at Moab (21:10–20) 152 Defeat of Sihon and Og (21:21–35) 153 At Moab (22:1–36:13) 155 Balaam (22–24) 156 Rebellion (via idolatry) at Baal Peor (25) 164 Census of the second (conquest) generation (26) 167 Land divisions I: daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs I (27:1–11) 171 Joshua to succeed Moses (27:12–23) 173 Interlude V: regular offerings and vows (28–30) 175

viii

CONTENTS

Offerings on various calendar-based occasions (28–29) 176 Vows (30) 182 Vengeance on Midian (31) 184 Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead (32) 189 Summary of journey from Sinai to Moab (33:1–49) 196 Yahweh’s command to destroy the indigenous peoples of Canaan (33:50–56) 199 Land divisions II (34–36) 201 Boundaries of the land (34) 201 Levitical towns and towns of refuge (35) 204 Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs II (36) 209 Bibliography Select commentaries on Numbers 219 Selection of other works 219

219

Author and subject index

231

Index of archaeological and related sites

236

Index of references to the Bible and other ancient sources

237

ix

FIGURES

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2

The literary-thematic chiastic structure of Genesis–Joshua Composition of Genesis–Joshua (basic document) in its main outlines A structure of Numbers The arrangement of the Israelite camp The arrangement of the Levites within the Israelite camp

x

17 23 23 59 65

TABLES

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1

Plot progression in Numbers Sources and main parallels to the Hexateuch in Numbers Exodus and wilderness chronology Numbers of animals offered in a year on calendar-based occasions

xi

19 28 39 180

PREFACE

As I indicate in the introduction to this book, I think that Numbers can be a difficult piece of literature to interpret, and many others who have worked on it seem to have concurred with such a statement. But due to the complexities that are involved, the book also makes for an exciting puzzle. In that sense, and otherwise, too, it has been a pleasure to have been able to engage with the issues and offer my personal take on them as an individual reader and academic. I would like to thank David Firth for his comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and those made by the partially anonymous reviewers for Routledge. This book has incorporated material from my previous work as particularly listed in the bibliography and individual passages in question. In connection with that, I am grateful to those who have reviewed and commented on that earlier work and thus helped me develop my thinking along the path towards the book at hand here. From a rather practical perspective, I am also grateful to Carl Sweatman for compiling the indexes. Importantly, I would, as always, like to thank my family, and no words can express my gratitude towards my wife, Sowon, who has always sacrificially supported my academic work and also goaded me towards pressing harder with my research and writing, including on a day-by-day basis. This book would not have been possible without her. A section in the introduction and comments on Numbers 27, 35, 36 include material adapted from Pitkänen (2010b), used by permission of Inter-Varsity Press. Comments on Numbers 32 include material adapted from Pitkänen (2014c/2003), used by permission of Gorgias Press, and material from Pitkänen (2016b), used by permission of Biblische Notizen. Figure 1.1 has been reproduced from Pitkänen (2015), used by permission of Biblical Theology Bulletin. Comments on Num 13–14, “Meaning”, have similarly been adapted from Pitkänen (2015). Figure 1.2 has been reproduced from Pitkänen (2016c) and the introduction incorporates material from the same article, used by permission of Old Testament Essays. The introduction incorporates material adapted from Pitkänen (2014b, 2014d and 2016a), used by permission of Taylor and Francis.

xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

A1 = Author of Genesis–Numbers AB = The Anchor Bible ABD = The Anchor Bible Dictionary AD = Author of Deuteronomy–Joshua Akk. = Akkadian ANE = ancient Near East(ern) ANET = J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with supplement, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1969 AOTC = Apollos Old Testament Commentary BBRS = Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements BCE = Before the Common Era BDB = Brown, Driver and Biggs Hebrew and English Lexicon BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BKAT = Biblische Kommentar zum Alten Testament BTB = Biblical Theology Bulletin BZAR = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD = Chicago Assyrian Dictionary CC = Covenant Code (Ex 20:22–23:33) CDA = Black, George, Postgate, eds, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian CH = Codex Hammurabi CoS = W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, eds, The Context of Scripture. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997–2002 CUP = Cambridge University Press D = Deuteronomy DLU = G. Del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartín, Diccionario de la Lengua Ugarítica, 2 vols. Sabadell: AUSA, 1996–2000 E = the classic Elohist source ET = English translation FAT = Forschungen zum Alten Testament xiii

A B B R E V I AT I O N S A N D G L O S S A R Y

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ger. = German H = Holiness Code ICC = International Critical Commentary IVP = Inter-Varsity Press J = The classic Yahwist source JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature JPS = The Jewish Publication Society JSOT = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSS = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series KB = L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Leiden LXX = The Septuagint MT = Masoretic Text NEAEHL = E. Stern, ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta (and Simon Schuster: New York etc.), 1993 NBC = New Bible Commentary NICOT = New International Commentary to the Old Testament OTE = Old Testament Essays OTL = Old Testament Library OUP = Oxford University Press P = priestly materials (in Genesis–Joshua) q.v. = quod vide = “which see” Ritual Decalogue = Ex 34:11–26 TOTC = Tyndale Old Testament Commentary VT = Vetus Testamentum WBC = Word Biblical Commentary ZAR = Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte

xiv

1 INTRODUCTION

Place in the canon and the interpretative context of Numbers Numbers is the fourth book in the Old Testament canon, following Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus. It is also the fourth book of the Jewish canon and part of the torah, the most holy set of books in the Jewish religion, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and with the word torah meaning teaching, instruction in the original Hebrew. Jews generally prefer the label “Hebrew Bible” to “the Old Testament”. Here the latter will be used, but those favouring the former can substitute with it. In Christian settings, the torah is called the Pentateuch. The word Pentateuch derives from the Greek pente, five, and teuchos, book – thus, “five books”. This reflects the translation of the torah into Greek in the last centuries before the birth of Jesus and its use by Hellenistic Jewish communities in the Mediterranean area. This translation, the Septuagint (deriving from seventy in reference to the number of the translators of the Hebrew Old Testament according to legend), was also used by the early Christian community rather than the Hebrew original, even if both versions were transmitted in the ensuing centuries and beyond. While the Hebrew version is preferred by the moderns today, the Greek translation retains its significance for Christian communities and is also used today to compare diverging readings of the differing manuscripts of the Old Testament that have survived to the present. In terms of the story, Numbers closely integrates with the story of the Pentateuch. Genesis starts with a story of creation and the expulsion of man from the paradisal garden (Gen 1–3). Humanity and civilisation then develop but a cataclysmic flood destroys them due to their wickedness (Gen 4–6). Yahweh nevertheless gives humanity a chance for a new start through Noah and his descendants (Gen 6–9). In the new world, various nations arise (Gen 10–11). Out of these, an individual, Abraham, is called by the god Yahweh to relocate to a different part of the ancient world (Gen 12). Yahweh also promises the new land to Abraham and his descendants in order to form a new nation. This happens some generations later, but not before Abraham’s descendants have sojourned in another land, Egypt (Gen 12–50). Having entered Egypt to escape famine, and after initially having 1

INTRODUCTION

found a good standing in the Egyptian society, later on they become slaves, as the attitude of the Egyptians towards them changes (Ex 1). There Moses enters the story. Called by his forefather Abraham’s god Yahweh from a burning bush while in exile from Egypt after committing a homicide in defence of a member of his social group, Moses returns to Egypt and leads his enslaved countrymen out from there (Ex 2–13). The intention is to also migrate over to the land promised to Abraham and where Abraham had lived as an individual before the move to Egypt by his (great) grandsons. The group traverses into the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan, the destination of the return journey. There in the wilderness they meet Yahweh at the mountain where Yahweh had called Moses to lead them out from Egypt (Ex 14–19; cf. Ex 3). Yahweh reveals to the escapees a new order of society and related laws they are to follow in the land of their destination, with much of the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers detailing these laws. Unfortunately, the people rebel and have to suffer various punishments and troubles in the wilderness. Eventually they have to die there, but their children are given a chance to enter the land of Canaan (Num 13–14). Even Moses slips and has to suffer death before entering the new land (Num 20). However, before his death, as the book of Deuteronomy describes, Moses adds additional instruction and legislation for the people to follow in the so-called promised land. Moses then dies and the Pentateuch ends there at the edge of the land of Canaan, just east from it. Such an ending may seem a bit of a cliffhanger for some readers; however, the book of Joshua does describe a successful entry into and more or less successful conquest of the land by Moses’s successor, Joshua. Further down the line, the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings, with parallels in the books of Chronicles to Samuel–Kings, describe in sequence the further vicissitudes of the new nation all the way through an establishment of a monarchy by Saul and David and its subsequent division into the Northern kingdom of Israel and Southern kingdom of Judah till the destruction of these kingdoms, first the northern one by the Assyrians towards the end of the eighth century BCE and then the southern one by the successors to the Assyrians, the Babylonians, in the sixth century BCE. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings also follow the Pentateuch in terms of the order of books in both Christian and Jewish canonical collections of the Bible. In the Jewish bibles Joshua–Kings are considered to be part of the canonical division of the so-caller former prophets. These together with the so-called writing or latter prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, constitute the so-called prophets section (nevi’im). In Christian bibles there is an interlude of the short book of Ruth between Judges and Samuel that depicts events around the time implied by the canonical order. All in all, in its canonical and overall literary setting, the book of Numbers is part of a continuous story from creation to the exile of the kingdom of Judah. In addition to the books mentioned earlier, the Old Testament canon includes various writings, such as Psalms and wisdom literature. These are called “writings” (ketuvim) in Jewish bibles to round off the tripartite division of what the Christians would call the Old Testament. Christians themselves broadly divide the Old 2

INTRODUCTION

Testament into the Pentateuch, historical books, prophets and psalms and wisdom writings. The slight difference with Jewish perspectives already shows that how one looks at things is in many ways a matter of classification in order to make sense of the materials, just as humans often try to conceptualise various things around them in order to understand and handle them. In this, that the books of Chronicles that provide a parallel account to Samuel–Kings follow them in the canonical order in Christian bibles but are placed at the end in the Jewish canon in the writings (ketuvim) section suggests at least a somewhat differing appropriation of the Chronicles and the Old Testament canon as a whole. For example one may read the Christian Old Testament as ending in the stern words of Malachi 4, in contrast to the hopeful message of return from exile in 2 Chronicles 36 in the Jewish/Hebrew Bible. Further considerations about this and other differences in the canonical order of books in Christian and Jewish bibles are beyond the scope here as they ultimately have only limited relevance to the interpretation of the book of Numbers; however, it is useful to keep the canonical setting of Numbers in mind as a backdrop to interpretation.

History of scholarship I consider the book of Numbers as an integral part of the Pentateuch, together with the book of Joshua (see ahead). Accordingly, the interpretation of Numbers is strongly tied with the interpretation of these books. The history of scholarship has been outlined well in the past (see e.g. Wenham 1996; Wenham 1999a; Wenham 2003:159–186; Otto 2012a:33–230; cf. also Frevel 2013), and I will therefore present only the most salient features of that scholarship, also as it impinges on the book of Numbers in particular. Before the Enlightenment and the rise of biblical criticism, the Pentateuch was traditionally considered to be the work of Moses (with perhaps some discussion about how he could have written the account of his death in Dt 34). This view came to be shattered by the rise of Old Testament and Pentateuchal criticism. The first stage of that criticism was to divide the Pentateuch into sources. This is generally attributed to the French physician Jean Astruc in the eighteenth century, who detected separate sources in Genesis based on a distinction between the names Yahweh and Elohim in the Hebrew original. Soon the Pentateuch was divided into four sources of Yahwist (J; Ger. Jahwist), Elohist (E), Deuteronomy (D) and priestly source (P). J and E are narrative sources, P consists of ostensibly priestly legal materials and narratives in a specific priestly style, and D is essentially of the book of Deuteronomy. These divisions still broadly hold in today’s scholarship, except that a so-called Holiness Code (H) that is concentrated in Lev 17–26 was identified within P in the mid-nineteenth century (see ahead for further details). With Martin Lebrecht de Wette’s 1805 dissertation (see de Wette 1830/1805; ET and commentary in Harvey and Halpern 2008), Deuteronomy came to be associated with Josiah’s reform (2 Ki 22) and accordingly dated to the seventh century BCE. The book was seen as a pious forgery by priests to support and perhaps 3

INTRODUCTION

even drive that reform. This can be considered as marking a second stage in the development of Old Testament criticism. The third stage, a crucially important development, can be associated with Julius Wellhausen’s monumental work Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Prolegomenona zur Geschichte Israel), first published in 1878 (Wellhausen 1905/1878). What was important with this work was that, in contrast to dating the priestly materials of the Pentateuch to an early time, as had been the case previously, Wellhausen considered P as being the latest source. In this, he drew from the work of his predecessor and colleague Karl Heinrich Graf but succeeded in arguing the case in such a persuasive manner that the new hypothesis soon became the accepted basis for Old Testament scholarship. The order of sources was now J (ca 900 BCE), E (ca 800 BCE), D (late seventh century BCE) and P (late sixth–fifth century BCE).1 Wellhausen also interpreted the history of ancient Israel based on these sources, with the older sources attesting spontaneous and decentralised religion that then developed into a more centralised, formalised and institutionalised one. The new paradigm, as it can be called, and also often labelled as the Wellhausenian or newer documentary hypothesis, became so dominant that anyone who wanted to be part of the Old Testament academic guild essentially had to follow it. Some dissenting voices remained, but these were essentially relegated to the margins of scholarship. Wellhausen considered the sources to essentially be the creation of the time of their composition, with no earlier tradition included. However, the work of Hermann Gunkel on the Psalms and on the book of Genesis in the turn of the twentieth century (see Gunkel 1925–1926; Gunkel 1997/1901) pioneered the socalled form criticism. This was connected with tradition-historical considerations in that various textual units, such as individual narratives, could have an oral prehistory behind them. This then indicated that sources, even if they might have been written down at a particular (often late) time, could have a longer prehistory behind them. This obviously modified the Wellhausenian model and marked a return towards a more traditional understanding of the documents for some. All seemed to be settled in a unified manner within a modified Wellhausenian paradigm after these developments; however, later in the twentieth century various scholars started to challenge the delimitation and dating of the sources. In particular, the division of sources into J and E, especially based on the criterion of divine names, was challenged (cf. Cassuto 2006/1941), and the existence of the E source became suspect. Some also dated the J source late (cf. van Seters 1992; van Seters 1994). In addition, how the Pentateuch was redacted together according to the Wellhausenian model and what can be known about oral tradition was challenged (Whybray 1987). In Germany, the existence of continuous sources was challenged (Rendtorff 1990/1977). As one consequence of this, a break between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch was postulated. Approaches of this type were followed by such scholars as Blum and Schmid (cf. Dozeman and Schmid 2006). A further development in Germany has been a redactional layers approach, according to which in essence Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy and Joshua 4

INTRODUCTION

developed separately and were linked together only at a late stage. According to such approaches, Deuteronomic and priestly layers can be followed by redactional layers in narrative style, often creating unity to the Pentateuch as a whole, even when separate individual narrative sources are still seen as earlier than the Deuteronomic and priestly layers (see e.g. Achenbach 2003; Otto 2012a:231– 257 for the book of Numbers; see also Frevel, Pola and Schart 2013). All in all, while rejecting the existence of continuous sources, these recent German-based approaches can otherwise be classified as in essence standing in the tradition of Wellhausen. Yet, at the same time, not everyone has abandoned the basic concept of the Wellhausenian documentary hypothesis and its (more or less) continuous sources. Instead, a number of scholars have sought to take it as a starting point for a renewed analysis (see e.g. Baden 2009; Baden 2012; Stackert 2014) that then has also been designated as neo-Wellhausenian. Within the overall scholarship, further issues, such as the extent and nature of the priestly materials in the Pentateuch and in Numbers, have also been discussed, with a distinct lack of consensus, except that mainstream scholarship has continued to see the torah as having formed in the Persian period and as relating to the second temple, especially in terms of the priestly materials (for a summary, see Frevel 2013). Another aspect that relates to the question of the Pentateuchal context of Numbers is the question of whether the main literary unit in question is the Pentateuch or something else. At the time of Wellhausen, the Pentateuch was seen together with the book of Joshua and the six books were called a Hexateuch. The situation was changed with the publication of Martin Noth’s The Deuteronomistic History (Noth 1991/1943). According to Noth, Deuteronomy–Kings were written as a unified work at the time of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE, even if based on older pre-existing sources. In this process, the older narrative sources (J and E for Noth) that were part of a tradition independent from the Deuteronomistic tradition were cut off after Numbers when Genesis–Numbers was connected with Deuteronomy–Kings (see Noth 1991/1943:141). More connecting links between Numbers and Deuteronomy and Joshua were added at a later stage, in a priestly style, as Noth seems to indicate (see Noth 1991/1943:143–148). Noth’s view became a consensus, even if it did always have some detractors. Recently, however, the theory has come under vigorous criticism (e.g. Westermann 1994) and a number of scholars have returned to the concept of a Hexateuch, including those favouring a redactional layers approach to the Pentateuch (see e.g. Achenbach 2003; Otto 2012a:231–257; cf. Dozeman, Römer and Schmid 2011). So we can see that, as things stand at present, there has been a fragmentation of approaches to the Pentateuch and its composition. And yet, practically all of these main approaches outlined follow the order of development of sources from narrative to Deuteronomy to priestly materials, and similarly a basic Wellhausenian development of the Israelite society from simple to complex, at least mutantis mutandis. As regards the position of Numbers in the context of the surrounding narrative, clearly it stands at the borderline of priestly and Deuteronomic traditions, as Noth’s work in particular reveals.2 Also, both Noth and the newer 5

INTRODUCTION

redactional approaches advocate an idea that the book is not a coherent composition but rather a haphazard accretion of materials, even more so than the Pentateuch or Hexateuch as a whole according to these approaches. This fits with the idea that many commentators have found it difficult to see Numbers as a coherent book on its own (cf. e.g. Forsling 2013). As regards the historical value of Numbers, the book contains a large amount of priestly materials (see ahead for details), and, as the foregoing discussion already suggests, these have generally been dated late and considered as unhistorical. Narrative materials have also generally been considered as unhistorical (cf. the commentary section), and, in any case, many of them depict events in the desert that would be difficult to verify externally. However, Chapters 21–34 in particular do make historical-geographical references that also tie with the book of Joshua, where such references are multiplied. Accordingly, there is some value in trying to consider the question of history with the book of Numbers. In terms of previous scholarship, archaeology has provided further information that can be correlated with the depictions of the book of Numbers. The development of that discipline, as it relates to the Bible, dates back to the latter part of the nineteenth century (see e.g. Moorey 1991).3 At first, archaeology in the “Holy Land” was very much driven by the concerns of those interested in the Bible, in trying to illuminate the Bible based on archaeological discoveries and verify the factual claims of the Bible. However, as time went on, archaeology also became very much its own separate discipline, and what may previously have been called biblical archaeology is now often labelled as Syro-Palestinian archaeology, a separate discipline that is presented as largely independent from biblical studies.4 And yet, there is still very much interaction between archaeology and biblical studies. Many biblical scholars wish to understand the Bible based on relevant archaeological discoveries, and many archaeologists also explicitly attempt to bring out how their discipline can contribute to biblical understanding (see e.g. Mazar 1992; Levy 2010). Importantly, archaeology has had a special relationship with the early Israelite history in general. Once archaeological data from the Southern Levant started to accumulate in any substantial amounts, problems about how it might relate to the Bible started to arise. While events from the period of the Judges on were generally seen as reflecting actual history, events earlier than that became suspect from the beginning of the twentieth century on. Thus, the book of Joshua stood at the borderline of where going back in time would rather make fact become fiction in the biblical storyline (cf. e.g. Miller and Hayes 2006). As part of this, the origins of early Israel became a matter of debate. The conquest model, whose most notable proponents were William Albright and his disciple John Bright in the first half of the twentieth century, had argued for a general veracity of the biblical record, even though it had lowered the date of the conquest to the thirteenth century instead of the fifteenth century, implied by the biblical chronology. This model was abandoned due to the lack of archaeological evidence for an Israelite conquest at sites such as Ai (Josh 7–8), Jericho (Josh 2, 6), Gibeon (Josh 9) and 6

INTRODUCTION

Arad (Josh 12:14; Num 21:1–3). And two other possible ways of seeing the process of the Israelite settlement arose. The peaceful infiltration model, with Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth its most notable proponents, suggested that the Israelites were nomads who immigrated to the land from outside. In this, importantly, the immigration was peaceful and did not involve a conquest. Secondly, the peasant’s revolt model, advocated by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, suggested that the Israelites were Canaanites who revolted against the existing socioeconomic structure and withdrew to the highlands to form a new society (see Hawkins 2013:40–43 for a summary; with Gottwald 1979 the main work). Later scholarship has shown problems with all of these models. However, while the peasants revolt model was rejected, the idea of an indigenous origin of the early Israelites was retained. In other words, contemporary scholarship tends to think that Israel was a development indigenous to Canaan (see e.g. Dever 2003). That said, for example a recent detailed archaeological study by Faust argues that at least a significant number of the early Israelites originated from outside the area, allowing even for the inclusion of a group that escaped Egypt, even if Faust does not subscribe to the idea of a conquest (see Faust 2006, esp. 170–187; cf. Hawkins 2013:43–48 for further recent models that broadly fall within the range expressed earlier). In addition to this set of overall approaches, fairly recently, some scholars have questioned the veracity of the biblical accounts even from the time of the Judges on. The most “minimalist” of them argue that the biblical Israel is a scholarly construct from the Persian period (e.g. Davies 1992; Thompson 1992; Lemche 1998; Liverani 2005/2003). According to this view, very little can really be known about pre-exilic Israel based on biblical documents, including the portrayed time of the United Monarchy during David and Solomon (see e.g. Finkelstein 1996; Mazar 1997; and Thomas 2016, which includes comments on latest developments). At the same time, there have been those who would defend the historicity of the biblical materials from the time of Abraham on, even when they would consider Genesis 1–11 as “protohistory” where a link with any actual events is not clear (see e.g. Wenham 1987; Wenham 1994; Kitchen 2003; Provan, Long and Longman 2003). In broad terms, then, one can divide the field into three camps of mainstream, minimalist and maximalist scholars, and, by and large, such a distinction still seems to apply, even if there is always variation between individual scholars. Coming back to compositional approaches, one can generally classify those following them as belonging to the mainstream or to the “minimalists”, with some more minimalist scholars even dating Deuteronomy in the postexilic time. The more maximalist scholars either tend to reject source critical approaches or not comment on them at all, even if this not always the case, especially in recent times. And all in all, except that the boundaries between the camps are not always entirely clear, if one looks at Pentateuchal scholarship carefully, all three basic approaches of mainstream, minimalist and maximalist have existed throughout the era of biblical criticism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and into the twenty-first century (see Otto 2012a:62–230). 7

INTRODUCTION

Main problems with the current state of Pentateuchal and Numbers research After having outlined the history and current status of Pentateuchal scholarship, the main problems with current approaches will be outlined ahead, with a focus on mainstream Wellhausenian approaches.5 A first problem to highlight is that Wellhausenian approaches have generally struggled with seeing unity, coherence and strong authorial intent in the Pentateuch. Ultimately, the work is seen as a haphazard accretion of materials with little authorial purpose. The book of Numbers in particular is considered a wasteland of materials. Redactional layers approaches may have improved on this situation, but unity is with these approaches seen as resulting at a very late, or at least a late stage of the formation of the tradition. Even if some of the prophetic books, such as Jeremiah, are anthologies with only minimal coherence and narrative progression, does one need to consider this to be the case with the Pentateuch and with the book of Numbers, and even if partially so, to what extent? This book will read the materials as attesting identifiable unity and coherence, and strong authorial intention. Naturally, the problems with source criticism and finding a consensus over the last 150 years do not at least entirely serve to inspire confidence in the theory. This can be compared with Thomas Kuhn’s famous proposal, according to which proliferation of theories is seen as a sign of a paradigm in crisis (see Kuhn 1962; cf. Wenham 1999a). A further problem that has been increasingly pointed out recently is that in Wellhausenian approaches there is a discrepancy between the canonical order of the law codes and their postulated chronological order (see esp. Kilchör 2015:1–30). Why would the priestly materials precede Deuteronomy in the canonical order if they were created after Deuteronomy and were intended to supplant it? Wellhausenian scholarship has not been able to answer this question, and it has hardly been raised (or acknowledged) until recently. If we look at the development of Old Testament criticism from the vantage point of the present, it was developed prior to the development of social and anthropological disciplines. Interestingly, the early development of anthropological disciplines in the nineteenth century came under severe criticism in the twentieth century as going hand in hand with the colonial enterprise that considered unindustrialised native societies as primitive (see e.g. Wolfe 1999). While anthropology has by now fully acknowledged such issues, for example the West could still have similar approaches to the Orient even in the late twentieth century (see Said 1978), and one may ask to what extent some in the West still may see the rest of the world as more or less a primitive entity. As regards the study of the Old Testament, considering Wellhausen’s apparent romanticism and lack of modern understanding about the ancient Near East in the nineteenth century, his approach can be compared with the Western colonial approaches that approached nonWestern societies as an exotic, primitive world that is gazed upon by the advanced Western mind. The basic premise of development from simple to complex in the 8

INTRODUCTION

ancient world has in reality also been completely refuted through the development of the study of the ancient Near East from the mid-late nineteenth century on that shows the existence of complex societies in the area already at least from the third millennium BCE on (cf. e.g. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). Nevertheless, it seems that many scholars still tenaciously consider especially the premonarchical time of Israel in the late second millennium as a period in which there could hardly have been complexity in thinking or societal structures in ancient Israel so as to produce such materials as the priestly documents, even when for example similar concepts and rituals have demonstrably been found elsewhere in the ancient Near East from a time preceding ancient Israel. Accordingly, such scholars may then equally tenaciously hold to the idea of development from simple to complex, essentially as suggested by Wellhausen. A further issue that relates to the legacy of the Enlightenment and the development of natural sciences is the orientation by at least some biblical scholars towards trying to define the field as a science. With due regard to the ambiguity of the term (incl. the German word Wissenschaft), this clearly can be analysed as an attempt at enhancing the status of the field. As Wolfe (1999:64–65) describes in regard to anthropology, “For instance, given anthropology’s scientific pretensions, it is only to be expected that a model emanating from the more prestigious zone of the hard sciences should impact more directly on anthropological than artistic or literary discourse”. Similar claims have been made in regard to archaeology but refuted by those working in the field of archaeological theory (see Pluciennik 2011:41). Unfortunately, this type of questioning tends to not have been forthcoming in the field of biblical studies, and especially in Pentateuchal studies, even if the odd remark may have sometimes been made. In this respect, it seems that Pentateuchal source critical theories may try to (even if unconsciously) emulate mathematical theory in their considerations. However, any mathematician will know that assumptions (so-called axioms) will first have to be carefully laid out before building a theory or set of theories in order for them to be viable, but this is, at least as far as I can see, rarely done in Pentateuchal studies. In addition, mathematical theory actually drives towards simplicity rather than complexity; however, Pentateuchal theories are often characterised by their complexity, including in the number of redactional layers that are postulated. While it is true that such complexity should never be ruled out as a possibility, and this also applies to mathematical theory, it should never be assumed as a necessity – on the contrary. We also have a very strong historical example about a case where a simpler theory has been agreed to have been the better one. Before the time of Copernicus, elaborate theories, involving what are called Ptolemaic epicycles, had been constructed around the theory that the earth was the centre of the Universe. It was the work of Copernicus and Kepler that explained things based on heliocentrism, and that made the complicated geocentric theories unnecessary, or at the very least attenuated such complexity (cf. Pitkänen 2016c). At another level, a drive towards complexity in Pentateuchal scholarship may also be about (whether consciously or unconsciously) ensuring that the field is available only 9

INTRODUCTION

to the initiated and thus increasing its prestige, with “science” constructing a laity (cf. Wolfe 1999:129, 158 for such concerns with anthropology, and cf. Pluciennik 2011:40–41 in regard to archaeology; cf. also Carr 2005:293–295). It also makes for a good funding strategy in a society that places a high regard on science (cf. Wolfe 1999:64–65 in regard to anthropology). And in itself, an endless combination of a variety of source critical theories provides a research paradigm on the back of which it is easy to produce an (potentially) unlimited number of books, articles and conference papers, even a career of a lifetime. But because many of the related theories cannot be verified by any kind of empirical tests, they remain just that – theories of which one simply cannot say whether they are fact or fiction (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, vol. 3:259–261).6 Of course, empirical verification is an issue with all historical research. A further area where the Wellhausenian style consensus has a clear problem is the question of violence. According to most mainstream scholars, the development of ancient Israel was a peaceful process. However, a comparison with recent postcolonial studies and sociological studies of violence reveals that violence or its threat is an essential element in all social life (see e.g. Malešević 2010; cf. Pitkänen 2016a) and therefore ruling such a factor out with ancient Israel is unwarranted. One may also keep in mind the so-called history wars that for example tried to deny violence against indigenous peoples as part of the history of the West (see e.g. Curthoys and Docker 2010:220–237). All this ties in with claims by many biblical scholars that the narratives especially in the book of Joshua, but also in Numbers, that portray violence against indigenous peoples are fictional. This discrepancy is also striking in light of the extensive postcolonial scholarship on the Bible that has analysed such narratives and found them resonating with modern colonialism and historical actions by modern colonists. In addition, Wellhausenian approaches tend to argue based on assuming their approach, then try to make data fit into it and finally then state that this constitutes proof of the approach. This is clearly circular argumentation. A good example of such a work in regard to Numbers is Achenbach (2003). It is true that it is not at all wrong to look at how data might fit with a particular approach, but one should be careful before claiming that such an enterprise constitutes proof. Perhaps such pretensions also tie with the attempts by the representatives of the field to more or less equate it with natural sciences (cf. earlier). However, in line with natural disciplinary boundaries, very few of the academics working in the biblical studies field actually seem to have any experience with mathematical and natural sciences beyond basic school level. In relation to this, many if not most other fields strongly emphasise how context and presuppositions affect interpretation (cf. e.g. Bell 2009/1992; Bell 2009/1997), especially in a postmodern environment (cf. e.g. Foucault 1972; Foucault 2000). Even with the so-called hard sciences, such as physics, the limits of knowledge and the always potentially modifiable and even hypothetical status of knowledge are acknowledged (see e.g. Kibble and Berkshire 2004:1–2; Zwiebach 2009:3–12; cf. Smolin 2006). However, there often 10

INTRODUCTION

seems to be little, or at least insufficient, acknowledgement of this in the field of Pentateuchal studies (even in the context summarised e.g. by Tate 2008).

Social processes and scholarship As already intimated earlier, context and presuppositions affect interpretation, and, importantly, interpretation is a social enterprise, tying with the well-known fact that has been pointed out by the social sciences that knowledge is a social construct. In biblical studies, one can say that social construction divides into three dimensions of religion, academics and politics. There simply exist a variety of communities that interpret the Bible in differing ways. In this respect, just as there are political parties in the wider society, there may be academic parties, and these tie with the considerations earlier. In Old Testament studies, as already indicated, scholarship can be classified as dividing into the mainstream party, the maximalist party and the minimalist party. My experience and observation indicate that each party, at least by and large so, naturally tries to extend its influence in the society, and at the same time, each has its own line of interpretation that generally also tends to be regulated within the party, naturally by those who hold power within it. In the academic field, regulatory action takes place at conferences and in publications of the party. Each party also tends to hold its territory, in terms of institutions where scholarship takes place. So, at the time of writing, the mainstream party normally occupies the most highly ranked academic institutions, such as Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, and many other academic institutions. The maximalist party generally runs through church institutions and training colleges and some universities. The minimalists occupy certain institutions. Again, the mainstream party by and large subscribes to the Wellhausenian approach towards the composition of the Pentateuch and to the early history of Israel being fictional before the time of the Judges. The maximalist party subscribes to an early, often Mosaic date of the Pentateuch and to the early history of Israel having a basis in reality, except for the narratives of Genesis 1–11, which are seen as mythical protohistory. The minimalists tend to think that most of the biblical history is simply late fiction and hardly bears relation to what happened, except for aspects that relate to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah just before they were destroyed and where things can be verified by direct extrabiblical evidence that overall tends to be scant. In terms of reading the texts today, the mainstream party often eschews strong religious or political agendas. The maximalist party tends to be strong on the relation between the texts and their applicability for personal faith agendas and devotion. They also often, but not exclusively, support a Zionist agenda for the politics of modern Israel – that is they support the idea of the Jewish homeland and the primacy of the Israeli society and state over the wishes of the Palestinians who were present in the land before the Zionist immigration from the late nineteenth century on. The minimalist party tends to have a strong political agenda of liberating Palestine from the Israeli occupation. I will have more to say about this issue 11

INTRODUCTION

ahead and throughout the commentary, but, for the moment, for one thing, a strong commitment to Zionism may make it difficult to accept interpretations that could be construed as either indirectly or directly implying criticism of the state of Israel. One of the advantages of the mainstream party is that it is a mainstream party and holds power and prestige in society. It therefore tends to hold best access to resources, including research funding. In this for example a high university ranking is naturally construed in the minds of people as implying academic authority if a person affiliated with such a university presents a theory or view. All in all, it has to be emphasised that it is people in their unique capacity as against other species on the planet who can conceptualise things and it is people who either accept and follow, or reject, theories. As with all affairs of the world, those in positions of power tend to do the deciding; thus it is often the professors at the pinnacle of their profession who have a strong influence on academic matters. Typically, the most popular interpretations rise to the surface and the less popular ones sink down, and in the academic world, this is associated with kudos, resources and institutional positions for the “winners”. But, as the foregoing discussion implies, this often takes place in the context of established theoretical frameworks and a research tradition that is tied to institutionalisation. Such a system tends to perpetuate itself by those who have achieved power and privilege selecting the work of those whom they consider worthy for promotion and even to be their successors for institutional posts, and this ties to the concept of Kuhnian paradigms (see Kuhn 1962; Foucault 1972; Feyerabend 1993; Foucault 2000/1976; cf. Lamont 2009). Accordingly, while there is a correlation between “good” scholarship and “success”, this should be construed as only a correlation.7 One cannot assume that an equivalence will always be the case, and the examples of paradigm change from the history of science clearly seem to confirm this (Kuhn 1962; Feyerabend 1993; pace e.g. Fara 2010). Thus, less popular explanations are not necessarily “worse” scholarship. The issue is much about “who decides?” In this context, in biblical studies, those not part of one party may find it difficult to even discuss their work as persons outside a party can often at least in effect be ostracised and their views presented ignored and marginalised. Ultimately, broadly similar processes can be seen to have been in effect in Christendom times between mainstream churches and radical, even so-called heretic expressions of Christianity. This in fact then ties to the fact that social processes that relate to academics can be similar to those relating to religion. And, interestingly, many of the academics working in biblical studies have some kind of religious background and even a personal religious commitment. While this is most ostensible with persons belonging to the maximalist party, it may not be too far off the mark for others either, also keeping in mind the well-known, and in my view appropriate, claim that the Enlightenment is a secular version of Christendom. How can one then develop new ways of interpreting the biblical evidence from a practical side of things? It would seem that this can happen only if a new theory can achieve at least some kind of audience and support from at least 12

INTRODUCTION

some individuals or some community. What is to be considered acceptable is ultimately a community decision (cf. Kuhn 1962). Clearly, such views as by Eric von Däniken in the 1960s and 1970s, who would probably consider that a spaceship landed on Mount Sinai, could be simply considered as a strange infusion in the mix. Just about everyone agrees with such an evaluation, even if there were, and probably still are, some who support him, and the overall approach as a whole was further mutated for example into the successful Stargate SciFi series. But, ultimately, if enough people believed in von Däniken’s, or for that matter, any other ideas, they would in reality have to be taken seriously. In this sense, we can see the positions of all of the parties outlined earlier as particular interpretations that have a certain degree of popularity in the minds of people, coupled with institutional investments, as ultimately part of a wider human enterprise whose certainties are less than set in stone, also keeping in mind that, with historical study, one cannot go back to the past to observe what happened there. Von Däniken’s case can also be seen as an extreme example of how present context affects interpretation; undoubtedly flight technology of the twentieth century, moon landings and the development of satellite technology in the 1960s and 1970s would have helped prompt the theorising which in reality even did have a certain number of followers. Such past interpretative traditions as the allegorical approach advocated by Origen in the early church also broadly belong to this category of interpretation being affected by one’s present context. The “trick” is of course to decide which interpretations are “sane” enough to put weight on and analyse further in a community context. Origen’s approach is no longer considered as crucial for interpretation, yet people do derive pleasure, and sometimes for example consolation, from reading his comments. More seriously, and as described earlier, the nineteenth- and twentiethcentury Wellhausenian approach can in many ways be seen in the context of trying to respond to modernity and the rise of natural sciences in the context of the concomitant mood and philosophical developments in the West, regardless of whether such underlying factors were explicitly acknowledged.8 In this climate, any new model will have to not only resolve academic issues that relate to the Wellhausenian approach but also deal with its cultural and academic and even secular-religious legacy (cf. Kuhn 1962). It would seem that a strong commitment to a Wellhausenian approach can be compared with a commitment to a world view, and we know from social sciences that world views tend to be resistant to change. So, again, as Kuhn already suggested, new theories can meet even strong resistance due to intellectual and institutional commitments to an “established” theory (see Kuhn 1962; cf. Feyerabend 1993). At the same time, naturally, not everyone has such a commitment to a Wellhausenian approach. In relation to this, one may keep in mind that a change in world view is a perceived one – that is if there is no perception of a “disturbance” when a new idea is presented, there is likely to be less resistance (and hence new ideas do not necessarily need to cause a Kuhnian “paradigm shift”; cf. Pitkänen 2016a:18–19 for some further remarks on this). 13

INTRODUCTION

Towards a new interpretation Having made the foregoing comments, I will next outline the interpretative position(s) taken in this book. All in all, it is clear that an interpretation of the book of Numbers can hardly be a neutral enterprise. Accordingly, this book will expressly take a position and interpret the book based on it. Only a limited number of arguments will be made against other positions. This is partly due to its intended audience that goes beyond the specialist, partly due to space limitations, and to a considerable degree because of the overall problems that Wellhausenian models have and their fragmentation (cf. Frevel 2013 on the last point). All in all, I simply cannot agree with their overall approach and am convinced that a replacement model that addresses the main problems of the Wellhausenian approach will work better than trying to chase after every possible alternative version within the approach. One may note here the comment by Pluciennik (2011:40), where the word “Darwinian archaeology” can be replaced with an esoteric and complicated source critical theory: “The implication here is, of course, that Darwinian archaeology is not like other approaches which do require reading only ‘a few books or articles’; this is a familiar tactic in academic writing, aiming at claiming authority and putting the reader on back foot”. Nevertheless, the book will here by no means claim that it will replace all aspects of previous scholarship. There are a number of, if not many, details that are not invalidated regardless of wider interpretative issues and considerations.9 Particularly in this sense, the book will also not claim that it will address every individual detail that relates to the interpretation of the book of Numbers in an encyclopaedic sense, but only a selection that I have judged to be relevant for the overall interpretation offered. I can only recommend that readers consult other commentaries and academic works, too, such as Milgrom’s good-sized commentary in the JPS Torah series (Milgrom 1990), from which I myself have benefitted a fair bit, even when I by no means have always agreed with it.10 So, again, this book will concentrate on presenting a new model that will also address the main problems identified earlier that are associated with the Wellhausenian model. In itself, if such an alternative model that is also consistent can be presented, it is a strong argument for its plausibility, and nothing more than (strong) plausibility will be claimed. In essence following an approach that sees the Pentateuch together with Joshua, it will provide a unified and coherent reading in terms of the arrangement of material in Numbers, and in terms of authorial intent in writing Genesis–Joshua and Numbers as part of that composition. The reading will essentially assume the existence of narrative (JE) and priestly materials (P/H) in Numbers and will see those materials as preceding Deuteronomic materials in Deuteronomy and Joshua.11 As there is no full agreement about source division, this manuscript will take its own stance, even if it will be broadly in line with customary source divisions. In its drive towards simplicity rather than complexity in interpretation, it will not attempt to analyse redactional layers or several layers in each source. These may exist (e.g. in the forming of individual 14

INTRODUCTION

rituals), but, as the commentary will demonstrate, they do not need to be assumed as part of the main composition.12 But, also, authorial activity here will resemble some redactional layers models, except that it may in essence collapse a number of accretions (e.g. narrative sources, priestly sources and postpriestly sources) into a single authorial act. The reading will also be in line with sociological and anthropological scholarship in that it will not assume that ancient Israel needed to be less developed in the premonarchical time than during the later monarchical and exilic-postexilic eras. Some of the results may be considered controversial by readers, but, as the aforementioned discussion implies, such controversiality is entirely a subjective matter and also depends on what the views presented are compared with. The reading will also be compatible with archaeological evidence, as attested by a survey of archaeological sites pertaining to the book of Numbers.13 In terms of academic party politics, the interpretation taken here resembles interpretations of the maximalist party in terms of the postulated provenance of the documents, in that they are seen as early. However, it does not think that the Pentateuch and the book of Numbers in it were composed by Moses and considers that some of the history can be a mix of fiction and embellished. The form of the Pentateuchal story that pertains to Moses is seen as semi-historical – that is it is not strict history but neither is it fiction. Otherwise, while many from the maximalist party do not wish to engage in traditional source critical analysis, this commentary will do so, but with a somewhat differing view about the sources and their combination than mainstream approaches. Finally, this commentary will attempt to reflect on the problem of violence that relates to Israel’s beginning conquest of the land (e.g. Numbers 21; 31). Analysing such violence from the perspective of not only the Israelites but also those on the receiving end of it in my view would lead to making the reader see that the texts raise important ethical dilemmas, in line with postcolonial biblical criticism. Grappling with such dilemmas has direct bearing on issues that relate to indigenous peoples around the world, including the current Israel-Palestine conflict. They, at least to my mind, should result in potential identification with the oppressed, leading to interpretations similar to those advocated by the minimalist party. The book accordingly combines perspectives from all three approaches on its way to a new reading but transcends all of them. In some ways the approach taken here can even be compared with postmodernism and radical orthodoxy in systematic theology. That is this approach questions the tenets of modernism and its achievements – that is Wellhausenian biblical criticism and its claim to “scientific objectivity” and a particular view of societal progress, returning to more traditional positions – that is the essential unity of the Pentateuch and Joshua – and yet does not leave out of consideration what has come in between in scholarship. Nor is the position arrived at here a pre-modern one, in that for example unity in the work is considered to be a product of utilisation of sources, the Pentateuch is seen together with Joshua and is not a work of a single author but in this case of two (see ahead for details), and the work could 15

INTRODUCTION

have been modified and updated as it was passed through centuries in the Israelite society (cf. Pitkänen 2016c). For one thing, also in line with its settler colonial and postcolonial interpretation (see ahead on these), again, I would hope that the present reading could help us towards seeing our common humanity, whether in biblical studies or otherwise and then fighting for justice and peace in our world, however small contribution such a reading may make.

The literary structures of Numbers as part of Genesis–Joshua Even without the comments made earlier about the interpretative context and differing basic approaches to the book of Numbers, it is not an easy work to interpret. There are in my opinion a number of reasons for this. First of all, the question of its relationship to what precedes and follows it in the canonical order remains. In particular, and as the Jewish title of the book bemidbar (in the wilderness, based on the word occurring in Num 1:1), the story simply describes time in the wilderness, a somewhat liminal period in Israel’s history. In the beginning of the book the Israelites leave Sinai and at the end of the book they are camped at the plains of Moab, just outside the edge of the promised land, looking from the East. Secondly, much of the material in Numbers has to do with a description of the Israelite camp in the wilderness and with two censuses of the Israelites there. It can be very difficult to grasp the significance of these on the face of it. And, finally, the book is interspersed with a fair bit of legal materials that in many ways also appear secondary and supplementary to such materials in Exodus and Leviticus, and this already in itself poses some interpretative conundrums. All in all, the book may at first sight appear a boring, confusing and largely irrelevant wasteland of material for many of today’s readers. However, a careful analysis of the book can reveal some consistent patterns and even a coherence to the work. To start with, it is important to see the book as part of a wider narrative of Genesis–Joshua. This ties in with the message that the book seeks to convey to its original audience, as will be expounded ahead in the section “Message of the book and reading Numbers today”. As part of analysing Numbers as part of Genesis–Joshua, I agree with Milgrom that there are reasons to see Genesis–Joshua as a coherent literary entity that has mutual connections throughout (Milgrom 1990:xiii). It is important to note the development of plotline, also in terms of chiasms (“mirror” structures) that ancient Israelites in general liked to employ in their compositions. While everything does not fall 100 per cent into a chiasm, in my view this does not invalidate the idea of an overall literary-thematic chiastic structure, at least as a useful heuristic device, as follows in Figure 1.1. While Judges–Kings continue this story, I do think that they are essentially separate from Genesis–Joshua. Certainly, Genesis–Joshua can be seen to form a coherent enclosed narrative. In addition, contrary to Wellhausen and his followers, I do think that the prophetic books “proper” and other Old Testament literature are derivative of Genesis–Joshua. I see no reason why these books could not have been 16

A Genesis 1-11, Primeval History of the world as background for the history of Israel B1 Genesis 12-50, The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. The promise of the land of Canaan to the patriarchs (to Abraham first in Genesis 12), circumcision (Gen 17), Jacob removes foreign gods at Shechem (Gen 35), move to Egypt with Joseph (Gen 37ff), burial of Jacob in Canaan (Gen 49:29-50:14), death of Joseph in Egypt (Gen 50:22-26). B2 Exodus 1-12, The exodus from Egypt. Moses’s divine encounter for rescuing the Israelites (Ex 3), the plagues and leaving Egypt (Ex 7-12), Passover (Ex 12:1-30) and Circumcision (Ex 12:43-48) B3 Exodus 13-15, Miraculous crossing of the Sea of Reeds into the wilderness B4 Exodus 16-18, Wilderness before arriving at Mount Sinai. The miracles of manna and quails as provision for food (Ex 16) and water from the rock (Ex 17:1-7) B5 Exodus 19-24, Covenant at Mount Sinai, initial covenant stipulations B6 Exodus 25-31, Instructions for building the tabernacle (a tent sanctuary) as a place where Yahweh dwells B7 Exodus 32, The idol of the golden calf and breaking of the covenant by the Israelites B8 Exodus 33, Yahweh’s presence reaffirmed B7’ Exodus 34, Renewal of the covenant, additional covenant stipulations B6’ Exodus 35-40, The building of the tabernacle (tent sanctuary) and its initiation B5’ Leviticus 1-Numbers 10:10, Further legal stipulations in relation to the covenant B4’ Numbers 10:11 – 36, Wilderness after leaving Mount Sinai, death of the first generation due to rebellion. The miracles of manna and quails (Num 11) and water from the rock (Num 20) B4’’ Deuteronomy 1-34, Renewal of covenant for the second generation and further legal stipulations. Installation of Joshua as the new leader of the Israelites (Dt 31:1-8) and the death of Moses (Dt 34) B3’ Joshua 1-4 Preparations for the conquest (Josh 1-2) and miraculous crossing of the river Jordan into the land of Canaan (Josh 3-4) B2’ Joshua 5-12 Initial conquest/invasion (Josh 6-12) that begins with Jericho (Josh 6) and Ai (Josh 7-8). Circumcision (Josh 5:1-8), celebrating Passover (Josh 5:10-11),ceasing of manna as food (Josh 5:12), Joshua’s divine encounter for war (Josh 5:13-15) B1’ Joshua 13-24, Settlement of the land as fulfilment of the promise to the patriarchs. Division of land (Josh 13-21), covenant renewed and foreign gods relinquished at Shechem (Josh 24) and the bones of Joseph buried in the promised land (Josh 24:32), Joshua dies and is buried (Josh 24:29-30). Restoration of creation by setting up the tabernacle at Shiloh, Josh 18:1 (A’)

Figure 1.1 The literary-thematic chiastic structure of Genesis–Joshua, based on J. Milgrom, Numbers, in JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. xviii

INTRODUCTION

written after Genesis–Joshua. One main argument for lateness is a lack of citations of Pentateuchal legal materials in Judges–Kings. However, such connections are not non-existent, and one does not need to think that legal materials would have been taken literally by the ancient Israelites, but rather could have at least partly been seen from a theoretical perspective. That for example no court cases quoting the ancient Near Eastern legal codes exist in the wider ancient Near East speaks for such an understanding. In addition, ritual studies show that the actual practice of ritual is not necessarily the same as their textual codification and standardisation (see Bell 2009/1992:137–140; cf. 1 Sam 1–3 vs the Pentateuch). Another related argument is the lack of quotations of especially priestly materials in Judges–Kings. However, some references and allusions do exist (e.g. 1 Sam 21; 1 Ki 8:1–9), and to say without clear textual evidence that these are secondary additions is naturally circular argumentation. It can for example be assumed that the writer(s) of Samuel was not a priest, and it is then not necessary to assume that it was of interest to the writer(s) to tie things to priestly issues either. Nor does one have to think that the writers were necessarily even familiar with the Pentateuchal materials that would at least essentially have been the purview of priests (cf. ahead). In this, it is unlikely that many copies of the Pentateuch would have been in circulation as the printing press was unknown. Writing at the time seemed to have been largely restricted to the elite and became more widespread only from about the eighth century BCE on, this also being the time when the earliest books by the so-called writing prophets seem to have been produced (cf. Sanders 2009). The alphabet itself was known already from the early second millennium BCE on (cf. Albright 1966). In terms of composition, I think that there are good grounds for considering Genesis–Joshua as a product of two authors working together, one (I label him A1) writing Genesis–Numbers and the other (I label him AD) Deuteronomy and Joshua, for reasons explicated ahead. For now, I suggest that Genesis–Numbers is essentially a biography of Moses, and Deuteronomy and Joshua describe the speech of Moses and the conquest of the land by Joshua, with each of A1 and AD writing in differing styles, in line with the stylistic differences between these works that in essence have been recognised by much biblical scholarship since at least the nineteenth century. There is in my view some cross-sharing of material between the two authors, explicated in more detail ahead. But, for our purposes here, I suggest that a little bit of material in Deuteronomy that describes the death of Moses (Dt 32:48–52 and much or all of 34:1–9) may have been part of the original biography of Moses in Exodus–Numbers that A1 composed on their part together with the prologue of Genesis. Deuteronomy was composed as a speech of Moses, to be followed by the conquest. While this material mostly followed Genesis–Numbers in terms of the plotline, it was necessary and useful to interweave the end of A1’s depiction of Moses, consisting of just a few verses, into Deuteronomy in order to run the plotline of the whole through smoothly. In this, Dt 32:48–52 and at least partly 34:1–9 can easily be detached from the rest of Deuteronomy as material that is also reminiscent of the narrative style of Numbers (cf. Table 1.1 ahead and comments on 27:12–23).14 AD simply took over 18

Table 1.1 Plot progression in Numbers Narrative that progresses the plot

Legal/instructional materials embedded within narrative (texts marked as interlude do not have an obvious narrative connection)

Miscellaneous episodes integrated within the material, more or less related to the narrative context and with a more or less loose geographical location (cf. the concept of satellite stories in Forsling 2013)

1 Census of the first generation 2 Arrangement of the camp 3–4 Duties of priests and Levites in the camp 5:1–4 Exclusions from the camp 5:5–6:27 Interlude I: Miscellaneous laws/ instruction, including a test on adultery and stipulations for a Nazirite; the priestly blessing 7 Offerings at the tabernacle’s consecration 8:1–4: Interlude II: lamps of the lampstand 8:5–9:14 Cultic actions and regulations on the Levites and on Passover

8:5–22 Cleansing of Levites 9:1–14 Flashback: Celebrating Passover at Sinai 9:15–23 The divine cloud as an accoutrement during the march through the wilderness

10:1–10 Silver trumpets as an accoutrement during the march through the wilderness 10:11–36 People leave Sinai 11:16–30 Elders appointed to help Moses

11:1–2, 34–35 Taberah, Kibrot Hattaava and Mazeroth

12 Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion and Miriam’s leprosy 13–14 Spies episode, Kadesh 15:1–31 Interlude IIIa: Laws about sacrifices

15:32–36 Sabbath Breaker (Continued)

Table 1.1 (Continued) Narrative that progresses the plot

Legal/instructional materials embedded within narrative (texts marked as interlude do not have an obvious narrative connection)

Miscellaneous episodes integrated within the material, more or less related to the narrative context and with a more or less loose geographical location (cf. the concept of satellite stories in Forsling 2013)

15:37–41 Interlude IIIb: Tassels 16–17 Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron, their punishment and the confirmation of Aaron’s primacy 18 Duties and entitlements of priests and Levites 19 Interlude IV: Laws for purification 20:1 Kadesh, death of Miriam 20:2–13 Water from the rock, the punishment of Moses and Aaron 21:4–9 The bronze serpent

20:14–21 From Kadesh on, past Edom 20:22–29 Kadesh to Hor, death of Aaron 21:10–20 Northwards past Wadi Arnon, arrival at Moab 21:21–35 Defeat of Sihon and Og 22:1; 21:20 Arrival at Moab

21:1–3 King of Arad 21:14–18 Song of the well 21:27–30 Heshbon poem

22–24 Balaam 25 Baal worship at Peor 26 Census of the second generation 27:1–11 Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs (I) 27:12–23 Joshua succeeds Moses 28–30 Interlude V: Regular offerings and vows 31 Vengeance on Midian 32 Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead

INTRODUCTION

Narrative that progresses the plot

Legal/instructional materials embedded within narrative (texts marked as interlude do not have an obvious narrative connection)

Miscellaneous episodes integrated within the material, more or less related to the narrative context and with a more or less loose geographical location (cf. the concept of satellite stories in Forsling 2013)

33:1–49 Summary of journey from Sinai to Moab 33:50–56 Yahweh’s command to destroy the indigenous peoples of Canaan 34 Boundaries of the land 35 Levitical towns and towns of refuge 36 Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs (II) (Dt 32:48–52; 34:1–9 The death of Moses)

Dt 32:48–52 and 34:1–9 and fitted it in (redaction after that is possible; see e.g. van Seters 1994:453). Another notable crossover of material occurs in Exodus 20–23. The Ten Commandments in Ex 20 is also placed in Dt 5, with some minor variation in detail by each. In both cases, this material is followed by legal materials, and both can be considered as ending with blessings and curses in Lev 26 and Dt 28 in a style known from elsewhere in the ancient Near East, including notably in treaty contexts (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). If so, Ex 20–Lev 26 and Dt 5–28 can be considered as the main stipulations for two covenants, with the Israelite covenants then adapting ancient Near Eastern treaty concepts. The first is a covenant at Sinai and the second a covenant at Moab (thus Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, vol. 3:127–131). For A1, there is also supplementary material in Ex 12–13 and Lev 27–Numbers, at least arguably in a manner compatible with how materials could be arranged in the ancient Near East (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). This suggests that the legal material in Numbers is supplementary to the main legal materials in Ex–Numbers, but, for example considering the importance of the Passover materials in Ex 12–13 that precede the main covenant at Sinai, it is not a foregone conclusion that the material in Numbers is of little importance. As especially Kitchen and Lawrence have demonstrated, the biblical covenants are best at home in the late second millennium BCE, also as against first-millennium BCE Assyrian treaties (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). Apparent parallels with Assyrian treaties in the curses sections are not conclusive evidence (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012; cf. Crouch 2014) and any references to exile in especially Lev 26 and Dt 28 can also be seen in the context of second-millennium BCE 21

INTRODUCTION

ancient Near Eastern population transfers (cf. e.g. Kitchen 2003; Collins 2007; Tenu 2009). They could also be later additions, as could for example be the case with references to the monarchy in Genesis–Joshua (e.g. Gen 36:31–39), some of the references to exile in Deuteronomy (e.g. Dt 30:1–10)15 and reworking of the descriptions of tribal allotments in Joshua (Josh 13–19; cf. Pitkänen 2010b).16 The materials in Ex 20:22–23:33, the so-called Covenant Code, are in a style that resembles the laws of Deuteronomy. However, they have not developed things as far as Deuteronomy and are considered a separate code that acted as a background to Deuteronomy. I suggest that AD had the Covenant Code and perhaps other similar materials available and developed Deuteronomy from there. In fact, that Deuteronomy had both the Covenant Code and priestly materials available as a source has been persuasively argued recently (see Kilchör 2015, passim). It would seem that the Covenant Code and the priestly materials did develop in many ways independently. However, the priestly materials did on occasions draw from the Ten Commandments, and sometimes even from legislation in the Covenant Code (see e.g. Kilchör 2015, passim). Moreover, conversely, in the case of the Passover, at least a narrative link has been created between Ex 12–13 and Ex 23:15; 34:18 (cf. Kilchör 2015:179). The authors saw the Covenant Code as part of the original covenant at Sinai and therefore it was A1 who incorporated it into his “part” of the composition, essentially demarcating the Covenant Code and priestly materials from Deuteronomy in terms of both the covenants at Sinai and Moab and the composition of Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–Joshua. This suggestion then is somewhat different from previous ones, including such that rely on the JEDP hypothesis or on a redactional layers approach, or on a Deuteronomistic history hypothesis (for these, cf. e.g. Wellhausen 1905/1978; Noth 1991/1943; Dozeman, Römer and Schmid 2011; Otto 2012a). And if one follows this hypothesis, one can fairly easily explain the composition.17 Figure 1.2 illustrates the overall compositional process. The covenantal structure outlined earlier fits very well with the two-author hypothesis suggested here. A1 was responsible for the Sinai Covenant and AD for the Moab one. AD also for example added Joshua 24, which describes a renewal of the covenant with Yahweh with the conquest generation. Most of the legal materials in Exodus–Numbers, save for the injunctions about the daughters of Zelophehad and the cities of refuge in Numbers 27, 35, 36 that concern the land of Canaan and find their fulfilment in Joshua (see esp. Josh 13–22), can be considered to pertain to the first generation and the covenant at Sinai (and its “restored” version; cf. Ex 32–34), even if much of the legal materials in Ex–Num really also look forward to life in the land from its narrative perspective as well (see the commentary section for details). Having made these comments, we now explicate the structure of Numbers as a book. It should be stressed that any structural classification is subjective, but hopefully the following division is at least indicative in terms of helping to make sense of the materials. And I think that there are very good reasons to see the book as falling into an overall tripartite structure of departure from Sinai, between Sinai and Moab and at Moab (Figure 1.3).18 22

LBA Proto-H laws

H

Proto-P laws

P (law and narrative)

Proto-narrative sources

Non-P/D narrative sources

Proto-10+CC laws

10+CC

P+H

Gen–Num

Proto-D laws

D

Dtr–Josh

Figure 1.2 Composition of Genesis–Joshua (basic document) in its main outlines, from Pitkänen (2016c); CC=Covenant Code Ex 20:22–23:33, P and H are priestly oriented materials and D refers to Deuteronomic materials, especially law; see ahead for a further explanation of these  1-10 Departure from Sinai • 1:1-10:10 Preparations for departure o 1 Census of the first (Exodus) generation o 2 Arrangement of the camp o 3-4 Duties of priests and Levites in the camp  3:40-51 Redemption of the firstborn o 5:1-4 Exclusions from the camp o 5:5-6:27 Interlude I: Miscellaneous laws/instruction  5:5-10 Confession and restitution  5:11-30 Ordeal for suspected adultery  6:1-27 Law of the Nazirite  6:22-27 Aaron’s blessing o 7:1-9:14 Cultic actions and regulations  7 Offerings at the tabernacle’s consecration  8:1-4 Interlude II: Lamps  8:5-26 Cleansing of Levites (one-time offering) and the age span of their service  9:1-14 Flashback: Passover at Sinai and Passover regulations o 9:15-10:10 Accoutrements during the march through the wilderness  9:15-23 The cloud  10:1-10 Silver trumpets • 10:11-36 Departure o 10:11-28 Departure o 10:29-32 Moses’s father-in-law o 10:33-36 The ark  11-21 Between Sinai and Moab • 11-14 Rebellion and punishment o 11 People’s rebellion, help for Moses, quail and plague o 12 Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion and Miriam’s leprosy o 13-14 Spies sent, with rebellion and punishment of the first generation at Kadesh

(Continued  )

INTRODUCTION

•

15 Interlude III: Miscellaneous laws o 15:1-31 Laws about sacrifices o 15:32-35 Sabbath breaker o 15:36-41 Tassels • 16-17 Further rebellion: Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron, their punishment and the confirmation of Aaron’s primacy o 16 Korah’s rebellion o 17 Confirmation of Aaron’s primacy • 18-19 Interlude IV: Priestly matters, purification o 18 Duties and entitlements of priests and Levites o 19 Laws for purification • 20-21 Generational shift and departure towards the promised land by the second generation o 20:1 Death of Miriam at Kadesh o 20:2-13 Moses’s mistake and punishment at Meriba o 20:14-21 Edom o 20:22-29 Death of Aaron o 21:1-3 Arad o 21:4-9 Bronze serpent o 21:10-20 Moving towards the promised land o 21:21-35 Sihon and Og  22-36 At Moab • 22-24 Balaam • 25 Rebellion (via idolatry) at Baal Peor • 26 Census of the second (conquest) generation • 27:1-11 Land divisions I: Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs I • 27:12-23 Joshua to succeed Moses • 28-30 Interlude V: Regular offerings and vows o 28-29 Offerings on various calendar-based occasions o 30 Vows • 31 Vengeance on Midian • 32 Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead • 33:1-49 Summary of journey from Sinai to Moab • 33:50-56 Yahweh’s command to destroy the indigenous peoples of Canaan • 34-36 Land divisions II o 34 Boundaries of the land o 35 Levitical towns and towns of refuge o 36 Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs II  (Dt 32:48-52; 34:1-9 The death of Moses)

Figure 1.3 A structure of Numbers

As already indicated, A1 could have composed the passages describing the death of Moses (for fuller details, see comments on 27:12–23). This would actually make the end of the book of Numbers less abrupt from the perspective of the work of A1, even though it would as such not be a major issue if one thinks in terms of a two-author hypothesis. If one classifies the material in Numbers into three differing types, it is much easier to make sense of how the plotline in the book progresses. While the 24

INTRODUCTION

divisions of the differing materials are not hard and fast, they nevertheless can result in a table like Table 1.1. If one reads the leftmost column, one can see how the Israelite journey progresses. The centre column is more or less about legal matters. On the right, one can see events that do not strictly speaking progress the plot but are nevertheless part of it. Interestingly, Interludes I–V occur at broadly equivalent intervals, suggesting that the author had a clear strategy in incorporating the legal material, interspersing it throughout the book so that it is there but does not interrupt the progression of the plot overly. In terms of narrative progression, there are two important ways to account for it. The first one is to divide the book into three sections, as already indicated earlier. The first section (Numbers 1–10) describes the Israelites as being at Sinai and making preparations for departure, which takes place in the conclusion of the section, in 10:11–36. The second section (Num 11–21) depicts the Israelites in the wilderness between Sinai and Moab, with an arrival at Moab in 22:1, already anticipated in a summary fashion in 21:20. The third section (22–36) then portrays the Israelites at the plains of Moab. It should be kept in mind that the book of Deuteronomy largely portrays a speech of Moses at the plains and it is really the book of Joshua that describes a continuation of the journey into the land of Canaan. A second way of looking is to divide the book into two parts.19 A generational shift takes place roughly at Numbers 20, with the chapter forming a major watershed in this respect. This watershed is not expressed explicitly and has to be inferred by the reader. However, the watershed and generational shift serve as vital background for the exposition of Deuteronomy and its famous generational conflation, where, as in Numbers, the first generation is largely associated with Sinai and the second generation with Moab, but where the second generation is spoken to as if they were the first (cf. e.g. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b). It should be noted that Numbers and Deuteronomy give a slightly differing, but ultimately compatible, picture as to when and how long the Israelites stayed at Kadesh. According to Numbers, they are there already when the spies incident takes place (Numbers 13–14, esp. 13:26), not long after the departure from Sinai. But the passage also implies that they leave Kadesh soon after (Num 14:25). After the intervening Chapters 15–19 that do not really advance the overall plot, Num 20:1 in the context of the chapter as a whole (cf. ahead) implies that the people arrive there at the end of their wanderings before heading towards the plains of Moab.20 Numbers 33:36–37 indicates that the Israelites were at Kadesh at the end of the 40-year period, without any mention of Kadesh in the beginning of the part of the list of Numbers 33 that pertains to stations after the departure from Sinai (v. 16ff.). This fits with Numbers 20:1, where Miriam dies at Kadesh, and where Aaron dies soon after the departure from Kadesh in the fortieth year after departure from Egypt (Num 20:22–29; cf. Num 33:36–38).21 At the same time, according to Deuteronomy 1:40 and 2:1, the Israelites left Kadesh soon after the spies episode (cf. Num 14:25), 25

INTRODUCTION

and there is no explicit indication that they returned there after the departure; instead Deuteronomy seems to indicate that they wandered around the mountains of Seir for many days (yāmîm rabbîm)22 and then went towards the land of Moab (see also Dt 2:14). All in all, then, the depictions are consistent with a stay in Kadesh both at the start and end of an approximately forty-year period that covers Numbers 13–20, even if some feeling of discrepancy may remain. Overall, I think the two authors of Deuteronomy (AD) and Numbers (A1) could have slightly differing perspectives and versions of tradition and could place such differing versions side by side for the Hexateuch where appropriate, just as they broadly represented two (or even more) slightly differing versions of legal tradition in places. Accordingly, even if harmonisations can be attempted, and often successfully at that, it is not always possible to know exactly how the events should be pictured based on their depiction in the texts. As for the legal materials in Numbers, they seem to have been arranged somewhat differently than those contained in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. And yet, one may think of an authorial strategy that is slightly different for each book, but connected for the whole. Genesis23 has a clear overall narrative progression and there is no legal material “proper” included. Exodus also by and large has a clear narrative progression up to Sinai, after which there is an extensive amount of legal materials from Ex 20 on, with some narrative also included in Ex 20–Lev 25. Narrative passages consist of Ex 24; Ex 32–34; Ex 40;24 Lev 8.25 And yet, one can consider that the plot does progress through Leviticus as a whole (see the summary in Nihan 2007:109). This broadly consists of a move from the institution of the cult and consecration of priests (Lev 1–10) to the maintenance (including restoration) of the cult (Lev 11–16) to focus on Israel as a whole (Lev 17–26/27).26 Interestingly, book demarcation between Exodus and Leviticus is (at least in my view) fairly weak, even if the demarcation between Leviticus and Numbers is not very strong either. I think that it is very reasonable to conclude that the author had a mixture of narrative and legal materials that he wanted to incorporate in the composition and had to formulate a suitable strategy to do so. He had more of narrative materials for the patriarchs and the story of the Exodus, but less of such materials for the wilderness period.27 In other words, the author had only a limited amount of narrative materials that directly progress the plot of Numbers, but a fair bit of legal and cultic materials. In this, some of the legal materials were more related to the setting from Sinai to Moab than others, and he therefore chose to adopt an arrangement that was in a sense a mixture of the arrangement of Exodus, where narrative is ultimately more conspicuous than law, with the tabernacle instructions and their execution nicely fitting the overall narrative setting and progression in Exodus, and Leviticus, where law is more conspicuous than narrative, even if much of the law, especially in Lev 1–9, relates to the narrative context of the tent of meeting that has just been built. In the arrangement of Numbers, the laws that are not interludes can be considered to fit with the

26

INTRODUCTION

narrative framework and to have been integrated in it fairly naturally, and if one were to leave the interludes out, one would have something that at least arguably broadly resembles Exodus. At the same time, if one adds the interludes, things move more towards an arrangement that has resemblances with especially some aspects of the latter part of Leviticus, where law is particularly dominant. Perhaps one may consider many if not most of the laws included in Numbers as interludes28 as supplementary to those in Ex 25–Leviticus,29 and therefore the author decided to integrate them in Numbers. In order to achieve a balance between narrative progression and integration of a good-sized body of materials that are difficult to tie to the narrative context, A1 interspersed them into the main text broadly at regular intervals rather than presenting them as a single group. One reason for interspersing the legal materials would seem to be that the laws are particularly unrelated to each other and would not form a particularly coherent group if presented together, and adding them as interludes would be less distracting than presenting them as a single block without any obvious narrative context. At the same time, the author worked so that the narrative in Numbers broadly balances the narrative in Exodus, leaving a block of legal materials in the middle in Leviticus. Book length may also have been an important consideration – that is the author (A1) wished to achieve a broadly comparable length for each of the four books Genesis–Numbers. In addition, the possibility that some of the material might have been added later is not excluded, even if this could have been the case for both any of the material in Genesis–Joshua and other biblical books (cf. Tigay 2002/1982; Carr 2011; Tov 2012). Finally, even a look at a concordance shows that there is very much more material on the Levites (always in relation to the Aaronide priests) in the book of Numbers than in Genesis–Leviticus that are in fact almost devoid of references to them, and equally clearly the greatest concentration of references to them in the whole of Genesis–Joshua. Such passages as Num 3–4; 8; 17; 18; 35 can be particularly highlighted. These passages elaborate on the duties and entitlements of the Levites, and this would then seem to give an additional clue to the author’s (A1) placement and arrangement of materials in the book as a whole, and as part of the wider work of Gen–Numbers and Dtr–Joshua (A1 and AD). Interestingly, the material elaborating on the duties of the Levites in Numbers could by and large be H (see ahead), and yet, Lev 17–26 that is largely H does not elaborate on the Levites. An assumption of a topical arrangement as a reason for this would seem apt, especially as the Levites as a whole are responsible for the transportation of the tabernacle as described in relation to the Israelite war camp in Numbers 1–10. I next elaborate parallels between Numbers and other parts of Genesis–Joshua. At the same time, I heuristically divide the narratives into their (potential) sources in these corpuses, keeping in mind that the exact source divisions are contested (Table 1.2).

27

Table 1.2 Sources and main parallels to the Hexateuch in Numbers, with particular reference to Gray (1903); Knohl (1995); Friedman (2003); adapted from Pitkänen (2015); this source division should be taken in a heuristic sense as there is no agreement about the exact delimitation, especially beyond a division into priestly and nonpriestly materials (cf. Frevel 2013) Description

Numbers

Source attribution

Main parallels in Gen– Comments Josh; source attribution (e.g. from Friedman as one such attribution, also Knohl as per P or H)

Census of the first generation Arrangement of the camp

1 2

vv. 1–48 P; vv. 48–54 H H

Num 26 (P); cf. 2 Sam 24 Cf. Ex 12:37 (E); 38:26 (P or H)

Duties of priests and Levites in the camp Exclusions from the camp

3–4

H

Cf. Ex–Lev, passim (P/H); Josh 21 (P or H)

5:1–4

H

Interlude I: miscellaneous laws/instruction

5:5–6:27

5:5–10 H; 5:11–6:21 largely P but 5:21, 27 H; 6:22–27 H H

Lev 13 (P); 15 (mostly P, but v. 31 H); 21 (H); cf. Dt 23:10–14 (D law) Cf. Lev 5–6 (mostly P); Ex 29:1–37 (P); Lev 10 (P and H); Jdg 13; 1 Sam 1

Offerings at 7 the tabernacle’s consecration Interlude II: lamps 8:1–4 of the lampstand Cleansing of Levites Age range of Levites on duty Flashback: celebrating Passover at Sinai

H

8:5–22

H

8:23–26

H

9:1–14

H

Cf. Ex 35 (H or P)

Ex 25:35–39 (P); 37:17– 24 (H or P); Lev 24:1–4 (H) Cf. Lev 8–9 (mostly P; 9:16 H)

Ex 12–13 (E and P/H); 23:15 (E/CC); 34:18 (J); Num 28:16–25 (P/H); Dt 16:1–8 (D law); Josh 5:10–12 (D and/or sources of D, and/or P or H)

The numbers given in Ex 12:37 would point towards P or H

Description

Numbers

Source attribution

Main parallels in Gen– Comments Josh; source attribution (e.g. from Friedman as one such attribution, also Knohl as per P or H)

The divine cloud 9:15–23 as an accoutrement during the march through the wilderness Silver trumpets as 10:1–10 an accoutrement during the march through the wilderness People leave Sinai 10:11–36

H

Ex 13:20–22 (J); 40:34–38 (H or P)

H

Cf. Josh 6 (D or sources of D, with P, or even H, features); Jdg 6:34–7:25; 2 Chr 13:12–17

vv. 11–28 H; vv. 29–36 J

11 Taberah, Kibrot Hattaava and Hazeroth, with elders appointed to help Moses 12 Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion and leprosy Spies episode, 13–14 Kadesh

E

Ex 13:20–22 (J); 40:34–38 (H or P); Ex 25:10–22 (P); 37:1–9 (H or P); cf. esp. Num 14:44 (J); Josh 3–4 (D and/ or its sources, with P/H features), Josh 6 (D or sources of D, with P, or even H, features); 1 Sam 4–5; 2 Sam 6; 1 Ki 8:1–4 Ex 16 (H or P, some J, in vv. 4–5, 35); 18 (E); Dt 9:22 (D)

Interlude IIIa: laws 15:1–31 about sacrifices

E

13:1–17a P; 13:17b–33 mostly J but a few verses P (possibly 21, 25 P); 14:1–45 some verses P and some verses J (possibly 1b, 3–4, 8–9, 11– 25, 39–45 J) H (or, better, mostly P)

Cf. Ex 32–33 (E); Dt 9:23 (D); Josh 14:6–15 (D and/or its sources); Josh 15:13–14 (D and/or its sources)

Cf. Lev 1–7 (mostly P, some H); Lev 23 (mostly P, some H) (Continued)

Table 1.2 (Continued) Description

Numbers

Source attribution

Main parallels in Gen– Comments Josh; source attribution (e.g. from Friedman as one such attribution, also Knohl as per P or H)

Sabbath Breaker

15:32–36

H

Interlude IIIb: tassels Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron, their punishment and the confirmation of Aaron’s primacy Duties and entitlements of priests and Levites Interlude IV: laws for purification

15:37–41

H

Cf. esp. Ex 20:9–11 (CC; H); Dt 5 (D [law]): 12–15 (D law); Ex 31:13–17 (H); 35:1–3 (H or P); also cf. esp. Lev 24:10–16 (H) Dt 22:12 (D law)

16–17

16 mixture of P Cf. Lev 10 (P and H) and J (possibly 1b, 2b, 12–15, 25–26, 27b–34 J); 17 H

18

H

Kadesh, death of Miriam Water from the rock, the punishment of Moses and Aaron From Kadesh on, past Edom Kadesh to Hor, death of Aaron

20:1

King of Arad

19

20:2–13

Cf. Ex 32:25–29 (E); Dt 10:8–9 (D law); Num 3:9,10 (H) P, with some H Lev 4:6 (P); 17 (H or P); in vv. 2a, 10b– (Ex 29:14 [P]; Lev 4:11 13, 20–21a [P]); Lev 14 (P, except v. 34 H) H or P, with 1b possibly J or E Ex 17:2–7 (E) H or P, with v. 5 possibly J or E

20:14–21

J

20:22–29

P

21:1–3

J

The bronze serpent 21:4–9

E

Dt 2:3–8 (D); cf. Jdg 11:17–18 Num 33:37–39 (possibly redactional passage/ separate source); Dt 10:6 (D); 32:50 (D or redactor) Num 33:40 (possibly redactional passage/ separate source); cf. Num 14:45 (possibly J)

Description

Numbers

Source attribution

Northwards past Wadi Arnon, arrival at Moab Defeat of Sihon

21:10–20

J, with vv. 10– 11a possibly P

21:21–30

J or E

Defeat of Og

21:31–35

J or E

Arrival at Moab

22:1 (also P 21:20) 22–24 E

Balaam

Baal worship at Peor Census of the second generation Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs (I) Joshua succeeds Moses

25 26 27:1–11

27:12–23

Interlude V: 28–30 offerings and vows

Vengeance on Midian

31

Main parallels in Gen– Comments Josh; source attribution (e.g. from Friedman as one such attribution, also Knohl as per P or H)

Dt 2:26–37 (D); Josh 13 (D and its sources, with potential P features); cf. Jdg 11:19–22 Dt 3:1–11 (D); Josh 13 (D with potential P features)

Num 31:8, 16 (P); Dt 23:4–5 (D law); Josh 13:22 (D or its sources); Josh 24:9–10 (D or its sources); cf. Jdg 11:25 vv. 1–5 J; Dt 4:3 (D); Josh 22:17 (P vv. 6–18 P or H); Num 31 (P) P Num 1 (P and H); cf. 2 Sam 24 P or H Num 36 (P or H); Josh 17:3–6 (D or its sources, or P or H) P Dt 31:7–8 (D), 14–15, 23 (E); Dt 32:48–52 (P or H); Dt 34 (J and P) Ex 29:38–42 (P/H); P, with H Ex 23:14–19 (E/CC) in 28:2b, 6, 22–23, 30, 31a; 29:38–46 (H); 34:18–26 29:5–6, 11, 16, (J); Lev 16 (P/H); Lev 19, 22, 25, 28, 23 (P/H); Dt 16:1–17 (D law); Lev 27 (H); Dt 31, 34, 38 23:18 (D law); also cf. parallels for Num 9:1–14 given earlier P Num 25 (J and P); Josh 13:21 (D or its sources, possibly connections with P) (Continued)

INTRODUCTION

Table 1.2 (Continued) Description

Numbers

Source attribution

Main parallels in Gen– Comments Josh; source attribution (e.g. from Friedman as one such attribution, also Knohl as per P or H)

Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead

32

Mixture of P and J that cannot be completely disentangled

Josh 1:12–18 (D); 4:12 (D); Josh 13 (D and its sources, with potential P features); Josh 22 (D in vv. 1–8, P or H in vv. 9–34) Dt 10:6–7 (D or its sources)

Summary of 33:1–49 journey from Sinai to Moab

Boundaries of the land

33:50– 34:29

Levitical towns and towns of refuge

35

Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs (II)

36

P, but possibly also J or E in vv. 1–49 in a way that cannot be disentangled P Gen 15:18–21 (J); Num 32 (mixture of P and J that cannot be completely disentangled); Dt 1:6–8 (D); Josh 13–19 (D and its sources, with potential P features); Josh 22:9–34 (P or H) P or H Lev 25:32–34 (H); Josh 21 (P or H); Dt 4:41–43 (D); Dt 19:1–13 (D law); Josh 20 (D and its sources, with P or H features) P or H Num 27:1–11 (P or H); Josh 17:3–6 (D or its sources, or P or H)

In classical source criticism (the Wellhausenian newer documentary hypothesis), these narrative sources run from Genesis to Numbers, with some of J or E even in the last chapters of Deuteronomy. Some also have thought that J and E continue past Deuteronomy into the historical books, even if this view is now less common. Keeping in mind that the existence of the E source has been disputed, there are good reasons to simply subscribe to an idea of an overall narrative source or simply narrative materials30 as opposed to priestly materials (and Deuteronomic ones in Deuteronomy–Joshua). P (priestly source) generally pertains to cultic matters and is most notably present in Exodus 25–31; 35–40 and Lev 1–16. The Holiness Code pertains to holiness in the land Yahweh has given 32

INTRODUCTION

to the Israelites and is most notably present in Lev 17–26.31 Nowadays it is often thought that H was a separate but related development to P and was added in to P (cf. Nihan 2007), and this would explain why some of the P material has H material mixed in as it were, even if it is often not easy to argue for precedence based on literary considerations alone.32 Each of these sources JE and P/H (and D) could have been based on earlier sources, and in some cases limited amounts of independent materials could have been added to the Pentateuch. Also keeping in mind what I have already said earlier about the mix of legal and narrative materials in Genesis–Numbers, I do think that there were narrative sources and priestly materials, including more or less separate but related H materials that were added in simultaneously by A1, the author of Genesis–Numbers.33 In a number of ways, the approach here collapses the idea of redactional layers as creating overall narrative links into one-time authorial activity that has combined sources into a coherent whole. This does not, however, leave out the possibility of either a prehistory for the sources or later modifications to Genesis–Joshua, in line with comparative works in the ancient Near East (see Tigay 2002/1982; Carr 2011; and cf. ahead). Except for its general informative context, Table 1.2 shows that there are connections from Numbers to all other books of Genesis–Joshua. While connections to Genesis are less prominent, one may bear in mind that Genesis is a prologue and Numbers links back to Exodus that naturally follows on Genesis.

Legal backgrounds and implementation As already indicated and as can be seen from Table 1.2, the legal materials in Numbers belong to the so-called P/H material. Most of the material seems to be at least potentially attributable to H, but H can also be intermixed with P materials. If we look at things together with parts that are more related to narrative, here again it would seem reasonable to think that the author has drawn in from both priestly and Holiness materials and incorporated them in the composition, together with nonpriestly narrative materials (J and E in classical source criticism). As for the provenance of P and H legal materials, one may keep in mind that, whatever date one assigns to Numbers, as already alluded to, the book is preceded by an ancient Near Eastern literary and legal tradition of more than 1,000 years. The so-called Stele of the Vultures from the time of Eannatum of Lagash (ca 2500 BCE) kicks off the first attestations of the ANE legal tradition that then extends all the way to the last centuries of the pre-Christian era, after which other legal traditions take over (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012).34 Accordingly, one may consider that Numbers might be and was building on an ancient Near Eastern legal heritage, with the same applying to the narratives, mutantis mutandis. Of course, one does not need to assume that Numbers simply “copied” the cultural heritage; instead, the book creatively adapts available materials and concepts and transforms them into something new and unique (cf. also e.g. Feder 2011). Considerations about the use of ancient Near Eastern traditions 33

INTRODUCTION

in legal materials, but also in narratives, will be included throughout the commentary section. In line with what was said earlier, the Israelite legal materials are somewhat unique in that there are variations in them and they can be divided essentially into the two blocks of CC/Dtr and P/H.35 Some of the variation can be considered as at least apparently or partially contradictory. For example according to Lev 11:39–41 and Lev 17:15, anyone who eats something already dead must wash and/or bathe and be unclean until evening. However, Deuteronomy 14:21 explicitly forbids eating such things, even if a foreigner may do so. Even if the Deuteronomy passage suggests the possibility of giving such animals to aliens and foreigners (cf. Kilchör 2015:105–106), there nevertheless remains some tension as, while cultic impurity is not a sin, it is nevertheless an inconvenience. At the same time, in most cases the legal materials can be considered to be at a minimum broadly in line with each other, especially when one sees Deuteronomy as developing the Covenant Code further and sees Deuteronomy as primarily addressed to laity as opposed to priestly (P and H) materials that are more technical and primarily addressed to cultic functionaries (cf. e.g. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b; Kilchör 2015). In addition, Deuteronomy can be seen as developing priestly concepts further, at least in some respects. For example a rule against “profane slaughter” (see Lev 17, esp. vv. 3–4) can be seen as being relaxed by Deuteronomy for conditions in the land (Dt 12, esp. vv. 20–24). Interestingly for this, we do know that the Hittite laws did include comments about revisions where a custom of an earlier time (karū=formerly) was explicitly revised into a new practice at a later time (kinuna=now; see e.g. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, vol. 1:251–292). Also, we do know for example that the zukru rituals in second-millennium Emar (around present Syria) could have differing forms (see Fleming 2000:98–99). Thus, it would not seem entirely unreasonable to expect variations in the Israelite corpus. It would appear that the (two) Israelite authors saw it as adequate and sufficient to combine these differing but interrelated laws into a reasonably coherent corpus as attested in Genesis–Joshua. It would further appear that the generational shift between the first and second generation and the first and second covenants (at Sinai and Moab, respectively; cf. earlier) could at least broadly be considered as having a similar effect as the Hittite karū (formerly) and kinuna (now) mentioned earlier. As already intimated, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the CC/Dtr corpus was oriented towards laity and the P/H corpus towards priests, and each set of legal materials originated with slightly differing priestly personnel. Moreover, as already noted earlier, it is not clear to what extent ANE law was considered as idealistic and to what extent it might have reflected actual practice (and see e.g. Kraus 1984, esp. 111–123). If one could see law as providing guidelines (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012), and not full details like in later (esp. Western) legal practice, some variation in details at the time of composition would seem reasonable. Interestingly, however, the book of Joshua does indicate on several occasions that the Pentateuchal legal materials were, and thus should be, followed in actual practice (see e.g. Josh 8:30–35; 20:1–9; 22:9–34), even if it is not 34

INTRODUCTION

clear to what extent even the implementations presented in Joshua were really followed, including by those who would read the texts for example after the death of the authors (and cf. comments on Chapter 35 ahead). Interestingly, the book of Joshua mediates between priestly and Deuteronomic practice, incorporating priestly materials within a Deuteronomic context (cf. Pitkänen 2010b; Pitkänen 2016b), thus reinforcing the idea that, at least by and large, the covenant at Moab does build on and, where there might be contradictions, supersede the covenant at Sinai. From that perspective, it would seem that the authors did intend the laws to be followed in actual practice, at the very least to a certain extent, based on the primacy of the Moab covenant. In this, however, one must keep in mind that the Sinai covenant includes material that is not found in the Moab covenant,36 and it would seem reasonable to think that this material could and would stay in force, should it be considered as something to be actually followed. Also, Deuteronomy is the sermon of Moses without indicating that it is direct revelation, whereas the legal materials in Exodus–Numbers are presented as direct communication from Yahweh (cf. comments on 28:1 ahead). In other words, and as has been pointed out before (e.g. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b), there is a complex set of legal considerations and hermeneutics that runs through Genesis–Joshua. Naturally, readers at differing times, such as during the monarchy and in the postexilic era, and in differing places, could as such have varying readings of the legal materials.

Textual issues The textual tradition of Numbers does not present major deviations from the Masoretic text.37 A summary of the differences from the Greek can be found in Tov (2012:322). In the Greek, small pluses (additions) appear in 2:7, 14, 20, 22, 29 (the same plus in all of these verses); 3:10; 7:88; 10:6; 14:23 (cf. Dt 1:39); 23:3; 23:7 (cf. 24:2); 24:23; 32:30; 36:1 (cf. 27:1). In 9:22–23 the Greek has a shorter text (see Tov 2012:322). Otherwise, Gad in Num 1:24–25 comes after Manasseh (vv. 34–35) in Greek (see Tov 2012:322). A similar change took place in Num 26, with Gad moved from its position between Simeon and Judah (vv. 15–18), even if in this case to after Issachar (vv. 23–25). Finally, the comment about the cloud in Num 10:34 is placed after v. 36 in the Greek (see Tov 2012:309, 322) and the conclusion to the priestly blessing in 6:27 is placed at the end of v. 23 in the Greek (cf. Achenbach 2003:513). The best-preserved manuscript of Numbers found from Qumran (4 QNumb) is enough in line with Samaritan readings to be classified as pre-Samaritan (Tov 2012:90–93). Most notably, this textual tradition in Numbers includes some additions deriving from Deuteronomy that seem to be essentially secondary (see Jastram 1992; Tov 2012:90–93 for further details; cf. Milgrom 1990:xi; Levine 1993:86). A limited amount of comment is made in the commentary section on some of the more significant textual differences and potential reasons for them. Otherwise, I will not try to elaborate on textual issues further in this commentary, except I again note that, in general, the biblical texts could have undergone 35

INTRODUCTION

(and did undergo) editing and modification as they were transmitted through time (for further details, see Tigay 2002/1982; George 2003; Carr 2011). Some editing may also have been possible when Genesis–Joshua was connected with Judges, Samuel and Kings to form an Enneateuch, even if I think that this would not have been on a large scale (cf. Dozeman, Römer and Schmid 2011; and cf. comments on 3:2–4; Chapters 16–17, “Context”; 13:4–16 ahead). That the Samaritan style tradition (incl. 4 QNumb) includes additions from Deuteronomy is in line with the idea of fluidity of the tradition, and for example comparable features are known from the Gilgamesh epic (see Tigay 2002/1982:73–109). As the reconstructed history of the evolution of the Gilgamesh epic clearly suggests that the text of the epic became more fixed with the passing of time and as the known manuscripts of Numbers exhibit only relatively minor variation, one may suggest that the Numbers manuscripts are likely to attest to a relatively late stage of the formation of the Numbers tradition. The existence of somewhat differing (or diverging) textual streams within this context does not seem to necessitate modifying such a conclusion.

Date, provenance and historicity The book of Numbers presents itself as a product of the Mosaic period. It does not claim that it was written by Moses himself. Instead, it is a narrative about Moses and the Israelites. To be sure, the book, as well as other books in the Pentateuch, claims that Moses wrote down certain things that relate to the work. In Numbers, according to 33:2, Moses recorded the places listed in vv. 3–48. Accordingly, one can consider that Numbers is really an anonymous work that refers back to Mosaic sources, however varying and divergent, and sometimes even at least to some extent contradictory, these may be. But to what extent these may be sources that actually go back to Moses is difficult to ascertain (cf. comments on Chapter 33, “Context”). In the ancient Near East, works could range from highly truthful ones to very fictional ones, even if they were written in the form of an autobiography (see e.g. Longman 1990). Therefore, based on genre alone, one cannot yet tell whether and to what extent Numbers should be considered as factual or fictional. Even if one were to favour an early date, the book would nevertheless have been transmitted through time, and based on analogies with other ancient Near Eastern compositions and textual differences in biblical manuscripts themselves (cf. Carr 2011), the final form of the text does seem to date from the postexilic period, if not even later. Interestingly, the Gilgamesh epic was produced in Mesopotamia in the first half of the second millennium BCE, apparently based on earlier more or less independent narratives, and was copied across the Near East already in the second millennium BCE (see Tigay 2002/1982; Carr 2011; George 2003), with fragments also found in Canaan in the second millennium (see e.g. Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders 2006). It did already attain a fairly fixed form by the thirteenth century BCE and was copied on, with good manuscripts found in Assyrian libraries in the eighth century BCE. In this, Genesis–Joshua could have been a kind of equivalent 36

INTRODUCTION

to the Gilgamesh epic (together with influence from any other comparative epics) by the early Israelites.38 I think it is fair to suggest that the early Israelites would most likely have been aware of the existence of the epic already in the thirteenth– twelfth centuries, at the time of their initial settlement. Interestingly, that Moses cannot reach the promised land may provide a conceptual parallel to the failure of Gilgamesh to attain immortality. The view taken here is that the book of Numbers is a product of the late second millennium, as part of the wider work of Genesis–Joshua. This said, I think the book dates from a time somewhat later than the Mosaic period. My preferred date is the first half of the eleventh century BCE. This dating is much based on the idea that the book of Joshua considers Shiloh as a central place in early Israel where Yahweh and his name dwell. Such a place is expressed to be important in the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 12), also keeping in mind that Yahweh dwelt or “lived” in the midst of his people Israel in the tabernacle (Ex 25–40) or the temple (1 Kings 8) according to the biblical sources. It is true that Yahweh also simultaneously dwelt in heaven or could manifest himself otherwise (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003; cf. Hundley 2013), but temples (the tabernacle was a portable temple) were the places prima facia where gods dwelt among the people in the ancient Near East. The whole temple service was constructed to secure divine presence, without which calamities and disasters could be expected to fall on the land. Shiloh was considered as rejected at the end of the premonarchical period due to the sins of the people, and Jerusalem took its place (1 Sam 3–4; Ps 78:56–72). It would be surprising, even though not impossible, if the document promoted Shiloh in a later period. Also, Genesis–Joshua is about the land of Canaan, where the Israelites settle, and the book of Joshua encourages the Israelites to serve Yahweh and to continue driving out the indigenous peoples; this is a feature better explained by an early date (cf. ahead, “Message of the book and reading Numbers today”). The focus on Midianites (Num 31) and Amalekites (Ex 17; Num 14:43–45; 24:20) fits with a focus on them in other materials that portray the early history of Israel (Judges 6–8:28; 1 Sam 15). In terms of a potentially earlier date for Genesis– Joshua, I think that the book of Joshua includes telescoping of preceding events that would seem to preclude a date shortly after the time of Moses, and even immediately after the death of Joshua himself.39 In terms of historicity, even an (relatively) early date does not yet guarantee that a book depicts historical events accurately. And, in any case, history is always told in a narrative form and can include representations that are artistic and at least partially fictional (cf. Longman 1990; Curthoys and Docker 2010). To speak in analogy with art, things may range from realist to impressionist to expressionist to abstract. In the case of Numbers, I would in many ways see the book as analogous to impressionism-expressionism, or semi-mythical in terms of literature, in a scale between history and fiction. The broad brushes, such as the historicity of Moses as a leader of a group of Israelites from Egypt, would seem to resonate with real history. On the other hand, some of the details pertaining to the wilderness are more in the realm of brushstrokes that orient towards the abstract. So the issue 37

INTRODUCTION

of forty years and the generational shift would seem to be towards the realm of the more abstract, even if one cannot entirely prove such matters. Or the large numbers would seem to be intentional exaggeration, especially as such exaggeration is attested in the rest of the ancient Near East (cf. comments on Chapter 1). A number of the events in the wilderness, such as the earth swallowing the Korahites, may also belong to these broad brushes (cf. comments on Chapter 16). The camp form comes from the Late Bronze Age, but appears to have fictional features in the Numbers narrative (see commentary for details, including on 5:1–4). And for example the portrayal of the passage across Edom does differ in Numbers (Num 20) from that in Deuteronomy (Dt 2; see comments on Num 20). The wilderness route would seem more of a plausible one than an actual route taken (cf. comments on Chapter 33; cf. Roskop 2011), and yet those would be the kinds of places a group might traverse through if going from Egypt to Canaan. The tribal setting and names (including the patriarchs in and from Genesis) and accompanying genealogies would seem to reflect geographic areas where ancestors are named based on geographical areas and localities (cf. Finkelberg 2005), and yet, the traditions may also include actual reminiscences from past ancestors. In relation to this, some of the traditions about the setting and camp in the wilderness and genealogical relations between the tribes could have been formed to unite the various tribes that settled, but some of the traditions could also be historical. In yet other words, the book is a creative retelling of the Mosaic time. It is not accurate history, especially in a modern Western sense, but neither should one think that it does not somehow reflect the time of Moses. Such a position may appear at least partly paradoxical, but would in my opinion make best sense of the book. At present it may not be possible to decide on the “balance” between “history” and “fiction” definitively. More broadly, collective memory, and even modern historiography, may, and also often does, include mythical aspects that can also be more or less biased. For example national commemoration of victories of war may portray one’s own side as heroic and noble, and the opponent as vile and despicable, such as is the case with the Second World War, where the allies are seen as liberating the world from the evil of Nazism and totalitarianism. While it is a narrative with which one can of course well sympathise, the issue, including the motivations and a number of the actions of the players, is (much) more complicated than the basic narrative that is often presented to the hearers. In other words, things can be biased and details airbrushed (cf. e.g. Ferro 1997/1994:x; Short 2016:13–37 and passim). Accordingly, bias in the biblical documents should come as no surprise. But, interestingly, modern interpretative constructs about the past can also involve actual fiction. This is certainly the case with Pentateuchal studies, a topic directly relevant to this commentary. More specifically, when one keeps in mind that there has been a variety of source critical models that have been presented in the past 200 years or so, one cannot but say that not all of them can be correct. Of course, one might claim that the outlines of a theory may be acceptable, but it is just the details that may be an issue of debate. And yet, as indicated earlier, even many of the outlines are disputed, or at least problematic. From a practical perspective, whatever 38

INTRODUCTION

positions are taken and however much ink is spilled on elaborating a particular position and how much whole related conceptual and conceptualised frameworks may be fictional or not, this does not have any practical impact on contemporary life except in the production of the material objects (books and journals) of the related scholarship, in the constitution of personnel in academic institutions (and beyond) and in potentially influencing religious and political views that people take today. Such indirect relevance can be taken in contrast to engineering mistakes that can cause a device that has been designed and constructed to simply not work. And yet, more indirect effects can nevertheless be very potent also. In this, again, one’s understanding about history comes down to a variety of religious, political and institutional issues that are not only individual but also collective. Of course, this would have been the case for ancient Israelites and modern readers alike (and for those coming in between), mutantis mutandis. The ancient Israelite documents as well had their own religious, political and institutional agendas that they wished to promote, as this book on its part seeks to analyse. Determining the provenance and character of the book is then of significance for both understanding its original setting and aims and trying to think of its significance for today’s reading communities and beyond. As for the chronology of Numbers, it ties in with the wider chronological framework of Genesis–Joshua. In this, while Genesis–Joshua does have such a framework, it is not based on annals, such as with the books of Kings and wider king lists of the ancient Near East. Accordingly, it is not possible to establish even a relatively firm chronology for the time preceding the Israelite kings. Simply, as the authors did not have annalistic information about the events that pertained to Genesis–Joshua, they tried to fill in the gaps as best they could, in view of what seemed plausible for them (cf. Milgrom 1990:xi; Forsling 2013:137–138). The events pertaining to the Exodus and wilderness are also connected with the yearly calendar of feasts (cf. Forsling 2013:138, with reference to Mark S. Smith). Table 1.3 outlines the chronological framework, with a focus on Exodus–Joshua. Table 1.3 Exodus and wilderness chronology Date

Biblical reference

Event

−430 years Year 1, month 1, day 15 Year 1, month 3 Year 2, month 1, day 1

Ex 12:41; cf. Gen 15:13 Ex 12:3, 6, 41 Ex 19:1 Ex 40:1

Time in Egypt The exodus Arrival at Sinai Setting up of the tent of meeting Ordination of priests begins Ordination of priests is completed

Lev 8:1, 33 Year 2, month 1, day 8

Lev 9:1

(Continued)

39

INTRODUCTION

Table 1.3 (Continued) Date

Biblical reference

Event

Year 2, month 2, day 1 Year 2, month 1, before and on day 14 Year 2, month 2, day 14

Num 1:1, 18 Num 9:1–5

Year 2, month 2, day 20 Year 2 (apparently)

Num 10:11–12 Num 13–14; cf. Num 14:34; 13:26 Num 20:1; cf. Num 20:22; Num 14:34

First census Flashback: celebration of Passover at Sinai Backup celebration of Passover The Israelites leave Sinai The Spies episode at Kadesh The Israelites arrive at Kadesh (apparently for a second time, towards the end of the wilderness period) Arrival at Mount Hor; the death of Aaron Moses begins the exposition of the law (Deuteronomy) at Sinai Moses dies at 120 Joshua leads Israel Caleb given Hebron at Gilgal Joshua dies at 110

Year ? (possibly 40), month 1

Year 40, month 5, day 1 Year 40, month 11, day 1

Year 40 Years 40+ Year 47 (approximately) Year 80 (approximately)

Num 9:10–12

Num 20:22, 28; Num 33:38 Dt 1:3

Dt 34:5–7; cf. Ex 7:7 Josh 1:1; 13:1; 23:1 Josh 14:10; cf. Josh 4:19–20; 10:15 Josh 24:29; cf. Ex 33:11

Message of the book and reading Numbers today In its original setting within Genesis–Joshua, the book can be read as part of a programmatic document of ancient settler colonialism.40 Settler colonialism is essentially a phenomenon that accompanies “autonomous collectives that claim both a special sovereign charge and a regenerative capacity” (Veracini 2010:3). Settlers consist of people who remove into a new land and establish a new society of their own liking there (Veracini 2010:4). While the analysis of settler colonialism often assumes the concept of a metropolis that more or less has political control over settlers, Pitkänen (2014a; cf. Pitkänen 2016a) suggests that migrants can become a settler collective if they have the disposition and means available to take political control at their destination, a matter that is of significance for an analysis of ancient Israel. Pitkänen (2014d) also gives detailed reasons for why and how settler colonialism can be applied to the ancient world, concentrating on issues of intergroup violence, access to resources (including land), the objectives of colonisers and migrations of peoples. The study of 40

INTRODUCTION

settler colonialism as an academic discipline is very new; it has distinguished itself from general colonial studies only over the last ten to fifteen years or so (see Veracini 2010:1–15 for the history of scholarship). These disciplines themselves have interacted with the field of genocide studies that was in many ways initiated by Raphael Lemkin’s work during the Second World War (cf. Docker 2008; Shaw 2015; Short 2016). In terms of the narrative of Genesis–Joshua, it indicates that Abraham, Israel’s forefather, migrated into the land of Canaan from Mesopotamia, and that his descendants subsequently moved to Egypt to protect themselves from a famine. The Israelites became a nation in Egypt but were enslaved. They were later liberated and left Egypt under the leadership of Moses. They then traversed a wilderness and arrived at the edge of the land of Canaan, where Moses died, and it was left to his successor, Joshua, to lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan in order to conquer it and settle it. This immediately sounds like settler colonialism. The portrayal should also be seen in the context of migration studies that analyse migrations based on four main types: home-community migration, colonising migration, whole-community migration and cross-community migration (see Manning 2013:4–10),41 with the Israelite case then primarily falling under the category of colonising migration. In express settler colonial terms, the Israelites, especially towards the end of Genesis–Joshua, become an autonomous collective that claims both a special sovereign charge and a regenerative capacity. Also, they vie for a piece of land to claim for themselves under their sovereign charge where they are to establish a new society, and, as a case in point, we may recall that the Holiness Code and Deuteronomic laws particularly focus on land. The indigenous peoples are to be eliminated, either by killing them (e.g. Deuteronomy 7) or by physical displacement (e.g. Exodus 23:20–33). There are also more subtle ways to eliminate the indigenous population, labelled as indigenous others by Veracini (2010). They can for example be assimilated. In ancient Israel, such people include Rahab (Joshua 2; 6) and the Gibeonites (Joshua 9).42 People coming from outside, labelled as exogenous others by Veracini, can also join the settler collective, and this can be called “transfer” (see Veracini 2010:33). More specifically, Veracini defines transfer essentially as “cleansing” the settler body polity of its (indigenous and exogenous) alterities (Veracini 2010:33), defining twenty-six different forms of transfer (Veracini 2010:35–50). The concept of transfer itself relates to the concept of a “structural genocide” where an existing (indigenous) society is destroyed (see Wolfe 2006:401, 403). As part of this, one may note that indigenous others are normally considered as a threat to the settler collective as their continuing existence constitutes a threat and challenge to the very existence and legitimacy of the settler collective (Veracini 2010:24–26, 33–34), whereas exogenous others (these might include people from lands external to the settler collective who might join the collective) are generally seen as people who can collaborate with the settler collective (Veracini 2010:26–27). In the Israelite case, exogenous others include the mixed multitude (‘ēreḇ raḇ) that went out of Egypt in the Exodus (according to Ex 12:38) and Caleb the Kenizzite (Josh 41

INTRODUCTION

14:6; Num 13:6). And the Israelites legislate for a foreigner (gēr) in a number of places in the Pentateuchal legal materials (e.g. Lev. 17–25; Dt 14:1–21; cf. comments on 9:9–14 ahead). Thus, people from outside the main settler collective would then have been transferred into the settler collective, whether initially as indigenous or exogenous others. There can also be abject others, those permanently excluded from the settler polity, having lost their indigenous or exogenous status (Veracini 2010:27–28). In the Israelite society these include people who have been subject to the kārat punishment of being cut off from the people (Lev 7:20–27; 17:4–14; 18:29 etc.) and the Ammonites and Moabites, who according to Deuteronomy 23:1–7 cannot be uplifted into the Israelite community, even when an Edomite and Egyptian can be included in the third generation. These processes would go on for centuries in the Israelite society after the initial invasion described in Numbers for Transjordan and in Joshua for land west of the Jordan and would result in transforming the Late Bronze societies as for example attested in the Amarna letters into the later Iron Age, and ultimately also the postexilic Israelite societies. In this, it is important to consider that, in general, settler colonialism is a structure rather than an event where an initial invasion gives rise to a prolonged process of eliminating the indigenous population (see Wolfe 1999:2, 163; Wolfe 2006:402). In this respect, David Day’s Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others (Day 2008) outlines an overall process that typically happens when a society takes over another. According to Day, a “process of supplanting” by a society involves three stages: “Firstly, it must establish a legal or de jure claim to the land” (Day 2008:7). Then “a supplanting society must proceed to the next stage of the process by making a claim of effective or de facto proprietorship over the territory that it wants to have as its own” (Day 2008:8). Such a claim “is commonly established by exploring the territory’s furthest reaches, naming its geographic and other features, fortifying its borders, tilling its soil, developing its resources, and, most importantly, peopling the invaded lands” (Day 2008:8). Lastly, “the last and most elusive step of the process . . . involves establishing a claim of moral proprietorship over the territory” (Day 2008:8). For this to succeed, “such a claim must outweigh the claim that any other society, including the previous inhabitants, has the potential to assert” (Day 2008:8). In a broad sweep, which we will be refining further ahead, for the Israelite society, the patriarchal promises reflect the first point, the conquest and settlement the second, and recourse to Yahwism as an exclusive ideology, together with the constitution of the new society (as in e.g. Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code in Leviticus) and its contrast with the practices of the previous inhabitants (e.g. Lev 18:24–30; 20:22–23; Deut 7) the moral claim. Day then goes further by identifying typical processes that accompany these three stages, commenting that these processes are often overlapping (as are the three main stages; Day 2008:7–9). These are staking a legal claim, mapping the territory, claiming by naming, supplanting the savages, claiming by right of conquest, defending the conquered territory, using foundation stories, tilling the soil, recourse to genocide where appropriate and peopling the land. One may also add 42

INTRODUCTION

a further section, organising the supplanting society, to reflect on certain issues relating to the moral claim. These aspects will be illustrated ahead, with some slight modifications as some of the features can be seen as slightly overlapping for our purposes here. Here we will make the following classifications: staking a legal claim, mapping the land, naming, foundation stories, supplanting the savages and the genocidal imperative, by right of conquest, tilling the soil and peopling the land, and defending the territory (and see Pitkänen 2014d for full details). Abraham’s travels in the land of Canaan and building of altars (e.g. Gen 12) can be seen as staking a legal claim. Interestingly, the place for the first recorded altar is Shechem, and the Israelites are later instructed to build an altar on Mount Ebal in Deuteronomy 27; the act of building, together with the accompanying ceremony prescribed by Deuteronomy 27:9–26, is described as having taken place in Joshua 8:30–35. This ceremony of conquest and supplanting by a new society harks back to the patriarchal promises in Genesis and also reinforces the interrelatedness of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Joshua, and arguably Genesis–Joshua as a whole. In terms of mapping the land, we can see how Abraham traverses the land in Genesis (Genesis 12:6–9), also at Yahweh’s instigation (Genesis 13:17). This then can be seen as part of “knowing the land” and thus asserting a claim over it. In the books of Numbers and Joshua matters are blown out completely explicitly. According to Numbers 13:1, Yahweh commands Moses to send out men to explore the land of Canaan. The men do this and bring back a description of the land (see comments on Chapters 13–14 for fuller details). The book of Joshua then describes the successful conquest. Joshua 18:3–10 describes a mapping process as part of dividing the land among the Israelite tribes. This mapping process is part of Joshua 13–21 that in a larger sense describe the tribal allotments. These allotments could be entirely programmatic (cf. comments on Chapter 35 ahead) and as such can be compared with other ancient Near Eastern border descriptions, such as Hittite border descriptions (cf. Beckman 1999:109–111) and territorial issues in mid-third-millennium BCE Lagash and in the broader Near East centuries and millennia thereafter (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, vol. 1:2–15 and passim). While such a programmatic vision could have arisen at any time in Israel’s history, based on comparative parallels from conquests in world history, the vision would fit particularly well in a period of early Israel when these territories are not yet (fully) in the control of the Israelites but are desired to be so, also keeping in mind that Joshua 13–21 (esp. Joshua 13:1–7) and other biblical documents (e.g. Judges 1) and archaeological evidence indicate that the Israelite settlement and control started from the central, eastern and northern highlands and expanded out from there, to include lowlands in the later course of Israel’s history (see e.g. Finkelstein 1988:324–330; Faust 2006, esp. 159–166, 221–226; Junkkaala 2006, esp. 308–309; cf. also Jdg 1).43 In terms of claiming by naming, it appears that there are occasions when the Israelites rename places according to the biblical documents. This is the case with Gilgal (Joshua 5; 9), Hill of Foreskins (Joshua 5:2–3), Valley of Achor (Joshua 43

INTRODUCTION

7:26), Hebron (Joshua 14:15; 15:13; Judges 1:10), Debir (Joshua 15:15), Jerusalem (Judges 19:10), Bethel (Judges 1:23), Dan (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29), Havvoth Jair (Numbers 32:41), Nobah (Numbers 32:42) and other sites east of the Jordan (Num 32:38; cf. comments on 34:34–38 ahead). In the explicitly religious sphere, the Israelites are commanded to erase even the name of the gods of the previous inhabitants (Deuteronomy 12:3). Instead, the name of Yahweh is to be established in the land, and in a “chosen place” in particular (Deuteronomy 12:4–31). As regards foundation stories, clearly the Bible indicates, in the book of Genesis in particular, that the land was promised to the patriarchs, and this theme runs through the whole of Genesis–Joshua one way or another (see e.g. Exodus 3:16–17; 4:5; Deuteronomy 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:13; 30:20; cf. e.g. Numbers 13:2; Joshua 1:2, 12–15). The exodus and liberation provide another powerful foundation story, and the occasions of lawgiving at Sinai (Exodus) and in the wilderness (Leviticus–Numbers), and at the edge of the promised land (Deuteronomy) add further strands to the set of foundation stories. The genealogies (see especially Genesis 10) serve to establish Israel’s place among the nations, in the context of creation and the land Israel now occupies, and the patriarchal stories define Israel’s relations with its close neighbours (e.g. the Edomites, Genesis 26–27, 32–33; cf. comments on 20:14–21 ahead). Such expressions of relations appear to go back to the Late Bronze Age in ancient Greek traditions (see Finkelberg 2005:24–41). As for supplanting the savages and the genocidal imperative, the idea of the lower worth of the inhabitants is already grounded in Genesis 9:25, where Canaan is cursed. As already discussed earlier, such texts as Deuteronomy 7 (cf. Num 33:51–56) indicate that the inhabitants of Canaan are to be obliterated, and this settler colonial transfer corresponds to a genocidal imperative (cf. comments on Chapter 31, “Meaning”, ahead). According to the biblical documents, lands would also belong to the Israelites by right of conquest, as with King Sihon (cf. Day 2008:96–97, and see comments on 21:21–35 ahead),44 or apparently even by virtue of treading on them (Day 2008:96, and see e.g. Joshua 1:3; 14:9). Ancient battles already provided legitimation for Jacob according to Genesis 48:22. As regards tilling the soil and peopling the land, with early Israel, we can see how the population explosion, as it has been called (see Dever 2003:98; cf. comments on 1:20–46; Chapters 28–29, “Meaning”, ahead), in the highlands was followed by an expansion out from there in the ensuing centuries. In general, settler colonial processes may include periods of apparently peaceful coexistence, and then extensions of the process that may include further fighting, and may also include transfers by assimilating, or attempts to assimilate indigenous peoples (cf. Kakel 2011). While the Israelite narrative in the book of Joshua can be read to emphasise aspects of war and sudden conquest, it does also indicate a continuing settlement process that took a lot of time. Conversely, the narrative of Judges does emphasise the gradual settlement and coexistence aspect, without, however, denying that there was also violence (esp. Judges 1). 44

INTRODUCTION

As for fortifying the territory, with early Israel, there seems to be a relative lack of mention of fortifications and fortifying in Genesis–Joshua. But Numbers 32 and 33 do indicate that the Israelites fortified and possessed fortified towns in Transjordan (and cf. comments on 32:34–38; 33:37–49 ahead), and Deuteronomy 3:5 suggests fortified towns with “many” unfortified villages in Transjordan, which would also fit with the large number of unfortified settlements in Cisjordanian highlands in Iron Age I. It would appear that the Israelites would have taken over fortified towns where they existed and where they could conquer them (cf. Josh 10:20; 14:12; 1 Sam 6:18, 20:6, 15). David and Solomon and later kings are described as taking over fortified towns or fortifying themselves (e.g. 2 Samuel 5:6–10; 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Ki 12:25). Finally, the legal materials in Genesis–Joshua can be seen as providing a blueprint for the new Israelite society, even when it is not certain how much this was a theoretical rather than a practical construct (cf. earlier section, “Legal Backgrounds and Implementation”; also cf. e.g. comments on Chapter 35). As Wolfe points out, “settler colonialism has, as observed, two principal aspects – not only the removal of native society but also its concomitant replacement with settler institutions” (2008:130n71). In that sense, then, ancient Israel in Genesis–Joshua is a scribal creation. However, in contrast to the minimalist view that it is a creation of postexilic scribes who imagined the past of ancient Israel, the view taken here is that it is a programmatic creation of what the recently founded Israelite society should be like, even if it also looks back at the time of the patriarchs, the Egyptian bondage and liberation from it, time at Sinai and wilderness, at Moab and in the initial conquest in doing so (cf. the US Declaration of Independence and the US constitution; note that the Declaration of Independence does also refer to the indigenous peoples as “merciless Indian Savages”). “This latter, positive aspect of creating a new society involves the establishment and legitimation of civil hegemony” (Wolfe 2008:130n71). And “eliminatory strategies all reflect the centrality of the land, which is not merely the component of settler society but its basic precondition” (Wolfe 2008:103), and the centrality of the land surely also applies to the positive aspect(s). In relation to the establishment of a new society, a vision of a rest that Israel is to achieve with Yahweh dwelling in its midst in the land that Yahweh has promised to their forefathers is seen to come to fruition at the end of the book of Joshua. At the same time, importantly, together with these expressions of fulfilment of promises, there is talk about the incompleteness of the conquest and encouragement for the Israelites to continue following Yahweh and to not join with non-Israelite peoples who remain in the land (Joshua 13:1–7; Joshua 23). Many commentators have seen these two at least apparently contradictory viewpoints as puzzling and difficult to interpret (see e.g. Hess 1996:284–286; Nelson 1997, esp. 12–13, 242–243; cf. Knauf 2008). The presentation in the book of Joshua is also considered to be in contradiction with the book of Judges, which clearly describes an incomplete conquest. However, from the perspective of settler colonial studies, it is typical that settler colonial societies generally somehow wish to “disavow” their violent 45

INTRODUCTION

origins. According to Veracini, as one part of such processes, “an anxious reaction to disconcerting and disorienting developments produces a drive to think about a pacified world that can only be achieved via voluntary displacement” (Veracini 2010:89). Also, while “settlers are natural men engaged in building a settled life in an ahistorical locale, recurring representations of settler original idylls insist on an immaculate foundational setting devoid of disturbing indigenous (or exogenous) others” (Veracini 2010:88). And, ultimately, the fact that these images coexist with ongoing (explicit, latent, or intermittently surfacing) apprehension may actually suggest the activation of a splitting of the ego-like process, where two antithetical psychical attitudes coexist side by side without communicating, one taking reality into consideration, the other disavowing it. (Veracini 2010:89) In the case of ancient Israel, this fits well with the (particularly priestly) idea of movement from the paradisal garden to Sinai and to Shiloh in Genesis–Joshua as a restoration of creation in and through ancient Israel (cf. e.g. Nihan 2007:64–65, 370–371, 381–382 and passim). The book of Numbers then is part of the entity of Genesis–Joshua, referring to the transitional time between Sinai and the promised land. The legal materials in Numbers do provide additional blueprints to the “main” legal materials revealed at Sinai according to Exodus–Leviticus. The practical elimination of the indigenous peoples also starts in the book of Numbers, largely pertaining to the area east of the Jordan (see esp. Num 21:1–3, 21–35; 31 and comments on them; cf. also Num 33:50–56 and comments on the passage), with the book of Joshua describing the conquest west of the Jordan. Interestingly, this description fits quite nicely with an earlier theory about early Israel proposed by Gerhard Lenski (Lenski 2005:147–168; Nolan and Lenski 2015:198–200; cf. Pitkänen 2016a). Lenski classifies ancient Israel as a frontier society. In frontier societies, the usual elite-dominated mode of social and economic order breaks down and the resulting societies tend to be characterised by egalitarianism. Lenski compares the early Israelite society with for example the colonial United States of America. The United States of course has now been analysed also as a prime example of a settler colonial society (see esp. Hixson 2013). If one further keeps in mind that, in the scheme of Lenski’s classification of societies, both ancient Israel and the early United States were agrarian societies, even if the United States was an advanced agrarian society that also industrialised towards the end of the colonial period, and even if the two societies at first sight seem vastly separated in time and space, one can consider the societies as at least potentially more or less comparable. Naturally, then, this is compatible with ancient Israel being a settler colonial society also, keeping in mind the ideological aspect of the Israelite documents as described earlier. Lenski’s highlighting of the egalitarianism of frontier societies is in line with the egalitarianism of the ancient Israelite documents, in particular the Pentateuchal legal materials, and 46

INTRODUCTION

the archaeology of the Palestinian highlands in the Early Iron Age. Interestingly, social stratification increased45 after the closing of the frontier and the onset of the monarchy (cf. 1 Kings 9:20–21), in line with what tends to happen with frontier societies (see Lenski 2005:157–158). Interestingly, Lenski also points out the likely role of elites – that is priests and Levites – in formulating the early Israelite ideology (Lenski 2005:163–165), and this in fact is in line with the idea from Pentateuchal scholarship that both the priestly materials of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomy were products of priests (cf. e.g. Otto 2000:253). All in all, then, it seems that Genesis–Joshua can most naturally be read as a product of the priestly elites of a settler colonial frontier society in the late second millennium BCE, in contrast to Wellhausenian readings from the nineteenth century that had none of these analytical tools from social sciences available and therefore quite understandably were not able to consider these types of issues involved. One should also add a further dimension here that ties in with recent sociological theorising (cf. Pitkänen 2016a). The early Israelite elites did find it difficult to spread their ideology, especially the full version of it, through the population as a whole, and this can be considered a significant factor in why the new Israelite society did not quite follow their idealised conceptions, as can for example be seen from the book of Judges. In this, according to Malešević, the role of centrifugal ideologisation and cumulative bureaucratisation of coercion is determinative in the operation of societies (Malešević 2010). However, an ancient society, such as early Israel, would not have had the technological means that are available to modern societies, such as mass media for centrifugal ideologisation, or an effective administration that could overcome the limitations of geographical and climatic variation throughout its territory in terms of bureaucratisation of coercion (cf. Parker 2015). In contrast for example the postexilic community of returnees from Babylon seems to have been small and constricted enough for much greater control by such leaders as Ezra and Nehemiah, enabling the setup and maintenance of a (at least relatively so) torah-based society (cf. Pitkänen 2015:19, also referring to Sanders 2005; Sanders 2014).46 The foregoing description then leads to the question of how Numbers, also as part of the wider entity Genesis–Joshua, should be read today. A settler colonial analysis clearly implies that there are major ethical problems that relate to reading the book of Numbers in today’s world. Above all, according to the book of Numbers and Genesis–Joshua as a whole, on the journey that the Israelites make to Canaan, and in the land itself, the indigenous peoples are to be destroyed (Ex 23:20–33; Num 33:50–56; Dt 7). As already intimated earlier, the process described in the Hexateuch can be compared with processes called settler colonialism elsewhere in the world, such as in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, since the foundation of Western colonies there in the era of Western colonialism that can in many ways be considered to have started with Columbus landing in the Americas in 1492 (cf. e.g. Stannard 1992; cf. Ferro 1997). Today’s world has indeed moved towards recognition of the claims of indigenous peoples for their own lands in the face of those who might wish to take them away from them, even 47

INTRODUCTION

when much work still remains to be done (cf. Pitkänen 2010b; Pitkänen 2014b; Hinkson, James and Veracini 2012; Short 2016 for more details). Except for the recent emergence of settler colonial studies and the issues raised by that scholarship, the related field of genocide studies is currently going strong (cf. Shaw 2015). Moreover, the study of violence itself has recently received renewed interest from a “purely” sociological perspective (cf. Malešević 2010, already quoted earlier). If the book of Numbers then is part of a document that speaks for violent processes that have also been identified as ethically problematic in the modern world, it is imperative for contemporary readers, including Christian readers, to reflect on how to appropriate the materials. It would seem that one should proceed based on a kind of reader response criticism (cf. Davies 2010). The book of Numbers is not immediately easy reading for today’s audiences in most other respects either. It would appear that only the murmuring and rebellion traditions in the book are relatively easy to grasp without any further knowledge about the book. These are also referred to elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g. Ps 78:14–53; 105:13–33; Amos 5:25–27; cf. Hosea 2:14), in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 (see vv. 36–43), in Paul’s speech in Acts 13:18 and in his letters in 1 Cor 10:1–11, and in Hebrews 3:8, 17, Jude 11. Jesus’s temptation can be considered as a kind of reversal of Israel’s experiences in the wilderness in that Jesus does not succumb to temptation even if he is under the stress of great hunger (Matt 4:1–11; Lk 4:1–13; cf. Mk 1:12–13). Other than this, the depiction of Israel’s camp in the wilderness and the various legal materials in the book are largely hard to grasp. We have already noted that these should be understood in the context of the whole of the Hexateuch in order to appreciate them fully. The book is a part of the description of Israel’s journey from the creation of the world and the calling of its ancestral patriarchs to the land of Canaan. In the process, God’s presence with Adam and Eve in paradise is restored through the tabernacle that is constructed at Sinai and then set up at Shiloh in the land for a new society that is establishing itself in place of existing indigenous societies. The legal materials in Numbers are part of the so-called old covenant, which has largely been superseded for Christians (Heb 9), even if this is not the case for Jews (also depending on how observant one is as a Jew). However, the legal materials in Numbers are also tied with the modern world in a more indirect fashion. From a sociological and anthropological perspective, ritual issues affect all societies (cf. e.g. Douglas 2002/1966, incl.:77–78; Bell 2009/1992; Bell 2009/1997; cf. also Grimes 2014). For example modern rituals include baptisms (as a Christian rite, as is communion), marriages, funerals, initiations for example to new posts and positions and university fraternities, new year celebrations, national commemorative holidays, popping champagne when celebrating, staying at home rather than meeting people when unhappy or ill (cf. Lev 13) and so forth. In the Hexateuch (including Numbers) rituals are more extensive across a wide variety of social functions and clearly stem from a very different culture that was part of a wider ancient Near Eastern world. From this perspective, moderns can read 48

INTRODUCTION

the rituals in Numbers as being largely extinct for today, but as containing some pointers towards approaching issues that relate to human life. For example sacrifices do relate to considering the divine as holy for those who have a religious affiliation. Nazirites (Num 6) might be broadly comparable to a time of going away to study at university, time in the military (incl. boot camp), a gap year and so forth. The festivals in Genesis–Joshua still have their continuation in terms of a yearly cycle, including in the Christian tradition. The Passover was reinterpreted and established by Jesus himself according to the Christian tradition, and Christmas was established to commemorate his birth. An interesting aspect of rituals is that they can be a passage to something new. As part of this, there is often involved a time of separation that leads to an experience of liminality (transitoriness) and then rejoining and subsequent celebration and rejoicing (cf. e.g. comments in Barnard and Spencer 2010:617–620; Bell 1997:52–59 also surveys qualifications to this view). For example the military oath is often taken after a successful completion of initial training that includes loss of status and privacy and a degree of hardship. The oath then acts as a rite of passage into the life of a soldier, with some uplift in the status of the soldier. Often the soldier is set in isolation from family during boot camp, with no holidays available, and then there is a rejoining with the family during the ritual of taking the oath, and the soldier is afterwards allowed to have holidays (cf. Bell 2009/1997:95). Reading the book of Numbers and Genesis–Joshua can then help one become sensitive towards the meaning of rituals and towards recognising them and their structure, meaning and significance in daily life. But it should also be emphasised that rituals have deeper meanings – that is they reflect a more invisible conceptual thought world of those who participate in them, even if such meanings are not always immediately apparent.47 In the book of Numbers, much of ritual relates to the priesthood, and, among other things, this would have aimed to reinforce the important role that priests (and Levites) were envisaged to have in the Israelite society according to the author (A1), who, as we have suggested, belonged to priestly circles. All in all, it is useful to keep in mind the importance of rituals in Numbers, and the book at hand here will as a matter of course include comments on their potential meanings. All in all, an understanding of the original setting of the materials, or the “world behind the text” (cf. Tate 2008), as much as it can be plausibly reconstructed, is the starting point in any considerations of potential meaning(s) for the present day, the “world in front of the text” (cf. Tate 2008). And one should of course not forget “the world within the text” that relates to such issues as the mode of communication used by the author (cf. Tate 2008). As indicated earlier, today’s postcolonial context is one crucially important aspect in interpreting the book of Numbers, yet, in doing so, “the world in front of the text” also informs and aligns with both the “world in the text” and “the world behind the text”. In the same way, readers are encouraged to reflect on other aspects of the book of Numbers in the context of these three dimensions of interpretation. In the commentary section ahead, the “Context”, “Comment” and “Meaning” sections represent a movement 49

INTRODUCTION

from the world behind the text towards the world in front of the text for each textual unit delimited. Readers are at all points encouraged to add in their own insights, including in consultation with other works that concentrate on reading the text in today’s contexts (e.g. Lienhard 2001; Stubbs 2009). As part of such a process, one should also always keep in mind that the texts of the Old Testament (and here Numbers in particular) have been transmitted through history for some two to three millennia,48 with various interpretations and reinterpretations made of them during that time by their reading communities in a variety of geographical and social and cultural settings. In this stream of interpretative tradition, the New Testament provides one set of readings, and the same goes with present-day readings that for one thing may or may not look at things through the “lens” of the New Testament that has been an influential factor for the last 2,000 years.

Notes 1 Note that the so-called Holiness Code (H) that was also identified within the Priestly Code was dated by Wellhausen to a time somewhat before P, but after the book of Ezekiel; cf. ahead for further discussion on H. 2 Cf. this with the other proposed “watershed” between Genesis and Exodus. 3 Cf. Pitkänen (2010b:30–31) and Pitkänen (2016a:3–4), from which the rest of this paragraph and the next have been adapted. 4 Textual artefacts from both the area of ancient Israel and the wider Near East unearthed by archaeology are of course also of importance for biblical studies. 5 Cf. for example Whybray (1987) for problems with redaction and oral tradition with the Wellhausenian newer documentary hypothesis that will not be covered/repeated here (but cf. also comments earlier), and see for example Dever (2001) and Kitchen (2003) as critiques of minimalist approaches. 6 It also seems to me to be interesting to make a comparison between Pentateuchal theories and recent theoretical physics. In the latter, a body of researchers working on string theory, the current reigning research paradigm, has been wrestling with a lack of empirical evidence and with mathematical models that allow a huge, almost infinite number of theories; consequently, one cannot be sure of their validity (see Smolin 2006; the state of research seems to remain essentially the same at the time of writing this [Lee Smolin, personal communication, October 2016]). In many ways, the issue can be about successfully finding a/the “right” approach to one’s research efforts, also in a community context. 7 Cf. comments in Ritzer and Yagatich (2012) in the field of sociology itself. 8 Note also the concept of hegemony and its appropriation of cultural resources as discussed by Routledge, drawing from the work of Antonio Gramsci (Routledge 2014). 9 Thus (also) Eckart Otto, personal communication. 10 All in all, one may thus for example note that even if the presentation here may include critical comments about previous (Pentateuchal) scholarship, it is nevertheless in many ways indebted to it (and cf. e.g. Fara 2010; Nolan and Lenski 2015, and really Kuhn himself, too, on building on previous knowledge in a wider sense). 11 Cf. Kilchör (2015), whose argumentation is by and large accepted here. 12 Cf., however, comments on Num 15:22–31 and 28:26–31 that may qualify what is said here a little bit. 13 For such issues and proposed solutions in relation to Joshua, see especially Kitchen (2003); Pitkänen (2010b); Hawkins (2013).

50

INTRODUCTION

14 Note that this material has previously been seen as separate from Deuteronomy by others (cf. e.g. Lundbom 2013:837, 911, 942; van Seters 1994:451–456; Driver 1901; for Dt 31:14–15, 23, see also comments on 27:12–23). 15 Again keeping in mind, however, that the Hittites, Assyrians and Egyptians already practised population removal policies in the second millennium BCE. 16 For reconstructable details on processes of modifying literary works in the ancient Near East, including with the famous Gilgamesh epic, see for example Tigay (2002/1982); Carr (2011). 17 However, this does not yet mean that one can claim that the hypothesis must be a correct one. That is in terms of logic, “if A, then B”, but not necessarily “if B, then A”, where A can stand for the hypothesis and B for the present text. 18 This is as such not a new idea; cf. comments for example in Davies (2015:9) on the matter; but, interestingly, note also for comparison that for example Nihan (2007:109) suggests a tripartite structure for Leviticus also. Note further that the censuses in Chapters 1 and 26 and the dealings with the daughters of Zelophehad in Chapters 27 and 36 can be seen as kind of bookends, dividing the book of Numbers into two sections (John Bergsma, personal communication), however, I have not classified this as a major issue for the purposes here. 19 Cf. the discussion of scholarship in Davies (2015:11–12), which, however, runs somewhat differently. 20 In this, one may take 20:1 as a summary and resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme). 21 Even if Miriam’s death were telescoped to refer to the initial arrival at Kadesh, this would not really make a difference (create a “problem”) if one compared it with the dating of Aaron’s death to the time of departure from Kadesh towards the plains of Moab. 22 It may be possible to see Dt 1:46, according to which the Israelites had to stay in Kadesh for “many days” (yāmîm rabbîm), as a rough blanket statement about these wanderings. 23 Itself in my view a prologue to Exodus–Numbers – for example like the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings – in a broad sense from a literary perspective (see Pitkänen 2015:4 for some further comments). 24 The instructions and their execution in Ex 25–31; 35–39 also progress the plot in a broad sense. 25 Cf. also Lev 10 even if it is more loosely connected to the narrative, as with certain materials in Numbers. 26 Note also for comparison the comment earlier how both the books of Leviticus and Numbers can naturally be seen to fall into a tripartite structure. 27 In this, the author of Deuteronomy and Joshua comparably had only a limited amount of narrative materials for Moab as opposed to a considerable amount of legal materials, and had a particular mixture of narrative and legal-geographical materials for Joshua. 28 Including Num 8:1–4 on the lampstands, which as such would rather appear to fit with Ex 25–40 in terms of its textual placement. 29 The laws in Ex 20–23, the Covenant Code, can and are considered to be of essentially different origin and classification, and rather linked with the laws in Deuteronomy. 30 I may sometimes label such material as JE here as a general description, as can also be done by scholarship in general. In a sense, everything could be labelled JE; however, I have generally kept the labels J and E, however much one may dispute their assignment (and even existence) in individual cases. I have generally used Gray (1903) and Friedman (2003) for the enterprise, mostly without trying to be very precise due to reasons stated already. But I have also made some more detailed comments where I have thought it relevant.

51

INTRODUCTION

31 For a brief survey of scholarship on H, see Nihan (2007:4–11), and cf. fn 1 earlier. All in all, the extent of H beyond Lev 17–26 is disputed (see Frevel 2013:15–17). So what I have labelled as H for Numbers here, much based on Knohl (1995), need not necessarily be so and could at least in a number of cases at least potentially be labelled as P. 32 And cf. that according to Wellhausen H precedes P, as indicated earlier, fn 1. 33 Again keeping in mind that the extent of H beyond Lev 17–26 is disputed. 34 Kitchen and Lawrence present some 100 specimens of treaty, law and covenant from the ancient Near East. 35 However, Kilchör (2015) shows how CC (and the Ritual Decalogue) and P may have interlinkages (cf. also earlier) and how Dtr can also draw from P/H, even if mostly from CC. 36 The law of the Nazirite in Numbers 6 is one example of this. 37 What is “major” is, however, also a matter of an aesthetic judgement. 38 Note that aspects of Genesis have been compared with the epic, most notably the flood narrative (Gen 6–8), but also for example the Jacob story; cf. Crouch (2014:34) on the latter. 39 In this, cf. for example Josh 12; 15:63; 16:10 vs. Jdg 1; for further issues on Joshua, including for example the historical background to Ai and Jericho, see Pitkänen (2010b); cf. for example Hawkins (2013). 40 The following presentation adapts material from Pitkänen (2014d); Pitkänen (2015); cf. Pitkänen (2014b); Pitkänen (2016a); cf. further especially Pitkänen (2015); Pitkänen (2014a). 41 Cf. also Harzig and Hoerder (2009:10), who categorise under six labels which ultimately equate with Manning. 42 Cf. these with the charts in Veracini (2010:25–29). 43 Also see MacDonald (2000) for site identifications and for the character of sites specifically east of the Jordan. 44 Note that Day makes a parallel between the campaign against Sihon and the later conquistadors. 45 That is the egalitarianism created by the frontier situation and “system” was reversed. 46 One may also further note here the issue of hegemony as expounded by Routledge, much based on the work of Antonio Gramsci (see Routledge 2014). If one considers early Israel from the perspective of hegemony, the new society presented a vision that, while appropriating ancient Near Eastern cultural resources, was sufficiently removed from the experience of ordinary people so that it was difficult for them to appropriate it more or less “naturally” as would often be the case with “successful” hegemonic projects (cf. Routledge 2014, esp. 162–163), also keeping in mind pre-existing competing indigenous cultural patterns. In this sense, the heightened rhetoric that accompanies the documents may be part of attempts to convince their readers and hearers and make them “internalise” those views, with comparable processes attested across human societies (see Pitkänen 2010b:71–72, referring to Taylor 2006). In contrast, the situation would have been “easier” in this respect for a postexilic community that was already more experienced with Yahwism through its past history till then. 47 That for example purity considerations are a significant factor (in Numbers) seems clear, see for example Forsling (2013, esp. 158–168). 48 One may contrast this with the writings from the ancient Near East that ended up being buried in the ruins of that ancient world, only to be rediscovered millennia later through surveys and excavations that have been taking place from the latter part of the nineteenth century on.

52

2 COMMENTARY

Departure from Sinai (1:1–10:36) CONTEXT

The book of Numbers starts with Israel at Sinai. The main fireworks of revelation by Yahweh and making a covenant, together with its main stipulations, have already been dealt with in the books of Exodus (esp. Chapters 19–24, also 25–40) and Leviticus. The narrative starts to look towards the conquest of the land. The Israelites first establish an organised military-based community that is to march towards the land of Canaan (Chapters 1–10). At the end of this segment of the book, they march out from Sinai, guided by Yahweh’s presence through the ark and a pillar of cloud (10:33–36). All of the material in the beginning of the book is assigned to either P or H, and in this largely to H by Knohl (1995) until 10:28, with 10:29–36 in a narrative tradition classically assigned to J (see Table 1.2). The material in 1:1–10:36 (or, to be more precise, in 1:1–10:10) is followed by the march of the Israelites to Moab through Kadesh, where they have to stay for a long time because of the faithlessness of the first generation (cf. Num 13–14; Dt 1:46). But the mood of the first chapters on their own can be gauged as optimistic and anticipatory. Preparations for departure (1:1–10:10) Census of the first (Exodus) generation (1:1–54) CONTEXT

The first chapter of Numbers depicts a census that serves to shape the community towards its goal of setting out from Sinai towards the promised land so as to conquer it. The census has already been prefigured in Ex 30:11–16 (cf. Achenbach 2003:472) and the numbers used for counting materials for the construction of the tabernacle are already in play in Ex 38:21–32. Again, this emphasises the interconnectedness of Exodus and Numbers. In terms of its literary composition, the chapter can by and large be seen as a unity (cf. Achenbach 2003:464–469). 53

C O M M E N TA RY

Its literary structure can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–3 introduction, vv. 4–16 men appointed to assist Moses in the census, vv. 17–19 census carried out, vv. 20–46 the results of the census, vv. 47–53 a separate census of the Levites to be carried out, v. 54 concluding comment. As one might expect, the passage has been assigned to P, even though it has also been suggested that vv. 48–54 belong to H. COMMENT

The “ordinary” tribes (1:1–46) 1. The first verse of the book looks back at previous events in Genesis–Joshua and serves as a chronological reference. It locates the events of Numbers into the second month of the second year after the Exodus. This is really twelve months and two weeks after the Exodus according to the chronology of Genesis–Joshua (cf. Ex 12:2, 6; Num 33:3). The memory of Exodus serves as a powerful tool of memory for the Israelites. As part of this, importantly, the Israelite year also begins with the month of the Exodus (Ex 12:2). The accompanying festival falls on the spring when barley first ripens, and is in line with the start of the year in the spring elsewhere in the ancient Near East. But the year could also be considered as starting in the autumn, in the seventh month, and the harvest festival (see Numbers 29:12–38 and parallels) and the Day of Atonement (Lev 16; also Num 29:7–11) take place then in Israel. In Christianity, according to the gospels, Jesus reinterpreted Passover and made it a festival to commemorate his passion and resurrection. In Islam, the month of Ramadan serves as a powerful reminder of the giving of the Quran and is accompanied by ritualistic fasting and self-abasement of individuals. 2–3. Yahweh speaks on this occasion, on the second day of the second month after leaving Egypt, and commands the Israelites to take a census. Every man is to be included from twenty years and up, and the military connection is explicit in v. 3b. The practice of taking a census is known from Mari in the first half of the second millennium BCE, before the time of the Israelites (cf. Milgrom 1990, 5). The census in Mari related to enlisting men for the military (see Fleming, 2004, 73–74), just as it is in Israel (v. 3). The related Akkadian word tēbibtum, which is derived from the verb ebēbu, can also refer to purity, including cultic purity (see Dalley 2002/1984: 142, Sasson, 1969, 9; CDA, 64). Interestingly, all who are impure are to be sent away from the Israelite camp (Num 5:1–4). Clearly the census can be seen as part of preparations for the conquest of Canaan (and cf. Introduction on ancient Israelite settler colonialism). Its execution before the departure from Sinai seems appropriately timed, even when things do go awry with the Exodus generation, resulting in their death in the wilderness (Num 13–14) and in the conquest of Canaan being deferred to the next generation. Both Moses and Aaron are to administer the census, as Israel’s main political and religious leaders. Importantly, fuller details about the clans are given only in Numbers 26 (as pointed out by Levine, q.v.). Consequently, the census in Numbers 1 is formulaic 54

C O M M E N TA RY

and serves towards building the generational shift that takes place in Numbers, much due to the failed mission of the spies (Numbers 13–14). This generational shift is very much built on in the rhetoric of Deuteronomy, which, among other things, plays on the Sinai covenant given to the first generation and the Moab covenant given to the second (cf. Otto 2012a). 4–16. One man from each tribe is to help in the census. V. 16 states that these are tribal leaders. Joshua 7:15 gives a good illustration of the tribal structure that is arranged in a treelike fashion, or a bit like a directory structure on most modern computers: family to clan to tribe (in the order of branches to root). The men are different from the spies sent to Canaan in Numbers 13:4–15, but the same as those in Numbers 7. Vv. 4,16 mirror each other chiastically. 17–19. The execution of the command is now described. This is typical of Hebrew narrative. Vv. 17–18 mirror v. 3, and v. 19 mirrors v. 1, bringing in a chiastic structure for vv. 1–19: A. Yahweh speaks to Moses B. Take a census by clans and families, men twenty years old or more C. Men to be appointed from each tribe to assist D. List of men appointed from each tribe to assist C’ Men appointed from each tribe to assist B’ Census taken by clans and families, men twenty years old or more A’ As Yahweh spoke to Moses 20–46. The results of the census are listed here. The presentation is formulaic for each of the twelve tribes, listing totals for each individual tribe, together with a grand total in v. 46. The Josephites are counted as two, as Ephraim and Manasseh, to make up for twelve when the Levites are excluded from the roster, even if they are counted separately in Chapter 3. Joseph is counted on its own in Genesis (Gen 29–30; 35; 46; 49; Ex 1:1–6 refers back to Genesis). In any case, Ephraim and Manasseh are born only towards the end of this segment of Israel’s prehistory (Gen 41:50–52). From Numbers on, when the (fuller) genealogies next resume (cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003:230–231), Ephraim and Manasseh stand in for Joseph, in line with the institution of Levitical priesthood in Exodus 25–Leviticus 9. Joseph is mentioned on his own in Dt 27:12–13, Ezek 48:31–34 and 1 Chr 2:1–2 in some twenty-eight tribal lists (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003:230–231), and the last of these occurrences of Joseph on its own logically refers to Genesis. An interesting point here is that Ephraim and Manasseh are described as having settled in the central hill country, where the ancient Israelite settlement started according to archaeological evidence (see e.g. Finkelstein 1988). When these are counted together, they represent a large area with a good-sized population. And Joseph is counted as a leader of his brothers in Genesis, with Joshua ben Nun, the leader of Israel, coming from Ephraim (Num 13:8). The names of the Israelite forefathers were 55

C O M M E N TA RY

thus connected with tribal areas. One might suggest that the tribes renamed places based on the names of their forefathers. However, for example Shechem, also a well-known town in the territory of Manasseh from a pre-Israelite time, is called a descendant of Manasseh (Num 26:30–31; Josh 17:2) and, similarly, the towns of Hepher and Tirzah are counted as Manasseh’s descendants (Josh 12:17, 24; Num 26:32–33; Josh 17:2–3). Accordingly, some type of conflation between people and place names has taken place. One option is that the ancestors are eponymous. Another possibility is that the people are named after towns and geographical locations, either in reality or for the tradition, or both. My view is that there may be a combination of both approaches. For example in the case of Asher, the area appears to have been called by that name in the early thirteenth century in Egyptian documents, thus apparently already before the Israelite settlement (see e.g. ABD I: 482). The area where Asher lived is fairly peripheral and there are few traditions about the forefather, which probably was added to the genealogies to make up for the number twelve based on geographical considerations. However, there may have been more traditions about the “main” sons of Jacob, such as Judah and Joseph, together with Ephraim and Manasseh, and areas could have been named accordingly. For the case of Zelophehad’s daughters, see comments on Numbers 27 and 36. The totals for the numbers are very large. If women and children are estimated in, this would result in a total of some two million, in contrast to estimates based on archaeology that the population of Canaan as a whole was some 50,000 in the beginning of Iron Age I (see Dever 2003:97–100, esp. p. 98), with considerably less than that in the highlands. Accordingly,1 people have tried to account for them in some other way. A good array of options can be seen for example in Wenham (1981:60–66) or Achenbach (2003:470–471). An interesting, detailed proposal that tries to account for the numbers as reflecting real numbers, even if much smaller than ostensibly so in the book, is given by Humphreys (1998). My view is that the large numbers cannot be accounted for by attempting to explain them based on some other numbering that somehow lies underneath the text. I on my part see the large numbers as intentional exaggeration. The idea of intentionality is above all suggested by them being exact and tallying with the calculations in Ex 38:25–26 that are made according to the sanctuary shekel (cf. Nihan 2007:73n17). But even with that anchor set, I consider that the calculations are nevertheless at least partly imagined and exaggerated. I also think that the calculations in 2 Samuel 24, David’s census, are exaggerated. The passage lists 800,000 troops in Israel (northern tribes) and 500,000 in Judah, totalling 1,300,000 troops (note that 1 Chronicles 21:5 gives 1,100,000 total, with 470,000 in Judah). This is about a double of the tally in Numbers, implying a population of about four million at the time of David. Interestingly, archaeological estimates suggest that the population approximately doubled from the beginning of Iron Age I to its end (cf. comments on Chapters 28–29, “Meaning”), in line with the doubling of the totals in the Bible, even if one considers that the biblical numbers are exaggerated. There exists evidence from Assyria of consciously exaggerating numbers by 56

C O M M E N TA RY

a factor of ten (Sagrillo 2012:435); in the case of Israel this factor may have been different also. Interestingly, in ancient Korea, with little apparent connection with the ancient Near East, kings might for example exaggerate the number of wives they had (Sowon Pitkänen, personal communication). In other words, the numbers would seem to somehow reflect the ancient Israelite population at the time, but in an exaggerated manner. As the numbers relate to the military, it would seem reasonable to think that such exaggeration would help serve as part of psychological warfare to terrorise and discourage any opposition (and encourage the average Israelites themselves) who might learn about these tallies one way or another. The Levites (1:47–54) 47–49. The Levites are not included in the “main” census. They are considered separately, and counted in Chapter 3, with a total of 22,000, taking into account males a month old or more. This is in contrast to the ordinary Israelites, who are counted from twenty years up. The priestly families within the Levites are counted in Numbers 4:34–49. The Levites divide into three clans, Kohath, Geshon and Merari. The Aaronides within the Kohathites are set apart for taking care of the holiest things (i.e. closest to the actual presence of Yahweh; see Num 4:4–20; cf. Josh 21:10) and for carrying out the actual mediatory cultic service (see e.g. Lev 1–7; 8–9). The rest of the Levites serve the sanctuary otherwise (cf. comments ahead for vv. 50–53). 50–53. The Levites are not part of the military roster, but are dedicated to tabernacle service. This is fully in line with their function as already set in Exodus 25–Leviticus 9. The Levites are to transport the tabernacle and its furnishings as it is on the move (vv. 50–51). The tabernacle is to be taboo to others. We can see in 1 Samuel 5 and 2 Sam 6 how the breaking of that taboo results in problems for the transgressors. Even the (fairly) recent film Raiders of the Lost Ark builds on this concept of a taboo. The tabernacle was a house of Yahweh where Yahweh dwelt in the midst of his people. It was analogous to an ancient Near Eastern temple, and the ark was analogous to ancient Near Eastern god images where gods dwelt. However, the presence of the gods was not limited to god images or their equivalents, and they could manifest their presence in multiple locations and differing ways, even simultaneously (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003; cf. Hundley 2013). Right conduct was essential for keeping the deities happy; in case of violations, great disasters could result (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003; cf. Hundley 2013). Right conduct of the cult was an essential part of such right conduct in relation to the deities, and ancient Near Eastern societies also generally had dedicated cultic functionaries for doing so, with internal division of labour,2 and of course such a division of labour seems a self-evident possibility in itself in a society that exhibits organisation. The Levites camped close to their workplace, also shielding the holy place from the rest of the Israelites (v. 53). It was only the cultic functionaries and only specifically dedicated people among them who could approach the divine presence. The fuller duties of the Levites are depicted in Numbers 4, 57

C O M M E N TA RY

including based on the internal organisation of the tribe (Numbers 3). In terms of historicity, it is often thought that these divisions and functions are fictional and stem from a later period, most likely the postexilic time, almost 1,000 years after the events depicted. But nothing as such prevents considering that the Israelites could have attested this type of division, even if the books of Judges–Kings give little confirmation in this respect. If the character of Judges–Kings is different, with a completely different authorship and different focus from Genesis–Joshua, and also of Chronicles, this would explain many of the differences. See Numbers 3–4 for further comments. 54. The positive statement that the Israelites followed the commands of Yahweh fully closes the chapter. In ideal situations, Moses does as commanded by Yahweh, and the Israelites then follow the command(s) passed on by Moses as the mediator between Yahweh and the people. The letter to the Hebrews picks up on these themes in favour of Christ’s superior position and function (cf. Heb 3:1–6; 8:6). Certainly, such obedience is not the order of the day on all occasions, especially in Chapters 11–20 in the book of Numbers. MEANING

The Israelites prepare for a march out from Sinai by taking a census of the fighting troops. Taking a census can be seen as reinforcing the claim by Yahweh on the people (see Stubbs 2009:30–31). And Yahweh himself will march before them (10:33–36). The people are to be pure and holy, and only if that is the case will Yahweh be with them. The people are also to follow Yahweh’s commands. In that sense, Christians can be encouraged to be pure and holy and obedient to Yahweh. However, if one keeps in mind that the preparations are for a conquest that is to annihilate the indigenous peoples of the land entered in a settler colonial context (cf. Introduction), Christians in today’s postcolonial world are to appropriate the texts only indirectly. Arrangement of the camp (2:1–34) CONTEXT

This chapter follows on from the census in Chapter 1. It depicts the arrangement of the Israelite camp during the wilderness wanderings. It explicitly eschews a description of the Levites, which will be taken up in Chapters 3–4. Once the number of Israelite males has been determined for the roster, the arrangement of the warriors is described. COMMENT

1–31. The whole chapter revolves around the arrangement of the Israelite camp. We can describe it as follows in Figure 2.1. That the tent of meeting is at the centre, surrounded by the Levites and then the individual “ordinary” tribes, reflects an idea of graded holiness from the centre 58

C O M M E N TA RY North: Camp of Dan: Dan, Asher, Naphtali (vv. 25–31) [geographical West and North in Joshua] West: Camp of Ephraim: Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin (vv. 18–24) [Central hill country in Joshua]

Centre: Tent of Meeting and the Levites (v. 17)

East: Camp of Judah: Judah, Issachar, Zebulun (vv. 3–9) [geographical South and Northwest in Joshua]

South: Camp of Reuben: Reuben, Simeon, Gad (vv. 10–16) [geographical East and South in Joshua]

Figure 2.1 The arrangement of the Israelite camp (cf. Figure 2.2)

outwards, just as can already be seen from the descriptions of the tabernacle itself in Exodus–Leviticus (cf. Jenson 1992; Davies 2015:39). Also, the wilderness outside the camp provides an area with least holiness and in fact can be associated with impurity (Num 5:1–4; cf. Lev 10:4; 16, esp. vv. 21–22; but cf. also Ex 33:7; Lev 4:12; Num 19:9; cf. Achenbach 2003:527–528). The individual camps represent a mixture of differing geographical regions in the land and the birth status of the tribes. Judah, which is located in the south, is grouped with Issachar and Zebulun from the north. This is, however, in line with all of these tribes having been born from Leah according to the tradition (Gen 35:23). Also, the book of Joshua describes how Dan is originally meant to take its inheritance in the central-western part of the land but is forced to migrate to the north (Josh 20:40–48; cf. Jdg 18:27–29). The western camp is that of the Josephites (cf. Gen 30:22–24; 35:16–18; 41:50–52) from the central hill country. Reuben and Simeon from the southern camp are Jacob’s firstborn sons through Leah (Gen 35:23). Interestingly, it is as if Gad becomes a son of Leah in this camp instead of Levi (cf. Gen 35:23, 26), keeping in mind that Levi has been set apart for cultic service and has its own special camp arrangement (Num 3). This arrangement leaves the southern camp to tribes largely from the east, with Simeon in the south. All in all, the movement is roughly reverse clockwise across the centre in terms of geographical direction. It appears reasonable to see the camp formation as a partly fictional construct by the early Israelites. It, however, seems to be in line with late second-millennium realities. The war camp of Ramesses II appears to be similar to the biblical descriptions, and on the other hand (known) first-millennium BCE Assyrian camps are different as they are round-shaped (see Kitchen 2003:278; Figures 33C, D on p. 633; cf. e.g. Hoffmeier 2005, photo gallery). Therefore, I propose that a group led by Moses did traverse the wilderness, but not entirely according to the arrangement of the tribes in the priestly texts of Numbers. The arrangement is a product of priests in the land after the settlement and part of the Pentateuch’s (or of Genesis–Joshua) scheme of creating tribal unity around twelve tribes, together 59

C O M M E N TA RY

with the system of priests and Levites, as part of Israel’s ethnogenesis (cf. Pitkänen 2016b). The idea of all twelve tribes camped around a portable sanctuary in a military formation, itself based on war camps (cf. also comments on 5:1–4) and united in worship around a single sanctuary (Lev 17), would surely help towards forming a powerful bond between the (early) Israelite tribes. This unity of Israel is also very strongly attested in Deuteronomy–Joshua, including in terms of the Transjordanians (see e.g. Joshua 1:12–18; 4:12; 22; cf. Numbers 32; cf. also Dt 27) and the tribal allotments (Josh 13–21). No doubt there could have been tribal divisions in early Israel that stem from Egypt and the wilderness, but these have been reinforced and reworked by the early Israelites to reflect tribes across the geographical entity of the land where the early Israelites settled. The tent of meeting can be seen as a real artefact from the early Israelite time, but it is difficult to be certain of its origins. It may date back to the wilderness period; alternatively, it may have been constructed only after the settlement, even for Shiloh itself (Josh 18:1), and projected back to the period of the wilderness, together with the Israelite legal materials, including those of P which pertain to its service. If so, it might even be possible that a tent of meeting was taken over from the local Canaanites at Shiloh and rededicated to Yahweh.3 If the more decorated tent was constructed at a later date, a less decorated tent may have accompanied Moses in the wilderness (Ex 33:7–11 and passim). Interestingly, from a narrative perspective, the description of the simpler tent of meeting in 33:7–11 would appear to give the impression that it was constructed first and the more decorated tent of meeting only a little later. But, again, one cannot rule out the possibility of the existence of the fuller tent of meeting from the wilderness period on. The basic conviction about a covenant with Yahweh is also likely to date back to the wilderness and the Moses group, together with a number of the legal materials, perhaps including the book of the covenant. The early Israelite writers of the Pentateuch then constructed the narrative in Genesis–Joshua from creation to the conquest to reflect movement from paradise (Gen 2–3) to the land that they were occupying (Joshua) through Egypt and Sinai (Gen–Numbers; cf. Figure 1.1 in the introduction). The narrative reflected an actual return migration of Semites from Egypt to the land of Canaan, with these Semites having a memory of their ancestors as having dwelt in Canaan. The geographical entities then also were linked to patriarchal traditions, again serving to create tribal unity as part of an ethnogenesis (cf. Pitkänen 2014a). In this way, the narrative is a mixture of fact and fiction. I do believe that the earlier parts are more fictional, and as the focus moves towards the land, things tend to become more factual. On the status and divisions of the Levites, together with their arrangement in comparison with the books of Chronicles, see commentary on Chapters 3–4. Note that the word of dgl that occurs in the Hebrew throughout the chapter has been taken as a sign of lateness of the narrative. This is because the corresponding late Aramaic dgl refers to a sociomilitary unit in the Persian army (see Levine 1993:107–108; 146–148). It is on the face of it a strong argument. However, again it is not clear how far back that meaning of the Aramaic word goes and what its 60

C O M M E N TA RY

prehistory is, and the word could also have been added in at a late stage. We may keep in mind that the closest existing parallel to the camp is that of Ramesses II from the late second millennium as already indicated, and one would wonder how that information was available to the postexilic Israelites. In other words, the evidence is not conclusive, but in my view more in favour of an early origin of the passage. And the usual meaning of “banner” for dgl remains a possibility. Note further that v. 17 should be understood in a roundabout way and also as focusing on the sacred objects (similarly Milgrom 1990:13, noting that beṯôḵ should be understood as “in the midst of”; cf. comments on 10:11–28). 32. The total of the Israelites is repeated; it is the same as the total in 1:46. 33. A comment stating that the Levites are not counted with the ordinary tribes follows; cf. 1:45–53. 34. The positive statement that both Moses and the Israelites fully followed the commands of Yahweh closes the chapter (cf. 1:54). A comment is also made that the Israelites encamped under their standards, in the camps of Judah (vv. 3–9), Reuben (10–16), Ephraim (18–24) and Dan (25–31). The narrative emphasises Israel’s organisation around tribal and familial lines. MEANING

The camp order would remind the ancient Israelites how they marched in the wilderness as a unified nation; all tribes camped around the sanctuary (tent of meeting) in an orderly and specified manner. While one cannot be sure if and to what extent this picture is fictional, there are reasons to think that the image goes back to the late second millennium. For the settling early Israelites, this image would serve to foster unity across the tribes, assisting in the birth of an identity for an ancient nation in a settler colonial context (cf. Pitkänen 2016b).4 For Christians, the organised form of the camp could be considered to serve as a reminder that God is not a God of confusion, but does favour an organised manner of dealing with things (1 Cor 14:26–33). But under the New Covenant, the focus is on peace rather than on violence (1 Cor 14:33; cf. e.g. 1 Tim 2:1–2), and in the New Testament, military imagery tends to be reserved for spiritual warfare (Eph 6:10–20). This said, the book of Revelation is a notable exception to the focus on peaceful life, even if it is not entirely straightforward to interpret its highly symbolic visions. And one may look at for example Matt 10:34–36 to suggest that conflict may not always be avoidable even if one wished that to be the case. All in all, the New Testament also emphasises the unity of Christians (esp. John 17:20–21; cf. Stubbs 2009:38–39). Priests and Levites (3:1–4:49) CONTEXT

These two chapters can be considered a unit. They describe the arrangement of priests and Levites in the camp. Both the priests and Levites are seen to descend 61

C O M M E N TA RY

from Levi. It is a tribe selected and separated from the rest of the Israelites to carry out the cultic service of Yahweh. Its importance is highlighted by the fact that in the ancient Near East, the service of gods was a vital part of the life of communities. It was crucial to secure the favour of the gods by proper service and conduct, and the cultic officials had the foremost responsibility in that (cf. 1 Sam 2:12–4:22). The priests were seen as descendants of Aaron and were a group within the Levites with special duties and privileges. Num 3:1–4 describes the family of the first priest Aaron. Num 3:5–39 depicts the differing Levitical clans, their camp arrangement and numbers. Num 3:40–51 explains that the Levites substitute for the firstborn in Israel. Chapter 4 describes the service of the Levitical clans Gershon, Kohath and Merari (themselves listed as sons of Levi; 3:17; Gen 46:17; Ex 6:16; 1 Chr 6:1; 23:6) and the number of their men eligible for duty. The chapters tell us that the priests as descendants of Aaron belong to the Kohathites, even if not all Kohathites were priests (and see esp. Josh 21:4–5, which makes this particularly clear). Aaron and his sons (3:1–4) COMMENT

1. The mention of generations (tôlḏōṯ) particularly recalls such notices in the book of Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27). A connection with Genesis is thus reinforced, which fits with the purposes of A1 (see Introduction). The author enumerates the basic genealogy of Aaron, the first high priest, and his four sons. 2–4. Importantly, Nadab and Abihu are described as having died because of offering unauthorised fire before Yahweh in the wilderness, as Leviticus 10 describes. Accordingly, Eleazar and Ithamar serve as high priests. The main critical problem that relates to these references is that the names of the sons of Jeroboam from the early period of the monarchy are Nadab and Abijah, so very similar to Nadab and Abihu (see 1 Kings 14:1–18, 20; 15:25–31). At the same time, Jeroboam is reported to have made a great sin against Yahweh in setting up golden calves at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:25–33), which is very similar to the golden calf account in Exodus 32 (cf. esp. Ex 32:4 vs 1 Ki 12:28). Most critical scholars think that the relevant Pentateuchal accounts have been produced based on the account in 1 Kings. However, this is not as clear as is often claimed. Importantly, the narrative about Elijah at Horeb in 1 Kings 19 can much more easily be considered as referring back to the Mosaic traditions than the other way round. Thus, the same may be the case for the Jeroboam narrative. If so, it is for example possible that the names of the sons of Jeroboam were adjusted based on the Pentateuchal narratives. Certainly, no known reference to them exists in contemporary extrabiblical sources. Or the names of Nadab and Abihu in the Pentateuch could have been changed at a later date from their original ones to make reference to Jeroboam.5 However, even if the Pentateuchal narratives were produced based on the Jeroboam narrative, one might still ask the question of why Nadab and Abihu 62

C O M M E N TA RY

were considered as legitimate priests and as Aaron’s firstborn sons in the tradition and as persons who simply did wrong things, rather than as illegitimate priests.6 In light of this, a better parallel would seem to be served by the narrative of Eli and his sons Hophni and Phinehas (1 Sam 2–4; cf. Achenbach 2003:109). In other words, while a parallel with Jeroboam seems clear (also in Ex 32), how exactly the current textual arrangement(s) came about is not certain. MEANING

This passage serves as an introduction to the duties of priests and Levites. It summarises the names of ancient Israel’s first priests according to the tradition, from whom other priests descended. In that way it ties back with Genesis and the patriarchs of the whole nation. In addition, it is clear from elsewhere in the Pentateuch that Aaron was a descendant of Levi, as was Moses (Ex 2:1; 4:14). However, Moses was not a priest proper, even if his work on occasions revolved around priestly duties (e.g. Ex 40; Lev 8). Importantly, Moses was a prophet (see esp. Dt 18:15–22) and, as is well known from Deuteronomy, a lawgiver. That he was a Levite emphasises the importance of Levites and priests as cultic functionaries. Such importance of cultic functionaries is well attested in the ancient Near East. According to the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus is at a higher level than the priesthood of the old covenant (Heb 7) and Moses (Heb 3:1–6). Census of the Levites and their camp order, and the redemption of the firstborn (3:5–51) 5–10. The Levites are separated from the rest of Israel for cultic service. A specific rationale for this is provided in Ex 32:25–29 (JE), as part of the so-called golden calf narrative in Ex 32, and the separation of the tribe of Levi is also mentioned in Dt 10:8–9. The non-Aaronide Levites are here designated for the service of the Aaronides (v. 9), to guard and assist them (vv. 7–8), even the people (congregation) at large (v. 7). Importantly, a death penalty is reserved for those who encroach the cultic realm (v. 10). The stern warning against meddling with sacred things by outsiders emphasises the importance of the cultic realm and cultic service. 11–13. Symbolically, the Levites stand in for the firstborn of Israel. This highlights the special meaning of firstborn and firstfruits in Israel. The firstborn belong to Yahweh (Ex 13:2) and are supposed to be sacrificed to him in the case of animals unless redeemed (Ex 34:19–20; Num 18:15–17; cf. Lev 27:26–27). Some of the firstfruits from the produce of the land may also be sacrificed (cf. Lev 2), but many of them, together with tithes, are to be given to the priests and Levites (Dt 18:4; 26; 14:28–29; Num 18:26–32; cf. Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 26; cf. Lev 2).7 In the case of humans, the firstborn are dedicated to Yahweh (cf. Ex 13:15), and the passage here in Numbers shows how that is symbolically achieved across the whole people by dedicating one tribe for cultic service to Yahweh. Otherwise, the rights 63

C O M M E N TA RY

of firstborn are significant and were already enshrined in ancient Near Eastern legislation for centuries before ancient Israel appeared in the scene (see esp. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). In some notable cases, the firstborn in Israel lose their status, as with Jacob and Esau (Gen 26:19–34; 27), Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48) and Reuben (1 Chr 5:1–2). In the first of these three cases, the switch is reported as divine design; in the last case it is Reuben himself who is said to lose it through his actions (see also Gen 35:22; 49:3–4). Thus the biblical narrative demonstrates that being a firstborn is not always a decisive matter in life, even if it agrees with the principle in general (cf. Dt 21:15–17, which also agrees with ANE legal tradition; cf. Lundbom 2013:601–603 for further details). 14–16. Yahweh commands Moses to count the Levites. This corresponds to the injunction in 1:1–2, where a census is taken of the non-cultic community of the Israelites. In both cases, the actions are localised at the desert of Sinai. Importantly, in Chapter 26, the second census is said to have been taken at the plains of Moab, corresponding to the second generation, with the generational shift taking place due to the punishment meted to the first generation (Numbers 13–14). In the census here, every Levite male who is one month old or more is counted. This is in contrast to Numbers 1, where men of twenty years old or more are included. In Chapter 4, all Levites who are between thirty and fifty years old are counted, with a different total. The reason why Levites from one month old are counted seems clear. This is the number that is counted against the redemption of the Israelite firstborn. An additional sanctuary tax is put in for the difference, as described in vv. 40–51 (see comments there). The reason why an infant is counted from thirty days rather than from birth would seem to be due to the highest risk for infant mortality just after birth, especially in ancient societies. In Korea, families hold a big banquet after 100 days (baekil) from the birth of a baby, at which time the infant is considered to have survived. The custom is pre-modern, but the occasion is still celebrated in modern Korea. 17–20. A short genealogy of Levi is presented. It is the same as in Ex 6:16–19, except no ages at death are listed here. The Exodus passage continues to list the genealogy further (vv. 20–25). Genesis 46:11 also lists the immediate sons of Levi, but nothing more, as part of the sons of Jacob who went to Egypt, there presumably as no more sons had yet been born at the time. The genealogy here is repeated with some variation in Num 26:57–61 that also includes some of the information in Ex 6:20–25. In addition, a genealogy of the Levites is given in 1 Chr 6, which further includes the lineage of the high priest all the way into exile (vv. 3–15) and for example states that the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1–28) was of priestly lineage (vv. 22–28). Samuel was included as a priest apparently to try to raise his status in later Israel (cf. v. 26 against 1 Sam 1:1), suggesting that notable persons could be grafted into a (differing) genealogy in order to give them a new status. Otherwise, it is of interest here that two of the Levitical clans, Libni and Hebron, are the same (almost so with Libni) as the names of Levitical towns granted to the Aaronides in Joshua 21 (with a parallel in 1 Chr 6:54–80). While this may be a coincidence, and while Libni is a Gershonite and Hebron a 64

C O M M E N TA RY

non-Aaronide Kohathite, it may nevertheless suggest some kind of preference of priestly personnel with the southern part of the land, in the context of early Israel. In this, significantly, the focus in Joshua 21 is on Hebron, and this is the case with the Caleb tradition as well (esp. Josh 14:6–15 and 15:13–19; Num 13–14). Also, David is reported to have initially ruled from Hebron (2 Sam 5:1–5). And the patriarchal tombs are portrayed to be largely in Hebron (cf. Kallai 2010:145), with the books of Samuel referring to a burial tradition about the patriarchs (1 Sam 10:2; cf. Kallai 2010). In other words, the priestly tradition here slightly hints towards the prominence of the premonarchical south, even when the Levites on the whole were assigned towns throughout the land (Josh 21). 21–39. These verses present the results of the census and the Levitical camp order, according to four divisions of Gershon, Kohath, Merari and Moses with Aaron and his sons. The camp order is best represented as a diagram (see Figure 2.2). Each of the four Levitical divisions is responsible for differing tasks in the tabernacle. The Aaronides (priests) were responsible for the care of the sanctuary (v. 38), in line with their duties in Exodus–Leviticus. The rest of the Kohathites then were responsible for the most holy vessels of the sanctuary (v. 31), with the priest Eleazar son of Aaron supervising them. The Gershonites took care of the soft parts of the tabernacle (vv. 25–26) and the Merarites looked after the remaining, largely outer fixtures of the tent (v. 36). In Chapter 4 it is shown how the carrying of the various parts of the tabernacle when it is on the move is taken care of by each of these Levitical divisions in line with the arrangement described here. The number of males in each of the Levitical clans is roughly equal, with a total of 22,000 (vv. 22, 28, 34, 39). Figure 2.2 depicts the arrangement of the Levitical camp. Looking at the camp arrangement, again, as with the tribal divisions, if one reads the material with Joshua 21 (and its parallel in 1 Chr 6), there are four geographical divisions: south, central hill country, east and north. The order and arrangement around the camp are slightly different from the regular tribes. However, Judah is on the East side in both cases. And, regardless of some differences in order, the point is that all of the tribes are represented. I would therefore North: Merari (vv. 33–37) [geographical East and North – Reuben, Gad and Zebulun (Josh 21:7)] West: Gershon (vv. 21–26) [geographical North and East – Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Eastern Manasseh (Josh 21:6)]

Centre: Tent of Meeting

East: (Moses and) Aaron and his sons from Kohath (v. 38) [geographical South – Judah, Simeon, Benjamin (Josh 21:4)]

South: non-Aaronide Kohath (vv. 27–32) [Central hill country and North – Ephraim, Dan, Manasseh (Josh 21:5)]

Figure 2.2 The arrangement of the Levites within the Israelite camp (cf. Figure 2.1)

65

C O M M E N TA RY

suggest that the Levitical divisions help foster geographical unity and are part of early Israelite ethnogenesis (cf. Pitkänen 2016b). Cultic personnel are categorised according to their tribal-geographical location. They can then be grafted into the overall tripartite Levitical division (of Gershon, Kohath and Merari) and the corresponding genealogies by the emerging Israel if and when necessary. And they are assigned a cultic function according to their Levitical division. At the same time, it appears that any appointments in this way would have been reinforced through tabernacle (and later temple) service. Associated knowledge and customs would be disseminated through the land as cultic officials from differing parts of the land would be likely to do service at the sanctuary and then return to their normal habitations (cf. 1 Chr 9:25; Josh 21; 1 Chr 6). In addition, any Levitical divisions already existing within the settling Israelites might foster internal crosscommunity migration. The Kohathites cover south and central parts of the land. These prove to be the most important ones. The importance of the initial Israelite settlement in the central hill country is well attested archaeologically (see e.g. Finkelstein 1988, the results of which still seem to broadly hold). The importance of Hebron and the south is much due to the patriarchal traditions, including the tradition that most of the patriarchs were buried there (cf. Kallai 2010:145). The books of Samuel themselves refer to a burial tradition about the patriarchs (1 Sam 10:2; cf. Kallai 2010). In addition, the Caleb tradition has a focus on Hebron (especially Josh 14:6–15 and 15:13–19). Thus, much of the history of early Israel revolves around four main geographical locations, with the north being most devoid of extant historical traditions. That the priests were associated with the south seems to have coincided with the Philistine threat from the southwest, and the rise of David’s prominence may have been a combination of these two factors (cf. 1 Sam 8; 11; 14; 1 Sam 16; 2 Sam 2:1–4). Interestingly, except for 1 Chr 6, which seems to rely on Joshua, no camp or geographical arrangement exists in Chronicles that is similar to that in Numbers and Joshua. Also, Judah is clearly even more prominent in Chronicles. It is listed first among the tribes and given an excessive amount of attention (three chapters in 1 Chr 2–4), whereas Ephraim is mentioned only briefly (1 Chr 7:20–28), even if Ephraim is mentioned as a firstborn (1 Chr 5:1–2). Much of the focus in these books is on David as a Judahite and as responsible for the temple service in Jerusalem, even when his son Solomon built and dedicated the temple. The Chronicles depict how David rearranges the service of the tabernacle in view of the transition to the forthcoming temple (1 Chr 15–16; 23–26).8 While the final form of Chronicles is indisputably postexilic (see esp. 2 Chr 36, incl. vv. 20–23), its sources may nevertheless trace back to the time of David; certainly this is plausibly the case for example with the tradition of Saul in 1 Chr 10. The Wellhausenian dating of the priestly materials to the postexilic period has caused many scholars to date the priestly materials in Chronicles to the same era and label them as completely fictional. However, one does not need to follow such a hypothesis, even when one can think that any of the sources used by the author 66

C O M M E N TA RY

of Chronicles could have been reshaped in the postexilic period when they were incorporated into the book. It is possible that while using certain sources as a base, such as 1–2 Samuel for 1 Chronicles, other tradition and sources, in particular that pertaining to priests, could have been incorporated in the composition essentially through reecriture. Such reecriture was then done in a priestly style, and parts of the (“new”) narration could be considered factual and parts fictional (if and to what extent such separation and distinction can be made). Or for example if the books of Chronicles were supplemented in an annalistic style during their formation over a long period of time, a certain amount of editing could have taken place while the work was being produced and transmitted in the Israelite society,9 together with editing when the (broadly; cf. textual considerations) final version of Chronicles was produced. 40–51. Except for counting the Levites, Moses is instructed by Yahweh to count the total number of Israelite firstborn. The total of the Levites is then compared to the total of the firstborn. The difference is then redeemed in money instead of killing the remaining firstborn in Israel (cf. comments on vv. 14–16 earlier). In this case, there is a surplus of 273. Each is then valued at five shekels, with the total of 1,365 shekels given to the sanctuary for the use of priests and the cult. Importantly, a shekel should be seen as a measure of weight; coinage was introduced only around the middle of the first millennium BCE (cf. Milgrom 1990:23). Again, the payment is in line with giving the firstborn to Yahweh. And in a broader sense, precious objects could be devoted to the gods and their service across cultures. As one example, the spoils of conquest from Jericho went to the sanctuary (Josh 6:19). The violation of commands to give to the sanctuary could be a serious matter for the ancients. In the case of Jericho, Achan’s taking for himself things that were supposed to be dedicated to Yahweh caused considerable problems for the early Israelites (Josh 7). The same was the case with Saul, even if the setting of the story poses an ethical problem for moderns (1 Sam 15; cf. comments on Numbers 31). MEANING

This passage includes a census of the Levites, their camp order, main duties according to their divisions and redemption of the Israelite firstborn against the Levites. Seeing the camp arrangement as a device to foster Israelite unity for the first readers of the book in early Israel highlights the importance of the passage. It is also important to highlight that the Levites have been dedicated to Yahweh for cultic service, with some comments on their duties according to their divisions included in this chapter. In many ways, this passage then, together with Joshua 21 and Numbers 1, serves aspects of a constitution of early Israel. Israel is constituted of twelve tribes, of which one has been dedicated to cultic service. For the authors, the setting up of this service dates back to the time of Moses in the wilderness, even if the actual geographical locations for the priests and Levites are fixed only after the settlement. In the wilderness, all of the tribes were camped 67

C O M M E N TA RY

around the sanctuary of Yahweh, so as to demonstrate a unified nation in the proximity of Yahweh. In the land, all (male) Israelites are in essence to simulate this camp arrangement three times a year through travelling to the central sanctuary (Dt 12). The first central sanctuary is established at Shiloh (Josh 18:1; 22:9–34). After the loss of the ark at Aphek (1 Sam 4), the rejection of Shiloh (Ps 78:56–72) and the establishment of kingship of Israel, the books of Chronicles further show how the system was later adapted for the temple in Jerusalem by David. How well the early cultic system functioned in practice is another matter, but one may consider that this is what the writers of Genesis–Joshua envisaged. The book of Ezekiel, in its exilic-postexilic setting, imagines a further future for the temple after its destruction by the Babylonians in the early sixth century BCE (Ezek 40–48, esp. Chapter 48). Ezekiel’s vision remained eschatological as the reality of the second temple built in the Persian period did not quite match the vision. In the New Testament, the book of Revelation partially picks up on this vision (Rev 21–22). Otherwise, according to the New Testament, Christians do not need a temple as they themselves are a temple of God, with God present in them through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). Duties of the Levites (4:1–49) 1–3. In contrast to the considerations of 3:14 where redemption was based on Levitical males of one month or older, the age of service is counted from thirty to fifty years of age. This is also in contrast to Numbers 1, where the age of ordinary Israelites for military service is from twenty years upward. Numbers 8:24 lists the age for the Levites at start of service as twenty-five. And in 1 Chronicles (23:24–27), the Levitical age of service adapted for the temple was twenty, save for 1 Chronicles 23:3, which states thirty. All in all, some if not much if not all of the discrepancy may well be due to textual corruption (Greek of Num 4:3, 23, 30 has twenty-five as the age). Based on our current text, Numbers largely sees it as thirty (or as twenty-five) and Chronicles largely as twenty. If the difference is “real”, one might speculate on the reasons for it, and one guess might be that David lowered the age to enable a longer term of service. 4–14. Within the clan of the Kohathites, the Aaronides are to take care of the most holy things (v. 5ff.). When the camp is being transported, they pack the corresponding items, covering them with hides and cloth. They then put the packages on carrying frames. The items include the ark (v. 5; cf. Ex 25:10–22; 37:1–9), table of the presence and its utensils (v. 7; cf. Ex 25:23–30; 37:10–16), the lampstand and its utensils (v. 9; cf. Ex 25:31–39; 37:17–23), the golden altar (of incense) (v. 11; cf. Ex 30:1–10; 37:25–29), the bronze altar and its utensils (vv. 13–14; cf. Ex 27:1–8; 38:1–7) and a number of apparently general articles used for the sanctuary (v. 12). The bronze altar has its ashes removed before transport (v. 13). The bread of presence is not disposed of during transport (v. 7). Notably the bronze basin (Ex 30:17–21) does not seem to be mentioned, even if it may potentially be implied by v. 12. The order of listing the items essentially follows Ex 37–3810 68

C O M M E N TA RY

rather than Ex 25 and 30, the former constituting the instructions for the building of the tabernacle and the latter their execution. Interestingly, while the golden altar of incense is often argued to be a later insertion into the priestly narrative, partly because of its displacement into its own section in Ex 25–31 (see Nihan 2007:31–33), it nevertheless seems to be an integral element in the list here, in the same order as in Ex 35–40. And for example it could just as well be that the altar of incense is presented separately in Ex 25–31 because the author wanted to highlight its connection with the Day of Atonement (Ex 30:10). Certainly it is followed by a section of ransom money that ties in with it (Ex 30:11–16).11 15. The non-Aaronide Kohathites are to actually carry the items packed by the Aaronides. Importantly, they are not to touch the holy items, but apparently handle only the carrying frames. In 2 Sam 6, when the ark is being brought to Jerusalem, the oxen stumble and Uzza takes hold of the ark, but dies (vv. 6–7; cf. 1 Chr 13). This incident caused the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem to be delayed (vv. 9–15; cf. 1 Chr 13:12–14; 15). In 1 Chr 15, David is portrayed as realising that his first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem was fraught by not doing it in a proper manner. David then arranges for a priestly-Levitical transport and escort (vv. 11–28), together with appropriate ritual-festive celebrations. The Chronicles passage does not, however, specify the further identity of those who actually carried the ark (v. 26). 16. Eleazar, the older of the two surviving sons of Aaron (cf. Num 3:2–4), is appointed to be in charge of the consumables of the oil for the light/lampstand (cf. Ex 35:8), the fragrant incense (see Ex 30:7–9; 34–37) and the anointing oil (Ex 30:22–33). In addition, he looks after the regular grain offering, whose exact reference is not clear (see Milgrom 1990:29), even if it may refer to the daily offering stipulated in Ex 29:38–41 (Milgrom 1990). If the daily offering is referred to, the mention of the regular grain offering may be metonymic for the daily offering as a whole. 17–20. The text explicitly makes the point that the non-Aaronide Kohathites must not be allowed to be extinguished. The reason for this is that they are needed for the work of carrying the holy things. Such a requirement is already in itself implicit, but this explicit mention emphasises the importance of their duties and their sole prerogative to do them. But they are to be administered by the Aaronides, and, in addition to not having direct contact with the holy things (v. 15), they must not have sight of them. The latter principle is reflected in 1 Samuel 6, where men of Beth Shemesh die because of having looked at the ark (vv. 19–20) that was returning from the land of the Philistines after its capture at the battle in Aphek (1 Sam 4:10–11, 21–22). The principle even found its way to a (fairly) recent blockbuster, Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the Nazi soldiers who look at the ark literally melt away, while Indiana Jones and his girlfriend make sure to keep their eyes closed and are left unscathed. 21–28. The carrying duties of the Gershonites are listed next, from thirty years of age till fifty (cf. comments on vv. 1–3). They are to carry the “soft” parts of the tent of meeting and the courtyard. These mostly consist of their coverings 69

C O M M E N TA RY

and curtains, even if some other related equipment is also included (v. 26; cf. Ex 26:1–14, 31–33, 35–37). Again, they are to be directed by the priests (cf. v. 19), with Ithamar the younger surviving son of Aaron specifically being in charge (v. 28; cf. Num 3:2–4). There are no warnings about touching these items as they are not considered as holy as the articles that are (mostly) inside the tabernacle (cf. vv. 15, 20; see Ex 40:20–29 for the placement). That the curtains to the holy of holies and to the tent of meeting are not considered as holy articles in this sense is interesting. 29–33. Finally, the carrying duties of the Merarites are listed, from thirty years of age till fifty (cf. comments on vv. 1–3). They are to carry the “hard” parts of the tent of meeting and the courtyard (v. 31; cf. Ex 26:15–29, 31–33, 35–37). These mostly consist of their frames, crossbars, posts, bases and tent pegs, even if some other related equipment also seems to be included (v. 32). Again, they are to be directed by the priests (cf. v. 19), with Ithamar, the younger surviving son of Aaron, specifically being in charge (v. 28; cf. Num 3:2–4). There are no warnings about touching these items as they are not considered as holy as the articles that are (mostly) inside the tabernacle (cf. vv. 15, 20; see Ex 40:20–29 for the placement). 34–49. The total number of each of the Kohathites, Gershonites and Merarites is listed, together with a grand total (v. 48). One may note that the Kohathites in v. 4 seems to refer to non-Aaronide Kohathites, but, at the same time, vv. 34–37 would seem to include the Aaronides when counting the number of the Kohathites. Similarly, the total number of the Levites in v. 48 appears to include the Aaronides. The number of each of the divisions is of the same magnitude (roughly between 2,600 and 3,200), with the Merarites having the largest tally. That the census originated from Yahweh is emphasised in v. 49. MEANING

This chapter describes the duties of the Levites in the wilderness period when the tabernacle was on the move. According to the biblical documents, this state of affairs continued until the building of the temple in Jerusalem. At that time, according to the books of Chronicles, David is portrayed to have rearranged Levitical service (1 Chr 23–26). If one looks at David’s (re)arrangement, a number of interesting parallels can be seen. The three Levitical divisions are assigned newly modified duties. They are to be in charge of the temple, be officers and judges, and act as gatekeepers and musicians (1 Chr 23:3–4). As before, they are also to assist the sons of Aaron (1 Chr 23, incl. vv. 28–32). It is not entirely clear what the ones who assist in the building of the temple would do afterwards. The start of the age of service may have been lowered to twenty by David, even if this is not certain (see comments on vv. 1–3). Chronicles do not list the age of retirement from service. Heman, Asaph and Ethan are musicians and represent all of the three Levitical divisions, Kohath, Gershon and Merari (1 Chr 15:17; 1 Chr 6:33–48; cf. superscriptions for Ps 73–83; 88; 89). The musician Jeduthun’s (1 Chr 25:3; cf. apparently superscriptions for Ps 70

C O M M E N TA RY

39; 62; 77) origin seems unclear. The gatekeepers come only from the Korahites (a Kohathite, see Numbers 16:1, but not an Aaronide) and the Merarites (1 Chr 26:19), with Obed-Edom, in whose house the ark stayed for a while (1 Sam 6; 1 Chr 13), being of Gittite origin (i.e. apparently a Philistine; cf. 1 Chr 20:5). But this “imbalance” appears to be mitigated by treasury offices of the temple being appointed from the Gershonites (1 Chr 26:21), even if it is not entirely clear what the origin of the other treasury officials was (1 Chr 26:22–28). It clearly appears that the duties of the Levitical divisions in relation to singing and gatekeeping (1 Chr 23–26) in many ways replace those that relate to carrying in Numbers 4 (see 1 Chr 23:26). Interestingly, these duties are described in more detail in Chronicles than those relating to the “insides” of the tent of meeting or temple, which might suggest that only relatively minimal adaptation was envisaged in terms of these duties, even though the biblical texts ultimately give little information about the matter (see 1 Ki 6–7; 8:1–11; 2 Chr 3–4; 5:2–10). While gatekeepers are assigned to differing geographical directions (1 Chr 26:12–18), a correlation with Numbers 1–4 seems unclear. Little direct reference to the Levitical arrangement is made in the texts for the time of Solomon (see 2 Chr 5:12 though). Except for the extensive description that pertains to the time of David and the short reference to the time of Solomon, some mention of the three Levitical divisions is made in relation to the time of Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:12–14). The divisions are also in effect referred to in the depiction of the time of Josiah (2 Chr 34:12–13), with a mention that the Levites were all skilled in playing musical instruments, with some having charge of the labourers and supervisors of work, and some being secretaries, scribes and gatekeepers. Regardless of whether fictional, this picture is consistent with that in Numbers, with Chronicles attesting adaptation of the arrangement in Numbers to the time of David. If the Chronicles tradition originates from the postexilic time and is fictional, it is possible that it simply plays on the Pentateuchal traditions to make the time of David (and other related times) look like a continuation of the wilderness arrangements in terms of the cult. If the tradition traces to an earlier time, it may at least partially reflect the actual arrangements of the cult in David’s time (and other related times as described in the texts). While the first option is possible and often chosen by modern scholarship (cf. e.g. Wellhausen 1905/1878), I do not see why the second option should be ruled out or even not favoured, also keeping in mind that the clearly postexilic books of Ezra and Nehemiah hardly emphasise any of the Levitical divisions of Gershon, Kohath and Merari (Ezra 8:19 mentions Merari in passing). Priesthood itself presents a somewhat complicated picture. In essence, however, we can think that there are two (main) priests during David’s time, Abiathar and Zadok (e.g. 2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16).12 The former represents the Elide line from Shiloh, which is cut off in the time of Solomon according to the prophecy against Eli’s house (1 Sam 2:27–36; 1 Sam 22; 1 Ki 2:27). The latter is a new priest (1 Sam 2:35). According to Chronicles, Ahimelech, and thus Abiathar, is a descendant of Ithamar, and Zadok a descendant of Eleazar (1 Chr 24:3). However, it has been suggested that Zadok comes from old Jerusalemite priesthood, 71

C O M M E N TA RY

considering that his name is similar to names associated with Jerusalem (cf. Gen 14:17–20; Josh 10:1–3; see; cf. Cody 1969, esp. 88–93). If so, he can be considered to have been assimilated into the Aaronides by grafting him into their genealogy (cf. Schley 1989:142–151), just as for example Caleb the Kenizzite (see e.g. Num 32:12; 34:19) clearly seems to have been grafted into the genealogy of Judah, and as tribal areas have been at least partially assimilated into genealogies in Genesis–Joshua (see also Samuel in 1 Chr 6:22–27 and comments on Num 3:17–20). The Elides may even have been descendants of Eleazar, but grafted into the line of Ithamar for the tradition, even if this is not a must, especially as the tradition in Num 25:12–13 speaks only of priesthood for Phinehas son of Eleazar, not necessarily high priesthood (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003, referring to Milgrom 1990:479). Before the building of the temple, the ark and the tabernacle are separated from each other after the ark is taken by the Philistines during the disastrous battle at Aphek (1 Sam 4). The combined portrayal of Chronicles is that the ark is generally taken care of by both Abiathar and Zadok (2 Sam 15:24–29; 1 Chr 15:11–15) and the tent of meeting by Zadok only (1 Chr 16:39–40) during David’s time. In the time of Solomon, the ark as the locus of Yahweh’s presence “proper” in Israel is put in the newly built temple as the place where Yahweh dwells among Israel (1 Kings 8:1–11; 2 Chr 5:2–14; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003).13 The temple has then replaced the tabernacle and Jerusalem has become the central place of worship instead of Shiloh (Ps 78:56–72; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003). It would not seem impossible that Aaron was actually Moses’s brother and assistant and that the southern priestly clans were able to trace their descent to him, propped up by the importance of Hebron (see comments on 3:5–39; cf. Josh 21:11–13). So, what we can suggest here is that the book of Numbers reflects the formation of priesthood in early Israel, as part of settling the land and forming the early Israelite society. The description about the camp in the wilderness, while relating to the service of the tent of meeting, is a creative retelling of late second-millennium programmatic realities, mixing fact and fiction in a unique way. For Christians, these priestly divisions are largely of historical interest (cf. Hebrews). However, even if so, it is interesting to consider what kind of picture they give about the early history of Israel and how things developed through the monarchy and the exilic and postexilic times as one gets closer to the New Testament period. Exclusions from the camp (5:1–4) CONTEXT

These verses relate to order in the camp in terms of purity. In that sense they are integrally linked with Chapters 1–4. At the same time, they are also a set of legal injunctions and in that sense belong to Interlude I (5:5–6:27). Due to the direct connection with the camp, they are here classified as being more strongly linked with Chapters 1–4. 72

C O M M E N TA RY COMMENT

1–4. Yahweh commands Moses to send anyone impure outside the camp. These include those with an infectious skin disease or with any discharge or anyone ceremonially unclean because of a dead body. Both males and females are explicitly said to be included under this criteria. A key issue is that the three categories referred to are explicitly addressed elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Skin disease is dealt with in Lev 13–14, not to be confused with leprosy (Hansen’s disease), also as it does not yet appear to have been known in the ancient Near East before the time of Alexander the Great (Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000:448; cf. Levine 1993:184). Notable cases of skin disease include Azariah/Uzziah (2 Kgs 15:5), the Aramean commander Naaman (2 Kgs 5) and the four “lepers” outside the gate during an Aramean siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 7). Discharges are dealt with in Leviticus 15. It would, however, seem that minor impurities and cases of menstruation and childbirth do not imply exclusion. Contact with the dead could occur on various occasions. For the purposes of this legislation, these include contact with a dead human body, even a relative (Lev 21:1–3, 11; Num 6:6; 9:6–10; 19:11), entering a tent (or, by implication, any other dwelling) where someone has died (Num 19:14) or touching a human body or grave on the field (Num 19:16). Touching a dead, unclean animal (Lev 11:31–32) or contact with something or someone unclean because of contact with a dead body (Lev 22:4; Num 19) renders a person unclean only for a day and does not seem to require purificatory rituals. A ritual of cleansing after contact with a dead body is described in Numbers 19 (and see comments there). A priest could go near a dead body only of his close relative (Lev 21:1–4). If so, the priest would then become unclean and would have to go through the necessary purification rites. The high priest was explicitly forbidden to go near any dead body, even that of his father or mother (Lev 21:11). In the context of the passage here, any unclean persons would have to remove outside the camp (v. 3; cf. Lev 14:3). The reason is clear: Yahweh himself dwells in the midst of the camp (in the tabernacle) and cannot tolerate anything unclean. At the same time, once a person has been purified and becomes clean, he or she may return to the camp and rejoin the community (cf. Dt 23:9–11). Dt 23:12–14 states that when people are encamped against their enemies, they must relieve themselves outside the camp, digging a hole in the ground and then covering up their excrement. This is because Yahweh is present (walks about) in the camp and there may therefore be nothing inappropriate in it.

MEANING

The camp paradigm is utilised in this passage to speak about an unclean person. In the mind of the author, the Israelites are in the wilderness, encamped in a military formation (cf. comments on Num 1), where they are starting to prepare for a departure from Sinai into the wilderness on their way to the promised land of Canaan itself so as to conquer it (cf. Introduction on related settler colonialism). 73

C O M M E N TA RY

Nothing unclean is to be kept in the camp because Yahweh is present there. We read from elsewhere that purification rites are used to restore purity for unclean persons so as to then restore them to the camp and into a full-fledged status within the community. A roughly parallel passage in Dt 23:9–14 (also cf. Num 10:10:8– 9) fits with the idea that the priestly author had extended the concept of a military camp and purity within it into the time of Israel’s wilderness wanderings. In Ex– Numbers, the arrangement of the camp is clearly specified (Num 1–4), has the tent of meeting in its midst and includes men, women and children. The reason for this is clear: the wilderness time was a time of migration of a whole people. After settlement in the land, only qualified males were present on military campaigns. The ark is explicitly mentioned as being taken to campaigns and thus into the camp (1 Sam 4; 2 Sam 11:11). It is never indicated that the tent of meeting would have been included on settled early Israel’s military campaigns, even if this is not explicitly denied either.14 In this way, the depiction in the priestly narrative may be based on a creative extension of military camps, adapted to how the author would have imagined the migrating Israelites as having camped in the wilderness. In this form, it would not have been difficult for the first readers of the book in the late second millennium to accept the narrative portrayal. Interestingly, the military is considered to have been important for social existence in the tribal setting of Mari (see Sanders 2009:73). In terms of later appropriation, the purity requirements were alive and well in the time of Jesus, who shifted the discussion into taking care of “internal” purity (Mk 7:1–23; cf. comments in Stubbs 2009:56). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews more or less explicitly states that the purity regulations were valid only for the time of the first covenant, and were obsolete for the second that was established by Jesus (Heb 9:10). Interlude I: miscellaneous laws/instruction (5:5–6:27) CONTEXT

The material in 5:5–6:27 should be considered as an interlude as it is not directly related to the overall setting of Chapters 1–10. That is nothing in 5:5–6:27 necessitates a connection with Israel at Sinai, just getting ready to march out into the wilderness and towards the so-called promised land so as to conquer it (cf. Introduction on related settler colonialism). Certainly, the materials are completely in line with legal materials in Exodus–Numbers as a whole. But they could be displaced to any other location in the corpus; in a sense, they just happen to have been put in this specific place. This relates to A1’s specific strategy in the book of Numbers – that is progression in narrative and legal materials that are more easily tied with that narrative is interrupted by legal material that is only broadly relevant to the overall setting in Sinai and the ensuing wilderness. As discussed in the introduction, altogether, one can distinguish five such interludes, this being the first of them. This interlude 74

C O M M E N TA RY

divides into four sections. The first deals with restitution for wrongs. The second designates a test for a supposedly unfaithful wife. The third stipulates for a Nazirite, a specific devotee to Yahweh. The fourth and final section describes the famous priestly blessing on Israelites. Confession and restitution (5:5–10) CONTEXT

This short law describes occasions when a person, whether a male or a female, has wronged another. Full restitution is to be offered, plus one fifth in addition. The law here belongs to a series of such laws occurring in the Pentateuch (see ahead). Also when seen together with the other occurrences of where restoration is dealt with, the legal material here clearly seems to imply that most likely some type of property is in question (cf. Levine 1993:187). And it would seem difficult to restore based on a monetary value if some other type of transgression were in question, unless certain wrongdoings could be “quantified”, which is also in theory a possibility, even if such quantifying is not directly stated in the Pentateuchal legislation. The law squarely fits with the overall setting of lawgiving at Sinai, but would not need to have been placed in its current location in the book of Numbers. Hence it can be considered to be an interlude. COMMENT

5–7. In this case, the possibility of a wrongdoing by both men and women is explicitly mentioned, fairly unusually for the Old Testament (cf. Dt 17:2; and cf. Levine 1993:187). The exact nature of the wrongdoing is not clear. However, it seems clear that the wrongdoing is against another person or persons, and that it becomes a wrongdoing (unfaithfulness) against Yahweh by implication rather than directly, as it were. Also it is a wrongdoing made by mistake rather than intentionally, for which there is no restitution (Num 15:30–31, as pointed out by Levine 1993:191). The person involved must confess what he or she did, make restitution and add a fifth to the value of restitution. The context (also when compared with similar legislation elsewhere in the Pentateuch; see ahead) seems to imply that physical objects are in question, even though it might be at least theoretically possible that some wrongdoings not directly belonging to the physical realm might have been “quantified”. The word for unfaithfulness (maʿal) notably occurs in Josh 7:1 to describe Achan’s actions in stealing things belonging to Yahweh when the Israelites conquered Jericho. In that case, as the sin was not unintentional (cf. Josh 6:18–19), there could be no restitution. Achan, even if he ultimately also confessed, was executed together with his family (Josh 7).15 As regards the legislation here, other occasions where a fifth is added according to the Pentateuchal legislation are Lev 5:14–16 (as part of a guilt offering due to a failure in regard to holy things); 6:1–5 (dealing falsely with property); 22:14–15 (eating 75

C O M M E N TA RY

a sacred offering by mistake); 27:13, 15, 19, 27, 31 (redeeming a vow, firstborn of an unclean animal or a tithe). 8. It is stated next that if a person does not have a kinsman redeemer, the restitution belongs to Yahweh, achieved by giving it to a priest as Yahweh’s representative. But does this rule refer to the person who makes the restitution or to its recipient? It is true that, in general, if a person was in difficulties, his or her kinsman redeemer was to act for him or her and for example pay a debt (cf. Lev 25:25; Ruth 3–4).16 On this basis, one would suspect that the rule refers to the person who makes restitution. But in that case, the implication is that no one was able to make such restitution and there is a contradiction. It is thus better to think that the material is about the recipient. The implication is that the recipient is dead; if so, the restitution is given to his or her relatives, and if there are none, it goes to a priest (thus Wenham 1981:79). 9–10. These verses state a more general principle. Once something has been given to a priest as a sacred contribution, it belongs to the priest (v. 9). One may possess something that is considered as holy, but once one gives it to a priest, then it is the priest’s (v. 10). It would seem straightforward to think that this latter stipulation includes things vowed to Yahweh in Lev 27; if so, the meaning would seem to be that the verse here adds the specific proviso that something vowed but redeemable cannot be redeemed once/if it has been handed over to the priest(s). MEANING

This law is part of cultic legislation given by Yahweh at Sinai. The idea is that persons who wrong others must make restitution and add an extra “penalty” (or perhaps “interest”) of 20 per cent. In case there was no person to make restitution to, the restitution went to Yahweh. In addition, sacred gifts were used for the upkeep of priests. In the New Testament, Zacchaeus went far beyond the letter of these legal principles (Luke 19:1–10). He promised to give half his possessions to the poor and make restitution fourfold to those he had cheated out of anything. In the spirit of the New Testament, surely the restitution to the poor could be considered as restitution to Yahweh (and cf. Dt 14:28–29). Ordeal for suspected adultery (5:11–30) CONTEXT

The description of a test for adultery belongs to legal material only loosely connected with its narrative context, and we have here classified it as being part of the first of several interludes of such loosely connected legal material in Numbers. The test can best be understood as a ritual ordeal that is rooted in similar customs of ordeals in the wider ancient Near East (see e.g. Milgrom 1990:346–347; Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000:181; cf. Levine 1993:210). The Babylonian river ordeal is the most famous of them (see CH 2, 132). In this, a person 76

C O M M E N TA RY

accused of wrongdoing without proof is thrown in the river and if the person sinks he or she is guilty; if the person doesn’t sink and drown, he or she is innocent. CH 132 explicitly orders such a river ordeal for a suspected adulteress; interestingly in that case suspicion by the husband is not enough for an ordeal, but only suspicion by a wider group of people (cf. CH 131). In this case, a man suspects his wife of adultery and initiates the proceedings. It would appear that this happens when the man simply cannot give up the thought that his wife has indeed been unfaithful. The main vehicle for the ordeal is a concoction of dust from the tabernacle floor, a holy place, and water. The suspected wife is to drink this concoction and then await whether it makes her childless. From a modern medical perspective, water mixed with dust should hardly cause a problem, but apparently the ancients believed that the test could work. One can imagine that the psychological effect of potential guilt combined with a sense of holiness of Yahweh’s sanctuary could combine into an unbearable pressure for a guilty party over days and weeks, potentially even causing a mental breakdown (and see further comments ahead under “Meaning”). One should also keep in mind here the importance of childrearing versus childlessness in the ancient world and the prospect of even a threat of divine retribution leading to childlessness in the mind of the woman. Accordingly, it is through the psychological realm where the ritual could have been effective, even if its effects could also have been mitigated if the person’s sense of holiness was lessened due to her being irreverent towards Yahweh. By and large, however, I agree with Milgrom when he suggests that the potential threat of divine punishment would have been likely to induce confession rather than going through the ordeal (Milgrom 1990:350). All this said, it is probably impossible to know if and to what extent such ordeals were enacted in practice in biblical times, and we do not have any actual attestations of the ordeal in other existing textual or archaeological sources. Later references in the rabbinical tradition to the ordeal exist, however (see Milgrom 1990:348). That the legislation speaks about dust from the floor of the tabernacle (v. 17) ties it with the Sinaitic context. The literary structure of the passage can be described as follows, as a chiastic structure (essentially following Milgrom 1990:351): A Introduction to the case (vv. 11–14); B Preparation for the ordeal (vv. 15–18); C An accompanying oath and curse (vv. 19–22); B’ Further execution of the ordeal (vv. 23–26); A’ Outcome of the ordeal and concluding comments (vv. 27–31). COMMENT

11–14. The main point in these verses is suspicion. The husband suspects his wife but cannot prove whether an adulterous act has taken place. It may or may not have (vv. 11–14). The husband is then suspicious enough to not be able to let go, and the prescribed action is to bring the wife to a priest. A grain offering of barley is to be made also. However, in contrast to usual grain offerings (see Lev 2, esp. v. 1, 4–7, 14–15), no oil or incense is to accompany it. This is because 77

C O M M E N TA RY

of the special nature of the occasion; it has to do with jealousy and keeping sin in mind (v. 15). 15–18. The actual ritual is then described. The woman is to stand in divine presence. While as such this could refer either to the central sanctuary or to a special disposition on the occasion, the reference to dust from the tabernacle floor implies presence at the tabernacle. This is mixed with holy water, which may refer to water from the washbasin in Ex 30:17–21, 29 (see Milgrom 1990:39). But ultimately the origin of the water is not clear; the main thing would seem to be that it has been consecrated, perhaps for the occasion itself. As part of the ritual, the hair of the woman is loosened, which elsewhere is a sign of mourning (Lev 10:6; 21:10) or a leper (Lev 13:45; cf. Milgrom 1990:40). The grain offering is put in the hands of the woman by the priest, and the priest himself holds the water concoction. Mixing dust with water has parallels in the ancient Near East, already at Mari: ‛Before we pronounce the oath, let them take the dirt and jamb of the gate of Mari . . ., and then let us pronounce the oath.’ The dirt and the jamb of the gate of Mari they took and dissolved in water, and then the gods and goddesses drank. Thus (spoke) Ea: ‛Swear to the gods, that you will not harm the brickwork of Mari or a commissioner of Mari.’ The gods and goddesses swore, saying, ‛We shall not harm the brickwork of Mari or the commissioner of Mari’. (See Levine 1993:210; cf. Achenbach 2003:506) That the dust comes from the floor of the tabernacle suggests that the oath is tied with the holiness of the tabernacle, and through that, with Yahweh himself (cf. Levine 1993:210–211). 19–22. Next the priest makes the woman swear an oath. The basic content is that if she is innocent, nothing happens, but if she is guilty, she will come into a physical harm in her thigh and abdomen (vv. 19–22), which is explained as childlessness in the following verses (27–28). The woman is to respond with an affirmative utterance (“Amen Amen”) at the conclusion of the curse (v. 22). 23–26. The curses are then written on a scroll by the priest. After that, he washes the curse (presumably the ink or equivalent) into the ritual concoction, which the woman then drinks (vv. 23–24). This is followed by the priest taking the grain offering from the hands of the woman and offering it in a manner of a wave offering (vv. 25–26; cf. Lev 2). A little difference is that the act of waving, which otherwise is stated explicitly as part of a number of offerings, is not mentioned in the description of the standard grain offering in Lev 2. 27–31. The possible outcomes of the ordeal are stated in vv. 27–28. The main point is that if the woman is guilty, she will become childless and accursed. Childlessness was considered a big problem and even a stigma in biblical times (cf. e.g. the stories of Abraham, Jacob and Samuel’s parents, and also many preindustrial 78

C O M M E N TA RY

cultures at large); therefore the prospect of childlessness was in itself already truly at a level of a potential curse. No guilt implies no harm and the possibility of (continuing) childbearing. The description of the ritual is concluded by a summary statement about it (vv. 29–31). An interesting point is that v. 31 states that the husband is not considered guilty of any wrongdoing if he puts his wife under such an ordeal. To say the least, modern feminists would not be likely to be happy with such a predicament. MEANING

The existence of this ordeal in the biblical materials emphasises the importance of marital fidelity. Except for directly reflecting a chauvinist patriarchal, maleoriented society (cf. Davies 2015:17–21), it would seem that this legislation could be linked with property issues. Infidelity could jeopardise the way inheritance was expected to take place. An illegitimate son could potentially become an heir of property which normally was passed on via the male lineage, even if the book of Numbers itself already has exceptions to this (see Numbers 27:1–11; 36). The ritual also emphasises the stigma that was associated with infertility in this ancient society. Ritual curses could be potent in (often aboriginal) societies. For example it has been reported that the breaking of taboos could lead to a curse by a witch doctor, which could then cause death for the individual concerned, even within twentyfour hours, due to intense fear (see Cannon 1942). Therefore, it is unlikely that the ordeal could ever be considered as anything less than a really serious matter by those having to undergo it, assuming the custom was followed. This might also explain why, as the texts would seem to imply, guilty people might drown in the Babylonian river ordeal even if they otherwise knew how to swim. However, no ordeals like this, or taboos such as those among certain indigenous societies, exist in Christian practice based on the New Testament. And, of course, such divine ordeals have no place in modern secular Western societies, even if some may otherwise still hold superstitious views and for example believe in fortune telling (incl. e.g. in modern Korea), which then may affect their psyche and through that their behaviour. In addition, women’s situation has improved so as to not treat them differently in cases of suspected infidelity. At the same time, the principle of marital fidelity can still be considered as something that couples can strongly uphold, protect and strive towards even today. Law of the Nazirite (6:1–27) CONTEXT

The law of the Nazirite belongs to material only loosely connected with its narrative context. We have here classified it as being part of the first of several interludes of such loosely connected legal material in Numbers. The fairly lengthy 79

C O M M E N TA RY

passage is a description of a special vow that a man or woman could make to Yahweh. The word Nazirite used in English comes from the root nzr, which means separation, consecration or abstaining. Famous Nazirites in the Old Testament include Samson (Jdg 13:5) and Samuel (see 1 Sam 1:11). The prophet Amos complained that the Israelites did not even treat their Nazirites right (Am 2:11–12). As the Amos passage already indicates, the main characteristic of a Nazirite is that he or she is not supposed to drink anything alcoholic (vv. 3–4). Otherwise, they are not to cut their hair (v. 5), and this feature plays strongly in the Samson story, having magical connotations there (Jdg 13–16). The third defining characteristic of a Nazirite is that he or she is not to approach a dead body (vv. 6–9). Interestingly, Samson and Samuel were lifelong Nazirites, whereas the law here concentrates on persons who dedicate themselves for a period of time (cf. Milgrom 1990:43). And yet, if the ritual that pertains to the completion of the period of separation (vv. 13–20) is taken out, the law could be considered to apply to lifelong Nazirites also. If so, defilement due to killing an animal or person in the business of Yahweh (with Samson, this was especially to fight against the Philistines) might not count against the vow (cf. Jdg 14:5–6, 9, 19; 15:8, 15; 1 Sam 15:33). A similarity with the office of the high priest can be seen with a Nazirite in that the high priest was also forbidden to approach a dead body (Lev 21:11) and was not to drink alcohol when he entered the tent of meeting, even if only then (Lev 10:9). Otherwise, while the anointing oil was on the head of the high priest (Ex 29:7; Lev 8:12), he could cut it, in contrast to a Nazirite. That the Nazirite dedication was based on a vow has its parallels in the vows of Lev 27 (cf. Milgrom 1990:355–356). Significantly, the offerings brought to Yahweh in the law of the Nazirite are brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, tying the legislation to the Sinaitic context. The literary structure of the passage can be described as follows (modified from Milgrom 1990:350): A. Introduction (vv. 1–2); B. Prohibitions (vv. 3–8); C. Defilement from a dead body (vv. 9–12); D. Completion of vow (vv. 13–20); E. Summary statement (v. 21). COMMENT

1–2. The introductory statement simply mentions that there may be an occasion when someone wants to dedicate themselves to Yahweh. It is explicitly stated that this could be either a man or a woman. That the vow was special may be indicated by the Hebrew word used in the sentence in v. 2 (plᵓ). 3–8. The three characteristic restrictions are stated here. The Nazirite must abstain from wine or alcoholic drink, and, more widely, must not drink or eat anything made of grapes (vv. 3–4). This includes even grape seeds (v. 4). It would appear that abstaining from anything that relates to grapes has a symbolic meaning and also ensures that the Nazirite will not get in contact with alcohol even by mistake, as much as possible. The second restriction is that the Nazirite must not cut his or her hair, not even a little. This is tied with being holy, a criterion that 80

C O M M E N TA RY

is not obvious in itself based on not cutting one’s hair (v. 5). The third and final criterion is that the Nazirite may not go near a dead body, even that of his father, mother, brother or sister (vv. 6–7). This is similar to the restriction that the high priest has (Lev 21:11). Whether they could go near to their wife or husband should they die during the time of their vow is not explicitly stated. The Nazirite is classified as holy (qdš) to Yahweh (v. 8). 9–12. Someone could, however, die suddenly around the Nazirite. In that case he or she must observe a seven-day period of ritual purification. The Nazirite then cuts his or her hair on the seventh day and brings an offering to Yahweh on the eighth (vv. 9–10). The offering is similar to other burnt and sin offerings or related purificatory offerings, mostly in cases the offerer cannot afford a bull or a lamb (see Lev 1:14; 5:7–10; 12:8; 14:21–22, 30–31; 15:13–15, 29–30). However, here birds are prescribed straight away, perhaps to indicate that the breaking of the vow was a comparatively minor issue (cf. Lev 15:13–15, 28–30). At the same time, it was a major issue in comparison to ordinary defilement from a dead body where purification with (special) water was sufficient (Num 19). In the event, the clock resets and the Nazirite must start the count of his dedicated time of separation from the beginning, from the day he brought the offering on (vv. 11–12). And the Nazirite must bring a further year-old male lamb as a guilt offering (v. 12; cf. Lev 5:14–6:7), even if it is not clear whether it was understood that this had to take place on the eighth day or if this obligation could be somewhat delayed. 13–20. These verses specify what the Nazirite is to do at the conclusion of his or her vow. As with an unexpected defilement, the Nazirite is to present a guilt offering and a sin offering, but in this case that from a lamb and a ewe. However, instead of an additional guilt offering, the Nazirite is to present a ram for a fellowship offering and a grain offering and drink offering (vv. 14–15; cf. Lev 2; 3), with the grain offering consisting of a basket of unleavened bread together with cakes and wafers (cf. v. 19) and apparently anything additional that could be brought as a grain offering. Clearly more is asked here than if the vow was prematurely “reset”. Also, rather than on (unintentional) guilt and cleansing, the focus here appears to be on celebration and reintegration to the community, attested by the peace, grain and drink offerings. The priest does his offering and officiating duties on these materials (vv. 16–17). The Nazirite cuts off his hair at the entrance to the tent of meeting; this apparently emphasises the holiness and solemnity of the occasion. The hair is burnt, in the fire of the fellowship offering (v. 18). The priest waves a boiled shoulder of the ram together with a cake and a wafer from the basket, both unleavened (v. 19). In addition to the shoulder and the cake and wafer, a thigh also belongs to the priest, in line with typical priestly dues from fellowship and grain offerings (cf. Lev 7:31–34; 2:9–10). The Nazirite may now drink wine as everything in the ritual has concluded (v. 20). 21. A summary statement concludes the law about the Nazirite, together with a further comment. While the Hebrew of the verse is slightly difficult, it seems 81

C O M M E N TA RY

to indicate that it is possible that the person had added something to the basic Nazirite vow, and if so, shall carry out or include that also. MEANING

The law is about dedicating oneself to Yahweh in a special manner. Such a dedication is marked by special characteristics of abstention from alcohol, uncut hair and not going near a dead body. It could be interrupted by accidental contact with a dead body, in which case the vow and Nazirite status had to be restored and reset. A ritual also accompanied the conclusion of the vow. In this manner, for the ancient Israelite society, there was a special class of people dedicated to Yahweh for whom a set of special societal rules applied. At the same time, it is ultimately not stated what exactly those people did otherwise, even when Samson and Samuel, who were lifelong Nazirites, each clearly had a special mission from Yahweh. In the Christian church, the Nazirite practice was part of Judaism and appears to have died away, even if it was still in place in the first century and accepted for Jewish Christians (see Acts 21:23–25). But it would seem that nothing prevents Christians from still dedicating themselves to the service of God, in whatever form this may take place, whether in “professional” or “lay” ministry and whether for the short or for long term. Jesus’s dedication was of course considered as exemplary by the New Testament writers, even if he did not act in the form of an Old Testament Nazirite (cf. Stubbs 2009:68–69). The priestly blessing (6:22–27) CONTEXT

The priestly blessing is ultimately an offshoot of ancient Near Eastern blessings, applied to Yahwism. The concept of a shining face of a deity and wishes for gods watching over oneself and granting one well-being are already attested in the second half of the second millennium in the area (see Levine 1993:236–237; Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000:183). Whoever wrote this piece then beautifully combined the themes into the material here. It could have been the writer of Numbers, but it could also be that he simply incorporated an already known and perhaps even, at least in some respects, liturgical text in the book. Again, the blessing would not have had to have been placed here, but it was, as part of what I classify as Interlude I. The blessing here may have already been understood to have been used in Lev 9:22–23 (cf. Milgrom 1990:59). In the Greek, v. 27 is placed at the end of v. 23 (cf. Achenbach 2003:513). Two tiny silver scrolls dating to the seventh or sixth centuries were found in a burial cave at Ketef Hinnom, close to Jerusalem, that contained at least parts of the priestly blessing. In that they can be considered as the oldest extant

82

C O M M E N TA RY

texts that contain biblical materials. The tiny scrolls were apparently used as amulets. COMMENT

22–23. The text states that Yahweh tells Moses to instruct Aaron to bless the Israelites in a manner described in the following verses. 24–26. The well-known blessing follows. It consists of blessing and keeping by Yahweh (v. 24), making his face shine upon the addressee(s) and being gracious to them (v. 25) and turning his face upon the addressee(s) and granting them peace (v. 26). Verses 25 and 26 can be considered as consisting of parallelism, where the second verse is similar to the first, but with some slight variation and development of thought. The first verse is of course along similar lines, but can be considered as not being in “direct” parallelism with the second and third verses. 27. A statement from Yahweh suggests that the blessing will have a positive effect if invoked. In this, Yahweh’s name can be seen as connected with his presence and ownership, both in themselves at least potentially already implying blessings, even if the exact connotations may not be entirely clear (cf. Richter 2002; Pitkänen 2014c/2003:47–51; cf. also Achenbach 2003:513–514). As the blessing is mentioned also in the introductory verses 22–23, one may think that there is a mini chiasm through the passage (in the MT; cf. earlier for the Greek): A Introduction to the blessing (vv. 22–23); B The blessing (vv. 24–26); A’ Conclusion to the blessing (v. 27). MEANING

The priestly blessing is well loved and also used in Christian liturgy. It has been used by Catholics from early on and is widely used in Anglican, Lutheran and other churches, especially liturgical ones. Its form encompasses both Judaism and Christianity, and one cannot think of any reason why it could not be applied in both contexts without any need for thinking of differences that exist between the two religions. In this way, an at least 3,000-year-old tradition from the ancient world, readapted to the Israelite religion and adopted by the later Christian communities, still lives on strongly today, and, in my view, deservedly so. Cultic actions and regulations (7:1–9:14) CONTEXT

This section deals with various cultic actions and regulations that pertain to the tabernacle and its service, in the context of still being at Sinai. It starts with a description of offerings that were brought when the tabernacle was first constructed (Num 7). It is followed by an interlude that adds detail about the tabernacle lamps

83

C O M M E N TA RY

(Num 8:1–4). The Levites are then set apart for the service of the tabernacle (Num 8:5–26). Clearly the focus is on its service as it is to be on the move (vv. 23–26; cf. Num 3–4), but the Israelites have not yet broken camp from Sinai. Finally in this section, provision is given for occasions when one is not able to celebrate Passover in its appointed time in the first month (Num 9:1–14). Offerings at the tabernacle’s consecration (7:1–89) CONTEXT

It is not certain when the events portrayed in this passage took place. The reference to the “day” (Hebrew yôm) when Moses had finished setting up the tent of meeting (cf. Ex 40) may also refer to a wider concept of time (cf. Milgrom 1990:364; cf. also v. 10, which has yôm). However, the events should be understood to have taken place between the first day of the first month (Ex 40:1) and the twentieth day of the second month of the second year after the exodus (Num 10:11–12), an interval of fifty days (cf. also Table 1.3). In addition, the things brought could be considered as gifts to the cult and not as sacrifices made on the spot, with ancient Near Eastern parallels supporting such an idea (see Milgrom 1990:362–364). In general, the associated inventories in the chapter are comparable to known inventories from the ancient Near East in the second and first millennia (see Milgrom 1990:363; Levine 1993:260–266). Interestingly, some of these gifts may have been brought on a Sabbath day, unless the days do not need to be considered as completely contiguous but could have included a break over the Sabbath or Sabbaths, depending on whether the first day should be considered as the day immediately after the Sabbath. Importantly, the passage assumes knowledge about the Levitical duties that have been introduced in Numbers 3–4 (see 7:5–9). Hence, the chapter fits in its current place fairly naturally (cf. Wenham 1981:92), whatever the exact time of the events portrayed should be understood to have been. It has in general also been integrated in Num 1–10 quite tightly (see comments on vv. 1–11 ahead, which demonstrate that), even if the list itself in vv. 12–83 could as such easily stand alone as a record or inventory of sacrificial gifts. The sacrifices themselves (see 7:13–17 and throughout) link back to Lev 1–5 (cf. Achenbach 2003:533–534). The structure of the chapter can be described as follows: vv. 1–11 introduction (with vv. 4–9 tying things to Levitical duties); 12–83 offerings by the twelve tribal chieftains; 84–88 summary and totals of offerings; 89 comment about Moses in the tent of meeting. Verse 89 is really independent of the context of the offerings but is otherwise read here together with the rest of the chapter. If one were to speculate about the historical context of the chapter, one might suggest that the offerings could also have taken place at the consecration of the tabernacle in the land, possibly at Shiloh, even if just as well elsewhere before Shiloh became prominent (cf. Josh 18:1; 22:9–34), but projected back into the wilderness period. If so, the portrayal of this ritual in Numbers could have served 84

C O M M E N TA RY

towards creating and sustaining ancient Israelite unity and through that contributed towards ethnogenesis in early Israel (cf. Pitkänen 2016b). The names of the tribal leaders in the chapter would then reflect tribal leaders in the land. While being part of the first generation that perished, they would nevertheless be associated with the initiation of the Israelite cult and the first census (cf. comments on vv. 12–83). Broadly similarly, the ritual to consecrate Aaron and his sons in Lev 9 may have been an early priestly initiation ritual existing in the land and taken over by the settling Israelites and then projected back into the wilderness. This might also fit with developments in the numbers of the censuses from Num 1 to 26, where the numbers of Manasseh, Benjamin, Asher and Zebulun have increased and Simeon in particular has decreased (cf. comments on Num 26, “Context”). Whatever the case, the settling tribes did look back at Aaron as the brother of Moses and as the priestly archetype, and he may have acted in such a role in one way or another. All in all, the priestly tradition may ultimately have been based on indigenous traditions, or at least a fusion with them, including at Shiloh, which may well have been a cultic centre already in pre-Israelite times (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003:116–117). But searching for the original setting of these traditions is, at least in my view, ultimately speculation based on our current available data. One cannot be certain one way or another – that is of whether and to what extent the tradition goes back to the wilderness and before, or whether it was created in the land itself. That the Levites were considered mobile would seem to suggest the continuing possibility of Yahweh still moving about even after Shiloh was designated as a central sanctuary (cf. 2 Sam 7:5–7). Finally, one may note that ox carts are known to have been used in twelfth-century Egyptian contexts (see Kitchen 1993:123–124), and, famously, the Medinet Habu reliefs show the Egyptians battling Philistines who are migrating into the south-western Levant in the twelfth century, with ox carts being depicted among the Philistines (see Yasur-Landau 2010:175–176, including figures). COMMENT

1–11. Verse 1 ties the events in the chapter to the time when the tabernacle had been set up. Anointing was a usual method of consecrating things for divine service in ancient Israel, for both objects and persons (see e.g. Ex 40:15; Lev 8:12; 1 Sam 10:1; 1 Sam 1:16; 1 Ki 1:39; 2 Ki 9:6). The leaders of all the twelve “secular” tribes (counting the Josephites Ephraim and Manasseh as two to stand in for the absence of Levi; cf. vv. 48, 54) bring a set of offerings. Notably, these are the same men who assist Moses and Aaron in the census of Numbers 1 (verse 2 here; cf. Num 1:5–15 with vv. 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, 54, 60, 66, 72, 78 here; also see Num 2). They bring six wagons and twelve oxen (v. 3). Two carts and four oxen of these are given to the Gershonites and a double of that to the Merarites (vv. 7–8). The reason for giving more to the Merarites clearly seems to be that they have more to carry (see Num 4:21–33; cf. v. 5 here). Nothing is given to the Kohathites; they are to carry the (holy) objects assigned to them directly on their shoulders 85

C O M M E N TA RY

(v. 9; cf. 4:15). It should be understood that the objects are wrapped and put in a carrying frame(s), which the Kohathites then carry on their shoulders (4:4–15; esp. vv. 12, 15). That animals are not used may be due to the special holiness of the objects in question. Accordingly, the problem with Uzza (2 Sam 6) may have ultimately at least partially sprung from the fact that oxen should not have been used (2 Sam 6:3–4, 6–7; cf. 1 Chr 15:13). Finally, vv. 10–11 state that each of the tribal leaders is to bring his offering on the occasion of the dedication of the altar on a separate day.17 12–83. A formulaic list of the sacrificial gifts follows. As commentators have pointed out, it could easily be drawn into a two-dimensional table (see esp. Levine 1993:260 for such a table; cf. Levine 1993:265). Each entry lists the leader (the same as in Num 1:5–15 for each leader) and what the leader brought. Each brings exactly the same gifts: a silver plate and a silver sprinkling bowl, both filled with flour mixed with oil as a grain offering(s) (cf. Lev 2); a gold dish filled with incense; one young bull, ram and a year-old male lamb for a burnt offering(s) (cf. Lev 1); a male goat for a sin offering(s) (cf. Lev 4–5:13); two oxen, five rams, five male goats and five male lambs that are a year old for a fellowship offering(s) (cf. Lev 3). As Milgrom (1990:363) suggests, it may well be that guilt offerings (see Lev 5:14–6:7; 7:1–10) are not included among the offerings listed in Num 7 because they are not directly associated with public worship (see Num 28–29) but are more individual.18 84–88. These verses list the sum totals of the sacrificial gifts. They completely tally with information given in vv. 12–83. Verse 88 states that the gifts were given after (’aḥarê) the altar had been anointed. The number of gifts, assuming they were given for the public cult and were not consumed on the occasion (esp. the animals), is enough for starters only, considering the large number of offerings in Num 28–29, especially at the feast of tabernacles. That said, one would assume that the feast of tabernacles would be celebrated only in the land and therefore such a large number as depicted in Num 28–29 would not be necessary initially. Even if the materials were to be based on a dedicatory occasion in the land itself (cf. “Context” earlier), one might understand that the numbers in Num 7 could be supplemented via other means over time in the context of Num 28–29. 89. This verse is a separate comment about Moses’s encounters with Yahweh in the tent of meeting. According to it, Yahweh speaks with Moses in the tent, in line with Yahweh’s presence at the ark (Ex 25:22; cf. Achenbach 2003:537). From a perspective of Pentateuchal criticism, it has generally been thought that two tents of meeting are spoken of in the corpus. The more famous one is the elaborate one referred to here that is described in detail in Ex 25–40 and that is situated in the centre of the camp (Num 2:17; Num 3). The other tent is described in Ex 33:6–11. It seems to be more of something in an ad hoc style, simply set up by Moses outside the camp. Consequently, the tent of meeting in Ex 33:6–11 has often been seen as part of a narrative source (E) and the priestly tent as part of the priestly source (P). However, there is a way to read these traditions together in a relatively coherent way in their present arrangement in the Pentateuch, even if 86

C O M M E N TA RY

they were to stem from differing sources. That is Ex 33:6–11 can be considered as something that was set up before the consecration of the tent of meeting proper in Ex 25–40 (cf. Milgrom 1990:387). Chronologically, this leaves approximately eight months for its function (cf. Ex 19:1 vs 40:1, and cf. Table 1.3). It is true that Deuteronomy 31:15, which clearly takes place chronologically after the building of the tent of meeting, uses imagery that is similar to that in Ex 33:6–11, as does Num 12. And yet, one can think that both of these passages pertain to occasions where Yahweh might (wish to) manifest himself publicly rather than just privately to Moses inside the tent (as e.g. in this verse here; Ex 25:22; cf. Lev 1:1). According to Chronicles, interestingly, there were also two tents in the time of David, even if the function of the tent set up by David was different from that of the elaborate Mosaic tabernacle (see 1 Chr 16:1; 21:29). And see comments on Num 2:1–31; 9:15–23. MEANING

This passage describes dedicatory offerings for the public cult after it had been instituted. It ties in with ritual celebration of a new order in the life of the emerging Israelite settler community, with paradisal conditions (Gen 2–3) to be restored through the establishment of Yahwistic worship in the new land later on in the narrative of Genesis–Joshua (Josh 18:1; cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). Above all, even though ignoring the rights of the indigenes, such offerings were to be joyful matters rather than something considered as compulsory (cf. Dt 12:5–7; 26:1–15). Drawing from the “positive” aspects of formation of the Israelite community, Christians are urged to offer themselves as a sacrifice to God and rejoice in the Lord (Rom 12:1; Phil 4:4). The Eucharist can be considered as one occasion where Christians can think of such things (see Stubbs 2009:92–93). In terms of encounters with God (v. 89), according to the New Testament, Christians now have an unmediated access to God (Heb 8:1–2, 6). Or, perhaps better, Christ is the mediator (cf. also 1 Tim 2:5), and Christians through his sacrifice have a direct access to God through him. Interlude II: lamps (8:1–4) CONTEXT

The material in 8:1–4 should be considered as an interlude as it is not directly related to the overall setting of Chapters 1–10. That is nothing in 8:1–4 necessitates a connection with Israel at Sinai, just getting ready to march out into the wilderness and towards the promised land. Certainly, the materials are completely in line with legal materials in Exodus–Numbers as a whole. But they could be displaced to another location in the corpus: in a sense, they just happen to have been put in this specific place. This relates to A1’s specific strategy in the book of Numbers – that is progression in narrative and legal materials that are more 87

C O M M E N TA RY

easily tied to that narrative is interrupted by legal material that is only broadly relevant to the overall setting in Sinai and the ensuing wilderness. As discussed in the introduction, altogether, one can distinguish five such interludes, this being the second of them. This interlude is very short and it would be easy to think that it has been displaced from Exodus 25–40, where the lampstand is otherwise discussed (see Ex 25:31–40; 26:35; 27:20–21; 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17–25; 39:37; cf. Lev 24:4), even if the instructions for its transportation are included in Numbers 3:31; 4:9. However, in this case the narrative states that Yahweh tells Moses to mediate the command in v. 2 to Aaron. In that sense it fits after the description of the ordination of Aaron and his sons in Lev 8 rather than before it. Also, the actual execution of the command is here stated to have been done by Aaron rather than by Moses, Bezalel or others in Ex 35:30–40:33. It is certainly correct that this criterion is a relatively slender one; nevertheless, it would seem to give enough reasoning for the placement of the material here. The author may have thought that it would have interrupted the thematic and narrative progression in Ex 35–40 and even in Leviticus and decided to put it in here, keeping in mind that the book includes other comparative interludes. Certainly, the reference to Yahweh speaking in v. 1 ties back to the preceding verse (7:89), even if the passage here could just as well have been omitted and the narrative continued by v. 5. It is of course possible that this material is a later addition, but one does not need to think that this has to be the case. COMMENT

1–4. The passage depicts Yahweh’s command to set the lamps of the tabernacle lampstand so that they light the area in front of the lampstand (v. 2) and its execution (v. 3). V. 4 is a summary of how the lampstand was made, in line with its depiction elsewhere in Exodus 25–40. Considering the parallel of v. 2 with Ex 25:37 (cf. Levine 1993:271), this passage at first sight hardly provides any new information to that in Exodus (and Leviticus), except that, in this case, the narrative states that Yahweh tells Moses to mediate the command in v. 2 to Aaron, as mentioned earlier. And the description of how the lamps were specifically set is not included in Exodus 37:17–23, which depicts the actual manufacture of the lampstand. Note that the statement in v. 4 resembles the comments in Ex 25:9, 40, even if the word taḇnîṯ is used for “pattern” in the Exodus passages and marʾeh in Numbers. Clearly v. 4 then refers back to the descriptions of how the lampstand and the tabernacle as a whole were made. MEANING

The execution of divine commands as stated was an important aspect of Genesis–Joshua and the wider Old Testament. Obeying Yahweh always led to success.19 In contrast, disobeying the divine command caused all sorts of troubles as described in Chapters 13–14 and 25 in particular in the book of Numbers 88

C O M M E N TA RY

itself. Here the instructions pertain to the Israelite cult (worship), so obedience is all the more important. The lampstand at first sight seems an insignificant detail of the tabernacle and its accoutrements. However, on closer inspection, it had an important symbolic function. As with much of the rest of the tabernacle, one cannot be certain about all of its details, even if it as such seems to have been described fairly carefully in the biblical text (see Meyers 2003, esp. 17–34). Therefore, it remains in some ways an enigmatic object. This said, the descriptions of the lampstand and the tabernacle as a whole should not be seen as blueprints but comparable to a verbal map(s) that represented the objects it depicted in a symbolic manner. Such approaches to mapping are demonstrably attested in the wider ancient Near East (see Rochberg 2012, esp. 19, 43). Overall, while some have been sceptical and minimalist about the antiquity of the origin of the lampstand (see e.g. Hachlili 2001:35–39), equally, there are good reasons to see it as an object rooted in the symbolism of the ancient world attested already at least in the second millennium BCE. In particular, comparisons with ancient tree motifs show a very plausible similarity with the tabernacle menorah, and the greatest concentration of discovered extrabiblical objects that attest similarities appears during the Late Bronze Age (see Meyers 2003, including Figures 1–67, pp. 205–221). A link to paradise and the tree of life in Genesis (Gen 3:21–24) seems likely, at the very least possible (see Meyers 2003:133–139). If so, this fits with the ideas often expressed that the Ex 25–40 narrative includes creation symbolism, which itself reflects typical ancient Near Eastern symbolism of temples having a primeval function (see Schaudig in Boda and Novotny 2010). Ezekiel’s new temple also seems to include this symbolism (Ezek 47:1–12), which is carried over all the way to Revelation in the New Testament (see Rev 21–22). In general, it must be kept in mind that vegetation was an important source of life in the ancient world, just as it is today, even if masked away somewhat in modern industrial societies. The lampstand was supposed to be lit throughout the night (Ex 27:20–21; 35:14; cf. Lev 24:1–4; cf. also 1 Sam 3:3). Perhaps this was simply to light the sanctuary during the night, but some further symbolism relating to light may also have been intended. Good-quality pure olive oil was to serve as fuel for the seven lamps of the lampstand (Ex 27:20–21). The overall symbolism of creation and life then linked with the idea of the construction of the tabernacle at Sinai and in Canaan, the new land of the Israelites, as signifying a restoration of creation and Yahweh’s presence in the midst of Israel (cf. e.g. Nihan 2007:64–65, 370–71, 381–82 and passim). For Christians, such restoration, as just implied earlier, is seen to take place at the end of the book of Revelation when new heavens and a new earth appear. In the ancient Israelite context, the concept, however, has a particularly problematic aspect. The new society is envisaged to replace existing indigenous societies (cf. esp. Ex 23:20–33; 34:10–16; Numbers 33:50–56; Dt 7). Societies have acted thus on other societies throughout history (cf. Veracini and Cavanagh 2016). The processes have involved violent killing, dispossession and enslavement of others, and therefore present an ethical problem for 89

C O M M E N TA RY

a reader of the Old Testament (see commentary on Chapter 31 and 33:50–56 for further remarks, and comments on settler colonialism in the introduction). Cleansing of Levites (one-time offering) and the age span of their service (8:5–26) CONTEXT

This passage on the cleansing of the Levites is similar to Lev 8–9, which describes the ordination of Aaron and his sons (cf. e.g. sprinkling, offerings, laying of hands in the respective passages) and can be considered as naturally linking with it. In that sense already one might consider the passage as an interlude in its present position. However, it has been integrated in its present context by the references to the duties of the Levites in the tent of meeting (vv. 15, 19, 22–26) that tie back to Numbers 3. In relation to this, the reference to the Levites acting as a substitute to the firstborn of the Israelites (vv. 16–19) ties back to Numbers 3:11–13, 40–51. The retirement age in v. 29 also ties in with Num 4:1, 21, 30 (cf. comments on 4:1–3 on the age of the start of their service). The passage is structured as follows: vv. 5–14 description of the initiation ritual; vv. 15–19 the consecration of Levites to the work of the tent of meeting as redemption of the Israelite firstborn; vv. 20–22 the execution of the initiation ritual; vv. 23–26 age limits for Levitical duties. COMMENT

5–14. An initiation ritual is described for the Levites. The idea is to take them from among the rest of the Israelites and make them ritually clean (ṭhr; v. 6). The ritual starts as follows on what might be described as a “private” sphere: A. (1) Moses sprinkles water on them (v. 6); (2) the Levites themselves shave their bodies completely and wash their clothes, and purify themselves (v. 7); two bulls are prepared, one by the Levites and one by Moses (v. 8); (3) the ritual then continues on the “public” sphere: B. (1) the Levites are brought to the tent of meeting together with the whole Israelite community (ēḏāh) that is assembled (v. 9); (2) the Levites are specifically brought to the presence of Yahweh, the exact manner of which is left unclear, and the Israelites lay their hands on the Levites (v. 10); (3) the two bulls that have been prepared by Moses and the Levites (v. 8) are sacrificed (v. 12), one as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭāṯ) and one as a burnt offering (᷾ōlāh). It does not seem entirely clear which bull is for which offering, but the fact that the bulls have been prepared by both Moses and the Levites seems to imply connection between the two groups; (4) Aaron presents the Levites as a wave offering, with the Levites standing in front of Aaron and his sons (vv. 11, 13). It is difficult to think of how the Levites might have been “waved”, in contrast to things or animal parts that are normally presented as wave offerings (see Ex 29:22–26; 38:22–29; Lev 7:30–34; etc.), even if such a “waving” might somehow 90

C O M M E N TA RY

have been affected in the ritual as a physical action. However, the point seems to be that the Levites have now been dedicated to the service of the sanctuary and of the priests (cf. Ex 29:26; Lev 7:34), and the reference to a wave offering is thus highly symbolic in its meaning. It acts for that purpose together with the laying of hands described in v. 10 (cf. Milgrom 1990:62; cf. also e.g. Lev 1:4; 16:21). With these actions the ritual is complete (v. 14). All of the elements of the ritual appear in other rituals in Ex–Num in some form, at least in a broad sense. Their specific combination makes the ritual presented here unique. The reader is especially encouraged to compare this ritual with actions described in Ex 40:12–16 and Lev 8:1–9:33, where Aaron and his sons are ordained. 15–19. The important point is that the Levites act as substitutes for the Israelite firstborn. According to this and other passages in the Pentateuch, every Israelite firstborn belongs to Yahweh, as noted in the commentary on 3:11–13. Here an important rationale is emphasised, as in 3:11–13. The Egyptian firstborn were struck during the Exodus (v. 17). The idea is that firstborn should be sacrificed unless redeemed by something else suitable, and in the case of the Israelites, they are redeemed through the Levites. That is during the Exodus, Yahweh took his due from the Egyptians without possibility for redemption, even if other reasons for the action of killing the Egyptian firstborn are also stated (Ex 4:22–23). The Levites are dedicated to the service of the priests and the tent of meeting (v. 19). In their role as substitutes for the Israelites, the Levites are then also attributed apotropaic significance (v. 19). The reference to a potential plague on approaching the sanctuary by the ordinary Israelites emphasises the holiness of Yahweh and potential dangers involved in being in his presence. Importantly, the duties of the Levites were full-time (v. 16). That the Levites are mentioned as having been born of Israelite women (v. 16) would seem to emphasise the role of women in that society, even if other aspects in the biblical materials may not be seen thus by modern readers. 20–22. This section ties back to vv. 5–14, indicating the actioning of the instructions in those verses. Such description of what should be done followed by the actual doing is typical of Hebrew narrative (see e.g. Ex 25–40; Josh 3–4). In this case, the execution of the instructions is described in a summary fashion. No new information is provided in comparison to vv. 5–14. The section is concluded by a statement that the ritual with the Levites was done just as Yahweh commanded Moses, a familiar trope in the Pentateuch in association with things that are seen as going well. 23–26. This passage explicitly states that the Levites are to carry out work at the tent of meeting from the age of thirty until the age of fifty. Considering the shorter average lifespan of people in antiquity, the age of fifty seems high enough, if not more than high enough, in comparison with modern standards. The age at which they are to start their service is stated as twenty-five here, whereas it is stated as thirty in 4:3, 23, 30. There is thus some variation in this age in the biblical materials; see comments on 4:1–3 for further details on that. Retirement 91

C O M M E N TA RY

at fifty is compulsory, and retirees may not do any work in the tent of meeting anymore, even if they may assist other eligible Levites in their work (v. 26). The details are not specified and must in essence be left to imagination, but perhaps this could for example be about advising them. MEANING

The passage here acts as further description and elaboration of the role of the Levites. It summarises the position of the Levites in that they are envisaged as helping priests in the work of the tent of meeting as cultic personnel that have been taken away from the rest of the Israelites, more specifically so as to substitute for the Israelite firstborn. The new information is about the ritual that was followed in their dedication. As with the initiation ritual in Lev 8–9, the ritual here does not state if and to what extent future priests and Levites would be expected to be consecrated in this manner. That it is a first initiation ritual would seem to suggest that the same ritual would not necessarily need to be followed in the future. At the same time, as older Levites (and similarly priests) would retire or die and new ones grow up and be eligible for service, there would be cause for at least some kind of initiation ritual. The Bible itself does not seem to offer any real clues as to what extent this ritual (similarly for the priestly initiation ritual in Lev 8–9) may have been practised in the Israelite society. In this respect, one may also consider that, in contrast to for example Lev 17 and Num 9:1–14, there is no direct indication that the ritual (and the priestly initiation ritual in Lev 8–9) is directly valid for the generations to come. And yet, even in modern times it is usual to have a ritual for initiation of religious personnel, certainly so in Christian churches. This may partly be in continuation of the older practices, but partly it, as the biblical rituals themselves, may reflect the human need to use ritual at important moments in life. In the ritual, the person is often taken away from his or her ordinary sphere of life, then brought into a so-called liminal state during the ritual, even if sometimes only for a short moment, and then reintegrated in the community in his or her new role (cf. comments in Bell 2009/1997:52–59, including for qualifications of this view). It thus reflects the human need to put special emphasis on change, including change in social status. Even if different in form, notably for Christians, Jesus’s baptism, time in the wilderness and temptation by the devil (Mt 3:13–4:11; Lk 3:21–4:13) may be seen from the perspective of an initiation ritual. All in all, the Levitical initiation ritual may help one consider the various rituals that one may experience in life, whether “religious” or secular, and reflect on their meaning. Flashback: Passover at Sinai and Passover regulations (9:1–14) CONTEXT

This passage is fairly tightly integrated in the narrative setting of the book of Numbers, actually returning focus to it after Chapters 2–8. At the same time, it is 92

C O M M E N TA RY

described as pertaining to time some two weeks earlier than the census described in Chapter 1. That is the census in 1:1 takes place on the first day of the second month in the second year, but the events here take place before and up to the fourteenth day of the first month in year two (see 9:1–5). The passage is then followed by a description of the departure of the Israelites from Sinai on the twentieth day of the second month of the second year (10:11–12). The Passover legislation itself, including in its narrative context, tightly integrates with the Passover legislation in Exodus 12–13 and the narrative setting of the first Passover in Egypt. This of course on its part reinforces the narrative links between Numbers and Exodus. And, as Milgrom suggests, in the book of Exodus the Passover regulations immediately precede the departure from Egypt, and here they immediately precede the departure from Sinai (Milgrom 1990:67), even if thus in the order of the text itself, not in the order of narrative time. All in all, it is fair to say that the events pertaining to the Exodus and wilderness are connected with the yearly calendar of feasts (cf. Forsling 2013:138, with reference to Mark S. Smith). Essentially the passage can be divided into the following sections: 1–5 Celebration of the first Passover in the wilderness (at Sinai) after the initial Passover in Egypt; 6–7 The problem: some could not celebrate it due to being ceremonially unclean; 8 Moses asks advice from Yahweh; 9–14 The solution: celebration of the Passover in the following (second) month, together with accompanying regulations. These are to be valid for the Israelites throughout their generations (v. 10). COMMENT

1–5. These verses begin a flashback. They take place earlier than events described in the beginning of the book of Numbers (see 1:1). It is only about a couple of weeks, but nevertheless this is a flashback. As suggested earlier (see “Context”), the celebration of Passover is to be followed by departure from Sinai, even if this here takes place only in textual order. One may here note for comparison that, in the book of Joshua (4:10–12), a celebration of Passover takes place just after the Israelites have crossed the Jordan and is pretty much immediately followed by the commencement of the conquest of land west of the Jordan. A description of the celebration of Passover is otherwise tied to important events in the narratives of the Old Testament (see 2 Ki 23:21–23 and 2 Chr 35:1–19 [Josiah]; 2 Chr 30 [Hezekiah]; Ezra 6:19–22 [dedication of the second temple]). As Milgrom suggests, while the text states that the Passover was celebrated according to all the related rules and regulations (vv. 3, 5), there must have been some adaptation in comparison to the Egyptian context (Milgrom 1990:67). In Egypt there were houses, whereas the Israelites lived in tents in the wilderness. Therefore it would not have been possible to smear one’s doorframes (Ex 12:21–23), but perhaps the narrative implies that the entrances to the tents could have been smeared (thus Milgrom 1990:67). The changed setting of the second Passover actually then brings it closer to the injunctions of Dt 16:1–8, where the Deuteronomic 93

C O M M E N TA RY

legislation stipulates it as a pilgrimage festival, prohibiting the sacrifice of the Passover lamb anywhere else than at the chosen place. Dt 16:7 does suggest a convocation at the chosen place, where at least the Israelite males are expected to be present (Dt 16:16; cf. Dt 12:18). This is to be in force when Israel has settled and dwells in peace (Dt 12:10–11); otherwise the Passover can be slaughtered locally, while sacrifices be made at local altars (cf. Ex 20:22–26). While the interpretation of Dt 16:7 is not entirely clear, it would appear that the convocation took place at night, perhaps around the sanctuary, and the people could return to their tents in the morning where they were camping (or lodgings otherwise; cf. modern hotels). If so, this could also have been the case in the passage here in regard to the tent of meeting rather than that the people smeared the entrances to their tents. In both cases (i.e. in Num 9 and Dt 16), physical proximity to the (central) sanctuary where Yahweh dwells is either assumed or desired. This fits with the idea that great emphasis is placed in both the priestly and Deuteronomic traditions on the unity of Israel as a community in the worship of Yahweh. So, if it was understood or desired to have been a convocation on the Passover night, this would mean that the Passover sacrifice was not eaten inside houses or tents (cf. Ex 12:22); however, the reason for specifically staying inside the house during the first Passover is clear from its unique setting, where the angel of death destroys the Egyptian firstborn but passes over the Israelite houses. At the same time, as circumstances would not necessarily allow travelling to the central sanctuary at all times (cf. Dt 12:10; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 95–109), in such cases one could essentially follow the regulations in Ex 12 (with which Num 9 could fit in such a case also; cf. comments on vv. 9–14 ahead). 6–8. Some of the people are, however, not able to celebrate Passover because they are ceremonially unclean because of a dead body. This might for example happen if their relative died and they had to take care of the corpse. While the Passover legislation proper in Ex 12–13 does not cover such occasions, the injunctions in Num 5:1–4 (cf. also Lev 21:1–11; 22:4–8; Num 19) clearly suggest that such people would not be able to join the rest of the community in the celebration of the Passover as they would be excluded from the camp for up to seven days (see Num 19). The men present the problem to Moses, who then passes the enquiry to Yahweh. 9–14. Yahweh responds that those unclean from a dead body can celebrate “backup” Passover one month later than the usual time. Such an opportunity is extended to those who may be on a journey in the first month during the Passover feast, even if this was not part of the “problem” of the men who approached Moses. Naturally, the injunction here refers to conditions in the settled land. A Hittite text from the second millennium BCE stipulates that temple officials are not to take a journey that conflicts with festival times (ANET: 208–209). In the case of the Israelites, it appears that priests and Levites could be on a journey during those times, even if it would seem unlikely that this would be recommended, just as employees in modern workplaces are generally not granted leave during busy or otherwise important times for the business of their organisation. 94

C O M M E N TA RY

Importantly, it is highlighted that the usual Passover regulations are to be kept (v. 12; cf. Ex 12:10, 46; and cf. v. 11 with Ex 12:8, even if the mode of preparation is not repeated in v. 11 here). Anyone qualified to celebrate the Passover who fails to do so must be cut off from his people. It is not known exactly what such a punishment of cutting off (kāraṯ) means, but one could imagine that it would probably be equal to excommunication, even if an execution would also be a possibility. The point would seem to be that as the Passover was linked with one’s identity of being an Israelite, failing to keep the Passover would in effect be a denial of that identity. An excommunication (or execution) would then simply be consistent with such persons already having themselves separated themselves from the community. It may be that the punishment carries over into the afterlife (see Milgrom 1990:169–170). The cutting off (kāraṯ) punishment is also stipulated for a range of other offences (see Lev 7:20–27; 17:4–14; 18:29 etc.). In this way, actions that are subject to this punishment help define Israelite identity, even if through a negative setting of boundaries. Positively, circumcision is presented as a very notable boundary marker for the ancient Israelites, even a sign of a covenant between Yahweh and the Israelites (Gen 17, esp. v. 10; cf. vv. 19–21). That only circumcised males were allowed to participate in the Passover sacrifice (Ex 12:48) ties in with who can be part of the Israelite community and in what manner. Aliens (gēr) residing among the Israelites could partake of the Passover, but, if so, they would have to follow all its rules and regulations (v. 14), including that they would have to circumcise themselves (cf. Ex 12:48). The aliens will nevertheless not be full-fledged Israelites, but close, with accompanying rights and responsibilities – for example the food restrictions in Lev 11 and Dt 14:1–21 do not seem to apply to them.20 There are also other aliens and foreigners in the Pentateuch. In this, while there are some differences between the law codes into which we cannot go in further detail here, the foreigner (nāḵrî) can be seen as basically someone who is either living outside of the territory of Israel or visiting for a short time. The sojourner (tôšāḇ) is a category in between these two and occurs only on a few occasions (see Achenbach 2011:29–51).21 We could perhaps roughly equate gēr with a foreigner in the United States who has a green card, a tôšāḇ with one who has a working visa and a nāḵrî with a non-citizen foreigner who is visiting the United States or is otherwise outside US territory (cf. Pitkänen 2017). In this way, again, one can think that the association with the Israelite society increases together with an increased rights and responsibilities in relation to it. The native Israelites (benē yiśrā’ēl, ’ezrāḥ) can be conceptually considered at least roughly similar to US citizens. Interestingly, the indigenous peoples do not have any of these rights (Ex 23:20–33; 34:10–16; Lev 20:23; Dt 7), just as it was in the United States when that nation was formed and it expanded over the North American continent (cf. e.g. Hixson 2013). As regards centralisation of worship, an issue often debated in Old Testament scholarship, while P/H (Lev 17) sees centralisation as an absolute requirement, both in terms of sacrifices and profane slaughter (cf. my fuller comments in 95

C O M M E N TA RY

Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 75–94), the passage here (vv. 11–12; H), even if in an express setting in a wilderness, seems to be in line with slaughtering the Passover in individual homes (cf. Ex 12:5–10; P/H, yet also compatible with a more centralised convocation; cf. comments on vv. 1–5 earlier). It would seem easiest to think that H refers to settled life in the land, in line with much of the “main” H legislation in Lev 17–26, and more or less tacitly allows slaughtering in homes in such conditions, certainly during the Passover at least (cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 94). Deuteronomy of course then sees the Passover as a pilgrimage festival (see Dt 16), even if this pertains to ideal conditions there also (Dt 12, esp. vv. 10–11; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 95–110). MEANING

This passage describes the celebration of the first Passover in the wilderness (at Sinai) after the initial Passover in Egypt. This is described as having been done, but, importantly, there are persons who are not able to celebrate the Passover as stipulated. The issue is about them being ceremonially unclean. A remedy is then given. The Passover can be celebrated a month later, and this also applies to persons who may have been travelling in the first month. Importantly, the regulations are couched in a narrative form. In this form of the narrative, a problem occurs and a solution is sought in consultation with Yahweh. Similar occasions are notably described in Lev 24:10–23 and Num 15:32–36 (cf. also Num 27:1–11; 36:1– 12 and comments there). In this case, the action prescribed by Yahweh becomes a lasting injunction (v. 9), which clearly seems to be the case also in Lev 24:10–23, and most likely also in Num 15:32–36. Of course, one could ask the question of to what extent such occasions should in any case form a basis for case law. In the English legal courts they would certainly be considered as such. But one should also not read back modern legal systems into ancient societies as it is not clear to what extent the ancient texts acted as legal precedents in courts, and yet, a comparison with modern legal systems may nevertheless help elucidate the text. One may also keep in mind that the ancient Israelite texts were passed on through the centuries and their readings may have changed (and did change) in differing societal and religious settings. In that sense Christians may reflect on how the Bible in general should be read in their own settings. The legal distinctions between the various types of foreigners in the Israelite society remind one of modern immigration and visa regulations. If the issue of indigenous peoples is also taken into account (and cf. comments on settler colonialism in the introduction), the texts remind one of societies that have been recently constructed in replacement of existing native societies, such as modern United States, Australia and modern Israel. In this way, Christians may reflect on continuing issues that relate to migration, colonialism and social justice across the globe. In terms of festivals, the Israelite Passover has of course been transformed into the Christian Easter in commemoration of Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross (see esp. Luke 22:14–20). The commandment about not breaking any of the bones of the Passover lamb (v. 96

C O M M E N TA RY

12; cf. Ex 12:46) is famously picked up on and quoted in John 19:46 as referring to Jesus on the cross. Accoutrements during the march through the wilderness (9:15–10:10) CONTEXT

This section starts to look directly ahead to the time the Israelites leave Sinai, to be followed by a description of the actual departure in 10:11. Two important features that accompany the Israelites in their march through the wilderness are introduced: the cloud and the trumpets. The cloud accompanies the Israelites during the wilderness wanderings, showing when the Israelites are to set out. Conversely, when the Israelites should simply stay in a particular place before setting out, the cloud would not lift from above the tabernacle. The silver trumpets were used for communication. In this, they could be used for assembling the community or just the leaders and for directing the Israelites when the camp set out, and also in war settings and during festivals. When one considers that events in Chapters 1–8 really have to do with preparations for departure, 9:15–10:10 can be seen as the last section that describes those preparations. The cloud (9:15–23) CONTEXT

The pillar of cloud is described in this passage (P/H). It has already been introduced in the book of Exodus as the Israelites leave Egypt (Ex 13:21–22). The pillar accompanies the Israelites in their travels and shows them the way to go. In Exodus 14, the pillar helps them to keep the Egyptians at bay, and the Egyptians are eventually destroyed in the Sea of Reeds (Ex 14:19–20, 23–25). Notably, the pillar is associated with the “oracular” tent of meeting (Ex 33:10; cf. comments on 2:1–31; 7:89). But it can also be associated with the more elaborate tent (Ex 40:34–38). It is not entirely clear which tent is referred to in Num 12:5, 10 and Dt 31:15. It is true that these verses could be considered to be part of the “older” or “narrative” sources (classically roughly E in Num 12:5 and Dt 31:15). But the pillar of cloud (or just cloud) is otherwise mentioned in Num 14:14 (traditionally assigned to J); 10:11–12 (P/H); 11:25 (E); 16:42 (P); Dt 1:33 (D). Thus, both the pillar of cloud and the tent of meeting occur in both JE narrative22 and priestly sources, and even Deuteronomy, and the ancient Israelite thought world is accordingly consistent across these sources. Concomitantly with this, it is best to think that Yahweh can be present both in the pillar and in the tent of meeting in Israelite thinking. Such thinking about divine presence is in line with general ancient Near Eastern thinking, where gods can be present in more than one locality simultaneously (cf. Hundley 2013; Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 25–38). It should also 97

C O M M E N TA RY

be noted that cloud covers Sinai in Ex 24:16–18 (cf. Dt 5:22), and a cloud was understood to cover the atonement cover on the ark (kappōreṯ; Lev 16:2). Even if the pillar of cloud was already introduced earlier in Genesis–Joshua, the passage about it is, together with the passage about the silver trumpets, suitably positioned just before the description of the Israelites actually setting out. COMMENT

15–16. Verse 15 links back to Ex 40:34–38, and also to Ex 13–14 (see “Context” section earlier). The cloud looks like a cloud in the daytime, but like a fire in the night. In the Israelite thinking (here in its more explicitly priestly form), the tabernacle was thus covered throughout during the Israelite travels in the wilderness, from Sinai on. Josh 5:12 may imply that the cloud also ceased after the Israelites crossed the Jordan into the promised land west of the Jordan, even if this is not explicitly said there. But, whatever the case, the cloud reappears at the dedication of the temple of Solomon (1 Ki 8:10–12; 2 Chr 5:13–14; 6:1). 17–22. Importantly, the cloud acted as a guide for the Israelites. When it lifted from above the tent, the Israelites would set out. If it did not do so, the Israelites stayed put. Verse 18 shows that the cloud’s behaviour communicated Yahweh’s command to Israel. In other words, Yahweh told the Israelites through the pillar of cloud when to travel. The passage specifically describes how the cloud could stay in one place only for a short time, or for longer periods, depending on the case (vv. 19–22). 23. The comment about Yahweh commanding Moses should be understood in a general sense here. In this specific case, the commandments about marching are really conveyed through the cloud. But Moses nevertheless remains as the overall leader of Israel who is responsive to Yahweh’s commandments and who has oversight of camp and of troop movements. MEANING

This passage explains how the pillar of cloud led the Israelites in the wilderness. It is an important motif that runs through the Pentateuch even if the pillar is actually not mentioned many times. In later biblical tradition the pillar is mentioned in Neh 9:12, 19; Ps 99:7; 105:39 (cf. Isa 4:5; Ezek 1:4; 10:3–4). The concept really can be seen to go back to western Levantine traditions about the storm god, who in the Ugaritic texts rides on the clouds, keeping in mind the experience of winter storms in that part of the world. The Israelites picked up on that tradition and made Yahweh the one who rides on the clouds, rather than Baal (see e.g. Ps 18:9–12; 97:2; 68:4; Isa 19:1). The expression in Ps 68:4 is very much the same as in Ugaritic (rkb ᷾rpt vs rkb b ᷾rbt in Hebrew). As ᷾rbt also means deserts/wilderness in Hebrew (as its primary meaning based on the available texts; vocalised as ‘arāḇôṯ), the link to the cloud of Yahweh as accompanying the Israelites in the desert seems natural. 98

C O M M E N TA RY

The motif of the cloud is picked up in the New Testament. A cloud covers the mountain at the time of Jesus’s transfiguration (Matt 17:1–13 and parallels). In 1 Corinthians 10:1–2 the story about the cloud accompanying the Israelites is explicitly mentioned. There Paul suggests that Christ was present, in particular in the water that the Israelites drank (cf. also Ex 17:1–7; Num 20:1–13). That passage (till v. 13) really sets the wilderness journey as an object lesson of disobedience, so as to exhort future obedience. In the last days, Christ himself is described as coming with a cloud (Rev 1:7; cf. Rev 14:14–16; 1 Thess 4:16–17). Silver trumpets (10:1–10) CONTEXT

This passage describes the making of silver trumpets by the Israelites at Yahweh’s command. These are used to convey calls for convocation and marching orders. The passage is, together with the passage about the pillar of cloud, suitably placed just before the description of the Israelites actually setting out. In terms of the ancient background of the passage, silver trumpets were made already in the second millennium BCE. As Kitchen describes, two trumpets were found from Tutankhamun’s tomb, one made of silver, one of copper or bronze, overlaid with gold. Various relief-scenes in Egyptian temples depict such trumpets (Kitchen 1993:124). According to Kitchen, they were blown to rally groups of soldiers, to begin or accompany marches to war, in actual war scenes, and to celebrate important religious festivals (Kitchen 1993:124, with a picture). Kitchen specifically mentions a scene from the time of Queen Hatshepsut (ca 1490 BCE), with rejoicing soldiers joining in with tree branches, in Amun’s festivals, and in the time of Ramesses II (ca 1270 BCE) at Abydos for Osiris to accompany offerings for that festival (Kitchen 1993:124). The use of such trumpets in pairs was well attested in the fifteenth to twelfth centuries BCE (Kitchen 1993:124, quoting Hickmann). This of course does not exclude their use after the Late Bronze Age (cf. Kitchen 1993:124). In other words, the passage about trumpets here can naturally be set in a late second-millennium context. The literary structure of Num 10:1–10 is as follows. Vv. 1–2 contain the command to make the trumpets; vv. 3–4 pertain to summoning either the whole community or just the leaders of Israel by trumpet blasts; vv. 5–6 are about using trumpets to signal setting out, and v. 7 pertains to gathering the assembly; v. 8 states who can blow the trumpets; v. 9 stipulates about trumpet blasts in war situations; and v. 10 relates about the use of trumpets at feasts. COMMENT

1–2. Yahweh commands Moses to make two silver trumpets. As Migrom points out, the method (miqšāh, often translated as hammered) of making the trumpets is similar to that of the tabernacle lampstand (Num 8:4; Milgrom 1990:73), even 99

C O M M E N TA RY

if the lampstand was made of gold. They are to be used for calling the community together and for having camps set out, and vv. 3–6 give the details. 3–4. If both trumpets are sounded, the whole community is to assemble at the tent of meeting. If only one is sounded, just the leaders should assemble, and before Moses at that. 5–6. Otherwise, when setting out, different types of blasts are given (Hebrew adds in the word terûʿāh, shout or similar; cf. v. 7). The first blast signals that the tribes camped on the east are to set out. Tribes on the south go on the second blast. In other words, the camp of Judah goes out first (cf. 10:14–16; 2:3–9) and the camp of Reuben second (cf. 10:18–20; 2:10–16). This corresponds to the order of listing the tribes in Num 2 and their setting out in Num 10:11–28. The Septuagint adds third and fourth blasts to tally with all of the four camps. If the MT is original, perhaps the second blast can be seen as signalling when the tent of meeting had been taken down (cf. comments on 10:17), but the Septuagint reading is quite natural. 7. The assembly is also gathered with a trumpet blast. In that case a different signal is used from that for setting out. It would seem that this verse is a summary of v. 3. A different word for assembly is used here (qāhāl) from that in v. 3 (ʿēdāh), but the two are largely synonymous. 8. The use of these silver trumpets is exclusively the prerogative of the priests. Note that the word for these trumpets (ḥaṣōṣrȏṭ) is different from that of ram’s horn or other types of trumpets (šōpˉ ār) that were also used in ancient Israel (e.g. Josh 6 uses šōpˉār). Importantly, the use of the silver trumpets is explicitly said to be a lasting ordinance through the Israelite generations. 9. The use of these trumpets in battle is specified here. The idea is, or at least it is hoped, that Yahweh himself will also hear the blast(s) and will remember the Israelites and grant them victory. As Milgrom points out, priests had an important role in war situations in the ancient Near East (Milgrom 1990:74). The silver trumpets are said to be used in the campaign against the Midianites in Num 31 (Num 31:6). Trumpets are instrumental in Joshua 6, even if the trumpets used there are of the šōpˉār type (cf. comments on v. 8 earlier).23 Trumpets at large are also used by Ehud (Jdg 3:27), Gideon (Jdg 6–7) and Saul (1 Sam 13:3), and so forth in the early history of Israel. 10. The silver trumpets are also to be used for feasts and new moon festivals. These are to be accompanied by sacrifices, introduced in Num 28–29 (cf. comments on Num 28–29). Again, the trumpet sound, except for its ceremonial functions during the festivals, is to remind Yahweh about the Israelites. The statement “I am Yahweh your God” concludes the section; it particularly occurs in the socalled Holiness Code (Lev 17–26; see e.g. Lev 19:3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36). MEANING

The trumpets serve a practical, ceremonial and symbolic function. That is they are used as signals to assemble people and direct troop movements, to produce ceremonial sounds during festivals, and as a reminder to Yahweh about Israel. 100

C O M M E N TA RY

Here they particularly prepare for the departure of the Israelites from Sinai. The trumpets can be seen in the context of the similar practice elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In the book of Exodus, notably, Yahweh’s descent on Mount Sinai is accompanied by a trumpet blast (Ex 19:16; the word šōpˉ ār is used there). Trumpets are also mentioned in the New Testament (see Matt 6:2; 24:31; 1 Cor 14:8), including in reference to the Sinai event (Heb 12:19). And trumpet calls are associated with the second coming of Jesus (1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16). In the book of Revelation, judgements are signalled by seven angels sounding seven trumpets in turns (Rev 8–11; cf. Stubbs 2009:103). Perhaps an alarm that would signal people to take shelter during an air raid during recent wars could serve as a possible modern parallel; otherwise things are nowadays often announced via radio, television and the Internet. Departure (10:11–36) CONTEXT

The scene now changes for the Israelites. The cloud finally lifts from the tabernacle and it is time to leave Sinai. The first part of the tripartite division of the book is drawing to its close. The Israelites will spend time in the wilderness, with the time turning out to be much longer than expected due to the people’s disobedience. But this is not foreshadowed in the section; it simply describes the departure. That said, the section is immediately followed by descriptions of how the Israelites complain, with Yahweh then meting out punishments to them, and soon the first generation loses their chance to enter the land (Num 13–14), resulting in a delay of the settler colonial invasion (cf. comments in Introduction on settler colonialism). Departure (10:11–28) CONTEXT

This passage links tightly with the beginning chapters of the book of Numbers. In particular, clear connections are made with Numbers 2 and 4, but one may assume that Chapter 3 is also more or less explicitly in view. That is the way the tribes set out builds on and is in accord with information given in those chapters. The cloud that has just been spoken about in 9:15–23 is also mentioned (10:11). The trumpets just introduced in 10:1–10 are not referred to, but should clearly be assumed to have been used here. The departure point is naturally the desert of Sinai (10:12), and, as the arrival at the Desert of Paran mentioned in 10:12 really happens only at 12:16, 10:12 should be seen as a proleptic summary introduction for events in Chapters 11–12 also (cf. Milgrom 1990:76). 101

C O M M E N TA RY COMMENT

11–13. A chronological notice starts off the passage, in line with priestly concerns in Genesis–Numbers. The departure date is the twentieth day of the second month of the second year. Considering that the first year is the year of the Israelite Exodus from Egypt (Ex 12:1–2, 3ff.) and that the Israelites arrive at Sinai in the third month of the first year (Ex 19:1),24 this means that the Israelites have stayed at Sinai for a little over eleven months – in other words almost a year. This time has first consisted of the initial lawgiving (Ex 19–24), together with the extra time required due to rebellion during the golden calf incident (32–34), and then apparently much of the time has been spent for making the tent of meeting, which is, according to the narrative produced by the priestly writer, completed on the first day of the first month (Ex 40:1; cf. Table 1.3). As mentioned earlier and as is natural, the departure point is the desert of Sinai, where Mount Sinai was understood to be located (cf. Ex 19:1–2). The cloud next rests at the Desert of Paran; however, in light of the events in Chapters 11 and 12, this should be understood as a summary statement, leaving room for the more detailed information in those chapters. Again, while the cloud directs the travel, Moses nevertheless is in charge overall (v. 13; cf. 9:23 and comments there). Note that the departure would be on the sixth day of Passover feast for those celebrating it in the second month (cf. 9:6–14 and comments there; cf. Achenbach 2003:550). And yet, the departure from Egypt was right after the night of the Passover, leaving no time for celebrating the festival in full (Ex 12:29–37; Num 33:3). And, indeed, Ex 13:3–7 seems to indicate that the festival of unleavened bread is to be celebrated after the arrival at the land of Canaan (cf. Kilchör 2015:172–173; cf. also Josh 5:10–12). 14–16. The camp of Judah on the east starts off first, together with Issachar and Zebulun as part of it, in line with it having been described first in 2:3–9 and as going out first in 10:5. The names of the tribal leaders here are in accord with 2:3–9 also. 17. The tent of meeting and those who carry it go out in the second batch. Based on v. 21, the idea is that the tabernacle is first taken down and the holy things pertaining to the cult packed by the Aaronides (see Num 4:4–15), but only the tabernacle itself is to set out first, with the Gershonites and Merarites carrying it (Num 4:21–33). The holy things, carried by the Kohathites (see Num 4:15), are to follow only a little later, after the next camp (of Reuben in the south) has set out. As mentioned in v. 21, the idea is that the tabernacle can then also arrive first and be set up by the time the holy things arrive, apparently so that they can be unpacked and set in the tabernacle in an efficient way and with minimum delay and/or potential confusion. Note that 2:17 should be understood in a roundabout way and also as focusing on the sacred objects.25 18–20. The camp of Reuben on the south goes out second among the tribal camps “proper”, together with Simeon and Gad as part of it, in line with it having been described second in 2:10–16 and as going out second in 10:5–6. The names of the tribal leaders here are in accord with 2:10–16. 21. The holy vessels set out next, carried by the Kohathites (see Num 4:4–15 and comments on v. 17 earlier). The word miqdāš, which could also broadly refer 102

C O M M E N TA RY

to the sanctuary as a whole (as in 3:38; pace Milgrom 1990:77), is used, but the context suggests that the reference is to the holy vessels in this case. The tent of meeting itself, carried by the Gershonites and Merarites (see Num 4:21–33), has already gone out earlier (v. 17). The idea is that the tabernacle can arrive first and be set up by the time the holy things arrive, apparently so that they can be unpacked and set in the tabernacle in an efficient way and with minimum delay and/or potential confusion. 22–24. The camp of Ephraim on the west sets out third among the tribal camps “proper”, together with Manasseh and Benjamin as part of it, in line with it having been described third in 2:18–24, and as going out third in 10:6, even if only in the Septugint of 10:6. The names of the tribal leaders here are in accord with 2:18–24. 25–27. The camp of Dan on the north sets out fourth among the tribal camps “proper”, together with Asher and Naphtali as part of it, in line with it having been described fourth in 2:25–31, and as going out fourth in 10:6, even if only in the Septugint of 10:6. The names of the tribal leaders here are in accord with 2:25–31. 28. A summary statement concludes the section. The verse may be compared with 2:34. It can also be considered to form an inclusio with v. 12 (as pointed out by Milgrom 1990:78). It further links with v. 33 (Wiederaufnahme). MEANING

The Israelites set out based on information given about the camp, the tabernacle and the cloud in the previous chapters of Numbers. Their march towards the socalled promised land has started after their vitally important stay at Mount Sinai (cf. also Introduction on settler colonialism). Everything takes place in an orderly and organised manner. The Israelites do obey Yahweh’s commandments at this point, even if problems soon arise as the narrative progresses (Chapters 11, 13–14). For Christians, the passage can serve as a paradigmatic reminder about obedience towards God’s will (cf. Stubbs 2009:108–109), even if, as theological discussions throughout the centuries have shown, it is not always clear even from Scripture itself what that will is, including for each individual at a given time and place. Moses’s brother-in-law (10:29–32) CONTEXT

Moses had met his wife and father-in-law for the first time after he had escaped from Egypt (Ex 2:15–22, classically J). After receiving his call at Horeb (Ex 3, classically a mixture of J and E), Moses appears to have returned to Egypt with his wife and sons (Ex 4:18–26, classically a mixture of J and E, but references to his wife assigned to J). However, he then seems to have sent his wife away, to be reunited with her, their two sons and his father-in-law at Sinai (Ex 18:1–6, classically E). Moses’s fatherin-law, called Jethro (Ex 3–4; 18; all classically J where he is mentioned) or Reuel (Ex 2:18; classically J), returns to his own country after the events at Mount Sinai 103

C O M M E N TA RY

(Ex 18:27). Here Moses, in a passage classically also assigned to J, however, meets his brother-in law26 to join them in their march towards the promised land. The man objects but Moses persuades further. It is not clearly stated here what the outcome is, but Jdg 1:16; 4:11 suggest that it should be understood that Moses’s brother-inlaw did at least eventually accede to the request as his descendants ended up living around the areas of Jericho, Arad in the Negev and Kedesh in Galilee at least. COMMENT

29–32. Moses asks his brother-in-law Hobab to join the Israelites as they set out from Sinai towards the promised land. He promises that Hobab will be treated well, as part of Yahweh’s upcoming provision of good things for Israel. Hobab, however, refuses, wanting to return home, but Moses entreats him for the second time. Moses appeals to Hobab’s local knowledge that can help the Israelites journey through the desert. Moses also explicitly promises that they will share with Hobab the good things Yahweh gives them. Nothing further is said, and whether Hobab joins the Israelites is left open. But, as mentioned earlier (see “Context”), it seems that Hobab at least eventually joins the Israelites. It would seem clear that the Kenites can be considered as a subgroup of the Midianites, considering that Hobab is called a Kenite in Jdg 1:16; 4:11 (see Wenham 1981:105).27 MEANING

The close relations with Moses and the family from his wife’s side are described here. Moses offers his brother-in-law, a Kenite within the wider group of the Midianites, a chance to join the Israelites, which the brother-in-law eventually appears to take. Interestingly, the overall relations with the Midianites soon deteriorate (Num 22:1–7; 25; 31, note 25:16–18 in particular), and the Midianites oppress the Israelites in the time of the Judges (Jdg 6–8). It seems that only the Kenites within the Midianites are seen positively, especially in the time of early Israel (Jdg 1:16; 4:11). At the time of early kingship, Saul explicitly asks the Kenites to separate themselves from the Amalekites, another group that was an enemy of the Israelites, and whom Samuel notably sought to destroy (1 Sam 15:1–3, 6; cf. Ex 17:8–15; Num 24:20; Dt 25:17–19). And yet, the Kenites are seen negatively in Balaam’s oracle in Num 24:21–22 (cf. comments on those verses). The ark (10:33–36) CONTEXT

The role of the ark during the wilderness travels is described here. The ark is described in detail in Ex 25:10–22 and Ex 37:1–9. The passage here has traditionally been ascribed to J (Friedman 2003) and the ark considered as a relatively

104

C O M M E N TA RY

simple device in this source and in the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 10:1–5), in accord with a Wellhausenian scheme of development of the Israelite cult from simple to complex. But nothing here is in contradiction with the descriptions in Exodus (nor Deuteronomy; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 44–45), and it is easier to think that this passage (and Dt 10:1–5) simply is not interested in the full details of the ark (cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003). Accordingly, we should read the text (and the same would be the case for Dt 10:1–5) as assuming the information given in Ex 25:10–22 and Ex 37:1–9. The ark is essentially an Israelite equivalent of ancient Near Eastern god images where gods were understood to dwell. Yahweh, however, does not dwell in the ark but at the ark. In fact, the ark can be considered as similar to a cherubim throne; however, it is not exactly clear how Yahweh should be localised on it as an explicit seat-like structure is missing (cf. Kitchen 1993:125; Pitkänen 2015/2003, esp. 28–51). God images or symbols were used in war to help secure the presence of the gods in the ancient Near East, and the same was the case here and in general in early Israel (cf. e.g. 1 Sam 4; 2 Sam 11:11; cf. Pitkänen 2015/2003, esp. 28–51). Vv. 35–36 seem to have incorporated early poems in ancient Israel. COMMENT

33–34. As Milgrom notes, the description that the ark goes out first is in clear contradiction with v. 21 and 2:17 (Milgrom 1990:80). However, it would seem that this was a special occasion at the start of the march, with Yahweh’s more explicit presence being felt as appropriate for the first three days as the Israelites were now marching out in a military formation towards the promised land (cf. comments earlier, “Context”, and cf. Milgrom 1990:80 and Josh 3–4; cf. also comments on vv. 35–36 just ahead). The cloud was also on (ʿal) the Israelites (v. 34). This verse is placed after vv. 35–36 in the Septuagint, perhaps to make the link between vv. 33 and 35–36 more explicit (thus Milgrom 1990:80; cf. Tov 2012:309, 322). 35–36. Two ancient poetic fragments appear to have been placed here. They fit their present location very well. The idea is that Yahweh, present at the ark, but not confined to it (in line with the possibility of presence of gods in multiple places in the ancient Near East; cf. comments on 1:50–53), goes out in front of the Israelites and fights for them. In other words, the context very much has to do with military, and this may be the reason why the ark sets out in front of the Israelites in the very beginning of the march (cf. comments earlier on vv. 33–34). Yahweh then (as if) rises up like a warrior before a battle and sets out for it (v. 35), and then returns and rests after the battle (v. 36). The reference to countless thousands may have mythological overtones (Milgrom 1990:81), but it may also simply refer to the Israelite tribal divisions (ᵓēlepˉ can mean thousand or a unit), and thus the Israelites as a whole who are on a warpath.

105

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

This unit describes how the ark goes before the Israelites at the start of the march from Sinai. The cloud also covers the Israelites (v. 34), having lifted from above the tabernacle (10:11). So, the Israelites are finally on the move after having encountered Yahweh at Sinai and made a covenant with him there. They have also been prepared for marching out in an orderly manner, with their portable sanctuary, of which the ark is an integral part, coming with them. Such a militaristic outlook, also in the overall context of settler colonialism in Genesis–Joshua (see Introduction on settler colonialism), may not be something that Christians would be expected to follow, also keeping in mind that the concept of land has been spiritualised in the New Testament. And yet, symbolically, the New Testament does use military language in describing Christian life as a primarily spiritual struggle (Eph 6:10–18; 1 Thess 5:8; and perhaps 2 Cor 2:14 at least in some way), even if the symbolism is there expressly based on the contemporary Roman army. Notably, the book of Revelation certainly includes violent themes, but, whatever the case for that highly symbolic book that is not a straightforward one to interpret, God himself is the source of any violent action in righting wrongs in the future that is envisioned there, whatever one then may think of that (and cf. e.g. Court 2008; Middleton 2014).

Between Sinai and Moab (11:1–22:1) Rebellion and punishment (11–14) CONTEXT

The Israelites have left Sinai, marching out as a holy army. No sooner are they on their way than all sorts of problems start that show how the people do not meet the expectations put on them. Immediately in Chapter 11 the people complain and receive a punishment, both at Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah. Then the spies fail in their mission because of fear and the whole group of the Israelites gets punished, with minor exceptions. Accordingly, the Exodus generation ends up dying in the wilderness and as the focus moves towards Moab, it is the second generation that reaches it. This development has really already been foreshadowed by the people’s lack of faith at the Sea of Reeds (Ex 14:10–18) and in the wilderness before arriving at Sinai (Ex 15:22–17:7), and at Sinai itself (Ex 32). But the people have not been punished before the arrival at Sinai. It thus seems clear that the experience of Yahweh’s descent on Sinai and the making of a covenant with him (Ex 24), together with receiving laws from Yahweh, does not leave room for allowing complaints and unbelief in the same way as before. From a narrative perspective, many of the so-called murmuring traditions in the book of Numbers actually mirror what has been said in the book of Exodus; however, the difference is that now the people are not let off lightly, 106

C O M M E N TA RY

sending a message to the readers of the book that much will be required from those who have been given much. People’s rebellion, help for Moses, quail and plague (11) CONTEXT

Chapter 11 consists of two narratives of incidents where the Israelites complain and are punished. The first takes place at Taberah (vv. 1–3) and the second at Kibroth Hattaavah (vv. 4–35). The structure of the first narrative is straightforward. As Milgrom (1990:376) points out, it can be delineated as follows:28 a. People complain (v. 1a); b. God hears, fumes and punishes (v. 1b); c. People appeal to Moses (v. 2a); d. Moses intercedes (v. 2bα); e. Appeal is answered (v. 2bβ). The literary structure is very similar to that of Numbers 12 (see comments there) and, in general, Chapters 11–12 are of a narrative nature and have classically been assigned to E (Friedman 2003, even if Gray 1903 offers more complications). The second narrative in Num 11:4–34 (v. 35 is a travel notice) consists of two episodes that have been put together in the present form of the text. One of these two episodes is a story of the Israelites being tired of eating manna, which itself was introduced in Ex 16. That story in Num 11:4–34 is progressed in vv. 4–9, 18–23, 31–34. The other story is Moses’s complaint about being unable to carry the burden of the Israelites. As a response to the complaint, Yahweh appoints seventy elders to assist Moses and gives them a portion of his spirit. That story is progressed in vv. 10–17, 24–30. The two stories are interrelated and interweaved in that the appointment of the seventy elders is made by Yahweh as a response to Moses’s complaint about the complaint by the people about manna in vv. 4–5. In other words, the composition is coherent even if it consists of two episodes that could as such also have been related separately had the narrator so wished. The overall structure of the overall narrative can be delineated as follows: A1 Complaint by people (vv. 4–9); A2 Complaint by Moses (10–15); B Response by Yahweh to both complaints (vv. 16–23); A2’ Appointment of seventy elders (vv. 24–30); A1’ Provision of quail, together with a punishment.29 While the narrative as a whole (also Num 12) is classically considered to belong to E, in contrast, the parallel to the manna and quail episode in Ex 16 has classically been considered to be priestly, except for vv. 4–5 and some of v. 35, which were seen as being J. In other words, classical critics considered that there were two or three parallel accounts that were weaved into the narrative in Ex–Num. At the same time, the narrative about the appointment of leaders to assist Moses has its parallel in Ex 18:13–26. Both narratives are classically seen as E, and, therefore, one would be less hard-pressed than usual if one tried to read them together. Doing so, it would seem that the point in Num 11 is that the council of seventy elders is given as an additional support to that in Ex 18:13–26. In v. 16 here the existence of the leaders and officials in Ex 18:21–26 seems to be at least broadly assumed, and the focus 107

C O M M E N TA RY

of the Exodus passage is also on judging (šāpˉ aṭ) the people when they would have issues to resolve. At the same time, seventy elders are already mentioned in Ex 24:1, 9 (classically E), and it may be that these two groups should be understood to be consisting of the same people. Another parallel to Num 11 and Ex 18:13–26 is in Dt 1:9–18, which, however, is really a parallel to the Exodus passage rather than to the passage here in Numbers 11. This said, that Moses himself sees his situation as too burdensome in Dt 1:9 is closer to Moses’s predicament and complaint in Num 11:10–15, whereas it is Moses’s father-in-law, Jethro, who suggests the appointment of the leaders in Ex 18:21–26. It would seem that Deuteronomy is therefore slightly conflating the traditions in both Exodus 18:21–26 and Numbers 11:4–34, even if the primary reference is to the Exodus episode. We may further note that the manna incidents are also referred to in Deuteronomy–Joshua in Dt 8:3, 16 and Joshua 5:12. In Joshua, manna ceases once the Israelites have entered the promised land west of the Jordan and eaten of its produce. The quail does not explicitly come into play in either Deuteronomy or Joshua. COMMENT

1–3. This is the first episode in what might be called post-Sinai murmuring traditions. In the narrative progression, the implication is clearly that the people complain about their hardships in the wilderness soon after they have left Sinai. This time, in contrast to the time before their arrival at Sinai, Yahweh does not put up with the complaint but metes out a punishment. In this case the punishment is that of fire that consumes at the outskirts of the camp. Interestingly, it appears that no persons were killed. Therefore, this can be considered more of a warning shot from Yahweh at the start of the travel out from Sinai. The word “Taberah” is derived from the verb to burn (bʿr). The place is not mentioned elsewhere (incl. in the itinerary list of Num 33). 4–9. Some people complain at the next place, called Kibroth Hattaavah (v. 34, translating as “graves of lust”). These could be part of the mixed multitude that left with the Israelites from Egypt (e.g. Ex 12:38), but the Hebrew word used here (ʾasapˉ supˉ, “rabble”) is different. Therefore, it could simply be a derogatory term for those who initiated the complaint, just as one might use the expression “some crazies started to . . .” nowadays. The complaint looks back at Egypt (cf. Dt 11:10) with longing, disregarding the original setting of slavery there (cf. Ex 14:12; 16:3). The people are also undoubtedly greedy in wanting more than what Yahweh is providing. Manna, which first appears soon after the Israelites have crossed the Sea of Reeds after the Exodus from Egypt and have complained about the lack of food (Ex 16), would be enough to keep them alive. However, this not enough in the estimation of the persons concerned – hence the complaint here that they want to eat meat. Manna itself has a natural origin. As pointed out by Milgrom, a type of plant lice can form a species of yellowish-white flake or ball from the sap of the tamarisk tree. The substance, which has a sweet taste, melts during the day but congeals when cold. It can be collected and is known to 108

C O M M E N TA RY

have been cooked into a sort of bread. The food does decay quickly and attracts ants. The annual crop in the Sinai Peninsula is very small and in some years fails completely (Milgrom 1990:84, quoting Childs). Accordingly, it is a miracle that there was enough manna for the migrating Israelites in their journeys, and also for exactly six days per week with none on the Sabbath (Ex 16:26). 10–15. Yahweh is extremely angry because of the complaints, and Moses becomes stressed out. Under the stress, Moses feels hard done by. He feels like he is being asked to now provide meat for the people, a request he cannot fulfil. He feels overwhelmed by the situation and rhetorically wishes that he were dead. This is similar to what many if not most people in general at times feel when they are under stress. Moses even asks that Yahweh himself would kill him. The text indicates that people have complained to Moses and asked him provide them with meat (v. 13). 16–17. A solution is provided by Yahweh. Moses will be able to choose seventy elders who will assist him. Yahweh will take of the spirit that is on Moses – that is undoubtedly the spirit of Yahweh – and put it on these elders so as to share in carrying the burden of the people. The number seventy is well attested in the ancient Near East and should in many cases be considered symbolic. It can be used of a family group, including the “seventy sons of Athirat” in the Ugaritic pantheon, seventy “brothers” of Barrakab king of Yaudi (located in northern Syria) in the eighth century BCE who were murdered, the seventy descendants of Jacob who went to Egypt (Gen 46:7; Ex 1:5), of Jerubbaal and his seventy sons (Jdg 9:5), and on other occasions (e.g. Jdg 1:7; 2 Ki 10:6; see Milgrom 1990:86–87 and Smith 2001:55). The leading members of Emar (late second millennium BCE) are referred to as “the seventy sons of Emar”. The number seventy, if not the institution of elders described here, also survived in the seventy-member Sanhedrin, which was the supreme political, religious and legal body at the time of Jesus (cf. Milgrom 1990:87). 18–23. Yahweh commands Moses to tell the people to prepare themselves for the following day. The idea is that they will have meat for a whole month, so much that they will tire of it also. The point in v. 20 is that, however Moses may feel after the people have complained to him and looked back at Egypt in a nostalgic way, the people really have rejected Yahweh himself. Moses’s response in fact shows that Moses is not able to believe Yahweh at this time either, and this is in line with his complaint in vv. 10–15. Instead of punishing Moses at this time, however (cf. Num 20:1–13 for the time of punishment), Yahweh reassures him that he is able to respond to the complaint by giving meat, even if later verses show that this comes with a sting. 24–30. The narrative jumps back to the story about the appointment of elders. Seventy elders are brought to the tent of meeting by Moses and Yahweh takes from the spirit on Moses and puts it on the seventy elders. At that moment, they prophesy, but this is not repeated. Two men, called Eldad and Medad, listed among the elders who are not at the tent of meeting are treated similarly. This indicates that the focus was on the elders and that the location at the tent of meeting was 109

C O M M E N TA RY

symbolic – that is Yahweh was not confined to that location. Ecstatic prophecy was not unusual in the ancient Near East,30 even if prophecy would not necessarily be ecstatic (see e.g. Nissinen 2003). Joshua the son of Nun, the future successor of Moses, sees this as a problem, perhaps as something that might induce chaos in the camp, and appeals to Moses to stop Eldad and Medad. However, Moses clearly indicates that Joshua’s concern is unwarranted, expressing that he would rather hope that all of the Israelites could have Yahweh’s spirit. 31–34. The narrative then returns to the issue of meat. Wind from Yahweh brings quail to the camp. Quail customarily migrate through the area in the spring and the autumn in great numbers, driven by winds, and can fall exhausted upon the Sinai sands (see Milgrom 1990:91). Hence the event here is based on natural phenomena, even if the specific occasion is driven by Yahweh. In contrast to Ex 16:13, where the quail is mentioned in passing and without any ill aftereffects, this time there is a plague (v. 33). The narrative sees this as a supernatural occurrence; from the perspective of a modern analogy, the quail would appear to have brought with them some kind of epidemic. Of course, the narrative seems to imply a miraculously quick incubation time (vv. 18, 32–33). The place is then called Kibroth Hattaava (v. 34, translating as “graves of lust”). 35. A travel notice concludes the episode. The people leave Kibroth Hattaava and next camp at Hazeroth (cf. the itinerary list in Num 33:16–17). MEANING

The murmuring traditions of the book of Numbers start here. By and large, the people complain and are subsequently punished. But Moses is also given help in the form of spirit-filled elders to support him in his leadership role. That institution goes back to ancient pre-Israelite traditions and is likely to also have been connected with the idea of a divine council known from the ancient Near East and the Bible (cf. Ps 82:1; 1 Ki 22:19; Job 1:6; 2:1). The institution carries over all the way into postexilic Judaism and the time of Jesus (cf. also 1 Ki 12:6, as pointed out by Levine 1993:343). The inclusion of the narrative here may be legitimating the institution in one way or another, but there is no specific information about a seventy-member council of elders otherwise in the Bible against which the narrative here can be directly compared, except at a very late date from an Old Testament perspective. As for the murmuring traditions, they already are commented on in the Old Testament itself as an object lesson (see esp. Ps 78:12–41; 95:8–10). The theme is picked up on in the New Testament also (see 1 Cor 10:1–13; Heb 3:8–19). Manna is mentioned outside Genesis–Joshua in Ps 78:24 in the context of a reference back to the murmuring traditions (cf. earlier) and in Nehemiah 9:20, where no explicit reference to the murmuring traditions is made even if the context is a confession of sins in a wider context (cf. Neh 9:26–37). In the New Testament, John 6 refers back to the manna traditions in arguing that Jesus is the bread of life. The jar of manna in Ex 16:33–34 is referred to in Heb 9:4 as part of the regalia 110

C O M M E N TA RY

of the Old Covenant. Finally, it is referred to in Rev 2:17 in a symbolic way as a reward from God to the righteous. Manna was also referred to by the patristic commentators, more or less along the lines of the biblical stories and references (see Lienhard 2001:86–89). The spirit of Yahweh was available only to select individuals in the Old Testament time but is available to all Christians according to the New Covenant, with Christians being the temple of God in whom God’s spirit dwells (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; cf. comments on 3:5–51, “Meaning”). The narrative about the giving of the spirit in this chapter may help towards considering both Pentecostalist and charismatic evangelical arguments in the New Testament. Seen in the light of Num 11 (incl. v. 25), the experience of Pentecost in Acts 2 and similar experiences elsewhere in the book of Acts can perhaps be considered rather as part of initiating a new era in the history of the church in a specific setting than as something that every Christian would be expected to experience, if one may make some quick comments on an issue on which considerable amounts of ink have been spilled by academics in recent times. Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion and Miriam’s leprosy (12) CONTEXT

Chapter 12 consists of a narrative of an incident where Miriam and Aaron complain against Moses and are punished through Miriam. The structure of the narrative is straightforward. As Milgrom (1990:376) points out, it can be delineated as follows: a. Miriam and Aaron complain (vv. 1–2a); b. God hears, fumes and punishes (vv. 2b, 4–5, 9–10); c. Aaron appeals to Moses (vv. 11–12); d. Moses intercedes (v. 13); e. Appeal is answered (v. 14); f. March is delayed (v. 15). The literary structure is very similar to that of Numbers 11:1–3 (see comments there), and, in general, Chapters 11–12 are of a narrative nature and have classically been assigned to E. However, at least on a reading of Ex–Numbers in its final form, one cannot but think of the laws about leprosy (skin disease) in Lev 13–14. COMMENT

1–3. Miriam and Aaron, Moses’s sister and brother (cf. 1 Chr 6:3), complain against Moses. The complaint focuses on Moses’s wife. The reference to her being a Cushite would immediately suggest an Ethiopian connection. But the word “Cush” could also refer to something unknown in Midian (cf. Hab 3:7 even if the word is Cushan rather than Cush there). In the latter case, Zipporah is probably referred to. In the former case, it may be possible that Moses would have taken a second wife (Wenham 1981:111). If so, this could be understood to have been a woman from the “mixed multitude” that left with the Israelites in Exodus (Ex 12:38). Taking a second wife would not have been illegal in ancient Israel (cf. Gen 29:15–30; Dt 21:15–17; 1 Sam 1). Whatever the case, the focus is on 111

C O M M E N TA RY

challenging Moses’s authority, even if some racist overtones could potentially also be read into the passage from a modern perspective (on these, cf. e.g. Davies 2015:27–28). The appeal is that both Miriam and Aaron are prophets, which in itself is true at least for Miriam (Ex 15:20) and probably Aaron also (Ex 4:14–16). Moses, however, is described as very humble (v. 3), and this would seem to imply that he himself does not respond to the challenge. But Yahweh has taken notice (v. 2). 4–10a. Yahweh quickly speaks to the three of them and summons them all to the tent of meeting (v. 4). Yahweh then comes down in a pillar of cloud. This is similar to the mode of descent in Ex 33:7–11. However, in the post-Sinai context of the Pentateuchal narrative, it should be understood as an additional spectacle to his usual mode of presence at the ark in the tent of meeting (cf. comments on 2:1–31; 7:89 and 9:15–23). Next, Aaron and Miriam are specifically summoned to come forward (v. 5). Once they have done so, Yahweh speaks to them in a poetic manner. As Milgrom points out, Moses is chiastically compared with ordinary prophets: A. In case of ordinary prophets; B. Yahweh shows them visions; C. and speaks in dreams. D. But not so with Moses, who is trusted in all his household. C’ With him Yahweh speaks mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles (even if he here speaks directly with Miriam and Aaron!); B’ and he beholds the likeness of Yahweh (from Milgrom 1990:95, with some modification). The point is then clear: why did they speak against Moses, Yahweh’s servant? Angered, Yahweh leaves, and when the cloud lifts, Miriam is white (lit. as snow) from leprosy. As leprosy as Hansen’s disease was not known in the ancient Near East at this time (cf. comments on 5:1–4), this is a different skin disease. As Milgrom points out, Miriam actually seems clean on account of the regulations in Lev 13–14 (Lev 13:13, 17), and the issue would seem to be more about bringing shame on her (Milgrom 1990:98; cf. v. 14). It is not entirely clear why only Miriam is punished. However, as Milgrom points out, that Miriam is mentioned first in v. 1 suggests that she was the main instigator of the challenge (Milgrom 1990:93), and this could then be the reason. It might also be possible to surmise based on modern feminist criticism that one purpose of the narrative is to reaffirm patriarchal order (cf. Davies 2015:23–24). 10b–13. Aaron, having seen what happened to Miriam, acknowledges that he and Miriam have been in the wrong and appeals to Moses. The comparison to a stillborn infant (v. 12) is potent considering that children were considered a blessing in ancient Israel (cf. Ps 127:3–5) – for example as they provided much needed labour in an agricultural society and care of parents in their old age. And as those with a skin disease would have to be living in isolation from the rest of the community, they could in many ways be considered as if they were dead (cf. Milgrom 1990:97). Moses, undoubtedly being sympathetic towards his brother and sister, cries out to Yahweh (v. 13). 14–15. Yahweh grants Moses his request. However, while Miriam is healed, she is nevertheless shamed for seven days. That is Miriam must be confined outside the camp for that period of time. It does (broadly) accord with the 112

C O M M E N TA RY

seven-day quarantine in Lev 14:8. The metaphor of spitting on the face (cf. Dt 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa 50:6) is still broadly valid for those in modern Western societies, even if spit could also be used in healing rituals in the ancient Near East (Milgrom 1990:98), and indeed Jesus does act according to this (Mk 8:23; John 9:6, but cf. Mk 10:34; 14:65; 15:19; Lk 18:32). The people do not move while Miriam is confined outside the camp. In one sense this does reinforce her importance among the community; in another sense, it would highlight and thus heighten her shame. 16. A travel notice concludes the episode. The people leave Hazeroth and next camp in the Desert of Paran (cf. 10:12 and comments on 10:11–13 earlier). MEANING

This episode describes a challenge against Moses’s authority. The challenge comes from his own sister and brother. In such circumstances, it may be difficult for one to do much to refute the challenge (cf. v. 3). Yahweh, however, sees what is happening and takes action. As a result, Miriam is punished, but the punishment is strongly mitigated after the acknowledgement of guilt by Aaron and intercession by Moses. Interestingly, there is no indication that Miriam herself acknowledged her guilt. In fact, Miriam is silent in the narrative after she has been described to have expressed her initial slander and challenge (vv. 1–2). The narrative importantly heightens the meaning of the authority of Moses and, therefore, for the readers of the Pentateuch, also the authority of the laws that were mediated through him. Similarly, Num 16 and 17 highlight the role of Moses and the priests. Reading these episodes together, the order is then from Moses to the priests (cf. Lev 17:2) to the Levites (cf. Num 17:3) to the rest of the people. All this ties in with the supremacy of the figure of Moses, who, however, is not with the Israelites anymore. Nor is there anyone else like him (vv. 6–8; cf. Dt 34:10–12). It is only the torah that is now with the Israelites (cf. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b), and one can think that this is now guarded and mediated by the priests and the Levites (cf. also Dt 31:9–13), who, and among them especially the priests, as I have suggested (see Introduction), should be seen as being behind the writing of Genesis–Joshua. Miriam’s fate is picked up in Dt 24:8–9 as an object lesson about being careful to follow priestly injunctions about dealing with skin diseases (with a possible, if not likely, reference to Lev 13–14). In Micah 6:4 Miriam is listed as one of the Israelite leaders in the time of the exodus, with no reference made to her rebellion against Moses. In the New Testament, Miriam herself is not mentioned, but in Hebrews 3:1–5, the writer argues for Jesus’s pre-eminence over that of Moses. Referring back to Num 12:7, the writer notes that Moses, even with his high status, is nevertheless no more than a faithful servant (v. 5), but Jesus is a faithful son in the house of God (v. 6). This then serves as one building block in the writer’s overall argument for the primacy of the New Covenant over the older one. Any reader can also consider the passages as discouraging the undertaking of power 113

C O M M E N TA RY

struggles unnecessarily; at the same time, the concept of unquestioned power is not followed in today’s democratic societies. Spies sent, with rebellion and punishment of the first generation at Kadesh (13–14) CONTEXT

Numbers 13–14 is a vitally important narrative in the plot development of Numbers and in the Pentateuch as a whole. The main plotline of generational shift in the wider narrative is developed here. The Israelites make a reconnaissance mission into the land of Canaan. The scouts who do that come back with a good report about the land itself but are of the opinion that it will be too difficult for the Israelites to conquer it because of the strength of the peoples who are already there. Consequently the people rebel, with the outcome that Yahweh gets angry and does not allow them to enter the land. Only the next generation can do that and the first generation will die in the wilderness. As already mentioned in the introduction, the generational shift takes place in the book of Numbers, roughly at Chapter 20, with the chapter forming a major watershed in this respect. However, this watershed is not expressed explicitly and has to be inferred by the reader. The events are also referred to in the book of Deuteronomy (Dt 1:19–46), with some slight differences from Numbers in regard to the details of the Israelite wanderings.31 Some forty years are spent in the wilderness, particularly around Kadesh (cf. Dt 1:46), but it is not entirely clear from the descriptions how and exactly where within this context the time is spent in addition to Kadesh itself. In this, we may consider the number forty as a round number, representing a shift of a generation.32 There is also variation in the accounts that depict the Israelite journeys from Kadesh to Moab (cf. Num 20–21 with Dt 2, and see commentary on Num 20–21 for further details; also cf. e.g. Roskop 2011). But Numbers itself already attests to some variations, as shown by comparison of Num 33 that includes a summary itinerary of the Israelite journeys with the narrative of Exodus–Numbers. It would then seem that the traditions about the stay in the wilderness were somewhat diversified and the two authors A1 and AD used the ones available to them the best they could so as to each create a coherent picture of the events, without, however, aiming at modern “scientific” precision, which also really is a product of the modern post-Enlightenment era anyway (cf. our analogy with art in the introduction). Perhaps at least partly for this reason, the transition to the second generation in the book of Numbers is “hazy”. It should be mentioned here that, in terms of plot development, Chapters 15–19 do not directly progress the plot, and, in a sense, one can jump directly to Chapter 20 from Chapter 14 in order to see what happens next. It is good to keep this in mind when reading the book of Numbers. This of course does not mean that Chapters 15–19 are not important parts of the book – just that their nature is secondary in terms of the explicit narrative development of the book and the Pentateuch as 114

C O M M E N TA RY

a whole. The placement of Chapters 15–19 also arguably makes the generational transition that takes place in Chapter 20 hazier than it would otherwise be, even though nowhere in Chapter 20 is it explicitly said that the first generation is now dead. We can infer from 20:14 that it is the second generation that is on the move; however, this ultimately has to be done through a reading together with Dt 2 (see esp. Dt 2:1–7). But by the time of the Balaam narratives in Num 22–24 (cf. Num 22:1) and the second census in Num 26 it is absolutely clear for any reader that the book is dealing with the second generation. All in all, as the generational shift is a major plot development for Numbers and the Pentateuch as a whole, the unclarity about the transition remains a curious feature. The book of Deuteronomy plays extensively on the theme of the generational shift (see e.g. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b). Deuteronomy is located at Moab but makes flashbacks to the time of Horeb and builds its message based on the covenant at Horeb, which is being renewed and further developed at Moab for the second generation, keeping in mind the failure of the first generation. One important continuity which is already played on in Numbers 13–14 is that not everyone among the spies is fearful and unfaithful. Two of them, Caleb and Joshua, speak against the message conveyed by the rest of the spies. Due to that, they are granted reprieve from the punishment and may enter the land. This is picked up on in Deuteronomy (Dt 1:34–38) and in Joshua. Joshua in particular becomes the leader of the Israelites (Dt 3:21–28; 31:1–8, 14–18, 23; 32:44; 34:9) and stays in command over the initial time of the conquest described in the book that carries his name. But Caleb also has an important role. He is given a share of the town of Hebron, a Levitical town of prime ideological importance, also considering that most of the patriarchs were buried there (cf. Kallai 2010:145).33 And Caleb and Joshua represent two major tribes, Ephraim and Judah, which are prominent in the early history of Israel. While Ephraim is very important in the early days, with the settlement starting from the central hill country, Judah becomes increasingly important towards the end of the period of Judges, and King David, the founder of the Israelite monarchical dynasty, comes from that tribe. It would appear that this development is partly due to the ideological importance of Hebron and the south (and note that David rules from there initially; see 2 Sam 5:1–5), and partly to the Philistine threat from the south-west (cf. 1 Sam 8). The narrative structure of Chapters 13–14 can be described as follows: A. The scouts’ expedition (13:1–25); B. Bad report by the scouts, with Caleb’s positive counterreport (13:26–33); C. The people rebel (14:1–4); D. Shocked reaction of Moses and Aaron, together with Joshua and Caleb’s positive counterreport and talk of stoning them by people (14:5–10a); E. Moses’s intercession and dialogue with Yahweh and Yahweh’s judgement (14:10b–38); F. Failed attempt at conquest by the people (14:39–45). Milgrom sees A and F and B and E to correspond to each other chiastically, together with 14:1–10a forming the centre of the chiasm (see Milgrom 1990:387–388, including for fuller details). This is possible, but I do not think that any chiasm is very clear in this chapter. The narrative has classically been considered an interweaving of J and P traditions (cf. Table 1.2). 115

C O M M E N TA RY

However, while such a division may as such be possible, to my mind, dividing things into sources that the author may have had available to him is by no means as straightforward as with 11:4–34, if ultimately achievable at all, at least in detail. This said, the names of the scouts could easily be imagined to have come from a separate list, at the very least potentially so. Except for the parallel in Dt 1:19–46, there are clear connections between Num 13–14 and the golden calf narrative and its aftermath in Ex 32–34. A comparison of the following verses should make this clear: Num 14:11–12 vs Ex 32:9–10; Num 14:13–16 vs Ex 32:11–12; Num 14:18 vs Ex 34:6–7 (and cf. also Ex 20:5–6 and Dt 5:9–10 within the Ten Commandments). Of course, in the wider sense, these are two major occurrences of rebellion in Exodus–Numbers, the first resulting in the breaking of the tablets of the covenant by Moses and the second in the destruction of the first generation in the wilderness. In both cases Yahweh threatens to destroy all of the Israelites and this is averted only through Moses’s intercession. The links reinforce and highlight the interconnectedness of Exodus and Numbers. COMMENT

13:1–3. This passage starts by describing how Moses sends scouts to reconnoitre the land of Canaan (on Canaan, see comments on Chapter 34). The sending takes place at Yahweh’s command (v. 1). In Deuteronomy, it is the people who request that Moses do so (Dt 1:22–23). Sending scouts seems a natural action to take in military situations, and this does give an impression of a lifelikeness of the narrative. The location in Numbers is the Desert of Paran; in Deuteronomy the Israelites are already in Kadesh (Dt 1:19; cf. Dt 1:46; and cf. Num 32:8). However, Num 13:26 does give the location as Kadesh, also in the Wilderness of Paran, even if Num 20:1 then states that Kadesh is in the wilderness of Zin. Perhaps Kadesh was at the edges (or in the borderline between) both Paran and Zin (thus Milgrom 1990:102), also considering the unlikeliness of exact boundaries in the wilderness. Zin may have been north of Paran as it is listed as part of the travel route of the scouts, which is likely to have been northward or north-eastward (Num 13:21; cf. 34:4; Josh 15:1, 3 as pointed out by Milgrom 1990:102). Zin and Paran are two of the six wildernesses (Shur, Etham, Sin, Sinai, Paran and Zin) crossed by Moses and the Israelites after the Exodus (as noted in ABD VI, p. 1095).34 The location of Kadesh is otherwise not certain, but the oases of Ain Qudeirat and Ain Qadis in north-eastern Sinai, or their general area, are good candidates. There is no direct archaeological evidence for a stay by the Israelites there in the Late Bronze period (see Hoffmeier 2005:123–124), even if it is a moot point as to what extent one should expect such evidence to be recoverable. 13:4–16. The men listed in vv. 4–16 do not occur elsewhere. It would seem reasonable to think that they were younger men who were specifically assigned for this dangerous and physically arduous task (Milgrom 1990:99). We learn from v. 16 that Joshua’s name was originally Hoshea. If the name Joshua links with the 116

C O M M E N TA RY

seventh-century king Josiah, which in itself is by no means a certainty, it is possible that the name Joshua was put in at that time. The men, except for Joshua and Caleb, die an immediate death by a plague once the punishment of Yahweh has been announced (14:37). 13:17–20. Moses instructs the men to go forth into the hill country through the Negev in the south. We know from later world history that, for explorers, knowing the land included “knowing” its animal and plant life and its mineral resources, together with understanding the lives of its native people. Along with maps, explorers often brought back physical proof of their discoveries and any of the territorial claims that they might have made (Day 2008:39). Completely in line with this, the scouts are asked to describe what the land to be conquered is like (vv. 17–20) and bring back a sample specimen from there, a cluster of grapes together with some pomegranates and figs, as it turns out to be (vv. 20, 23), and with a description of some of the peoples of the land (vv. 28–29). This emphasises the lifelike characteristics of the overall narrative (and cf. comments in Pitkänen 2014d:255). 13:21–25. The scouts proceed from Kadesh and the Desert of Zin and arrive at Rehob, apparently in the north. In this, while the location of Lebo Hamath is uncertain (see ABD III, pp. 36–37), Hamath itself was a well-known ancient town in Syria (see ABD III, pp. 33–36, for details). The place may be mentioned in the conquest lists of Thutmose III (see Junkkaala 2006:153–154). Thus Rehob may be in the (future) territory of Asher, considering that this place name is mentioned in Josh 19:28, 30–31 and Judges 1:31. Even if so, its identification is not clear (see ABD V, pp. 660–661), albeit Boling and Wright suggest Tell el-Gharbi, which attests Late Bronze and Iron I occupation (see Boling and Wright 1982:454). In light of Josh 19:30 it has been suggested that it is even not clear whether there were one or two Rehobs in Asher (ABD V, p. 661), albeit it is entirely possible that two separate towns with the same name existed there. Rehob is apparently mentioned in second-millennium Egyptian texts, even if it is not quite clear as to which town it refers to, and the reference could in fact also be to a place outside the territory of Asher (ABD V, pp. 660–661; cf. Junkkaala 2006:160–163). Otherwise, the scouts notably arrive at Hebron. It is an ancient site, and occupation at Tel Hebron, a prominent mound in the area, dates back to Early Bronze Age I. No stratigraphic remains appear to have been found at Tel Hebron from the Late Bronze Age. However, according to Junkkaala, some archaeological evidence has been found from the Late Bronze period, and even evidence of destruction at the end of this period (Junkkaala 2006:250–251). Tombs have also yielded some remains from the time in question, suggesting occupation in the area (see NEAEHL, pp. 606–609), even if there may not have been a “large, permanent settlement” then (Junkkaala 2006:251, referring to Ofer). Junkkaala notes that the material culture of the Iron Age I settlement was “similar to the other Iron Age sites in the Hill Country” (Junkkaala 2006:251). An Akkadian cuneiform tablet from the seventeenth–sixteenth centuries BCE with a list of animals has been found at the site (NEAEHL, p. 608). According to Na’aman, “Ahiman, Sheshai 117

C O M M E N TA RY

and Talmai – whose names are non-Semitic, may have been members of a northern migrating group that settled at Hebron” (Na’aman 1994:240). The reference to the building of Hebron seven years before Zoan remains unattested (cf. Levine 1993:355; Hoffmeier 2005:57). Eshkol means grapes – hence the name of the valley according to the tradition (v. 24). Its location is not clear, even though Gen 14:13, 24 may suggest proximity to Hebron (thus Milgrom 1990:103; cf. ABD II:617). The journey is described to have taken forty days for the scouts, and this is soon translated into forty years of wandering in the desert as a punishment (14:34). 13:26–29. The scouts report back that the land is a good land. However, the inhabitants are very powerful. The Anakites are described as particularly tall and strong people here and in Deuteronomy (vv. 28, 33; Dt 1:28; 2:10–11, 21; 9:2). The Amalekites are described as enemies of the Israelites throughout. Moses already fought against them before the Israelites arrived at Sinai (Ex 17:8–15) and Samuel somewhat later on notably sought to destroy them (1 Sam 15:1–3, 6; cf. Num 24:20; Dt 25:17–19). The Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites and Canaanites are part of the formulaic seven nations of the land that the Israelites are to destroy (see e.g. Dt 7:1; cf. already Gen 15:20 in the narrative order). As for the exact location of each of these people groups, even with the details given here (v. 29), it is unclear, except for the Jebusites, who are clearly located in Jerusalem (e.g. Josh 15:8, 63), even though such localisation may not need to be seen as exclusive (and see e.g. Pitkänen 2010b, passim, for further details on this question). 13:30. Caleb makes a counterargument. He thinks that the Israelites can take possession of the land. Later on in terms of the overall narrative of Genesis– Joshua, Caleb is said to have conquered Hebron and driven out the Anakites from there (Josh 15:14; cf. Jdg 1:10, which attributes this to the men of Judah as a whole, with Caleb featuring in v. 12). On the whole, Joshua is said to have killed most of the Anakites; it was just that some remained in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod (Josh 11:21–22). These three towns would themselves soon become three of the five main towns of the Philistines (add Ashkelon and Ekron to make the five), who were the descendants of immigrants from the north-eastern Mediterranean region.35 13:31–33. The men, however, are not convinced by Caleb’s argument. They also spread their bad report among the Israelites. They exaggerate that all, rather than some, of the people in the land are of a great size. The Nephilim (v. 33) have a mythological feel to them. They are described in Gen 6:4 to be descendants of sons of God and the daughters of men, and famous heroes. This ties in with ancient Near Eastern tradition. In the famous Gilgamesh epic, the hero Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk, is two thirds god and one third man (in this case his father, Lugalbanda, is a past king of Uruk and his mother, Ninsun, a goddess). Nevertheless, he is not immortal and the story describes how he tries but fails to attain immortality. According to v. 33, the Anakites descend from the Nephilim. 14:1–4. The Israelite community at large is persuaded by the bad report of the scouts. In line with 11:4, a nostalgic feeling towards Egypt raises its head again 118

C O M M E N TA RY

(cf. comments on 11:4–9). This time there is a rebellion in the ranks and essentially a move towards choosing a new leader who would take the people back to Egypt. 14:5–10a. Undoubtedly, Moses and Aaron are greatly distressed and fall face down on the ground (cf. 16:4–5). This is a sign of a strong emotional reaction, which on other occasions does not have to be of a negative type (cf. Gen 17:3, 17; Lev 9:24 etc.). Joshua and Caleb, two of the twelve scouts, also tear their clothes, which is directly a sign of great dismay.36 They try to reassure the people that they can conquer the land because Yahweh is with them, and that therefore the inhabitants of the land are not protected. Instead of the land devouring the Israelites (13:32), the Israelites will swallow the people of the land up (v. 9). But this is to no avail and the people wish to silence them, talking about stoning them. 14:10b–38. Yahweh now intervenes. His glory appears to all Israelites at the tent of meeting. This would undoubtedly stop the proceedings in their tracks, and a lengthy conversation between Yahweh and Moses ensues. This, as was noted earlier (cf. “Context”), draws on the language of the narrative of the golden calf incident, and even on the Ten Commandments (cf. Num 14:11–12 with Ex 32:9– 10; Num 14:13–16 with Ex 32:11–12; Num 14:18 with Ex 34:6–7; Ex 20:5–6 and Dt 5:9–10). All these features, including the lengthiness of the dialogue, undoubtedly serve to highlight the seriousness of the situation. The allusion to the Ten Commandments is to the commandment against idolatry, and it thus seems that the narrative here equates the rebellion of the people with that of idolatry proper. Yahweh, exasperated (v. 11), first threatens to destroy all of the community (v. 12). Moses, however, intercedes, appealing to Yahweh’s reputation (vv. 13–16). He also appeals to Yahweh’s loving and merciful character (vv. 17–19). Yahweh responds that Moses’s plea has worked and has effected his forgiveness of the people (v. 20). However, at least broadly in line with v. 18 (that also echoes the commandment against idolatry in the Ten Commandments), the guilty will not be left unpunished. Without an opportunity at appeals or renegotiation (v. 21), the people who have rebelled will not see the promised land (vv. 21–23).37 It is only Caleb (and by implication Joshua), the faithful spy, who will see it (v. 24). Accordingly, there will be a change of plans; the people are to turn away from their course towards the promised land (v. 25). Yahweh then essentially repeats to both Moses and Aaron38 what he has said, with some expansion (vv. 26–35). This second speech focuses on telling that the children who the rebels feared would be taken as plunder (v. 3) would grow safely and take the land (v. 31). But in achieving this, there will be a forty-year delay corresponding to the forty days that the scouts reconnoitred the land, and the first generation will suffer in the wilderness during that time and all die away, with time and nature taking their course (vv. 32–35). However, the scouts themselves meet an immediate end by a plague, save for Caleb and Joshua (vv. 36–38). Interestingly, Caleb is said to be a Kenizzite (v. 16). These are not Israelites, even if the Kenizzites mentioned in Gen 14:19 are part of the “wider” promised land. As Caleb is considered to be of Judah (13:6), this clearly suggests that Caleb has been assimilated into Israel and 119

C O M M E N TA RY

into the genealogy of Judah (cf. 1 Chr 2:42–50). This seems in this case possible because Caleb was not of one of the nations for whom the genocidal imperative was in force for the early Israelites (Dt 7). And yet, in Josh 2, 6 and 9 people from those nations could also be taken in, with for example Rahab and the Gibeonites at least possibly being considered as Israelites eventually (cf. Josh 6:23; Matt 1:5; 2 Sam 21:2; 1 Chr 9:35; Neh 3:7; cf. 1 Ki 9:21–22). We know from ancient Greece that ethnogenesis can be affected by grafting people into genealogies and creating links through them so as to forge familial links (see Finkelberg 2005, esp. 24–41), and this can help give an idea of how the early Israelite ethnogenesis may have progressed (cf. Pitkänen 2014a; Pitkänen 2014d; Pitkänen 2016b). 14:39–45. Now that the punishment has been announced and its initial part meted, the Israelites wail bitterly (v. 39). Their disobedience and rebellion against Yahweh continue. Now they decide to actually go ahead and try a conquest when Yahweh has prohibited them from doing so. The result is a disaster and a defeat by the indigenous peoples of the land, of whom the Amalekites and Canaanites are here specifically mentioned, probably roughly as representatives of the whole of Canaan (cf. 13:29 and Dt 1:44). On Hormah, which may or may not be the same Hormah as in 21:1–3, see comments on those verses. MEANING

Clearly the narrative indicates that the Israelites made an initial reconnaissance of the land and then an abortive attempt to conquer it. This was linked with fear of the original inhabitants of the land. The events depicted may well trace back to the realities of a Moses group that migrated from Egypt, even if the narrative is likely to be stylised. The abortive attempt led to a delay with the group’s entrance to the land (and its settler colonial appropriation; cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). The narrative builds this into a generational shift. In an early context, the generational shift can be read as encouraging the tribes to continue conquering the land. That their forefathers did not want to do that resulted in a great punishment. The present generation should be faithful to Yahweh and continue driving away the indigenous peoples (cf. Joshua 13:1–7). In the later exilic and postexilic context, the text could again speak to the Israelites. They would be returning from the exile, and, again, they should not waver in that endeavour (cf. Otto 2012a; Otto 2012b). Just as their forefathers in the wilderness perished due to their hesitation, the same kinds of problems could meet them if they did not return. In reality, though, we know that things were not perfect in either case. The early Israelites did mix with the indigenous peoples (see e.g. Jdg 2). And if a reading encouraging the exiles was advocated by some, certainly, not everyone came back from Babylonia, and the Jewish diaspora of course spread widely around the Mediterranean towards the beginning of the Common Era. In this context, the torah was otherwise also read as a law book, already starting from the time of Nehemiah, and its object lessons were read together with the monarchic and exilic-postexilic history of Israel (e.g. Neh 9). That is once the Israelite monarchy had been extinguished, 120

C O M M E N TA RY

the interpretation of Genesis–Joshua would largely focus on reflection on and interpretation of the documents based on the great catastrophe. It would be read together with a wider collection of books that would start to look more like the set of books that eventually formed the Jewish canon. The books of Judges–Kings would be likely to have been included in this group of materials. It is possible that a first edition of the book of Kings was already produced in the seventh century at around the time of Josiah, and a history of Israel from Genesis to that time as we see it in the current books from Genesis to 2 Kings was thus starting to take shape (cf. Cross 1973:274–289). If so, the final chapters to Kings were added at the time of the exile. If there was a further exilic redaction of the materials, or in case of an exilic composition of Kings mutandis mutandis, it could then have added the final chapters of Kings and inserted or retouched at least some of the materials that are linked to the exile in their present form in the book of Deuteronomy and Lev 26 in the Pentateuch (cf. Cross 1973:285–289), even though the latter activity could already go back to an earlier time also. In line with the foregoing, it is very possible that the exile acted as a major watershed in terms of how Genesis–Joshua per se was being read. As suggested by Sanders (see Sanders 2005:51–53, 102–104; cf. Sanders 2014:23–24), the loss of immediate connection to the land for the exiles meant that the fulfilment of its conquest was now less important than before. Nor would the returnees as a small community within an empire be likely to have had the means to launch a settler colonial programme (cf. Sanders 2005:52). Instead, the torah of Moses, a document that looked forward to the land, became a reference point for the now emerging early Judaism, securing the identity of the early Jews, many of whom were and even would increasingly be scattered throughout the Mediterranean world and in practice could only hope to return to the land someday, rather in an “eschatological” sense (cf. Sanders 2005:48–49; Sanders 2014:23–24). This identity did also have an increasingly individualising aspect (Sanders 2005:108). Accordingly, Ezra would read the Pentateuch as torah in postexilic times and Nehemiah would focus on separation from foreigners rather than their extermination. Based on these considerations, and as Sanders suggests (2005:51–53), it is very possible that, in terms of the canonical process for the emerging early Judaism, the separation of the Pentateuch from what follows took place during this era. After this development, it was largely only Joshua that was left on its own as an ostensible conquest text. Importantly, the material started to also be explicitly commented on separately as it was canonised (cf. Otto 2014). In the Graeco-Roman environment, New Testament readings detached the document even more from its original message. Readings based on the original settler colonial vision came back in vogue in the Western colonial period in particular, although perhaps in a somewhat mutated form. In that period that stemmed from the time of Constantine in the fourth century CE, importantly, Christianity was linked with the state and its power structures. Before that period, Christianity was a minority religion and at times persecuted, and it clearly seems that the New Testament writers could not imagine that their religion could one day be standing hand in hand with the Roman state. In today’s postcolonial 121

C O M M E N TA RY

world, even if the concept of postcolonialism has to be qualified by the fact that in reality settler colonialism continues in today’s world (see Hinkson, James and Veracini 2012; Short 2016), the legacies of both noncolonial and colonial readings must be taken into account. Coming back to Numbers, we must then be aware of a variety of readings, such as the readings of the materials by postexilic Judaism, New Testament readings and Western colonial readings. Interestingly, it is the Western colonial readings that are in many ways closest to the original meaning of the documents, even though this does not by any means exclude the other readings. In other words, with a reading of the book of Numbers as part of ancient settler colonialism, the interpretation of this document is coming full circle, with interpretations detached from the proposed original meaning nevertheless also still current. In yet other words, the variety of historical and contemporary readings should be taken into account when considering this document and its continuing validity for Christianity and other religious groups, and humanity as a whole. Of course, colonial readings are considered as ethically problematic today (cf. also comments on Chapter 31, “Meaning”). Interlude III: miscellaneous laws (15) CONTEXT

The material in Chapter 15 should be considered as an interlude as it is not directly related to the overall setting of Chapters 11–21. That is nothing in Chapter 15 necessitates a connection with Israel in the wilderness (midbār) between Sinai and Moab. In this, while 15:32–36 could certainly link to that setting, especially considering that the Sabbath is already referred to in Ex 16 before Israel’s arrival at Mount Sinai, the narrative reference here could be to some other time than the specific stay in the wilderness between Sinai and Moab. In addition, the time at Sinai can be referred to as being part of a stay in the wilderness (see Num 1:1, where the desert [midbār] of Sinai is referred to even though the people clearly are still at Mount Sinai). And, further, the passage has clear links with Lev 24:10–23 (cf. e.g. Nihan 2007:512–513, 570, 601, 604; Achenbach 2003:521 and ahead), where a blasphemer is stoned. I have therefore classified it as part of the interlude, and even if one has a different opinion of this, it makes little difference to the analysis, and Interlude III could then be construed to consist of 15:1–31, 37–41. With this little caveat, clearly the materials in Interlude III are, as with the other interludes, completely in line with legal materials in Exodus–Numbers as a whole. But they could be displaced to another location in the corpus; in a sense, they just happen to have been put in this specific place. To my mind, this relates to A1’s specific strategy in the book of Numbers – that is progression in narrative and legal materials that are more easily tied with that narrative is interrupted by legal material that is only broadly relevant to the overall setting in Sinai and the ensuing wilderness. 122

C O M M E N TA RY

As discussed in the introduction, altogether, one can distinguish five such interludes, this being the third of them. Counting vv. 32–36 in, this interlude divides into five sections. The first three relate to offerings (1–16 meal and drink offerings; 17–21 firstfruits; 22–31 unintentional sins) and tie back to the book of Leviticus, and Chapters 1–7 in particular, even if 17–21 also links with Lev 23:10–11 and Dt 26:1–5. As already indicated, the fourth, a narrative about a Sabbath breaker (vv. 32–36), can broadly be compared with Lev 24:10–23. The fifth passage, about tassels (vv. 37–41), is unique in Genesis–Numbers but has a parallel in Deuteronomy 22:12. The verse in Deuteronomy simply states the injunction but the section here in Numbers gives a clear theological rationale for the command. The material in vv. 1–31 can be considered as P with some light H editing (cf. Table 1.2, and note comments on Chapters 28–29, esp. “Context”) and vv. 32–41 as H.39

COMMENT

1–3. The narrative setting of this passage is the promised land, after the Israelites have entered it (v. 2; cf. v. 18). In that it differs slightly from the injunctions in Lev 1–7, where the setting is more closely tied with the wilderness camp (and see comment on v. 4 ahead), and can be seen as a sign of H redaction (cf. Kuenen 1886:96n38; Wellhausen 1899:175). It may also be that this comment links with the punishments in Chapters 13–14, helping to reassure that the next generation will enter the land (thus Milgrom 1990:117, based on rabbinical tradition). The burnt offering (ʿōlāh, cf. Lev 1) and fellowship offerings (zeḇaḥ [šelāmîm], Lev 3) are particularly in view here. The occasion of thanksgiving (cf. Lev 7:12–15) is not mentioned; this may be intentional (see Milgrom 1990:118 for further details) or, alternatively, the ones mentioned really represent all occasions. 4–5. In settled conditions, a grain offering consisting of flour and a drink offering of wine are to accompany the burnt and fellowship offerings (cf. 1 Sam 1:24). It seems sensible to think that these accompaniments would be easier to provide in settled conditions (cf. Milgrom 1990:118). In light of vv. 6–12, both the amount of flour and the amount of wine in the verses can be understood to pertain to the lamb. While the Hebrew does not seem entirely clear on that account, it does allow such a reading and is in line with the prescriptions of Num 28–29 (cf. comments on those chapters ahead). 6–12. The amounts of flour and wine are now enumerated for two other usual sacrificial animals: rams (vv. 6–7) and bulls (vv. 8–10). Goats are added to the list in v. 11. It would seem that the accompaniments can be read with the category of lambs as in vv. 4–5, unless a specific section pertaining to goats is missing from the chapter. The expression “pleasing aroma” is typical of sacrifices (cf. already Gen 8:21, and Lev 1:9, etc.). The expression does not need to refer to for example the wine as it is not burnt, but to the fact that the sacrifice as a whole involves burning. 123

C O M M E N TA RY

13–16. The passage explicitly states that the alien (gēr) will be under these same regulations as the rest of the (native) Israelite community. On aliens (gēr) in general, see comments on 9:5–14. But v. 14 (ʾô ʾašēr-beṯôḵeḵem, lit. “or one who is among you”) seems to allow for these sacrifices by tôšāḇ and even by nāḵrî (cf. comments on 9:9–14). 17–21. This passage has parallels with Lev 23:10–11 and Dt 26:1–5 (and cf. Lev 19:23–25, which pertains to fruit trees). Each of the passages is about giving firstfruits to Yahweh. Basically, such offerings would go to the priests and Levites (cf. Num 18:8–30 and Ezek 44:30), even if each of these passages has a slightly differing set of goods and P/H and Deuteronomy have a slightly differing scheme of distribution. It would seem that the legal materials allowed for slight variety among priests on the matter (keeping in mind that both P/H and D have a priestly origin); however, as Deuteronomy is the last law code in the narrative of the Pentateuch, should there be discrepancies, one would expect the Deuteronomic views to prevail (cf. Pitkänen 2015:9–10; Kilchör 2015). In this passage the Israelites are to present cakes of ʿarîsāh (vv. 20, 21; the exact meaning is not certain, but perhaps gruel, or bread in the process of making or yet something else related; cf. Milgrom 1990:122; Levine 1993:394). Whatever the case, it parallels an offering from the threshing floor (v. 20).40 It would seem that the offering of ʿarîsāh is related to the time of the offering in Lev 23:9–14 and is additional to that offering. This being the case, the Deuteronomic injunction in Dt 26:1–11 may be envisaged as a yet further additional ritual, making it unnecessary in this case to think that there is a real contradiction between P/H and D. On v. 18, see comments on vv. 1–3. 22–31. This section can be considered to link fairly directly with vv. 1–16 in that it describes additional grain and drink offerings in case of unintentional sins of the community (vv. 24–26). It should also be read together with Lev 4:13–35, where offerings relating to unintentional sins were already specified. Except for the additional grain and drink offerings in the case of an unintentional sin by the community (v. 24), in this law the bull in Lev 4:13–21 specified as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭāᵓṯ) is replaced by a bull for a burnt offering and a male goat for a sin offering (v. 24). In the case of an individual sinning unintentionally (vv. 27–29), there is no addition or change to the offerings; it is the same as in Lev 4:27–31. It is a moot point whether a (female) lamb could also be allowed, as in Lev 4:32–35. The case of a leader sinning unintentionally (Lev 4:22–26) is not covered here, nor are the further cases related to the sin offering mentioned in Lev 5:1–13. But as the case of an individual sinning does not induce additional grain and wine offerings, one may guess that the intention was that there would be no additions for the other cases also, even if this must remain speculation. Interestingly, it would seem that the new rule for the communal sin offering conflates the initial provision of a bull with the male goat of the sin offering of a leader (cf. Lev 4:22–26).41 The additional material to the sin offerings then (explicitly) adds the important stipulation that anyone who sins intentionally cannot be forgiven but must be cut off (kāraṯ) from the community. This applies to both natives and aliens (see comments on 124

C O M M E N TA RY

9:9–14 on the aliens and the kāraṯ commandment). See also comments on Chapters 28–29, including “Context”. 32–36. This passage is similar to Lev 24:10–23 in that in both cases a person behaves in a manner that is inappropriate but no specific punishment has yet been prescribed in the legal materials. A solution is then sought and obtained from Yahweh. The law and its parallel in Lev 24:10–23 can be considered as broadly equivalent to modern case law, with Yahweh acting as the judge in the narrative(s). True, Ex 31:14 does specify a death penalty for anyone who does work on the Sabbath; however, gathering wood may not have counted as work in quite a similar manner as certain other things that one might have done. Alternatively, as Milgrom (1990:125–126) suggests, the Exodus law may be based on this incident (or even that Moses was not clear about the way the death penalty should be carried out). However, one can think of a further possibility. This issue, together with the matter of cursing Yahweh (Lev 24:10–23), may have been considered as important enough so as to present it in the form of a case study (case law) in the legal materials (cf. also Num 36:1–12 and comments there). Be this as it may, the person concerned is taken outside the camp, which undoubtedly symbolises exclusion from the community (cf. 5:1–4; cf. also 1 Ki 21:10–14) and is then stoned (v. 35; cf. Lev 24:13–14, 23). That the whole community participates (v. 35; also in Lev 24:16) seems to highlight the symbolism of eradication from it. It would seem that the choice of stoning as the method of execution enables every member of the community to take part in this highly symbolic action, at least in the context of these laws. 37–41. This passage stipulates that the Israelites are to make tassels on the corners of their garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. As already mentioned (“Context” section), this law is parallel to that in Dt 22:12. The content is the same even if the Hebrew words used for both the tassels and clothes are different in each of the laws (ṣîṣiṯ vs geḏilîm and beḡeḏ vs kesûṯ), highlighting the differing use of language in priestly and Deuteronomic laws. The Deuteronomic law is merely a simple summary of the law here (assuming it is later than the one here) where a rationale for the law is stated. The tassels are to serve as visual reminders about Yahweh’s law. In a sense, the specifications can be compared with the injunctions in Dt 6:8–9 even if the latter may have been intended at least partly metaphorically in their original context (cf. Matt 23:5). A visual reminder on clothing would be in the sight of the owner of that clothing for most of his or her waking life. The purple colour (teḵeleṯ) in the tassels probably refers to royalty (cf. Milgrom 1990:127, 411); certainly this was the case with the colour purple in general in antiquity. The colour was extracted from a particular species of sea snails in antiquity, with many snails needed for making a small amount; therefore it was an expensive substance (see Milgrom 1990:127, 411–412). As Milgrom suggests, the purple colour in the tassels is likely to tie in with the Israelites being a kingdom of priests (Milgrom 1990:414; Ex 19:6).42 This said, the law at the same time ties in with the fact that human nature can be susceptible to bad behaviour (v. 39). A formulaic reminder about Yahweh’s bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, which 125

C O M M E N TA RY

undoubtedly also refers to the covenantal setting and its associated legal materials as a whole, concludes the legal interlude of Numbers 15. MEANING

Numbers 15 contains an interlude of miscellaneous legal materials. They largely build on or are linked with other legal materials. The laws about sacrifices and offerings (vv. 1–31) have a more explicit focus on life in the land. But the case of the Sabbath breaker can also be directly transferred to such settings, and the same goes for the tassels, especially if one were to use even moderate amounts of extract from sea snails. While later Jewish tradition no doubt would have picked up on these injunctions, they seem less relevant for Christians. Little direct reference to the laws about sacrifices and offerings in vv. 1–31 is really made in the New Testament. However, there is more on the laws about the Sabbath and tassels. As regards the commandment about the Sabbath, it is no longer a requirement for Christians to studiously avoid work on a Sabbath on pain of death. However, the principle of having a day of rest to take a break is still a very welcome one for Christians who, especially in the modern world, can often have very busy, even hectic, schedules for prolonged periods in their lives. Given that Jesus’s resurrection took place on a day after the Sabbath, it is entirely appropriate for Christians to choose their resting day to be a Sunday, or any other day of the week if they are required to work on a Sunday, as may be the case for example with doctors, nurses, firemen and so forth. In all this, one may remember Jesus’s comment “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27). As for tassels, Jesus includes them as signifiers in his invective against the Pharisees in Matt 23:5. In Jesus’s estimation, as presented by the gospel, tassels have changed from reminders to the Pharisees of Yahweh’s law into a sign of boasting about their observance of it – that is what should ultimately have been internal has become external for the sake of display only. Further rebellion: Korah, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron, their punishment and the confirmation of Aaron’s primacy (16–17) CONTEXT

Chapters 16 and 17 continue on themes of rebellion and subsequent confirmation of the established authority of Moses and Aaron. Chapter 16 can be considered a mix of priestly and narrative materials (see comments on Chapter 16 for further details) and Chapter 17 is priestly. The themes covered by both of these chapters are explicitly priestly, or at least are strongly coloured by explicit priestly themes. Thus, while the rebellion in Numbers 13–14 directly challenged Moses’s authority and also included priestly narrative features, Chapters 16–17 can be considered to have particularly strong thematic links to Chapter 12, where Miriam 126

C O M M E N TA RY

and Aaron challenged the authority of Moses. Chapters 16 and 17 are then followed by Chapter 18, which pertains to the duties, rights and responsibilities of priests and Levites. The narrative setting of these passages is the wilderness, even if there are no chronological or topographic markers that would identify things more closely. Their present narrative placement ostensibly locates them in the Wilderness of Paran (or so) between the time of the rebellion of the spies and arrival in Kadesh in 20:1. Placing them together with other rebellions seems good from a thematic perspective. They could not be placed with rebellions before arrival at Sinai as priesthood was not yet established by that time, and the same essentially applies if one were to think about whether the narrative could have been placed together with the golden calf narrative. Equally, it would not make good sense to place such material before the departure from Sinai as the mood is largely positive there (Lev 1–Num 10). And after Num 20, the focus is with the second generation, which is more obedient, and their preparations for the conquest. It is true that the section pertaining to the second generation includes the narratives about the bronze snake (Num 21:4–9) and the sin of Baal Peor (Num 25) that could as such have been placed between Num 10 and 20. However, perhaps the former narrative includes a way of healing that may fit better with the second generation (and see comments on 21:4–9). The latter narrative also serves as a foil for the campaign against the Midianites (Num 31), and perhaps the setting at Moab fits better with the generally more eastern location of the Midianites than the wilderness of Sinai around Kadesh (cf. Gen 36:35; Num 22–25). All in all, the placing of the material relating to the rebellions in the wilderness here in Num 16–17 seems most appropriate, even if it does to some extent break the connection between Numbers 13–14 and Numbers 20. Numbers 16 ultimately contains two rebellions, that of the Levite Korah and of the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram (both parties introduced in v. 1). Associated are also 250 community leaders (v. 2). The chapter may be composite from a literary perspective (cf. Gray 1903:186–191; Milgrom 1990:414–423; Levine 1993:405–406). It can be divided into two differing storylines after the first four verses that are introductory. The first storyline is that of Korah and 250 elders who follow him. The verses pertaining to that story are 5–11, 16–22 and 35–40. Essentially, there Korah and the 250 elders undergo a censer trial and are destroyed by fire. The second parallel storyline is that of Dathan and Abiram in vv. 12–15, 23–34. They do not undergo a censer trial; instead, they simply stay at their tents even if Moses has summoned them. But Moses goes to them with the elders of Israel (v. 25; these elders [ziqnê] should be understood as different persons from those introduced in v. 2 [neśîê]) and meets them at the entrances to their tents (v. 27). Soon after that, Moses and the elders draw away from the tents and the earth swallows Dathan and Abiram and their families. Both of these storylines should be understood to be parallel and occurring essentially concurrently – that is differing modes of punishment pertain to Korah and the 250 elders and to Dathan and Abiram and their families. It is true that the former storyline has generally been assigned to P and the latter J, and it is possible that the story has been weaved from 127

C O M M E N TA RY

two differing sources so as to present both strands economically in one account. If one considers things in this way, a major issue remains – that is why Korah is mentioned in vv. 24, 27 and 32 of storyline two. I submit that the idea is that the punishment meted on the families of Dathan and Abiram is also meted on the families of Korah and of his 250 followers,43 at the same time as the fire punishment consumes Korah and the 250 followers themselves, who are stationed elsewhere, probably at the tent of meeting (v. 35; cf. v. 17). The addition of Korah in vv. 24, 27 and 32 could also reflect confusion when the narrative was transmitted, even if I think that this is less likely. Seen in this way, it is not entirely unreasonable that Dt 11:6 mentions that the earth swallowed Dathan and Abiram and their families, omitting Korah (cf. vv. 12, 27). This can also be considered to be the understanding of Num 26:9–10, with the Hebrew allowing the reading that the death of Korah and his 250 followers is listed together with the earth swallowing Dathan and Abiram and their families, with perhaps allowing some crossover into an idea that the families of Korah and his followers were included among those the earth swallowed. The use of “all” (kol) in 16:32 can be seen as hyperbolic in an ancient Near Eastern manner, being consistent with the idea expressed elsewhere that not all sons of Korah died (Num 26:11; 27:3). Numbers 16:41–50 explicitly continues the story of vv. 1–40. The people rebel again. The whole congregation accuses Moses and Aaron of being responsible for the death of the people who were killed in vv. 1–40. The focus is on the use of incense by Aaron to effect atonement. The action of Aaron is effective in halting a plague sent from Yahweh on the people (v. 47), in contrast to that of the incense of Korah and his followers, which results in their own death (v. 35). In terms of literary and source criticism, this passage can clearly be seen to be priestly, and possibly part of H (cf. Table 1.2). The focus on Aaron continues in Chapter 17 (P or H; cf. Table 1.2). However, there is a small shift that in this case Aaron represents the tribe of Levi. As such, the passage could be taken on its own. It confirms the pre-eminence of the tribe of Levi and the pre-eminence of the Aaronides within the tribe of Levi. However, in its present position it follows quite fittingly from Chapter 16, and 16:41–50 in particular. If one reads it together with Chapter 16, where the pre-eminence of Aaron among the Levites has been included in the challenges presented, it is clear that the present narrative arrangement serves to further highlight Aaron’s pre-eminence within the Levites. This might be less the case if the passage were presented on its own. As regards the more specific historical setting of these narratives, as already indicated, two storylines and (even if related) themes are combined in Num 16:1–40. Especially, with description about Korah, commentators have often tried to see links with postexilic priestly rivalries and power struggles reflected in the passage. The same goes with Num 17 (see e.g. Gray 1903:193; Levine 1993:406; Achenbach 2003:37–140). I would broadly concur with the general principle of conflict. However, these passages can also be understood from the perspective of an earlier time. And, while conflict is clearly portrayed in them, 128

C O M M E N TA RY

they can be seen to reflect and reinforce a more general principle of desired hierarchy within the tribal organisation. As regards the Reubenites in 16:1–40, interestingly, Reuben was originally portrayed as the firstborn in Israel (Gen 29:32 etc.). Therefore, that the Reubenites are involved could at least in some way play on the idea that having a firstborn status is not a guarantee for a leadership role that is at a level equivalent to that of Moses and Aaron (cf. Milgrom 1990:419). This includes a potential claim to priesthood. Alternatively, or even in combination, the fact that Reuben lost his status of firstborn (see Gen 35:22; 49:3–4; 1 Chr 5:1) could also be played on here, even if I consider this as less likely (see ahead). This fits with the time of early Israel (cf. Milgrom 1990:419), keeping in mind that, at the very least according to the biblical documents, the settlement in Transjordan started first, with Reubenites settling there. Otherwise, and I think even more importantly, the chapter is there to enforce the Kohathite division into Aaronides and non-Aaronides. I would then take this chapter, together with Chapter 16, as confirming the status of the Aaronides. In this case, the point is also that it is only the Aaronide Kohathites (cf. v. 1; and cf. e.g. Ex 6:18–21) who may officiate as priests. The rest of the Kohathites have the status of ordinary Levites, as do the descendants of Gershon and Merari (I would take this chapter as making this latter point also clear by implication). The division within the Kohathites can elsewhere be seen especially in the description of the wilderness camp order (see Num 3–4) and the list of Levitical towns (Josh 21, esp. vv. 9–26; parallel in 1 Chr 6:54–81, see esp. vv. 54–61). That all of the Korahites did not die can be read to indicate that the challenge was not considered as something that worsened the status of this Levitical division. When considering this, it may also be less important to consider that the narrative is playing on the loss of status of the Reubenites (cf. earlier). All in all, I would consider the chapter here as certainly being a story about priestly pre-eminence, but rather in a very straightforward manner in terms of any potential confusion about the hierarchy between the Aaronides and the rest of the Kohathites and other Levites, and finally the rest of the tribes as shown in Lev 17, the immediately following chapter. On this interpretation, there is no particular need to speculate on specific historical rivalries between priestly factions. Finally, interestingly, Numbers 16–17 is often seen together with Lev 10, the narrative about Aaron’s two sons Nadab and Abihu (see e.g. Nihan 2007:602– 603). If so, the emphasis on the importance of proper conduct and hierarchy through these passages can be seen to encompass everyone among the priests, Levites and the rest of the tribes – that is the whole of Israel. We may note here that should one try any speculative linking of these passages to specific priestly rivalries that are temporally later than the narrative time of the passages, one could start at least from Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas in 1 Sam 1–4 (as pointed out in Achenbach 2003:109). In that case, if Joshua’s name was changed in the tradition (cf. Num 13:8 and comments on 13:4–16), it might be possible that the names of either his sons or the sons of Jeroboam were adjusted to highlight the sin of Jeroboam (cf. comments on 3:1–4). 129

C O M M E N TA RY COMMENT

16:1–4. These verses serve to commence the narrative contained in vv. 1–40. The two rebelling factions of Korah and 250 elders (neśiᵓîm) and of Dathan and Abiram are introduced, together with their tribal affiliation. Basically their idea is that everyone in the community is holy and that Moses and Aaron should not try to elevate themselves above the rest of the people. In other words, the leadership Moses and Aaron is challenged. Accordingly, Moses falls face down (cf. comments on 14:5–10a). 16:5–11. Moses introduces a test. Korah and his followers are to take censers the next morning and put incense in them before Yahweh, apparently, even if not necessarily, at the tent of meeting (but cf. v. 18). The reference to Levities having gone too far (v. 7) seems to imply that at least some Levites were more or less supporting Korah, with some of them perhaps among the 250 followers of Korah. Or it may be that Korah more generally represents non-Aaronide Levites in a conceptual sense pars pro toto. The (non-Aaronide) Levites have a particular set of tasks which do not include priesthood (vv. 8–10). Moses also points out that as the offices are divinely appointed, Korah is really going against Yahweh rather than Aaron (or himself). 16:12–15. The scene now shifts to Dathan and Abiram. Moses summons them, but they refuse his order, in line with their general challenge against Moses’s authority. For them, Moses has been in charge enough already. The idea that the wilderness is not such a nice place comes through also (v. 13), in line with many other occasions of people grumbling against Moses both before and after the stay of the Israelites at Sinai. They further point out that they have not, at least not to date, been brought to the promised land (v. 14). The rhetorical question about gouging eyes out seems to refer to deception by Moses, apparently corresponding to “pull the wool over the eyes” (see Milgrom 1990:134). Moses is cross and appeals to Yahweh, stating that he has not done anything wrong to the people concerned and asking that Yahweh would not accept their offering (v. 15). The verse seems to follow on logically from v. 14 as a response to the preceding dialogue and the direct insults made by Dathan and Abiram, even if the reference to offerings would fit better with v. 7. 16:16–22. The narrative returns to Korah and his followers. Fuller instructions about the incense test are given by Moses. Everyone is to present their censer before the Lord. This time Aaron is also mentioned as offering incense at the same time (v. 17; cf. Dt 33:10; 1 Sam 2:28; 1 Chr 6:49 in general). This is then done, and the glory of Yaheh appears. Yahweh further asks Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the whole assembly of Israel so that he can wipe them out (v. 21). Moses (together with Aaron), however, intercedes, just as he has done on a number of occasions in the past. 16:23–34. Next the narrative swaps to Dathan and Abiram. Moses instructs everyone to move away from their tents. The idea is to disassociate themselves from them, also so as to not have to take part in their punishment. Dathan and 130

C O M M E N TA RY

Abiram are at the entrances of their tents, together with their families. In essence Moses announces the punishment of being swallowed by the earth. This then actually happens. A rough modern equivalent would be sinkholes appearing into which the culprits fall. Sheol (v. 30) was simply seen as a realm under ground level in ancient mythology where the dead went. Here the men go down there alive. One may think of later ancient Greek mythology in which Odysseus visits the underworld, but the people in this passage simply never return from there. As already mentioned (see “Context”), Korah himself (nor the 250 men with him) was not included here, but apparently members of his immediate family (and of his men) were included. The event causes great fear (v. 34). 16:35–40. At the same time as the earth opens, a fire comes out from Yahweh and consumes Korah and his 250 followers (cf. Ex 24:17; Dt 4:24). The censers are not destroyed and are hammered into sheets to overlay the altar. They have become holy by virtue of the event of Yahweh intervening (cf. Josh 6:17–19; also cf. comments on 3:40–51). The idea is that they are to be a sign to the Israelites. Presumably the overlaying was available for people to see at some point of ancient Israel’s (early) history, and remind them that people, whether Levites or common people that are not of the priestly Aaronide line, should not try to take part in burning incense to Yahweh (v. 40),44 but no other reference to it exists elsewhere. It seems that the tabernacle bronze altar is in question (Ex 27:1–8; 38:1–7; cf. Ex 30:1–7; 37:25–28). How this overlaying relates to the initial overlaying in Exodus is not clear, but the text would clearly seem to indicate that this was a renewed overlaying (cf. Milgrom 1990:140). That the task is assigned to Eleazar may have to do with Aaron himself not being eligible for it as the censers were held by persons who have just died (Lev 21:11; cf. Achenbach 2003:527).45 16:41–50. People are, however, not happy with what has happened. From the perspective of the narrative, not learning their lessons, they accuse Moses and Aaron of killing Yahweh’s people. The cloud reappears (cf. Num 12:5, 10), together with the glory (kāḇôḏ) of Yahweh (cf. Num 16:19). Again Yahweh threatens to kill the whole assembly (ʿēḏāh), asking Moses and Aaron to remove themselves from the people. They, however, fall face down, as usual for these narratives (cf. 16:5). In this case, instead of pleading to Yahweh, Aaron offers incense. The plague is stopped, with a count of dead given (vv. 48–49). This would seem to indicate that atonement can be affected by offering incense, or, in a related manner, that priests offering incense relates to atonement. 17:1–5. This narrative confirms the primacy of Aaron and the tribe of the Levites among the Israelites. Again, read together with Chapter 16, the order of importance (based on these chapters) is: Moses and Aaron, the Levites and then the rest of the Israelites. We have already learned from Chapter 12 that Moses is above Aaron in the context of the Pentateuch and the law of Moses (cf. comments there). In a manner very broadly reminiscent of the censer trial, a trial of staffs is announced by Yahweh through Moses. Moses is to take a staff from the leader (nāśîᵓ) of each tribe and write the name of the leader on the staff. This includes the Levites and Aaron as their head. The staffs are then given to Moses, who will 131

C O M M E N TA RY

place them in the tent of meeting, in front of the ark of the covenant (in this case referred to as the “testimony” [ʿēḏûṯ]; cf. 4:5; 7:84 as pointed out by Milgrom 1990:143). The staff that will sprout will indicate the tribe that Yahweh chooses. 17:6–9. Moses follows the instructions and Aaron’s staff is seen to sprout the next day. In fact, it has budded, blossomed and produced almonds. That this happens overnight should of course be seen as miraculous. Almonds are a spring blossom, the first among them (see Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000:154), and of course thus throughout the ancient Near East from time immemorial. Accordingly then a link with later Persian royal symbolism (see Achenbach 2003:127), while as such possible, is not necessary, also as the flowers referred to by Achenbach are lotus flowers. The results are presented for all Israelites to see. 17:10–13. The staff is to be put in the tent of meeting, to be kept as a sign for the Israelites so that they would not grumble and be rebellious (v. 10; cf. v. 5). Committing no crime is to help towards having to suffer no punishment, here at least potentially by death (v. 10). The Israelites react by panic. They are now worried that they will all die. This seems curious as the fire from Yahweh to consume Korah and the 250 men and the earth swallowing Dathan and Abiram would seem more stupendous to an average reader, even if, admittedly, the fire that consumes the men does also have the function of indicating who can approach Yahweh. Whatever the case, the Israelites now seem to acknowledge that an encroachment of the tabernacle by anyone else than those authorised to do so may be deadly. MEANING

These passages clearly belong to the traditions of the Israelites rebelling in the wilderness. They have been included and placed here to reinforce the “correct” hierarchy and allocation of duties and responsibilities among the Israelites. Above all, the concerns are priestly in helping to reinforce both priestly and Levitical separation from the rest of Israel and hierarchies among priests and Levites. They would have relevance for the Israelite community from the time of early Israel on. For Christians, such demarcations are of less relevance. It is true that the New Testament seems to speak for ecclesiastical offices in the early church; however, its stipulations as to what those offices are do not seem entirely clear. Perhaps that ambiguity can be seen reflected in the variety of ways those offices have been constituted in differing Christian churches – for example in Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostalist and free evangelical churches, and also in today’s house churches – regardless of whatever one’s favourite view might be on this matter. Other than this, it seems difficult to apply the text for example to today’s questions about (church) leadership (cf. Stubbs 2009:146), even if one could perhaps say that the text can serve as discouraging one from taking part in unnecessary challenges against leadership, but, again (cf. comments on Chapter 12, “Meaning”), modern democratic societies consider that leadership is always malleable and can be challenged when necessary. 132

C O M M E N TA RY

The staff of Aaron that budded is mentioned among the relics of the Old Covenant in Heb 9:4. As already discussed, these serve as part of the writer’s argumentation for the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ (cf. e.g. comments on Num 5:1–4 and Num 12 earlier, “Meaning”). Interlude IV: priestly matters, purification (18–19) CONTEXT

The material in Chapters 18–19 should ultimately be considered as an interlude. As such, nothing in these two chapters necessitates a connection with Israel in the wilderness (miḏbār) specifically between Sinai and Moab and the chapters could also be displaced to another location in the corpus. This relates to A1’s specific strategy in the book of Numbers – that is progression in narrative and legal materials that are more easily tied with that narrative is interrupted by legal material that is often only broadly relevant to the overall setting in Sinai and the ensuing wilderness. As discussed in the introduction, altogether, one can distinguish five such interludes, this being the fourth of them. This interlude divides into three sections. The first (Num 18:1–7) deals with the duties of Aaron and the Levites, building on what has already been said on the topic in Leviticus and Numbers. The second (Num 18:8–32) gives additional information about priestly and Levitical entitlements from offerings, firstfruits, firstborn and tithes. The third section (Num 19) describes the making and use of a ritual water of purification for persons who are ceremonially unclean due to a contact with a dead person (cf. e.g. Lev 21:1–12; 22:4–8; Num 5:2; 6:6–13; 9:6). At the same time, these materials in their present location can also be seen to have links with Chapters 16–17. Most notably, there is a clear connection between 18:7 and 17:13 – that is both verses clearly indicate that only the priests can approach the sanctuary. But in a wider sense, too, Chapters 16 and 17 have confirmed the elevated status of priests and Levites, also clarifying that no one else but Aaron and his sons (16:40) may offer incense before Yahweh. Num 18:1–7 can then be seen to follow fairly logically after that content. That is the passage clarifies further the duties of the priests and Levites. Again, Aaron and his sons are to do the duties pertaining to the tent of meeting, with the Levites assisting them. However, the non-Aaronide Levites are not to partake in priestly duties, and, as part of that, they cannot approach certain areas inside the sanctuary (v. 3). We know from elsewhere (Lev 16) that even Aaron or a high priest who is his descendant may go in the holy of holies only once in a year (see esp. Lev 16:1–2, 29–34). We can then say that Num 18:1–7 is actually quite nicely placed in its present narrative arrangement. Num 18:8–32, which describes the priests’ entitlements, and Numbers 19, which describes the making and use of the water of purification, are arguably less connected with their present narrative context. But, again, Num 18:8–32 does have some links back to verses 1–7 in that the focus on priestly rights and responsibilities in terms of the sanctuary in vv. 1–7 is 133

C O M M E N TA RY

continued in terms of priestly rights and responsibilities in terms of offerings that are given to Yahweh, with the sanctuary and its officials being an essential part of the related cultic setup through which such offerings are processed. An explicit link is also drawn from v. 23 to v. 1, and vv. 22 and 3–4, 7 sound similar. If so, we can say that Chapters 18–19 (at least 18) are an interlude that fits quite well thematically after Chapters 16–17. In addition, the content in Chapter 19 is referred to in Num 31 (see 31:19–24 and comments on these verses). Numbers 18 can be assigned to H and most of 19 to P (see Table 1.2 for further details). The literary structure of 18:1–7 is straightforward: it elucidates the rights and responsibilities of priests and Levites in regard to the sanctuary, alternating its focus between the two groups (see “Comment” section ahead). The structure of 18:8–32 can be described as follows: 1. The priests’ share of offerings (vv. 8–19), with vv. 8–10 the priests’ share of main offerings, v. 11 the priests’ share of wave offerings, vv. 12–13 the priests’ share of firstfruits, vv. 14–18 the priests’ share of things devoted to Yahweh, including the firstborn and their redemption, v. 19 the priests’ share of all offerings to Yahweh. 2. The tithe as an inheritance for the Levites (vv. 20–32), with v. 20 introduction, vv. 21–24 the tithe given to the Levites, vv. 25–32 Levites to give a tenth of the tithe to priests. The structure of Chapter 19 can be classified as follows: 1. The making of ashes for the water of purification (vv. 1–10). 2. Cases of contamination (vv. 11–16), with vv. 11–13 general purification from contact with a corpse, vv. 14–15 persons and objects in a tent, v. 16 contamination in the open by touch. 3. Use of the water of purification and further contamination rules (vv. 17–22), with vv. 17–19 the manner of purification, vv. 20–21a purification stated as compulsory, v. 21b the manner of purification (cont’d), v. 22 rules for contamination via an object contaminated by an unclean person. All in all, 1. and 3. are rituals and 2. lists cases of contamination. Interestingly, the legal material pertains to the wilderness and it is not entirely clear how it should be applied in settled conditions; one may only surmise that perhaps the impure person had to stay outside his or her town or village. COMMENT

18:1–7. Yahweh speaks directly to Aaron in this passage. The other such occurrences are Ex 4:27 (so as to go and meet Moses in the wilderness), Lev 10:8 (prohibition against officiating in the tent of meeting under the influence of alcohol) and here (vv. 1, 8, 20). Otherwise things are normally mediated through Moses (but note Moses and Aaron e.g. in Num 20:12, 23). The message of this chapter would therefore be highlighted for any priest who might read it (or hear it read to him). The priests were to be responsible for the sanctuary and everything that goes on in it. As noted in the introduction, according to the ancient Israelite beliefs attested by the biblical sources, Yahweh dwelt or “lived” in the midst of his people Israel in the tabernacle. The whole tabernacle (and later temple) service was constructed to secure divine presence, without which calamities and disasters could 134

C O M M E N TA RY

be expected to fall on the land. Any cultic violations would risk divine displeasure and result in great disasters (cf. v. 1; 1 Sam 2:12–4:22, and of course Num 16 to which the word “again” [ʿôd] in v. 5 is likely to at least partially refer). A hierarchy of duties existed according to the biblical documents. As noted here, partly by way of a summary and reminder (v. 5; cf. esp. Num 3–4), the priests took care of the holy place (qdš/miqdāš) and the altar (mizbēaḥ). They were the only ones who could officiate at the altar and in connection to the holy of holies behind its curtain (pārōḵeṯ; cf. Ex 26:31; 36:35). Otherwise, the non-Aaronide Levites were responsible for the work of the tent of meeting in a support role by the appointment of Yahweh (v. 6). They, in line with Num 3–4 (recall esp. 4:1–20), are not to go near the furnishings of the holy place or altar that the Aaronides are responsible for (v. 3; cf. v. 7). The warnings on proper conduct are given on pain of death (vv. 3, 7). Verse 3 further seems to explicitly indicate that the priests were responsible for specifically keeping the Levites from approaching the altar and the holy items (as noted by Davies 2015:37; cf. v. 1). 18:8–10. Yahweh then reminds Aaron directly (cf. comments on v. 1) that he has put the priests in charge of offerings and that this appointment includes a share of the offerings as a prebend. The share of the “main” offerings that are most holy (v. 9) is also most holy (v. 10), and every male among the priests may eat of it (v. 10; and probably males only in light of v. 11). What is given to the priests from the “main” offerings is basically stipulated in Lev 1–7. Note that the burnt offering (Lev 1) is wholly consumed by fire, save for the skin, which is reserved for Aaron and his sons (Lev 7:8). 18:11a. A list of additional prebends of the priests to those summarised in vv. 8–10 follows in vv. 11–19. It a representative list summarising a number of emoluments that are strewn throughout the Pentateuchal legal materials, even if not all such emoluments are listed (for further details, see Milgrom 1990:148–149). 18:11b. The first of the additional prebends is a gift share (terûmāh) of the wave offerings (tenûpˉāh). Importantly, whereas the “main” offerings in vv. 8–10 seem to be for male priests only, these can also be consumed by female family members, even though one has to be ceremonially clean to do so (and cf. Lev 22:12–13). These tend to relate to fellowship offerings (šelāmîm; see Lev 7:28–34; 10:12–15). 18:12–13. The priests are to have a share of firstfruits. Again, females may also participate, as long as they are ceremonially clean (and, again, cf. Lev 22:12–13). 18:14. The priests’ share of things devoted to Yahweh, including the firstborn and their redemption, is described here. Herem (ḥrm, v. 14) basically means devoting things to Yahweh permanently (cf. Lev 27:28). In such a case, such things cannot be redeemed, as described for things otherwise vowed or dedicated to Yahweh in Lev 27:1–27. That is a person can in a sense retract the object of their vow or dedication by replacing it with money, adding fifth to it, but this cannot be done for objects under herem. Persons under herem cannot be redeemed either (Lev 27:29). These most notably encompass the indigenous people of Canaan who must be destroyed (esp. Ex 23:20–33; 34:10–16; Numbers 33:50–56; Dt 7; 1 Sam 15; cf. comments on 8:1–4; 33:50–56), even though it appears that Jephtah’s 135

C O M M E N TA RY

daughter was at least in effect also under herem due to her father’s vow (Jdg 11:29–39). In the case of Jericho, silver and gold and objects (kelê) of bronze and iron from among things under herem went to the treasury of Yahweh (Josh 6:17, 19, 24; cf. Pitkänen 2010b also for further comments on herem). 18:15–18. At least somewhat in contrast to v. 14, the passage here links back to the matter-of-course dedication of the firstborn to Yahweh, such as in Lev 27:26–27 (cf. Milgrom 1990:152). The point is that the firstborn of sons (cf. Num 8:17 and comments on 8:15–19) must be redeemed (v. 15bα; the Hebrew has an emphatic pāḏōh ṯipˉdeh) and a firstborn male (cf. Ex 13:12; 34:19) of unclean animals are to be redeemed (v. 15bβ; the Hebrew has simply tipˉdeh). Clean animals cannot be redeemed but must be offered on the altar (v. 17). Their meat is for the priests, undoubtedly in line with what has been specified in vv. 8–11 (seemingly esp. v. 11; cf. comments on those verses, and cf. v. 18 with Lev 7:28–34; also cf. Milgrom 1990:154). Monetary values for redemption are specified, in line with the relevant amounts given elsewhere (v. 16; cf. Lev 27:6; Num 3:47; cf. Milgrom 1990:153). 18:19. This statement is a summary. I would take it as broadly summarising the content of vv. 8–18, together with any other things the Israelites may bring to Yahweh. Collectively then, even if with restrictions to only males in certain important cases, the offerings are given to priests and their families. As salt was important for preservation in the ancient world, the covenant of salt is a metaphor for a lasting covenant (thus Milgrom 1990:154; cf. Lev 2:13, which prescribes salt with all Israelite grain offerings; Ezek 43:24; 2 Chr 13:5). 18:20–24. This passage specifies that the Levites are to receive all tithes in Israel (cf. Lev 27:30–33 in P/H). This is essentially their salary for their work for the tent of meeting for which they are responsible (vv. 21, 23; cf. v. 1). Ordinary Israelites cannot approach the tent of meeting (v. 22). The Levites do not otherwise have any inheritance (v. 24), even if we know from elsewhere that special towns were assigned to them (Lev 25:32–34; Josh 21; 1 Chr 6:54–80). Deuteronomy plays on this issue (see esp. Dt 14:22–29); however, it also includes the aliens, fatherless and the widows as recipients of the tithes, especially every third year (Dt 14:28–29, and cf. the discussion in Kilchör 2015:115–125). 18:25–32. The Levites themselves, however, must give a tenth of the tithe to priests. This is stated to be an offering to Yahweh (v. 28). The Levites must on pain of death make sure that the best things are included in the tenth given to the priests (vv. 29, 32). The part that the Levites keep is considered as their wage (Hebrew ḥēlepˉ, lit. exchange, v. 31) and can be used as any ordinary consumable (as things from the threshing floor or the winepress, vv. 27, 30–31). See v. 27 with 15:20. 19:1–5. Verses 1–10 describe the making of ashes for the water of purification. It involves a ritual. It starts by choosing a red (Hebrew ʾadummāh; cf. Gen 25:25, 30) unworked heifer (Hebrew indicates feminine gender), which is brought to the priests (v. 2; here Moses and Aaron). It is then given to the officiating priest, here Eleazar, who becomes the high priest later on (Num 20:28; Dt 10:6),46 and taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence (v. 3). After that, the officiating 136

C O M M E N TA RY

priest is to take some of its blood and sprinkle it seven times towards the tent of meeting (cf. Lev 14:16; seven was often a symbolic number in the ancient world). While it is always difficult to be certain about the meaning of each ritual action, especially when that is not explained by the text itself, one may speculate that, except for potentially consecrating the cow for the making of the water of purification (Milgrom 1990:158), the action may also serve to form a symbolic connection between the person(s) to be purified and the community in whose centre the sanctuary lies (Feder 2011:66). The heifer is then burnt in the presence of the officiating priest (v. 5). 19:6. Next the priest takes some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. He throws them into the fire, into the burning heifer (cf. Lev 14:4–7, 49–51, where the ingredients are used for sprinkling, seven times at that, however). Crimson thread (lit. red of a coccus ilicis worm, šenî ṯôlāʿaṯ; see BDB; Feder 2011:130, and cf. Gen 38:28; Josh 2:18 as pointed out by Feder) appears only twice in the biblical ritual, for purification after a skin disease that we just referred to (Lev 14:4, 6, 49) and in the passage here.47 In both cases, it is used together with cedar wood and hyssop for a purification rite.48 In Num 19 these are thrown into the fire; in Lev 14 (in relation to skin diseases) they are, presumably after tying them together somehow, dipped into blood and used for sprinkling. Here, however, they are ultimately used for the same purpose as they become part of the ashes that are then mixed with water to be used for sprinkling. A formula for a particular amount of ashes to be mixed with a particular amount of water is not stated, if such a formula existed. The cultic and ritual use of crimson thread and cedar wood is well attested in other ancient Near Eastern cultures already well before the time of the Israelites (see Milgrom 1990:159; Feder 2011:129–131). 19:7–10. The priest must then wash his clothes and bathe himself in water. He may come into the camp, but will be ceremonially unclean until the evening. The person who actually has done the work of physically burning the heifer must also wash himself and his clothes and be unclean till the evening (v. 8). The same goes for the person who gathers up the ashes (v. 10). No other regulations are made concerning these persons, except that the man who gathers up the ashes must be clean to start with (v. 9). The ashes are taken to a ceremonially clean place outside the camp (v. 9), perhaps one where there are no such things as unclean persons, human bones or graves, dead animals or excrement (cf. e.g. Num 5:1–4; 19:16; Lev 11:28; 17:15; Dt 23:13). The ashes are kept so that water of purification can be made of them. As need arose, some of the available ashes would be mixed with a suitable amount of water in a vessel, even if no specific further instructions are given in terms of for example the ratio of ashes to water (v. 17). The material specifies that the instructions given in these verses should be followed permanently (ʿôlām). It is stated explicitly that both the native Israelites and the aliens (gēr) should follow them (cf. comments on 9:9–14 on the gēr). Verse 9 makes an explicit link with the sin offering (ḥaṭṭāᵓṯ), apparently in a symbolic manner in terms of purification (cf. Achenbach 2003:526; note also that vv. 12, 19, 20 employ the verb ḥaṭṭāᵓ) to describe purification). 137

C O M M E N TA RY

19:11–16. The focus now shifts onto occasions when the purification water should be used. Vv. 11–13 describe the issue of general pollution and purification from contact with a corpse. If one touches a corpse, he or she will be ritually unclean for seven days. This is a fairly long time to be unclean; on many other occasions in the Pentateuch a person will be unclean “only” till the evening from the moment of becoming unclean (e.g. Lev 11:24–40; 15:1–18). A purification ritual must take place on the third and seventh days. If one does not follow these prescriptions, he or she cannot become ritually clean. Failure to purify him- or herself will result in cutting that person off from Israel (kāraṯ, cf. comments on 9:9–14). The person has defiled the sanctuary (residence) of Yahweh from a ritual perspective (v. 13), which cannot be allowed. Vv. 14–15 describe a situation when a person dies in a tent. Anyone entering the tent will be unclean, for the usual period of seven days. Any open vessel in the tent will also be unclean. Such containers can make a person unclean, but only for the day when touched, as opposed to a week with direct corpse contamination (v. 22). According to v. 16, anyone in the open field, apparently outside the Israelite camp, who touches someone violently killed, someone who has died a natural death, or a human grave or bone will be unclean for the usual period of seven days. Priests who are unclean may not eat of any of the sacred offerings (Lev 22:3–6), and this would seem to imply general restrictions against coming in contact with the sacred in such a state (and cf. Num 5:1–4). 19:17–22. These verses describe the ritual of purification, for the third and seventh day (vv. 12, 19). As need arose, some of the available ashes would be mixed with a suitable amount of water in a vessel, even if no specific further instructions are given in terms of for example the ratio of ashes to water (v. 17). It would also seem that only the manufacture of the ashes involves priests; otherwise the water of purification can be mixed from the ashes and water by any (seemingly clean) person, including a layman. According to v. 18, then, a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle it on the person concerned (cf. vv. 11–12), the tent, all its vessels and the people who were there (cf. vv. 14–15). The same goes with one defiled due to corpse contamination in the open field (cf. v. 16). Note that it is not specified that this should be done seven times (cf. Lev 14:5–7; 49–51); this symbolic action was already done in v. 4. This also perhaps fits with a layman being able to perform the ritual of cleansing here. On the seventh day the person to be purified must also wash his or her clothes and bathe with water and he or she will then be clean that evening. Based on 5:1–4 (esp. 5:2), the unclean person would have to stay outside the camp until clean (cf. also 31:19–24). As stated already in vv. 12–13, failure to purify him- or herself will result in cutting that person off (kāraṯ, cf. comments on 9:9–14) from Israel (v. 20). The person has defiled the sanctuary of Yahweh from a ritual perspective (v. 20), which cannot be allowed. The material specifies that the instructions given in these verses should be followed permanently (ʿôlām; v. 21a; cf. v. 10). The man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothes and (apparently) be unclean till 138

C O M M E N TA RY

the evening (v. 21b). In general, anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till the evening (v. 21b). Finally, uncleanness is contagious in that anything an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches what an unclean person has touched or the person him- or herself (the text may be read to refer to either case) becomes unclean also, even if this uncleanness is of the milder sort – that is the person will be unclean till the evening (v. 22). The idea that direct contact with a person unclean from corpse contamination will cause uncleanness only till the evening would seem to be in line with Lev 15:19 (Lev 15:24 notwithstanding). MEANING

Chapters 18–19 follow after Chapters 16–17 as partly in continuity and partly as an interlude (see “Context” section). They relate to cultic issues. Chapter 18 really sums up the duties of priests and Levites that have already been described elsewhere in the priestly legal corpus, especially in Lev 1–7 and Num 3–4. The tithe is a concept that Christians can draw from. While it is questionable whether one should be obliged to give a tithe to the church, the New Testament clearly stipulates that those who devote themselves to fulltime ministry are entitled to support (1 Cor 9:1–14; cf. Stubbs 2009:154–155). Paul’s voluntarily giving up on his right in this respect reinforces the general principle (1 Cor 9:15). Chapter 19 describes the production and use of a ritual water of purification from corpse contamination. An important part of the seven-day quarantine period seems to be to keep the realm of the dead and the living separate, in contrast to many other societies (cf. e.g. the interment of the dead under houses in Mesopotamia; cf. Dt 18:9–12; 1 Sam 28).49 Again, from a modern perspective, the offices in Chapters 16–17 are of largely historical interest for the Christian (cf. comments on Chapters 16–17, “Meaning”). The same goes for the rituals in Chapter 19 (cf. Heb 9:10), with the purification ritual in Num 19 specifically mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews as something that makes people outwardly clean, whereas the blood of Christ makes people of the New Covenant internally cleansed so that they can serve the living God (Heb 9:13–14; cf. the sprinkling mentioned in Heb 10:22 in a metaphorical sense). But, as already discussed in the introduction, ritual can have powerful meaning for people in modern times also. While one does not need to follow the ritual described in Num 19, with uncleanness and purification not applying to Christians (Mk 7:19; John 15:3; cf. Eph 5:25b–26), it is good to be aware that ritual is ultimately a human universal and that modern people still do enact a variety of them. They give structure to human life and can also reproduce and create meaning for life. In churches, certainly, the ritual of communion (cf. Matt 26:26–28; Mk 14:22–24; Lk 22:19–20) is generally reproduced across denominations in terms of breaking of bread and sharing the cup (even if it is only priests who share the cup in Catholic churches), and churches are in agreement about the meaning of this ritual, even when differing denominations have 139

C O M M E N TA RY

differing views of exactly what it signifies and symbolises (e.g. whether Jesus is physically or only symbolically present). Generational shift and departure towards the promised land by the second generation (20–21) CONTEXT

Chapters 20–21 essentially describe the events that take place on the Israelite journey from Kadesh to Moab. At Moab, Moses gives his famous valediction (Deuteronomy) and Joshua then leads the Israelites into the so-called promised land (Joshua) as a settler colonial invasion (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). Numbers 20:1 describes how the Israelites arrive at Kadesh. In line with what was already discussed in the introduction (and see ahead on 20:1), this can be taken as a description of the Israelites returning to Kadesh at the end of their forty-year period of wilderness wanderings. In any case, it is likely to serve as a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of their earlier stay there (cf. 13:26), so as to help connect Chapters 13–14 and 20–21, which connection the placement of Chapters 15–19 has somewhat distorted. At around that time Miriam dies (20:1), starting to remind one of the punishment of the Exodus generation (cf. Num 13–14). Thematically connected with Miriam’s fate, a narrative about Moses and Aaron’s sin that leads to their death before reaching the promised land is inserted (20:2–13). After that, the Israelites are on the move towards the plains of Moab, circumventing the territory of Edom (20:14–21). Num 33:37 and the parallel narrative in Deuteronomy clearly seem to indicate that this event takes place at the beginning stages of the Israelite march from Kadesh towards Moab (Dt 2:2–8, 29; see ahead for details). Next the death of Aaron is narrated (20:22–29; cf. Num 33:38–39), in direct fulfilment of 20:2–13. Clearly this is further sign that the Exodus generation is dying (cf. Num 13–14). That Aaron’s son Eleazar succeeds him assists in shifting focus towards the new generation. A loosely connected narrative about the defeat of the king of Arad follows (21:1–3; see ahead for details). Another narrative about a plague of snakes around the time of the march around Edom is placed next (21:4–9). With it the murmuring traditions that pertain to the first generation are drawing to a close. Then the narrative relates how the Israelites pass the Wadi Arnon and arrive at Moab (21:10–20). Finally, a narrative that describes the defeat of two Transjordanian kings Sihon and Og is included (21:21–35; with a parallel in Dt 2:24–3:11; cf. Josh 13:8–33). Summing up, then, these two chapters ultimately consists of a number of episodes that all by and large are related and help achieve the transition from Kadesh to Moab, even if 20:2–13 and 21:4–9 in particular probably could have been placed slightly differently had the narrator (A1) so wished. However, with their placement as it stands, one may read them accordingly in light of the overall narrative development. In terms of sources, undoubtedly there is diversity in the origin of the passages. According to classical source criticism, J, E and P (possibly H) are 140

C O M M E N TA RY

all represented in the mix (see Table 1.2 for details). Whatever one’s thinking of the exact details of the sources involved, A1 has drawn all of the material together and placed it suitably to create the end product. Later accretion and modification are of course not an impossibility in addition to that (cf. Introduction, including “Textual Issues” section). It is possible to consider that the literary structure of each of Chapters 20 and 21 roughly parallels, and also in some respects mirrors, the other (see Milgrom 1990:463–467 for details). Kadesh, death of Miriam (20:1) CONTEXT

This short verse describes how the Israelites arrive at Kadesh. Kadesh last featured in 13:26 as the place from where the spies were sent (cf. 13:3). But here, considering the context of Chapter 20, where the Israelites are journeying towards Moab, the impression given is that this takes place at the end of the forty-year period of wanderings in the desert. The impression is confirmed by Num 33:36–39, which lists Kadesh just before the Israelites set out towards Moab. At the same time, Dt 1:46 states that the Israelites stayed at Kadesh for a long time after the spies episode. And once they leave from there (2:1–3), there is no record in Deuteronomy of them being in the place again, with Dt 2:14 stating that thirty-eight years passed since they left Kadesh Barnea until crossing the Zered valley towards Moab. In other words, there are discrepancies about the details of the Israelite stay in Kadesh (cf. Introduction). I believe that it is possible to harmonise these depictions if one reads Dt 2:14 as referring to the initial stay in Kadesh that is associated with the spies episode, with a return there later on and which Deuteronomy does not explicitly mention, and conversely with Numbers 33. In this it may be considered that Dt 1:46 states that the Israelites had to stay at Kadesh for “many days” (yāmîm rabbîm); the expression may be read as a roundabout summary of the total stay in the wilderness, also considering that the Israelites are in Kadesh at the beginning and end of their wilderness wanderings. One might then suggest that Numbers 33:18 or so (cf. Num 11:35) simply omits the first stay of Kadesh at around v. 18. And, similarly, Dt 2:8 or so (cf. Numbers 33:35–36; Dt 2:14) omits mention about the second stay at Kadesh. This does not take away the fact that there is a real and apparently irreconcilable discrepancy between the description of the passage through or around Edom in Numbers (20:14–21) and Deuteronomy (2:2–8, 29), which will be discussed ahead (see comments on 20:14–21). Whatever the case, it is likely that the mention of Kadesh in Num 20:1 serves as a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of the earlier stay of the Israelites there during the spies episode, so as to help connect Chapter 20 with Chapters 13–14, as the placement of Chapters 15–19 has somewhat distorted that narrative connection. That is the story of Num 13–14 expressly continues from here. In terms of sources, Num 20:1 has classically been considered a mix of P, J and/or E. 141

C O M M E N TA RY COMMENT

1. The Israelites next arrive at Kadesh. The exact time is left open as it is mentioned only that this takes place in the first month, but the year is not stated. As discussed earlier (see “Context”), the impression is that this is at the end of their forty-year wanderings, even if that does not quite have to be so. If Kadesh is considered to be in the border of the wildernesses of Zin and Paran, it can be stated to be located in either of them (cf. comments on 13:1–3). Miriam dies, signalling that the punishment announced in Num 13–14 is starting to take place (except for the immediate death of the murmuring spies in Num 14:36–38). She is buried in or around Kadesh. MEANING

This verse provides a resumption of the narrative in Num 13–14 by explicitly bringing Kadesh, which was the setting of Num 13–14, to the fore. Miriam also dies, signalling that the first generation is dying, and this is to be followed by the sin and penalty of Moses and Aaron and the death of Aaron later in the chapter. Miriam’s main legacy in the texts is her song and dancing after the miracle at the Sea of Reeds (Ex 15:20–21) and her rebellion against Moses, with the latter directly referred to in Dt 24:8–9 as an object lesson about skin diseases (cf. comments on Chapter 12, “Meaning”). In Micah 6:4 Miriam is listed as one of the Israelite leaders in the time of the exodus. She is not directly referred to in the New Testament. Water from the rock, the punishment of Moses and Aaron (20:2–13) CONTEXT

The narrative about Moses and Aaron’s sin and punishment is put thematically in this place to tie it together with the deaths of Miriam and Aaron in the chapter. As the murmuring compatriots who normally belong to the first generation are referred to (as brothers) in vv. 3–5, together with a reference of bringing out of Egypt those who themselves make the complaint, this narrative could easily be taken as pertaining to a time when the first generation has not yet died (thus Milgrom 1990:164). However, the narrative in 21:4–9, which is clearly localised to the second generation, also says that the second generation complains that they have been brought out of Egypt into a miserable desert (v. 5). If so, the brothers referred to in 20:5 could broadly be the first generation or perhaps some more specific group among them who died in the specific punishments that resulted from murmurings (and cf. e.g. the use of the word “brothers” in Lev 21:10; Num 8:26). But ultimately the question of exactly when the events should be understood to have taken place must be left open. It is unlikely that they should be understood to have taken place at Kadesh proper as there normally is water there, at least in one 142

C O M M E N TA RY

of the two oases that the place can be associated with (cf. Milgrom 1990:164, and cf. our comments on 13:1–3). Num 27:14 (cf. Dt 32:51) suggests that the place is Meribah Kadesh; perhaps this can be read as indicating Meribah in the region of Kadesh. The narrative has been classically assigned to P. It has a clear parallel in Ex 17:2–7, which was classically assigned to E. The place name Meribah features in both narratives (20:13; 17:7), and therefore one could ask if these are two versions of the same incident (Milgrom 1990:449–450). But there are enough differences in them so that they cannot be equated (cf. ahead, “Comment” section, and Milgrom 1990:449). To me, especially that they are set on each side of Sinai in the narrative of Exodus–Numbers already speaks for their separate, even if interconnected appropriation. In line with the general thrust of the narrative where punishments are averted before Sinai but meted out at Sinai and afterwards (cf. “Context” on Chapters 11–14), the same now applies to Moses, even if he is as such not indicated as having done anything wrong in Ex 17:2–7. To my mind, the place is named Meribah (quarrelling, from Hebrew ryḇ) here so as to connect this narrative with Ex 17:1–7. The place, even if different physically in Num 20:2–13, is also Meribah, considering the conceptual similarities of the two incidents and narratives. So, perhaps the name Meribah Kadesh in Num 27:14 and Dt 32:51 (cf. Ezek 47:19, 28) emphasises that this is the Meribah of Kadesh. COMMENT

2–5. The people are described as gathering in opposition to Moses and Aaron. In contrast to Ex 17, where the complaint is only about water, here the people complain that there is no food or water, even if v. 2 focuses on the lack of water. The exodus from Egypt is mentioned in both narratives, with the claim that the Exodus actually worsened the lot of the Israelites and was about to result in their death. 6–8. Moses and Aaron next go to the tent of meeting and, as ever so often, fall face down (cf. comments on 14:5–10a; 16:1–4, 41–50). Yahweh’s glory (kāḇōd) then appears (cf. 14:10; 16:42). Yahweh instructs Moses to take his staff (cf. Ex 17:5) and to speak to a rock (rather than strike it with his staff as in Ex 17:6). It will be a remedy against the lack of water. No reference is made here to food otherwise (cf. v. 5). 9–11. Moses takes the staff as instructed. He and Aaron also gather the Israelites in front of the rock. However, rather than speaking to the rock, Moses speaks to the people, claiming that it is he and Aaron (rather than Yahweh) who will give them water to drink. He also strikes the rock, two times at that. This produces the immediately desired result: water gushes out and the people and the livestock drink. 12. What has happened is, however, not good enough for Yahweh. Moses and Aaron have been disobedient, and a punishment is given (no punishment was involved in Ex 17:1–7). They will now not be able to enter the promised land. Others will have to lead the Israelites, and these turn out to be Joshua 143

C O M M E N TA RY

(Num 27:12–27; Dt 1:38; 3:28; 31:7–8, 14–15, 23; 34:9) and Eleazar (Num 20:22–29). The Samaritan versions and 4 QNumb notably add in material from Deuteronomy 3:24–27 in this connection (see BHS; Tov 2012:92–93). 13. A summary statement about the name of the place concludes the section. It is the Meribah of Kadesh (cf. 27:14; Dt 32:51), here simply Meribah. Yahweh has shown his holiness, with Moses and Aaron on this occasion having to suffer the side of holiness that is described as bringing punishment due to sin (cf. Num 14:18 and comments on 14:10b–38). MEANING

The question of what the sin of Moses (and Aaron) really was has attracted a lot of attention (see e.g. Milgrom 1990:448). On the face of it, what happens seems innocuous and Moses’s punishment therefore comes across as harsh, at least for the casual reader. To my mind, one reason for the narrative could be as follows. There was a wider tradition in early Israel according to which Moses died in the wilderness before reaching the promised land. This called for an explanation as to why that was the case. The tradition that pertained to Massah and Meriba provided such an explanation. The apparently less than severe failure by Moses, set against his otherwise strong record in the Pentateuch (esp. Dt 34:10–12), was just enough to give the rationale and deemed sufficient by the writers. True, Moses had already had his doubts as the journey went on (see Num 11:11–15; 21–22), and even right from the start (Ex 3:10; 5:22–23). Here those doubts resurface and Moses takes the prerogative of Yahweh, suggesting that it is he rather than Yahweh who will provide the water (20:10), plus he strikes the rock against Yahweh’s command of speaking to it (20:8). This would seem to indicate that Moses has really rebelled against Yahweh in a manner reminiscent of the rest of the murmuring Israelites. This seems enough to send him, too, to the galleys, as it were. Aaron has of course already had his share of failings (Ex 32–34; Num 12). That Moses in particular cannot reach the promised land is of course great drama and arouses great emotional response of bittersweet sadness for any reader of the Old Testament. But it also signifies that there is a distinctiveness between the exodus and Moab generations. The Pentateuchal laws in Exodus–Numbers are given to the exodus generation, and Moses, a representative of that exodus generation that dies in the wilderness, can only admonish the new generation at the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy), seeing the promised land but not reaching it (Dt 34:1–8). This would have sent a powerful message to the readers (or hearers) of the book. Experiencing Yahweh’s works was not enough, as the first generation demonstrates; one must also obey his commandments to prosper. And clearly the giving of the laws pertains to past history that prepared for Israel’s current life in the land. Thus, the generation now living in the land must follow Yahweh’s commandments, or it might suffer the fate of the first generation, which might even ultimately involve a potential loss of that land in the worst case (Lev 26; Dt 28). The later Babylonian exiles could also read the materials as encouraging them to 144

C O M M E N TA RY

return to the land, and avoid any disobedience that their distant forefathers exhibited. For Christians, the promised land has been spiritualised. It has been replaced with the New Covenant that gives people rest and happiness (cf. Heb 4:1–11). The story of Moses in the wilderness can then encourage them to strive for obedience and a good life under the terms of the New Covenant (Heb 4:11). In this new spiritualised form of land, the ethically negative aspects of settler colonialism (see Introduction on settler colonialism) do not really feature, even if the visualised final consummation of the kingdom (e.g. in Revelation) appears to involve violent and cataclysmic events, even when the language tends to have been couched in highly symbolic forms (cf. e.g. Court 2008; Middleton 2014). From Kadesh on, past Edom (20:14–21) CONTEXT

This narrative (classically assigned to J) describes how the Israelites ask for permission from the Edomites to pass through their land. However, the Edomites refuse and the Israelites have to go around their land. This is also referred to in 21:4. The narrative structure of the passage can be delimited as follows: vv. 14–17 request by Israel, v. 18 Edom’s response, v. 19 Israel’s renewed request, v. 20 Edom’s renewed refusal, v. 21 Israel turns away from Edom. So far so good with an apparently straightforward narrative. However, considerable complications arise when one compares this picture with the description of Israel’s dealings with Edom in Dt 2:1–8, 29. There the Israelites are clearly (thus especially based on Dt 2:29) able to pass through the territory of Edom rather than having to circumvent it. This, together with the relationship between Deuteronomy 1–3 and the book of Numbers, has in general been seen as a difficult problem in scholarship, with various solutions proposed (see MacDonald 2011). One may further note that Jdg 11:14–18 states that the Edomites did not allow the Israelites to pass through, being in line with the Numbers tradition (assuming that Jephtah’s report can be taken at “face value”). The proposal here, based on a two-author hypothesis (even if the following may be a possibility based on other compositional hypotheses also), is that there were two differing traditions about Israel’s dealings with Edom during the wilderness period. According to one the Israelites were denied access to the territory of Edom, and according to the other, they could pass through it. A1 and AD were not sure which was the correct tradition and accordingly placed differing versions side by side, in Numbers and in Deuteronomy, respectively (cf. comments on 20:22–23a ahead).50 Then A1 composed his version based on traditions available to him, and AD used his general tradition about going through the territory of Edom and also drew on the speeches tradition of Numbers 20:14–20 or its pre-A1 source and also from the tradition in Numbers 21 or its pre-A1 source. Naturally A1 was aware that Edom and Israel were brothers already based on the Genesis narratives. Otherwise, the author of Judges basically chose to align himself with the tradition in Numbers. It would 145

C O M M E N TA RY

appear that most of the problems that relate to differences in the narratives would thus be resolved in a straightforward manner. Note that the narratives about the defeat of the two Transjordanian kings Sihon and Og in Num 21:21–35 also have strong parallels in Deuteronomy (2:24–3:11; cf. Josh 13:8–33), but there are no major observable discrepancies in their presentation of the events (see comments on 21:21–35 for further details), nor in the presentation of the dealings of the Israelites with the Moabites in Numbers and Deuteronomy. From an archaeological perspective, there is evidence of occupation in Edom in the time of the portrayed Israelite settlement (see MacDonald 2000:185–194; MacDonald 2015:24–41).51 Notably, a copper smelting place has recently been found and analysed from the area from the twelfth–tenth centuries BCE, and Egyptian sources refer to the Shasu tribes in the area of southern Sinai during the Late Bronze Age, and during the nineteenth dynasty (thirteenth–twelfth centuries) even to “Shasu tribes of Edom” (see e.g. Pitkänen 2010b:286 for fuller details). COMMENT

14–17. The Israelites send messengers to the king of Edom. They introduce their situation by referring to their past history and how they now happen to be in Kadesh. They propose that they pass through the territory of Edom, promising that they will cause very minimum disturbance. The King’s Highway was an ancient caravan route from Ezion-Geber to Damascus that passes through Edom and Moab (see Lundbom 2013:189). 18–20. Edom’s response is aggressively negative: if Israel tries to pass through, this will be taken as an act of war (v. 19). The Israelites renew their request, trying to reassure the Edomites that they will not cause any disturbance (v. 20). The Edomites, however, refuse again and send in a large army contingent to block the entry of the Israelites (v. 20). 21. Due to the refusal, the Israelites turn away from Edom. Dt 2:4–6, also to be seen in the context of the patriarchal narratives about Jacob and Esau (Gen 25–33), sheds further light on the situation. The Israelites considered the Edomites as their brother (cf. also Dt 23:7–8) in the narratives of Genesis–Joshua.52 As it would be natural to think that one should avoid fighting one’s own brother, the Israelites do not engage. In contrast, they are more than willing to fight with Sihon and Og and defeat these kings and take their land (21:21–35). MEANING

The Edomites are Israel’s brother, even if the patriarchal narratives already demonstrated that the relationship between the brothers was a complicated one due to Jacob’s trickery in obtaining the rights of the firstborn from Esau and the associated blessing from their father Isaac (Gen 25:19; 27:40). The relationship of these nations proved out to be a tricky one throughout the history of the settled Israelite nation and beyond, too, with a fair bit of mutual antagonism, which often involved 146

C O M M E N TA RY

stronger action, antagonism and invective (see e.g. 1 Sam 14:47; Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; Mal 1:2–3) than the narratives in Gen–Josh indicate. But here engagement in fighting with Edom is to be avoided. The Edomites could only be asked to allow the Israelites past their land, and with promises of minimal trouble and disruption at that. Their land is not being visualised as being part of the land where ancient Israel is to settle (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). Upon refusal, the Israelites must voluntarily turn away, so as to not cause trouble to their brothers. In the New Testament, Esau is mentioned as one not chosen in Rom 9:10–13 when speaking about God’s election (cf. Pitkänen 2010b:81–83 for some further comments around the passage). In the letter to the Hebrews, Esau is seen as profane (bebēlos) since he sold his birthright (Heb 12:16–17; cf. Gen 25:29–34), in addition to a passing comment on Esau as Isaac’s son who was (as such) blessed together with Jacob (Heb 11:20). Kadesh to Hor, death of Aaron (20:22–29) CONTEXT

The community is next described as departing from Kadesh and as arriving at Mount Hor (cf. Num 33:37). This is where Aaron dies and the office of the high priest is transferred to his son Eleazar. His death is part of the punishment of the first generation announced in Num 13–14 and helps shift the narrative towards Moab, which pertains to the second generation. The narrative has classically been assigned to P, which is natural as it explicitly attests priestly features. COMMENT

22–23a. The community is described as departing from Kadesh and as subsequently arriving at Mount Hor (cf. Num 33:37). Note, however, that Dt 10:6 lists the location of Aaron’s death as Moserah, in discrepancy with Numbers. The information in Deuteronomy simply appears to be a variant of the tradition that the author of Deuteronomy has included, without harmonising it with Numbers, which is even referred back to in Dt 32:50 (which, however, seems to have been composed by A1; see comments on 27:12–28, “Context”; cf. Introduction and Table 1.1). But one should also note that the travel itinerary snippet in Dt 10:6–7 is a variant of Num 33:31–33 (cf. Lundbom 2013:384–385). I propose that the author of Deuteronomy has taken that variant itinerary snippet in and associated the death of Aaron with it, and this is very broadly consistent with the tradition in Numbers. It may be that the idea is that Aaron died broadly around those places, during the Israelite travels. It would nevertheless appear that the Numbers tradition about the death of Aaron was considered as the more authoritative one as it was essentially repeated in Deuteronomy 32:50. The location of Mount Hor is described as being at the border of Edom (cf. 21:4),53 but the exact location is unclear (see Milgrom 1990:169; cf. also MacDonald 2000:69–70, 99). 147

C O M M E N TA RY

23b–24. Yahweh next speaks to Moses and Aaron (cf. comments on 18:1–7). The punishment of Aaron due to the incident at Meribah (20:3–13) is now to be carried out. He will, however, be with his people in the afterlife, apparently in Sheol (cf. Milgrom 1990:169–170; also cf. comments on 16:23–34).54 25–28. Yahweh tells Moses (that he is speaking mainly to Moses here is implied even if not explicitly stated) to take Aaron and Eleazar his son to the mountain. There he is to take off Aaron’s garments, which undoubtedly included insignia of high priesthood (cf. Ex 28; 39:1–31), and put them on Eleazar. Such action is of course symbolic to indicate that the office of Aaron has now been transferred to his son. The ascent to the mountain is done in the sight of all Israel, then Aaron’s clothes are removed and put on Eleazar, and Aaron dies. He is presumably also buried there, even if the text here does not state that explicitly (but cf. Dt 10:6). Moses and Eleazar then return, descending from the mountain. 29. After hearing that Aaron has died, the Israelites mourn him for thirty days, just as they are to mourn Moses later on at the plains of Moab for the same length of time (Dt 34:8). The ordinary mourning period may have been seven days in Israel (Gen 50:1; 1 Sam 31:13), even if the Egyptians mourned Jacob for seventy days (Gen 50:3; cf. Milgrom 1990:171). MEANING

The office of the high priest is transferred to the next generation in this passage. Aaron’s death at this time is due to the incident at Meribah that was described in vv. 2–13. His punishment is fairly immediate, at least from the perspective of the narrative, in contrast to that of Moses, which is delayed to a slightly later time. Again, with Aaron, it is somewhat surprising that the punishment comes as a result of the events in Num 20:2–13 (cf. comments on that passage, “Meaning”) rather than the incident of the golden calf (Ex 32–34) or the complaint against Moses’s leadership made together with Miriam, even if the latter could more easily be considered as not being directly against Yahweh. That said, the punishment is perhaps also more understandable in light of Aaron’s earlier failings. In that sense, too – that is as he has more characteristics of an antihero than Moses – his parting arouses less emotional response than that of Moses. While it is Moses who is described as taking the action that decides their fate (v. 10), with Aaron merely present, the narratives nevertheless consider that he and Moses are both responsible, apparently assuming that Aaron could as such have affected Moses’s decisions and actions at Meribah. Aaron’s death and the events at Meribah Kadesh are referred to when Yahweh instructs Moses to climb Mount Nebo and view the promised land and then die (Dt 32:50–51). Aaron is in a number of places (see 1 Sam 12:6, 8; Ps 77:20; 105:26; Micah 6:4) listed as one of the Israelite leaders in the time of the exodus. He is in general otherwise clearly seen as the forefather of the Israelite priests in traditions outside the Pentateuch, with some very positive connotations (see esp. Chronicles and Psalms). Aaron is also referred to in the New Testament 148

C O M M E N TA RY

(Lk 1:5; Acts 7:40; Heb 5:4; 7:11; 9:4). The first reference in Luke gives him as an ancestor of John the Baptist. The second reference is to his sin with the golden calf in the speech of Stephen. The first reference in the letter to the Hebrews likens Jesus’s calling to that of Aaron as being from God and being a high priest. In Jesus’s case this is of course as a high priest of the New Covenant, and a better one according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10). In addition, the implication seems to be that Jesus was a son of God, whereas Aaron was only an “ordinary” man (Heb 5:5). Heb 7 then argues that the order of Melchizedek is better than the order of Aaron, with Aaron mentioned explicitly in Heb 7:11. Finally, Aaron’s staff is mentioned in Heb 9:4 (cf. comments on Chapters 16–17, “Meaning”). King of Arad (21:1–3) CONTEXT

This short passage describes how the Israelites defeat the king of Arad, who comes out to meet them. They completely destroy him and his towns. The place is accordingly called Hormah. It seems that the section does not quite belong here from a chronological perspective as it recounts events that do not seem to be topographically part of the Israelite march from Kadesh to Moab. However, I would think that it could be associated with the beginning stages of that march. If so, the events could be located close to Kadesh, with the king hearing that the Israelites are in the area. Alternatively, this could also perhaps pertain to the time of the wanderings around the area before setting out towards Moab from Kadesh, perhaps towards the end of it (cf. Dt 2:1). The placement of the section would then appear to be based on thematic considerations. With the shift to the new generation, the Israelite settler colonial conquest is being initiated (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). At least from the perspective of place names, where the first generation was beaten at Hormah (Num 14:45), the second generation emerges victorious in the same place, or in a place with the same name (cf. comments on 21:2–3 ahead). COMMENT

1. Tel Arad, with which the place is usually associated, has occupation from the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze periods, but nothing thereafter up to and including the Late Bronze Age, and then again from twelfth–eleventh centuries on at the earliest (NEAEHL, pp. 76, 82–83; Finkelstein 1988:39). As the towns of the king of Arad are mentioned (v. 2), it may well be that one should understand the reference to be to a larger area (similarly Kitchen 2003:192–193), perhaps also from the vantage point of the writer of the passage when the mound of Arad was already newly occupied (cf. Roskop 2011:263–264). Otherwise, there is some evidence of occupation in the area already in the thirteenth century (see Pitkänen 149

C O M M E N TA RY

2010b:245–246, together with further nuancing and possibilities). The location of Atharim is not known (cf. Milgrom 1990:172). 2–3. The Israelites make a vow to Yahweh. If they win, they will devote the towns of the people of the king of Arad to destruction (ḥrm; cf. comments on 18:14). Yahweh is described as answering the plea and the Israelites defeat the king of Arad and his people, who here are classified under the broader rubric of Canaanites, and accordingly devote them to destruction.55 Based on that, the name of the place is Hormah. Its identification (cf. Num 14:45; Dt 1:44; Josh 12:14) is unclear (see ABD III, pp. 288–289, and Pitkänen 2010b:242). Clearly there is a connection with Hormah and Arad in this passage (cf. ABD III, p. 289; and cf. also Judges 1:17, as noted in Junkkaala 2006:246), but the two are equally clearly distinct in Josh 12:14. This said, as the name of the place in Num 21:3 is Hormah based on the battle(s) Israel wages, it does not necessarily need to be associated with a town (cf. also Num 14:45). MEANING

With the description of the victory over the king of Arad, the Israelite settler colonial conquest can be considered to have begun, as a reversal to the events of Num 13–14. It is followed by the defeat of Sihon and Og later in the chapter, and finally the conquest of the land west of the Jordan in the book of Joshua. The ancient authors believed that the land was theirs by divine degree, and the destruction of the Canaanites followed from that idea (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). This, however, is an ethical problem for modern readers, perhaps the most difficult one that the Old Testament texts pose for those who would like to apply its teaching for contemporary communities (cf. comments on 33:50–56 and Pitkänen 2010b:74–100; Pitkänen 2014b). The bronze serpent (21:4–9) CONTEXT

This narrative is explicitly localised to the time when the Israelites go past the region of Edom. However, in terms of its contents, it bears more resemblance to the murmuring traditions that are associated with the first generation and the time before the Israelites leave Kadesh (Numbers 11–20). Hence one may ask why this narrative has been placed here. It does not seem possible to give an easy answer to that; however, perhaps the more optimistic outlook of the account on the possibility of being healed after a punishment from Yahweh made it easier to associate it with the second generation and their journeys. In that, the people are actually described as repenting (even though similarly Aaron in 12:11–12). In addition, that the lack of bread and water is a cause of complaint would seem to allow an association with the events in 20:1–13. Otherwise, it would be difficult to place the narrative before Sinai as the people 150

C O M M E N TA RY

are not yet punished there. Interestingly, a copper snake was found at Timna in the Negev (see ahead) from 1200–900 BCE, and Milgrom (1990:175) suggests that the location of the story fits well with the location of Timna; this may offer a very good explanation for why the story was placed in its current location within the broader narrative. The literary structure of the passage can be described as follows: vv. 4–5 people complain of lack of water on their journey, v. 6 punishment from Yahweh, v. 7a acknowledgement of sin by the people and supplication to Moses to act as an intermediary, v. 7b Moses’s prayer, vv. 8–9 remedy from Yahweh. The passage was traditionally assigned to E (cf. Gray 1903:274). COMMENT

4–9. The people are described as growing impatient while on their route around Edom (cf. 20:14–21), which takes them towards the Red Sea.56 They murmur in a manner that is particularly associated with the first generation (Ex 17:1–7; Num 20:3–5; cf. Num 11:6). Poisonous snakes are then sent by Yahweh to bite them, with many of the Israelites dying. This predicament broadly has its basis in desert conditions in that snakes would live in the wilderness. And snakebites have of course been an issue for people in most if not all places throughout the world. That there were (Egyptian) copper mines at Timna in the Negev in the Late Bronze Age (see Rothenberg 1972; cf. comments on 2:1–31) and that the Egyptians could use snake amulets (see Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000:158) can be compared with the use of copper for the snake here. Once the people repent, for which Yahweh gives an opportunity at least for some of them, and Moses has prayed to Yahweh, Yahweh suggests a remedy. A bronze snake is made and put on a pole, and anyone bitten by a snake could then look at it and live. An actual bronze snake was found in excavations at Timna, dating to the early twelfth century BCE (see Rothenberg 1972; ABD VI:555–556). MEANING

This passage is ultimately linked with the fact that ancient people, just as is the case with more modern ones, could be bitten by snakes. As a remedy to the snakebites, Moses makes a bronze serpent. This can be considered to attest beliefs according to which images of objects related to a problem can also help provide a remedy to them (see also 1 Sam 6:4–5; Milgrom 1990:459). Here the making of the object of course is described as having taken place at Yahweh’s behest. The bronze snake is described as still existing in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ki 18:4). However, according to the narrative, Hezekiah destroyed it because people had burnt incense to it, apparently signifying that they were worshipping the snake rather than Yahweh. In the New Testament, the bronze snake incident is referred to as prefiguring the lifting up of Jesus for salvation (John 3:14–15), with apparently a clear reference to Jesus on the cross (cf. Stubbs 2009:170–172). 151

C O M M E N TA RY

Northwards past Wadi Arnon, arrival at Moab (21:10–20) CONTEXT

This passage describes the journey of the Israelites to Moab. Included are a couple of songs that seem to be based on separate poetic sources. The campsites in vv. 10–11 overlap with Num 33:44, otherwise the details are different, even if the general thrust (i.e. towards Moab) is the same. As Numbers 33 is essentially P (see comments on the passage), it should come as no major surprise that vv. 10–11 have been considered to belong to that source also. Otherwise the passage has classically been assigned to J. Its literary structure can be expressed as follows: vv. 10–13 via Oboth to Arnon, v. 14 Song of Arnon, v. 16 to Beer (well), vv. 17–18a the Song of the Well, vv. 18b–20 via Mattanah to a valley in Moab.

COMMENT

10–13. The next named station after Mount Hor, and a detour towards the Red Sea (cf. v. 4 and comments on it), where the bronze snake incident takes place, is Oboth (v. 10). The location of Oboth, and also that of Iye Abarim, which is probably to be connected with the Abarim mountain range (cf. 27:12; 33:45), is not clear, but they may perhaps be sought around the south-east plain of the Dead Sea (see MacDonald 2000:71–73). Wadi Zered is identified with the Wadi el-Hesa on the eastern side at around the southern end of the Dead Sea (e.g. Milgrom 1990:176; MacDonald 2000:73–74). Arnon is again on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, about midway between the northern and southern ends (Wadi al-Mujib; see MacDonald 2000:74). According to the text, Sihon had earlier taken lands north of Arnon away from the Moabites (v. 26). 14–15. An ancient poem follows. It seems to extol the area. What Ar refers to is not entirely clear, but perhaps it can refer both to a town and an area in a wider sense (cf. Dt 2:9; Isa 15:1; cf. MacDonald 2000:75–76). Overall, the interpretation of the poem is somewhat difficult (cf. e.g. Milgrom 1990:176–177). It is quoted as coming from the Book of the Wars of the Lord, a source that has not been otherwise preserved (cf. the book of Jashar in Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18). 16–18a. The next place is Beer, which means “well”. Accordingly, the location is difficult to gauge (cf. MacDonald 2000:76). Yahweh is said to have provided people water there. A poem extolling the digging of a well follows, linked to this occasion by the narrative. 18b–20. The location of Mattanah (“gift”) and Nahaniel is not clear, even if MacDonald suggests Wadi Zarqa Ma’in for Nahaniel (see MacDonald 2000:77). Bamoth means “heights” and is often used in compound names to describe the Moabite territory (see Milgrom 1990:178). Finally for this episode, they arrive at Moab, in a valley that overlooks the Pisgah. While Pisgah appears to be a single mountain, it could also refer to a mountain range. Where exactly it is located is not entirely clear, especially in the former case, but Moses dies there (Dt 3:27; 34:1) 152

C O M M E N TA RY

and Balak takes Balaam on top of Pisgah (Num 23:14). The location here may be slightly different from that in 22:1 even if both places are in Moab (see comments on 22:1 for further details). MacDonald suggests Ras al-Siyagha as the location of Pisgah (se MacDonald 2000:78). MEANING

The journey of the Israelites progresses. Now they are approaching Moab from the south on the eastern side of the Dead Sea and finally arrive at Moab (v. 20), an important location in the history of the nation. This is where Moses gives his final valedictory address and where the Israelites undoubtedly prepare for the conquest of Canaan (cf. comments on 20:2–13, “Meaning”). Perhaps the two songs in the passage give an epic feel to the transition, at the very least in an implied sense from praising the geography of the stretch of the journey that the people undertake; at least this could be an impression that a reader might get. In vv. 14–15 the geography is described and is stated to have been recorded in a separate book also, and in vv. 16–18 there is water. All seems well. Defeat of Sihon and Og (21:21–35) CONTEXT

The descriptions of the victorious battles against Sihon and Og, two Amorite kings (cf. Dt 4:47; Josh 24:12), bring the Israelites closer to the promised land (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). Here they in fact already conquer part of it, even if the status of that land in the East as part of the promised land remains somewhat unclear (cf. Num 32; Josh 22:9–34, esp. v. 19). The importance of these events is highlighted in the fact that they are recounted in Dt 2:24–3:11 and referred to again in Josh 13:15–32, which are part of the tribal allotments of the Israelites (and the victory over Sihon is yet recounted in Jdg 11:19–22). The literary structure of the materials can be described as follows: vv. 21–22 the Israelites send messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites to request safe passage, v. 23. Sihon refuses and comes out to fight Israel, vv. 24–25 the Israelites defeat Sihon and take his land, vv. 26–30 Heshbon and a poem about it, v. 31 recounting Israel’s conquest and land acquired thereupon, v. 32 conquests around Jazer, v. 33 the Israelites meet Og king of Bashan, who also fights against them, vv. 34–35 the Israelites defeat Og and take his land. The material seems to attest complexity in terms of its sources (cf. Gray 1903:294–307; Levine 2000:110), but is generally assignable to J or E. Whatever the case, the song of Heshbon seems to have its own separate provenance. COMMENT

21–23. The Israelites approach the Amorites essentially just as they had approached the Edomites (20:17; see comments on 20:14–17 on King’s Highway). 153

C O M M E N TA RY

However, Sihon refuses, just as the Edomites did (20:18–20). But, besides bringing (all) his troops to meet the Israelites, he also engages them in battle at Jahaz (cf. Dt 2:32; Jdg 11:20). The location of Jahaz is uncertain (see MacDonald 2000:103–106). 23–24. The Israelites defeat Sihon. They take his land from Arnon to the Jabbok – that is from midway of the Dead Sea to about midway of the Jordan between the Sea of Kinneret and the northern end of the Dead Sea. The fortified border of the Ammonites remains the border in the east. Deuteronomy 2:19 states that the Israelites were not entitled to the land of the Ammonites. This was because the Ammonites were seen as relatives of the Israelites, even if their origins, together with those of the Moabites, were seen as perverse, marred by incest (Gen 19:30–38). 25–32. The Israelites take all the towns of Sihon’s Amorites. This includes Heshbon, an important town that had previously belonged to the Moabites (cf. 21:13). The location of Heshbon is not certain, even though most scholars identify it with Tell Hesban, which has been excavated (MacDonald 2000:91–93). Late Bronze Age sherds, and remains of what is likely to have been a small unfortified village at the site in Early Iron Age, have been found (MacDonald 2000:92; NEAEHL:626–630). Hess (1996:225) notes the possibility of shifting place names and that two sites close by (Tell Jalul, Tell el-Umeiri [West]) were of “significant size with occupational evidence for the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age I”. Basically the location of Heshbon is some distance east from the northern tip of the Dead Sea. The ensuing poem highlights the importance of the town. It poetically recounts the earlier conquest of the town by Sihon from the Moabites and how the Israelites now have overthrown Sihon. That makes for two changes of ownership for the place (cf. Petter 2014 on the propensity of the area for shifting territorial patterns). Presumably v. 27 refers to rebuilding after the destruction caused by the Israelites (v. 30). A summary statement that the Israelites settled in Sihon’s land is then made (v. 31). In addition, the Israelites are described as apparently having captured Jazer and its surrounding settlements and driven their inhabitants out (v. 32). The location of Jazer is uncertain (see the discussion in MacDonald 2000:106–108), but Josh 21:39 (cf. Josh 13:25–27) suggests relatively close proximity to Heshbon. It would appear that the whole process of conquering the land of Sihon king of the Amorites and driving the inhabitants out would have taken more than just a short amount of time. 33–35. Bashan seems to refer to the territory located north of the Jabbok, up to (and including) Mount Sirion (Hermon). The Israelites are thus here described to have penetrated further north, apparently some time after having arrived at Moab. How much after the arrival at Moab is not specified and must be left open. The narrative could easily be telescoping events that took place over a longer period of time. In effect, the Israelites treat Og king of Bashan in the same way they have just treated Sihon king of the Amorites and take his land (cf. Dt 3:6). 154

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

The Israelite conquest and settlement begins in full swing in these two episodes. The Israelites conquer Sihon the king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan. The Amorites are explicitly under herem (ḥrm) that calls for their total destruction (cf. Dt 7:1 and Dt 7 as a whole). In the context of the territory of the promised land (cf. comments on 34:1–12), this gives a legitimation for conquering them and taking their land. In the Israelite thinking, the Canaanites in general have already been cursed since the time of Noah (Gen 9:24–25; cf. Gen 10:15–18). At the same time, the hostile reception by these kings gives further legitimation for destroying them (cf. Dt 2:30, and more widely Josh 11:20; and cf. also Ex 10:1–2; cf. Otto 2012a). In contrast, the Edomites, who were seen as brothers of the Israelites, were to be left unharmed (see 20:14–21). The ancient Israelite settler colonialism (cf. comments in the introduction) is thus well under way, here pertaining to the lands east of the Jordan, and soon to be extended to the promised land “proper” on the western side of the river. On contemporary ethical issues relating to the conquest, see comments on 33:50–56.

At Moab (22:1–36:13) CONTEXT

The second generation has arrived at Moab (21:20; 22:1). From a narrative perspective, the conquest of the eastern part of the land was already achieved by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Eastern Manasseh just after they had arrived at Moab (21:21–35). This, however, did not settle all of the related issues. The land east of the Jordan is seen as somewhat separate from land on the western side, the “main” promised land in the ancient Israelite settler colonial imagination (Num 32; cf. Josh 22; and cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). A compromise is reached where the eastern tribes are allowed to settle if they assist their brothers with the conquest of the western part. This is achieved in Joshua, but before that, there are issues to deal with in preparation for the conquest. A census is taken of the second generation (Num 26). Except for reconfirming the territorial extent and appointing people to allot it (Num 34), certain important institutions in the land, such as female inheritance (Num 27, 36), Levitical towns (Num 35:1–5) and towns of refuge (Num 35:6–34), are stipulated here. Also, Moses gives his famous sermon and a set of legislation for the land as described in Deuteronomy. And there are already a few problems to deal with in relation to the peoples on the eastern side of the Jordan, such as the Moabites and the Midianites (Num 25, 31). In relation to that, importantly, potential opposition against the Israelites in relation to the unseen realm is thwarted. In line with a strong focus on curses and blessings by ancient Near Eastern peoples, curses intended against the Israelites by the peoples in the land, here specifically the Moabites, are turned into a blessing by the action of Yahweh himself (Num 22–24), indicating that Israel’s destiny is squarely in the hands of Yahweh. 155

C O M M E N TA RY

From a literary perspective, the last chapters of this section of the book of Numbers (and of course of the book of Numbers as a whole) have a strong connection with the book of Joshua. The incident relating to the Transjordanian tribes in Num 32 is clearly mirrored in Joshua 22 in particular. The boundaries of Canaan in Num 34 are reflected in the allotment of land in Joshua 13–19, with Joshua and Eleazar and (apparently also) the tribal leaders in 34:16–29 referred back to in Josh 14:1 and 19:51. The Levitical towns and the towns of refuge stipulated in Num 35 find their fulfilment in Joshua 20–21. The daughters of Zelophehad presented in Num 27 and 36 receive their inheritance in Josh 17:1–6. These last chapters of the book of Numbers can thus broadly be considered to act as a bookend that is picked up on for the description of the tribal allotments in the book of Joshua that occupy the third major part of the book (13–22, with first part 1–5 and second 6–12), before the closing events described in Josh 23–24.57 The commentary on each of the chapters will make further comments on these connections. But, overall, it would seem natural to think that the accounts in Numbers 27, 32, 34–36 served as a basis from which Josh 13–22 were composed by AD. If so, it would be natural to expect that this part of the book of Joshua also attests priestly features, even if the overall thrust of Josh 13–22 is Deuteronomic (see e.g. Pitkänen 2010b). Balaam (22–24) CONTEXT

The Israelites have now firmly arrived at Moab and are described to also already at least have defeated the Amorite king Sihon in battle (cf. comments on 21:21– 35). The Moabites, in whose land they have camped, together with the Midianites, are worried about these developments, even if the Israelites have not indicated that they are planning to take their land, and even if we otherwise know that the wife of Moses, the leader of Israel, is from Midianite stock. The remedy planned by the Moabites and Midianites is to use the power of the unseen. They set out to hire a famous diviner, Balaam, so that he can curse the people who have just newly arrived at the scene. This plays on the powerful beliefs of the ancients that blessings and curses have real power in human life, or at least that one can appeal to such blessings and curses. The blessings and curses are usually if not always connected with the gods themselves, who are beyond the human realm (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, passim). In the book of Genesis, even if Jacob obtained his father’s blessing by trickery, the blessings conferred on him still stood (Gen 27:1–40). Both the Sinai and Moab covenants include blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Lev 26; Dt 28). So, again, what the elders of Moab and Midian are planning is a serious matter. However, Yahweh is on the side of the Israelites. He directly intervenes and makes Balaam bless Israel instead of cursing it. Now the tables have been turned on the perpetrators, and Israel’s future looks even more glorious than before, with Balaam foretelling sweet things (Chapters 23–24). God’s promises to Abraham cannot be annulled 156

C O M M E N TA RY

through divination, even if the diviner is an international superstar (cf. Achenbach 2003:413). Ancient Israel’s settler colonial invasion is unstoppable (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). On the whole, while divination (cf. the use of word qesem in 22:7; and cf. more widely Maul 2013) is mostly forbidden in Yahwism (see esp. Dt 18:9–14), the prohibition is not absolute. In particular, the use of lots was permitted and was consistently exercised. It could be used for the distribution of the land of Canaan (see Num 34:13; Josh 14:2 etc.), to find culprits (Josh 7:14–18 and 1 Samuel 14), for the choice of scapegoats (Leviticus 16:9–10) and campaign orders (Judges 20:9) and for allocation of duties (1 Chronicles 24–26; and cf. Prov 16:33; 18:18). One may here make comparison with Mesopotamian liver divination,58 but the Israelite lot is (apparently) not used for example for determining the future, but only to give a decision between differing alternatives. Another means of divination in Israel seems to have been the breastpiece and the Urim and Thummim (lit. lights and perfections; Exodus 28: 15–30, esp. 30; cf. comments on 27:18–21). It is not clear what these mean (see Van Dam 1997), but they may have been somewhat comparable to liver divination in Mesopotamia in that their usage allowed for a variety of answers, even if there is no evidence of for example an elaborate library of possible answers, like in Mesopotamia.59 It would seem that the Urim and Thummim and lots were the only acceptable means of divination in a canonical Yahwistic context. Strictly speaking, from a narrative perspective, here the Deuteronomic injunctions about divination had not yet been given, and this would leave the status of divination in the passage perhaps slightly more open than if that legislation should already be understood to have been in effect (but cf. comments on 23:13–26 ahead). Note also that in the Deuteronomic legislation, the role of prophets is emphasised, even if the prophet must speak according to the will of Yahweh, and the written law is undoubtedly also in mind there (Dt 18:14–22; cf. Dt 13:1–5 and Taylor 2006). Sorcery (naḥaš; e.g. 23:23; also in Dt 18:10) seems closely related to divination; perhaps one can think that using magic as part of the proceedings would attract a classification of sorcery, but ultimately any exact classification is guesswork. Dreams were also apparently allowed in ancient Israel to reveal the will of Yahweh (e.g. 1 Sam 28:6), but these could (at least apparently) not be induced; hence they are not to be considered as divination (or sorcery) per se.60 Balaam himself was a well-known figure in the area. Plaster inscriptions found from Deir Alla, Jordan, in 1967 (see MacDonald 2000:148–149 for details of the site) from about 800 BCE reveal a non-Israelite account about Balaam.61 The text is fragmentary and not entirely easy to understand, but it speaks of divine visions, mentioning Shadday gods (cf. Num 24:4; otherwise Gen 17:1 etc.), El, Shagar and Ishtar. It thus seems that Balaam son of Beor was a well-known figure by about 800 BCE. How far back the tradition about him goes is not known, but, generally, it is well known that traditions could be transmitted over long periods in the ancient Near East, and thus one might for example be able to think that tradition about Balaam was already in existence much earlier than 800 BCE, from which 157

C O M M E N TA RY

time a relevant inscription has been found. The biblical texts and the Deir Alla inscription can then be considered to reflect two differing traditions about him, one Yahwistic and the other non-Yahwistic. Whether he was a real person and whether the Israelite version is based on real events or is a fictional one throughout cannot be determined with any certainty. The account has traditionally been assigned to the E source (or to JE; see Gray 1903:307–309), even if many have thought that it was an independent account that was inserted into Numbers (Milgrom 1990:467). Num 22:1 is not directly part of the story and has been assigned to P. The literary structure of the narrative, which on the whole integrates its poetic oracles well and attests good coherence and progression (cf. Milgrom 1990:467–468), can be described as follows: 22:2–4 fear of Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab, and the Moabites and Midianites as a whole, 22:5–7 the Moabites and Midianites seek to hire Balaam, 22:8–11 Balaam’s first consultation with God of whether he should go, 22:12 God’s admonition to not go, 22:13–15 renewed request by the elders of Moab and Midian, 22:18–19 Balaam’s second consultation with God of whether he should go, 22:20 Balaam may now go, but only on God’s terms, 22:21–30 Balaam’s attitude is softened up by his donkey, 22:31–35 Balaam’s dialogue with God’s angel, 22:36–41 Balaam arrives at Moab and is taken up to a mountain, 23:1–12 Balaam is built seven altars, makes an offering and utters a blessing on Israel at Yahweh’s command, 23:13–26 Balaam is taken to another mountain on top of Pisgah, is built seven altars, makes an offering and blesses Israel the second time, 23:27–24:9 Balaam is taken to yet another mountain, on top of Peor, he is built seven altars, makes an offering and blesses Israel the third time, this time based on prophecy through the spirit of God (i.e. Yahweh) rather than sorcery (naḥaš), 24:10–11 Balak is angry at Balaam because of what has happened, 24:12–19 Balaam’s fourth oracle concerning Israel, 24:20–24 Balaam’s fifth and sixth oracle, foreseeing the destruction of Amalek, the Kenites, Asshur, Eber and the Kittim. COMMENT

22:1. The Israelites arrive at Moab opposite Jericho. This is probably a slightly different place from 21:20, but if the same, the arrival is simply recounted here for literary purposes. As for the chronology of 22–24 in relation to 21:21–35, the latter passage is likely to telescope Israelite conquests in the area; therefore the events in Chapters 22–24 should be understood to take place broadly around the same time. It would seem that the place is the same as in 25:1 or located very close to it as the Israelites are described as having crossed the Jordan from Shittim (see Josh 3:1; cf. Josh 2:1; also cf. Num 33:48–49; cf. ABD 5:1222 for further possible localisation). 22:2–4. Balak son of Zippor, the king of Moab at the time (v. 4), gets worried when he realises that a large group of people has arrived and camped at his doorstep. The Moabites in general are also filled with dread. This worry is further conveyed to the Midianites, using a metaphor of an ox chewing (lit. licking; lḥk) through a field. The Midianites are nearby, roughly south-east of Moab, even if it 158

C O M M E N TA RY

does not seem clear exactly where they should be located on the whole (cf. comments on 10:29–32; also cf. Gen 36:35). 22:5–7. The Moabites and Midianites seek to hire Balaam, with Balak as their main instigator and spokesman, however physically sending out elders of Moab and Midian in his stead. They bring Balaam money, just as people in certain parts of the world still pay fortune tellers and shamans. Pethor may be identified as Pitru, which is on the Sajur river, a tributary of Euphrates, a bit (some 20 km) south of Carchemish (Milgrom 1990:186); in any case “the river” in v. 5 broadly seems to refer to the Euphrates (cf. Ex 23:31; 2 Sam 10:16). It would at the time have been in the Aramean heartland (cf. 23:7 and see Younger 2007, esp. 148). To go there from Moab makes for a considerable journey (cf. Milgrom 1990:186). The elders convey Balak’s message to Balaam. The request is to curse Israel, as this may help Balak in his efforts to defeat them and drive them out of his country (on blessings and curses, see “Context”). 22:8–12. Balaam literally wants to sleep over it. But he also consults God, just as one would expect a good diviner to do. It is unlikely that Balaam was a Yahwist, but the narrative simply indicates that whichever god he wanted to consult, it really was Yahweh who was involved. Balaam essentially repeats Balak’s message to God, who advises him to not go. God expressly forbids Balaam to curse Israel because Israel is in reality blessed. 22:13–16. Balak conveys to the messengers that Yahweh has told him to not go with them. The elders of Moab and Midian return, but Balak sends again a bigger and even more distinguished delegation consisting of princes (śārîm). He also offers more money and VIP treatment. It may be that these are now only from Moab as the Midianites are henceforth not mentioned (cf. 23:6). 22:18–20. Balaam responds that he will not go unless God allows him to do so. A second nocturnal consultation with God ensues. This time God allows Balaam to go, but with the express caveat that Balaam must act according to what God tells him to do. 22:21–30. A folklorish account about Balaam’s jostling with his donkey on the road ensues. The donkey which Balaam rides is able to see the angel of Yahweh with a drawn sword and goes off-road so as to evade it. Balaam, however, forces it back on track, beating it. Next the angel appears in a narrow place that cannot be bypassed. The donkey tries to evade, squeezing into a wall, with Balaam’s foot in between. Further beating by Balaam ensues. The angel of Yahweh ensures that things become even narrower, with no room to turn about. The donkey accordingly lies down, with Balaam beating it again. The donkey is then able to speak to Balaam and complain about the triple beating. Balaam expresses his anger and feeling of having been humiliated, enough to kill the donkey should he have the means to do so at his immediate disposal. But the donkey speaks to Balaam like a friend and points out that he has always taken care of Balaam appropriately. 22:31–35. Yahweh then enables Balaam to see what has actually been happening – that is he now sees the angel. Balaam accordingly bows low, all the way to being face down, as a sign of great respect (cf. comments on 14:5–10a, which, however, 159

C O M M E N TA RY

refers to slightly differing action). A dialogue with the angel ensues. The angel basically asks the same thing as the donkey, also noting that he has come to the scene in an adversary function (śāṭān) because Balaam’s mission is a problematic one (yāraṭ). Had the donkey not helped Balaam by turning away and lying down, Balaam would be dead by now, and in any case not the donkey! Balaam accepts the message and offers to return home. However, the angel urges Balaam to continue, but speak only what Yahweh (here personified in the angel) instructs him to say. Balaam accordingly carries on with the journey in the company of Balak’s men. 22:36–41. That Balak goes out to meet Balaam as soon as he arrives at the border of the Moabite territory conveys great anxiety and eagerness by Balak. He complains that it took a long time for Balaam to arrive, but Balaam states that he can speak only what God wants him to say. Balaam next goes to Kiriath Huzoth (location not clear; cf. Milgrom 1990:193) with Balak. Balak then sacrifices cattle and sheep, apparently as peace (šelāmîn) offerings (cf. Lev 3), as these enable him to share of them with Balaam and the accompanying princes as part of a meal of fellowship. The next morning Balak takes Balaam up to Bamoth Baal (lit. “heights of Baal”; location not clear, see MacDonald 2000:77–78). Balaam can see part of the Israelites there (cf. 23:13). It clearly seems here that for the curse to be effective, there has to be a visual connection between Balaam and the Israelites, the desired object of cursing (Milgrom 1990:193). 23:1–12. Balaam arranges for the building of seven altars and offers a bull and a ram on each altar. The number seven is well attested in the ancient Near East and in Israel and should in many cases be considered as carrying symbolic meaning (and cf. comments on 11:16–17 on seventy). Balaam then steps aside to seek the counsel of Yahweh. As a result, Yahweh puts a message in Balaam’s mouth and Balaam utters a blessing on Israel, in the sight of Balak and all the princes of Moab (cf. comments on 22:13–16). After recounting the background to his mission, he notes that the Israelites are a unique people, different from other nations. They are also now (or in the future) numerous and their future glorious. Upon hearing this, Balak is understandably shocked and unhappy, but Balaam reiterates that he has merely spoken what his god (in reality Yahweh of course) has put in his mouth. On Aram in v. 7, see comments on 22:5–7. 23:13–26. Balak takes Balaam to another mountain on top of Pisgah at the lookout plateau (śeḏēh ṣōpˉîm; v. 14; cf. Levine 2000:180), where he can again see part of the Israelites. The hope is that the new location will be more auspicious than the first one (cf. v. 27). Again seven altars are built with the same offerings as the first time. The top of Pisgah is also the place where Moses dies (Dt 34:1). As Pisgah may refer to the wider mountain range (cf. comments on 21:18b–20), the places are not necessarily the same, but one may nevertheless compare the view of Bileam with that of Moses based on the similarity in the place names (cf. Achenbach 2003:414–415). The first sees a promised people, the second a promised land (the connection may have been made by A1, perhaps 160

C O M M E N TA RY

based on his sources, if Dt 34:1 stems from him; cf. comments on the composition of Numbers and Genesis–Joshua in the introduction). Again, Balaam steps aside to seek the counsel of Yahweh. As a result, Yahweh meets with Balaam and puts a message in his mouth, with the consequence that Balaam again utters a blessing on Israel, in the sight of Balak and all the princes of Moab (cf. 23:5– 6; also cf. comments on 22:13–16). The oracle first tells Balak that Balaam is speaking a command at Yahweh’s behest and that nothing else can be done. The Israelites are not involved in sorcery (naḥaš) or divination (qesem; cf. comments in the “Context” section). They are doing well and their strength is like that of a lion or a lioness (a formidable animal for people to face at the time and in general before the invention of firearms) because of Yahweh. In fact, like a lion, Israel will devour its enemies. Upon hearing the oracle, Balak is again understandably shocked and unhappy and in effect asks Balaam to simply say nothing. However, Balaam again reiterates that he has merely done what his god (in reality Yahweh of course) has told him to do. 23:27–24:9. Balaam is taken to yet another mountain, this time on top of Peor, with an express hope that the new location will be more auspicious than the first two. As before, seven altars are built with the same offerings as the first and second time. However, this time Balaam is already convinced that Yahweh wants to bless Israel; he no longer resorts to sorcery (naḥaš) – that is apparently he does not seek to use magic to ask for Yahweh’s instructions. Instead, he sets his gaze towards the desert and sees Israel encamped there, and this time apparently all of Israel (“Israel encamped tribe by tribe”) rather than just part of it. The spirit of God (i.e. Yahweh) then comes upon him and he prophesies, blessing Israel the third time. Balaam recognises that he now hears the words of God (ʾelōhîm or ʾēl) and sees visions of the Almighty (šadday, v. 4; cf. “Context”). Lavish praise on Israel follows, with Israel again compared to a lion or lioness (cf. 23:24; cf. comments on 23:13–26) and described as devouring their enemies (cf. 23:24). Agag (v. 7) features in 1 Sam 15 (with apparently bad press still in Esther – e.g. Esth 3:1) as a king of the Amalekites whom Samuel personally kills (1 Sam 15:33). It may also be a dynastic name. The verse, however, reads Gog in the Septuagint (cf. Ezek 38–39). 24:10–13. Balak is by now very angry at Balaam because of what has happened. He orders Balaam to return home immediately with no pay. But Balaam reiterates that he does not care about the money – he has merely and expressly done what Yahweh has wanted him to do. 24:14–19. Balaam then says to Balak that he will go home (as requested or ordered). But before that, more oracles follow. The fourth oracle starts like the third (cf. 24:15–16 with 24:3–4). But this time, except for speaking about the coming prominence and pre-eminence of Israel, it comes with an express sting against other nations. Moab will be manhandled by Israel (v. 17). The reference to Sheth (v. 17) is not clear. Edom (also called Seir in poetic parallelism) will be a possession (yerēšāh) of its enemies (v. 18), whereas Israel will grow strong. A ruler from Jacob will also destroy the survivors of the city; presumably this 161

C O M M E N TA RY

means that Israel will be so strong that it will leave no survivors when crushing its enemies (cf. Dt 7:20). When looking at Israel’s later history, it is a moot point to what extent these oracles came true. 24:20–24. Balaam’s fifth and sixth oracles foresee further destruction of surrounding nations and peoples. The fifth oracle starts with an invective against the Amalekites (cf. 24:7 and comments on 23:27–24:9 and on 10:29–32). Surprisingly, at the start of the sixth oracle, the Kenites are included among nations that are to be destroyed, as they do rather well otherwise in the Pentateuch and in the early history of Israel (cf. comments on 10:29–32). But perhaps that they are part of the Midianites who have allied with Balak may have affected things here (and cf. more widely 25:16–18). If the reference in v. 22 is to Assyria in the neo-Assyrian period, then this part of the oracle may be a later insertion. But the Assyrians were already well established in applying population transfer policies in the middle Assyrian period in the second part of the second millennium, including in Hanigalbat in the upper Euphrates region (see Zadok 2012; cf. Younger 2007). Tiglath Pileser I (1114–1076) did in fact also reach the Mediterranean on his campaign, and news of such exploits and overall policies would probably have been carried on relatively fast and reliably enough throughout the region (cf. also Tenu 2009:181). The neo-Assyrians in any case were in cultural continuity to the middle Assyrians (cf. e.g. Tenu 2009:18 and passim). Nor were the Assyrians the only ones exhibiting population transfers; the Hittites and the Egyptians are known to have exercised them also, already in the second millennium (see e.g. Kitchen 2003:301–302). In other words, the reference to Asshur in v. 22 could be to second-millennium Assyria. But it could also refer to something else that is unknown – for example keeping in mind that the main consonants are the same with the tribe Asher and Assur, with a wav unlikely to have been used in the second millennium BCE (cf. Kitchen and Lawrence 2012). Kittim is associated with Cyprus, with Kition an important centre there. While the Philistines (cf. comments on 7:1–89, “Context” and 13:30 earlier) and the so-called sea peoples drew their migration from the Aegean, it passed through Cyprus and Cilicia (cf. Yasur-Landau 2010, incl. p. 328 on Kition), and the reference to Kittim thus may be a reference to them pars pro toto. Ashur and Eber then should be close to the coastal regions, where the sea peoples settled, particularly in the twelfth century BCE (cf. Yasur-Landau 2010:319–320). However, it is difficult to pinpoint them more closely, unless the area of the tribe of Ashur in the twelfth century is referred to in v. 24, also keeping in mind that this was not necessarily yet under Israelite control at that time, at least not fully (cf. Finkelstein 1988:325; and cf. Jdg 1:31–32; on Eber, cf. e.g. Milgrom 1990:210). While the Philistines were established fairly well in the southern Levantine coast, the foothold of other sea peoples was not always of a permanent nature (cf. e.g. Yasur-Landau 2010; Stern 2013; Pitkänen 2014a). 25. A statement that Balaam and Balaak parted ways and Balaam returned home concludes the account about Balaam’s dealings with Balak, in the course of which Balaam has repeatedly ended up blessing Israel. 162

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

As already indicated (see “Context”), the Balaam narrative has been placed in its current location to demonstrate that ancient Israel, at the time starting to take a foothold in the area (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism), cannot be undone from the unseen realm. This is very significant as belief in the divine was a very pervasive feature and a natural part of ancient Near Eastern societies. We may keep in mind that the Israelite cult itself, in line with other ancient Near Eastern societies, was set up and maintained in order to secure divine presence. In those societies at large, divination and magic were an important part of their efforts to determine the divine will and on the other hand try to influence it, in addition to the temple cults, sacrifices and prayer, with prophets also playing an important role. The Balaam narrative then shows that even a famous and therefore undoubtedly efficacious diviner (even if he was only a literary figure) was but a tool in Yahweh’s hand, and someone who could even be humiliated by his own donkey if there was any doubt about him submitting under Yahweh’s will. Except for that pertaining to Chapters 22–24 and referred to in Dt 23:4–5 and Josh 24:9–10, Genesis–Joshua has further traditions about Balaam. According to Num 31:8 (repeated in Josh 13:22), the Israelites killed Balaam at the time they campaigned against the Midianites (Num 31). In connection with that, Num 31:16 indicates that Balaam was involved in enticing the Israelites to commit the sin at Baal Peor (Num 25). The fourth and fifth oracles of Balaam remind one of later oracles against the nations in the writing prophets (e.g. Isa 13–21; Amos 1:3–2:3 etc.). More widely, already in the Mari archives in the early second millennium BCE prophets delivered political messages to kings (cf. e.g. Nissinen 2003), and the prophecies attributed to Balaam, and Israelite prophecy in general, should be taken as one tributary in a stream of tradition of prophecy in the ancient Near East (with any associated accompaniments), of course interpreted and carried out from a Yahwistic perspective. Balaam is referred to just once in the rest of the Old Testament. In Micah 6:5, in the context of a concise salvation historical summary of the early history of Israel, the Balaam story is referred to in the sense of Balaam not going with Balak’s plan of employing him to curse Israel. However, Judges 11:25 mentions Balak on his own in Jephtah’s speech, stating that he did not “quarrel (rîv) or fight (lḥm)” with Israel. This in fact is consistent with the tradition of Numbers, where the Moabites are not mentioned as engaging in hostilities with Israel; it is just that the king of Moab is described as underhandedly engaging in black magic, as it were, to deal with the incoming Israel. In the New Testament, it is just the letters of 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation that refer to Balaam. In 2 Peter 2:15–16 Balaam is taken as an object lesson of someone who was happy to do bad things for money; however, the author also refers to how the prophet was admonished by his donkey, who miraculously spoke. The letter of Jude (11) also gives negative press to Balaam, again referring to Balaam’s 163

C O M M E N TA RY

willingness to do something dubious for profit. The book of Revelation (2:14) is similarly unfavourable, referring to Balaam’s enticing Israelites into sexual immorality. This undoubtedly draws from Num 31:16, with the added theme of food sacrificed to idols that was an issue in the early church (see 1 Cor 8). The extra connection appears to be based on the author’s reading of Num 25:2, where the people were invited to sacrifice to the local gods, apparently in the tradition of peace (šelāmîm) offerings (cf. Lev 3; 7:11–21, 28–36 for the “official” Israelite cult; and cf. Gen 31:54), which could involve common meals, even rejoicing (Dt 12:11–12; on šelāmîm offerings at Ugarit in the late second millennium BCE, see e.g. Pardee 2002:29–35). Patristic commentators present a more mixed picture, with some interesting remarks on Balaam (for details, see Lienhard 2001:243– 249). Early Jewish tradition tends to be negative (see Davies 2015:60). Rebellion (via idolatry) at Baal Peor (25) CONTEXT

The Israelites are now staying in Shittim on the plains of Moab, where they have recently arrived (cf. 22:1 and comments on the verse, and comments on 33:37– 48). They get to be in contact with the local people, find their women attractive and start sexual relationships with them. The relationships with the women also involve idolatry from the Israelite perspective. Yahweh specifies a punishment on the people, with Phinehas executing particularly striking related action that satisfies Yahweh. This leads to a pact of priesthood for Phinehas. The narrative is fairly straightforward. The main difficulties are the potential differences between vv. 4 and 5 in what should be done and what is actually done where the killing of one person seems enough to appease God’s wrath, in contrast to v. 4 appearing to ask for more (cf. Gray 1903:380; Milgrom 1990:476). Another issue is the relationship between the Moabites and the Midianites, as the Moabite women are introduced as culprits in v. 1 but it is the Midianites who are getting the stick in vv. 16–18. As regards the first issue, I would take v. 5 to cover v. 4, even if the impaling of v. 4 is not mentioned in v. 5. I would also take Phinehas’s action as so striking that it was considered as being enough to appease God, together with the plague that was ongoing in parallel (and cf. comments on “Meaning”). Otherwise, if v. 1 is taken in more of a territorial sense and it is kept in mind that the Moabites and the Midianites were in cahoots in the Balaam incident (Chapters 22–24), with the naming of the woman Phinehas killed as a Midianite (v. 15), together with the idea that the Moabites themselves are related to Israel, even if in a perverse manner (cf. comments on 21:23–24; 31, “Context”), then a focus on the Midianites would seem to be within reason. As for the structure of the narrative, it can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–3 sin with the women at Moab, vv. 4–5 a punishment is prescribed, vv. 6–9 Phinehas’s action, vv. 10–13 pact of priesthood with Phinehas, vv. 14–15 the names of the persons slain by Phinehas, vv. 16–18 the Midianites have become an enemy. From 164

C O M M E N TA RY

the perspective of source criticism, vv. 1–5 have traditionally been seen as J, and vv. 6–18 P; the latter assumption is obvious as Phinehas plays a strong role in vv. 6–18. Finally, we should note that the narrative bears a certain resemblance to the golden calf narrative in Ex 32–34. Both narratives involve the Israelites worshipping other gods with accompanying degradation (Num 25:1–2 vs Ex 32:1–8); in both the wrath of God is more or less placated by the slaughtering of the guilty parties, with the mention of a plague (Num 25:4–9; Ex 32:25–28, 35); in both there is a designation of priestly or related prerogatives as a result (Num 25:10– 13; Ex 32:29; cf. Milgrom 1990:211).

COMMENT

1–3. The Israelites at Shittim on the plains of Moab, where they have recently arrived (cf. 22:1 and comments on the verse), get involved with local women. The reference to Moab in this verse seems to be more to its location rather than an (at least exclusive) ethnic designation as the Midianites are most notably involved (vv. 6–16). The people were invited to sacrifice to the local gods, apparently in the tradition of peace (šelāmîm) offerings (cf. Lev 3; 7:11–21, 28–36 for the “official” Israelite cult; and cf. Gen 31:54), which could involve common meals, even rejoicing (Dt 12:11–12).62 Things proceeded comparatively similarly in Ex 32:5–6. I would assume that marriages were not necessarily involved as this in itself was not necessarily forbidden as neither the Moabites nor Midianites were considered as being one of the indigenous peoples of Canaan and were thus not necessarily under herem (ḥrm; cf. Dt 7). Simply, even if the exact details are not clear, sexual liaisons are understood to have taken place (cf. Milgrom 1990:479– 480 for consideration of some of the options). Accordingly, Yahweh is described as being very angry. 4–5. Yahweh commands that the leaders (rošê) of the people be killed and impaled (yqʿ).63 It is not entirely clear whether these were the leaders of the people who sinned, or of the people of Israel as a whole. Whatever the case, Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas and Joshua would appear to have been excluded from those to be punished. Accordingly, Moses orders the killing of the culprits; this would undoubtedly have included the leaders in question. 6–9. However, striking and in a number of ways shocking action by Phinehas suffices to thwart Yahweh’s anger. An Israelite man blatantly takes a Midianite woman into his tent, in the sight of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel, while they are weeping, undoubtedly saddened by what is happening. Phinehas takes a spear in his hand, follows the pair into the tent and drives it through both of them. While the text is silent about the full details, the implication seems to be that this is done while the two are engaged in a sexual act. It is a summary execution in line with v. 4.64 This single act appeases Yahweh’s anger and the plague on the Israelites, which was otherwise not mentioned till now, is stopped (cf. Ex 32:35). The text states that 24,000 people died of it. 165

C O M M E N TA RY

10–13. Yahweh now (cf. Ex 32:29; Dt 10:8–9) bestows a blessing on Phinehas because of what he has done. According to this pact (or covenant [berîṯ]), Phinehas and his descendants will have an eternal priesthood. This does not necessarily need to refer to high priesthood (cf. Milgrom 1990:479), even if this could be the case, and according to Josh 24:33 LXX Phinehas succeeded his father Eleazar as the high priest. For further details on priesthood, see comments on 4:1–49, “Meaning”. 14–15. The names of the couple killed by Phinehas are stated. The Israelite man was from the tribe of Simeon, and was one of their leaders (nāśî  ’). The woman is a daughter of one of the tribal chiefs of the Midianites (cf. Num 31:8). The pairing took place at a high societal level from both of the Israelite and Midianite communities. 16–18. Yahweh now tells Moses to count the Midianites as enemies. Their inviting the Israelites to their sacrifices and having sexual relationships with them, with the name of the daughter of the Midianite prince especially mentioned, are considered as deception and really as treating the Israelites as enemies. One may, however, say that this represents the Israelite Yahwistic view. That is it is not clear from the text that the Midianites themselves would have thought so; on the contrary, the Midinites could as such be imagined as having had no negative intentions in the affair. All in all, then, despite Moses, the leader of the Israelites, being married to a Midianite woman, they have become an enemy, except for the Kenites, who are most closely related to Moses (cf. comments on 10:29–32 and 24:20–24). MEANING

This text essentially describes how the Israelites and Midianites became enemies, with a (retributory) war against them described in Num 31 (on which see comments there). The relationship had essentially been a good one until now, with Moses, the leader of the Israelites, having married a daughter of a Midianite priest (cf. Ex 18:1). However, the events on the plains of Moab changed things; subsequently only the Kenites still maintained something of a good relationship with Israel according to the biblical texts (cf. comments on 10:29–32 and 24:20–24). The Midianites are described as plundering and looting the Israelites in the book of Judges, with Gideon rescuing Israel (Jdg 6–8). It is mostly this deliverance that is referred to in the later Israelite tradition rather than the one at Baal Peor (see Ps 83:9–12; Isa 9:4; 10:26), and Habakkuk 3:7 still refers to them as relevant to ancient Israel. But the Peor incident is referred to in Ps 106:28–31, where the act of Phinehas is also mentioned, and in Hos 9:10. In Genesis–Joshua itself, Dt 4:3–4 refers to the incident of Baal Peor in the context of exhorting the Israelites to follow Yahweh, and Josh 22:17 refers back to what happened there as part of the discussions with the Transjordanians in relation to the Transjordanian altar. It would appear that with this incident, the Israelite traditions of rebellion in the wilderness come to a close. These traditions are mostly attributed to the first 166

C O M M E N TA RY

generation, but here the second generation appears to play a part also, as seemed to be the case in 21:4–9 as well. And yet, in both cases, despite a plague or equivalent being involved, somehow things seem a little more dampened than for the first generation in terms of the punishments, at least in my opinion, even when the second generation and also the later Israelites are still reminded of the Baal Peor incident as an object lesson (cf. just earlier). In general, it certainly could be that the remnants of the first generation are involved; if so, this would help exonerate the second generation further (cf. Milgrom 1990:215), yet one would also expect that younger, more vigorous men would be more likely to be involved, especially in sexual matters (and cf. Dt 4:3–4). It is perhaps best to take things in a broad sense in this respect – that is the wilderness and the first generation still ripple through to 21:4–9 and 25. After that, at least from a literary perspective, by the time of the second census on the plains of Moab that follows immediately after this incident in the book of Numbers, the first generation has all died out, save for expressly Joshua and Caleb (Chapter 26; cf. 26:63–65). Henceforth, matters are very much focused on the arrival of the new generation to the land, especially in Chapters 27, 32, 34–36, which also serve as a basis for AD for Joshua 13–22 (cf. comments on 22:1–36:13, “Context”). In the New Testament, the events at Baal Peor seem to be mentioned in 1 Cor 10:8 as an object lesson in a straightforward manner, even if there is no explicit mention of Baal Peor as such. Rev 2:14 picks up from Num 31:15–16, according to which Balaam enticed Israelites into sexual immorality (cf. comments on 22–24, “Meaning”, and on 31:7–17). Census of the second (conquest) generation (26) CONTEXT

Chapter 26 is an account of a census of the second generation at Moab. It is tied with the census of the first generation at Sinai presented in Numbers 1 (see comments on Num 1). A census of the Levites is also included (26:57–62), corresponding to Num 3 for the first generation. The censuses have certain similarities and differences. In both cases it is Moses and the high priest who oversee the census. Aaron, who acted as the high priest in the first generation, has been replaced by Eleazar in the second generation, in line with 20:22–29. Both censuses list all of the tribes; however, in the first census there is little detail and fuller details about the clans are given only here. On the other hand, fuller details about Levites are given in Num 3 and the information about them here (vv. 57–62) is essentially in a summary form (for some slight differences between Num 3 and Num 26:57–62, see comments on vv. 57–62). The details are based on Gen 46:8–27, where the names given are individuals rather than clans as in Num 26. Similar lists occur also in Ex 6, which incorporates less detail than the Genesis 46 list and in 1 Chr 2, 4–8, which is part of a genealogy in 1 Chr 1–9 that on the whole runs all the way up to the postexilic time (cf. Milgrom 1990:219). Except for minor variation 167

C O M M E N TA RY

(and note that only Levi and his immediate sons Gershon, Kohath and Merari are mentioned in the Genesis list), the main difference in Num 26 is that the details about Ephraim and Manasseh are essentially new in Num 26 in comparison to the Genesis roster.65 The main differences in the numbers of the censuses between Num 1 and 26 are that in Num 26 Simeon has decreased from 59,300 to 22,200, a substantial decrease (there is also a decrease of 8,000 for each of Ephraim and Naphtali). Also, Manasseh has increased its numbers from 32,200 to 52,700. In addition, there are some increases of note in Benjamin, Asher and Issachar (for a full comparative chart, see Milgrom 1990:220). If the numbers in the first census are considered to reflect patterns in the earliest stages of the settlement, the increases and decreases may reflect Simeon’s partial assimilation to Judah (cf. Jdg 1:3; Josh 19:1), assimilation in Manasseh (see comments on Num 27:1–11; 36:1–12) and spread of settlement in Benjamin and in the north (cf. at least broadly the maps in Finkelstein 1988:325, 329). The total numbers in the censuses are essentially the same, communicating to the reader that the total number of the Israelites between the two wilderness generations remained the same. This would of course hold regardless of whether the numbers at least in some way reflect shifting patterns of settlement that have been projected back into the wilderness period. The order of tribes in Num 26 is the same as in Num 1 except that Manasseh precedes Ephraim in Num 26, whereas it was Ephraim before Manasseh in Num 1. The reason for this is not clear (but cf. Milgrom 1990:219; Levine 2000:330), even if Manasseh has increased its numbers in comparison to the first census. The structure of the chapter can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–4a introduction, vv. 4b–51 the results of the census, vv. 52–56 instructions about land allotment, vv. 57–62 the census of the Levites, vv. 63–65 concluding comments. As one might expect, the passage has been assigned to P. COMMENT

1–4a. The census is described as being taken on the plains of Moab after the Baal Peor incident and the resulting plague (Num 25, esp. v. 9). Yahweh commands Moses and Eleazar, in contrast to Moses and Aaron in Num 1, to take the census. As with 1:3, the age limit is twenty years and older. The military connection is explicitly stated in v. 2b, just as it is in Num 1:3b. While no heads of families as in 1:4–18 are explicitly mentioned, v. 3 does imply a similar arrangement. 4b–11. The results of the census follow. Additional detail on Reuben is included in vv. 8–10 so as to link with the genealogy of Dathan and Abiram, who rebelled against Moses. The earth swallowed them and they died together with Korah and his 250 followers, who were consumed by fire (cf. Num 16). The reason for mentioning them is stated: they served as a (warning) sign (nēs; v. 10). Now that Korah, who otherwise is a Levite, has also been mentioned, it is further stated that not everyone in Korah’s line died out, however (v. 11; cf. comments on Num 16). Hezron is also listed for Judah in v. 21 and Hezron and Carmi for Judah in 168

C O M M E N TA RY

1 Chr 4:1, suggesting the possibility of some kind of confusion, or, as Milgrom (1990:221) in essence suggests, Reubenites may perhaps have moved to Judah. 12–27. The tribal lists of Simeon, Gad, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun are mentioned next. Er and Onan are mentioned among the sons of Judah in v. 19, referring back to events in Gen 38:1–10. As already mentioned (see “Context”), Simeon has undergone a substantial loss in numbers. Zerah (v. 13) is also listed for Judah (v. 20); in this case people might have the same name, or this may reflect possible assimilation of Simeonites into Judah (cf. Milgrom 1990:222; and cf. earlier, “Context”). On Hezron (v. 21), see comments on vv. 4b–11. 28–34. The clans of Joseph are listed next (vv. 28–37), with Manasseh coming first in contrast to Num 1. As already mentioned (see “Context”), Manasseh has made a substantial gain in numbers. The list in Gen 46 lists only Joseph’s sons Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 46:20; even if one might be able to expect so for Genesis), and the list for Manasseh here has expanded the list a fair bit. The list may indicate Gilead’s (whose name should be taken as eponymic – i.e. has been created based on the area in question) expansion towards Cisjordan (see e.g. Shechem in v. 31, which is the name of a well-known locality in Cisjordan) from its initial Transjordanian locality (cf. 32:39–42; Josh 17:1–2; Levine 2000:360– 361). The daughters of Zelophehad are an important part of the tradition and are narrated about separately in 27:1–11; 36:1–12; Joshua 17:1–6 (cf. comments on Chapters 27, 36). 35–37. A list for Ephraim follows. These names are additional to the list of Gen 46. Interestingly, there may be conflation or confusion between Benjaminites and Ephraimites across Gen 46, Num 26 and 1 Chr 7 (see Achenbach 2003:456–457). Various reasons can be postulated by way of speculation; in my view one possibility might be that the fact that Beker is mentioned on his own in Gen 46:21 (Benjamin) may be coincidental in regard to Num 26:35 (Ephraim), and 1 Chronicles has then simply had differing tradition or has otherwise somehow gotten things mixed up (see 1 Chr 7:6 on Benjamin). But, as Milgrom (1990:225) notes, as Benjamin and Ephraim were neighbouring tribes, it is also possible that the same family may have lived on both sides of their common border. 38–50. With the enumeration of the tribal lists and totals of Benjamin, Dan, Asher and Naphtali, the list is complete for the “ordinary” non-Levitical tribes. The name Beriah in Asher (v. 44) occurs in 1 Chr 7:21–24 and 1 Chr 8:13 in more southern locations; this may be coincidental (but cf. Milgrom 1990:226, who suggests that migration may have been involved). 51. The list is concluded by the grand total of the number of the Israelites in the second census. The number, 601,730, is very similar to that in 1:46. As discussed earlier (see comments on 1:20–46), the numbers do not need to be taken literally. 52–56. This passage states that land is to be allotted according to the number of names (mispar šēmôṯ; v. 53). But the lot is also to be involved (v. 55). The exact details of the procedure are not clear, but it may be that the location was determined by lot and the size of territory according to the size of the tribe (cf. Milgrom 1990:227). However, the size of territory does not entirely 169

C O M M E N TA RY

follow the totals listed. For example Benjamin has more people than Ephraim but receives a comparatively much smaller area (and cf. comments on 35:6–8 on the allocation of the Levitical towns). Also, Josh 18:1–10 seems to imply that Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh (in addition to the Transjordanian tribes Reuben, Gad and Eastern Manasseh) have already received their share and the lot is used for the remaining seven and a half tribes. It appears that it is not possible to explain things consistently in terms of exactly how the combination of lot and names on the census register worked. It appears that A1 and AD had a slightly differing view of things when one compares the passages in Numbers and Joshua. 57–62. A census list for the Levites follows. It seems reasonable to assume that they were counted separately as with the first generation (see 1:47–53; 3). There is no precedent in Gen 48 for this list, but the genealogy of Amram in vv. 58b–60 is in line with the genealogical list of Ex 6:14–25. A reference to the incident in Lev 10 where Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, died is made in v. 61. The clans in v. 58 are in line with Num 3:18–20; it is just that not everyone in 3:18–20 is mentioned here and the fathers of the clans are not linked with their sons in vv. 57–58. Also, the Korahites are not mentioned in Num 3; however, at least from a literary perspective, their prominence (notoriety) appears assured after the incident of Korah’s rebellion in Num 16 – hence their mention here (and cf. vv. 8–11). The grand total of 23,000 of the Levites in the second census is almost the same as in the first (v. 62; cf. 3:39). 63–65. A few concluding comments follow. Except for bracketing with v. 3, it is said that no one of the first generation was alive anymore when the census was taken on the plains of Moab. In line with Num 13–14, only Caleb and Joshua are said to have been alive at this time. One learns later on in the book of Joshua that Joshua leads the Israelite conquest and that Caleb settles around Hebron (Josh 14:6–15; 15:13–19; 21:12; cf. Jdg 1:9–15, 20; Jdg 3:7–11). Clearly Eleazar has also survived the judgement of Yahweh (cf. Num 13–14); he dies in the land west of the Jordan around the same time as Joshua (Josh 24:29–33). MEANING

The first generation had been counted so that they could march out from Sinai in a war formation, traverse the wilderness and then conquer the land. Things, however, did not go to plan. The first generation refused to conquer the land and had to suffer the punishment of death in the wilderness (Num 13–14). A new generation would grow in their stead and would take the land (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). This generational shift has now been fully effected, with no one else expressed as having been left of the first generation except the two faithful scouts Caleb and Joshua (vv. 64–65). It is time to take a new census that will then also help renew the orientation of the Israelites towards the conquest of the land west of the Jordan by the second generation. The conquest is then at

170

C O M M E N TA RY

least relatively successfully accomplished by that generation under the leadership of Joshua, with the Israelites crossing the Jordan not long after Moses has given his famous farewell sermon and its associated exhortative legislation in Deuteronomy before dying in the land of Moab on the east side of the Jordan. All in all, then, Numbers 26 in many ways epitomises a new start for the Israelites in the context of the narrative of Genesis–Joshua (cf. Stubbs 2009:205–207). The book of Deuteronomy of course utilises the concept of the new generation as against the old one extensively, also conflating the two for its rhetorical purposes (see e.g. Dt 1:19–46; 4:3–4; 5:1–4; cf. Otto 2012a). Land divisions I: daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs I (27:1–11) CONTEXT

This passage describes how the daughters of Zelophehad request that inheritance be given to them. The request is granted, with some additional stipulations in Num 36:1–12. Joshua 17:1–6 then describes how what is agreed in the book of Numbers is actualised. It is possible that the narratives have to do with the spread of Manassite settlement westward (Levine 2000:360–361). This is because the daughters of Zelophehad descend from Gilead as an Eastern Manassite clan (see Numbers 26:29–33; 27:1; Joshua 17:1–6, where Gilead is the apparently eponymous forefather). If so, the materials would seem to confirm the idea that the Israelite settlement spread westwards from the East, at least in some respects. While Shechem is a male (Num 26:31), the daughters are females. This may reflect their secondary status in the order of the settlement, considering the patriarchal orientation of the ancient Israelite society. It is interesting to note that most of the names of the daughters appear in the Samaria ostraca dated to the early eighth century BCE (see e.g. Kaufmann 1985/1955). The ostraca consist of sixty-six pen-and-ink inscriptions on potsherds, recording delivery of wine and oil to the town of Samaria (see ABD V, pp. 921–925). The occurrence of the names suggests that the tradition has a historical basis. The names of the daughters thus seem to be eponymic – that is they have been created based on the towns or districts in question. This would then also indicate the possibility of assimilation from the local population in those areas, even if the names can also as such simply reflect areas that the Israelites settled into in Cisjordanian Manasseh. As for ideological features of the narratives otherwise, Budd notes that the regulations about the daughters can actually be seen to be about the inheritance of daughters and have a link to the levirate marriage (see Budd 1984:301). Num 27:1–10 (and 36:1–12) is traditionally ascribed to P (or perhaps H). All in all, what seems to be happening is that the issue of inheritance of daughters, which has a long prehistory in Near Eastern legal tradition (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, vol. 2:119 for a list of

171

C O M M E N TA RY

occurrences in the ANE legal codes), has been combined with tribal expansion. The literary structure can be considered as straightforward: vv. 1–4 request by the daughters of Zelophehad, v. 5 Moses brings the request to Yahweh, vv. 6–11 Yahweh’s response. COMMENT

1–4. The daughters of Zelophehad are described as approaching Moses, Eleazar the priest, the Israelite leaders and the whole assembly (v. 2).66 The daughters point out that their father had died in the wilderness with the rest of the first generation, even if not specifically due to the incident of Korah, and had left no sons. 5–11. Moses brings the case to Yahweh, who responds that the request by the daughters of Zelophehad is a reasonable one. Accordingly, the inheritance rights of daughters are established. If a man has only daughters, they inherit. Otherwise, if a man is childless, the inheritance goes to his brothers. If he has no brothers, things will go to his father’s brothers. If his father has no brothers, the nearest relative in the man’s clan will inherit. Notably the wife does not inherit. In case of the death of her husband and if there were no children (sons), she would be expected to marry the husband’s brother (Dt 25:5–10; cf. Gen 36:1–10). If that were not possible, conceivable options would presumably include marrying someone else, living with her children if they were grown up, or returning to her father’s house in case of no children. A comment that this will be a legal requirement to the Israelites according to Yahweh’s command to Moses concludes the section.

MEANING

While the original setting of 27:1–11 seems to be tribal expansion within the context of settling Israel (cf. comments on settler colonialism in the introduction), certainly the issue of inheritance of daughters already had a long prehistory in ancient Near Eastern legal tradition before the Israelites appeared on the scene. It would therefore seem that the material was genuinely also intended to stipulate about female inheritance. No cases that relate to such inheritance survive in the biblical tradition otherwise. However, Ruth 4:3 may be relevant as regards the rights of a widow (cf. Milgrom 1990:483), even if one may also keep in mind that custom and practice were not necessarily tied with legal codes which may have at least included a theoretical aspect to them (cf. comments earlier, Introduction, “Legal Backgrounds and Implementation”). Outside Genesis–Joshua, the daughters of Zelophehad are briefly mentioned in 1 Chr 7:15 but otherwise they play no role in the rest of the Old Testament or in the New Testament. In modern Western societies, inheritance rights are the same regardless of the gender of children (or spouse). 172

C O M M E N TA RY

Joshua to succeed Moses (27:12–23) CONTEXT

This narrative describes how Yahweh commands Moses to go up a mountain in the Abarim range and view the land that he has given to the Israelites. After Moses has seen the land, he will be gathered to his people just as Aaron was (v. 13; Num 20:22–29). The reason is the sin at Meribah Kadesh (v. 14; cf. 20:1–13). But, before that, Moses suggests that a successor should be appointed (vv. 15–17). Yahweh then chooses Joshua son of Nun for the task, and Moses commissions him before Eleazar and the whole assembly (ʿēdāh; vv. 22–23). This passage has traditionally been attributed to P (or H). If one skips through the rest of Numbers and most of Deuteronomy and reads Dt 32:48–52 in succession to Num 27:12–23, the story in effect continues uninterrupted through these two passages.67 Dt 34:1–9 then fits in naturally thereafter. Interestingly, Dt 32:48– 52 has traditionally been attributed to the P source and Dt 34:1–9 has been seen as a mixture of J, P and D (Driver 1901:417–418; cf. Lundbom 2013:942). Overall, it seems to me that the Deuteronomic features are not strong and unambiguous in Dt 34:1–9 and are in any case limited to only vv. 5, 6a (cf. Driver 1901:418, 423). Therefore, A1 could have composed these passages based on the sources available to him and given them to AD to incorporate them into Deuteronomy (with possible slight shaping by AD?). On one hand, A1 needed to bring closure to the story of Moses, and, on the other, AD needed to incorporate Deuteronomy as the speech of Moses in Genesis–Joshua before Moses could be described as having ascended to the top of Pisgah (Dt 34:1) and died. The final chapters of Numbers could then also be included after 27:12–23 as long as they were understood to have taken place shortly before the events described in that passage (together with Dt 32:48–52; 34:1–9). This to me would make excellent sense in terms of how the narrative in the final chapters of Numbers was constructed and the work of A1 and AD joined together. But a further issue needs to be considered here. The passages in Dt 31:14–15 and Dt 31:23 that pertain to the death of Moses and the commissioning of Joshua are also reminiscent of the older narrative sources J and E68 rather than Deuteronomy and therefore one may ask the question of how they came about and were dealt with by A1 and AD. A first observation on this is that Dt 31:23 is similar in language to Dt 31:6–7 and Josh 1:6, 7, 9, 18; 10:25 (“strong and courageous”), and therefore it can actually be considered as part of AD’s language and thus AD’s composition. Considering then that Joshua is firmly part of the narrative of Dt 31 from AD’s perspective (vv. 7–8, 23), this really leaves only the theme of the tent of meeting in vv. 14–15 unaccounted for. However, ultimately the theme of the pillar of cloud cuts across all of the postulated source traditions (see comments on 9:15–23, and cf. also comments on 2:1–31; 7:89); therefore it would not be impossible to consider that AD was picking on it for his composition, keeping in mind that he was working together with A1 and thus aware of A1’s work and 173

C O M M E N TA RY

themes in it.69 Accordingly, I would propose that Dt 31 is the composition of AD and includes a parallel but not contradictory tradition to the commissioning of Moses in Num 27:12–23. Dt 31:14–15 could of course also be a fragment from an older narrative source, but it seems too short to stand on its own.70 In any case, I otherwise suggest that AD has formed much of Josh 13–22 with Numbers 27, 32, 24–36 at hand (see comments on 22:1–36:13, “Context”, and on the individual chapters). On possible reasons why 27:12–23 was placed in its present location in Numbers, see comments on Chapter 31, “Context”. The literary structure of Num 27:12–23 is straightforward: vv. 12–14 Yahweh speaks to Moses to go up to the mountain to see the land and die, vv. 15–17 Moses asks for a new leader, vv. 18–21 Yahweh appoints Joshua as the new leader, vv. 22–23 Joshua is commissioned by Moses in the presence of Eleazar and the assembly of Israel. COMMENT

12–14. Yahweh commands Moses to go up on the mountain in the Abarim range and see the land he has given to the Israelites. This is picked up on in Dt 32:48, and the mountain is stated to be Mount Nebo on top of Pisgah in Dt 34:1. After that, Moses will die (be gathered to his people) just as with Aaron (cf. Num 20:22–29). The reason for the death is explicitly the same for both Moses and Aaron. They both rebelled against Yahweh at Meribah Kadesh (20:1–13). 15–17. Moses does not protest against Yahweh anymore but asks for a new leader to be appointed over Israel (cf. v. 16 with 16:22). He had protested earlier, but Yahweh had turned him down (Dt 3:21–29). The shepherd metaphor is being used in leading the people (cf. 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7, etc.). 18–21. Yahweh then asks Moses to take Joshua son of Nun and lay his hands on Joshua (“hand” is in singular in v. 18 but in plural in v. 23). This is to take place in the presence of Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly of Israel (ʿēdāh; v. 19). The action is symbolic in conferring authority (hôḏ, lit. splendour, honour, majesty; cf. comments in Milgrom 1990:236). Joshua’s authority is further confirmed in the crossing of the Jordan after the death of Moses (see esp. Josh 4:14). The Urim (and Thummim; lit. prob. “lights and perfection”), part of the high priest’s ephod, were a means of asking for guidance from Yahweh (see Exodus 28:6–30; cf. 1 Samuel 23:6–12; 30:7–8). In other words, they were a means of divination in the “canonical” Yahwistic context, in addition to the lot and the potential nondivinatory revelation of Yahweh’s will through dreams and prophets (cf. comments on Num 22–24, “Context”). In the context of seeking the will of Yahweh with the aid of the high priest, Joshua will then be the supreme commander over the Israelites (v. 21b). 22–23. These verses record that what Yahweh had instructed was carried out. The expression in v. 23 strikes one as slightly awkward as it in effect states that Moses instructed Joshua according to what Yahweh said through (the hand of) Moses; however, the meaning is clear and unambiguous. 174

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

This passage describes a generational shift in the supreme leadership of Israel. Moses is about to die because of his sin at Meribah Kadesh. Joshua will take his place, being now raised in rank after starting as Moses’s aide as a young man (Ex 33:11). Joshua had already been experienced in battle in the fight against the Amalekites described in Ex 17:8–16 and served as a scout to survey the promised land (Num 13–14). Because of his faithfulness towards Yahweh in the scouts incident he was spared from the penalty of the first generation dying in the wilderness and is now rising into the status of a general leader over Israel. He is not a prophet as Moses was, however, but mainly a military leader. This said, he does renew the covenant in the promised land and exhorts the Israelites to follow the law of Moses (Josh 23–24; cf. Josh 8:30–35 in fulfilment of Dt 27), and the Israelites are described as having followed Yahweh as long as he was alive (Josh 24:31; Jdg 2:6–7; cf. Jdg 2:8–15). In the New Testament, while Joshua is quoted as having led the Israelites to the promised land (Acts 7:45), this was not seen by the writer of Hebrews as an adequate state of affairs but only as an incomplete harbinger of more perfect things to come (Heb 4:8). This perhaps can help Christian readers to think of the conquest-related matters in the Old Testament, including their associated violent means (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism), as imperfect and as something that has been surpassed from the New Testament times on; however, the question of theodicy nevertheless remains (cf. Rom 9), not to mention the fact that Christians have all too often read the Old Testament as legitimating violent actions, including in Christendom times (cf. e.g. Prior 1997; Murray 2004; Brett 2008; Bosch 2011/1991). Interlude V: regular offerings and vows (28–30) CONTEXT

The material in Chapters 28–30 should be considered as an interlude as it is not directly related to the overall setting of Chapters 22–36. That is nothing in Chapters 28–30 necessitates a connection with Israel at Moab, having traversed the wilderness and currently awaiting to cross over to the promised land as described in the book of Joshua. Certainly, the materials are completely in line with legal materials in Exodus–Numbers as a whole. But they could be displaced to any other location in the corpus; in a sense, they just happen to have been put in this specific place. This relates to A1’s specific strategy in the book of Numbers – that is progression in narrative and legal materials that are more easily tied with that narrative is interrupted by legal material that is often only broadly relevant to the overall setting in Sinai and the ensuing wilderness, or, as is the case here, the plains of Moab. As discussed in the introduction, altogether, one can distinguish five such interludes, this being the fifth and final of them. The interlude divides into two parts. The first (28:1–29:40) stipulates for offerings that are to be made 175

C O M M E N TA RY

on various scheduled occasions – namely every day as a daily offering, on each Sabbath day, each month and during the three major pilgrimage festivals of Passover, feast of weeks and tabernacles. The last of these, tabernacles, takes place in the middle of the seventh month, which is otherwise started off by the feast of trumpets on its first day and the Day of Atonement on the tenth. The material builds on the additional sacrifices enumerated in Num 15. It can also be considered a kind of supplement to Lev 23 (and includes a repeat of Ex 29:38–42). The connection with Num 15 (see 15:1–3) makes it explicitly clear that the material undoubtedly relates to life in the land. In that sense it fits with the setting at Moab, where the people are getting ready to commence with the conquest, and yet, the literary context of Num 15 was the wilderness between Sinai and Moab, and, otherwise, we do know for example that the so-called Holiness Code (present in Lev 17–26) includes many features that directly address the Israelites in the land, even if its express narrative setting is at Sinai (cf. Lev 27:34 etc.). The second part of the interlude (Chapter 30) stipulates vows that a woman may make, divided into cases of a young unmarried woman, a widow or divorcee and a married woman. It broadly links with Leviticus 27 in particular, a chapter that is more or less a supplement to the book of Leviticus (see e.g. Nihan 2007:94, 552–553; 617–618). The connection with Lev 27 also suggests that the passage is connected with settled life in the land, even if that is not required by the passage as such. All in all, the passage can be considered to loosely fit in its current narrative setting. Offerings on various calendar-based occasions (28–29) CONTEXT

This passage builds on Num 15, with Lev 23 (and Ex 29:38–42) in sight also. On one hand, with Lev 23 (and Ex 29:38–42) in the picture, it specifies offerings for specific calendrical times in the year. In that, the passage essentially provides offerings or details that are additional to those already specified in Lev 23 for the occasions listed there and in effect repeats the stipulations for the daily offering in Ex 29:38–42. On the other hand, the additional information is based on specifications in Num 15 – that is the additional grain and drink offerings stipulated there according to each sacrificial animal that may be offered as a burnt offering (ʿōlāh) or fellowship offering (zeḇaḥ [šelāmîm]). Once these two fundamental aspects to the passage here are clear, it can simply be considered a list of offerings. One may also keep in mind that Lev 23 does not specify any offerings that are to be made every day (daily offering), on each Sabbath and on the first of each month (new moon); such offerings are introduced here, with Ex 29:38–42 essentially repeated. One may further note that the offerings presented here are cumulative; thus for example on a Sabbath, an offering prescribed for a Sabbath is made in addition to the daily offering, and so on. This said, it is not prescribed explicitly here if the offerings to be made on a Sabbath are also to be included if any of the days otherwise specified fall on a Sabbath.71 176

C O M M E N TA RY

The passage has traditionally been assigned to P, with some H redaction involved (for further details, see Table 1.2).72 Whatever the case, it seems to me easiest to assume that Num 28–29 was composed based on both Lev 23 and Num 15:1–31 (and Ex 29:39–42), each pretty much in their present form. If so, it brings in an interesting scenario. A passage that is a mixture of P and H (Lev 23) is chronologically followed by an H passage (Num 15), and these are then followed by a passage that is largely P (Num 28–29). This is clearly not straightforward to picture, including based on the view often taken in especially recent scholarship that H is later than P. Instead, to my mind it would be easier to see Lev 23 as P, save perhaps for light H additions,73 keeping in mind that the passage is part of Lev 17–26, which is largely H, and similarly see Num 15:1–31 also as P, save with some fairly light H additions.74 Then there is no problem with seeing Num 28–29 as (largely) P as well,75 with the result that everything would then seem to fall into place in a fairly straightforward manner in terms of the literary relationship of these three passages. The literary structure of the chapter is in itself straightforward: 28:1–15 regular offerings, with 28:1–2 introduction to the regular offerings, 28:3–8 the daily offering, 28:9–10 the Sabbath offering, 28:11–15 monthly offerings, 28:16–29:38 further occasions, with 28:16–25 offerings during the Passover festival, 28:26–31 offerings during the feast of weeks festival, 29:1–9 offerings on the first day of the seventh month (autumnal new year), 29:7–11 offerings on the Day of Atonement (in this case with Lev 16 [at least mostly P] also in view), 29:12–38 offerings during the feast of tabernacles, 29:39–40 concluding comments. COMMENT

28:1–2. The opening verses describe how Yahweh stipulates offerings for fixed calendrical occasions. As usual in Genesis–Numbers and in the priestly materials, Yahweh speaks to Moses and Moses passes on the commands to the people. This mode of revelation is the case also with the so-called Covenant Code (Ex 20:22–23:19) and the Ritual Decalogue (Ex 34:11–26). Otherwise, the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2–17; Dt 5:6–21) are spoken by Yahweh directly to the people and Deuteronomy is presented as spoken by Moses on his own accord without direct revelation from Yahweh. 28:3–8. The regulations for the daily offering are given, essentially repeated from Ex 29:39–42. One lamb that is a year old is to be offered in the morning and one in the evening at twilight as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–5. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. 28:9–10. The regulations for the sabbath offering are given. Two lambs a year old are offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–5. This offering is explicitly stated to be in addition to the daily offering (v. 10; cf. vv. 3–8). The time of the day of the Sabbath offering is not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. 177

C O M M E N TA RY

28:11–15. The regulations for the monthly offering are given. On the first of the month (new moon [ḥōḏeš]), two (young) bulls, one ram and seven male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–12. The time of the day of the monthly offering is not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be presented as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ). These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the daily offering (v. 15; cf. vv. 3–8). 28:16–25. The regulations for the offerings during the Passover (and the accompanying festival of unleavened bread) are given. The Passover takes place on the evening of the fourteenth day of the month (cf. Ex 12, esp. v. 6). The festival of unleavened bread “officially” kicks in on the fifteenth day. This is really after the twilight of the fourteenth, but it seems that the offerings, as well as the sacred assembly (v. 18), pertain to the time of daylight which starts from the following morning (cf. Lev 23:32). With that in mind, on each day, two (young) bulls, one ram and seven male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–12. The time of the day of the Passover offerings is otherwise not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be presented as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ) each day. These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the daily offering (v. 24; cf. vv. 3–8). A sacred assembly is to be held on the seventh day (v. 25), in addition to the first day (v. 18; cf. Ex 12:16; Dt 16:8).76 28:26–31. The regulations for the feast of weeks are given. Its timing is somewhat complicated (cf. e.g. Wagenaar 2005) and will not be further elaborated here, but basically it takes place fifty days after the time of the first (barley) harvest (cf. Lev 23:15–16; Dt 16:9). On the first day of the feast, two (young) bulls, one ram and seven male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–12. The time of the day of this offering is not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be included to make atonement (kpr, v. 30) for the Israelites, apparently as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ) as elsewhere in Num 28–29 (and cf. Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35). These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the daily offering (v. 31; cf. Ex 29:38–42 and vv. 3–8 here). Note that it clearly seems that the firstfruits mentioned here are different from the firstfruits mentioned in 15:17–21, Lev 23:10–11 and Dt 26:1–5 and rather pertain to Lev 23:15–21 (which essentially has the same offerings).77 A sacred assembly is to be held on the day (v. 26; cf. Lev 23:21). 29:1–6. The regulations for the feast of trumpets are given. The festival takes place on the first day of the seventh month (v. 1; cf. Lev 23:23–25). On the day, one (young) bull, one ram and seven male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4– 12. The time of the day of the offering is not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be presented as a sin

178

C O M M E N TA RY

offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ). These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the monthly and daily offerings (v. 6; cf. 28:3–8, 11–15). A sacred assembly is to be held on the day (v. 1; cf. Lev 23:24). This day serves as a new year, which in the ancient world could be counted twice a year, both in the spring and the autumn (see e.g. Fleming 2000:130–131). Here it is in the seventh month in the autumn. The autumn new year and the feast of tabernacles (vv. 12–38 here) were connected with celebrating the fruit harvest and also commemorated the time of Israel in the wilderness (see Lev 23:42–43).78 The spring new year was marked by the Exodus (see Ex 12, esp. v. 2) and unleavened bread, with barley ripening in the spring as the first crop (see Wagenaar 2005:16; cf. Wagenaar 2005:30–31). 29:7–11. The regulations for the Day of Atonement are given. The festival takes place on the tenth day of the seventh month (v. 7; cf. Lev 23:26–32; Lev 16). On the day, one (young) bull, one ram and seven male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–12. The time of the day of the offering is not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be presented as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ). These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the offerings already specified for the Day of Atonement elsewhere (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ hakkippurîm; see Lev 16; cf. Lev 23:26–32) and for the daily offering (v. 11; cf. 28:3–8). A sacred assembly is to be held on the day (v. 7; cf. Lev 23:27). 29:12–38. The regulations for the offerings during the feast of tabernacles are given (cf. Lev 23:33–43; Dt 16:13–15). The feast starts on the fifteenth day of the seventh month and lasts for eight days. This is also expressed as seven days plus an eighth day (Lev 23:34, 39), with Dt 16:15 summarising it as seven days (cf. Lev 23:40). A sacred assembly is to be held on the first and eighth days (v. 12, 35; Lev 23:35, 36). On each day, the number of (young) bulls offered as a burnt offering varies, counting down by one from thirteen on the first day to seven on the seventh, and then just one bull, one ram and seven male lambs on the eighth day. Otherwise, two rams and fourteen male lambs a year old are to be offered as a burnt offering on the first seven days. The grain and drink offerings are as in Num 15:4–12. The time of the day of the offerings is otherwise not stated. As usual, the animals have to be without defect. In addition, one male goat is to be presented as a sin offering (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ) on each of the eight days. These offerings are explicitly stated to be in addition to the daily offering (v. 38; cf. 28:3–8). 29:39–40. An overall concluding comment follows. It summarises that what has just been stipulated is to be carried out at fixed occasions. It also indicates that the offerings specified are in addition to any other offerings the Israelites may bring, outside the context that has been in focus here. A note that Moses conveyed to the Israelites everything that Yahweh had commanded him finishes off the passage. With these two chapters, the descriptions of the Israelite offerings that are included in Ex-Numbers draw to a close (even if, cf. Chapter 31 as well).

179

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

Numbers 28–29 specifies public offerings to be presented on fixed calendrical occasions. Table 2.1 shows the amounts of animals offered in a year. Using the foregoing multipliers, this comes to a yearly total of 1,093 lambs, 37 rams, 113 bulls and 30 goats (I have not included the amounts of grain and drink offerings in the calculation). As such, it is a fairly big number. But it is less big if one considers the population of the Israelites even in Iron Age I. While this population was fairly small, maybe about 20,000 in the thirteenth century BCE, the area witnessed a population explosion in the twelfth century and was probably at least about 50,000 by the eleventh century (see Dever 2003:97–100, esp. 98 for such estimates). Keeping that in mind, the envisaged numbers for the carrying out of the public cult do not appear overly large, also keeping in mind that people would slaughter these animals for food at least relatively regularly and also were to make other sacrifices as prescribed in Leviticus–Numbers. In other words, these fixed additional offerings in the public cult were envisaged to be only a relatively small fraction of the total number of animals killed by the Israelites as a whole, broadly in line with the idea of tithes and tenths of tithes that were to be given to the Levites and priests (cf. 18:21–32). Table 2.1 Numbers of animals offered in a year on calendar-based occasions Offering

Lambs

Rams

Bulls

Goats

Daily Multiplier Sabbath Multiplier Monthly Multiplier Passover Multiplier Weeks Trumpets Atonement Tabernacles Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8

2 365 2 52 7 12 7 7 7 7 7

0 365 0 52 1 12 1 7 1 1 1

0 365 0 52 2 12 2 7 2 1 1

0 365 0 52 1 12 1 7 1 1 1

14 14 14 14 14 14 14 7

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

180

C O M M E N TA RY

According to the books of Chronicles, David set up the cult in his time after Shiloh, where the tent of meeting first stood, had lost its status, with a focus on the new temple that would be built in Jerusalem as a replacement for the tent of meeting (1 Chr 16:40; 17; 22–26; 28–29; cf. Josh 18:1; 1 Sam 1–5; Ps 78:56–72; cf. Pitkänen 2014c/2003, esp. 111–269). This cult was a modified version of the cult in the Pentateuch that pertained to the tent of meeting, adapted for the temple by David according to Chronicles (1 Chr 22–26; cf. comments on 3:5–51, “Meaning”; 4:1–49; “Meaning”). Solomon continued this arrangement (2 Chr 8:12–15). After that, Chronicles describe that the temple service had its ups and downs in the vicissitudes of the monarchy. There was a particularly difficult phase around the time of Hezekiah when the temple service appears to have been completely neglected (2 Chr 29:3–7) before Hezekiah restored it (2 Chr 29). As the books of Chronicles attained their final form in terms of their composition in the postexilic period (see e.g. 1 Chr 9:1–34; 2 Chr 36), one may ask to what extent their view of the worship of Israel might reflect actual history, and to what extent it might be fictional, perhaps reflecting the practices and concerns of the postexilic period. Many academics, particularly since the time of Wellhausen (see Wellhausen 1905/1878), have been of the opinion that there is little in the books of Chronicles that is of historical value.79 The negative assessment of Chronicles ties in with a late dating of the priestly materials of the Pentateuch since Wellhausen. However, if, as suggested here, the priestly materials and the composition of the Pentateuch (and Joshua) are assigned to an early period, then it is likely that the picture about Chronicles should also be reassessed. As incredible as it may sound to some, one must assume that the author(s) of Chronicles utilised genuine temple (and any other) records from the time of the monarchy for their composition. As with Genesis–Joshua, with which priests must have been in some way familiar and which must have shaped their cultural thinking and literary style, the priests as the prime creators of temple records and the author(s) of the Chronicles utilised a specific priestly literary style. In line with that overall style that can be pictured to have carried over through centuries80 for example fictional embellishments could be incorporated (see e.g. 2 Chr 20). A parallel priestly-related stream and literary style that particularly liked the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua also existed and was utilised in the production of Judges, Samuel and Kings. Both streams trace their origins back to the time when Genesis–Joshua was composed. Ezekiel saw a vision about a restored temple cult, with a slightly differing setting from the one given in Pentateuchal legal materials (Ezek 45:13–25). The (much) later author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not impressed anymore by these offerings and the Israelite sacrificial cult. He suggested that the sacrifices that were repeatedly (diēnekēs) made could not make perfect those who drew near to worship (10:1); otherwise offering them could have been stopped (v. 2). The sacrifices would then be a periodic (eniautos) reminder of sins (v. 3). This leads him to conclude that the blood of bulls and goats is unable to take away sins (v. 4). The argument then leads to the writer of Hebrews presenting Christ as a single, 181

C O M M E N TA RY

once-and-for-all sacrifice that takes away sin and is therefore obviously a much better sacrifice than those that were part of the older covenant and has made them obsolete (vv. 5–18). Vows (30) CONTEXT

This chapter speaks about in what circumstances vows that a person may make may be rescinded (annulled). The main issue elaborated on is how binding the vows of women are. That vows are mentioned in 29:39 may provide a connecting link with Chapters 28–29, also considering that sacrifices were often connected with vows (see Milgrom 1990:250). Other than that potential link, the passage has only a loose connection with its present narrative setting. Vows in general are not systematically dealt with in the Pentateuch in that, at least in my opinion, there is no single passage or set of passages that could be considered to provide a “fundamental” set of injunctions about them. Instead, except for the material here, vows are referred to throughout and elaborated on as if in an ad hoc manner in a number of places, such as in Lev 5:4; 27; Num 6; Dt 23:18; 21–23 (and see Milgrom 1990:488–490 for examples of vows outside the Pentateuch). Of these, Lev 27 contains the most comprehensive information about various possible categories that can be vowed to Yahweh and about their potential redemption. Considering that Num 30 is about the potential rescinding of vows, it can be considered to at least broadly link with Lev 27, which deals with cases where vows can be redeemed by monetary means (with a 20 per cent “interest” added where redemption is possible). A connection with Lev 27 also suggests that the passage here is connected with settled life in the land, even if that is not required as such by the passage (this said, bêṯ ’āḇîāh in vv. 4, 17 does hint towards settled conditions in the land). Num 30 has been assigned to P, even if its style has been considered as slightly different from the usual style of P (see Gray 1903:413). Interestingly, this at least broadly fits with the idea that Lev 27 is more or less of a supplement to the book of Leviticus (see e.g. Nihan 2007:94, 552–553; 617–618). It would seem that the subject matter, even if connected with sacrifices, is slightly different from usual issues that relate to the cult and would allow for some differences in expression. The structure of the passage can be delimited as follows: v. 1 introduction, v. 2 vows by men, vv. 3–5 vows by an unmarried woman still living in her father’s house, vv. 6–8 vows by a married woman, v. 9 vows by a widow or divorced woman, vv. 10–15 time frame for rescinding vows by a married woman, v. 16 concluding comment.

COMMENT

1. The legal material is introduced by Moses, speaking to the heads of the tribes of Israel, based on a command by Yahweh that he has apparently just received. 182

C O M M E N TA RY

2. This verse states that vows made by men are binding. They cannot be rescinded. This case is not included in the summation of v. 16. It would seem very possible this pertains only to fully grown men – that is minors could not make such a vow, even if this is not stated (cf. Milgrom 1990:250–251). If so, it is not entirely clear what the age of becoming fully responsible in that respect might have been (cf. the age limits in Num 1–4; 8, which may or may not bear relevance). 3–5. Vows made by an unmarried woman can be rescinded by her father. He has to explicitly annul it; otherwise it stands. It appears that the idea is that the father does not have to be present when the vow is uttered, but he can rescind it when he first hears about it. Note that the word ʾsr (to bind) has a parallel in Ugaritic with the same meaning (see DLU:55), so even if the word is also attested in Aramaic in the postexilic period, this is no proof towards a late dating of the passage (contra Levine 2000:51–52, 430). 6–8. Vows made by a woman before getting married can be rescinded by her husband if he hears about them after the marriage, apparently even if her father had accepted them (cf. Milgrom 1990:252). The husband has to explicitly annul the vow; otherwise it stands. It appears that the idea is that the husband can rescind the vow when he first hears about it. The reference to a “rash utterance of her lips” (miḇṭā’ śepˉ āṯêāh, v. 6) seems to be an allowance to be able to take back what was said but not really meant by the woman. 9. Vows made by a widow or a divorced woman are binding. They cannot be rescinded. This case is not included in the summation of v. 16. 10–15. Vows made by a married woman after the marriage can be rescinded by her husband. He has to explicitly annul it; otherwise it stands. Again, it appears that the idea is that the husband does not have to be present when the vow is uttered, but he can rescind it when he first hears about it. The point about him bearing her guilt (nāśāʾ ʾeṯ-ʿawōnāh v. 15) if he rescinds the vow only after some time after he has heard about it is essentially rhetoric confirming that if he wants to rescind the vow, he must do so as soon as he hears about it. As “bearing his/her guilt” (cf. e.g. Lev 5:1; 7:18; 20:17, 19; note that LXX has “his iniquity”) can be even a very serious matter, it is not an option that one would be advised to take. It would seem that, according to Lev 5:4, 5–13, a person can offer a sin offering in a case of a rash vow that was made (more or less) unawares, but here in case of consciously made (“premeditated”) vows that does not seem to apply (cf. Num 15:22–31, esp. 30–31, and comments on those verses). 16. This verse summarises the material in vv. 2–15, with an explicit specification that the law in vv. 3–5 concerns a young daughter who lives in her father’s house. The cases of men and widows and unmarried women are not included in the summation, which should thus be considered as representative rather than comprehensive. As vv. 2 and 9 are not summarised, they could also be later addition, but one might ask why they would then also not be added to the summation. 183

C O M M E N TA RY MEANING

Controlling one’s speech can be a difficult matter as it is easy to say various things based on one’s emotional status. There are few if any people who have not regretted afterwards something they may have said. In the ancient Israelite society, various types of vows could be made to Yahweh, even if there is no systematic exposition of the range of possibilities. Deuteronomy 23:21–23 broadly confirms that if one makes a vow to Yahweh they must keep it, and that making vows was in no way compulsory (v. 22). The writer of Ecclesiastes makes similar points (Eccl 5:4–7). In other words, one was to be extremely careful when making a vow. In the case of men, it was considered that such vows really could not be rescinded, which could sometimes lead to even gruesome results, as with Jephtah and his daughter (Jdg 11:29–39; cf. comments on 18:14). However, some tempering was nevertheless prescribed. A person could in some cases redeem what he or she vowed by adding a fifth to it (Lev 27) or offer a sin offering in case of an unintentional vow (Lev 5:1–13). A further category is supplied here in Num 30, which allowed that women’s vows be rescinded by their guardians, but only immediately upon hearing about them, and with widows and divorcees excluded from the possibility of annulment (v. 9). Why then were certain categories of women included but not all women? As the vows of widows and divorcees could not be rescinded, one cannot, even if it might be tempting to do so, think that this passage acts as confirmation that women were considered irresponsible and incapable in the ancient Israelite society. Instead, it would seem better to take these injunctions as helping towards ensuring that women whose affairs were generally to be decided by men who acted as their guardians in that society (in itself more or less a patriarchal approach, of course) would not be able to vow something that would affect the wider family. That is women should for example not be able to vow a part of the family property without the possibility of the vow being rescinded (similarly Levine 2000:435–437; cf. Malina 2001:150; Achenbach 2003:613–614). In relation to that, it would then seem reasonable to suspect that if a divorcee returned to her father’s house, any vows by the divorcee might then fall under the stipulations given in vv. 3–5, at least if the vows had any connection with family property. Centuries later, in the New Testament, the writer of the Epistle of James (3:2–12) makes an impassioned speech about the difficulty of controlling one’s tongue. Undoubtedly all this serves as admonition and stimulus for reflection for today’s readers as well, regardless of whether they might consider themselves “religious” or “secular”. Vengeance on Midian (31) CONTEXT

In this chapter, Moses is instructed by Yahweh to take vengeance against the Midianites. This vengeance clearly seems to be due to the events at Baal Peor (see Num 25, esp. v. 17–18), and the narrative here could as such easily have followed 184

C O M M E N TA RY

directly after Chapter 25 (cf. Milgrom 1990:218). The Midianites (cf. comments on 25:1–3) had invited the Israelites to their sacrifices and their women had had sexual relationships with the Israelites. From the perspective of Yahwism, this was considered as deception and considering the Israelites as enemies (25:18). From the perspective of the Midianites, Phinehas had slayed the daughter of their chieftain (25:15; cf. 31:8 and Milgrom 1990:214). Enough had happened to provide a casus bellum for both sides. In this chapter, the Israelites are described as taking the initiative in that respect and as initiating a campaign against the Midianites. That the vengeance is specifically focused on Midian rather than Moab appears to be in part (cf. comments on Chapter 25, “Context”) because the Moabites were seen as relatives of the Israelites (cf. Num 21:24; Dt 2:19, 37), even if their origins, together with those of the Ammonites, were seen as perverse, marred by incest (Gen 19:30–38). At the same time, the tradition in Dt 23:3–6 does refer to a punishment for the Moabites, and for the Ammonites. This is because the Moabites were part of hiring Balaam to curse Israel in Num 22–24, even if the curse was turned into a blessing. Otherwise the rationale for including the law in Deuteronomy was that the Ammonites and Moabites did not provide supplies to the Israelites in Transjordan as they were travelling from Egypt to the promised land, a tradition not attested elsewhere (cf. Num 21:24; Dt 2:19, 37). All in all, despite Moses, the leader of the Israelites, being married to a Midianite woman, the two nations have become enemies, except for the Kenites, who are most closely related to Moses (cf. comments on 10:29–32 and 24:20–24). The campaign itself proves to be successful and much of the chapter is about how the Israelites dealt with the spoils of war. In terms of chronology, Dt 32:48–52 suggests that Moses climbed up the mountain to view the promised land and died immediately after the events in Num 27:12–23 (see comments on 27:12–23). At the same time, v. 2 suggests that these events took place just before the events of 27:12–23, also considering that Moses is still the leader of the Israelites during the campaign against the Midianites (cf. Milgrom 1990:49). Thus the placement of the narrative in its present location has to do with thematic reasons. Of course, Chapters 32–36 still have Moses as the leader, too. Accordingly, it seems clear that for some reason A1 thought that it was more important to speak about Moses’s death already in 27:12–23. In this, perhaps A1 thought that placing the account there would emphasise that the injunctions in Num 32, 34–36 really pertain to the second generation that will actually inherit the land. From the perspective of source criticism, the narrative has been assigned to P (or H). The literary structure can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–2 Yahweh commands Moses to take vengeance against the Midianites, vv. 3–6 men are sent to war by Moses, vv. 7–12 the campaign is successful, with spoils taken, vv. 13–24 preprocessing of the spoils, vv. 25–47 dividing of the spoils to the priests and Levites, and to ordinary people, vv. 48–54 a special offering by the officers of the army due to no casualties on the Israelite side. Except for certain apparent embellishments in the story (cf. “Comment” section ahead), it can in my view easily 185

C O M M E N TA RY

have a historical kernel (cf. Milgrom 1990:490–491; and cf. general comments on the historicity of the book of Numbers in the introduction). COMMENT

1–2. Yahweh commands Moses to launch a campaign against the Midianites, in vengeance for the incident at Baal Peor (cf. “Context” earlier). After that, Moses is to go up to the mountain to view the promised land and then die (cf. “Context” earlier). 3–6. A thousand men are sent by Moses from each “ordinary” tribe that is under the muster, making a contingent totalling 12,000 men. Phinehas the son of Eleazar joins the troops, taking with him sacred utensils and trumpets. This apparently would refer to the ark (cf. comments on e.g. 1:50–53), the ephod with the breastpiece together with its Urim and Thummim (cf. comments on 22–24, “Context” and 27:18–21) and the silver trumpets introduced in Num 10:1–10 (cf. comments on those verses), even if something else could perhaps be implied (cf. Milgrom 1990:257). Also, it would seem that Eleazar himself does not join as he cannot be contaminated by contact with a corpse (Lev 21:11; thus Davies 2015:37; cf. comments on 19:1–5), and therefore the breastpiece with it Urim and Thummim would not be likely to feature. As for Phinehas, Lev 21:1–4 would seem to imply that even an ordinary priest should not contaminate himself from anyone except his close relative, but it would seem that this could be rescinded for cases of war and other extraordinary situations. All in all, the Israelites are meting out a collective punishment against the Midianites (cf. Dt 13). It could be considered that Phinehas had already initiated the process in Num 25. 7–17. The Israelites are described to have fought against Midian and killed every male (zāḵār, v. 7). This comment should be taken as exaggeration in typical ancient Near Eastern style (cf. Younger 1990) as the Midianites still existed in the time of the Judges (Jdg 6–8) and later on (cf. comments on Chapter 25, meaning). The names of five Midianite kings that were among those killed are listed (v. 8). These are also listed in Josh 13:21 in the context of a summary of the Transjordanian landholdings, even if they are called princes (nāśî’) rather than kings (meleḵ) in the Joshua account. It has been suggested that the names of the Midianite kings may have their parallels in Nabatean toponyms (see Levine 2000:453, 472). However, the parallels are not necessarily entirely secure or comprehensive, and toponyms may also have a long prehistory. If the names refer to toponyms, they would then probably simply be about areas from where the Midianite kings came, and integrated into the account as the names of the kings. In addition, Balaam is listed as among those slain (v. 8). In v. 16 the (bad) behaviour of the Moabite women in Num 25 is attributed to Balaam’s advice. This seems to reflect tradition that is supplemental to the main Balaam tradition in Num 22–24 (cf. comments on those chapters, “Meaning”). While the word herem (ḥrm) is not explicitly mentioned here or in the chapter as a whole, the actions are in line with the herem tradition (cf. comments on 18:14; 21:2–3). The Israelites kill every 186

C O M M E N TA RY

male Midianite and burn all their towns and campsites. They, however, spare the Midianite women and children, taking them as captive together with cattle and valuables (vv. 9–10, the word used for valuables is ḥayil). They then take them to Moses and Eleazar and the rest of the Israelites (vv. 11–12). That the women, children and livestock are spared is more lenient than the command in Josh 6 and 1 Sam 15, where every living thing was to be killed. In the account about Saul and the Amalekites the sparing of the cattle incurred a punishment on Saul. However, here things proceed slightly differently. Moses is angry, and only angry without specifying a punishment, about the sparing of the Midianite women as these were the source of the problem in the Baal Peor incident (vv. 15–16). As a remedy, all Midianite women who are not virgins are to be killed. The rest of the women may be spared. The assumption is presumably that any woman who has had sex previously is capable of licentiousness but any virgins can be controlled by the Israelite men and moulded into Israelite societal mores and customs (assimilation; cf. Niditch 1993). In addition, all boys are to be killed, presumably as they would be likely to keep their Midianite identity and cause problems sooner or later (cf. Moses himself in Ex 1ff.). 18–24. The Israelites are ordered to purify themselves, with clear reference to the rituals described in Num 19; these include those having killed someone or touched someone who was killed staying outside of the camp for seven days (v. 19), purifying on the third and seventh days (v. 19), after which the persons may come to the camp (v. 24), and a reference to the water of cleansing (v. 23). Purifying organic things (v. 20) seems to be in line with Num 19 as well (see esp. vv. 15, 18 there). In addition to being purified with the water of cleansing, metal objects are to be cleansed through fire (v. 23), a requirement that is additional to what is stated in Num 19 (cf. Wright 1985). Anything that cannot withstand fire must be purified by the water only (v. 23). The captive virgins (v. 19) are to be purified as they are now part of Israel and are likely to have come in contact with their slain relatives, also as part of an immediate mourning process, keeping in mind that it would be rather inconceivable that young girls would have lived alone at the time. 25–30. Moses, Eleazar and the Israelite leaders are to count the people and animals from among the spoils and divide them between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community (‘ēdāh), half and half as vv. 36–47 confirm. A five hundredth part is to be given to priests from the share of the soldiers (vv. 28–29). In addition, a fiftieth is taken from the share of the rest of the community and given to the Levites (v. 30). The idea that the share of the priests is a tenth of the share of the Levites is in line with 18:25–29. The ratio of 1 to 50 or 1 to 500 is otherwise not attested in the Old Testament. In the time of David spoils were divided half and half between soldiers and the rest of the community (1 Sam 30; see esp. vv. 24–25). This is close to that, but not quite the same (cf. Milgrom 1990:262), and it is not stated here as in 1 Sam 30:25 that dividing spoils was to be a fixed practice. 31–47. The enumeration of the amount of spoils follows, according to what had been specified in vv. 25–30. The numbers seem overly large and it is very 187

C O M M E N TA RY

unlikely that they should be taken literally (cf. comments in Introduction, and on 1:20–46). 48–54. A further share of the spoils to be given to the sanctuary is described. This happens because the commanders of the army, those of thousands and hundreds, feel grateful that none of the men they were responsible for are unaccounted for (lōᵓ -nipˉ qaḏ mimmēnnû ᵓîš, v. 49). The expression in Hebrew may well suggest that there were no casualties in Israel according to the narrative. If so, this should by all accounts be considered to be due to the miraculous providence of Yahweh. In any case the campaign has been successful. Therefore, the commanders bring an offering to Yahweh. This consists of items of gold they have acquired (v. 50), not counting what each regular soldier had taken for himself (v. 53). If one compares the gold offered with the censuses of Numbers 1 and 26, it would amount to more than one shekel per person in the army and count as more than the requirement of half a shekel per soldier in the first census (cf. Ex 30:12; 38:25–28). This was to atone for the people, customary with censuses in Israel (Ex 30:12; cf. 2 Sam 24; 1 Chr 21). The taking of ransom money is not explicitly mentioned in connection with Num 26, and it is unlikely that the ransom mentioned here (v. 50) relates to that census (cf. Milgrom 1990:264, who seems to make such a connection).81 A rough parallel to this narrative is also provided by Jdg 8:24–27; there, however, Gideon used the gifts given him for making an ephod that clearly appears to have been used for cultic purposes that were illegitimate from a Yahwistic perspective (cf. Achenbach 2003:621). MEANING

This passage reflects ancient Israel’s antagonism against Midian and the Midianites. The campaign can be considered as a collective punishment against them. The crime was enticing the Israelites away from following Yahweh. Its seriousness warranted a (collective) death penalty, which could, according to the ancient Israelite thinking, also have been meted out to the Israelites themselves, both individually and collectively (see esp. Dt 13; cf. Num 25:5). At the same time, in modern terms, the campaign against them here can be compared with total war and genocide. Genocide was defined in the UN Genocide Convention (United Nations 1948:3) as follows:82 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 188

C O M M E N TA RY

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. While the concept of race (and racism) largely seems to pertain to the modern world, the concept of an ethnic group can be extended to the ancient world (for further details, see e.g. Pitkänen 2010b:76–77); here the Midianites can be classified as an ethnic group, with religious connotations also. In that context, clearly the campaign against the Midianites can be classified under items (a) and (b). Moreover, in relation to the account (and with herem [ḥrm] in general; cf. comments on vv. 7–17), it should be noted that the concept of genocide is completely intertwined with religious and cultic matters, in line with the religious dimension being an integral aspect of life in the ancient Near Eastern world. Certainly, the ancients can to some extent be exonerated as they did not know about the analysis and scholarship that have been built around the concept of genocide since the Second World War, some 3,000 years later than the events described as having taken place.83 However, since that scholarship has now emerged, equally certainly the account about the war against the Midianites (and other conquest-related materials in the Israelite tradition, such as those in the book of Joshua) presents a difficult ethical problem for today’s reading communities, whether “religious” or “secular”, which at the very least arguably must be addressed. All in all, it is perhaps best to read these accounts based on a critical reader response approach (cf. e.g. Davies 2010 and the considerations there). They should now in a number of cases be an object lesson of how one in a number of cases should not take the biblical materials as a model and mandate for contemporary life (cf. also comments on 33:50–56; cf. further e.g. Pitkänen 2010b, passim; Pitkänen 2014b). This of course presents challenges for those who wish to approach the biblical materials as a whole based on the idea that they can serve as a source for Christian and religious life and practice. But one should keep in mind that the Old Testament materials are much tempered by the New Testament (for further associated remarks, cf. comments on 8:1–4, “Meaning”; 10:33–36, “Meaning”; 13–14, “Meaning”). For further comments on the Midianites, see comments on 10:29–32; 25 and passim. Reuben and Gad settle in Gilead (32) CONTEXT

Numbers 32 describes how the tribes of Reuben and Gad approach Moses and Eleazar and request land from Transjordan, in a manner reminiscent of the daughters of Zelophehad in Chapter 27 (and cf. Chapter 36). Their request is initially turned down by Moses as a potentially serious rebellion against Yahweh. Moses especially compares it with the refusal of the Israelites to conquer the land in Kadesh Barnea (Num 13–14). However, the Reubenites and Gadites explain that they wish to settle on the east side of the Jordan, but will nevertheless join the rest of the Israelites for the conquest. That is they will leave their families behind on 189

C O M M E N TA RY

the eastern side until the conquest of land west of the Jordan has been achieved. Hearing this, Moses grants their request. This also extends to the eastern half of the tribe of Manasseh (vv. 33–42). The literary structure of the chapter can be described as follows: vv. 1–5 the Transjordanians approach Moses and make their request, vv. 6–15 Moses’s angry response, vv. 16–19 the placating response of the Transjordanians and a proposal to join the rest of the Israelites in the conquest west of the Jordan, vv. 20–24 Moses accepts the proposal of the Transjordanians, vv. 25–27 the Transjordanians reassure Moses that they will do what they have promised, vv. 28–30 Moses gives instructions about the Transjordanians to the leaders of Israel, vv. 31–32 the Transjordanians repeat their commitment, vv. 33 Moses gives land east of the Jordan to the Transjordanians, vv. 34–42 a summary of the settlement east of the Jordan by the Transjordanians. If one compares the narrative in Numbers 32 with Josh 22:9–34, one can find a number of important similarities in the storylines of these two passages as follows, as pointed out by Jobling (1980:192): 1 2

3 4

5 6 7

A Transjordanian initiative puts the story in motion (Num 32:1–5; Jos 22:10). Moses / the Cisjordanian delegation express anger at the initiative. Each (particularly in the latter case) goes to some lengths of implausibility to put a worst possible construction upon it. And each makes allusions to what has happened in the past to establish the case (and to help introduce Yahweh). The Transjordanians provide a suggestion / response which is satisfactory, and in fact constitutes the substance of a bargain (Num 32:16–19; Jos 22:22–29). Acceptance by Moses / the Cisjordanian delegation (Num 32:20–24, Jos 22:30–31). Items 2–4 as a whole can also be labelled under the category of a conflictresolution plot. In addition, In both accounts there is hint of a possible settlement of the Transjordanians to the west as part of the argumentation (Num 32:30; Josh 22:19; see Jobling 1980:193). In both accounts the Transjordanians have a concern for their children (Num 32:16, 17, 26; Josh 22:24–28; cf. Num 32:11–13; see Jobling 1980:196). “In both stories, the Transjordanians undertake to cross the Jordan for the service of Yahweh” (see Jobling 1980:196).

That Num 32 and Josh 22:9–34 are connected is further confirmed by source critical considerations. Num 32 is traditionally considered to be a mixture of P and the older narrative sources (J or E); however, as Gray expressed it already more than 100 years ago, “a strict analysis of the chapter as between JE and P cannot be satisfactorily carried through” (Gray 1903:426). As for Josh 22:9–34, as Nelson (1997:247) aptly notes, Joshua 22 “divides into deuteronomistic and priestly halves along the hinge of vv. 7 and 8. The language of vv. 1–6 is unquestionably deuteronomistic, whereas vv. 9–34 exhibit characteristics associated with priestly 190

C O M M E N TA RY

composition”. In other words, priestly features are thoroughly embedded in both Num 32 and Josh 22:9–34. On the whole, one may arrange the passages which concern the Transjordanians in Genesis–Joshua in the following way: A. Num 32: introduction to the Transjordanian issue with conflict resolution B. Deut 3:12–20: obligation to the Transjordanians [Deut 29:7–8: review of Transjordanian issue] B. Josh 1:12–18: repeat obligation to the Transjordanians [Josh 4:12: honouring of obligation by the Transjordanians] [Josh 12:6: summary comment about allotment of land to the Transjordanians] [Josh 13:8–31: details of territory allotted to the Transjordanians] B’ Josh 22:1–8: obligation to the Transjordanians fulfilled A’ Josh 22:9–34: final story with conflict resolution Even though everything does not fit neatly into to a chiasm, it is clear that in the final form of Genesis–Joshua, A is the introduction to the Transjordanian issue and A’ is its conclusion. Interestingly, if one ignores AA’, which contain priestly material, BB’ forms a bracket of a Deuteronomic introduction and conclusion (see Pitkänen 2014c/2003:209–210). If one thinks that Num 32 was composed by A1, it is easy to consider that AD picked up on the composition, bracketed it with Josh 22:9–34 and created the inner structure about the Transjordanians within Deuteronomy and Joshua. This does fit with the broader idea that the accounts in Numbers 27, 32, 34–36 that were part of A1’s work served as a basis from which Josh 13–22 were composed by AD (cf. earlier, 22:1–36:13, “Context”). Naturally, connections between Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–Joshua need not be limited to these chapters in Numbers and Joshua (nor are they thus limited; cf. Figure 1.1). COMMENT

1–5. The Reubenites and Gadites are described as approaching Moses and Eleazar and the leaders of the community to request that they can settle in Transjordan. Their approach reminds one of that of the daughters of Zelophehad who approached Moses and Eleazar and the leaders of the community to present a problem relating to inheritance (Num 27:1–4; cf. 36:1–4; Josh 17:1–6). The narrative depicts how the tribes of Reuben and Gad, who had many cattle, saw that the eastern lands were suitable for keeping livestock84 and therefore requested to settle in the area. The location of Ataroth, which is mentioned in the Mesha Stele, is not clear, even if Khirbat ‘Atarus is a possibility. Early Iron I–II sherds have been reported as found at the site (see MacDonald 2000:112–114). According to MacDonald (2000:85), there is substantial toponymic and archaeological evidence for identifying biblical Dibon with the site of Dhiban. That the Mesha Inscription was discovered at the site confirms this identification (MacDonald 191

C O M M E N TA RY

2000:85), keeping in mind that Mesha describes himself as a Dhibonite. Pottery that is characteristic of the Early Iron Age has been found at the site, even if no structures can yet be associated with it for that time (MacDonald 2000:85). The location of Jazer is uncertain (see the discussion in MacDonald 2000:106–108). Nimrah could potentially be located either at Tall Bleibel or Tall Nimrin. Both sites have evidence of occupation in Iron Age I, even if thus only towards the end of the period at the latter site (see MacDonald 2000:114–115). On Heshbon, see comments on 21:25–32. Elealeh may be located at El-’Al, some two miles northeast of Tell Hesbon. Early Iron I–II sherds have been reported as found at the site (see MacDonald 2000:115–116). The location of Sebam is unclear (see MacDonald 2000:116–117). It seems difficult to identify Nebo. Khirbat al-Mukhayyat has been proposed, even though it does not include evidence from Iron I (see MacDonald 2000:86–87). The location of Beon is unknown (see MacDonald 2000:117–118). 6–15. Moses makes an angry response to the Reubenites and Gadites. Notably, while he brought the case of the daughters of Zelophehad to the attention of Yahweh (27:1–11; similarly 36:1–12), this is not reported to be the case here. Moses responds on his own accord, apparently confident about being able to evaluate the situation correctly. Perhaps the statement in v. 5 where the Transjordanians ask him to not make them cross the Jordan makes him feel particularly alarmed. This, however, leads to negotiations that temper Moses’s initial assessment and results in effect in the granting of the request of the Transjordanians. Moses starts by referring to the spies incident in Num 13–14 and the resulting punishments where the Israelites had to wander in the wilderness for forty years and the whole Exodus generation, except for Caleb and Joshua, could not enter the promised land but perished in the wilderness. Moses further warns about possible further punishments due to what the Reubenites and Gadites propose. The whole Israelite community (the second generation) might even perish because of their account (v. 15). 16–19. The Transjordanians, however, make a placating response. They propose to join the rest of the Israelites in the conquest west of the Jordan, leaving their families behind. Only after the successful conquest and land allocation on the west side of the Jordan will they return. Archaeological evidence seems to support at least relative fortification of Transjordan at the time (see Herr 2012 – e.g. 210, Tell El-Umeiri; cf. v. 17). 20–24. Moses accepts the proposal of the Gadites and Reubenites. This is expressly on the condition that they will do what they have suggested to do. 25–27. The Gadites and Reubenites then reassure Moses and confirm that they will indeed do what they have suggested to do. The issue is on its way towards a resolution. The land of Gilead seems to loosely refer to Transjordan as a whole here (v. 26; cf. v. 29). Areas south or north of the River Jabbok can be meant, or both, depending on the context (cf. MacDonald 2000:195). See also comments on 26:28–34. 28–30. Moses next gives instructions about the Transjordanians to Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun and the leaders of the Israelites. That Joshua is 192

C O M M E N TA RY

specifically mentioned here in addition to Eleazar and the leaders (cf. v. 2) would seem to be in at least literary anticipation that the Israelites will be led by Joshua during the Cisjordanian campaigns, as described in the book by his name. Again, the land of Gilead seems to loosely refer to Transjordan as a whole here (v. 29; cf. v. 26). If the Reubenites and Gadites, however, do not keep to their side of the bargain, they will have to settle in Cisjordan together with the other tribes (v. 30). 31–32. The Gadites and Reubenites repeat their promise and commitment to join the rest of the Israelites in the conquest of Cisjordan. Their inheritance, as already indicated, will remain on the east side of the Jordan. 33. Moses then gives land east of the Jordan to the Transjordanians. This really consists of the land of Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan, who were described as conquered by the Israelites in Num 20:21–35. The half-tribe of Manasseh is now included also; their area was north of that of Reuben and of Gad. There is some unclarity about the respective location of Reuben and Gad. The text here (vv. 34–39) seems to locate Gad in the south of Reuben, even though it also appears that some of the Gadite towns, such as Jogbehah, are located north of Reuben (see ABD II, pp. 864–865; MacDonald 2000:103–125). However, in the Deuteronomic tradition, including the book of Joshua (see Josh 13:8–33), the Gadites are located north of Reuben (see MacDonald 2000:125–146; cf. ABD II, p. 865). The presence of Gad in the north is confirmed by the enumeration of the towns of refuge in Transjordan (Deuteronomy 4:41–43; Joshua 20) and their location in Judges–Samuel. It is also curious that Reuben is not mentioned in the Mesha Stele (ninth century BCE), which relates to these areas.85 At the same time, Reuben is mentioned in the Song of Deborah, but not Gad. Some have suggested that Reuben came to be incorporated into Gad as time passed (see MacDonald 2000:134). But it should be noted that the overall area of settlement of the eastern tribes is more in the south in Numbers than in subsequent books in the canonical order (see MacDonald 2000:123–125). This seems to include Eastern Manasseh, which is also located slightly more in the south than in subsequent books (see MacDonald 2000:123–125). At the same time, it should be kept in mind that the book of Numbers indicates that the Israelites approached the land of Canaan from the south (and east). One may then suggest a possible scenario (this does not exclude other possibilities). The list in Numbers is meant to indicate a situation at the beginning of the settlement, and the lists thereafter the situation later on. At that time, according to the canonical description, the Gadites and the eastern half of Manasseh moved northwards, with the territorial lists reflecting the situation. Any Gadite places originally south of Reuben could then also be counted with Reuben in the lists that are canonically later. Such a scenario fits with the idea of shifting tribal frontiers in the area at the time (cf. Petter 2014). 34–38. On the mutual location of Reubenites and Gadites, see comments on v. 33. They are described as building (bnh) a number of towns. The Gadites are explicitly said to also have made enclosures (geḏērōṯ, v. 36, also v. 16) for their flocks, and no doubt this applies to the Reubenites also (cf. v. 16). This may refer to either building or rebuilding. And they are described as having changed the 193

C O M M E N TA RY

names of some of the towns they built (v. 38); this is typical of conquerors (cf. Pitkänen 2014d:257, and cf. Introduction on settler colonialism). Overall, archaeological evidence seems to support at least relative fortification of Transjordan at the time (v. 36; see Herr 2012 – e.g. 210, Tell El-Umeiri; cf. v. 17). For Dibon and Ataroth, see comments on v. 3. Aroer, which is mentioned in the Mesha Inscription, is generally identified with ΄Ara΄ir (MacDonald 2000:97). Excavations at the site show that it was occupied in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages (MacDonald 2000:97, NEAEHL, pp. 92–93). The identification of Atroth Shophan is not clear (see MacDonald 2000:118–119). For Jazer, see comments on 21:25–32. The location of Jogbehah is not clear (see MacDonald 2000:119–120). Beth Nimrah may be the same as Nimrah (and note that the word Beth is missing in the Greek here), on which see comments on vv. 1–5. Beth Haran may be the same site as Beth Haram in Josh 13:27 (see MacDonald 2000:120). Its location is unclear, although either Tall Iktanu or Tall ar-Rama is most often suggested. Evidence of Iron I and II occupation (at least pottery sherds) has been found at Tall Iktanu, and evidence of Iron II occupation at Tall ar-Rama (see MacDonald 2000:120–122). For Heshbon, see comments on 21:25–32. For Elealeh, see comments on vv. 1–5. The location of Kiriathaim is unclear (see MacDonald 2000:122–123). For Nebo, see comments on vv. 1–5. The location of Beth Baal Meon is uncertain (see MacDonald 2000:117–118). The same goes for Sibmah (see MacDonald 2000:116–117). 39–42. According to the material here, the descendants of Makir son of Manasseh went to Gilead, which here refers to the northern part of Transjordan (cf. comments on vv. 25–27; 26:28–34; 27:1–11, “Context”). The text says that they took Gilead and drove out the Amorites who were there. The more specific location of the various Havvoth Jair (which means “the villages of Jair”) is not clear (cf. Josh 13:30–31 etc. and the discussion in MacDonald 2000:123). The location of Kenath, which Nobah (who is not otherwise mentioned in the Bible) is described as having captured and then renamed after himself (cf. comments on vv. 34–38), is not clear (see MacDonald 2000:123–124). Nobah is also mentioned in Jdg 8:11 but seems to be a different place from the one here (see MacDonald 2000:124). MEANING

This chapter introduces the settlement of the Transjordanian tribes (see Introduction on ancient Israelite settler colonialism). They were located east of the Jordan. This territory was a somewhat grey area in terms of the so-called promised land. The priestly vision of the Israelite territory saw the promised land as largely confined to the land west of the Jordan (cf. Num 34 and comments there), and the passage here (with its parallel in Josh 22:9–34) reflects that view. Yet, at the same time, there was a larger vision of a greater Israel that saw it extend all the way to the River Euphrates (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 23:31; Joshua 1:1–4; see Weinfeld 1993:52–69).86 It would appear that these two basic visions could coexist in the 194

C O M M E N TA RY

Israelite documents, without one being cut off in favour of the other.87 Consequently, then, Transjordan was outside the promised land according to one vision and inside it according to another. The conflict and its resolution in Num 32 fit with this unclarity. Moses is concerned that Israel will enter its “core” area of promise, and the agreement made with the Transjordanians ensures this. But the Transjordanians can equally settle east of the Jordan, in line with the extended vision of territory. The vision is here modified in accordance with the extended vision. Yet this only partially accorded with the extended vision as the early Israelites were not able to settle the full extent of the land towards the northeast according to that vision (with the biblical documents silent about any attempts). That wider area is described as having been conquered and ruled over by David and Solomon according to the biblical materials, even if it was not settled by the Israelites during that time either (see 2 Sam 8; 1 Ki 4:20–21). Deuteronomy–Joshua then goes with the wider vision where Transjordan is included (cf. Weinfeld 1993:69–75), even if it also refers to its full version that extends all the way to the Euphrates River (Josh 1:1–4). At the same time, Deuteronomy–Joshua is cognisant of and refers to the more constricted version in its treatment of the Transjordanian altar incident in Josh 22:9–34 (see e.g. Josh 22:9, 11, 19; cf. Josh 5:12 as pointed out by Weinfeld 1993:58), also keeping in mind that Josh 22:9–34 is a priestly passage that has been integrated in the book of Joshua (cf. Pitkänen 2016b). And of course the book of Numbers acknowledges the Transjordanian allotments, even when it may refer back to the more constricted priestly vision (Num 21:21–35; 32; 34:14–15). All in all, one may further keep in mind that settlement in the land could be somewhat fluid and changeable over time, and this seems to be in line with variations in descriptions of borders in the biblical materials (cf. comments on v. 33 earlier; cf. also e.g. Pitkänen 2010b). Keeping in mind the status of Transjordan in the land schemes of early Israel, it is fitting that the Transjordanian issue has been introduced in Numbers by A1 and is picked up on by AD in Deuteronomy–Joshua. AD seems to have considered the issue as particularly important as he has referred to it extensively (see “Context” earlier). As a whole, Deuteronomy and Joshua simply continue the themes expressed in the priestly material in Genesis–Numbers as Israel is depicted as conquering and settling the land. The wilderness paradigm is not valid in the land anymore but has been superseded by Deuteronomy. However, this is not a replacement but an adjustment and a logical continuation. In terms of centralisation of worship as pertains to Josh 22:9–34, in the time of Joshua, the wilderness period is in the past and the tribes have settled, at least initially (Josh 21:43–45). The people are now enjoying a rest in the land (Dt 12:8–14), idealised in the book of Joshua (cf. Pitkänen 2014d). At that time, the tent of meeting is the central sanctuary, set in Shiloh (Josh 18:1). Therefore, while Deuteronomy has relaxed profane slaughter (Dt 12:15–16, 20–25), the tribes may not sacrifice anywhere else than at Shiloh at the tent of meeting (Josh 22:29), the Deuteronomic central sanctuary. Should such sacrifices be made, this would indeed be rebelling against Yahweh (Josh 22:16–20; 29) in a manner of the deception of Achan (Josh 7) and 195

C O M M E N TA RY

the idolatry at Baal Peor (Num 25), from which great calamities resulted to both the wrongdoers and Israel as a whole. Arguably, the unity of Israel before Yahweh would also be broken (cf. Josh 22:24–27), again linking with both priestly and Deuteronomic concepts (see Pitkänen 2016b; cf. comments on 2:1–31; 5:1–4, “Meaning”; 7:1–89, “Context” earlier). The Transjordanian territories started to be lost from ancient Israel in the ninth century BCE (see 2 Ki 10:32–33). Towards the end of the eighth century BCE, the Assyrians then carried the Transjordanian population together with the rest of the northern kingdom of Israel to exile and resettled people elsewhere from Assyria in their stead (see 2 Ki 17; 1 Chr 5:26).88 After that, these peoples really lived on only in the memories of the later Israelites and Jews, and also Christians yet later on, with at least some having hopes and dreams of restoring the glorified past (see Ezek 48; cf. Rev 7). Summary of journey from Sinai to Moab (33:1–49) CONTEXT

This passage summarises the Israelite journey through the wilderness from Egypt to the plains of Moab on their way to the land of Canaan. The list is largely in agreement with the journey of the Israelites in the narratives of Exodus–Numbers but does not completely tally with it, either in terms of the order of progression of travel or toponyms as a whole. Issues around the Israelite itineraries have been discussed extensively in the past (see e.g. Davies 1979; Roskop 2011); however, it seems that it is not easy to make conclusive comments on a number of related matters. For the purposes of the commentary here, I propose that it seems best to take the list in Numbers 33 as being based on a separate but related tradition that was incorporated in the book of Numbers by A1 without trying to tally it too carefully with the main narrative and any itinerary information included in it. It would seem that A1 an AD had a number of traditions from which they drew, trying to present a picture of comprehensiveness by adding material side by side in cases where the sources did not quite tally with each other, rather than following a method of modern post-Enlightenment scientific accuracy that shuns contradiction (cf. comments earlier on 20:1, 14–21, 22–23a). The list states that it was recorded by Moses (v. 3). As such this would be possible. Writing in the wider Near East dates to the late third millennium BCE. Closer to the time of the early Israelites, a sophisticated scribal system was in place across the area in the Late Bronze Age (see e.g. Cohen 2009; Devecchi 2012), as part of the Late Bronze Age international era. This international era collapsed around 1180 (see e.g. Cline 2014), after which archaeological-based evidence of large-scale writing emerges in the Levantine area (and in Greece) only in the eighth–seventh centuries BCE. While much of the writing in the second millennium BCE was in syllabic cuneiform, the alphabet also existed, having its earliest attestation in the early second millennium. The texts in Ugarit, 196

C O M M E N TA RY

a port city in the area of today’s Syria in the late second millennium, widely used alphabetic cuneiform, even when syllabic cuneiform was also employed there. From Canaan itself we have a number of items as part of the so-called Amarna letters from the fourteenth century BCE that were at large mostly written in Akkadian cuneiform. The books of Samuel (and cf. e.g. 2 Sam 8:17; 20:25) indicate that there was substantial writing in ancient Israel in the time of David, and the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription, Izbet Sartah ostracon, Gezer calendar and Tel Zayit abecedary that have been found in the area date from the eleventh– tenth centuries BCE (cf. Millard 2012). The Israelite settlement in the highlands clearly appears to have started before the collapse of the Late Bronze Mediterranean world in the early twelfth century BCE, with the Merneptah Stele that mentions Israel dated to some thirty years before the collapse. On the assumption that A1 and AD were priests, it would seem reasonable to think that they could have had scribal training, with some of such training possibly at least partly running in families (as notably at Emar). Moses himself is of course stated as having grown up in the Egyptian royal court, with Egypt having a writing tradition that dates back to the early third millennium BCE. Naturally, writing in alphabet would also be much easier than in cuneiform or hieroglyphics, requiring less training. All in all, there is no reason to assume that Moses could not have written down the stations of the Israelites as suggested in Num 33. However, whether he actually did so is another matter. I from my part would see the list as a plausible route of the Moses group through the wilderness rather than an exact description of that route and something that was more likely produced at a later date than Moses, at least partly so. This said, it nevertheless helps represent the fact that the Israelites migrated from Egypt to Canaan, and expresses what type of route Moses might plausibly have taken when leading a group of people along such a trajectory. Thus, and in line with the approach taken throughout this commentary, while the list in Num 33 may not be completely historical, neither does one need to think that it is a purely fictional one.89 In terms of source criticism, the list is classically seen as attesting priestly features, even if JE-type material may also be involved; however, it would seem difficult to attempt to completely disentangle these sources (cf. Gray 1903:442–444). The literary structure can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–2 introduction, vv. 3–15 Egypt to Sinai, vv. 16–36 Sinai to Kadesh, vv. 37–49 Kadesh to Moab. The list includes approximately forty stations (cf. Gray 1903:442), perhaps so as to tally in a general sense with the forty years of wandering in the wilderness by the Israelites. COMMENT

1–2. The text states that it is listing the stations of the journey of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Moreover, it presents itself as a list recorded by Moses himself at the command of Yahweh. 197

C O M M E N TA RY

3–15. The list starts from Ramesses, where the Israelites departed from after the tenth plague, the killing of the Egyptian firstborn, had taken place (Ex 12). This was according to the material here a judgement on the gods of Egypt, naturally demonstrating the power of Yahweh (cf. Ex 7:3–5). It seems likely that Ramesses should be located at Qantir (see Hoffmeier 1997:116–117, 122– 123; Hoffmeier 2005:54, 57). Succoth seems to be connected with the Egyptian Tjeku, a region around the Wadi Tumilat, with particular reference to its eastern end (see Hoffmeier 1997:179–181; Hoffmeier 2005:65–68). The location of Etham is uncertain, but it could be around the eastern end of Wadi Tumilat (see Hoffmeier 1997:182; Hoffmeier 2005:68–71). The location of Pi Hahiroth, Migdol and Baal-Zephon is not entirely clear, but Hoffmeier suggests that they are close to Tell el-Borg, towards the south-east (discussion in Hoffmeier 1997:182–191 and in Hoffmeier 2005:75–105). If so, the location of the crossing of the Israelites would have been around the northern end of the Ballah Lakes (see Hoffmeier 2005:75–105 for a discussion; cf. his earlier thinking in Hoffmeier 1997:199–215). The location of the places mentioned in vv. 8–15 is not clear, as is the case with most places in the wilderness (see Hoffmeier 2005:161–171 for a discussion of the sites). 16–36. The location of Sinai is not clear, but southern Sinai seems most probable (see Hoffmeier 2005:111–148 for a discussion). The identification of the sites in the wilderness between Sinai and Kadesh is difficult and no further comments will be attempted here (but cf. Davies 1979:85–89 for some remarks). For Kadesh, see comments on 13:1–3. Also, Ezion-Geber (vv. 35, 36) is located around the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba (cf. Dt 2:8; 1 Ki 9:26; 22:48; 1 Chr 8:17; 20:36). Its exact location is not clear, but Jezirat Fara’un (“Island of the Pharaohs”), an island located some 8 miles south of modern Eilat on the west coast of the Gulf of al-’Aqaba, is a possibility (see MacDonald 2000:79–81). 37–49. On Mount Hor, see comments on 20:22–23a. The comments in v. 38 tally with 20:22–29, but Dt 10:6 gives a different tradition (cf. comments on 20:22–23a). Aaron’s age at his death is in line with Ex 7:7. For Arad, see comments on 21:1–3 (and cf. v. 40 with 21:1). The location of Zalmonah is unknown (see MacDonald 2000:82–83). Punon may be located in the Faynan region; however, a more exact localisation seems difficult (see MacDonald 2000:83–84). For Oboth and Iye Abarim (fairly obviously Iyim in v. 45), see comments on 21:10–13. On Dibon Gad, which appears to be the same as Dibon in 32:3, 34, see comments on 32:1–5. Almon Diblathaim may be the same as Beth-diblathaim of Jer 48.22, and may be located at the twin sites of Khirbat adDeleilat al-Garbiyya and ash-Sharqiyya (note that the word “diblathaim” is in dual form in Hebrew). Iron I–II sherds have been found from the latter site (see MacDonald 2000:85). For Abarim, see comments on 21:10–13, and for Nebo, on 32:1–5. The exact location of Beth Jeshimoth and Abel Shittim is not clear, but they refer to the extremities of the Israelite camp. MacDonald suggests Tall al-’Azeimeh as the location of the former and Tall al-Hamman as that of the latter. Tall al-’Azeimeh has yielded Iron II and possibly Iron I sherds, and Tall 198

C O M M E N TA RY

al-Hamman appears to have been an Iron Age I–II fortress that was very large and strongly built, and completely enclosed by a strong outer fortification wall (see MacDonald 2000:88–90). MEANING

This passage recounts the route of the Israelites from Egypt to the plains of Moab. It is essentially a travel itinerary that summarises the overall route of the Israelites. For later readers, it would presumably have served as a reminder about the exodus and the stay of the Israelites in the wilderness in a concise form. They would be able to feel that Yahweh had been faithful and taken them through a vast and dreadful desert (Dt 8:15; cf. Dt 1:31; 2:7). Feeling solidarity with their past ancestors, they could imagine that they themselves had been through that experience, in many ways just as Moses had spoken with the second generation at Moab as if they were the first one at Sinai (e.g. Dt 5:2–4; cf. Otto 2012a). Jewish readers would in particular be likely to find it easy to think in this way. Other than this, the journey of the Israelites could be considered to have implications for Christians, if one were to allegorically take Christian life as a journey towards the promised land of heaven (cf. Stubbs 2009:238–239). But, of course, one can question as to what extent such an allegorical comparison can really be drawn, including in the context of postcolonial criticism (cf. esp. Introduction on settler colonialism), even when such issues as sufferings and temptations of the people could resonate in the minds of many (cf. Stubbs 2009:238–239). Yahweh’s command to destroy the indigenous peoples of Canaan (33:50–56) CONTEXT

This passage describes the command of Yahweh to Moses on the plains of Moab to drive out the previous inhabitants from before them and distribute the land by lot. The content of the passage is similar to that in Ex 23:20–33; 34:10–16; Lev 18:24–28; 20:22–24; Numbers 33:50–56; Dt 7; 11:31; 12:2ff. (cf. Achenbach 2003:573). In classical source criticism it has been attributed to P/H. In terms of dependency, it is possible that Deuteronomy is drawing from the expression here and in Ex 23:20–33; 34:10–16 in particular, rather than vice versa as is often thought, with the material here possibly drawing from the Exodus materials (cf. Kilchör 2015:164–175, passim). The passage relates to ancient Israelite settler colonialism that permeates the whole of Genesis–Joshua (see Introduction and comments on 8:1–4; cf. Chapter 31, “Meaning”). Accordingly, the corresponding ideological approach comes through in all of the postulated Pentateuchal sources, even if it is particularly pronounced in Dt 7 and put into effect in the book of Joshua that describes the conquest of the land of Canaan. But we have already seen it being exercised in the book of Numbers (Num 21:1–3; 21:21–35; 199

C O M M E N TA RY

31; 32:33–42), even if on a smaller scale than in the book of Joshua in particular as the conquest-related events in the book of Numbers largely pertain to the land east of the Jordan. The passage includes a renewed command to divide the land by lot (cf. v. 54 with 26:52–56). COMMENT

50–53. Yahweh commands Moses on the plains of Moab to drive out the previous inhabitants from before them. The Israelites are told to in particular destroy their religious infrastructure, to be replaced by the Israelite one as and after the Israelites have settled. The focus in on the land west of the Jordan, but undoubtedly this also applies to the eastern side (cf. Josh 22:9–34). On this process of ancient settler colonialism, see Introduction, and comments on 8:1–4; see Chapter 31, “Meaning”. 54. The Israelites are again instructed to divide the land by lot. The content here essentially summarises that in 26:52–56 (and see comments there). 55–56. Yahweh stresses that the previous inhabitants must be driven out; otherwise their infrastructure will remain in place and it will prevent the Israelites from following Yahweh and will result in their destruction (cf. e.g. Lev 18:28; 20:22; 26; Dt 28). MEANING

The command to destroy the indigenous peoples of Canaan permeates Gen– Joshua. In line with settler colonialism, the Israelite society is to replace the indigenous ones (see comments in the introduction and on 8:1–4; cf. Chapter 31, “Meaning”). However, the book of Judges in particular describes how the two societies rather ended up coexisting. Essentially in fulfilment of the warnings of the passage here, the Israelites did leave many of the indigenous peoples in place and followed their ways (Jdg 1–2). The rest of the book of Judges then describes the various difficulties that resulted for them, indicating that they were due to the unfaithfulness of the Israelites. The books of Kings further interpret the exile of the Israelites as ultimately resulting from their disobedience to Yahweh (see e.g. 2 Ki 17:7–23; 21:1–15; 24:20), and the theme is still followed in the postexilic period (see Neh 9; Dan 9). In the more modern world, settler colonialism particularly escalated in the period of Western colonialism. Spanish conquests in the Caribbean, British and later US expansion over the North American continent and the settlement of Australia were particularly destructive for the indigenous peoples of these areas, almost completely wiping them out. And the conquest still continues against those who have managed to remain even in those places (cf. e.g. Hinkson, James and Veracini 2012; Short 2016). In connection with modern Israel, the Palestinians are being driven out from their lands (cf. e.g. Pitkänen 2010b:89–99; Pitkänen 2014b, passim) under the gaze of the whole world.90 It would be in the view of 200

C O M M E N TA RY

this author vital for Christians, and humanity as a whole, to work towards righting such wrongs as much as they can so as to achieve a more just and equitable world (cf. also comments on Chapters 13–14, “Meaning”; Chapter 36, “Meaning”). Land divisions II (34–36) CONTEXT

The final three chapters of Numbers relate to land division that itself relates to ancient Israelite settler colonialism (cf. Introduction). Chapter 34 summarises the extent of the promised land based on the priestly vision that concentrates on land on the west side of the Jordan (cf. comments on Chapter 32, “Meaning”) and assigns leaders from each tribe to allot it. Chapter 35 legislates for the Levitical towns and cities of refuge. Chapter 36 stipulates about female inheritance through the case of the daughters of Zelophehad. The use of lot in Chapter 34 was already introduced in 26:52–56 and 33:54. From a narrative perspective, the towns for the Levites were already mentioned in Lev 25:32–34. Similarly, the case of the daughters of Zelophehad was already introduced in Chapter 27. Thus, the chapters here pick up on themes and issues already introduced earlier and build on them. The focus is resolutely on future life in the land, as is fitting for this final part of the book of Numbers, where the Israelites are portrayed as being camped on the plains of Moab, just about ready to cross over into the promised land (cf. Josh 1–4). It is just that Moses will first give his farewell sermon and go up on a mountain to view the promised land and die, as described in the book of Deuteronomy. Boundaries of the land (34) CONTEXT

This chapter describes the extent of the promised land according to the priestly vision that concentrates on land on the west side of the Jordan, even if it also acknowledges the Transjordanian allotments (cf. vv. 14–15; cf. also comments on Chapter 32, “Meaning”). It then assigns leaders from each of the Cishordanian tribes to allot it, with Joshua son of Nun and Eleazar the priest supervising the project. Keeping in mind the priestly-related themes, it should come as no surprise that the material has traditionally been assigned to P/H. Its structure can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–2 introduction, vv. 3–5 the southern boundary, v. 6 the western boundary, vv. 7–9 the northern boundary, vv. 10–12 the eastern boundary, vv. 13–15 the command of Yahweh to assign the land west of the Jordan as an inheritance by lot, vv. 16–29 persons assigned by Yahweh to carry out the land allotment. The boundaries described here correspond fairly well to the boundaries of the province of Canaan that was under the overall control of New Kingdom Egypt, even if the Egyptian sources do not allow for a precise delimitation (see Kitchen 201

C O M M E N TA RY

2003:163–164; cf. Weinfeld 1993:55–56). Notably, Kadesh on the Orontes, where the battle between Ramesses II and Hattusili took place, resulting in a treaty (ca 1259 BCE) that is seen as having kept the status quo between the two contemporary superpowers of Egypt and Hatti (see Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, 1:573–594; 2:57-60; 3:98; cf. Kitchen 2003:470), is not very far from Lebo Hamath. But it would seem that nothing more and nothing less than a broad correspondence can be given in this respect. The word “Canaan” itself is attested from the second millennium on in extrabiblical sources. It is possible that it is derived from the word “purple” (Akk. kinaḫḫu),91 which would then tie in with the production of purple in the central-southern Levantine coast; however, this proposed etymology is not by any means certain (see e.g. ABD I:828–829; and cf. comments on 15:37–41). COMMENT

1–2. The text describes how Yahweh specifies the boundaries of Canaan, to be allotted as an inheritance for the Israelites, who are just about to enter the land. Boundaries in the south, west, north and east are given, covering all directions. The border is described in a clockwise direction, with the area of the southern tip of the Dead Sea as the starting point. 3–5. The description starts with the southern border, delimited from east to west after some introductory comments in v. 3a. The border is the same as the southern border of Judah in Josh 15:1–4 (and cf. Ezek 47:19), except that one or two localities that are described in the Joshua passage are not included here (see Pitkänen 2010b:286–287 for further details). For Edom, which Josh 15:1 explicitly states to be located south of Judah and thus ancient Israel as a whole, see comments on 20:14–21. As is clear in the book of Numbers, the wilderness of Zin is located around Kadesh (see comments on 13:1–3 on both). The southern end of the Dead Sea is a clear landmark for the southern border in the east (even if the related expression is slightly more complicated in Josh 15:2; see Pitkänen 2010b:287). The ascent of Akrabim (scorpions) may be mentioned in Egyptian documents from the Late Bronze Age (see ABD I, p. 141). Its exact location does not seem to be clear, even though it is usually identified with Naqb ets-Tsfar (see ABD I, p. 141). For Zin, see comments just earlier, assuming that the same place is referred to, albeit it may be about a specific place in the region here. For Kadesh Barnea, again, see comments on 13:1–3. Hazar Addar may be a combination of Hezron and Addar (cf. Josh 15:3); however, the location of both of those places is unclear (see ABD III, p. 194; ABD I, p. 70). The location of Azmon is not known, albeit one candidate, Ain Muweilih, has revealed a station on the ancient road to southern Sinai that dates to the Iron I period (see ABD I, p. 540). The Brook of Egypt, which at times features in biblical border descriptions (see e.g. 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7), is often identified with Wadi el Arish (some 50 miles southwest of Gaza; see ABD II, p. 321). Another candidate that has been given is Nahal Bezor (located near Gaza), and the location of the Brook of Egypt is (thus) 202

C O M M E N TA RY

not entirely certain (cf. ABD II, p. 321). Finally, the southern border ends in the Mediterranean Sea. 6. The western border is a simple and straightforward one. It consists of the Mediterranean Sea, a natural boundary. See also Ezek 47:20. 7–9. The northern boundary is described from west to east. The starting point is the Mediterranean. The location of Mount Hor (not the same Mount Hor as the one in the south and where Aaron died in 20:22–29) is not clear (see Milgrom 1990:286; ABD III:287). The location of Lebo Hamath is uncertain (see ABD III, pp. 36–37), but Hamath itself was a well-known ancient city in Syria (see ABD III, pp. 33–36, for details). The place may be mentioned in the conquest lists of Thutmose III (see Junkkaala 2006:153–154). Zedad may be present-day Tsada, east of the Sirion (anti-Lebanon range), close to the Damascus-Homs highway (see Milgrom 1990:287), even if this is by no means certain (see ABD VI:1068). The location of Ziphron and Hazar Enan is not clear (cf. Milgrom 1990:287; ABD VI:1104). See also Ezek 47:15–17 for the northern border. 10–12. The eastern border is given from north to south, starting from Hazar Enan, where the northern border ended. The location of Shepham, Riblah and Ain is unclear (see Milgrom 1990:287; ABD I:131–132, V:721, 1203). As Milgrom points out, the uncertainty with the locations in the north-east makes the extent of the overall boundary there unclear (Milgrom 1990:287). The next stop is the slopes east of the Lake Gennesaret, or Sea of Galilee, the big lake in northern Israel which features in the New Testament as one of the places of Jesus’s activity. After that, the border joins the Jordan and goes down it, and ends at the Dead Sea. See also Ezek 47:18 for the eastern border. A concluding comment finishes off the description (v. 12b). 13–15. Moses then commands the Israelites to divide the land west of the Jordan by lot, in line with 26:52–56; 33:54. Moses also reminds the people that the tribes east of the Jordan have already received their share. 16–29. Speaking to Moses, Yahweh then himself assigns the men who are to allot the land. The main overseers are Joshua and Eleazar, who lead the conquest generation (cf. 20:22–29; 27:12–23; Josh 14:1 etc.). However, they are joined for this task by ten other leaders, one from each Cisjordanian tribe (cf. Josh 14:1; 19:51).92 Except for Caleb, who oversees Judah (on Caleb, see comments on Chapters 13–14 and passim), these men do not feature elsewhere in the Bible. As Joshua oversees Israel as a whole, he is replaced by another person to specifically oversee Ephraim (vv. 17–18, 24). The name Parnach (v. 25) has an ostensible Persian parallel (cf. Levine 2000:537), but for example other derivations can also be possible, keeping in mind that vowels have been introduced to the text at a later stage (cf. Milgrom 1990:288, 330n24).93 A summary comment concludes the section and chapter (v. 29). MEANING

The chapter enumerates the boundary of the promised land west of the Jordan. For the early Israelites, it served as legitimation of their landholdings and also spurred 203

C O M M E N TA RY

them towards taking all of the land specified as part of their settler colonial project (cf. Josh 13:1–7). After the diminishing of the Israelite territory that ultimately led to the Babylonian exile (cf. comments on Chapter 32, “Meaning”), the concept of past landholdings served as a glorified cultural memory. In the postexilic time, it was rather the law of Moses that became the focus of the emerging Judaism (cf. comments on Chapters 13–14, “Meaning”), even if the concept of the land never vanished from sight. The idea of land lived on, even if in a dampened form, for 2,000 years in Judaism for its adherents, who considered these documents as a foundation of their identity (see Sand 2009; Sand 2012). With the rise of modern nationalism, a new movement, Zionism, arose among the adherents of Judaism in the nineteenth century, calling for a return to the land of the Bible and establishing a nation state there. Zionism attracted enough adherents and support, and the establishment of a Jewish state was achieved, but at the cost of violence towards and a loss of land for the indigenous Palestinians (see e.g. Pappe 2004; Pitkänen 2010b:89–99). At the time of writing this commentary, the modern Israeli settler colonial project carries on in full swing, with an undoubted underlying agenda of clearing out the Palestinians from the land by at least its most ardent adherents, in line with the millennia-old vision of the original Israelites. For the early Israelites, belief in divine right constituted a powerful motive and driver for their actions, and, as we can see, these ancient texts that serve as a foundation for one’s identity millennia later can still resurrect similar attitudes and approaches as their legacy (for further comments on colonialism, see esp. Introduction, and comments on 13–14, “Meaning” and 33:50–56, “Meaning”). Levitical towns and towns of refuge (35) CONTEXT

Except for their first mention in Leviticus 25:32–34 as (if) something known, the Levitical towns are first “properly” introduced here in Numbers 35:1–8 in the canonical context (and order), and Josh 21 provides a fulfilment of the stipulations in Numbers where forty-eight towns are assigned across the land. The Levitical towns are not directly mentioned in Deuteronomy proper. The legislation about the towns in Leviticus 25:32–34 is in agreement with the corresponding legislation in Numbers–Joshua. Apart from Joshua 21, another list of the towns is provided in 1 Chronicles 6:54–81. The lists in Joshua and Chronicles differ somewhat, as do the Hebrew and Greek versions of Joshua 21 (for further details, see Pitkänen 2010b:340). The system of Levitical towns can be considered as programmatic and, except for the objectives explicitly stated in the biblical text, comparable to colonial centres of rule which are intended to consolidate the hold of the colonisers, in this case the Israelites and Yahwism in the land. Interestingly, comparisons with Inka centres of rule in pre-Columbian America (for these, see DeMarrais 2005, esp. the map on p. 77; see also D’Altroy 2005:281–285, incl. Figure 9.6 on p. 282) can be 204

C O M M E N TA RY

made, and the related Inka artisan colonies may provide an even closer parallel. As there clearly seem to be no historical or cultural links at all between these entities, one may conclude that it is possible that comparable plans and political systems be independently devised in differing places and settings. It appears, however, that this part of the vision(s) of Genesis–Joshua was never implemented, at least not in full, as was the case with a number of other aspects of the early Israelite settler colonial vision(s) – for example the idea of fully driving out the original inhabitants (cf. comments on settler colonialism in Introduction). The allotment of the Levitical towns (and towns of refuge; cf. ahead) may then, together with the main framework of the tribal allotments (Josh 13–19; cf. Num 26:52–56; 33:54; 34), relate to the idealistic side of the picture about early Israel that the book of Joshua wants to communicate. Nevertheless, the system does (also) have a parallel in ancient Near Eastern land grants attested in the second millennium BCE (see Hess 1996:202; Hess 2002; Weinfeld 2004:32–33).94 As for the towns of refuge, according to the legislation introduced here, the Israelites are to assign six of the Levitical towns as places where an accidental manslayer can flee to avoid summary execution by a relative of the person killed. The towns of refuge are first mentioned in Ex 21:12–14 in the Covenant Code, which is often considered as the oldest of the biblical law codes. Wellhausen (1905/1878) thought that the towns developed from sacrificial altars (cf. Ex 21:14). This is possible, but the reference in Ex 21:14 could also simply imply altars within a town of refuge (or even elsewhere), without a need to imply that altars were the only specific place where a person might be physically seeking refuge. Further, the towns feature in Dt 4:41–43, where Moses allots three towns in Transjordan, in Dt 19:1–13, which by and large restates and summarises the legislation, and in Josh 20, which describes the allotment of towns of refuge in Cisjordan. The passage in the book of Joshua provides a fulfilment of the stipulations. All in all, the laws in these texts have some slightly differing emphases and details (treated in Barmash 2005:79–92; cf. Pitkänen 2010b:332–338). The main possible and potentially contradictory divergence is that Deuteronomy 19:8–9 may refer to a total of nine towns, or even only three. However, it can also be seen to refer to six, as suggested by the other passages (for details, see e.g. Zvi 1992:94–95; Barmash 2005:87–88). The towns of refuge are also cursorily mentioned in the list of Levitical towns in 1 Chronicles 6:54–81. It appears that there are no known direct parallels to the system of the towns of refuge from elsewhere in the ancient Near East (see Barmash 2005:203–204). Diplomatic asylum as such is, however, well known from the ancient Near East (see e.g. Beckman 1999, passim; Kitchen and Lawrence 2012, passim), and of course makes sense, just as diplomatic asylum is known from the modern world.95 In this connection, it would also make sense that a killer might flee to another country (so Moses according to the Bible itself, in Exodus 2:11–15). The system of blood avenging itself seems to be attested in the ancient Near East, and already well in the second millennium (see Barmash 2005:20–70). Also, cuneiform legal material stipulated for capital punishments in case of homicides (see e.g. Barmash 205

C O M M E N TA RY

2005:168–170). Thus the system of towns of refuge has its grounding in ancient Near Eastern law and practice, but appears to have a slant that is specifically Israelite. In their present form in Deuteronomy–Joshua, the towns of refuge have been set up roughly evenly across the Israelite territory (comments by Zvi 1992:97–98 notwithstanding). This would enable one equally easy access to a town of refuge throughout the land (as observed by Barmash 2005:85; see also Boling and Wright 1982 etc. for a rough map). This material in Num 35 has traditionally been assigned to P (or H), with the subject matter of both the Levitical towns and towns of refuge clearly interconnected and linking with priestly concerns, even if this is more expressly the case with the Levitical towns. The structure of the chapter can be delimited as follows: vv. 1–5 Levitical towns, vv. 6–8, towns of refuge to be set up, from among Levitical towns which are to be apportioned according to tribal size, vv. 9–15 further details about the towns, vv. 16–28 legislation about the accidental manslayer in relation to the towns of refuge, vv. 29–32 additional stipulations about the towns of refuge, vv. 33–34 concluding comments. The material here in Numbers essentially serves as a basis for the descriptions of these institutions in the book of Joshua, where (as in the book of Deuteronomy where applicable) they are compatible with their priestly character but are incorporated in a Deuteronomic framework from a literary perspective (see esp. Pitkänen 2010b:332–352).96 COMMENT

1–5. The literary setting of the legislation about the Levitical towns is the plains of Moab across from Jericho, even if the institution is already assumed in Lev 25:32–34, whose literary setting is at Sinai. But the location here clearly seems to help emphasise that the material pertains very directly to the promised land. Yahweh commands Moses to give the Levites towns to live in within the Israelite territory. This will include pasturelands for livestock around the towns. The pasturelands are to extend about 500 metres (1,000 cubits) from the town wall. At the same time, the lands are to extend some 1,000 metres (2,000 cubits) from the town. It would appear that it is best to consider the latter as counting from the town centre with a basic assumption about average town size (cf. Milgrom 1990:289–290; 502–504). Presumably the former specification would continually apply in case the town became large (as proposed by Milgrom 1990:290). 6–8. Six of the Levitical towns are to be assigned to also serve as towns of refuge (see ahead). A person who has killed someone may flee to those towns. Added to forty-two other Levitical towns, this makes a total of forty-eight Levitical towns. The towns are to be given in proportion to towns that the tribes possess. This is not what happens in the book of Joshua as the towns are distributed fairly equally among the tribes (cf. Milgrom 1990:290). A similar discrepancy exists in terms of the size of territories allocated for each tribe (see 26:52–56; 33:54; and cf. comments on 26:52–56). It seems best to assume that A1 and AD had slightly 206

C O M M E N TA RY

differing perspectives on the matter, in line with some slight differences between these two authors throughout (see elsewhere in this commentary, passim). The view of AD then more closely reflected the reality of the allotment of the towns, even if it is not clear to what extent the whole system was really put in effect in ancient Israel (cf. “Context” earlier). Note that Caleb was assigned Hebron in Josh 14:6–15, and, consequently, Caleb had to share the town with Aaronide priests (cf. Josh 21:10:12; and cf. Pitkänen 2010b:279–281). And yet, Hebron was an ideologically important town in early Israel, undoubtedly much by virtue of, according to the tradition, the patriarchs being largely buried there (cf. Kallai 2010:145). In addition, David, who himself seems to have been from Bethlehem (see 1 Sam 16:1), is reported to have initially ruled from Hebron (2 Sam 5:1–5), and this would fit with the high conceptual status of the town in early Israel. Note also that assigning three towns from the east side of the Jordan and three from the west (v. 14) conceptually links with Numbers 32 and the Transjordanian allotments. 9–15. The focus now shifts wholly to the towns of refuge. The idea of the towns of refuge is to provide a safe haven for someone who has killed another person unintentionally. The text implies that a specific person, apparently from among the relatives of the victim, would be expected to avenge the death (v. 12), and this is confirmed in v. 19. To avoid a death by the avenger of blood (gō’ēl haddām), the killer may wait safely in the town of refuge for a trial by the assembly (‘ēḏāh; see comments on vv. 16–28 ahead [esp. vv. 24–25]). The Israelites are to give three towns from Transjordan and three from Canaan (Cisjordan). Notably, aliens (gēr) and sojourners (tôšāḇ) are also covered by this legislation (cf. comments on 9:9–14). 16–28. If an iron object has been used, the manslayer is automatically considered to be a murderer, and the same goes with using a stone that could kill (vv. 16–17). Accordingly, one would have had to be very careful when using these, and, conversely, a murderer using these tools would not be able to try to claim that the death was accidental. The same is the case even with wooden implements (v. 18). The avenger of blood (gō’ēl haddām, lit. redeemer of blood; cf. e.g. Ex 6:6; Lev 25:25–34, 47–55; Ruth 3:9–4:12) would be expected kill the offender if he or she were a murderer. This would take place as soon as the avenger of blood would find the person (bepˉiḡʿô-ḇô, v. 21). The cases of shoving another person, throwing an object (not of stone as in v. 17) at a person and (possibly) hitting him or her with one’s fist (lit. hand) are grey areas. If they were done in malice, the avenger of blood is to kill the offender (vv. 20–21). However, if the person suddenly shoved another unintentionally or threw something and it hit a person by mistake, or even if a stone object fell from one’s control and hit the victim and he died (vv. 22–23; Dt 19:5 allows for the case of an axehead falling off an axe),97 then the person could be considered an accidental manslayer. The case of accidentally hitting with a fist is not explicitly mentioned, apparently as it may be difficult for that to happen. The Israelite assembly (‘ēḏāh) will make a judgement about whether the slaying was accidental based on the stipulations just given. The trial did not need to take place at a town of refuge, but the assembly was to guarantee 207

C O M M E N TA RY

protection and safe passage to the town of refuge for the manslayer (v. 25). Obviously the trial before the assembly would be expected to seek to establish the facts of the case and make a fair judgement about the nature of the killing.98 Josh 20:4–6 states that if the manslayer first goes to the town of refuge, he must state his case before the elders of the town and await for a trial before the assembly. These, being aware of the special status of their town, would protect the unintentional killer and arrange for the practicalities of his life while there. If the trial established the manslayer’s innocence, he or she would have to stay in the town of refuge till the death of the current high priest (v. 25); otherwise the manslayer would be expected to be handed over to the avenger of blood (Dt 19:11–13; cf. v. 21 here). It clearly appears that the death of the high priest, the cultic leader of the nation, nullifies the requirement to avenge. It thus appears to act as atonement for an unintentional manslaughter, in line with the high priest’s overall cultic responsibility for the nation (Ex 28:38) and role in atoning on behalf of the people once a year (Lev 16, esp. vv. 16, 21; cf. Milgrom 1990:294; Hess 1996:279). The legislation about an accidental killer is in line with the idea that there can be atonement for unintentional sins but not for intentional ones (cf. 15: 22–31 and comments on the verses). If the person goes out from the town of refuge before the death of the high priest and the avenger of blood happens to find him, the avenger may kill him without guilt falling on the avenger (vv. 26–28). 29–32. Some additional stipulations about the towns of refuge follow. The stipulations are to be valid throughout the generations to come, wherever the Israelites may live (v. 29). Importantly, two witnesses or more are required in capital cases (v. 30; cf. Dt 17:2–7).99 While ransom was a possibility in ancient Near Eastern legal tradition in cases of homicide (see Barmash 2005, passim), this was not the case in Israel. A murderer had to be put to death (v. 31), and a ransom could not be accepted even for an accidental killer so that he or she could return to his or her home from the town of refuge before the death of the high priest. In the case of a goring ox there could be a ransom, however, according to the Covenant Code (see Ex 21:28–32). 33–34. The ancient Israelites considered that bloodshed pollutes the land and atonement can be made only on a talion principle. This extends to unsolved murders, where atonement can, however, be effected through killing an animal (see Dt 21:1–9). The prohibition against defiling (ṭmʾ) the land is connected with other cases of improper conduct (see esp. Lev 18:24–30). In this connection, killing the indigenous peoples does not defile the land; on the contrary, allowing them to stay in the land will effect (or keep effecting) just that (see esp. Lev 18:24–30; cf. Lev 20:22–24). MEANING

An important part of the settler colonial tribal land allotments (cf. Introduction on settler colonialism) is ensuring that the Aaronide priests and the Levites get their share so that provision is made for everyone in Israel. Both the priests and 208

C O M M E N TA RY

Levites are extremely important for Israel due to their taking care of cultic duties. Certainly, they already were to be recipients of parts of sacrifices and of tithes (see esp. Num 18), but did not really have any land to own. The system of Levitical towns provides a further means of livelihood and stability. In this way, justice and provision for all were to be ensured in the ancient Israelite society. The setting up of towns of refuge similarly reflects the desire of Genesis– Joshua to create provision for the people of Israel. The institution was created to minimise the spilling of innocent blood. The towns of refuge were designated from Levitical towns, the time of asylum was linked with the lifetime of the high priest and the system was thus closely linked with priestly and Levitical concerns. If a person killed another person unintentionally, no further bloodshed should occur. However, equally, someone who had murdered another person should not be spared and allowed to give the excuse that the killing was unintentional. A trial would help distinguish real claims from fraudulent ones. The killer would be designated places where he could stay safely while awaiting for the trial. It is interesting that the system of blood avenging100 is not as such at all condemned by the biblical text. Be that as it may, in the context of Num 35, it was important that justice was done, and this theme occurs in many places in the Old Testament. The provision for the Levites can help Christians to keep in mind that it would be helpful if they can provide for their religious personnel. Importantly, there is a voluntary aspect to such provision, and it is an important concept that should not be forgotten or otherwise neglected (cf. Deuteronomy 12:19). The system of the towns of refuge provides a good general principle and reminder for modern Christians and anyone else to uphold justice. Undoubtedly the concern of the ancient Israelite texts that the priests and Levites have sufficient means for their livelihood can be extended to wider societal groups and can thus on its part also act as a stimulus towards alleviating poverty at large today. But, again, we note that, in Numbers and in Genesis–Joshua as a whole, the rules for those within the society are different from those without. That is these concepts of provision and justice were designed to not apply to the indigenous peoples of the land. These people were envisaged to not be part of the ancient Israelite society but were to be destroyed according to the architects of the texts. In contrast, extending justice and provision to all groups should be adopted as a programmatic task in today’s world.101 Daughters of Zelophehad and female heirs II (36) CONTEXT

Num 27:1–11 described how the daughters of Zelophehad request that inheritance be given to them. The request was granted by Yahweh himself after Moses had brought the question to his attention. Additional stipulations are provided in the passage here. The main point is that the inheritance of a tribe might be transferred 209

C O M M E N TA RY

away if the daughters marry into another tribe. As a result, it is stipulated that the women must marry within their own tribe, but within these parameters they are free to marry whomever they wish. It is interesting that this second part of the stipulations is placed here in a literary position that is separate from where it was introduced (Num 27). One can consider that the narratives about the daughters of Zelophehad bracket the final chapters in Numbers that are introduced after the census of the second generation (Num 26). As with Num 27, Num 36:1–12 is traditionally ascribed to P (or perhaps H). The concluding comment in v. 13 is also considered to be of priestly character. The literary structure of vv. 1–12 can be described as follows: vv. 1–4 a problem expressed by Gileadites in regard to the inheritances of the daughters of Zelophehad, vv. 5–9 Yahweh’s response through Moses, vv. 10–12 the implementation of the injunction. The passage can be compared with Lev 24:10–23, Num 9:6–14 and Num 15:32–36, in essence in terms of acting as application of an existing law when additional considerations are brought into play (as pointed out by Achenbach 2003:571). COMMENT

1–4. The family heads of the clan of Gilead approach Moses (cf. 27:1–2).102 They are aware that the daughters of Zelophehad have been granted inheritance because there are no male heirs (v. 2; Num 27). They have thought about the matter and have come across a potentially problematic scenario. They can foresee that if the daughters marry into another tribe, the land given to those daughters will transfer to the other tribe. This would occur in the Jubilee at the latest, where the transfer would be “officially” confirmed (cf. Lev 26), causing a net loss of land to the tribe of Manasseh. 5–9. The text implies that Moses again takes advice from Yahweh. In this case, too, the response is positive and a suitable solution to the problem is given. The daughters may marry whomever they like as long as it is within their tribe (mišpaḥaṯ maṭṭēh ’aḇîhem; v. 6). As with Num 27, the new rules are to apply to all Israelite women. 10–12. The text indicates that the injunction is followed. The daughters marry within their own tribe, and the inheritance will thus not end up being transferred to another tribe. Problem solved. 13. A comment referring to the commands and regulations given by Yahweh on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across Jericho concludes the book of Numbers. The arrival at Moab was first mentioned in 21:20, but the specific location of the plains of Moab across Jericho first comes into play in 22:1, at the start of the Balaam episode. The note here is similar to that at the conclusion of the book of Leviticus that refers to Mount Sinai. At the conclusion of Numbers, the setting has then progressed to the plains of Moab. Accordingly, while the note here could refer to approximately the last third of the book of Numbers, it may also broadly refer to the book of Numbers as a whole. Other than this, as proposed in the introduction, A1, who composed Genesis–Numbers, may well have also composed 210

C O M M E N TA RY

Dt 32:48–52 and 34:1–8. If so, this would increase the scope of A1’s work up to the death of Moses, which AD then interweaved in his account that relates the farewell sermon of Moses and the conquest of the land west of the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua. MEANING

An additional set of stipulations that relate to female inheritance, with the case of the daughters of Zelophehad establishing a legal precedent, concludes the book of Numbers. That the stipulations on the daughters of Zelophehad bracket the final chapters of Numbers that follow after the census of the second generation would seem to help direct focus to the upcoming life in the land that the Israelites are to appropriate (cf. Introduction on ancient Israelite settler colonialism), and on the other hand emphasise female rights in inheritance. While the latter aspect remains far from modern standards with ancient Israel, which was an ancient patriarchal society, it does suggest that women were nevertheless taken seriously. And, all in all, the division of land for the daughters did emphasise the overall egalitarian character of ancient Israel (cf. Berman 2008). Nevertheless, such egalitarianism hardly applied to foreign slaves (cf. Lev 25:44–46), and not at all to the indigenous peoples of the land. It would be the task for modern societies to extend rights given to a particular social group (often nation) to other groups; this could for example help prevent many wars and much economic exploitation (cf. e.g. Short 2016). At the same time, Israelite egalitarianism can speak to today’s societies that at the time of writing this are veering towards neo-liberalism, where a small societal elite takes control of an increasingly large proportion of a nation’s or even the world’s wealth and resources (cf. e.g. Short 2016, esp. 188–189).103 In connection with such inequalities, slavery still exists in practice in the modern world, even if not officially.

Notes 1 And see for example Davies (2015:49–50) for a few further issues to consider. 2 Cf. for example Taggar-Cohen (2011) for the mid- to late second-millennium Hittite realm in ancient Anatolia. While Taggar-Cohen notes that the Hittite divisions do not quite tally with the biblical divisions in detail, one need not expect direct copying of the system, and an overall similarity of the two systems stands. 3 One may keep in mind here for example that archaeological finds indicate that there was a tent sanctuary at Timnah in the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age; see Pitkänen (2014c/2003:141–142), referring to Rothenberg (1972). 4 Cf. also the section “Message of the book and reading Numbers today” in the introduction. 5 This is conceivable, at least certainly if one believes that the whole narratives could have been thus created! 6 The same question can even be asked about equating Aaron with Jeroboam in Ex 32 rather than the other way around. At least going from Jeroboam to Aaron does not seem to be any better than the other way round.

211

C O M M E N TA RY

7 Note that there is variation as to the details between the law codes, a matter which we will largely not attempt to analyse in any detail in this commentary, but the general principles hold across the codes. 8 One may perhaps keep in mind company reorganisations in today’s world as a kind of parallel. 9 For such processes in a broad sense, cf. especially Carr (2011); and cf. comments in the introduction. 10 Most conspicuously the general articles in v. 12 do not have an explicit counterpart in Ex 25–40; see also Ex 39:35–39. 11 Note the use of the word kpr in both sections. For comparison, note that the corresponding sections are more displaced in Ex 37–38 and the word kpr is not explicitly used there. 12 Note that 1 Sam 22:20 and 2 Sam 8:17 imply the existence of two Ahimelechs; cf. Pitkänen (2014c/2003:154n186). 13 1 Ki 8:4 also indicates that the tent of meeting was put in the temple; cf. comments on 5:1–4 ahead, “Meaning”. 14 It seems clear that the tent of meeting was not used any more after the building of the temple in Jerusalem, but served to indicate that the temple had superseded it and also as a relic (see 1 Ki 8:1–9); cf. the concept of libittu maḫrītu, “the former brick” ritually removed from an old temple and then placed in a new temple to indicate continuity with the older one in Mesopotamia; see Pitkänen (2014c/2003:153–154). 15 Note that only his children are explicitly mentioned as being executed, though, not his wife. 16 Note also that the blood avenger in in relation to the legislation of the so-called towns of refuge (see Num 35:6–34 and comments there) uses the same term (gōʾēl). 17 V. 11 Hebrew lit. for the dedication of the altar; cf. v. 88, which has “after” the altar was anointed. 18 See Milgrom (1990:55) for some further minor similarities between this chapter and Num 28–29. 19 Even if parts of especially the wisdom literature, such as Job and Ecclesiastes, did reflect on or even challenge the concept. 20 Possible differences in regard to eating anything found dead between Dt 14:21 and Lev 17:15 notwithstanding. 21 This includes tables of all occurrences of gēr, nāḵrî and tôšāḇ, and see the related volume as a whole (Achenbach, Albertz and Wöhrle 2011) for further analysis on for example similarities and differences in these categories between the law codes. 22 Even if Num 14:14 does not mention the tent of meeting. 23 While there is the issue of potential differences between the priestly and deuteronomic materials, the setting of Josh 4 seems slightly different from that in the verse here, and seven trumpets are used. 24 The expression bayyôm hazzeh in Ex 19:1 is slightly ambiguous; it could mean “on that day” or “at that time”. In the former case it could be read as referring either to the first day of the month or to the fifteenth, the fifteenth based on counting from the day of departure from Egypt (cf. Propp 2006:154; Num 33:3). But the expression could even be read to mean sometime in the third month in the latter case. 25 Similarly Milgrom (1990:13), noting that beṯôḵ should be understood as “in the midst of”. 26 Hebrew hōṯēn (v. 29) can mean either father-in-law or brother-in law (reading the vowels differently, as ḥāṯān, in the latter case); see Wenham (1981:105) and Milgrom (1990:78) on issues relating to this in more detail. 27 This assumes the pointing ḥāṯān in Jdg 1:16; 4:11.

212

C O M M E N TA RY

28 Even if I have left his part (f) out as it does not seem to be necessarily implied. 29 Based on Milgrom (1990:377–379), this includes attempts at further delineation of detail. 30 Cf. notably Saul in 1 Sam 6:5–6, 10–13; 19:21–24 and the prophets of Baal in 1 Ki 18:29 in the Bible. 31 Note that Milgrom (1990:390) argues that Dt 1:19–46 is aware of the text in Numbers 13–14; cf. Baden (2009:114–130), which in my view does not conclusively negate such a possibility. 32 Cf. for example the use of this number in the book of Judges to describe time. 33 Note also an apparently early reference to ancestral tomb tradition in 1 Sam 10:3. 34 Note that Kadesh is also called a wilderness in Ps 29:8, in case the same Kadesh as here is meant. 35 For a summary of the Philistines, see for example ABD V, pp. 326–333, and for more details, see for example Yasur-Landau (2010); cf. Pitkänen (2014a); cf. also comments on 7:1–89, “Context” earlier. 36 Cf. Gen 37:29; 37:34; 44:13; Josh 7:6; Jdg 11:35 and so forth; surviving all the way to the NT, see Matt 26:65, Acts 14:14. 37 The ten times in v. 22 could make allusion to the Ten Commandments; contrasting with them, certainly, one does not seem to be able to identify ten such transgressions by the people between the Exodus and Num 14. 38 Note that the Levites are not included among the scouts as Milgrom (1990:113) points out. 39 But note again (cf. Introduction) that the extent of H in Numbers is disputed (see Frevel 2013:15–17); accordingly, the comments here should be considered with that in mind. 40 Cf. Num 18:27, 30; Dt 15:14 as pointed out in Levine (1993:394–395), even when the full meaning of the offering from the threshing floor seems to me at least somewhat elusive. 41 While it is ultimately not clear why the change (and addition) to the offering is made, one may also keep in mind the karū (formerly) and kinuna (now) in the Hittite laws (cf. Introduction, “Legal Backgrounds and Implementation”). Cf. also comments on 28:26–31. 42 And cf. the use of this colour for the tabernacle and the clothing of the high priest, Ex 26:1; 28:6, 15, 31, 33. 43 Note the use of word ʾāḏām in v. 32, which strikes me as slightly unusual in this context. 44 Cf. the concept of aetiologies, on which for example see comments in Pitkänen (2010b:67–73). 45 Even if, strictly speaking, the person touching these objects would only seem to need to be unclean until the evening (see Num 19:14–16, 22). 46 That the high priest does not officiate for this would seem to have been because he (here Aaron) should not be associated with corpses and not go out of the sanctuary (Lev 21:11–12, and cf. vv. 7–8 here; cf. Achenbach 2003:527–528 and comments on 31:3–6 ahead). 47 Note also its use for the curtain of the holy of holies, Ex 26:31; 36:35, and of the entrance to the tent of meeting, Ex 26:36; 36:37, and for tassels in Num 15:38–40. 48 Cf. also Ex 12:22–23 and Ps 51:9, which suggest that hyssop was considered to have purificatory and apotropaic properties; cf. Feder (2011:131). 49 Cf. considerations in MacDonald (2012) that reinforce the apparent uniqueness of the ritual, and even potential ritual innovation with it. 50 Cf. also Cassuto (2006/1941:81, 122) for the possibility of placing differing traditions together in general.

213

C O M M E N TA RY

51 Note that the area of Edom could in addition have extended more towards the west, as also noted by the biblical documents (cf. esp. Josh 15:1; Num 34:3; and cf. comments on 34:3–5; cf. MacDonald 2000:185), even if there is no evidence of Edomite presence in the western part of Wadi Araba before the end of the Iron II period (see MacDonald 2000:187). 52 There is more hostility otherwise; see for example 1 Sam 14:47–48; 2 Sam 8:11–14 if vv. 12, 13 should read Edom; 1 Ki 11:15–16 and so forth. 53 Cf. also the role of Edom/Seir in Num 33:37–38 vs Dt 2:1 and 10:6, with Lundbom (2013:384), referring to Abel, suggesting that Mount Hor could be part of a Moseroth mountain range. 54 Milgrom (1990) also notes that the idiom “gathered to one’s people” occurs only in the Pentateuch, including with Moses in Num 27:13; 31:2; Dt 32:50; cf. comments on 9:9–14; 16:23–34; but also cf. Matt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Luke 9:30, where Jesus is speaking with Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory according to Luke 9:30. 55 It appears that the book of Joshua makes a summary note about this conquest (Josh 12:14b; cf. Pitkänen 2010b:236–246 for further details). 56 This must be (today’s) Gulf of Aqaba, even if named as yam-sûpˉ just as (today’s) Gulf of Suez. 57 The idea of bookends was suggested to me by Christian Frevel, personal communication, Cordoba, July 2015, and taking in Josh 22 with the third section even if it can otherwise be considered together with Josh 23–24 as part of the closing events as in Pitkänen (2010b:26–27). Cf. also note 18 on the Introduction, p. 51. 58 Of which there are numerous examples in Akkadian literature, including catalogues of liver patterns and their interpretations, and cf. Ezekiel 21:19–23 for a reference to this in the Bible. 59 Note that liver models themselves have been found in Ugarit and in Canaan; see Pardee (2002); Horowitz, Oshima and Sanders (2006). 60 Note also shamanism in 1 Sam 28:3, 7–25 that can clearly be understood to fall under divination and sorcery; the terms ʾōḇ and yidʿōnî in 1 Sam 28:3 are mentioned in Dt 18:11. 61 For overall notes about the two reconstructed texts and for a translation, see CoS II, pp. 140–145; www.livius.org/sources/content/deir-alla-inscription/ (accessed 7/8/2015). 62 On shelamim offerings at Ugarit in the late second millennium BCE, see for example Pardee (2002:29–35). 63 Cf. 2 Sam 21:1–14; cf. also Dt 21:22–23, which is similar but the word tlh used there seems to have the nuance “hang”. 64 Cf. broadly summary dismissals at workplaces in today’s world. 65 For overall comparisons, cf. Achenbach (2003:452–457), with suggestions of possible harmonisation in LXX; and see comments on vv. 35–41 for further details on Ephraim and Manasseh. 66 Cf. 36:1, where people related to them approach with an additional problem, and Josh 17:1–6, where they request the actualisation of the injunctions in Numbers, with Joshua having replaced Moses, who of course has already died. 67 Dt 32:48–52 can be considered to utilise the literary device of repetitive resumption, as Milgrom (1990:233) points out. 68 And the passages have classically been assigned to them; cf. Ex 33:7–11; Num 12:4– 5, 10; and see Driver (1901:336–342) for fuller details. 69 And this might help explain why Dt 31:14–23 on the whole picks up on themes from Genesis–Numbers in addition to referring to the song in Dt 32; cf. Driver (1901:336–342).

214

C O M M E N TA RY

70 Unless for example the whole of Dt 31:14–23; 31:40–32:44 were to be argued to be a later addition to Deuteronomy, a conceivable but not compelling suggestion to my mind. 71 Note that the mention of Sabbaths in Lev 23:38 may refer to Sabbaths in general rather than to offerings on them in Num 28:9–10. 72 But one should keep in mind that the extent of H outside Lev 17–26 is disputed (see Frevel 2013:15–17; cf. Introduction) when reading the discussion here. 73 Such as the characteristic “I am the Lord your God”, Lev 23:22, 43; cf. Knohl (1995:9). 74 Cf. Knohl (1995:53) with references to Wellhausen (1899:175) and Kuenen (1886:96n38). I would see the law in Num 15:22–26 (and cf. comments on 15:22–31) as a variation of the original law in Lev 4:13–21, and perhaps it was then possible to justify this by associating the updated version (that also includes grain and drink offerings) with coming to the land as opposed to the original narrative setting in the wilderness. 75 Note also that Ex 29:39–42 can be considered as P. 76 Note that the gathering together on the first night in Dt 16:7 would (or at least arguably could) count as an assembly on the first day; cf. comments on 9:1–5. 77 While the reason for the slight variance/contradiction between Num 28:27 and Lev 23:18 (cf. Knohl 1995:9; Achenbach 2003:609) is ultimately not clear (possibly at least partly by “carelessness” with copying in the case here, also as the two young rams [keḇeś] for šelāmîm in Lev 23:19 are not included in or around v. 30?), one may also keep in mind the karū (formerly) and kinuna (now) in the Hittite laws (cf. Introduction, “Legal Backgrounds and Implementation”). Cf. also comments on 15:22–31. 78 Presumably staying in booths did also generally fit well with the autumn harvest time; see Wagenaar (2005:23). 79 One may keep in mind that the Chronicles and Samuel–Kings give two parallel accounts of the history of ancient Israel from the time of the monarchy till the exile. 80 Cf. ancient Assyria, where we know that phraseology could be employed across centuries; see Niehaus (1985); on writing in ancient Israel, see comments on Num 33 ahead. 81 Apparently the ancient Israelites thought that taking a census somehow angered the divine and therefore ransom money was required (cf. also 2 Sam 24; 1 Chr 21). The ransom money might also for example be considered to be at least in some ways similar to a poll tax, and perhaps the idea of angering the deity would have helped rationalise the measure in the eyes of those who had to pay, keeping in mind that the religious dimension was strongly integrated in life in the ancient world. 82 For recent treatments of genocide as a whole, see for example Levene (2005); Docker (2008); Shaw (2015); Short (2016). Importantly, note that Lemkin, the acknowledged originator of genocide studies, defined the term more widely, to also include cultural destruction of groups and that this more extensive concept was not put into the UN definition due to it undoubtedly being inconvenient for the winning powers of the war (which themselves were empires; see Burbank and Cooper 2010) in view of their own (wrong)doings (see Short 2016, esp.18–23, 226n29; cf. Levene 2005:36–42). Lemkin himself is worth quoting here (he also coins the word genocide itself in the passage): New conceptions require new terms. By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group. This new word, coined by the author to denote an old practice in its modern development, is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, tribe) and the Latin cide (killing), thus corresponding in its formation to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, infanticide, etc. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all

215

C O M M E N TA RY

members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. (Lemkin 2008/1944:79) Also: Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals. (Lemkin 2008/1944:79)

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92

93

94

One may thus further note links with settler colonialism, which is particularly elaborated in the introduction in terms of ancient Israel (and cf. Short 2016, esp. 23–27). Interestingly, however, the passage in question here does not indicate the taking of land from the Midianites by the Israelites, but is rather presented as “purely” “retributive”. On the history of that scholarship, see for example Docker (2008); Shaw (2015). On this character of the land east of the Jordan, see MacDonald (2000:41). For an English translation, see for example CoS II, pp. 137–138; ANET, pp. 320–321. Note, however, that one may ask where the Israelites considered the area of the river which had tributaries as having started. For a similar twofold vision by the Germans during the much more recent Second World War, see Kakel (2011:130). Cf. also for example the population transfers in twentieth-century communist Russia. Cf. the Turin map from the twelfth century BCE; see O’Connor (2012:57–69). Cf. Short (2016, esp. 68–92), which includes ecocide in its considerations. Itself (seemingly) from Hurrian, with Canaan referred as the land of Kinahna, Kinahhi in the Amarna letters. Note that the word “leader” (nāśiʾ) is used in v. 18 here. The phrase “heads of the ancestral tribes” (roʾšêʾaḇôṯ) is used in Josh 14:1; 19:51. In Num 36:1 these two terms are closely associated (cf. comments on Num 36:1–4), helping to suggest that the people mentioned in Josh 14:1; 19:51 should very likely be understood to be those given in Num 34:18–29. Both Levine and Milgrom suggest the possibility of redaction, and Milgrom even a scribal error, in the Achaemenid period. Note also that the name Phinehas (Num 25:7 etc.) is considered to have a derivation from Egyptian, and that the text implies that Parnach belongs to the exodus generation, even if a potential derivation from Egyptian for him would not seem an easy one. For further details on scholarship on the Levitical towns in general, see for example Hutton (2011); and cf. Pitkänen (2010b:338–352), which includes further analysis on textual differences, dating, archaeology, relationship to actual Israelite practice and other details in the context of the book of Joshua in particular.

216

C O M M E N TA RY

95 For example Soviet defectors during the Cold War era, or North Korean defectors in the South even today. 96 Also see Kilchör (2015:224–237) expressly on the relationship between Ex 21:12–14, Num 35:9–30 and Dt 19:1–13. 97 Cf. Kilchör (2015:233), who essentially sees the comment in Dt 19:5 as an added exception to the passage here. 98 Exact details on how the ʿēḏāh would carry out the trial are not given, however. 99 And cf. Dt 19:15–21, which extends this to all cases; cf. Kilchör (2015:66–67). 100 It is still used in some places in the world, at least at a literary level in modern Mafia stories from Sicily, and was used in Corsica at least in the fairly recent past. 101 Cf. the following comments by Raphael Lemkin to the UN secretary general on 6 May 1947 (quoted in Short 2016:229): Somehow the French Revolution which proclaimed the rights of man forgot about the most essential of our rights, namely the right to exist. It is inconceivable to have an orderly international life without effective guarantees of the right of existence of entire human groups and their cultures. 102 Note that here Eleazar or the community (ʿēḏāh) is not mentioned (nor is the tent of meeting), and the leaders (neśiʾîm) are mentioned also as heads of the ancestral tribes (roʾšê ʾaḇôṯ). Cf. also Josh 17:3–4. 103 Short (2016) also notes (esp. pp. 190–193) the danger wrought with global capitalism, with which neo-liberalism clearly can be associated, of destroying the whole planet. All in all, non-Western indigenous peoples have made this point in terms of Western culture as a whole (cf. Tinker 2004, as also referred to in Pitkänen 2010b:86; but note also the qualifications in Diamond 2011/2005). Ultimately, while industrialisation that started in the West has undoubtedly brought with it many benefits (cf. Nolan and Lenski 2015, esp. 320–346), we are now starting to see the limits of this development in the history of humanity. If human greed, potentially ingrained in our genetic makeup, as for example reflected in the concepts of natural selection deriving from Darwin and intersocietal selection as expressed in sociology (see Nolan and Lenski 2015, esp. 63–66, 151–153; cf. Burbank and Cooper 2010; Cline and Graham 2011; cf. also the apostle Paul’s reading of the paradise story in Genesis in the New Testament in Rom 3:23; 5:12–14, even if at least arguably from a fairly individualistic perspective, even when Paul’s writings as a whole are about a visualised imagined new community in Christ) that then also relate to colonialism (including settler colonialism) and genocide, is now at least potentially driving even the whole system towards destruction, all the more should humans try to find a way to stop the process somehow (cf. my earlier comments in Pitkänen 2010:84–89). I do believe that people do need a community and power-sharing ethics that respects the rights and flourishing of all human beings together with their nonhuman environment, in whatever way one then may implement such ethics in political and institutional terms in a global context that among other things is characterised by finiteness of resources. In this, perhaps the social structures of hunting and gathering societies can serve as a better model than those of agrarian (and horticultural) ones that (have) exhibited very unequal social stratification and lower standards of living than hunting and gathering societies (cf. Nolan and Lenski 2015). In this respect, it seems that today’s neo-liberalism is a retrograde drive towards undoing the progress in social equality (at least in relative terms) that industrial societies that arose from agrarian societies were able to achieve in the twentieth century in particular (cf. the “reversals” of frontier societies described in Lenski 2005:157–158; Nolan and Lenski 2015:199–200; cf. also Introduction). In such a context for example Marx’s writings in the nineteenth century should in my view

217

C O M M E N TA RY

be seen as a critique that has its roots in a much earlier time of human history, even if the associated thinking was formulated at a particular juncture of that history. So, a study and adaptation of the positive aspects of social structures in early human societies could be one key towards achieving a more just and equitable world at this stage of human history. In this, one would not have to forgo the positive aspects and great benefits that industrialisation has brought to human life, but adapt them as well based on the wisdom that indigenous peoples, of whom some, even if a diminishing number (cf. Nolan and Lenski 2015:118–119), still are hunter-gatherers, could help provide (keeping in mind, however, that not all of them were necessarily entirely “successful” as societies either; cf. Diamond 2011/2005; cf. also Allen and Jones 2014; Nolan and Lenski 2015:321–322). And in this context, returning to our text, one may continually consider the positive aspects to life that the ancient Israelite thinking as expressed in the book of Numbers and Genesis–Joshua as a whole and beyond may include, keeping in mind that the Israelite society itself can be seen as a reaction against the inequalities of life in the context of agrarian societies (cf. Introduction, esp. “Message of the book and reading Numbers today”).

218

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Select commentaries on Numbers Ashley, T.R. 1993. The Book of Numbers. NICOT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Budd, P.J. 1984. Numbers. WBC, Waco, TX: Word Books. Davies, E.W. 1995. Numbers. NBC, London, UK: Marshall Pickering. Gray, G.B. 1903. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC, Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark. Levine, B.A. 1993. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB, New York, NY: Doubleday. Levine, B.A. 2000. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB, New York, NY: Doubleday. Milgrom, J. 1990. Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary, New York, NY: JPS. Noth, M. 1968/1966. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL, London, UK: SCM Press, 1968, translated by J.D. Martin. German original: Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, 4th edition, Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1966. Seebass, H. 1993–2012. Numeri, 3 vols. BKAT 4, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag. Stubbs, D.L. 2009. Numbers. SCM Theological Commentary on the Bible, London, UK: SCM. Wenham, G.J. 1981. Numbers. TOTC, Leicester, UK: IVP. For a somewhat more expanded list, see Davies (2015:ix).

Selection of other works Achenbach, R. 2003. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz Verlag. Achenbach, R. 2011. ‘gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions Regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch’, in Achenbach, Albertz and Wöhrle 2011, 29–52. Achenbach, R., R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle, eds. 2011. The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZABR 16, Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrasowitz Verlag. Ahlström, G.W. 1993. The History of Ancient Palestine, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Albright, W.F. 1966. The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment. Harvard Theological Studies 22, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and London, UK: Oxford University Press.

219

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, M.W. and T.L. Jones, eds. 2014. Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Babcock, B.C. 2014. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 9, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Baden, J. 2009. J, E and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Baden, J. 2012. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Barmash, P. 2005. Homicide in the Biblical World, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barnard, A. and J. Spencer. 2010. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, 2nd edition, London, UK: Routledge. Beckman, G. 1999. Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd edition, SBL Writings from the Ancient World 7, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, first edition 1996. Bell, C. 2009/1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, New York, NY: Oxford University Press 1992, with new foreword in 2009. Bell, C. 2009/1997. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions, New York, NY: Oxford University Press 1997, with a new foreword in 2009. Berman, J.A. 2008. Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bintliff, J. 2012. ‘The Death of Archaeological Theory’, in Bintliff and Pearce 2012, 7–22. Bintliff, J. and M. Pearce, eds. 2012. The Death of Archaeological Theory? Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. Boda, M.J. and J. Novotny, eds. 2010. From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT 366, Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag. Boling, R.G. and G.E. Wright. 1982. Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bosch, D.J. 2011/1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, 20th anniversary edition, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Brett, M.G. 2008. Decolonizing God: The Bible in the Tides of Empire. The Bible in Modern World 16, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press. Burbank, J. and F. Cooper. 2010. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Byrne, R. 2007. ‘The Refuge of Scribalism in Iron I Palestine’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 345: 1–31. Cannon, W.B. 1942. ‘“Voodoo” Death’, American Anthropologist 44 (new series): 169–181. Carr, D.M. 2005. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Carr, D.M. 2011. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cassuto, U. 2006/1941. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures, with an introduction by Joshua A. Berman, Jerusalem, Israel: Shalem Center. Hebrew original 1941, first English edition 1961. Cline, E.H. 2014. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cline, E.H. and M.W. Graham. 2011. Ancient Empires: From Mesopotamia to the Rise of Islam, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

220

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cody, A. 1969. A History of the Old Testament Priesthood. Analecta Biblica 35, Rome, Italy: Pontificial Biblical Institute. Cohen, Y. 2009. The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Collins, B.J. 2007. The Hittites and Their World. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 7, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Court, J.M. 2008. Approaching the Apocalypse: A Short History of Christian Millenarianism, London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Cross, F.M. 1973. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Crouch, C.L. 2014. Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion. ANE Monographs 8, Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. Curthoys, A. and J. Docker. 2010. Is History Fiction? 2nd edition, Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press. Dalley, S. 2002/1984. Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities, 2nd edition (reprint with a new introduction by the author), Gorgias Reprint Series 21, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. First published 1984, London: Longman. D’Altroy, T.N. 2005. ‘Remaking the Social Landscape: Colonization in the Inka Empire’, in G.J. Stein, ed., The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives, Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press and Oxford: James Currey, 263–295. Davies, E.W. 2010. The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics, London, UK: T&T Clark. Davies, E.W. 2015. Numbers: The Road to Freedom. Phoenix Guides to the Old Testament, Sheffield, UK: Phoenix Press. Davies, G.I. 1979. The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Davies, P.R. 1992. In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’. JSOTSS 148, Sheffield: JSOT Press. Day, D. 2008. Conquest: How Societies Overwhelm Others, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DeMarrais, E. 2005. ‘A View from the Americas: “Internal Colonization”, Material Culture and Power in the Inka Empire’, in H. Hurst and S. Owen, eds., Ancient Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity and Difference, London, UK: Duckworth, 73–96. Devecchi, E., ed. 2012. Palaeography and Scribal Practices in Syro-Palestine and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age, Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Osten (NINO). Dever, W.G. 2001. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Dever, W.G. 2003. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Diamond, J. 2011/2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, London, UK: Penguin. Docker, J. 2008. The Origins of Violence: Religion, History and Genocide, London, UK: Pluto Press. Douglas, M. 2002/1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concept of Pollution and Taboo, London, UK: Routledge, original edition 1966, with new preface by the author 2002. Dozeman, T.B., T. Römer and K. Schmid, eds. 2011. Pentateuch, Hexateuch or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis Through Kings. Ancient Israel and Its Literature, Atlanta, GA: SBL.

221

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dozeman, T.B. and K. Schmid, eds. 2006. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SBL Symposium Series 34, Atlanta, GA: SBL. Driver, S.R. 1901. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd edition, in ICC, Edinburgh, UK: T&T. Clark. First edition 1895. Fara, P. 2010. Science: A Four Thousand Year History, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Faust, A. 2006. Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance, London, UK: Equinox. Feder, Y. 2011. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context and Meaning. Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 2, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Ferro, M. 1997/1994. Colonization: A Global History, London, UK: Routledge, 1997. Original French edition 1994. Feyerabend, P. 1993. Against Method, 3rd edition, London, UK: Verso. Finkelberg, M. 2005. Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Exploration Society. Finkelstein, I. 1996. ‘The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View’, Tel Aviv 23: 177–187. Fleming, D.E. 2000. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s House, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Fleming, D.E. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Forsling, J. 2013. Composite Artistry in the Book of Numbers: A Study in Biblical Narrative Conventions. Studia Theologica Holmiensia 22, Åbo/Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge, London, UK: Tavistock. Original French edition 1969. Foucault, M. 2000. ‘Truth and Power’, in J.D. Faubion, ed., Power, in Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 3, London, UK: Penguin, 111–135. Original interview in 1976. Frevel, C. 2013. ‘The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah. Some Introductory Remarks’, in Frevel, Pola and Schart 2013, 1–37. Frevel, C., T. Pola and A. Schart, eds. 2013. Torah and the Book of Numbers, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Friedman, R.E. 2003. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses, New York, NY: HarperOne. Galil, G. 2009. ‘The Hebrew Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa/Neta’im: Script, Language, Literature and History’, Ugarit Forschungen 41: 193–242. Galil, G., A. Gilboa, A.M. Maeir and D. Kahn, eds. 2012. The Ancient Near East in the 12th– 10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. AOAT 392, Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag. George, A.R. 2003. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gottwald, N.K. 1979. Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 BCE, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Grimes, R.L. 2014. The Craft of Ritual Studies, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gunkel, H. 1925–1926. Die Psalmen übersetzt und erklärt. GHAT, II Abteilung, 2. Bänd, 4. Auflage, Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

222

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gunkel, H. 1997/1901. Genesis. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, translated by M.E. Biddle. German original 1901, 6th edition 1964. Hachlili, R. 2001. The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 68, Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Harvey, P.B. Jr. and B. Halpern. 2008. ‘W.M.L. de Wette’s “Dissertatio Critica . . .”: Context and Translation’, ZAR 14: 47–85. Harzig, C. and D. Hoerder, with D. Gabaccia. 2009. What Is Migration History? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hawkins, R.K. 2013. How Israel Became a People, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Herr, L.G. 2012. ‘Jordan in the Iron I and IIA Periods’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn 2012, 207–228. Hess, R.S. 1996. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Leicester, UK: IVP. Hess, R.S. 2002. ‘The Book of Joshua as a Land Grant’, Biblica 83: 493–506. Hinkson, J., P. James and L. Veracini. 2012. Stolen Lands, Broken Cultures: The SettlerColonial Present, North Carlton, Australia: Arena. Hixson, W.L. 2013. American Settler Colonialism: A History, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoffmeier, J.K. 1997. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hoffmeier, J.K. 2005. Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Traditions, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Horowitz, W., Oshima, T. and Sanders, S. 2006. Cuneiform in Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times, Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Exploration Society. Humphreys, C.J. 1998. ‘The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI’, Vetus Testamentum 48.2: 196–213. Hundley, M.B. 2013. Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East. Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series 3, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Hutton, J.M. 2011. ‘The Levitical Diaspora (II): Modern Perspectives on the Levitical Cities (A Review of Opinions)’, in Leuchter and Hutton 2011, 45–81. Jastram, N. 1992. ‘The Text of 4QNumb’, in J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner, eds., The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid 18–21 March, 1991, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 177–198. Jenson, P. 1992. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSS 106, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Jobling, D. 1980. ‘“The Jordan a Boundary”: A Reading of Numbers 32 and Joshua 22’, SBL Seminar Reports 19: 183–207. Junkkaala, E. 2006. Three Conquests of Canaan: A Comparative Study of Two Egyptian Military Campaigns and Joshua 10–12 in the Light of Recent Archaeological Evidence, Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press. PDF version available for download from https://oa.doria.fi/ handle/10024/4162 or http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-765-335-2 (accessed 31/7/2015). Kakel, C.P. 2011. The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kallai, Z. 2010. ‘Rachel’s Tomb – A Historiographical Review’, in idem., Studies in Biblical Historiography and Geography. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 56, Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 142–149.

223

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kaufmann, Y. 1985/1955. The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Canaan, 2nd edition, Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press. Original in Hebrew 1955. Kibble, T.W.B. and F.H. Berkshire. 2004. Classical Mechanics, 5th edition, London, UK: Imperial College Press. Kilchör, B. 2015. Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Leviticus und Numeri. BZAR 21, Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz. Kitchen, K.A. 1993. ‘The Tabernacle – A Bronze Age Artefact’, Eretz-Israel 24 (Avraham Malamat volume): 119–129. Kitchen, K.A. 2003. On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Kitchen, K.A. and P.J.N. Lawrence. 2012. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East, 3 vols., Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz. Klingbeil, G.A. 2007. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRS 1, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Knauf, E.A. 2008. Josua. Zürcher Bibelkommentar, Zürich, Switzerland: Theologischer Verlag. Knohl, I. 1995. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Kraus, F.R. 1984. Königliche Verfügungen in Altbabylonischer Zeit. Studia et Documenta ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentia, vol. 11, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill. Kuenen, A. 1886. An Historical Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), London, UK: Macmillan. Dutch original 1885. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 50th anniversary edition 2012. Lamont, M. 2009. How Professor Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lemche, N.P. 1998. The Israelites in History and Tradition, London: SPCK and Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Lemkin, R. 2008/1944. The Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress, 2nd edition, Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange; reprint with introductions of original of Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944. Lenski, G. 2005. Ecological-Evolutionary Theory: Principles and Applications, London, UK: Paradigm. Leuchter, M. and J.M. Hutton, eds. 2011. Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 9, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Levene, M. 2005. Genocide in the Age of the Nation State. Volume I: The Meaning of Genocide, London, UK: I.B. Tauris. Levinson, B.M. 1998. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Levy, T.E., ed. 2010. Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, London, UK: Equinox. Lienhard, J.T. 2001. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, vol. 3, Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Liverani, M. 2005/2003. Mario Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel, London, UK: Equinox, 2005, Italian original 2003. Longman, T. 1990. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lundbom, J.R. 2013. Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

224

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MacDonald, B. 2000. “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. ASOR Books Volume 6, Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. MacDonald, B. 2015. The Southern Transjordan Edomite Plateau and the Dead Sea Rift Valley: The Bronze Age to the Islamic Period (3800/3700 BC–AD 1917), Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books. MacDonald, N. 2011. ‘Edom and Seir in the Narratives and Itineraries of Numbers 20–21 and Deuteronomy 1–3’, in G. Fischer, D. Markl and S. Paganini, eds., Tora für eine neue Generation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17, Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 83–103. MacDonald, N. 2012. ‘The Hermeneutics and Genesis of the Red Cow Ritual’, Harvard Theological Review 105.3: 351–371. MacDonald, N., ed. 2016. Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism, BZAW 468, Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter. Malešević, S. 2010. The Sociology of War and Violence, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Malina, B.J. 2001. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Manning, P. 2013. Migration in World History, 2nd edition, Themes in World History, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Maul, S.M. 2013. Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient: Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde, Munich, Germany: Verlag C.H. Beck. Mazar, A. 1992. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible 10000–586 BCE. The Anchor Bible Library, New York, NY: Doubleday. Mazar, A. 1997. ‘Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein’, Levant 29: 157–167. Mazzini, G. 1997. ‘The Torture of Mot for a Reading of KTU 1.6 V 30–35’, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico 14: 23–28. Meyers, C.L. 2003. The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult, 2nd edition with a new introduction, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Middleton, J.R. 2014. A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Milgrom, J. 1991–2001. Leviticus, 3 vols., The Anchor Bible, New York, NY: Doubleday. Millard, A.R. 2012. ‘Scripts and Their Uses in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn 2012, 405–412. Miller, J.M. and J.H. Hayes. 2006. History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd revised edition, London, UK: SCM Press. Moberly, R.W.L. 1992. The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Moorey, P.R.S. 1991. A Century of Biblical Archaeology, Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press. Murray, S. 2004. Post-Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strange New World, Milton Keynes, UK: Authentic Media. Na’aman, N. 1994. ‘The “Conquest of Canaan” in the Book of Joshua and History’, in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman, eds., From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Exploration Society, 218–281. Nelson, R.D. 1997. Joshua. OTL, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster John Knox Press. Niditch, S. 1993. ‘War, Women and Defilement in Numbers 31’, Semeia 61: 39–57. Niditch, S. 1996. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature, Louisville, KY: WJK Press.

225

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Niehaus, J.J. 1985. The Deuteronomic Style: An Examination of the Deuteronomic Style in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Literature. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Nihan, C. 2007. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 25, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Nissinen, M. 2003. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, with contributions by C.L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner, edited by Peter Machinist, SBL Writings from the Ancient World 12, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Nolan, P. and G. Lenski 2015. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology, 12th edition, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Noth, M. 1991/1943. The Deuteronomistic History, 2nd edition, JSOTSS 15, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. German original: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I, Halle, Germany: M. Niemeyer, 1943. O’Connor, D. 2012. ‘From Topography to Cosmos: Ancient Egypt’s Multiple Maps’, in Talbert 2012, 47–79. Otto, E. 2000. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte Des Deuteronomiumrahmens. FAT 30, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. Otto, E. 2012a. Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Germany: Herders. Otto, E. 2012b. Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Germany: Herders. Otto, E. 2014. ‘Kommentieren in den Bibelwissenschaften: Ein ökumenischer Dienst an der Theologie im 21. Jahrhundert’, in D. Kästle and N. Jansen, eds. (in collaboration with R. Achenbach and G. Essen), Kommentare in Recht und Religion, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 347–361. Pappe, I. 2004. A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pardee, D. 2002. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBL Writings from the Ancient World 10, Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Parker, C. 2015. Deuteronomy’s Place: A Philosophical Analysis of Place in Deuteronomy. PhD thesis, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK, available at http://eprints. glos.ac.uk/2259/ (accessed 30/1/17). Petter, T.D. 2014. The Land between the Two Rivers: Early Israelite Identities in Central Transjordan, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2010a. ‘Exodus 25–40’, in M. Boda and J. Novotny, eds., From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT 366, Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag, 255–280. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2010b. Joshua. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 6, Leicester, UK: IVP. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2014a. ‘Ancient Israel and Philistia: Setter Colonialism and Ethnocultural Interaction’, Ugarit Forschungen 45: 233–263. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2014b. ‘Ancient Israel and Settler Colonialism’, Settler Colonial Studies 4.1: 64–81. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2014c/2003. Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple, reissue with a new introduction by the author, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014, first edition 2003, second publisher’s edition 2004.

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2014d. ‘Pentateuch–Joshua: A Settler-Colonial Document of a Supplanting Society’, Settler Colonial Studies 4.3: 245–276. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2015. ‘Reading Genesis–Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date: A Settler Colonial Perspective’, BTB 45.1: 3–31. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2016a. ‘The Ecological-Evolutionary Theory, Migration, Settler Colonialism, Sociology of Violence and the Origins of Ancient Israel’, Cogent Social Sciences 2.1: 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1210717. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2016b. ‘P/H and D in Joshua 22:9–34’, Biblische Notizen 171: 27–35. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2016c. ‘The Use of Priestly Legal Tradition in Joshua and the Composition of the Pentateuch and Joshua’, OTE 29.2: 318–335. Pitkänen, P.M.A. 2017. ‘Ancient Israelite Population Economy: Ger, Toshav, Nakhri and Karat as Settler Colonial Categories’, JSOT, in press (date estimated). Pluciennik, M. 2011. ‘Theory, Fashion, Culture’, in John Bintliff and Mark Pearce, eds., The Death of Archaeological Theory? Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 31–47. Prior, M. 1997. Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique. The Biblical Seminar, 48, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Propp, W.H.C. 2006. Exodus 19–40. The Anchor Bible, New York, NY: Doubleday. Provan, I, V.P. Long and T. Longman. 2003. A Biblical History of Israel, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Rendtorff, R. 1990/1977. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. JSOTSS 89, Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1990, trans. by J.J. Scullion. German original Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 17, Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Richter, S.L. 2002. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Ritzer, G. and W. Yagatich. 2012. ‘Contemporary Sociological Theory’, in G. Ritzer, ed., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Sociology, Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 98–118. Rochberg, F. 2012. ‘The Expression of Terrestial and Celestial Order in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in Talbert 2012, 9–46. Roskop, A.R. 2011. The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rothenberg, B. 1972. Timna: Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines, London, UK: Thames and Hudson. Routledge, B. 2014. Archaeology and State Theory: Subjects and Objects of Power, London, UK: Bloomsbury. Sagrillo, T.L. 2012. ‘Šîšaq’s Army: 2 Chronicles 12:2–3 from an Egyptological Perspective’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn 2012, 425–450. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism, London, UK: Routledge. Sand, S. 2009. The Invention of the Jewish People, London, UK: Verso. Sand, S. 2012. The Invention of the Land of Israel, London, UK: Verso. Sanders, J.A. 2005. Torah and Canon, 2nd edition, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Sanders, J.A. 2014. The Monotheizing Process: Its Origins and Development, with a contribution from Paul E. Capetz, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Sanders, S.L. 2009. The Invention of Hebrew, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Sasson, J.M. 1969. The Military Establishments at Mari, Studia Pohl/Dissertationes Scientificae de Rebus Orientis Antiqui 3, Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Schley, D.G. 1989. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSS 63, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

227

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Seters, van J. 1992. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Seters, van J. 1994. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Shaw, M. 2015. What Is Genocide? 2nd edition, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Short, D. 2016. Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death, and Ecocide, London, UK: Zed Books. Smith, M.S. 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smolin, L. 2006. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next, London, UK: Penguin. Sommer, B.D. 2011. ‘Dating Pentateuchal Texts and the Perils of Pseudo-Historicism’, in T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. Schwartz, eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78, Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 85–108. Stackert, J. 2014. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stannard, D.E. 1992. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Stern, E. 2013. The Material Culture of the Northern Sea Peoples in Israel. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 5, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2011. ‘Covenant Priesthood: Cross-Cultural Legal and Religious Aspects of Biblical and Hittite Priesthood’, in Leuchter and Hutton 2011, 11–24. Talbert, R.J.A., ed. 2012. Ancient Perspectives: Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tate, W.R. 2008. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, 3rd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Taylor, G. 2006. Supernatural Power Ritual and Divination in Ancient Israelite Society: A Social-Scientific, Poetics, and Comparative Analysis of Deuteronomy 18. PhD thesis, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK. Tenu, A. 2009. L’expansion médio-assyrienne: Approche archéologique. BAR International Series 1906, Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports. Thomas, Z. 2016. ‘Debating the United Monarchy: Let’s See How Far We’ve Come’, BTB 46.2:59–69. Thompson, M.E.W. 2011. Where Is the God of Justice? The Old Testament and Suffering, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. Thompson, T.L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill. Tigay, J. 2002/1982. The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci. A reprint of 1982 edition published by Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tinker, G.E. 2004. Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and Native American Indian Liberation, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Tov, E. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd edition, Revised and Expanded, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. United Nations. 1948. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021-english.pdf (accessed 4/3/2017).

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Van Bekkum, K. 2010. From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. PhD thesis, Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen, Kampen, Netherlands. Van Dam, C. 1997. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Veracini, L. 2010. Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Veracini, L. and Cavanagh, E., eds. 2016. The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism, Routledge History Handbooks, London, UK: Routledge. Wagenaar, J.A. 2005. Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar. BZAR 6, Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz Verlag. Walton, J.H., V.H. Matthews and M.W. Chavalas. 2000. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Weinfeld, M. 1993. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993; also available at http:// ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft596nb3tj/ (accessed 14/8/15). Weinfeld, M. 2004. The Place of Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 100, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill. Wellhausen, J. 1899. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher, 3rd edition, Berlin, Germany: Druck und Verlag Georg Reimer. Wellhausen, J. 1905/1878. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israel. sechste Ausgabe, Berlin, Germany: Druck und Verlag Georg Reimer. First published 1878. An English translation of the Prolegomena is available from Project Gutenberg at www.gutenberg.org/ etext/4732 (as of April 2009). Wenham, G.J. 1971. ‘The Deuteronomic Theology of the Book of Joshua’, JBL 90: 140–148. Wenham, G.J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX: Word Books. Wenham, G.J. 1994. Genesis 16–50. Word Biblical Commentary, Waco, TX: Word Books. Wenham, G.J. 1996. ‘Pentateuchal Studies Today’, Themelios 22.1: 3–13. Wenham, G.J. 1997. Numbers. Old Testament Guides, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Wenham, G.J. 1999a. ‘Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm’, in D.W. Baker and B.T. Arnold, eds., The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 116–144. Wenham, G.J. 1999b. ‘The Priority of P’, VT XLIX: 2. Wenham, G.J. 2003. Exploring the Old Testament, Volume I: The Pentateuch, London, UK: SPCK. Westbrook, R. 2003. ‘Introduction: The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law’, in idem, ed., A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1–90. Westermann, C. 1994. Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? Gütersloh, Germany: Chr. Kaiser/Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Wette, W.M.L. de. 1830/1805. ‘Dissertatio critica qua a prioribus Deuteronomium Pentateuchi libris diversum, alius cuiusdam recentioris auctoris opus esse monstratur (pro venia legendi publice defensa Ienae a. 1805)’, in W.M.L. de Wette, ed., Opuscula Theologica, Berlin, Germany: G. Reimerum, 149–168. Whybray, R.N. 1987. ‘The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study.’ JSOTSS 53, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.

229

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wolfe, P. 1999. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. Writing Past Colonialism series, London, UK: Cassell. Wolfe, P. 2006. ‘Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native’, Journal of Genocide Research 8.4: 387–409. Wolfe, P. 2008. ‘Structure and Event: Settler Colonialism, Time and the Question of Genocide’, in A.D. Moses, ed., Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History (Oxford, UK: Bergahn Books), 102–132. Wright, D.P. 1985. ‘Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24’, Vetus Testamentum 35.2: 213–223. Yasur-Landau, A. 2010. The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of Late Bronze Age, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Younger, K.L., Jr. 1990. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing. JSOTSS 98, Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Younger, K.L., Jr. 2007. ‘The Late Bronze Age I Iron Age Transition and the Origins of the Arameans’, in idem, ed., Ugarit at Seventy-Five, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 131–174. Zadok, R. 2012. ‘The Aramean Infiltration and Diffusion in the Upper Jazira, ca. 1150–930 BCE’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn 2012, 569–579. Zvi, E. ben. 1992. ‘The List of the Levitical Cities’, JSOT 54: 77–106. Zwiebach, B. 2009. A First Course in String Theory, 2nd edition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

230

AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX

Abraham 1–2, 7, 17, 41, 43, 78, 156 Achenbach, R. 5, 10, 35, 53, 56, 59, 63, 78, 82–4, 86, 95, 102, 122, 128–9, 131–2, 137, 157, 160, 169, 184, 188, 199, 210, 213–15 Achenbach, R., R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle 212 aetiology, aetiologies 213 agrarian societies 46, 217–18 Albright, W.F. 6, 18 Alien 3, 34, 95, 124–5, 136–7, 207 Allen, M.W. and T.L. Jones 218 altar, altars 43, 68–9, 86, 94, 131, 135–6, 158, 160–1, 166, 195, 205, 212 Amarna letters 42, 197, 216 anthropology 9–10 Aram, Aramaic, Aramean 60, 73, 159–60, 183 archaeology, archaeological 6–7, 9–10, 14–15, 43, 47, 50, 56, 66, 77, 116–17, 146, 191–2, 196, 211 ark, ark of the covenant 23, 53, 57, 68–9, 71–2, 74, 86, 98, 104–6, 112, 132, 186 assimilation 168–9, 171, 187 Assyria, Assyrian 2, 21, 36, 51, 56, 59, 157, 162, 196, 215 Australia 47, 96, 200 Baal 20, 24, 31, 98, 109, 127, 160, 163–4, 166–8, 184, 186–7, 194, 196, 213 Babylon, Babylonian 2, 5, 47, 68, 76, 79, 144, 204 Baden, J. 5, 213 Barmash, P. 205–6, 208 Barnard, A. and J. Spencer 49

Beckman, G. 43, 205 Bell, C. 10, 18, 48–9, 92 Bergsma, J. 51 Berman, J.A. 211 blessing, blessings 19, 21, 23, 35, 75, 82–3, 146, 155–6, 158–62, 166, 185 Boda, M.J. and J. Novotny 89 Boling, R.G. and G.E. Wright 117, 206 bookend 51, 156, 214 Bosch, D.J. 175 Brett, M.G. 175 Budd, P.J. 171 Burbank, J. and F. Cooper 215, 217 Canaan i, ix, 2, 7, 17, 21–2, 24–5, 36–8, 41, 43–4, 47–8, 53–6, 60, 73, 89, 102, 114, 116, 118, 120, 135, 150, 153, 155–7, 165, 193, 196–7, 199–202, 207, 214 Cannon, W.B. 79 Carchemish 159 Carr, D.M. 10, 27, 33, 36, 51, 212 Cassuto, U. 4, 213 centralisation 95, 96, 195 central sanctuary 68, 78, 85, 94, 195 chiasm, chiastic 16–17, 55, 77, 83, 112, 115, 191 Cline, E.H. 196 Cline, E.H. and M.W. Graham 217 Cody, A. 72 Cohen, Y. 196 Collins, B.J. 22 colonialism 8, 10, 41, 46–7, 96, 121–2, 200, 204–5, 217; postcolonial 10, 15–16, 49, 58, 121–2, 199; settler

231

AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX

ephod 174, 186, 188 ethnic, ethnic group 165, 188–9, 215 exile, exiles, exilic 2–3, 5, 15, 21–2, 64, 68, 72, 120–1, 144, 196, 200, 204, 215 expulsion 1

colonialism 16, 40–2, 44–8, 54, 58, 61, 73–4, 87, 90, 96, 101, 103, 106, 120–2, 140, 145, 147, 149–50, 153, 155, 157, 163, 170, 172, 175, 194, 199–201, 204–5, 208, 211, 216–17 conquest model 6 Constantine 121 Court, J.M. 106, 145 Cross, F.M. 121 Crouch, C.L. 21, 52 cuneiform 117, 196–7, 205 curse, curses 21, 44, 77–9, 155–6, 159–60, 163, 185 Curthoys, A. and J. Docker 10, 37 Dalley, S. 54 D’Altroy, T.N. 204 Davies, E.W. 48, 51, 59, 79, 112, 135, 164, 186, 189, 211 Davies, G.I. 196, 198 Davies, P.R. 7 Day, D. 42, 44, 52, 117 DeMarrais, E. 204 Deuteronomic, deuteronomistic 5, 23, 32, 35, 41, 93–4, 124–5, 156–7, 173, 190–1, 193, 195–6, 206, 212 Deuteronomistic history 22 Devecchi, E. 196 Dever, W.G. 7, 44, 50, 56, 180 Diamond, J. 217–18 divination 156–7, 161, 163, 174, 214 divine presence 37, 57, 78, 97, 134, 163 Docker, J. 41, 215–16 documentary hypothesis, newer documentary hypothesis 4–5, 50 Douglas, M. 48 Dozeman, T.B. and K. Schmid 4 Dozeman, T.B., T. Römer and K. Schmid 5, 22, 36 Driver, S.R. 51, 173, 214 egalitarian, egalitarianism 46, 52, 211 Egypt, Egyptian, Egyptians 1–2, 7, 17, 25, 37–9, 41–2, 51, 54, 60, 64, 85, 91, 93–4, 96–7, 99, 102–3, 108–9, 117–20, 125, 142–3, 146, 148, 151, 162, 185, 196–9, 201–2, 212, 216 Emar 34, 109, 197

Fara, P. 12, 50 Faust, A. 7, 43 Feder, Y. 33, 137, 213 feminist, feminists 79, 112 Ferro, M. 38, 47 Feyerabend, P. 12–13 Finkelberg, M. 38, 44, 120 Finkelstein, I. 7, 43, 55, 66, 149, 162, 168 Fleming, D.E. 34, 54, 179 foreigner 34, 42, 95–6, 121 formerly (karū) 34, 213, 215 Forsling, J. 6, 19–21, 39, 52, 93 Foucault, M. 10, 12 French Revolution 217 Frevel, C. 3, 5, 14, 28, 51, 213–15 Frevel C., T. Pola and A. Schart 5 Friedman, R.E. 28–32, 51, 104, 107 frontier: frontier societies 46–7, 52, 193, 217 genocide, genocides, genocidal 41–4, 48, 120, 188–9, 215–16; ecocide 216 George, A.R. 7, 36 Gilgamesh: Gilgamesh Epic 36–7, 51, 118 Gold, golden 17, 62–3, 68–9, 86, 99–100, 102, 116, 119, 127, 136, 148–9, 165, 188 Gottwald, N.K. 7 Gramsci, A. 50, 52 Gray, G.B. 28, 51, 107, 127–8, 151, 153, 158, 164, 182, 190, 197 Grimes, R.L. 48 Gunkel, H. 4 Hachlili, R. 89 Harvey, P.B., Jr. and B. Halpern 3 Harzig, C. and D. Hoerder with D. Gabaccia 52 Hattusili 202 Hawkins, R.K. 7, 50, 52 herem 135–6, 155, 165, 186, 189

232

AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX

Herr, L.G. 192, 194 Hess, R.S. 45, 154, 205, 208 Hexateuch xi, 5–6, 26, 28, 47–8 hieroglyphic 197 Hinkson, J., P. James and L. Veracini 48, 122, 200 history, historical, historiography i, vii, 3–13, 15–17, 22, 32–3, 36–9, 41, 43, 46, 50, 52, 55, 61, 66, 72, 84, 89, 100, 111, 115, 117, 120–2, 128–9, 131, 139, 144, 146, 153, 162–3, 171, 181, 186, 197, 205, 215–18 Hittite, Hittites 34, 43, 51, 94, 118, 162, 211, 213, 215 Hixson, W.L. 46, 95 Hoffmeier, J.K. 59, 116, 118, 198 Horowitz, W., T. Oshima and S. Sanders 36, 214 Humphreys, C.J. 56 Hundley, M.B. 37, 57, 97 hunting and gathering societies 217 Hurrian, Hurrians 216 Hutton, J.M. 216 industrial societies 89, 217 Inkas 204–5 Isaac 17, 146–7 Israel (modern) 11–12, 15, 96, 200, 204 Jastram, N. 35 Jebus, Jebusites 118; Jerusalem 37, 44, 66, 68–72, 82, 118, 181, 212 Jenson, P. 59 Jobling, D. 190 Joseph, Josephites 17, 55–6, 59, 85, 169 Josiah 3, 71, 93, 117, 121 Judaism 82–3, 110, 121–2, 204 Junkkaala, E. 43, 117, 150, 203 justice 16, 209; social justice 96 Kakel, C.P. 44, 216 Kallai, Z. 65–6, 115, 207 Kaufmann, Y. 171 Kibble, T.W.B. and F.H. Bershire 10 Kilchör, B. 8, 22, 34, 50, 52, 102, 124, 136, 199, 217 Kitchen, K.A. 7, 22, 50, 59, 85, 99, 105, 149, 201–2

Kitchen, K.A. and P.J.N. Lawrence 9, 10, 21, 33–4, 43, 52, 64, 156, 162, 171, 202, 205 Knauf, E.A. 45 Knohl, I. 28–32, 51, 53 Korea 56, 64, 79; North Korea 217; South Korea 217 Kraus, F.R. 34 Kuenen, A. 123, 215 Kuhn, T.S. 8, 12–13, 50 Lamont, M. 12 Lemche, N.P. 7 Lemkin, R. 41, 215–17 Lenski, G. 46–7 Levene, M. 215 Levine, B.A. 35, 54, 60, 73, 75–6, 78, 82, 84, 86, 88, 110, 118, 124, 127–8, 153, 160, 168–9, 171, 183–4, 186, 203, 213, 216 Levy, T.E. 6 Lienhard, J.T. 50, 111, 164 liminal, liminality 16, 49, 92 Liverani, M. 7 Longman, T. 36–7 Lundbom, J.R. 51, 64, 146–7, 173, 214 MacDonald, B. 146–7, 152–4, 157, 160, 191–4, 198–9, 214, 216 MacDonald, N. 145, 213 mainstream i, 5, 7–8, 10–12, 15 Malešević, S. 10, 47–8 Malina, B.J. 184 Manning, P. 41, 52 Mari 54, 74, 78, 163 Marx, Karl 217 mathematical 9–10, 50 Maul, S.M. 157 maximalist 7, 11–12, 15 Mazar, A. 6–7 Mesopotamia, Mesopotamian 36, 41, 157, 212 Meyers, C.L. 89 migration 2, 7, 11, 40–1, 59–60, 66, 74, 85, 96, 109–10, 118, 120, 162, 169, 197 Milgrom, J. 14, 16, 35, 39, 54, 61, 67, 69, 72, 76–8, 80, 82, 84, 86–7, 91, 93, 95, 99–101, 103, 105, 107–13, 115–16, 118,

233

AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX

123–5, 127, 129–32, 135–7, 141, 143–4, 147–8, 150–2, 158–60, 162, 164–9, 172, 174, 182–3, 185–8, 203, 206, 208, 212–14, 216 Millard, A.R. 197 Miller, J.M. and J.H. Hayes 6 minimalist 7, 11, 15, 45, 50, 89 Moab Covenant 35, 55 Moorey, P.R.S. 6 Mount Nebo 148, 174 Mount Sirion (Hermon) 154, 203 Murray, S. 175 Na’aman, N. 117–18 Nahal Bezor 202 national, nationalism 38, 48, 188, 204, 216 natural sciences 9–10, 13 Nelson, R.D. 45 neo-Wellhausenian 5 New Zealand 47 Niditch, S. 187 Niehaus, J.J. 215 Nihan, C. 26, 33, 46, 51, 56, 69, 89, 122, 129, 176, 182 Nissinen, M. 110, 163 Nolan, P. and G. Lenski 46, 50, 217–18 Noth, M. 5, 7, 22 now (kinuna) 34, 213, 215 O’Connor, D. 216 Otto, E. 3, 5, 7, 22, 25, 34–5, 47, 50, 55, 113, 115, 120–1, 155, 171, 199 Palestine, Palestinians 11, 15, 200, 204 Pappe, I. 204 paradigm, research paradigm 4, 8, 10, 12–13, 50, 73, 103, 195 Pardee, D. 164, 214 Parker, C. 47 patriarch, patriarchs, patriarchal 17, 26, 38, 42–5, 48, 60, 65–6, 79, 112, 115, 146, 171, 207, 211 peaceful infiltration model 7 peasant revolt model 7 Petter, T.D. 154, 193 Philistines 69, 72, 80, 85, 118, 162, 213 physics 10, 50

Pitkänen, P.M.A. 9–10, 13, 16, 22–3, 28, 35, 37, 40, 43, 46–8, 50–2, 55, 57, 60–1, 66, 72, 83, 85, 94–7, 105, 117–18, 120, 124, 136, 146–7, 149–50, 156, 162, 181, 189, 191, 194–6, 200, 202, 204–7, 211–14, 216–17 Pluciennik, M. 9–10, 14 postexilic 7, 15, 35–6, 42, 45, 47, 52, 58, 61, 66–8, 71–2, 110, 120–2, 128, 167, 181, 183, 200, 204 postmodern 10, 15 pre-exilic 7 premonarchical 9, 15, 37, 65 Prior, M. 175 Propp, W.H.C. 212 Provan, I., V.P. Long and T. Longman 7 Raiders of the lost Ark 57, 69 Ramesses II 59, 61, 99, 202 redactional layers approach 4–5, 8–9, 14, 15, 22, 33 Rendtorff, R. 4 rhetoric, rhetorical 52, 55, 109, 130, 171, 183 Richter, S.L. 83 ritual: ritual studies i, xiv, 9, 15, 18, 34, 48, 49, 52, 54, 61, 69, 73, 76–82, 84–5, 87, 90–2, 106, 113, 124, 133–4, 136–9, 145, 177, 187, 212–13 Ritzer, G. and W. Yagatich 50 Rochberg, F. 89 Roskop, A.R. 38, 114, 149, 196 Rothenberg, B. 151, 211 Routledge, B. 50, 52 Russia 216; Soviet Union 217 Sagrillo, T.L. 57 Said, E.W. 8 Sand, S. 204 Sanders, J.A. 47, 121 Sanders, S.L. 18, 74 Sasson, J.M. 54 Schley, D.G. 72 scribes, scribal 45, 71, 196–7, 216 Seters, J. van 4, 21, 51 Shaw, M. 41, 48, 215–16 Shiloh 17, 37, 46, 48, 60, 68, 71–2, 84–5, 181, 195

234

AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX

Ugarit, Ugaritic 98, 109, 164, 183, 196, 214 United Monarchy 7 United Nations 188 United States of America 46–7, 95–6, 200; US Declaration of Independence 45 Urim 157, 174, 179, 186

Short, D. 38, 41, 48, 122, 200, 211, 215–17 silver 19, 23, 29, 82, 86, 97–100, 136, 186 Sinai covenant 22, 35, 55 slave, saves, slavery 2, 41, 89, 108, 211 Smith, M.S. 39, 93, 109 Smolin, L. 10, 50 social sciences 11, 13, 47 sociology 50, 217 South Africa 47 Spain, Spanish 200 Stackert, J. 5 Stannard, D.E. 47 Stern, E. 162 Stubbs, D.L. 50, 58, 61, 74, 82, 87, 101, 103, 132, 139, 151, 171, 199

Van Dam, C. 157 Veracini, L. 40–2, 46, 48, 52, 122, 200 Veracini, L. and E. Cavanagh 89 Von Däniken, E. 13

tabernacle, tent of meeting 17, 19, 23, 26–8, 37, 39, 48, 53, 57–61, 65–6, 69–74, 77–8, 80–1, 83–92, 94, 97, 99–100, 102–3, 106, 109, 112, 119, 128, 130–7, 143, 173, 176, 177, 179–81, 195, 212–13, 217 Taggar-Cohen, A. 211 Tate, W.R. 11, 49 Taylor, G. 52, 157 Tenu, A. 22, 162 theodicy 175 Thomas, Z. 7 Thompson, T.L. 7 throne 105 Tigay, J. 27, 33, 36, 51 Timna 151, 211 Tinker, G.E. 217 torah 1, 5, 14, 17, 47, 113, 120–1 Tov, E. 27, 35, 105, 144

Wagenaar, J.A. 178–9 Walton, J.H., V.H. Matthews and M.W. Chavalas 73, 76, 82, 132, 151 Weinfeld, M. 194–5, 202, 205 Wellhausen, J. 4, 22, 71, 123, 181, 215 Wenham, G.J. 3, 7–8, 56, 76, 84, 104, 111, 212 West, Western (modern) 8, 10, 13, 34, 38, 47, 79, 113, 121–2, 172, 200, 217 Westermann, C. 5 Wette, W.M.L. de 3 Whybray, R.N. 4, 50 wisdom 2, 3, 212, 218 Wolfe, P. 8–10, 41–2, 45 Wright, D.P. 187 Yasur-Landau, A. 85, 162, 213 Younger, K.L. 159, 162, 186 Zadok, R. 162 Zionism 12, 204 Zvi, E. ben 205–6 Zwiebach, B. 10

235

INDEX OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND RELATED SITES

Ain Qadis 116 Ain Qudeirat 116 ΄Ara΄ir 194 Ash-Sharqiyya 198 Ballah Lakes 198 Damascus 146, 203 Dhiban 191–2 El-’Al 192 Euphrates 159, 162, 194–5 Ezion-Geber 146, 198 Homs 203 Ketef Hinnom 82 Khirbat ad-Deleilat al Garbiyya 198 Khirbat al-Mukhayyat 192 Khirbat ‘Atarus 191 Naqb ets-Tsfar 202 Orontes 202

Pitru 159 Qantir 198 Ras al-Siyagha 153 Tall al-’Azeimeh 198 Tall al-Hamman 198–9 Tall ar-Rama 194 Tall Bleibel 192 Tall Iktanu 194 Tall Nimrin 192 Tel Arad 149 Tel Hebron 117 Tell el-Borg 198 Tell el-Umeiri 154, 192, 194 Tell Hesban 154 Tell Jalul 154 Tsada 203 Wadi al-Mujib 152 Wadi el Arish 202 wadi el-Hesa 152 Wadi Tumilat 198 Wad Zarqa Ma’in 152

236

INDEX OF REFERENCES TO THE BIBLE AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Gen 1–11, 7, 11, 17 Gen 1–3, 1 Gen 2–3, 60, 87 Gen 2:4, 62 Gen 3:21–24, 89 Gen 4–6, 1 Gen 5:1, 62 Gen 6–9, 1 Gen 6–8, 52 Gen 6:4, 118 Gen 6:9, 62 Gen 8:21, 123 Gen 9:24–25, 155 Gen 9:25, 44 Gen 10–11, 1 Gen 10, 44 Gen 10:1, 62 Gen 10:15–18, 155 Gen 11:10, 62 Gen 11:27, 62 Gen 12–50, 1, 17 Gen 12, 1, 17, 43 Gen 12:6–9, 43 Gen 13:17, 43 Gen 14:13, 118 Gen 14:17–20, 72 Gen 14:19, 119 Gen 14:23, 111 Gen 15:13, 39 Gen 15:18–21, 32 Gen 15:18, 194 Gen 15:20, 118

Gen 17, 17, 95 Gen 17:1, 157 Gen 17:3, 119 Gen 17:10, 95 Gen 17:17, 119 Gen 17:19–21, 95 Gen 19:30–38, 154, 185 Gen 25–33, 146 Gen 25:25, 136 Gen 25:29–34, 147 Gen 25:30, 136 Gen 26–27, 44 Gen 26:19–34, 64 Gen 26:27, 64 Gen 27:1–40, 156 Gen 29–30, 55 Gen 29:15–30, 111 Gen 29:32, 129 Gen 30:22–24, 59 Gen 31:54, 164–5 Gen 32–33, 44 Gen 35, 17, 55 Gen 35:16–18, 59 Gen 35:22, 64, 129 Gen 35:23, 59 Gen 35:26, 59 Gen 36:1–10, 172 Gen 37:29, 213 Gen 38:1–10, 169 Gen 38:28, 137 Gen 36:31–39, 22 Gen 36:35, 127, 159 Gen 37ff, 17 Gen 37:34, 213 Gen 41:50–52, 55, 59

237

Gen 44:13, 213 Gen 46, 55, 167, 169 Gen 46:7, 109 Gen 46:8–27, 167 Gen 46:11, 64 Gen 46:17, 62 Gen 46:20, 169 Gen 46:21, 169 Gen 48, 64, 170 Gen 48:22, 44 Gen 49, 55 Gen 49:3–4, 64, 129 Gen 49:29–50:14, 17 Gen 50:1, 148 Gen 50:3, 148 Gen 50:22–26, 17 Ex 1–12, 17 Ex 1, 2, 187 Ex 1:1–6, 55 Ex 1:5, 109 Ex 2–13, 2 Ex 2:1, 63 Ex 2:11–15, 205 Ex 2:15–22, 103 Ex 2:18, 103 Ex 3–4, 103 Ex 3, 2, 17, 103 Ex 3:10, 144 Ex 3:16–17, 44 Ex 4:5, 44 Ex 4:14–16, 112 Ex 4:14, 63 Ex 4:18–26, 103 Ex 4:22–23, 91 Ex 4:27, 134

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Ex 5:22–23, 144 Ex 6, 167 Ex 6:6, 205 Ex 6:14–25, 170 Ex 6:16–19, 64 Ex 6:16, 62 Ex 6:18–21, 129 Ex 6:20–25, 64 Ex 7–12, 17 Ex 7:3–5, 198 Ex 7:7, 40, 198 Ex 10:1–2, 155 Ex 12–13, 21–2, 28, 93–4 Ex 12, 94, 178–9, 198 Ex 12:1–30, 17 Ex 12:1–2, 102 Ex 12:2, 54, 179 Ex 12:3, 39, 102 Ex 12:5–10, 96 Ex 12:6, 39, 54, 178 Ex 12:8, 95 Ex 12:10, 95 Ex 12:16, 178 Ex 12:21–23, 93 Ex 12:22–23, 213 Ex 12:22, 94 Ex 12:29–37, 102 Ex 12:37, 28 Ex 12:38, 41, 108, 111 Ex 12:41, 39 Ex 12:43–48, 17 Ex 12:46, 95, 97 Ex 12:48, 95 Ex 13–15, 17 Ex 13–14, 98 Ex 13:2, 63 Ex 13:3–7, 102 Ex 13:12, 136 Ex 13:15, 63 Ex 13:20–22, 29 Ex 13:21–22, 97 Ex 14–19, 2 Ex 14, 97 Ex 14:10–18, 106 Ex 14:12, 108 Ex 14:19–20, 97 Ex 14:23–25, 97 Ex 15:20–21, 142

Ex 15:20, 112 Ex 15:22–17:7, 106 Ex 16–18, 17 Ex 16, 17, 29, 107–8, 122 Ex 16:3, 108 Ex 16:4–5, 29 Ex 16:13, 110 Ex 16:26, 109 Ex 16:33–34, 110 Ex 16:35, 29 Ex 17, 37, 143 Ex 17:1–7, 17, 99, 143, 151 Ex 17:2–7, 30, 143 Ex 17:5, 143 Ex 17:6, 143 Ex 17:8–16, 175 Ex 17:8–15, 104, 118 Ex 18, 29, 103 Ex 18:1–6, 103 Ex 18:1, 166 Ex 18:13–26, 107–8 Ex 18:21–26, 108 Ex 18:27, 104 Ex 19–24, 17, 53, 102 Ex 19:1–2, 102 Ex 19:1, 39, 87, 212 Ex 19:6, 125 Ex 19:16, 101 Ex 20–Lev 26, 21 Ex 20–Lev 25, 26 Ex 20–23, 21, 51 Ex 20, 21, 26 Ex 20:2–17, 177 Ex 20:5–6, 116, 119 Ex 20:9–11, 30 Ex 20:22–23:33, 22, 23 Ex 20:22–23:19, 177 Ex 20:22–26, 84 Ex 21:12–14, 205, 217 Ex 21:14, 205 Ex 21:28–32, 208 Ex 23:14–19, 31 Ex 23:15, 22, 28 Ex 23:19, 63 Ex 23:20–33, 41, 47, 89, 95, 135, 199 Ex 23:31, 194, 159

238

Ex 24, 26, 106 Ex 24:1, 108 Ex 24:9, 108 Ex 24:16–18, 98 Ex 24:17, 131 Ex 25–Lev 9, 55, 57 Ex 25–40, 37, 51, 53, 86–9, 91, 212 Ex 25–31, 17, 32, 51, 69 Ex 25, 69 Ex 25:9, 88 Ex 25:10–22, 28, 68, 104–5 Ex 25:22, 86–7 Ex 25:23–30, 68 Ex 25:31–40, 88 Ex 25:31–39, 68 Ex 25:35–39, 28 Ex 25:40, 88 Ex 26:1–14, 70 Ex 26:1, 213 Ex 26:15–29, 70 Ex 26:31–33, 70 Ex 26:31, 135, 213 Ex 26:35–37, 70 Ex 26:35, 88 Ex 26:36, 213 Ex 27:1–8, 68, 131 Ex 27:20–21, 88–9 Ex 27:37, 88 Ex 28, 148 Ex 28:6–30, 174 Ex 28:6, 213 Ex 28:15–30, 157 Ex 28:15, 213 Ex 28:30, 157 Ex 28:31, 213 Ex 28:33, 213 Ex 28:38, 208 Ex 29:1–37, 28 Ex 29:7, 80 Ex 29:14, 30 Ex 29:22–26, 90 Ex 29:26, 91 Ex 29:38–46, 31 Ex 29:38–42, 31 Ex 29:38–41, 69 Ex 29:39–42, 176–8, 215 Ex 30, 69

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Ex 30:1–10, 68 Ex 30:1–7, 131 Ex 30:7–9, 69 Ex 30:10, 69 Ex 30:11–16, 53, 69 Ex 30:12, 188 Ex 30:17–21, 68, 78 Ex 30:22–33, 69 Ex 30:27, 88 Ex 30:29, 78 Ex 31:8, 88 Ex 31:13–17, 30 Ex 31:14, 125 Ex 32–34, 22, 26, 102, 116, 144, 148, 165 Ex 32–33, 29 Ex 32, 17, 62–3, 106, 211 Ex 32:1–8, 165 Ex 32:4, 62 Ex 32:5–6, 165 Ex 32:9–10, 119 Ex 32:11–12, 116, 119 Ex 32:25–29, 30, 63 Ex 32:29, 165–6 Ex 32:35–28, 165 Ex 32:35, 165 Ex 33, 17 Ex 33:6–11, 86–7 Ex 33:7–11, 60, 112, 214 Ex 33:7, 59 Ex 33:10, 97 Ex 33:11, 40, 175 Ex 34–37, 69 Ex 34, 17 Ex 34:6–7, 116, 119 Ex 34:10–16, 89, 95, 199 Ex 34:10, 135 Ex 34:11–26, 177 Ex 34:18–26, 31 Ex 34:18, 22, 28 Ex 34:19–20, 63 Ex 34:19, 136 Ex 34:26, 63 Ex 35–40, 17, 32, 69, 88 Ex 35–39, 51 Ex 35, 28, 165 Ex 35:1–3, 30 Ex 35:8, 69

Ex 35:14, 88–9 Ex 35:30–40:33, 88 Ex 36:35, 135, 213 Ex 36:37, 213 Ex 37–38, 68, 212 Ex 37:1–9, 28, 68, 104–5 Ex 37:10–16, 68 Ex 37:17–25, 88 Ex 37:17–24, 28 Ex 37:17–23, 68 Ex 37:25–29, 68 Ex 37:25–28, 131 Ex 38:1–7, 68, 131 Ex 38:21–32, 53 Ex 38:22–29, 90 Ex 38:25–28, 188 Ex 38:25–26, 56 Ex 38:26, 28 Ex 39:1–31, 148 Ex 39:35–39, 212 Ex 39:37, 88 Ex 40, 26, 63, 84 Ex 40:1, 39, 84, 87, 102 Ex 40:12–16, 91 Ex 40:15, 85 Ex 40:20–29, 70 Ex 40:34–38, 29, 97–8 Lev 1–Num 10, 127 Lev 1:1–Num 10:10, 17 Lev 1–16, 32 Lev 1–10, 26 Lev 1–9, 26 Lev 1–7, 29, 57, 123, 135, 139 Lev 1–5, 84 Lev 1, 86, 123, 135 Lev 1:1, 87 Lev 1:4, 91 Lev 1:9, 123 Lev 1:14, 81 Lev 2, 63, 77–8, 81, 86 Lev 2:1, 77 Lev 2:4–7, 77 Lev 2:9–10, 81 Lev 2:13, 136 Lev 2:14–15, 77 Lev 3, 81, 86, 123, 160, 164–5

239

Lev 4–5:13, 86 Lev 4:6, 30 Lev 4:11, 30 Lev 4:12, 59 Lev 4:13–35, 124 Lev 4:13–21, 124, 215 Lev 4:17, 30 Lev 4:20, 178 Lev 4:22–26, 124 Lev 4:26, 178 Lev 4:27–31, 124 Lev 4:31, 178 Lev 4:32–35, 124 Lev 4:35, 178 Lev 5–6, 28 Lev 5:1–13, 124, 184 Lev 5:1, 183 Lev 5:4, 182, 183 Lev 5:5–13, 183 Lev 5:7–10, 81 Lev 5:14–6:7, 81, 86 Lev 5:14–16, 75 Lev 6:1–5, 75 Lev 7:1–10, 86 Lev 7:1, 39 Lev 7:8, 135 Lev 7:11–21, 164–5 Lev 7:12–15, 123 Lev 7:18, 183 Lev 7:20–27, 42, 95 Lev 7:28–36, 164–5 Lev 7:28–34, 135–6 Lev 7:30–34, 90 Lev 7:31–34, 81 Lev 7:33, 39 Lev 7:34, 91 Lev 8–9, 28, 57, 90, 92 Lev 8:1–9:33, 91 Lev 8, 26, 63, 88 Lev 8:1, 39 Lev 8:12, 80, 85 Lev 9, 85 Lev 9:16, 28 Lev 9:22–23, 82 Lev 9:24, 119 Lev 10, 28, 30, 51, 62, 129, 170 Lev 10:4, 59

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Lev 10:6, 78, 170 Lev 10:8, 134 Lev 10:9, 80 Lev 10:12–15, 135 Lev 10:16, 59 Lev 10:21–22, 59 Lev 11–16, 26 Lev 11, 95 Lev 11:24–40, 138 Lev 11:28, 137 Lev 11:31–32, 73 Lev 11:39–41, 34 Lev 12:8, 81 Lev 13–14, 73, 111–13 Lev 13, 28, 48 Lev 13:13, 112 Lev 13:17, 112 Lev 13:45, 78 Lev 14, 30, 137 Lev 14:3, 73 Lev 14:4–7, 137 Lev 14:4, 137 Lev 14:5–7, 138 Lev 14:6, 137 Lev 14:8, 113 Lev 14:16, 137 Lev 14:21–22, 81 Lev 14:30–31, 81 Lev 14:34, 30 Lev 14:49–51, 137–8 Lev 14:49, 137 Lev 15, 28, 73 Lev 15:1–18, 138 Lev 15:13–15, 81 Lev 15:19, 139 Lev 15:24, 139 Lev 15:28–30, 81 Lev 15:29–31, 81 Lev 15:31, 28 Lev 16, 31, 54, 59, 133, 177, 179, 208 Lev 16:1–2, 133 Lev 16:2, 98 Lev 16:9–10, 157 Lev 16:16, 208 Lev 16:21–22, 59 Lev 16:21, 91, 208 Lev 16:29–34, 133

Lev 17–26/27, 26 Lev 17–26, 3, 27, 33, 51–2, 96, 100, 176–7, 215 Lev 17–25, 42 Lev 17, 34, 60, 92, 95, 129 Lev 17:3–4, 34 Lev 17:3, 113 Lev 17:4–14, 42, 95 Lev 17:15, 34, 137, 212 Lev 18:24–30, 42, 208 Lev 18:24–28, 199 Lev 18:26–32, 63 Lev 18:28, 200 Lev 18:29, 42, 95 Lev 19:3, 100 Lev 19:4, 100 Lev 19:10, 100 Lev 19:23–25, 124 Lev 19:25, 100 Lev 19:31, 100 Lev 19:34, 100 Lev 19:36, 100 Lev 20:17, 183 Lev 20:19, 183 Lev 20:22–24, 199, 208 Lev 20:22–23, 42 Lev 20:22, 200 Lev 20:23, 95 Lev 21, 28 Lev 21:1–12, 133 Lev 21:1–11, 94 Lev 21:1–4, 73, 186 Lev 21:1–3, 73 Lev 21:10, 78, 142 Lev 21:11–12, 213 Lev 21:11, 73, 80–1, 131, 186 Lev 22:3–6, 138 Lev 22:4–8, 133 Lev 22:4, 73 Lev 22:12–13, 135 Lev 22:14–15, 75 Lev 23, 29, 31, 176–7 Lev 23:9–14, 124 Lev 23:10–11, 123–4, 178 Lev 23:15–21, 178 Lev 23:15–16, 178 Lev 23:18, 215

240

Lev 23:19, 215 Lev 23:21, 178 Lev 23:23–25, 178 Lev 23:24, 179 Lev 23:26–32, 179 Lev 23:27, 179 Lev 23:32, 178 Lev 23:33–43, 179 Lev 23:34, 179 Lev 23:35, 179 Lev 23:36, 179 Lev 23:38, 215 Lev 23:39, 179 Lev 23:40, 179 Lev 23:42–43, 179 Lev 24:1–4, 28, 89 Lev 24:4–8, 94 Lev 24:4, 88 Lev 24:10–25, 123 Lev 24:10–23, 96, 122, 125, 210 Lev 24:10–16, 30 Lev 24:13–14, 125 Lev 24:16, 125 Lev 24:23, 125 Lev 25:25–34, 207 Lev 25:25, 76 Lev 25:32–34, 32, 136, 201, 204, 206 Lev 25:44–46, 211 Lev 25:47–55, 207 Lev 26, 21, 121, 144, 156, 200, 210 Lev 27–Num 36, 21 Lev 27, 21, 31, 76, 80, 176, 182, 184 Lev 27:1–27, 135 Lev 27:6, 136 Lev 27:13, 76 Lev 27:15, 76 Lev 27:19, 76 Lev 27:26–27, 63, 136 Lev 27:27, 76 Lev 27:28, 135 Lev 27:29, 135 Lev 27:30–33, 136 Lev 27:31, 76 Lev 27:34, 176

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 1–10, 23, 25, 27, 53, 74 Num 1:1–10:35, 53 Num 1:1–10:10, 23, 53 Num 1–7, 123 Num 1–4, 71–2, 74, 183 Num 1, 19, 23, 28, 31, 38, 54, 58, 64, 67–8, 73, 85, 93, 167–9, 188 Num 1:1–54, 53 Num 1:1–48, 28 Num 1:1–46, 54 Num 1:1–19, 55 Num 1:1–3, 54 Num 1:1–2, 64 Num 1:1, 16, 40, 55, 93, 122 Num 1:2–3, 54 Num 1:3, 54–5, 168 Num 1:3b, 54 Num 1:4–18, 168 Num 1:4–16, 54–5 Num 1:4, 55 Num 1:5–15, 86 Num 1:16, 55 Num 1:17–19, 54–5 Num 1:17–18, 55 Num 1:18, 40 Num 1:19, 55 Num 1:20–46, 44, 54–5, 169, 188 Num 1:24–25, 35 Num 1:34–35, 35 Num 1:45–53, 61 Num 1:46, 55, 61, 169 Num 1:47–54, 57 Num 1:47–53, 54, 170 Num 1:47–49, 57 Num 1:48–54, 28, 54 Num 1:50–53, 57, 105, 186 Num 1:50–51, 57 Num 1:53, 57 Num 1:54, 54, 58, 61 Num 2–8, 92 Num 2, 19, 23, 28, 100–1 Num 2:1–34, 58 Num 2:1–31, 58, 89, 97, 112, 151, 173, 196

Num 2:1–3, 141 Num 2.3–9, 59, 61, 100, 102 Num 2:4, 62 Num 2:7, 35 Num 2:10–16, 59, 61, 100, 102 Num 2:14, 35 Num 2:17, 59, 61, 86, 102, 105 Num 2:18–24, 59, 61, 103 Num 2:20, 35 Num 2:22, 35 Num 2:25–31, 59, 61, 103 Num 2:29, 35 Num 2:32, 61 Num 2:33, 61 Num 2:34, 61, 103 Num 3–4, 19, 23, 27–8, 58, 60, 84, 129, 135, 139 Num 3:1–4, 49, 61, 129 Num 3, 55, 57, 59, 86, 90, 101, 167, 170 Num 3:1–4, 62 Num 3:2–4, 36, 62, 69, 70 Num 3:5–51, 63, 181 Num 3:5–39, 62, 72 Num 3:5–10, 63 Num 3:7–8, 63 Num 3:7, 63 Num 3:9–10, 30 Num 3:9, 63 Num 3:10, 35, 63 Num 3:11–13, 63, 90–1 Num 3:14–16, 64, 67 Num 3:14, 68 Num 3:17, 62 Num 3:17–20, 64, 72 Num 3:18–20, 170 Num 3:20–25, 64 Num 3:21–26, 65 Num 3:25–26, 65 Num 3:21–39, 65 Num 3:22, 65 Num 3:27–32, 65 Num 3:28, 65 Num 3:31, 65, 88 Num 3:34, 65

241

Num 3:33–37, 65 Num 3:36, 65 Num 3:38, 65 Num 3:39, 65, 170 Num 3:40–51, 23, 62, 64, 67, 90, 131 Num 3:47, 136 Num 4, 57, 62, 64, 65, 71, 101 Num 4:1–49, 68, 166, 181 Num 4:1–20, 135 Num 4:1–3, 68–70, 90–1 Num 4:1, 90 Num 4:3, 68, 91 Num 4:4–20, 57 Num 4:4–15, 86, 102 Num 4:4–14, 68 Num 4:4, 68, 70 Num 4:5, 68 Num 4:7, 68 Num 4:9, 68, 88 Num 4:10–12, 93 Num 4:11, 68 Num 4:12, 68, 86 Num 4:13–14, 68 Num 4:13, 68 Num 4:15, 69–70, 86, 102 Num 4:16, 69 Num 4:17–20, 69 Num 4:19, 70 Num 4:20, 70 Num 4:21–33, 102–3 Num 4:21–28, 69 Num 4:21, 90 Num 4:23, 68, 91 Num 4:26, 70 Num 4:28, 70 Num 4:29–33, 70 Num 4:30, 68, 90, 91 Num 4:31, 70 Num 4:32, 70 Num 4:34–49, 57, 70 Num 4:34–37, 70 Num 4:43–49, 57 Num 4:48, 70 Num 4:49, 70 Num 5:1–4, 19, 23, 28, 38, 54, 59–60, 72–3, 94,

INDEX OF REFERENCES

112, 125, 133, 137–8, 196 Num 5:1, 62 Num 5:2, 133 Num 5:3, 73 Num 5:5–6:27, 19, 23, 28, 72, 74 Num 5:5–10, 23, 28, 75 Num 5:5–7, 75 Num 5:8, 76 Num 5:9–10, 76 Num 5:9, 76 Num 5:10, 76 Num 5:11–6:21, 28 Num 5:11–30, 23, 76 Num 5:11–14, 77 Num 5:15–18, 77–8 Num 5:15, 78 Num 5:17, 77 Num 5:19–22, 77–8 Num 5:21, 28 Num 5:22, 78 Num 5:23–26, 77–8 Num 5:23–24, 78 Num 5:25–26, 78 Num 5:27–31, 77–8 Num 5:27–28, 78 Num 5:27, 28 Num 5:29–31, 79 Num 5:31, 79 Num 6, 49, 52, 182 Num 6:1–27, 23, 79 Num 6:1–2, 80 Num 6:2, 80 Num 6:3–8, 80 Num 6:3–4, 80 Num 6:4, 80 Num 6:5, 80–1 Num 6:6–13, 133 Num 6:6–9, 80 Num 6:6–7, 81 Num 6:6, 73 Num 6:8, 81 Num 6:9–12, 80–1 Num 6:9–10, 81 Num 6:9, 62 Num 6:11–12, 81 Num 6:12, 81

Num 6:13–20, 80–1 Num 6:14–15, 81 Num 6:16–17, 81 Num 6:18, 81 Num 6:19, 81 Num 6:20, 81 Num 6:21, 80–1 Num 6:22–27, 23, 28 Num 6:23, 35 Num 6:27, 35 Num 7, 19, 23, 28, 55, 86 Num 7:1–9:14, 23 Num 7:1–89, 162, 196 Num 7:5–9, 84 Num 7:9, 85–86 Num 7:10–11, 86 Num 7:12–83, 86 Num 7:84–88, 86 Num 7:88, 35, 86 Num 7:89, 86, 88, 97, 112, 173 Num 8, 27, 183 Num 8:1–4, 19, 23, 28, 51, 87–8, 135, 199, 200 Num 8:1, 88 Num 8:2, 88 Num 8:3, 88 Num 8:4, 88, 99 Num 8:5–9:14, 19 Num 8:5–26, 23, 90 Num 8:5–22, 19, 28 Num 8:5–14, 90–1 Num 8:5, 88 Num 8:6, 90 Num 8:8, 90 Num 8:9, 90 Num 8:11, 90 Num 8:12, 90 Num 8:15–19, 90–1, 136 Num 8:15, 90 Num 8:16–19, 90 Num 8:16, 91 Num 8:17, 91, 136 Num 8:19, 90–1 Num 8:20–22, 90–1 Num 8:22–26, 90 Num 8:23–26, 28, 90–1 Num 8:24, 68

242

Num 8:26, 92, 142 Num 9, 92 Num 9:1–14, 19, 23, 28, 92 Num 9:1–5, 40, 93, 96 Num 9:1–4, 31 Num 9:3, 93 Num 9:5–14, 124 Num 9:5, 93 Num 9:6–14, 102, 210 Num 9:6–10, 73 Num 9:6–8, 94 Num 9:6–7, 93 Num 6:6, 133 Num 9:8, 93 Num 9:9–14, 42, 93, 94, 124–5, 137–8, 207 Num 9:10–12, 40 Num 9:10, 93 Num 9:11, 95 Num 9:12, 95 Num 9:15–10:10, 23, 97 Num 9:15–23, 19, 23, 29, 89, 101, 112, 173 Num 9:15–16, 98 Num 9:15, 98 Num 9:17–22, 98 Num 9:18, 98 Num 9:19–22, 98 Num 9:22–23, 35 Num 9:23, 98, 102 Num 10, 127 Num 10:1–10, 19, 23, 29, 99, 101, 186 Num 10:1–2, 99 Num 10:1, 62 Num 10:3–6, 100 Num 10:3–4, 99, 100 Num 10:3, 100 Num 10:5–6, 99, 100, 102 Num 10:5, 102 Num 10:6, 35, 103 Num 10:7, 99, 100 Num 10:8–9, 74 Num 10:8, 99, 100 Num 10:9, 99, 100 Num 10:10, 17, 99, 100 Num 10:11–36:13, 17

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 10:11–36, 19, 23, 25, 29, 101 Num 10:11–28, 23, 29, 61, 100–1 Num 10:11–13, 102, 113 Num 10:11–12, 40, 93, 97 Num 10:11, 97, 101, 106 Num 10:12, 101, 113 Num 10:13, 102 Num 10:14–16, 100, 102 Num 10:17, 102, 103 Num 10:18–20, 100, 102 Num 10:21, 102, 105 Num 10:22–24, 103 Num 10:25–27, 103 Num 10:28, 103 Num 10:29–32, 162, 166, 185, 189 Num 10:33–36, 58, 189 Num 10:38, 53 Num 10:29–36, 29, 53 Num 10:29–32, 23, 103–4, 165 Num 10:33–36, 23, 53, 104 Num 10:33–34, 105 Num 10:33, 105 Num 10:34, 35, 106 Num 10:35–36, 105 Num 10:36, 35 Num 11–21, 23, 25, 122 Num 11–20, 58, 150 Num 11–14, 23, 106, 143 Num 11–12, 101, 111 Num 11, 17, 23, 29, 102–3, 106–8, 111 Num 11:1–3, 107–8, 111 Num 11:1–2, 19 Num 11:4–35, 107 Num 11:4–34, 107–8, 116 Num 11:4–9, 107–8, 118 Num 11:4–5, 107 Num 11:4, 118 Num 11:10–17, 107 Num 11:10–15, 107–9 Num 11:10, 62 Num 11:11–15, 144 Num 11:13, 109 Num 11:16–30, 19

Num 11:16–23, 107 Num 11:16–17, 109, 160 Num 11:18–23, 107, 109 Num 11:18, 110 Num 11:20, 109 Num 11:24–30, 107, 109 Num 11:25, 97, 111 Num 11:27, 62 Num 11:31–34, 107, 110 Num 11:32–33, 110 Num 11:33, 110 Num 11:34–35, 19 Num 11:34, 108 Num 11:35, 107, 110, 141 Num 12, 19, 23, 29, 87, 102, 107, 111, 126, 131–3, 142, 144 Num 12:1–3, 111 Num 12:1–2, 113 Num 12:1–2a, 111 Num 12:2, 112 Num 12:2b, 111 Num 12:3, 112–13 Num 12:4–10a, 112 Num 12:4–5, 111, 214 Num 12:4, 112 Num 12:5, 97, 112–13, 131 Num 12:6–8, 113 Num 12:6, 101, 113 Num 12:7, 113 Num 12:9, 111 Num 12:10, 97, 131, 214 Num 12:10b–13, 112 Num 12:12, 112 Num 12:13, 112 Num 12:14–15, 112 Num 12:16, 113 Num 13–20, 26 Num 13–14, 2, 19, 23, 25, 29, 40, 43, 53–5, 64–5, 88, 101, 103, 114–16, 126–7, 140–2, 147, 150, 170, 175, 189, 192, 201, 203–4, 213 Num 13:1–25, 115 Num 13:1–17a, 29 Num 13:1–3, 116, 142–3, 198, 202

243

Num 13:1, 43, 116 Num 13:2, 44 Num 13:4–16, 36, 116, 129 Num 13:4–15, 55 Num 13:6, 42, 116, 119 Num 13:8, 55, 129 Num 13:16, 116 Num 13:17b–33, 29 Num 13:17–20, 117 Num 13:20, 117 Num 13:21–25, 117 Num 13:21, 29, 116 Num 13:23, 117 Num 13:25, 29 Num 13:26–33, 115 Num 13:26–29, 118 Num 13:26, 25, 40, 140–1 Num 13:28–29, 117 Num 13:28, 118 Num 13:29, 118, 120 Num 13:30, 118, 162 Num 13:31–33, 118 Num 13:32, 119 Num 13:33, 118 Num 14, 114, 213 Num 14:1–45, 29 Num 14:1–4, 115, 118 Num 14:3–4, 29 Num 14:3, 119 Num 14:5–10a, 115, 118, 130, 143, 159 Num 14:8–9, 29 Num 14:9, 119 Num 14:10b–38, 115, 119, 144 Num 14:10–18, 106 Num 14:10, 143 Num 14:11–25, 29 Num 14:11–12, 116, 119 Num 14:12, 119 Num 14:13–16, 116, 119 Num 14:14, 97, 212 Num 14:16, 119 Num 14:18, 116, 119, 144 Num 14:20, 119 Num 14:21–23, 119 Num 14:21, 119 Num 14:23, 35

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 14:24, 119 Num 14:25, 25, 29 Num 14:26–35, 119 Num 14:31, 119 Num 14:32–35, 119 Num 14:34, 40 Num 14:36–38, 119, 142 Num 14:37, 117 Num 14:39–45, 29, 115, 120 Num 14:39, 120 Num 14:43–45, 37 Num 14:44, 29 Num 14:45, 30, 149, 150 Num 15–19, 25, 114, 115, 140 Num 15, 24, 122, 126, 176–7 Num 15:1–31, 19, 24, 29, 122–3, 177 Num 15:1–30, 126 Num 15:1–16, 123–4 Num 15:1–3, 123, 176 Num 15:2, 123 Num 15:4–12, 178–9 Num 15:4–5, 123, 177 Num 15:6–12, 123 Num 15:6–7, 123 Num 15:8–10, 123 Num 15:11, 123 Num 15:13–16, 124 Num 15:17–21, 123, 178 Num 15:18, 124 Num 15:19, 139 Num 15:20, 124 Num 15:21, 124 Num 15:22–17:7, 106 Num 15:22–31, 50, 123–4, 183, 208, 215 Num 15:22–26, 215 Num 15:24–26, 124 Num 15:24, 124 Num 15:30–31, 75, 183 Num 14:32–41, 123 Num 15:32–36, 19, 30, 96, 122–3, 125, 210 Num 15:32–35, 24 Num 15:35, 125

Num 15:36–41, 23 Num 15:37–41, 20, 30, 122–3, 125, 202 Num 1538–40, 213 Num 15:39, 125 Num 16–17, 20, 24, 30, 36, 126–7, 129, 133–4, 139 Num 16, 24, 30, 38, 113, 127, 133, 135, 168, 170 Num 16:1–40, 128–30 Num 16:1–4, 130, 143 Num 16:1, 71, 127, 129 Num 16:1b, 30 Num 16:2, 127 Num 16:2b, 30 Num 16:4–5, 119 Num 16:5–11, 127, 130 Num 16:5, 131, 135 Num 16:7, 130 Num 16:8–10, 130 Num 16:12–15, 30, 127, 130 Num 16:12, 128 Num 16:13, 130 Num 16:14, 130 Num 16:15, 130 Num 16:16–22, 127, 130 Num 16:17, 128, 130 Num 16:19, 131 Num 16:21, 130 Num 16:22, 174 Num 16:23–34, 127, 130 Num 16:24, 128 Num 16:25–26, 30 Num 16:25, 127 Num 16:27, 127–8 Num 16:27b–34, 30 Num 16:30, 131 Num 16:32, 128 Num 16:34, 131 Num 16:35–40, 127, 131 Num 16:35, 128 Num 16:40, 131, 133 Num 16:41–50, 128, 131, 143 Num 16:42, 97, 143 Num 16:47, 128 Num 16:48–49, 131

244

Num 17, 24, 27, 30, 113, 126–8, 133 Num 17:1–5, 131 Num 17:7, 143 Num 17:5, 132 Num 17:6–9, 132 Num 17:10–13, 132 Num 17:10, 132 Num 17:13, 133 Num 18–19, 24, 133–4, 139 Num 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 134, 127, 139, 209 Num 18:1–7, 133–4, 148 Num 18:1, 134–6 Num 18:3–4, 134 Num 18:3, 133 Num 18:7, 133–4 Num 18:8–32, 133–4 Num 18:8–30, 124 Num 18:8–19, 134 Num 18:8–18, 136 Num 18:8–11, 136 Num 18:8–10, 134–5 Num 18:9, 135 Num 18:11–19, 135 Num 18:11, 134–5 Num 18:11a, 135 Num 18:11b, 135 Num 18:12–13, 135 Num 18:14–18, 134 Num 18:14, 135–6, 150, 184, 186 Num 18:15–18, 136 Num 18:15–17, 63 Num 18:17, 136 Num 18:19, 134, 136 Num 18:20–24, 136 Num 18:20–21a, 134 Num 18:21–32, 180 Num 18:21, 136 Num 18:22b, 134 Num 18:22, 134 Num 18:23, 134, 136 Num 18:24, 136 Num 18:25–32, 136 Num 18:25–29, 187 Num 18:27, 136, 213

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 18:29, 136 Num 18:30–31, 136 Num 18:30, 213 Num 18:31, 136 Num 18:32, 136 Num 19–24, 53 Num 19, 20, 24, 30, 73, 81, 133–4, 137, 139, 187 Num 19:1–10, 136 Num 19:1–5, 136, 186 Num 19:2, 136 Num 19:2a, 30 Num 19:3, 137 Num 19:4, 138 Num 19:5, 137 Num 19:6, 137 Num 19:7–10, 137 Num 19:8, 137 Num 19:9, 59, 137 Num 19:10, 137 Num 19:10b–13, 30 Num 19:11–16, 138 Num 19:11–13, 138 Num 19:11–12, 138 Num 19:11, 73 Num 19:12–13, 138 Num 19:12, 138 Num 19:13, 138 Num 19:14–16, 213 Num 19:14–15, 138 Num 19:14, 73 Num 19:16, 73, 137–8 Num 19:17–22, 138 Num 19:17, 137, 138 Num 19:18, 138 Num 19:19, 138 Num 19:20–21a, 30 Num 19:20, 138 Num 19:21b, 139 Num 19:22, 139, 213 Num 20–21, 24, 114, 140 Num 20, 2, 17, 25, 38, 114–15, 127, 141 Num 20:1–13, 99, 109, 150, 173–4 Num 20:1, 20, 24–5, 30, 40, 51, 116, 140–1, 196 Num 20:1b, 30

Num 20:2–13, 20, 24, 30, 140, 142–3, 148, 153 Num 20:2–5, 143 Num 20:2, 143 Num 20:3–13, 148 Num 20:3–5, 142, 151 Num 20:5, 30, 142 Num 20:6–8, 143 Num 20:8, 144 Num 20:9–11, 143 Num 20:10, 144 Num 20:12, 134, 143 Num 20:13, 99, 143–4 Num 20:14–21, 20, 24, 30, 44, 140–1, 145, 151, 155, 196, 202 Num 20:14–20, 145 Num 20:14–17, 145–6, 153 Num 20:14, 115 Num 20:17, 153 Num 20:18–20, 146, 154 Num 20:18, 145 Num 20:19, 145–6 Num 20:20, 146 Num 20:21, 145–6 Num 20:21–35, 193 Num 20:22–29, 20, 24–5, 30, 144, 147, 167, 173–4, 198, 203 Num 20:22–23a, 147, 196, 198 Num 20:22, 40 Num 20:23, 134 Num 20:23b–24, 148 Num 20:25–28, 148 Num 20:28, 40, 136 Num 20:29, 148 Num 21–34, 6 Num 21–22, 144 Num 21, 15, 140, 145 Num 21:1–3, 7, 20, 24, 30, 46, 120, 140, 149, 198–9 Num 21:1, 149, 198 Num 21:2–3, 149, 150, 186 Num 21:2, 149 Num 21:3, 150 Num 21:4–9, 20, 24, 30, 127, 140, 142, 150–1, 167

245

Num 21:4–5, 151 Num 21:4, 145, 147, 152 Num 21:7a, 151 Num 21:7b, 151 Num 21:8–9, 151 Num 21:10–20, 20, 24, 31, 152 Num 21:10–13, 152, 198 Num 21:10–11, 152 Num 21:10–11a, 31 Num 21:10, 152, 210 Num 21:11–12, 150 Num 21:13, 154 Num 21:14–18, 20 Num 21:14–15, 152–3 Num 21:14, 152 Num 21:16–18, 153 Num 21:16–18a, 152 Num 21:16, 152 Num 21:17–18a, 152 Num 21:18b–20, 152, 160 Num 21:20, 25, 31, 153, 155, 158 Num 21:21–35, 20, 24, 44, 46, 140, 146, 153, 155, 156, 158, 195, 199 Num 21:21–30, 31 Num 21:21–23, 153 Num 21:21–22, 153 Num 21:23–24, 154, 164 Num 21:23, 153 Num 21:24–25, 153 Num 21:24, 185 Num 21:25–32, 154, 192, 194 Num 21:25, 167 Num 21:26–30, 153 Num 21:26, 152 Num 21:27–30, 20 Num 21:27, 154 Num 21:30, 154 Num 21:31, 153–4, 164 Num 21:32–35, 154 Num 21:32, 153, 154 Num 21:33, 153 Num 21:34–35, 153 Num 22–36, 24, 25, 175 Num 22:1–36:13, 155, 167

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 22–25, 127 Num 22–24, 20, 24, 31, 114, 155–6, 158, 163–4, 167, 174, 185–6 Num 22:1–7, 104 Num 22:1, 20, 25, 31, 114, 153, 155, 158, 164–5, 210 Num 22:2–4, 158 Num 22:4, 158 Num 22:5–7, 158–60 Num 22:7, 157 Num 22:8–12, 159 Num 22:8–11, 158 Num 22:13–16, 159–61 Num 22:13–15, 158 Num 22:18–20, 159 Num 22:18–19, 158 Num 22:20, 20, 158 Num 22:21–30, 158–9 Num 22:31–35, 158–9 Num 22:36–41, 158, 160 Num 23–24, 156 Num 23:1–12, 158, 160 Num 23:3, 35 Num 23:5–6, 161 Num 23:6, 159 Num 23:7, 35, 159–60 Num 23:13–26, 157–8, 160–1 Num 23:13, 160 Num 23:14, 153, 160 Num 23:23, 157 Num 23:24, 161 Num 23:27–24:9, 158, 161–2 Num 23:27, 160 Num 24:2, 35 Num 24:3–4, 161 Num 24:4, 157 Num 24:7, 162 Num 24:10–13, 161 Num 24:10–11, 158 Num 24:12–19, 158 Num 24:14–19, 161 Num 24:15–16, 161 Num 24:17, 161 Num 24:18, 161

Num 24:20–24, 158, 162, 166, 185 Num 24:20, 37, 104, 117 Num 24:21–22, 104 Num 24:22, 162 Num 24:23, 35 Num 24:24, 162 Num 24:25, 162 Num 25–40, 53 Num 25, 20, 24, 31, 88, 104, 127, 155, 163–4, 168, 184–6, 189, 196 Num 25:1–5, 31, 165 Num 25:1–3, 164–5, 185 Num 25:1–2, 165 Num 25:1, 158, 164 Num 25:2, 164 Num 25:4–9, 165 Num 25:4–5, 164–5 Num 25:4, 164, 165 Num 25:5, 164, 188 Num 25:6–18, 31, 165 Num 25:6–16, 165 Num 25:6–9, 164–5 Num 25:7, 216 Num 25:9, 168 Num 25:10–13, 164–6 Num 25:12–13, 72 Num 25:14–15, 164–5 Num 25:15, 164, 185 Num 25:16–18, 104, 162, 164–5 Num 25:17–18, 184 Num 25:18, 185 Num 26, 20, 24, 28, 31, 35, 54, 64, 115, 155, 167–9, 171, 188, 210 Num 26:1–4a, 168 Num 26:2b, 168 Num 26:3, 168 Num 26:4b–51, 168 Num 26:4b–11, 168–9 Num 26:8–11, 170 Num 26:8–10, 168 Num 26:9–10, 128 Num 26:10, 168 Num 26:11, 128, 168 Num 26:12–27, 169

246

Num 26:13, 169 Num 26:15–18, 35 Num 26:19, 169 Num 26:21, 168–9 Num 26:23–25, 35 Num 26:28–37, 169 Num 26:28–34, 169, 192, 194 Num 26:29–33, 171 Num 26:30–31, 56 Num 26:31, 169, 171 Num 26:32–33, 56 Num 36:35–37, 169 Num 26:35, 169 Num 26:38–50, 169 Num 26:44, 169 Num 26:51, 169 Num 26:52–56, 168–9, 200–1, 203, 205–6 Num 26:53, 169 Num 26:55, 169 Num 26:57–62, 167–8, 170 Num 26:57–61, 64 Num 26:58, 170 Num 26:58b–60, 170 Num 26:61, 170 Num 26:62–65, 170 Num 26:62, 170 Num 26:63–65, 167–8 Num 26:64–65, 170 Num 27, 22, 56, 155–6, 167, 174, 189, 191, 201, 210 Num 27:1–11, 20, 24, 31–2, 79, 96, 168–9, 171–2, 192, 194, 209 Num 27:1–10, 171 Num 27:1–4, 172 Num 27:1–2, 210 Num 27:1, 35, 171 Num 27:2, 172 Num 27:3, 128 Num 27:5–11, 172 Num 27:5, 172 Num 27:6–11, 172 Num 27:12–28, 147 Num 27:12–27, 144 Num 27:12–23, 18, 20, 24, 31, 51, 173–4, 185, 203

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 27:12–14, 174 Num 27:12, 152 Num 27:13, 173, 214 Num 27:14, 143, 173 Num 27:15–17, 173–4 Num 27:16, 174 Num 27:18–21, 157, 174, 186 Num 27:18, 174 Num 27:19, 174 Num 27:22–23, 173–4 Num 27:23, 174 Num 28–30, 20, 24, 31, 175 Num 28–29, 24, 44, 56, 86, 100, 123, 125, 176–80, 182, 212 Num 28:1–29:40, 175 Num 28:1–15, 177 Num 28:1–2, 177 Num 28:1, 35 Num 28:2b, 31 Num 28:3–8, 177–9 Num 28:6, 31 Num 28:9–10, 177, 215 Num 28:10, 177 Num 28:11–15, 177–9 Num 28:15, 178 Num 28:16–29:38, 177 Num 28:16–25, 28, 177–8 Num 28:18, 178 Num 28:22–23, 31 Num 28:24, 178 Num 28:25, 178 Num 28:26–31, 50, 177–8 Num 28:26, 178 Num 28:27, 215 Num 28:30, 31 Num 28:31, 178 Num 28:31a, 31 Num 29:1–9, 177 Num 29:1–6, 178 Num 29:1, 178 Num 29:5–6, 31 Num 29:6, 179 Num 29:7–11, 54, 177, 179 Num 29:7, 179 Num 29:11, 31, 179

Num 29:12–38, 54, 177, 179 Num 29:12, 179 Num 29:16, 31 Num 29:19, 31 Num 29:22, 31 Num 29:25, 31 Num 29:28, 31 Num 29:31, 31 Num 29:34, 31 Num 29:38, 31, 179 Num 29:39–30:1, 179 Num 29:39–40, 177 Num 29:39, 179, 182 Num 30, 24, 182, 184 Num 30:1, 182 Num 30:2, 182 Num 30:3–16, 183 Num 30:3–5, 182, 184 Num 30:3, 183 Num 30:4–6, 183 Num 30:6–8, 182 Num 30:7–9, 183 Num 30:7, 183 Num 30:9, 182, 184 Num 30:10–15, 182 Num 30:10, 183 Num 30:11–16, 183 Num 30:16, 182, 183 Num 31, 15, 20, 24, 31, 37, 44, 46, 67, 100, 104, 127, 134, 155, 163, 166, 174, 179, 184, 199–200 Num 31:1–49, 32 Num 31:1–2, 185–6 Num 31:2, 185, 214 Num 31:3–6, 185–6 Num 31:6, 100 Num 31:7–17, 167, 186, 189 Num 31:7–12, 185 Num 31:7, 186 Num 31:8, 31, 163, 166, 185–6 Num 31:9–10, 187 Num 31:11–12, 187 Num 31:13–24, 185 Num 31:15–16, 167, 187

247

Num 31:15, 187 Num 31:16, 163–4, 186 Num 31:18–24, 187 Num 31:18, 187 Num 31:19–24, 134 Num 31:19, 187 Num 31:20, 187 Num 31:23, 187 Num 31:24, 187 Num 31:25–47, 185 Num 31:25–30, 187 Num 31:28–29, 187 Num 31:30, 187 Num 31:31–47, 187 Num 31:36–47, 187 Num 31:48–54, 185, 188 Num 31:49, 188 Num 31:50, 188 Num 31:53, 188 Num 32–36, 185 Num 32–34, 102 Num 32, 20, 24, 32, 45, 60, 153, 155–6, 167, 174, 185, 189, 190–1, 195, 201, 204, 207 Num 32:1–5, 190–1, 194, 198 Num 32:2, 193 Num 32:3, 194, 198 Num 32:5, 192 Num 32:6–15, 190, 192 Num 32:11–13, 190 Num 32:12, 72 Num 32:15, 192 Num 32:16–19, 190, 192 Num 32:16, 190, 193 Num 32:17, 190, 192, 194 Num 32:20–24, 190, 192 Num 32:25–27, 190, 192, 194 Num 32:26, 190, 192–3 Num 32:28–30, 190, 192 Num 32:28, 116 Num 32:29, 192–3 Num 32:30, 35, 190, 193 Num 32:31–32, 190 Num 32:33–42, 190, 200 Num 32:33, 190, 193, 195

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Num 32:34–39, 193 Num 32:34–38, 45, 193–4 Num 32:34, 198 Num 32:36, 193 Num 32:38, 44, 194 Num 32:39–42, 169, 194 Num 32:41, 44 Num 32:42, 44 Num 33, 25, 36, 38, 45, 108, 114, 141, 152, 196–7, 215 Num 33:1–49, 21, 24, 196 Num 33:1–2, 197 Num 33:2, 36 Num 33:3–48, 36 Num 33:3–15, 197–8 Num 33:3, 54, 102, 196, 212 Num 33:8–15, 198 Num 33:16–36, 197–8 Num 33:16ff, 25 Num 33:16–17, 110 Num 33:18, 141 Num 33:31–33, 147 Num 33:35–36, 141 Num 33:35, 198 Num 33:36–39, 141 Num 33:36–38, 25 Num 33:36–37, 25 Num 33:36, 198 Num 33:37–49, 45, 197–8 Num 33:37–48, 164 Num 33:37–39, 30 Num 33:37–38, 214 Num 33:37, 140, 147 Num 33:38–39, 140 Num 33:38, 40, 198 Num 33:40, 30, 198 Num 33:44, 152 Num 33:45, 152, 198 Num 33:48–49, 158 Num 33:50–34:29, 32 Num 33:50–56, 21, 24, 46, 47, 89, 135, 150, 155, 189, 199, 204 Num 33:50–53, 200 Num 33:51–56, 44 Num 33:54, 200–1, 203, 205–6

Num 33:55–56, 200 Num 34–36, 24, 156, 167, 185, 191, 201 Num 34, 21, 24, 116, 155, 156, 194, 201, 204 Num 34:1–2, 201–2 Num 34:3–5, 201–2 Num 34:3, 214 Num 34:3a, 202 Num 34:4, 116 Num 34:6, 201, 203 Num 34:7–9, 201, 203 Num 34:10–12, 201, 203 Num 34:12b, 203 Num 34:13–15, 201, 203 Num 34:13, 157 Num 34:14–15, 195, 201 Num 34:16–29, 156, 201, 203 Num 34:17–18, 203 Num 34:18–29, 216 Num 34:19, 72 Num 34:24, 203 Num 34:25, 203 Num 34:29, 203 Num 34:34–38, 44 Num 35, 21, 22, 24, 27, 32, 35, 43, 45, 155, 201, 204–6, 209 Num 35:1–8, 204 Num 35:1–5, 155, 206 Num 35:6–34, 155, 212 Num 35:6–8, 170, 206 Num 35:9–30, 217 Num 35:9–15, 206–7 Num 35:14, 207 Num 35:16–28, 206–7 Num 35:16–17, 207 Num 35:17, 207 Num 35:18, 207 Num 35:19, 207 Num 35:20–21, 207 Num 35:21, 207, 208 Num 35:22–23, 207 Num 35:24–25, 207 Num 35:25, 208 Num 35:26–28, 208 Num 35:29–32, 206, 208

248

Num 35:29, 208 Num 35:30, 208 Num 35:31, 208 Num 35:33–34, 206, 208 Num 36, 21–2, 24, 31–2, 56, 79, 155–6, 189, 201 Num 36:1–12, 96, 125, 168–9, 171, 192, 210 Num 36:1–4, 191, 210, 216 Num 36:1, 35, 216 Num 36:2, 210 Num 36:5–9, 210 Num 36:6, 210 Num 36:10–12, 210 Num 36:13, 210 Dt 1–34, 17 Dt 1–3, 145 Dt 1:3, 40 Dt 1:6–8, 32 Dt 1:8, 44 Dt 1:9–18, 108 Dt 1:9, 108 Dt 1:19–46, 114, 116, 171, 213 Dt 1:19, 116 Dt 1:22–23, 116 Dt 1:28, 118 Dt 1:31, 199 Dt 1:33, 97 Dt 1:34–38, 115 Dt 1:38, 144 Dt 1:39, 35 Dt 1:40, 25 Dt 1:44, 120, 150 Dt 1:46, 51, 53, 114, 116, 141 Dt 2, 38, 114–15 Dt 2:1–8, 145 Dt 2:1–7, 115 Dt 2:1, 25, 149, 214 Dt 2:2–8, 140 Dt 2:3–8, 30 Dt 2:4–6, 146 Dt 2:7, 199 Dt 2:8, 141, 198 Dt 2:9, 152 Dt 2:10–11, 118 Dt 2:14, 26, 141

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Dt 2:19, 154, 185 Dt 2:21, 118 Dt 2:24–3:11, 140, 146, 153 Dt 2:26–37, 31 Dt 2:29, 140, 145 Dt 2:30, 155 Dt 2:32, 154 Dt 2:37, 185 Dt 3:1–11, 31 Dt 3:5, 45 Dt 3:6, 154 Dt 3:12–20, 191 Dt 3:21–29, 174 Dt 3:21–28, 115 Dt 3:24–27, 144 Dt 3:27, 152 Dt 3:28, 144 Dt 3:3–4, 166–7, 171 Dt 4:3, 31 Dt 4:24, 131 Dt 4:41–43, 32, 193, 205 Dt 4:47, 153 Dt 5–28, 21 Dt 5, 21, 30 Dt 5:1–4, 171 Dt 5:2–4, 199 Dt 5:6–21, 177 Dt 5:9–10, 116, 119 Dt 5:12–15, 30 Dt 5:22, 98 Dt 6:8–9, 125 Dt 6:10, 44 Dt 7, 41–2, 44, 47, 89, 95, 120, 135, 155, 165, 199 Dt 7:1, 118, 155 Dt 7:20, 162 Dt 8:3, 108 Dt 8:15, 199 Dt 9:2, 118 Dt 9:5, 44 Dt 9:22, 29 Dt 9:23, 29 Dt 10:1–5, 105 Dt 10:6–7, 32, 147 Dt 10:6, 30, 136, 147–8, 198, 214 Dt 10:8–9, 30, 63, 166

Dt 11:6, 128 Dt 11:10, 108 Dt 11:31, 199 Dt 12, 34, 37, 68, 96 Dt 12:2ff, 199 Dt 12:3, 44 Dt 12:4–31, 44 Dt 12:5–7, 87 Dt 12:8–14, 195 Dt 12:8, 94 Dt 12:10–11, 94, 96 Dt 12:10, 94 Dt 12:11–12, 164–5 Dt 12:15–16, 195 Dt 12:19, 209 Dt 12:20–25, 195 Dt 12:20–24, 34 Dt 13, 186, 188 Dt 13:1–5, 157 Dt 14:1–21, 42, 95 Dt 14:21, 34, 212 Dt 14:22–29, 136 Dt 14:28–29, 63, 76 Dt 15:15, 213 Dt 16, 94, 96 Dt 16:1–17, 31 Dt 16:1–8, 28, 93 Dt 16:7, 94, 215 Dt 16:8, 178 Dt 16:9, 178 Dt 16:13–15, 179 Dt 16:15, 179 Dt 16:16, 94 Dt 17:2–7, 208 Dt 17:2, 75 Dt 18:4, 63 Dt 18:9–14, 157 Dt 18:9–12, 139 Dt 18:10, 157 Dt 18:11, 214 Dt 18:14–22, 157 Dt 18:15–22, 63 Dt 18:26, 63 Dt 19:1–13, 32, 205, 217 Dt 19:5, 207, 217 Dt 19:8–9, 205 Dt 19:11–13, 208 Dt 19:15–21, 217

249

Dt 21:1–9, 208 Dt 21:15–17, 64, 111 Dt 21:22–23, 214 Dt 22:12, 30, 123, 125 Dt 23:1–7, 42 Dt 23:3–6, 185 Dt 23:4–5, 31, 163 Dt 23:7–8, 146 Dt 23:9–14, 74 Dt 23:9–11, 73 Dt 23:10–14, 28 Dt 23:12–14, 73 Dt 23:13, 137 Dt 23:18, 31, 182 Dt 23:21–23, 182, 184 Dt 24:8–9, 113, 142 Dt 5:5–10, 172 Dt 25:9, 113 Dt 25:17–19, 104, 118 Dt 26, 63 Dt 26:1–15, 87 Dt 26:1–11, 124 Dt 26:1–5, 123–4, 178 Dt 27, 43, 60, 175 Dt 27:9–26, 43 Dt 27:12–13, 55 Dt 28, 21, 144, 156, 200 Dt 29:7–8, 191 Dt 29:13, 44 Dt 30:1–10, 22 Dt 30:20, 44 Dt 31, 173, 174 Dt 31:1–8, 17 Dt 31:6–7, 173 Dt 31:7–8, 31, 144 Dt 31:9–13, 113 Dt 31:14–23, 214–15 Dt 31:14–15, 31, 51, 144, 173–4 Dt 31:15, 87, 97 Dt 31:23, 31, 51, 144, 173 Dt 31:40–32:44, 215 Dt 32, 214 Dt 32:48–52, 18, 21, 24, 31, 173, 185, 211, 214 Dt 32:48, 174 Dt 32:50–51, 148 Dt 32:50, 30, 147, 214

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Dt 32:51, 143, 144 Dt 33:10, 130 Dt 34, 3, 17, 31 Dt 34:1–9, 18, 21, 24, 173 Dt 34:1–8, 144, 211 Dt 34:1, 152, 160–1, 173–4 Dt 34:5–7, 40 Dt 34:8, 148 Dt 34:9, 144 Dt 34:10–12, 113, 144 Josh 1–5, 156 Josh 1–4, 17 Josh 1–2, 17 Josh 1:1–4, 194 Josh 1:1, 40 Josh 1:2, 44 Josh 1:3, 44 Josh 1:12–15, 44 Josh 1:12–18, 32, 60 Josh 2, 6, 41 Josh 3–4, 17, 29 Josh 4:10–12, 93 Josh 4:12, 32, 60 Josh 4:19–20, 40 Josh 5–12, 17 Josh 5:1–8, 17 Josh 5:2–3, 43 Josh 5:9, 44 Josh 5:10–12, 28 Josh 5:10–11, 17 Josh 5:12, 17, 108 Josh 5:13–15, 17 Josh 6–12, 17, 156 Josh 6, 6, 17, 29, 41, 100 Josh 6:18–19, 75 Josh 6:19, 67 Josh 7–8, 6, 17 Josh 7, 67, 75 Josh 7:1, 75 Josh 7:15, 55 Josh 7:26, 43–44 Josh 8:30–35, 34, 43 Josh 9, 6, 41 Josh 10:1–3, 72 Josh 10:15, 40 Josh 10:20, 45 Josh 12, 52 Josh 12:14, 6

Josh 12:17, 56 Josh 12:24, 55 Josh 13–24, 17 Josh 13–22, 22, 156, 167 Josh 13–21, 17, 43, 60 Josh 13–19, 22, 32, 156 Josh 13, 31, 32 Josh 13:1–7, 43, 45, 120 Josh 13:1, 40 Josh 13:21, 31 Josh 13:22, 31 Josh 14:6–15, 29, 65–6 Josh 14:6, 42 Josh 14:9, 44 Josh 14:10, 40 Josh 14:12, 45 Josh 14:15, 44 Josh 15:13–19, 65–6 Josh 15:13–14, 29 Josh 15:13, 44 Josh 15:15, 44 Josh 15:63, 52 Josh 16:10, 52 Josh 17:1–6, 169, 171 Josh 17:2–3, 56 Josh 17:2, 56 Josh 17:3–6, 31–2 Josh 18:1, 17, 60, 68 Josh 18:3–10, 43 Josh 19:30, 117 Josh 19:47, 44 Josh 20–21, 156 Josh 20, 32, 193 Josh 20:1–9, 34 Josh 20:40–48, 59 Josh 21, 28, 32, 64–7, 204 Josh 21:4–5, 62 Josh 21:4, 65 Josh 21:5, 65 Josh 21:6, 65 Josh 21:7, 65 Josh 21:10, 57 Josh 21:11–13, 72 Josh 22, 32, 60, 156, 190 Josh 22:1–8, 32 Josh 22:9–34, 32, 34, 68 Josh 22:17, 31 Josh 23–24, 156

250

Josh 23, 45 Josh 23:1, 40 Josh 24, 17, 22 Josh 24:9–10, 31 Josh 24:29–30, 17 Josh 24:29, 40 Josh 24:32, 17 Jdg 1–2, 200 Jdg 1, 43, 44, 52 Jdg 1:3, 168 Jdg 1:7, 109 Jdg 1:9–15, 170 Jdg 1:10, 44, 118 Jdg 1:16, 104, 212 Jdg 1:17, 150 Jdg 1:20, 170 Jdg 1:23, 44 Jdg 1:31, 117 Jdg 1:31–32, 162 Jdg 2, 120 Jdg 2:6–7, 175 Jdg 2:8–15, 175 Jdg 3:7–11, 170 Jdg 3:27, 100 Jdg 4:11, 104, 212 Jdg 6–8, 104, 166, 186 Jdg 6–7, 100 Jdg 6–8:28, 37 Jdg 6:34–7:25, 29 Jdg 8:11, 194 Jdg 8:24–27, 188 Jdg 9:5, 109 Jdg 11:14–18, 145 Jdg 11:17–18, 30 Jdg 11:19–22, 31, 153 Jdg 11:20, 154 Jdg 11:25, 31, 163 Jdg 11:29–39, 136, 184 Jdg 11:35, 213 Jdg 13–16, 80 Jdg 13, 28 Jdg 13:5, 80 Jdg 14:5–6, 80 Jdg 14:9, 80 Jdg 14:19, 80 Jdg 15:8, 80 Jdg 15:15, 80 Jdg 18:27–29, 59

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Jdg 18:29, 44 Jdg 19:10, 44 Jdg 20:9, 157 Jdg 31, 28 Ruth 3–4, 76 Ruth 3:9–4:12, 207 Ruth 4:3, 172 1 Sam 1–28, 64 1 Sam 1–5, 181 1 Sam 1–4, 129 1 Sam 1–3, 18 1 Sam 1, 28, 111 1 Sam 1:1, 64 1 Sam 1:11, 80 1 Sam 1:16, 85 1 Sam 1:24, 123 1 Sam 2–4, 63 1 Sam 2:12–4:22, 62, 135 1 Sam 2:27–36, 71 1 Sam 2:28, 130 1 Sam 2:35, 71 1 Sam 3–4, 37 1 Sam 3:3, 89 1 Sam 4–5, 29 1 Sam 4, 68, 72, 74, 105 1 Sam 4:10–11, 69 1 Sam 4:21–22, 69 1 Sam 5, 57 1 Sam 6, 69, 71 1 Sam 6:4–5, 151 1 Sam 6:5–6, 213 1 Sam 6:10–13, 213 1 Sam 6:18, 45 1 Sam 6:19–20, 69 1 Sam 8, 66, 115 1 Sam 10:1, 85 1 Sam 10:2, 65, 66 1 Sam 10:3, 213 1 Sam 11, 66 1 Sam 13:3, 100 1 Sam 14, 66, 157 1 Sam 14:47–48, 214 1 Sam 14:47, 147 1 Sam 15, 37, 67, 135, 161, 187 1 Sam 15:1–3, 104, 118 1 Sam 15:6, 104, 118 1 Sam 15:33, 80, 161

1 Sam 16, 66 1 Sam 16:1, 207 1 Sam 19:21–24, 213 1 Sam 20:6, 45 1 Sam 20:15, 45 1 Sam 21, 18 1 Sam 22, 71 1 Sam 22:20, 212 1 Sam 23:6–12, 174 1 Sam 28, 139 1 Sam 28:3, 214 1 Sam 28:6, 157 1 Sam 28:7–25, 214 1 Sam 31:13, 148 2 Sam 1:18, 152 2 Sam 2:1–4, 66 2 Sam 5:1–5, 65, 115, 207 2 Sam 5:2, 174 2 Sam 5:6–10, 45 2 Sam 6, 29, 57, 69, 86 2 Sam 6:3–4, 86 2 Sam 6:6–7, 69, 86 2 Sam 6:9–15, 69 2 Sam 7:5–7, 85 2 Sam 7:7, 174 2 Sam 8, 195 2 Sam 8:11–14, 214 2 Sam 8:12, 214 2 Sam 8:13, 214 2 Sam 8:17, 71, 197, 212 2 Sam 10:16, 159 2 Sam 11:11, 74, 105 2 Sam 15:24–29, 72 2 Sam 20:25, 197 2 Sam 21:1–14, 215 2 Sam 21:2, 120 2 Sam 24, 28, 31, 56, 188, 215 1 Kgs 1:39, 85 1 Kgs 2:27, 71 1 Kgs 4:20–21, 195 1 Kgs 6–7, 71 1 Kgs 8, 37 1 Kgs 8:1–11, 71–2 1 Kgs 8:1–9, 18, 212 1 Kgs 8:1–4, 29 1 Kgs 8:4, 212 1 Kgs 8:10–12, 98

251

1 Kgs 8:65, 202 1 Kgs 9:15, 45 1 Kgs 9:20–21, 47 1 Kgs 9:21–22, 120 1 Kgs 9:26, 198 1 Kgs 11:15–16, 214 1 Kgs 12:6, 110 1 Kgs 12:25–33, 62 1 Kgs 12:25, 45 1 Kgs 12:28, 62 1 Kgs 14:1–18, 62 1 Kgs 14:20, 62 1 Kgs 15:25–31, 62 1 Kgs 18:4, 151 1 Kgs 18:29, 213 1 Kgs 19, 62 1 Kgs 21:10–14, 125 1 Kgs 22:19, 110 1 Kgs 22:48, 198 2 Kgs 5, 73 2 Kgs 7, 73 2 Kgs 9:6, 85 2 Kgs 10:6, 109 2 Kgs 10:32–33, 196 2 Kgs 15:5, 73 2 Kgs 17, 196 2 Kgs 17:7–23, 200 2 Kgs 21:1–15, 200 2 Kgs 22, 3 2 Kgs 23:21–23, 93 2 Kgs 24:20, 200 1 Chr 1–9, 167 1 Chr 2–4, 66 1 Chr 2, 167 1 Chr 2:1–2, 55 1 Chr 2:42–50, 119 1 Chr 4–8, 167 1 Chr 4:1, 169 1 Chr 5:1–2, 64, 66 1 Chr 5:1, 129 1 Chr 5:26, 196 1 Chr 6, 64–66 1 Chr 6:1, 62 1 Chr 6:3, 111 1 Chr 6:22–27, 72 1 Chr 6:33–48, 70 1 Chr 6:49, 130 1 Chr 6:54–81, 129, 204–5

INDEX OF REFERENCES

1 Chr 6:54–80, 64, 136 1 Chr 6:54–61, 129 1 Chr 7, 169 1 Chr 7:6, 169 1 Chr 7:15, 172 1 Chr 7:20–28, 66 1 Chr 7:21–24, 169 1 Chr 8:13, 169 1 Chr 8:17, 198 1 Chr 9:1–34, 181 1 Chr 9:25, 66 1 Chr 9:35, 120 1 Chr 10, 66 1 Chr 13, 69, 71 1 Chr 13:12–14, 69 1 Chr 15–16, 66 1 Chr 15, 69 1 Chr 15:11–28, 69 1 Chr 15:11–15, 72 1 Chr 15:13, 86 1 Chr 15:17, 70 1 Chr 15:26, 69 1 Chr 16:1, 87 1 Chr 16:39–40, 72 1 Chr 16:40, 181 1 Chr 17, 181 1 Chr 18:16, 71 1 Chr 20:5, 71 1 Chr 20:36, 198 1 Chr 21, 188, 215 1 Chr 21:5, 56 1 Chr 21:29, 87 1 Chr 22–26, 181 1 Chr 23–26, 66, 70–1 1 Chr 23, 70 1 Chr 23:3–4, 70 1 Chr 23:3, 68 1 Chr 23:6, 62 1 Chr 23:24–27, 68 1 Chr 23:26, 71 1 Chr 23:28–32, 70 1 Chr 24–26, 157 1 Chr 24:3, 71 1 Chr 25:3, 70 1 Chr 26:12–18, 71 1 Chr 26:19, 71 1 Chr 26:21, 71 1 Chr 26:22–28, 71

1 Chr 28–29, 181 2 Chr 3–4, 71 2 Chr 5:2–14, 72 2 Chr 5:2–10, 71 2 Chr 5:12, 71 2 Chr 5:13–14, 98 2 Chr 6:1, 98 2 Chr 8;12–15, 181 2 Chr 13:5, 136 2 Chr 13:12–17, 29 2 Chr 20, 181 2 Chr 29, 181 2 Chr 29:3–7, 181 2 Chr 29:12–14, 71 2 Chr 30, 93 2 Chr 34:12–13, 71 2 Chr 35:1–19, 93 2 Chr 36, 3, 66, 181 2 Chr 36:20–23, 66 Ezra 6:19–22, 93 Ezra 8:19, 71 Neh 3:7, 120 Neh 9, 120, 200 Neh 9:12, 98 Neh 9:19, 98 Neh 9:26–37, 110 Esth 3:1, 161 Job 1:6, 110 Job 2:1, 110 Job 17:6, 113 Job 30:10, 113 Ps 18:9–12, 98 Ps 29:8, 213 Ps 39, 70–1 Ps 62, 71 Ps 68:4, 98 Ps 73–83, 70 Ps 77, 71 Ps 77:20, 148 Ps 78:12–41, 110 Ps 78:14–53, 48 Ps 78:24, 110 Ps 78:56–72, 37, 68, 72, 181 Ps 82:1, 110 Ps 83:9–12, 166 Ps 88, 70 Ps 89, 70

252

Ps 95:8–10, 110 Ps 97:2, 98 Ps 99:7, 98 Ps 105:13–33, 48 Ps 105:26, 148 Ps 105:39, 98 Ps 106:28–31, 166 Ps 127:3–5, 112 Ps 137:7, 147 Prov 16:33, 157 Prov 18:18, 157 Eccl 5:4–7, 184 Isa 4:5, 98 Isa 9:4, 166 Isa 10:26, 166 Isa 13–21, 163 Isa 15:1, 152 Isa 19:1, 98 Isa 35:5–15, 147 Isa 50:6, 113 Jer 48:22, 198 Ezek 1:4, 98 Ezek 10:3–4, 98 Ezek 21:19–23, 214 Ezek 38–39, 161 Ezek 40–48, 68 Ezek 43:24, 136 Ezek 44:30, 124 Ezek 45:13–25, 181 Ezek 47:1–12, 89 Ezek 47:15–17, 203 Ezek 47:18, 203 Ezek 47:19, 143, 202 Ezek 47:20, 203 Ezek 47:28, 143 Ezek 48, 68, 196 Ezek 48:31–34, 55 Dan 9, 200 Hos 2:14, 48 Hos 9:10, 166 Amos 1:3–2:3, 163 Amos 2:11–12, 80 Amos 5:25–27, 48 Mic 6:4, 113, 142, 148 Mic 6:5, 163 Hab 3:7, 111 Mal 1:2–3, 147 Mal 3, 3

INDEX OF REFERENCES

New Testament Matt 1:5, 120 Matt 3:13–4:11, 92 Matt 4:1–11, 48 Matt 6:2, 101 Matt 7:1–23, 74 Matt 10:34–36, 61 Matt 17:1–13, 99 Matt 17:3, 214 Matt 23:5, 125–6 Matt 24:31, 101 Matt 26:26–28, 139 Matt 26:65, 213 Mk 1:12–13, 48 Mk 2:27, 126 Mk 7:1–23, 74 Mk 7:19, 139 Mk 8:23, 113 Mk 9:4, 214 Mk 10:34, 113 Mk 14:22–24, 139 Mk 14:65, 113 Mk 15:19, 113 Lk 4:1–13, 48 Lk 19:1–10, 76 John 3:14–15, 151 John 6, 110 John 9:6, 113 John 15:3, 139 John 17:20–21, 61 John 19:46, 97 Acts 2, 111 Acts 7, 48 Acts 7:36–43, 48 Acts 7:40, 149 Acts 7:45, 175 Acts 13:18, 48 Acts 14:14, 213 Acts 21:23–25, 82 Rom 3:23, 217 Rom 5:12–14, 217 Rom 9, 175

Rom 9:10–13, 147 Rom 12:1, 87 1 Cor 3:16, 111 1 Cor 6:19, 68, 111 1 Cor 8, 164 1 Cor 9:1–14, 139 1 Cor 9:15, 139 1 Cor 10:1–13, 110 1 Cor 10:1–11, 48 1 Cor 10:1–2, 99 1 Cor 10:8, 167 1 Cor 14:8, 101 1 Cor 14:26–33, 61 1 Cor 14:33, 61 1 Cor 15:52, 101 2 Cor 2:14, 106 2 Cor 6:16, 111 Eph 5:25b–26, 139 Eph 6:10–20, 61 Eph 6:10–18, 106 Phil 4:4, 87 1 Thess 4:16–17, 99 1 Thess 4:16, 101 1 Thess 5:8, 106 1 Tim 2:1–2, 61 1 Tim 2:5, 87 Heb 3:1–6, 58, 63 Heb 3:1–5, 113 Heb 3:9–19, 110 Heb 3:8, 48 Heb 3:17, 48 Heb 4:1–11, 145 Heb 4:8, 175 Heb 4:11, 145 Heb 5:4, 149 Heb 5:5, 149 Heb 5:10, 149 Heb 7, 63, 149 Heb 7:11, 149 Heb 8:1–2, 87 Heb 8:6, 58, 87 Heb 9, 48

253

Heb 9:4, 110, 133, 149 Heb 9:10, 74, 139 Heb 9:13–14, 139 Heb 10:22, 139 Heb 11:20, 147 Heb 12:16–17, 147 Heb 12:19, 101 Jas 3:2–12, 184 2 Pet 2:15–16, 163 Jude 11, 48, 163 Rev 1:7, 99 Rev 2:14, 167 Rev 2:17, 111 Rev 7, 196 Rev 8–11, 101 Rev 14:14–16, 99 Rev 21–22, 68, 89 Other ancient sources Archives royales de Mari X, 78 Codex Hammurabi 2, 76 Codex Hammurabi 131, 77 Codex Hammurabi 132, 76–7 Deir Alla plaster inscriptions, 157 Gezer calendar, 197 Instructions for Temple officials (Hittite), 94 Izbet Sartah ostracon, 197 Ketef Hinnom scrolls, 82–3 Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription, 197 Medinet Habu reliefs, 85 Merneptah Stele, 197 Mesha inscription/stele, 191–4 Stele of the Vultures, 33 Tel Zayit abecedary, 197 Turin map, 216