Numbers: An Introduction and Study Guide The Road to Freedom 9780567671011, 9780567671042, 9780567671028

Citation preview

T&T CLARK STUDY GUIDES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

NUMBERS

Series Editor Adrian Curtis, University of Manchester, UK Published in Association with the Society for Old Testament Study

Other titles in the series include: Amos: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 & 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Study Guide Ecclesiastes: An Introduction and Study Guide Exodus: An Introduction and Study Guide Ezra-Nehemiah: An Introduction and Study Guide Hebrews: An Introduction and Study Guide Leviticus: An Introduction and Study Guide Jeremiah: An Introduction and Study Guide Job: An Introduction and Study Guide Joshua: An Introduction and Study Guide Psalms: An Introduction and Study Guide Song of Songs: An Introduction and Study Guide

T&T Clark Study Guides to the New Testament: 1&2 Thessalonians: An Introduction and Study Guide 1 Peter: An Introduction and Study Guide 2 Corinthians: An Introduction and Study Guide Colossians: An Introduction and Study Guide Ephesians: An Introduction and Study Guide Galatians: An Introduction and Study Guide James: An Introduction and Study Guide John: An Introduction and Study Guide Luke: An Introduction and Study Guide Mark: An Introduction and Study Guide Matthew: An Introduction and Study Guide Philemon: An Introduction and Study Guide Philippians: An Introduction and Study Guide Romans: An Introduction and Study Guide The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Study Guide The Letters of Jude and Second Peter: An Introduction and Study Guide

NUMBERS

An Introduction and Study Guide The Road to Freedom

By Eryl W. Davies

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015. This edition published 2017 © Eryl W. Davies, 2017 Eryl W. Davies has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: PB: 978-0-5676-7101-1 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7102-8 ePub: 978-0-5676-7103-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament, volume 4 Cover design: clareturner.co.uk Typeset by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed and bound in Great Britain

Contents Preface vii Abbreviations viii Select List of Commentaries ix Chapter 1 Introductory Issues 1 Title 1 Summary of Content 1 Composition and Date 4 Structure 8 Chapter 2 Numbers and Biblical Criticism 17 Reader-Response Criticism 17 Feminist Biblical Criticism 21 Postcolonial Criticism 27 Chapter 3 Themes in Numbers 32 Land 32 Purity and Holiness 36 Rebellion 40 Chapter 4 Problematic Passages 49 49 The Census (chaps. 1 and 26) The Balaam Tradition (chaps. 22-24) 53 62 The Wilderness Itinerary (33.1-49) Chapter 5 Historical Value and Contemporary R elevance 70 Historical Value 70 73 Contemporary Relevance Index of Subjects Index of Authors

81 84

Preface To those familiar with the literature on the book of Numbers, my indebtedness to those who have worked in this area of the Old Testament will be only too apparent. In the study of Numbers there are both profound questions and comparatively insignificant details upon which commentators hold entirely differing opinions. I have endeavoured, so far as has been practical within the limitations of space provided, to combine a general outline of the views of others with some modest conclusions of my own. Works cited by author only in this volume will be found listed either in the Further Reading sections at the end of each chapter or in the Select List of Commentaries on p. ix. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Adrian Curtis for inviting me to contribute this volume to the Sheffield Phoenix Guides to the Old Testament series, and for his meticulous reading of the manuscript and his helpful and constructive suggestions. His exemplary attention to detail has redeemed the book from many errors, inconsistencies and infelicities of style. Finally, I am grateful to my family, and especially my wife Eirian, who have provided much support and encouragement throughout the writing of the volume. Eryl W. Davies Bangor University January 2015

List of Abbreviations AB ARM ATANT ATD BETL BJS BKAT BMW BR BZAW CBC DSB FAT FOTL HBM HSM HUCA ICC ITC JBL JPS JSOT JSOTS LHBOTS NCB NIBC NICOT OBT OTL OTS PSB RB RRBS SB SBLDS SBLSS STH SVT TOTC TynB VT WBC ZAW

Anchor Bible Archives royales de Mari Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament The Bible in the Modern World Bible Review Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Daily Study Bible Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of Old Testament Literature Hebrew Bible Monographs Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary International Theological Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Publication Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies New Century Bible New International Biblical Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Princeton Seminary Bulletin Revue Biblique Recent Research in Biblical Studies Sources Bibliques Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studia Theologica Holmiensia Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Select List of Commentaries Readers may find the following commentaries on the book of Numbers helpful for further study: Ashley, T.R., The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993). Bellinger, W.H., Jr, Leviticus, Numbers (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001). Budd, P.J., Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984). Davies, E.W., Numbers (NCB; London: Marshall Pickering and Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). Gray, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903). Knierim, R.P., and G.W. Coats, Numbers (FOTL, 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005). Levine, B.A., Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993). —Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Maarsingh, B., Numbers: A Practical Commentary (trans. J. Vriend; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987). Milgrom, J., Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990). Noth, M., Numbers. A Commentary (trans. J.D. Martin; OTL; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968). Olson, D.T., Numbers. Interpretation: A Biblical Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996). Riggans, W., Numbers (DSB; Edinburgh: St Andrew Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). Sakenfeld, K.D., Journeying with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers (ITC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). Schmidt, L., Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri 10, 11-36, 13 (ATD 7.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). Seebass, H., Numeri (BKAT 4; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993–2012). Sturdy, J., Numbers (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Vaulx, J. de, Les Nombres (SB; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1972). Wenham, G.J., Numbers (TOTC; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981).

Other works relevant to Numbers: Brenner, A., and A.C.C. Lee (eds.), Leviticus and Numbers (Texts@Contexts; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013). Carmichael, C., The Book of Numbers: A Critique of Genesis (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2012).

x

Numbers

Frevel, C., T. Pola and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (FAT II, 62; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Römer, T. (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BETL, 215; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2008). Wenham, G.J., Numbers (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

1

Introductory Issues Title The book of Numbers is the fourth of the five books in the Pentateuch, or Torah, the first major division of the OT. Its title comes from the Greek and Latin versions of the OT: the Greek translation (Septuagint) has ’Arithmoi (‘numbers’), which Jerome translated as Numeri in the Latin Vulgate. While the title clearly refers to the census of the 12 tribes of Israel and the various Levitical groups (1.20-47; 3.21-39; 4.34-49; 26.5-51, 57-62), it cannot be said to be a particularly apt description of the contents of the book as a whole, since only a few chapters are concerned with the numbering of the people. The Hebrew title bammiḏbār (‘in the wilderness’), which appears as the fifth word in the book’s opening verse, is arguably a more appropriate and accurate description of its content, for all the events recorded in Numbers do, indeed, take place ‘in the wilderness’, as the tribes of Israel journey from Mount Sinai to the plains of Moab. Summary of content The first ten chapters, covering a period of 19 days, record events which happened while the people were encamped in the wilderness of Sinai. A census is taken of all who were 20 years old and over and who were capable of bearing arms, and arrangements are made for the organization of the camp and the disposition of the 12 tribes around the central sanctuary (chap. 2). The numbers of male Levites a month old and upwards are noted (chap. 3), and the duties of the Levitical families with regard to the transport of the wilderness sanctuary are explained (chap. 4). Various laws and regulations follow relating to the exclusion of unclean people from the camp (5.1-4), the priestly dues (5.5-10), the procedure to be followed in the case of a woman suspected of adultery (5.11-31), and the consecration of the Nazirite (6.121). Following the priestly blessing in 6.22-27, the offerings of the tribal leaders are noted (chap. 7), and instructions are given concerning the construction and lighting of the sanctuary’s lampstands (8.1-4). Details are then provided of the solemn dedication of the Levites and the age of Levitical service (8.5-26), and regulations are given for the supplementary Passover

2

Numbers

(9.1-14). Chapter 9 ends with a description of the divine fire and pillar of cloud that accompanied the Israelites as they journeyed through the wilderness (vv. 15-23), and the beginning of the following chapter (which effectively serves as a transition to the next section of the book) provides further instructions for the forthcoming journey (10.1-10). The remainder of Numbers (10.11–36.13) recounts the fortunes of the Israelites after leaving Sinai up to the point where they are ready to enter and conquer the Promised Land. Numbers 10.11-36 reports the departure from Sinai and the beginning of Israel’s wilderness wandering. Chapters 11–20 record a number of stories of rebellion which broadly follow a standard pattern: the people complain against Moses (or against God), whereupon Yahweh punishes them, and the punishment is only halted or reduced as a result of Moses’ intercession on their behalf. In 11.1-3, the people in general grumble about their misfortunes, and in 11.4-35 they express their unhappiness about the manna which they were forced to eat in the wilderness; in this latter section, Moses himself complains about the burden of having to lead the people, unaided, through the wilderness (vv. 10-15). This is followed in chap. 12 with an account of a rebellion against Moses by Miriam and Aaron, who try to claim equal status with Moses, while at the same time reprimanding him for marrying a foreign woman. In chaps. 13–14 the people rebel against the proposed conquest of the Promised Land. Here, spies are dispatched from the wilderness of Paran to reconnoitre the land of Canaan (13.1-20), but when they return with a negative report (13.25-33) the people refuse to advance any further, and even express a wish to return to Egypt (14.1-4). It is at this point that God threatens to annihilate the entire people (14.11-12), and only after Moses’ intervention (14.13-19) does he relent and modify the punishment: the first generation of Israelites are condemned to wander in the wilderness for forty years, and only the second generation will enter the Promised Land (14.20-35). Chapter 15 contains a miscellaneous collection of laws relating to five different subjects: the cereal offerings and the drink offerings which were to accompany the sacrifices (vv. 1-16), the offering from the first batch of dough (vv. 17-21), offerings for inadvertent transgressions (vv. 22-31), the punishment for breaking the Sabbath (vv. 32-36), and the requirement for the people to attach tassels to the corners of their garments as a visual reminder to keep God’s commandments (vv. 37-41). Chapter 16 describes a rebellion against priestly authority, for here various groups (including Korah and his followers, Dathan and Abiram) oppose the claim of Moses and Aaron to have the right to lead Israel by arguing that the entire community should be granted priestly prerogatives (v. 3). The dire punishment meted out to Korah, Dathan and Abiram (vv. 31-35) merely provokes a further rebellion, as the Israelites accuse Moses and Aaron of having killed ‘the people of the Lord’ (v. 41), and once again



1.   Introductory Issues 3

a large number of rebels meet their death (vv. 42-50). A demonstration of the privileged status of the Levites follows in chap. 17, which involved the blossoming of Aaron’s rod, and a command that it should be preserved in the sanctuary as warning to those who, in future, might be tempted to rebel. Chapter 18 outlines the duties of the priests and Levites (vv. 1-7), and their reward for services rendered (vv. 8-32), and this is followed in chap. 19 by an account of the ritual of the red heifer, in which the animal is slaughtered outside the camp (vv. 1-3) and completely burned (v. 5), and from its ashes a mixture is prepared which was to be used for cleansing a person from any defilement occasioned by contact with the dead (vv. 9-13). A further rebellion occurs in 20.2-13, where the people complain about the lack of water in the wilderness (v. 5), and Moses remedies the deficiency by striking a rock with his rod, which results in water appearing in abundance, enabling the people and their livestock to drink (v. 11). Having failed to enter Canaan from the south (14.44-45), the people seek permission to cross the territory of Edom so that an attack could be mounted from the east; in the event, however, permission was refused (20.18, 20), and the Israelites were forced to make a long circuitous detour round the southern end of Edom (21.4), and then northwards along its eastern border. A further complaint is recorded in 21.4-9, this time not only on account of the lack of water in the wilderness but also because of the ‘miserable food’ which the people were being given to eat (v. 5). Yahweh punishes them by sending a plague of fiery serpents among them and, infected by their poisonous bites, many of the people die (v. 6). The Israelites implore Moses to intercede on their behalf, and Yahweh instructs him to make a model of a serpent and set it up on a pole, so that those who gazed upon it could be healed of their affliction (v. 8). The first victories in Transjordan are recorded in 21.10-35, and this is followed by a story about Balaam, a foreign seer hired by the king of Moab to curse Israel and precipitate its military defeat (chaps. 22–24). In chap. 25 sexual promiscuity on the part of the men of Israel who consort with the ‘women of Moab’ led to idolatrous worship of the Moabite gods; this constituted an act of apostasy which had to be severely punished (vv. 4-5). Chapter 26 reports the results of a second census of the Israelites taken by Moses and Eleazar, the priest, in the plains of Moab (v. 3), almost forty years after the census recorded in chap. 1. This second census was necessitated by the fact that those who had originally come out of Egypt had since died in the wilderness, the only exceptions being Caleb and Joshua (vv. 63-65). The final section of the book, chaps. 27­–36, again contains a mixture of various laws and narratives. 27.1-11 is concerned with the right of daughters to inherit the property of their father when he had died without leaving any sons. In vv. 12-14 Moses is instructed to view the Promised Land from

4

Numbers

a mountain in the Abarim range, from where he receives an intimation of his impending death, and in the following verses Joshua is appointed as his successor (vv. 18-23). Chapters 28–29 contain an elaborate list of offerings to be presented on behalf of the people of Israel at various festivals throughout the year, and this is followed by legislation on another cultic topic: a woman’s vows (chap. 30). Chapter 31 records the defeat of Midian and the division of the spoils, and this paves the way for the tribes of Reuben and Gad to approach Moses with a request that they be allowed to settle in the territory on the east of the Jordan, since they saw this area as providing fertile terrain which would be well suited for their numerous flocks (chap. 32). Chapter 33 summarizes Israel’s itinerary from Rameses in Egypt to the border of the Promised Land, and the chapter ends with a command to expel the inhabitants of Canaan, to destroy their idols, and to demolish their sanctuaries (vv. 50-56). Chapter 34 contains instructions for the division of the land among the tribes, and the following chapter lists specific cities to be set aside for the Levites (35.1-8) and for murderers seeking asylum (vv. 9-34). Finally, chap. 36 returns to the issue of the inheritance of land by daughters, and a law is passed obliging them to marry within their own tribe, a measure designed to close a loophole in the law of 27.1-11. Composition and date The history of modern critical study of the Pentateuch has been rehearsed many times and is readily available in the standard Introductions to the OT. However, a brief discussion of the traditional source-critical analysis of Numbers is necessary in order to place the current debate regarding its composition and date in its proper context. The general consensus regarding the composition of Numbers that held sway from the late nineteenth century until the middle of the twentieth century was that the book was composed of three independent sources (identified as J, E and P), which were combined at some point and then revised and supplemented by a succession of editors until about the fifth century bce. Although advocates of the so-called Documentary Hypothesis were reticent to suggest precise dates for the different sources, it was generally agreed that J (the Yahwist) belonged to the ninth century, that E (the Elohist) belonged to the eighth century, and that P (the Priestly source) should be dated in the exilic or early post-exilic period. The first part of Numbers (1.1–10.10) was widely viewed as representing a coherent literary unit which derived entirely from the P source, whereas the remaining chapters consisted of a complex mixture of the two earlier sources (J and E) and the later Priestly strand (e.g. chaps. 13–14, 16–17, 20–21). In recent decades, however, serious reservations have been raised concerning the classical source-critical analysis of Numbers, and those reservations have arisen, at least in part, because of profound disagreements as



1.   Introductory Issues 5

to which verses should be assigned to which source. Moreover, some had expressed doubts regarding the nature and scope of the E source, and had even questioned whether E ever existed as an independent tradition, arguing instead that the passages usually assigned to E were merely secondary glosses on the J source. Furthermore, there was considerable disquiet concerning the criteria traditionally employed to determine the various literary strands. While the Priestly material could, for the most part, be identified with comparative ease, the separation of the J and E sources was more problematic than had often been supposed, and even commentators such as G.B. Gray—a staunch advocate of the source-critical approach to Numbers—was forced to concede that in some sections of the book (e.g. chaps. 32–33) the material from J, E and P could not be disentangled satisfactorily. There was also much disagreement concerning the dating of the sources, primarily because of the lack of any reliable criteria for establishing the period to which the various layers of the Pentateuch belonged. Some scholars questioned the traditional dating of the Yahwist in the period of the early monarchy and argued, instead, that the source should be dated in the seventh or sixth century bce. While some critics assigned the Priestly source to an exilic or early post-exilic date, others argued that this source contained some quite early material and may well have taken shape over a protracted period beginning in late pre-exilic times. Even the scope of some of the sources was questioned, with some arguing that the J source was limited to the Pentateuch, while others believed that it extended to the book of Joshua. Results that had appeared assured to a previous generation of scholars were now being widely questioned, and if some scholars continued to work within the traditional source-critical analysis of the text, they did so largely because of the lack of any new consensus by which to replace it. The publication in 1977 of a detailed critique of the Documentary Hypothesis by Rolf Rendtorff marked a significant turning-point in Pentateuchal studies. Rendtorff argued that this hypothesis was essentially flawed, and he believed that the growth of the Pentateuch could best be explained on the assumption that several blocks of tradition (such as the primeval history, the patriarchal stories, the exodus narrative, the wilderness tradition, and the entry into the land) had originally existed as more or less self-contained entities, until they were eventually joined together by the Deuteronomistic redactor. That these larger units once had an independent existence of their own was evident from the fact that no substantive connection could be posited between the various blocks of tradition. For example, Gen. 1–11 had a literary character quite distinct from Gen. 12–50, and the two sections had no intrinsic connection with one another; similarly, the promise of land, progeny and blessing in the patriarchal stories hardly

6

Numbers

figured at all in the narratives contained in Exodus and Numbers. Rendtorff argued that this lack of continuity was incompatible with the notion that individual sources could be traced from Genesis to Numbers; consequently, OT scholars should free themselves from the shackles of the traditional documentary analysis and focus their attention, instead, on the large, independent complexes of tradition which could be discerned in the Pentateuch. Some recent scholars, however, have expressed doubts concerning the view that the larger units of the Pentateuch were originally independent, self-contained entities which had little or no connection with each other. While there may be a clear distinction between the primeval history in Gen. 1–11 and the patriarchal stories in Gen. 12–50, the distinction between the other complexes of tradition was by no means so clear-cut. Thus, for example, the rebellion narratives in Numbers (which forms part of the ‘wilderness’ complex) contain references to the time spent by the Israelites in Egypt (which forms part of the ‘exodus’ complex; cf. 11.5, 18, 20; 14.2-4; 20.5); similarly, the account of Israel’s encounter with Edom in 20.14-21 contains a historical reminiscence of the descent into Egypt, the oppression suffered in captivity, and the subsequent exodus of the people (vv. 14-16). Moreover, some have questioned whether these large complexes of tradition could have survived in splendid isolation for such a long period prior to the Deuteronom(ist)ic redaction without some kind of framework to hold them together. Surely, it was argued, the exodus story would, from the outset, have demanded an explanation of how the Israelites had come to Egypt and how they fared during their subsequent wandering through the wilderness? Thus, although Rendtorff had made a significant contribution to a difficult and contentious area of OT study, his thesis had raised questions which many felt had yet to be answered satisfactorily. The effect of Rendtorff’s seminal study, however, was to convince many scholars that the traditional source-critical approach was in need of modification, if not replacement. R.N. Whybray, for example, advocated a radical alternative to the older approaches by positing the existence of a single historian who was responsible for the creation of the entire Pentateuch. Others, following Rendtorff’s lead, favoured the idea of a cluster of originally independent traditions which were copied and recopied, and into which various interpolations and revisions were made; these separate literary works were subsequently collected by scribes who had themselves left their mark on the combined traditions (cf. Blum). Exigencies of space precludes a detailed discussion of the sheer array of theoretical options evident in contemporary Pentateuchal studies; it must suffice here to note that no single, generally accepted, theory has yet emerged to replace the Documentary Hypothesis, and a number of contemporary OT scholars continue to engage with the documentary theory, even while taking seriously Rendtorff’s challenge to it. Indeed, some have argued



1.   Introductory Issues 7

that attempts to disprove or discredit the Documentary Hypothesis should be revisited, re-assessed and re-examined in more detail, for its perceived shortcomings are not as serious as is often claimed (cf. Schwartz, Baden). It was pointed out, for example, that the failure of source-critical scholars to arrive at a single, unambiguous and unanimous division of the Pentateuch into four separate documents should not be regarded as disqualifying the traditional Documentary Hypothesis itself, any more than the failure of non-documentary scholars to reach a consensus renders their own approach invalid. Besides, it was noted that many of the theories which were designed to replace the Documentary Hypothesis were not only highly complex and convoluted, but were often based on speculation, circular arguments, and doubtful presuppositions. The existence of competing theories concerning the composition of the Pentateuch, and the resulting disagreements between biblical critics, has led some scholars to take refuge in the final form of the text. With the rise of literary approaches to the Bible (such as redaction criticism) the presence of such features as doublets and repetitions in the text was regarded not as evidence of multiple sources but rather as a deliberate literary technique deployed by the narrator. It was argued that previous approaches to the Pentateuch had virtually ignored the present form of the text except as a basis from which to probe its origins, and in so doing scholars had failed to appreciate and elucidate the meaning of the composition as a whole. In this regard, the ‘canonical approach’ of B.S. Childs served to stimulate fresh thought and discussion concerning the Pentateuch. While Childs was careful not to disparage attempts to reconstruct the historical development of the various traditions, he preferred to view the Pentateuch in its final form and in the shape which had been accorded to it by the community of faith. When viewed in this light, the book of Numbers was seen as part of a larger literary whole and as a natural continuation of the story which began in Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, and which continued in the book of Deuteronomy, reaching its completion in the account of the death of Moses in Deut. 34.1-12. It is clear from the above discussion that the present state of Pentateuchal criticism is in something of a flux, and little by way of consensus has been reached by biblical scholars. While some remain committed to the basic concept of the Documentary Hypothesis, others have sought to modify it substantially, and still others have advocated a completely fresh approach to the problem of the composition of the Pentateuch. The ultimate test of any hypothesis, of course, is its ability to provide a convincing and comprehensive solution to the problems posed by the data at hand, and it has to be admitted that no completely satisfactory solution has, as yet, been proposed that explains how the Pentateuch, in its present shape, came to be formed.

8

Numbers

Structure The structure of the book of Numbers has engaged much scholarly attention since, in its present form, there appears to be no logical order to the arrangement of the material. Indeed, Numbers has been variously described as ‘the most diverse of all Torah books’ (Levine, p. 48), and as one which possesses ‘no unity of subject’ (Gray, p. xxiv), and in which ‘it is difficult to discern any definite lines of continuity’ (Noth, p. 4). Part of the problem arises from the fact that the book contains more generically diverse material than any of the other books of the Pentateuch. The various genres within the book have been discussed at some length by Gordon Wenham in his volume on Numbers in the first series of the Sheffield Old Testament Guides (pp. 26–67). Narratives (chaps. 11–12) are interspersed with poetry (21.17-18), census lists (1.20-46; 26.1-51), inventories of tribal gifts (chap. 7), itineraries (33.1-49), civil laws (27.1-11), cultic regulations (15.17-21), blessings (6.24-26), prayers (12.13) and prophecies (24.3-9). While such a variety inevitably adds to the richness of the book, it has made it difficult to establish a coherent and meaningful structure in its arrangement. The problem facing commentators regarding the structure of the book is well summarized by Wenham in his commentary on the book of Numbers: ‘Why should [the editor] have arranged his source material as he did, when the material itself shows he was a person deeply concerned with order and organization?’ (p. 14). Not surprisingly, perhaps, some scholars have argued that there is no coherent pattern in the book’s construction and that in its present form it is little more than a veritable jumble of unrelated fragments with no clear, selfevident unifying purpose. Other scholars, however, while conceding that the book’s organization ostensibly appears to be unruly and chaotic, have endeavoured to discern a logical pattern in the book’s construction, and have even argued that the design of the book has an ‘unmistakably purposeful order’ (Leveen, p. 36). Attempts to demonstrate an intrinsic connection between the various parts of the book are by no means new, for medieval Jewish exegetes had endeavoured to find associative words, phrases and themes that might link the heterogeneous material in Numbers together to form some kind of unified whole. Recent attempts to discover a logical, predetermined plan behind the book’s construction have tended to focus on three options: some have argued that geographical indications provide the basis for the construction of the book; according to others, the clue to the book’s organization is to be found in its chronological markers; while still others have argued that the various parts of Numbers are connected by a common theme. It should be noted, however, that these options are not necessarily mutually exclusive, for some have argued that both chronological and geographical data provide the main organizational criteria for the book (Milgrom), while others contend that the various parts of Numbers



1.   Introductory Issues 9

are linked by a common theme but that the geographical and/or chronological indicators are also relevant, though of secondary significance (Olson). a. Geographical indicators Scholars who favour regarding the geographical indicators as providing the basic framework for Numbers tend to view the book as depicting the journey of the Israelites from Mount Sinai to the border of the land of Canaan in three stages. The first section of the book occurs in the wilderness of Sinai, where the preparations for the journey are made (1.1–10.10); the second section describes the movement of the people from Sinai to Kadesh, where the bulk of the 40 years of wilderness wandering are spent (10.11–20.13); the final section records the journey of the Israelites from Kadesh to the plains of Moab, where preparations are made for the conquest and the settlement of the Promised Land (20.14–36.13). Olson has provided a detailed survey of 46 commentaries on Numbers and has observed that 33 of them favour the geographical markers to determine the outline of the book (p. 35). The problem with dividing Numbers according to its geographical indicators, however, is that there is little agreement as to where each of the major sections should begin and where they should end. For example, does the break between the second and third sections come at 20.13 (Noth), 21.9 (Gray), or 22.1 (de Vaulx)? Indeed, there is no consensus even as to whether the first section should begin at 1.1, for some have argued that the entire section 1.1–10.10 should be connected with the preceding Sinai pericope, and that Exod. 19.1–Num. 10.10 forms a self-contained literary unit, with Exod. 19.1 recording the arrival of the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai, and Num. 10.11-12 recording their departure. Significantly, of the 33 commentaries favouring the geographical division surveyed by Olson no fewer than 18 different proposals were presented. Such scholarly disagreement merely confirms the impression that the geographical signals within the book do not clearly and unambiguously indicate where the divisions of the various sections should occur. b. Chronological indicators Another way of identifying the overall structure of Numbers is on the basis of its chronological markers. Although fewer scholars tend to divide the book in this way (only 8 out of the 46 commentaries consulted by Olson), some have argued that chronological indicators provide the unifying framework for the book as a whole. Those who favour this option also tend to argue that the book consists of 3 major sections: 1.1–10.11, which covers the 19 days from the first day of the second month of the second year to the twentieth day of the second month of the second year; 10.12–21.9, which covers a period of just under 38 years (20.28 = 33.38);

10

Numbers

and 21.10–36.13, which covers a period of not more than 5 months (33.38 = 20.28, 29; Deut. 1.3). Dividing the book on the basis of its chronology, however, is not without its problems. In the first place, the chronological indicators often lack consistency. For example, the events recorded in 1.1–10.11 are said to have occurred between the first and the twentieth day of the second month of the second year (1.1; 10.11), but the material in chap. 9 is set in the first month of the second year (9.1), that is, a month earlier than the census recorded in chap. 1! Moreover, there is a striking imbalance in the time scale during which the wilderness events are reported to have occurred. As has already been noted, all the events recorded in 1.1–10.11 occur within 19 days, and all the events described in 21.10–36.13 occur within 5 months; this means, however, that the entire material in 10.12–21.9, which is undated, must fall within the intervening 38 years. Even within this middle section, events tend to be clustered at the beginning and at the end of the wilderness sojourn: the narratives contained in 10.12–14.45 seem to reflect events at the beginning of the wilderness wandering (cf. 14.34), while 20.1–21.9 reflect events which occur at the end. This means that the Korahite rebellions (chaps. 16­–17) and the laws of chaps. 15, 18 and 19 are all that can be dated to the intervening 38 years of the 40 years spent in the wilderness (cf. Milgrom, p. xi). This remarkable disregard for recording the events during the major part of the 40 years’ journey tends to undermine the argument for a serious chronological interest on the part of the editor. c. Thematic indicators Some scholars have argued that the various parts of Numbers are linked together by virtue of a common theme. Brevard Childs, for example, has suggested that the diverse material evident in Numbers is included within the framework of an overarching theological construct (pp. 195-99). The theological theme that runs through Numbers and holds the various parts together is the distinction between clean and unclean, or between the holy and profane. Thus, chaps. 1­­­–4 are concerned with the sacred ordering of the camp, at the centre of which was the tabernacle, with the Levitical families and other tribes arranged in concentric circles around it, according to the degree of holiness which they possessed. The laws which follow may seem miscellaneous but are, in fact, connected to the preceding chapters by the central theme of holiness: all unclean people are to be excluded from the camp (5.1-4); any form of uncleanness—even if only suspected—was to be rooted out (5.11-31); the law of the Nazirite in chap. 6 focuses on his or her separation from the profane, and the regulations concerning the Passover concern the proper procedure to be followed when any member of the community was unclean (9.6-13). The same theme is continued in



1.   Introductory Issues 11

the central section of Numbers. The effect of contamination is clear, for example, in 16.41-50, and judgment by plague is especially characteristic of divine wrath against the unclean. The rules and regulations in chaps. 15 and 18 are directed to future generations (cf. 15.15; 18.8), and provide them with a means of avoiding the contamination experienced by their ancestors in the wilderness, while the ‘red heifer’ ritual in chap. 19 ensured an ongoing means of atonement for anyone who had been made unclean. In the final section of Numbers the theme reappears again, for here it is made clear that Moses could not enter the Promised Land because he had failed to sanctify God at Meribah (27.12-14); therefore, he (like his brother, Aaron) belonged to the ‘unclean’ generation. Moreover, it is emphasized that the sacred allotment of land must be maintained throughout successive generations (34.129), and the land must not be polluted or defiled by murder and the spilling of blood (35.33-34). Thus, Childs plays down the diversity of subject matter in Numbers and argues that the various sections are linked together by a unified priestly interpretation of God’s will for his people, manifest in the contrast between the holy and the profane. One of the most detailed attempts to discern a structure in the book of Numbers based on a particular theme is that by Dennis Olson, who argues that the central concern of the book is the death of the old generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt with Moses, and the birth of the new generation who will be permitted to enter the Promised Land. The transition between the two generations is found in the census recorded in chap. 26, for the phrase ‘after the plague’ in 26.1 is taken to mean ‘after the death of the first generation’, and 26.63-65 explicitly notes that all who were numbered in the first census (apart from Caleb and Joshua) had died in the wilderness. Moreover, the geographical notice ‘in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho’ in 26.3 places the new generation of Israelites on the very verge of the Promised Land, which suggests a new beginning for the people of God. According to Olson, the two census lists are crucial for our understanding of the overarching structure of Numbers, for they effectively divide the book into two parts: chaps. 1–25 depict the first generation of Israelites whose behaviour in the wilderness is marked by rebellion, dissent and unfaithfulness, while chaps. 26–36 describe the second generation of Israelites who remained obedient and faithful to God and who (it is implied) would eventually inherit the land of Canaan. Olson argues that the spy story recorded in chaps. 13–14 occupies a pivotal role in the structure of Numbers, for it defines the theme of the entire book, namely, the death of the old generation and the birth of the new. In these chapters it is predicted that the disobedient generation will die ‘in the wilderness’ (14.32-33), and thus the way is prepared for subsequent narratives which describe how members of the first generation died through the plague or by military defeat. Olson regards the apostasy at Baal Peor

12

Numbers

in chap. 25 as the final act of rebellion by the first generation, which led to the death of all who came out of Egypt and were counted in the first census, apart from Caleb and Joshua. By contrast, the chapters following chap. 26, which are concerned with the new generation of Israelites, are uniformly hopeful and positive in tone. Indeed, this section does not record the death of a single Israelite, and when this generation engages in battle (cf. chap. 31) the people are victorious. The reference to the daughters of Zelophehad in chaps. 27 and 36 is regarded by Olson as forming a kind of inclusio for the events surrounding the second generation of Israelites recorded in these chapters. The problem with attempts such as those of Childs and Olson to discern a meaningful and coherent structure in the book is that there is a tendency to ignore or suppress textual evidence that does not happen to support their theory. Thus, while the themes of purity and holiness are undoubtedly significant features in the book of Numbers (see below, Chapter 3), there are many narratives and laws which have nothing to do with these themes. Olson exhibits a similarly selective approach to the evidence available. Thus, for example, if the first generation of Israelites depicted in chaps. 1–25 are sinful and are doomed to die in the wilderness, why are they provided with laws in chap. 15 which were meant to apply specifically ‘when you come into the land you are to inhabit’ (v. 2; cf. v. 18)? Surely these laws would have been more appropriately placed after chap. 26 and addressed to the second generation of Israelites who were to inherit the Promised Land? And why is the first generation of Israelites, who were destined to die in the wilderness, granted victory over Arad (21.1-3) and over Sihon and Og (21.21-35)? Surely such victories would more appropriately have been granted to the second generation, in which case these chapters might be expected to have been included in the second section of the book? And would not the promise of blessing in the oracle of Balaam (24.1519), which depicts a favourable and rosy picture of Israel’s future, have appeared more natural if addressed specifically to the second generation? Moreover, to claim that the geographical notice in 26.3, which places the second generation ‘in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho’, marks a significant new beginning for the people of God ignores the fact that the first generation are located in the same place in 22.1! Finally, chaps. 1–10 fit uneasily into Olson’s thesis, for there is nothing in these chapters which suggests that the first generation of Israelites who came out of Egypt were rebellious and disobedient; on the contrary, these chapters depict a unified and compliant people on their way to the Promised Land (cf. 1.54; 2.34; 4.49). Thus, although Olson’s aim of identifying a coherent structure underlying the book of Numbers in order that its theological witness can be heard anew is most commendable, there are numerous flaws in his argument which make his thesis untenable.



1.   Introductory Issues 13

One of the most recent attempts to discern a conceptually coherent theme in Numbers is that by Won W. Lee, who attempts to identify the interrelatedness of the various units contained in Numbers by adopting ‘an empirically verifiable procedure’ (p. vii). Lee focuses on Num. 10.11–36.13, since this section represents a self-contained unit within the book, marked by a clear beginning (10.11) and end (36.13). He then proceeds to identify numerous smaller units within this section, before identifying a conceptual coherence that binds the various units together as a unified whole. That coherence is found in the notions of punishment and forgiveness that occur during what the author calls ‘Israel’s migratory campaign’. Lee encounters little difficulty in demonstrating that 10.11–36.13 represents a distinct block of material in Numbers and thus deserves an analysis of its structure in its own right and on its own terms. But whereas most commentators have regarded 10.11 as the beginning of the second major section of the book on the basis of geographical or chronological indicators, Lee argues the case on the basis of a conceptual analysis of the text. According to this analysis, 1.1–10.10 narrates the encampment of Israel at one particular location and focuses on the preparation for the people’s ‘migratory campaign’, whereas the rest of Numbers records events which occurred at various stopping places on the journey and recounts the execution of the campaign itself. The depiction in 10.11–36.13 of the Israelites constantly moving from place to place is regarded by Lee as strategically important for the structure of the book. Although the distances between the various locations vary, as does the time which the people spend in each place, the fact is that the people in 10.11–36.13 are on the move, unlike 1.1– 10.10, where they are static, encamped in one particular location. Numbers 36.13 signals the end of the campaign which begins at 10.11, and these two references serve to delimit the outer boundaries of the text and to differentiate it from its immediate context—Num. 10.1–10.10 on the one hand, and the book of Deuteronomy on the other. Lee regards the incident concerning the spies in chaps. 13–14 as occupying a central place within the structure of chaps. 10–36. This story reflects the distrust of the people in Yahweh’s ability to bring them into the land of Canaan, and serves to explain why the Israelites failed to conquer the Promised Land from the south. According to Lee, Israel’s failure in these chapters provides the conceptual basis which explains why the 36 units which he identifies in 10.11–36.13 are positioned where they are. The units prior to 13.1–14.45 serve to highlight Israel’s lack of faith in Yahweh’s ability to bring his people into the land of Canaan; the units following this section unfold Yahweh’s response to the people’s distrust: entrance to the land would be delayed and would be granted only to the next generation of Israelites, after the exodus generation had died in the wilderness. The death of Aaron in 20.22-29 marks the end of the exodus generation and the

14

Numbers

completion of Yahweh’s punishment of his people, while the transference of Aaron’s high priesthood to Eleazar is indicative of the transition from one generation of Israelites to the next. Thus 21.1-3 marks another decisive break in the structure of Numbers, for 21.1–36.13 record the experiences of the second generation of Israelites. Unlike the exodus generation, which suffered military defeat at the hands of the enemy (cf. 14.39-45), the second generation is depicted as enjoying success in battle (cf. 21.13, 21-32, 33-35; 31.1-12), a clear indication that Yahweh has now forgiven the people for their rebellion. That 21.1-3 marks a break in the structure of Numbers is further confirmed by the fact that the focus of interest in subsequent sections is the land, which was entirely appropriate, given that the conquest of Canaan still lay ahead, and the journey through the wilderness was virtually over. However, Lee’s painstaking attempt to discover an inner coherence within Num. 10.11–36.13 is not without its problems. In the first place, there is nothing in the text of 21.1-3 to suggest that the Israelites referred to here were any different from those referred to in the previous chapters, nor is there convincing evidence to suggest that chaps. 13–14 mark a decisive break within the macrostructure of 10.11–36.13. Furthermore, it is surely inconvenient to Lee’s thesis that the behaviour of the second generation (according to his analysis) is marked by rebellion (21.4-9) and apostasy (25.1-18), for if the second generation behaved just like the first, why were they not punished in like manner? Finally, to argue that the focus of interest in the final chapters centres on the land is questionable, for the fact is that some of the laws which occur in this section of the book are related to the land only in the most tangential way (cf. 28.1-29, 40; 30.1-16). None of the attempts to argue that Numbers has been constructed on the basis of a logically coherent plan has proved particularly convincing, and the impression gained by the various suggestions outlined above is that the proposed structure is something imposed on the book by modern commentators rather than something which arises naturally out of the text itself. One suspects that in many cases the evidence is being manipulated to fit some preconceived theory, and that commentators have exercised considerable ingenuity by trying to force the material in Numbers into a mould of their own making. Moreover, the fact that there is so little consensus among scholars regarding the book’s structure merely underlines the speculative, artificial and impressionistic nature of the various proposals which have been advanced. Although some conservative commentators have argued that the book is a well-ordered and coherent composition, and that there are few totally inexplicable connections between the various sections (Budd, Wenham), they have generally failed to demonstrate convincingly why the various units have been arranged in the present way. For example, no convincing explanation has yet been provided as to why chap. 19 with its



1.   Introductory Issues 15

unsystematically arranged collection of laws has been inserted at this particular point in the narrative, and it is difficult to see what connection 30.1-16 has either with what precedes or with what follows. Numbers 5.1–6.21 contains various ordinances which have been juxtaposed with no recognizable relation either with each other or with the surrounding narrative. It is by no means clear why the disparate collection of laws contained in chap. 15 have been inserted between the narratives concerning the spies in chaps. 13–14 and the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in chap. 16, nor is it clear how these miscellaneous laws (concerning sacrifice and offerings, atonement for unintentional sin, gathering wood on the Sabbath, and the wearing of tassels) are connected with one another. Suggestions that they are linked because they are all concerned with the issue of ‘intentionality’ (Olson) are strained and unconvincing. Chapters 22–24, which contain the story of Balaam, is the largest connected narrative complex in Numbers, but these chapters have only a very tentative connection with the surrounding narratives, and even Budd, who staunchly defends the coherence of the book, is forced to concede that these chapters are only ‘very loosely attached to the rest of the Transjordanian material’ (p. xxviii). The fact is that Numbers is neither a coherent nor unified literary composition, and no amount of interpretative sleight-of-hand has succeeded in making it appear so. There is clearly a danger of trying to discover a coherent pattern where patently no such pattern exists, and the fact that there is so little consensus among scholars merely confirms the rather arbitrary nature of the quest to discern the outline or structure of the book. Given that Numbers is probably the product of various literary sources stemming from different historical periods, perhaps we should not expect to find a coherent structure in the book. It is possible that biblical authors or editors were less concerned with presenting a compositional unity than modern commentators would like to suppose, and that to expect the book to posses some kind of literary coherence is to impose modern expectations on an ancient text. It may well be that, by seeking to find a coherent structure within the book of Numbers, we are asking of the biblical text what it did not intend to deliver. Further reading For recent discussions of Pentateuchal research, see: Alexander, T.D., From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012). Baden, J.S., The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven, CT, and London, UK: Yale University Press, 2012). Blenkinsopp, J., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (London: SCM Press, 1992).

16

Numbers

Blum, E., Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1979). Dozeman, T.B., and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSS, 34; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). Edelman, D.V., P.R. Davies, C. Nihan, and T. Römer, Opening the Books of Moses (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012). Houston, W.J., The Pentateuch (London: SCM Press, 2013). Nicholson, E.W., The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). Rendtorff, R., The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J.J. Scullion; JSOTS, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990 [German original, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW, 147; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977]). Rofé, A., Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (The Biblical Seminar, 58; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Schwartz, B.J., ‘Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for its Rejection?’, in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B.J. Schwartz; FAT, 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 3–16. Shectman, S., and J.S. Baden (eds.), The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (ATANT, 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009). Ska, J.-L., Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (trans. P. Dominique; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Whybray, R.N., Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). Wright, R.M., Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwist Source (LHBOTS, 419; London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005).

On the structure of Numbers, see: Condren, J.C., ‘Is the Account of the Organization of the Camp Devoid of Organization? A Proposal for the Literary Structure of Numbers 1.1-10.10’, JSOT 37 (2013), pp. 423–52. Douglas, M., In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTS, 158; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Forsling, J., Composite Artistry in the Book of Numbers: A Study in Biblical Narrative Conventions (STH, 22; Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2013). Lee, W.W., Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2003). Leveen, A., Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Lunn, N.P., ‘Numbering Israel: A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1-4’, JSOT 35 (2010), pp. 165–85. Olson, D.T., The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS, 71; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985).

2

Numbers and Biblical Criticism Biblical scholarship has long emphasized the importance of adopting an interdisciplinary approach to the OT. The last four decades or so have witnessed a proliferation of new interpretative approaches and strategies— reader-response criticism, feminist criticism, and postcolonial criticism (to name but a few)—and traditional study of the Bible has had to accommodate new modes of inquiry and address questions that had previously been outside the purview of biblical scholars. In this chapter we will consider how the application of reader-response criticism, feminist criticism, and postcolonial criticism might contribute to our understanding of selected passages in the book of Numbers. Reader-response criticism Reader-response criticism is a term used to refer to a diverse assortment of methodologies and practices, but its basic aim is to consider the impact which any given text might have on the individual who reads it. According to this approach, reading is not an exercise for passive spectators, for it involves a variety of activities, including reflection, judgment, appraisal, assessment, and evaluation, and these activities in turn inevitably lead to approval or disapproval, acclaim or criticism, acceptance or rejection. Instead of tacitly accepting the standards of judgment established in the text and capitulating uncritically to its demands, readers are challenged to question its assumptions and insights, and (if necessary) to discredit its claims. The text opens itself up to a kind of dialogue between two interlocutors, and readers are invited to contribute to the conversation with their own questions and reactions. Indeed, the reaction of the reader is of paramount importance, for the aim of reader-response criticism is to revitalize our engagement with the text and make us conscious of our own response to what we are reading. So how might a reader-response approach be applied to the book of Numbers? It may be helpful in this regard to focus on one particular passage, namely 5.11-31, which relates the ritual of the ‘trial by ordeal’.

18

Numbers

The ‘trial by ordeal’ (5.11-31) Numbers 5.11-31 concerns a situation in which a husband suspects his wife of adultery but has no definite proof of her guilt. In such cases, the normal judicial procedures were deemed to be inadequate, and the husband was permitted to subject his wife to the so-called ‘trial by ordeal’. This involved bringing his wife (along with an appropriate cereal offering) to the priest at the sanctuary, and he, in turn, would bring her ‘before the Lord’ and make her swear an oath. The priest would then give her a potion to drink, consisting of ‘holy water’ mixed with particles of dust from the floor of the sanctuary into which the written words of the oath had been washed. If the woman was guilty, the potion would have an injurious effect on her body, but if she was innocent it would prove to be harmless. It is clear that the ‘ordeal’—which included loosening the woman’s hair, intoning the grim oath and forcing her to drink the bitter water—was designed to publicly humiliate the woman. If deemed guilty, she would have been an object of derision in the community (‘may the Lord make an example of you among your people’; v. 21); but even if deemed innocent she would no doubt have found it difficult to regain her status and self-respect in society. As if to underline the shame of the woman, she is represented in the present form of the text as being made to swear the oath twice (vv. 19, 21), and made to drink the noxious potion twice, if not three times (vv. 23-24, 26-27). Furthermore, it is clear that the ‘ordeal’ was performed in the interests of the husband, for it was designed to provide him with some assurance that any child born to his wife was, indeed, his own. The attentive reader is immediately struck by the double-standards inherent in this text, for while a jealous husband who merely suspected his wife of infidelity could subject her to a humiliating ordeal, no parallel ritual was prescribed if a wife suspected her husband of being unfaithful. Of course, in the context of ancient Israelite society, this would hardly have been surprising, for adultery was defined by law as sexual relations involving a married woman; a husband who had extramarital sexual relations with an unmarried woman was not regarded as an adulterer, and no punishment was inflicted upon him if he was deemed guilty of such sexual impropriety. It is clear in this case that the husband had nothing to lose by subjecting his wife to the ‘ordeal’, for if the accusation turned out to be unfounded he was absolved of any guilt, and was not punished or reprimanded for wrongly accusing his wife (‘no guilt will attach to the husband’; v. 31). Finally, although the ritual was ostensibly designed to determine the wife’s guilt or innocence, the wording of the chapter gives the impression that the woman had, indeed, committed the act, and that the only element lacking was proof of her guilt. Indeed, in the final verse of the chapter the only outcome envisaged is that the wife is guilty: ‘the woman must bear the penalty for her guilt’ (v. 31b).



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 19

Traditional biblical scholarship has been content to ask questions of a historical nature about this text. Should the procedure depicted in this chapter be regarded as a ‘trial by ordeal’? How does it relate to similar procedures encountered elsewhere in the ancient Near East? Was such a trial actually practised in ancient Israel? What would have happened physiologically to the woman who was deemed to be guilty? Did drinking the potion of bitter water result in miscarriage, sterility, or death for the guilty adulteress? However, the reader-response critic would want to ask some very different questions of this troublesome text. To what extent does it perpetuate patriarchal values and undermine the concept of mutual love and fairness in a marriage relationship? Why is there no reciprocal right for a wife to put her husband through the same ordeal if she suspected him of infidelity? Why should the husband bear no guilt if the ordeal proves that his suspicions were unfounded? And what effect might this account have on its readers, particularly its female readers? Is not the act of dishevelling the woman’s hair and making her drink of a noxious potion (vv. 16-18, 24) utterly repulsive, humiliating and degrading to the woman? Does it encourage misogyny? Does it promote hatred and violence by reinforcing the language of oppression and domination? A reader-response approach would not simply acquiesce in the type of value judgments implied in this text; rather, it would insist on exposing its double-standards and pronouncing the narrative as ethically questionable and morally indefensible. But reader-response criticism would want to highlight not only the clear patriarchal bias of the text but the patriarchal bias of its subsequent interpretation. Male interpreters are invited to explore the male bias of their exegesis, and to consider how their interpretation might have served to consolidate, reinforce and perpetuate patriarchal values. It is clear that in the present case some male commentators—and even some female biblical critics—have been only too anxious to jump to the husband’s defence, suggesting that it was not without reason that he would have subjected his wife to such a ritual. Thus Levine, for example, concedes that, according to the text, the husband, even on the merest suspicion of his wife’s infidelity, could force her to submit to the ordeal; nevertheless, he finds himself wondering ‘whether there were not more realistic indications of infidelity resulting from the behaviour of the wife in question or evident in her physical condition’ (p. 201); without any evidence in the text whatsoever, he maintains that ‘it is unlikely, as Gray and others have suggested, that the husband’s suspicions need not have had any real basis’ (p. 193). Levine admits that it was pure self-interest that would have prompted the husband to make his wife undergo the ordeal, for he probably suspected that she was pregnant and ‘had reason to conclude that the pregnancy was not attributable to him’; in such cases, he surmises, adultery was suspected ‘and might actually have occurred’ (my italics; p. 181). It is clear that

20

Numbers

Levine has been ‘taken in’ by the ideology of the text, which seems to take for granted that the woman was guilty (cf. v. 31), for in his commentary on 5.11-31 he regularly refers to her as the ‘errant wife’, suggesting that, irrespective of the outcome of the ‘ordeal’, he has already made up his own mind regarding her guilt or innocence (pp. 181–82, 192–202). What has happened here is that a cosy reciprocity has been established between the male interpreter and the male-authored text, with the result that the androcentric bias of the biblical passage has been repeated and reaffirmed in subsequent scholarship. Others have suggested that the emphasis in 5.11-31 on defilement may indicate that the husband not only could make his wife undergo such a harrowing test but that he may have been obliged to do so. Were his wife to be found guilty of having committed a sexual offence, she would be regarded as having defiled herself, and such defilement could have infected the whole Israelite camp (cf. Lev. 18.24-31). The husband’s motive may therefore have been entirely benign, for he was simply concerned for the general welfare of the community of which he was part; if the matter was not quickly resolved and the guilty party punished, his wife’s sexual impropriety might threaten the purity of God’s people (Frymer-Kensky). A striking attempt to limit the negative aspect of the ‘ordeal’ is encountered in Milgrom’s commentary on the chapter. He argues that the ‘ordeal’ was actually designed to protect the woman from the lynch-mob mentality of an angered community and from the vengeance and uncontrollable rage of an irate and jealous husband; by mandating that God must decide her case and mete out any punishment, the woman faced a ‘more precise retribution’ than that which any human court could provide. God’s punishment would be based on a measure-for-measure principle, ensuring that the punishment would fit the ‘crime’, for the woman, if found guilty, would have been ‘doomed to sterility for the rest of her life’ (p. 350). Of course, if the woman was deemed to be innocent, the noxious potion would have had no effect on her body, and ‘a harmonious relationship may be restored’ (p. 43)—an aside which surely represents considerable wishful thinking on the part of the commentator! H.C. Brichto seems to pursue a similar line when he suggests that the ordeal was intended to protect the suspected adulteress in the disadvantaged position which she occupied in ancient Israelite society, where she would have been put to death had evidence been found against her (Lev. 20.10). He suggests that the sanctuary setting, the holy water, the priest, the oath, the offering, and the preparation of the potion, was simply a ‘charade’ designed to appease a jealous husband and to let a suspected adulteress off the hook. Brichto plays down the efficacy of the potion, and suggests that even if the woman were guilty she would merely have suffered the ‘hypothetical’ effectuation of the spell. Given that a committed adulteress would



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 21

normally have been put to death, the woman who underwent the ordeal was let off lightly, for she was subjected to a test ‘in which all the cards were stacked in her favor’ (p. 66). The ‘ordeal’ was merely a ploy which favoured the woman, and however unpleasant the experience, the test which she had to undergo was such that ‘champions of Women’s Liberation may hail its spirit’ (p. 70)! Thus, far from claiming that the text is blatantly and irredeemable mis­ ogynistic in tone, some commentators have attempted to justify the passage by claiming that the ritual was originally intended for the woman’s benefit, or that the husband’s suspicions were not without foundation, or that his real concern was the welfare of the community of which he was part. The implication of such interpretations is that the husband was perfectly within his rights to subject his wife to the ordeal. If the wife had, indeed, committed adultery, the husband would naturally want to strengthen his case for divorcing her, the ordeal being the only means available to him of providing evidentiary testimony of her guilt; the subsequent fate of the divorced woman—being ostracized by the community and considered undesirable as the wife of any other man—does not, by and large, enter the discussion. Of course, examples such as those cited above could be multiplied, but they are sufficient to demonstrate how the biblical text has been interpreted (even by some female interpreters) from the male point of view, and how biblical scholars have made no attempt ‘to challenge, or even comment upon, the institutional structure of patriarchy that used the ritual…to put a woman in her place’ (Bach: 50). Feminist biblical criticism Feminist critics have approached the Bible from different perspectives and with different presuppositions, but on one point there seems to be general agreement, namely, that the Bible is an overwhelmingly patriarchal book. From the opening chapters of the book of Genesis, where woman is created to serve as man’s ‘helper’ (Gen. 2.20-24), to the pronouncements of Paul concerning the submission of wives to their husbands and the silencing of women in communal worship (1 Cor. 14.34-35), the primary emphasis of the Bible is on woman’s subordinate status. It is thus hardly surprising that feminist biblical critics have generally regarded the OT as one of the founding texts of patriarchy. They argue that the values of Western culture have been inspired, directly or indirectly, by the Bible, and while they readily concede that various factors have contributed to the establishment of patriarchal power and influence in contemporary society, they believe that it would be wrong to deny or minimize the role that the Bible has had in shaping peoples’ thoughts and perceptions, and in reinforcing sexist attitudes and structures.

22

Numbers

The book of Numbers has proved to be fertile territory for feminist biblical critics, for while some texts seem to perpetuate the negative stereotype of women, other texts describe women who were prepared to oppose the patriarchal order. Among the texts that reflect a negative view of women, mention may be made of chap. 25, for here the women of Moab are portrayed as a threat, a temptation and a potential source of discord, since they are capable of leading the men of Israel away from the one true God. Mention may also be made of the laws concerning vows encountered in chap. 30, for these enactments clearly presuppose that women were under the authority of their father before marriage (30.3-5), and under the authority of their husband after marriage (30.6-15), for the vow made by a daughter or a married woman needed the consent of the father or husband to be valid, and if such consent was withheld the vow was regarded as null and void. Such regulations merely serve to emphasize and affirm the subordinate position of women in ancient Israelite society. On the other hand, there are texts in Numbers which may be viewed as a positive resource for women in their battle for sexual equality. For example, 11.12 uses a female metaphor to depict God, for here Moses insists that it is God—and not he—who conceived and gave birth to Israel and who should therefore take responsibility for carrying the people in his bosom ‘as a nurse carries a sucking child’. Such maternal imagery applied to the deity serves as a useful counter-balance to the frequent depictions elsewhere in the OT of God as a ‘father’ (Ps. 103.13), ‘husband’ (Hos. 2.16), ‘warrior’ (Exod. 15.3) and ‘king’ (Ps. 98.6), images which have all too often been used to legitimate women’s social and religious subordination and to promote male dominance and superiority. Other texts in Numbers focus on women who acted with considerable courage, independence and initiative, and who may thus be viewed as exemplary role models for women in contemporary society. In this regard, two texts have particularly engaged the attention of feminist biblical critics, namely, chap. 12, where Miriam is portrayed as challenging Moses’ unique right to speak for Yahweh, and 27.1-11, where the daughters of Zelophehad demand the right to inherit their father’s estate. Such stories recount the fate of women who had the temerity to oppose the patriarchal order, and who refused to conform to the traditional image of the dutiful and subservient female. Instead of acquiescing to male authority and remaining in their allotted domestic sphere, they openly rebel against the patriarchal system. It is worth examining these two texts in more detail, for they are typical of the double-edged nature of many such biblical accounts; in both texts, the female occupies a position centre-stage, but the role which they fulfil is made to serve the interests of patriarchal ideology.



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 23

The case of Miriam (12.1-16) Numbers 12.1-2 describes how Miriam, along with her brother, Aaron, reproaches Moses for his exclusive claim to possess a special relation with God, and they openly challenge his unique role as the supreme channel of God’s word to the Israelites: ‘Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?’ (v. 2). Although v.1 states that both Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, the reference to Aaron here is widely regarded as a secondary addition, for the verb ‘spoke’ is in the third person feminine singular, and if the reference to Aaron were in the original text the author would probably have mentioned him first, as in vv. 4-5. Now although Miriam might have had some legitimate claim to a prophetic role as mediator of God’s work (cf. Exod. 15.20), it is clear that the narrator of the present passage had little sympathy for female oppositional voices. Moses does not even deign to reply to Miriam’s question, and it is left for God to intervene in the sibling rivalry. A divine oracle affirms Moses’ favoured position as the supreme vehicle of divine revelation, and God is represented as claiming him as his prophet par excellence (vv. 6-8). Such a blatant challenge to Moses’ authority and position as mediator of a direct communication from God could not go unpunished, and so Miriam is duly struck with leprosy and banished from the camp for seven days (vv. 10, 15), the usual period of quarantine for those suffering from a skin disease (cf. Lev. 13.5). Her appearance is depicted in the most ghastly terms, for she is described as like a ‘stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb’ (v. 12). The fact that Moses had to intercede with God on her behalf (v. 13) merely underlined Miriam’s subordinate status, and the fact that his intercession proved successful served only to emphasize the extent of his power and influence. From Miriam’s point of view, this must have been the ultimate ignominy, for the only way in which she could be cured of her disease was through the mediation of the very one whose intimacy with God she had just called into question. As if to add to her humiliation, she is likened by God to a shameful daughter who had so offended her father that he had spat in her face as a sign of utter contempt (v. 14). Significantly, after her punishment, Miriam never speaks again in Numbers, nor is she spoken to; she simply disappears from the narrative until the terse one-sentence announcement of her death and burial in 20.1. In claiming to be Moses’ equal in prophetic authority, Miriam is admired for her assertiveness by some feminist biblical critics and she is elevated by them as a glowing example of a woman who stood her ground and as one who was implacably opposed to the hierarchical social structures of the time. Her protest against the privileged status accorded to Moses was a blatant attempt to defy the secondary, subservient role into which she had been cast. Phyllis Trible, in an oft-cited article, attempts to bring Miriam ‘out of the shadows’ and portray her as a woman who possessed the courage and

24

Numbers

self-confidence to demand recognition as Moses’ equal in political leadership and prophetic status. At the same time, however, other feminist biblical scholars are aware of the patriarchal ideology which undergirds the narrative. Such patriarchal bias is evident in the fact that only Miriam is afflicted with leprosy, although (in the present form of the text) both she and Aaron contested Moses’ leadership (vv. 1-2). Encoded in the story is an implicit message about aberrant female behaviour: patriarchy has its own way of dealing with such uppity women, and anyone who attempts to destabilize the patriarchal order will find that their punishment will be swift and devastating. Those such as Miriam, who felt confident enough to bid for the supreme position of community leadership, and who possessed no qualms about challenging male hegemony, would surely pay the price for showing such audacity. Indeed, in Deut. 24.9 it is made clear that Miriam’s punishment was to serve as a warning for generations to come of the dire consequences that would result when women refused to accept their allotted place in society. The daughters of Zelophehad (27.1-11; 36.1-13) Numbers 27.1-11 relates the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, whose father had died without leaving any sons. The daughters appeal to Moses, Eleazar and the leaders of the congregation stating that, since their father had died without male progeny, they should be accorded the legal right to inherit his estate: ‘Why should the name of our father be taken away from his clan because he had no son? Give to us a possession among our father’s brothers’ (v. 4). The daughters seek to strengthen their case by reminding Moses that their father had not participated in the revolt against God by Korah and his company (cf. 16.1-40) and that he had not therefore forfeited his claim to a share of the land of Canaan. The case was evidently so exceptional and unprecedented that Moses had to seek Yahweh’s guidance in the matter (v. 5), and a divine decision was rendered acknowledging the legitimacy of their claim (vv. 6-7). A formal law was then drafted which established a specific order of precedence in the inheritance of property: upon the death of the father, the estate was to pass to his son, and in the absence of a son, to his daughter; in default of any daughters, the estate passed to the brother(s) of the deceased; failing any brothers, it passed to the deceased’s uncles and, failing them, to the nearest male relative (vv. 8-11). Like the story recorded in chap. 12, this account is often regarded by some feminist biblical scholars as striking a blow in favour of women’s rights, for the complaint of the daughters engendered a significant revision of customary practice. Through their boldness, persistence and sheer chutzpah, the feisty daughters of Zelophehad demonstrated that, even in a predominantly patriarchal society, women could, if so minded, cause the seemingly rigid structures of ancient Israel’s law to be changed or modified.



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 25

Moses was forced to concede that their claim was just, and the revised ruling is generalized to indicate that in all future cases where there was no son to inherit, the daughters shall always enjoy precedence over other male relatives. The daughters’ petition for an amendment to existing legislation was not only accepted but was given a divine seal of approval, and the daughters were appropriately rewarded for their initiative and resourcefulness by being granted rights and privileges in matters of inheritance that had previously been accorded only to sons. The narrative is thus regarded as one of the rare instances in the OT in which a female voice was heard and in which the grievance of women was recognized and their cause vindicated. But, as was the case with chap. 12, other feminist biblical scholars have questioned whether the narrative represents such a victory over patriarchy as is often supposed. In the first place, the daughters are depicted as acting, not for personal gain, but solely in the interests of their deceased father, for they plead to be allowed to inherit his property in order that his name might be preserved and that his memory might be cherished (v. 4). There is no attempt on their part to question the logic behind the law that debarred daughters from sharing in their father’s inheritance; their sole concern appears to be that the memory of their father should be perpetuated. Moreover, although a new law was drafted as a result of their plea (vv. 8-11), the order of precedence in the inheritance of property still gave priority to the male descendants of the deceased: sons were to retain first rights to any inheritance, and only in the absence of a son could the estate pass to a daughter. Thus the petition of the daughters did little to alter the primary aim of the law, which was to preserve the principle of the transference of property according to the male line. That the patriarchal stake in the inheritance of the land was the paramount concern of the legislator is further confirmed by the supplement to this narrative found in chap. 36, which appears to have been added almost as an afterthought. It was evidently realized, rather belatedly, that the ruling of 27.8-11 carried a potential hazard: should the daughters marry, there was a risk that the property of their father might pass into the possession of another tribe. Hence an amendment had to be made to the original law to the effect that daughters who inherited their father’s estate would be required to marry within their own tribe. Significantly, the narrative of chap. 36 concludes with an account of Zelophehad’s daughters dutifully complying with the regulation (vv. 10-12): they marry their first cousins on their father’s side, thereby ensuring that the land would continue to be passed down through their father’s tribe. Thus, recent feminist biblical scholars have been more prone to question the ideology latent in the narratives concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, and have wondered whether the so-called achievement of the daughters did not, in fact, amount to something of a pyrrhic victory for the rights of women, for they could inherit property only under very limited and

26

Numbers

prescribed conditions. The gain which they won in one sphere of life led ineluctably to restrictions in another area, as their marriage options were consequently severely reduced. Given the marital restraints that were subsequently imposed upon them, was it really in their interests to have been granted the right to inherit their father’s property? Did the success of their appeal not result in further constraints on their freedom? Would they not have been able to choose a future spouse more freely if they had not won their case? Moreover, the law permitting the daughters to inherit the property of the deceased did not mean that the territory in question would henceforth be passed down the maternal line; rather, it would be inherited by that daughter’s son, and then through subsequent male succession. In the patriarchal scheme of things, the inheritance of land by a daughter appears to have been just a temporary anomaly, an aberration that would be corrected once the daughter gave birth to a son. Thus there is a sense in which the daughter, despite the ruling of 27.8-11, did not ‘inherit’ property as such; she was merely a conduit to transfer the inheritance from her father to his grandson, thereby facilitating the transfer of property through the male line. The ultimate irony in the case of Zelophehad’s daughters is that they end up marrying their cousins from other clans of the tribe of Manasseh, thus ensuring that their father’s property would have passed to those who would have inherited it in any case, even if they had not troubled to stake a claim for the land themselves. Despite the ostensible victory achieved by the daughters, it is the patriarchal principle of lineage, succession and inheritance which triumphed in the end, and the account of Zelophehad’s daughters, which initially appears to affirm the empowerment of women and to celebrate their independence, ends up merely reinforcing patriarchal values and supporting androcentric concerns. The above discussion demonstrates how a feminist perspective can produce a radically different interpretation of the biblical text by alerting the reader to its encoded messages and to the subtle nuances of meaning that might otherwise have remained hidden or ignored. Readers are encouraged to look beyond the manifest meaning of the biblical narrative and, instead of reading it at face value, they are invited to ask some searching questions of the text. For example, given that the author of the narrative was probably male, it seems reasonable to ask: what androcentric agenda was he trying to promote? Why does he portray women in the way he does? Do the female characters in the story speak and act only to promote the interests of their male counterparts? Are they being used by the male narrator to support the patriarchal system? Feminist critics have reminded us that we, as readers, should be prepared to apply a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ to narratives such as those discussed above, and that we should reserve the right to criticize and oppose texts that appear to be blatantly sexist or discriminatory.



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 27

Postcolonial criticism As a critical theory, the entry of postcolonial criticism into the arena of biblical studies is comparatively late, for it was not until the 1990s that scholars in the Third World and those among racial minorities in the US began to raise questions about the role of the Bible in the imperial cause and the extent to which colonial assumptions are embedded in the text. One of the main aims of postcolonial criticism is to read the Bible from the perspective of the socially excluded and to expose—and oppose—texts which appear to condone various forms of discrimination and abuse. Thus, in many respects, postcolonial criticism shares a similar agenda and similar goals to feminist biblical criticism discussed above. Both recognize the existence of a plurality of oppressions in the biblical text, based on class, gender and ethnicity; both seek to reclaim voices which have been silenced or ignored; and both share a commitment to the social and political empowerment of the marginalized and oppressed. This is not to deny that tensions have sometimes emerged between the two disciplines. For example, feminist biblical critics sometimes complain that postcolonial criticism is too male-centred and overlooks the role of women in emancipatory struggles, while some feminists in the Third World accuse their counterparts in the West of failing to problematize the colonial agenda embedded in the biblical text. As an example of postcolonial criticism of Numbers it will be convenient to return to the narrative in Num. 12, for here Miriam and Aaron accuse their brother of having married a foreign wife. Moses’ Cushite wife (12.1-16) Postcolonial critics argue that feminist biblical scholars, in their concern to highlight the patriarchal bias inherent in Num. 12.1-16, have failed to uncover its racial overtones, for they point out that, in addition to claiming to be Moses’ equal as channels of divine communication, Miriam and Aaron also accuse their brother of having married a Cushite wife (v. 1). Now the term ‘Cush’ can mean ‘black’, though in the biblical tradition it is commonly identified with Ethiopia (cf. 2 Kgs 19.9; Isa. 20.3, 5) and, indeed, the Septuagint and other ancient Versions assume that Moses’ wife was an Ethiopian. The use of the term Cush in this context implies that the objection of Miriam and Aaron to Moses’ marriage was based on ethnic grounds, and postcolonial critics emphasize that the narrative thus brings to the fore racial as well as gender issues. Miriam, it is argued, could easily have pleaded for a role in the leadership of the people without playing the racist card, but the fact that she insisted on raising the issue of Moses’ marriage to a foreign wife adds a significant dimension to the story, for it appears that Miriam and Aaron were objecting to their sister-in-law on account of the colour of her skin.

28

Numbers

Significantly, having condemned Moses’ marriage to a black woman, Miriam is punished for such blatant insubordination by being inflicted with a disease that renders her own skin ‘as white as snow’ (v. 10). The ‘whiteness’ of Miriam’s skin is thus regarded as condign punishment for objecting to Moses’ dark-skinned wife. Feminist biblical critics often regard the complaint against the Cushite wife as a smokescreen for the more significant challenge to Moses’ authority, but postcolonial critics such as Mukti Barton argue that, by overlooking the racial slur, they have demonstrated that their ‘feminism is really White feminism’ (p. 166). While feminist biblical scholars tend to view the narrative from Miriam’s point of view, postcolonial scholars tend to view it from the perspective of Moses’ nameless Cushite wife, and while Trible succeeded in bringing Miriam ‘out of the shadows’, Barton is intent upon bringing Moses’ Cushite wife ‘out of the shadows’. In doing so she has undoubtedly brought to the fore nuances and dimensions of the passage that have hitherto been widely neglected in traditional biblical scholarship. Such interpretations as that offered above by Mukti Barton show how the Bible can be read very differently by exploited peoples and marginalized cultures, for they bring a fresh approach to the text brought about by the radically different cultural-political location of the reader. It is part of the remit of postcolonial criticism to scrutinize and expose not only the colonial assumptions of biblical passages but also the colonial assumptions of the biblical interpreter. In this regard, the importance of their readings is that they provide oppositional voices which are capable of undermining and transforming mainstream, white, Western interpretations of the text. Just as feminist biblical scholars have challenged patriarchal interpretations of the Bible, so black scholars have begun to question the assumptions and procedures of their European counterparts and to correct what they regard as possible misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the biblical text. In doing so, postcolonial critics have challenged the normal context and practices of Western biblical scholarship, and in the process they have brought to the fore often neglected aspects of well-known texts and transformed our understanding of long familiar passages. Further Reading On biblical criticism, see: Barton, J., Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996, 2nd edn). —The Nature of Biblical Criticism (London and Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007). Davies, E.W., Biblical Criticism: A Guide for the Perplexed (London and New York: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark, 2013).



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 29

On reader-response criticism, see: Briggs, R.S., The Virtuous Reader: Old Testament Narrative and Interpretive Virtue (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010). Clines, D.J.A., What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament (JSOTS, 94; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Detweiler, R. (ed.), Reader Response Approaches to Biblical and Secular Texts (Semeia, 31; Decatur, GA: Scholars Press, 1985). Powell, M.A., Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2011). Suleiman, S.R., and I. Crosman (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980). Tompkins, J.P. (ed.), Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980).

On feminist criticism of the OT, see: Davies, E.W., The Dissenting Reader: Feminist Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). Guest, D., Beyond Feminist Biblical Studies (BMW, 47; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012). Scholz, S. (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Retrospect. I. Biblical Books (RRBS, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013). Schottroff, L., and Marie-Theres Wacker (eds.), Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). Shectman, S., Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis (HBM, 23; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009). Stichele, C.V., and T. Penner (eds.), Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-Critical Discourse (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005).

On postcolonial criticism, see: Brett, M.G., Decolonizing God: The Bible in the Tides of Empire (BMW, 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008). Dube, M.W., A.M. Mbuvi and D.R. Mbuwayesango (eds.), Postcolonial Perspectives in African Biblical Interpretations (Atlanata, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012). Liew, T.B. (ed.), Postcolonial Interventions: Essays in Honor of R.S. Sugirtharajah (BMW, 23; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009). McKinlay, J.E., Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus (BMW, 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004). Sugirtharajah, R.S., Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). —Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

30

Numbers

—The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Sugirtharajah, R.S. (ed.), The Postcolonial Biblical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006). —Troublesome Texts: The Bible in Colonial and Contemporary Culture (BMW, 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008).

Readers may find the following discussions of the biblical passages examined in this chapter helpful: On Numbers 5.11-31: Bach, A., ‘Good to the Last Drop: Viewing the Sotah (Numbers 5.11-31) as the Glass Half Empty and Wondering How to View it Half Full’, in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. Cheryl Exum, and D.J.A. Clines; JSOTS, 143; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 26–54. Brichto, H.C., ‘The Case of the Sōțā and a Reconsideration of Biblical “Law”’, HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 55–70. Feinstein, E.L., ‘The “Bitter Waters” of Numbers 5:11-31’, VT 62 (2012), pp. 300–306. Frymer-Kensky, T., ‘The Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah (Num. V 11-31)’, VT 34 (1984), pp. 11–26.

On Num. 12.1-16: Barton, M., ‘The Skin of Miriam became as White as Snow: The Bible, Western Feminism and Colour Politics’, in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (ed. R.S. Sugirtharajah; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006), pp. 158–68. Burns, R.J., Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam (SBLDS, 84; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987). Fischer, I., ‘The Authority of Miriam: A Feminist Rereading of Numbers 12 Prompted by Jewish Interpretation’, in Exodus to Deuteronomy: A Feminist Companion to the Bible (2nd series; ed. A Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 159–73. [The German original version appeared in Anspruch und Widerspruch: Festschrift für Evi Krobath (ed. M. Halmer et al.; Klagenfurt: Mohorjeva Hermagoras, 2000), pp. 23–38]. Sadler, R.S. Jr, Can a Cushite Change his Skin? An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (LHBOTS, 425; London: T. & T. Clark International, 2005). Trible, P., ‘Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows’, BR 5 (1989), pp. 170–90 (reprinted in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy [ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], pp. 166–86).

On Num. 27.1-11; 36.1-13: Davies, E.W., ‘Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage’, VT 31 (1981), pp. 138–44, 257–68. Ilan, T., ‘The Daughters of Zelophehad and Women’s Inheritance: The Biblical Injunction and its Outcome’, in Exodus to Deuteronomy: A Feminist Companion to the



2.   Numbers and Biblical Criticism 31

Bible (2nd series; ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 176–86. Sakenfeld, K.D., ‘In the Wilderness, Awaiting the Promised Land: The Daughters of Zelophehad and Feminist Interpretation’, PSB 9 (1988), pp. 179–96. Sterring, A., ‘The Will of the Daughters’, in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 88–99.

3

Themes in Numbers Land According to Numbers, the goal of Israel’s journey through the wilderness was entry into the Promised Land. Already in the opening chapters there is a sense of anticipation as preparations are made for the military conquest of Canaan. The numbering of the army of over 600,000 men over 20 years old who were ‘able to go to war’ (1.3), and the assurance that God was in the midst of his people (chap. 2), were intended to instil confidence in the Israelites that they would, indeed, be able to enter the land of Canaan. The journey proper, however, does not begin until 10.11-12, which describes the cloud lifting from over the tabernacle and the Israelites setting out ‘by stages’ from the wilderness of Sinai. But the subsequent chapters indicate that the march towards the Promised Land was far from straightforward, for various interruptions and delays were encountered along the way, and the people had to contend with the many difficulties and obstacles that continually threatened the successful completion of their journey. The first serious setback is recorded in chaps. 13–14. Here, the people are depicted as having already arrived at the border of the Promised Land, and Moses, in accordance with God’s command, sends out spies to gather information about its military strength (‘whether the people who live in it are strong or weak’; 13.18), the number of its inhabitants (‘whether they are few or many’; 13.18), its desirability for habitation (‘whether the land they live in is good or bad’; 13.19), its security (‘whether the towns that they live in are unwalled or fortified’; 13.19), its economic resources (‘whether the land is rich or poor’; 13.20), and, finally, its fertility (‘whether there are trees in it or not’; 13.20). The spies reconnoitre the entire land, starting from the Negeb in the south and working northwards towards the hill country (13.21). After 40 days the spies return, and the report which they bring back to the people confirms that the land was, indeed, fertile (‘it flows with milk and honey’; 13.27), but at the same time they emphasize that the inhabitants were strong and that the towns were large and fortified. One of the spies, Caleb, tries to encourage the people by telling them that they were more than capable of overcoming the native inhabitants, but his words were immediately rebuffed by the majority of spies who continued to highlight



3.   Themes in Numbers 33

the seemingly insurmountable obstacles which would prevent their successful occupation. The land, they claimed, was one which ‘devoured its inhabitants’ (13.32), and when compared to the gigantic stature of its residents, the people of Israel seemed small and insignificant, ‘like grasshoppers’ (13.33). If the object of the mission of the spies was to prepare the people for an impending campaign to conquer the land, it clearly had the very opposite effect, for the people side with the majority of spies and conclude that the land was simply not worth fighting for: ‘Why is the Lord bringing us into this land to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become booty; would it not be better for us to go back to Egypt?’ (14.3). When another of the spies, Joshua, seeks to confirm Caleb’s assessment that the land was ‘exceedingly good’ (14.7), and to reassure the people that, if only they ceased to rebel, God would ‘bring us into this land and give it to us’ (14.8), his words fall on deaf ears, and the people respond by threatening to stone both him and Caleb. By desiring to return to Egypt, the people had, in effect, rejected God’s promise of land and, as a result, Yahweh threatens to destroy them on account of their lack of faith: ‘None of the people who have seen my glory and the signs that I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have tested me these ten times and have not obeyed my voice, shall see the land that I swore to give to their ancestors’ (14.22-23). Moses, however, seeks to deter Yahweh from carrying out his intended judgment, and does so by appealing to his reputation among the nations and to Yahweh’s character as a gracious and merciful God (14.13-19). Moses reasons that if the Israelites were to be completely annihilated, this would be interpreted by the surrounding nations as a sign of Yahweh’s weakness and his inability to lead his people into the Promised Land (14.15-16). As a result of Moses’ importunate intercession, a compromise is reached whereby the people as a whole would not be destroyed, but nor would the transgressors be allowed to enter the Promised Land; instead, they would be condemned to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, a year for each day that the spies had spent reconnoitring the land. Thus God’s promise to their ancestors would not be nullified, but merely delayed, for only the next generation of Israelites would live to see the promise fulfilled. When the people, in a fit of remorse, decide to ‘go up to the place that the Lord has promised’ (14.40), they suffer an ignominious defeat at the hands of the Amalekites and Canaanites. The absence of the ark of the covenant from the battlefield (14.44) meant that God was not present with them, and thus their ultimate defeat was inevitable. A further obstacle on the journey occurs when Moses sends messengers to the king of Edom to ask permission to travel through his territory (20.1421). The messengers appeal to the close relationship between the two peoples (‘your brother, Israel’; v. 14), and emphasize the convenience of the route (‘here we are in Kadesh, a town on the edge of your territory’; v. 16),

34

Numbers

and the fact that the granting of such permission would hardly have a detrimental effect on his land (‘we will not pass through field or vineyard, or drink water from any well’; v. 17). But the king of Edom refuses their request, threatening to use force, if necessary, to prevent Israel from travelling through his territory (vv. 18-21). The people were therefore forced to make a circuitous detour around Edom and, not surprisingly, they became ‘impatient on the way’ (21.4). In chap. 21, however, the tempo of the march picks up and progress on the journey to the Promised Land continues in earnest. Israel sends messengers to Sihon, king of the Amorites, requesting safe passage through his land, and when Sihon refuses he is attacked by the Israelites, who succeed in defeating him and capturing his territory (vv. 21-32). The Israelites then manage to defeat Og, king of Bashan, and take possession of his territory (vv. 33-35). Having defeated two of the kings in the Transjordan who had tried to impede their progress, the Israelites find themselves once again in the plains of Moab, at the border of the land of Canaan. But, within sight of the Promised Land, another possible obstacle presents itself. Balak, king of Moab, having witnessed Israel’s defeat of the Amorites, requests Balaam, a renowned seer, to put a curse upon the people of Israel so that the Moabites would be able to defeat them and ‘drive them from the land’ (22.6). But Balaam refuses and, much to Balak’s annoyance, pronounces a blessing on the people of Israel and, having witnessed a ‘vision of the Almighty’ (24.16), proceeds to predict their future victory (24.17-18). But just when occupation of the Promised Land seems imminent, yet another problem emerges. Two of the tribes, the Reubenites and the Gadites, inform Moses that they did not want to settle in Canaan but wished, rather, to remain east of the Jordan in the land captured from Sihon and Og (32.115; cf. 21.21-35). They therefore request to be excused from accompanying the other tribes into the Promised Land. Moses, however, is quickly aware of the potential consequence of this failure to fight alongside the other tribes, for exempting them from engaging in battle against the Canaanites might discourage others from crossing the Jordan, and the possibility was raised of a repetition of the disastrous rebellion described in chaps. 13–14, when the entire nation (apart from Caleb and Joshua) had cold feet and expressed a wish to return to Egypt. Would history now repeat itself? Would the new generation avoid the egregious errors of their parents? Would the new generation rebel, like the old, and be denied access to the land promised them by God? A compromise is reached, and the crisis is averted when Moses agrees to their request to settle in the Transjordan on condition that they participate with the other tribes in the conquest of the land. The final chapters of Numbers (chaps. 26–36) look forward to the imminent occupation of the Promised Land. In chap. 26 a second census of the people is taken, the primary aim of which was to determine the relative size



3.   Themes in Numbers 35

of each tribe and thus the proportion of land which each would eventually inherit. The larger the tribe, the greater would be its allotment of territory in the land of Canaan, thus ensuring that each tribe would have sufficient resources for its economic wellbeing. In order to forestall the possibility of dissention and inter-tribal jealousy, the precise allocation of land to each tribe was to be decided by lot. The tribal leaders who were to supervise the future division of the land among the tribes are listed in 34.16-29. The census of chap. 26 indicates that the Levites were to be counted separately ‘because there was no allotment given to them among the Israelites’ (v. 62). The question of where the Levites were to dwell is addressed in 35.1-8, which states that the 12 tribes must provide 48 towns with their surrounding pasture lands in which the Levites were to live, the amount of land ceded to them being proportional to the size of the territorial allotment of each tribe (35.8). The geographical boundaries of the land are identified in 34.1-12, and the extent of the land here described corresponds closely to the description of the territory covered by the spies in chaps. 13–14. The eastern and western boundaries consisted, respectively, of the river Jordan and the Mediterranean (the ‘Great Sea’; 34.6-7). The northern boundary began at an unidentified point on the Mediterranean coast and ran east as far as Mount Hor. From there the border extended northwards to Lebo-hamath and as far as Hazar-enan. The identification of some of the places mentioned in 34.1-12 is far from certain, but there can be little doubt that the dimensions of the land depicted in these verses were an ideal construction of the extent of the territory to be occupied, and did not correspond to the boundary of the Promised Land during any period of Israel’s settlement. In 27.1-11 a law is enacted which allowed daughters to inherit the property of their deceased father if he had died without leaving male progeny. Although this law was ostensibly concerned with the property rights of individual citizens, its underlying rationale was to ensure that each tribe would retain its full inheritance, and that no tribe was to benefit from circumstances which threatened to deprive another tribe of its land. However, this enactment failed to consider the possibility that the daughters might marry outside their own tribe; were they to do so, the ancestral tribal boundaries would have to be redrawn and some tribes would inevitably suffer a serious loss of territory. Thus a supplement had to be added to the provision of 27.811 which sought to close a loophole in the law by requiring daughters who inherit land to marry within their own tribe, thus preventing the land from being transferred to another tribal group, and ensuring that the God-given allocation of land remained unaltered. Successful occupation of the land, however, was not without its preconditions, for it is made clear that the people of Israel were expected to exhibit a single-minded devotion and loyalty to God, and must on no account

36

Numbers

fraternize with the native inhabitants and cohabit with them on a peaceful basis. Possession of the land entailed a complete rejection of the religion of the Canaanites, and the people of Israel were instructed to destroy their idols and sanctuaries (33.50-56). Were they to fail in this regard, the Canaanites would pose a constant source of temptation to them, and would prove to be ‘barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides’ (33.55). The theme of the land is one which pervades not only the book of Numbers but the entire Pentateuch. In Genesis, the land is a commodity promised to Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 17.8; 26.3); the book of Exodus describes the escape of the Hebrews from their captivity in Egypt and their entry into the wilderness of Sinai; Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy then recount the vicissitudes of the journey through the wilderness, as the people move towards the Promised Land. Viewed in this broader perspective, it is clear that possession of the land was not an accident of history but the result of the divine promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (11.12; 14.16, 23, 30). At times, this promise looked as though it would not be fulfilled, as the Israelites continually rebelled against God and against Moses, but it is clear that, despite the disobedience of the people, God’s ultimate purpose would not be thwarted. He had remained faithful to his promise, despite the fact that the people had deliberately contrived to hinder its fulfilment. Of course, such lack of faith on the part of the people could not go unpunished, and the old generation are destined to die outside the Promised Land; even Moses and Aaron would not be permitted to enter Canaan ‘because you did not trust me’ (20.12). Yet, the book of Numbers ends on a positive note, with the new generation established on the eastern side of the Jordan and on the border of Canaan, ready to enter the land which had been promised to them by God. Purity and holiness The most obvious characteristic of God in Numbers is his holiness, and it is not without significance that the themes of holiness and purity occupy much of the content of the book. The presence of the holy God in the midst of the people was symbolized by the tabernacle, which was located in the centre of the camp, and since the people had to be protected from the awesome power of God’s holiness it was inevitable that access to the tabernacle had to be carefully guarded. To this end, the tabernacle was separated from the tribes encamped around it by a protective cordon of priests and Levites who were empowered to execute any unauthorized person who drew near (1.51). Numbers 17.12-13 confirms that unrestricted access to the ‘tabernacle of the Lord’ could prove fatal, for here such access provokes an outburst of divine anger which was liable to engulf the entire community. Even the priests were in danger of defiling the tabernacle if they entered in an



3.   Themes in Numbers 37

unclean state; hence, they were obliged to monitor their members carefully in order to ensure that the service of the tabernacle was confined to properly consecrated personnel (18.3). The Levites, for example, who occupied a subservient position to the priests, were forbidden to come too near the altar or the holy vessels lest they die. Indeed, not only would the Levites die for breaking the prohibition, but the priests would also die for allowing it to be broken (18.3-4). Thus, although the tabernacle was central to the life of the community, it also represented something that was holy, powerful and dangerous. Numbers 3.4 provides an illustration of the possibility of death associated with violating the holiness and purity of the tabernacle, for here a cryptic note suggests that two of the sons of Aaron had died because they had offered ‘illicit fire’ before the Lord, an incident which is recorded in more detail in Lev. 10.1-2 and recalled briefly in Lev. 16.1. Just as the sanctity of the tabernacle had to be protected so, also, the purity of the camp had to be maintained, and chaps. 5–6 contain legislation designed to protect the camp from various forms of defilement. To this end, certain unclean persons had to be excluded from within its boundaries. These included people with a skin disease, those with a bodily discharge, and all who had had contact with a corpse (5.1-4). It is clear from many passages in Numbers that contact with a dead body was regarded as a particularly serious form of contamination. The death of someone in the camp could pollute the entire community and ‘defile the tabernacle of the Lord’ (19.13, 20). An alternative Passover had to be prescribed for those who had been unable to celebrate the original Passover because they had become unclean through contact with a corpse, and special provisions had to be made to enable them to celebrate the Passover a month later (9.611). In chap. 31 the high priest, Eleazar, refrains from going out to battle against the Midianites lest he be contaminated by contact with a dead body on the battlefield. Of course, those engaged in war would inevitably come into contact with the dead, and special regulations had to be enacted concerning the purification of the warriors, their garments and their belongings (31.19-24). All soldiers who had been defiled by contact with the dead were instructed to remain outside the camp for seven days and perform the requisite ritual purification. Even the booty gained in battle had to be purified: metal objects were to be passed through fire and then purified by the ‘water for purification’, while objects that could not withstand fire were simply passed through water (31.23). Moreover, it is clear that death, especially violent death, was regarded as polluting the land (35.33), and only the execution of the murderer or, in the case of manslaughter, the death of the high priest, could rid the land of blood-guilt. Those who had become unclean through contact with the dead were required to rid themselves of all impurity by following certain prescribed procedures, and in this regard chap. 19 contains a detailed account of the

38

Numbers

process whereby the infected individual could be rendered clean. The ritual consisted of bringing an unblemished red heifer to the priest, and having the animal slaughtered in his presence outside the camp (vv. 1-3). After sprinkling some of its blood seven times towards the front of the tent of meeting (v. 4), the animal was completely burned (v. 5), and from its ashes a mixture was prepared which could be used for cleansing a person from any defilement occasioned by contact with the dead. Anyone who had become contaminated but who refused to be cleansed was duly punished by being excluded from the community of God’s people, for they had ‘defiled the tabernacle of the Lord’ (19.13). But while an ordinary lay person could be rendered clean from corpse contamination by washing in the special solution described in chap. 19, a more elaborate cleansing procedure was demanded should a Nazirite have touched a dead body. The Nazirite was a person who had been dedicated to God for a specific period and who had undertaken a vow to be ‘holy to the Lord’ (6.8). If the Nazirite had come into contact with a dead body, his holiness would be compromised and special measures had to be taken in order to restore his sanctity. It was in order to avoid such defilement occurring in the first place that Nazirites were prevented from approaching even their closest relatives (father, mother, brother or sister) who had died (6.7). If someone died suddenly near the Nazirite, so that contact with the dead was unavoidable, the Nazirite was expected to shave his head on the seventh day and go through an elaborate ceremony of re-consecration on the eighth day before starting his period of dedication all over again (6.9-12). One of the most significant aspects of the references to ritual defilement in Numbers was its perceived contagious quality. This is implied in the provision that certain categories of unclean persons had to be physically separated from everybody else by being excluded from the camp, for their very presence was regarded as endangering the purity of the entire community (5.1-4). The contagious nature of defilement is well illustrated in the chapter concerning the so–called ritual of the red heifer, referred to above, for it is clear here that defilement could be caused without necessarily coming into direct, physical contact with the dead. Indeed, even those dwelling in the same tent as the person who had died, as well as those who were merely visiting, were regarded as having been contaminated for a period of seven days (19.14). Furthermore, the person who had administered the cleansing was likewise to be regarded as unclean, albeit for a short period, for in the very act of sprinkling the ‘water for purification’ on the contaminated person he would have come into contact with a substance that was ‘holy’, and therefore taboo. Moreover, the defilement caused by the dead was considered to be so contagious that it was capable of affecting material objects as well as living beings, for every open vessel in the tent of the deceased person was deemed to be unclean (19.15). That



3.   Themes in Numbers 39

even inanimate objects were affected by being exposed to the miasma of impurity is further confirmed by the account of Korah’s rebellion in 16.3640, for the censers which they offered before Yahweh were considered to have absorbed something of the divine holiness, and in order to ensure that they were not put to profane use, Eleazar the priest was instructed to make of them a bronze covering for the altar. Even the coals burned in the censers had to be scattered far and wide in order to ensure that no ordinary fire could be kindled from them. Another significant aspect of the concept of holiness in Numbers is the idea that there existed, within the bounds of the sacred, relative degrees of holiness. This is seen most clearly in the geographical configuration of the camp (2.1-34). The tabernacle was located in the centre and, as the dwelling place of God, it was regarded as ‘most holy’. The Aaronite priests immediately surrounding the tabernacle were the next in order of holiness, and the 12 tribes, located on the outer perimeters, were the least holy part of the camp. A similar gradation in the level of holiness is echoed in the status and duties of the three Levitical families, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The Kohathites were to be in charge of the ‘most holy things’ (4.4), while the Gershonites and Merarites were responsible for transporting the progressively less holy parts of the tabernacle, the former being responsible for the curtains and hangings (4.24-26), while the latter were responsible for its structure and framework (4.31-33). But it is clear that even the Kohathites were not permitted to touch or even to look upon the holy objects (4.20), so these had to be wrapped up by the priests before the Kohathites could enter the tabernacle to carry the sacred vessels on the journey (4.5-15). The narrative concerning the rebellion of Korah and his followers, referred to above, suggests, however, that some were less than happy with this principle of varying degrees of holiness. They objected to the special status accorded to Aaron and his sons, and argued that they had no right to regard themselves as the sole depository of holiness; on the contrary, they believed that ‘all the congregation are holy’ by virtue of the sanctifying presence of God in their midst, and all should therefore be entitled to present sacrifice at the altar (16.3). Moses challenges them to undertake a specifically priestly task, namely, the offering of incense, and by the manner in which God would receive their offering it would be made abundantly clear who was holy and therefore entitled to draw near to him (16.5-7). A decision is given in favour of a specifically sacerdotal holiness; only those who had been detached from the sphere of the secular and who had been consecrated by special rites were to be permitted to approach God. The people must therefore recognize that the priests possessed a special degree of ritual holiness, which enabled them, on behalf of the community, to perform the various rituals that took place within the tabernacle.

40

Numbers

Rebellion One recurring theme in the book of Numbers, at least from chap. 11 onwards, is the constant rebellion of the people against God and against their leader, Moses, as they journey through the wilderness. In the first ten chapters, the community is depicted as loyal, obedient and faithful; having listened to the instructions given to them concerning the arrangement of the camp ‘the Israelites did just as the Lord had commanded Moses’ (2.34; cf. 1.54). In chap. 11, however, the people begin to embark on a downward spiral of revolt and disobedience, which leads eventually to the death in the wilderness of all (apart from Caleb and Joshua) who had participated in the exodus from Egypt. Even when God shows his compassion, his willingness to forgive, and his faithful commitment to his people, they continue to rebel against him and become increasingly recalcitrant and disobedient. In spite of having witnessed the momentous acts of God on their behalf— liberating them from slavery in Egypt, enabling them to cross the Reed Sea in safety, and granting them a covenant at Sinai—the people had shown a callous ingratitude towards God and an utter contempt for his plan to bring his people into the Promised Land. It is little wonder that the exodus generation was held up as an object lesson to future generations of Israelites who might be similarly tempted to rebel against God (cf. Ps. 78). In Numbers, those instigating the rebellion vary from one narrative to the next. Sometimes it is the people in general who begin to revolt (11.13), while at other times the rebellion is fomented by their leaders (16.140). Moreover, the rebellion itself is manifested in various ways: sometimes it is occasioned by nostalgia for Egypt and the memory of the delicacies which the people had enjoyed in captivity (11.4-6); at other times they rebel because they had to endure the hardships and privations of the desert march (20.2-6); on other occasions, it was fear of the future and what awaited them in the land of Canaan that was the cause of the people’s doubts and disquiet (14.1-4). Despite these variations, however, a general pattern may be discerned in the stories of rebellion in Numbers: the people complain, God’s anger is kindled against them, they appeal to Moses, who intercedes on their behalf and manages to assuage the divine wrath, and the punishment is consequently mitigated or postponed. The first rebellion against God is recorded in the brief story recounted in 11.1-3. The narrative begins rather abruptly by stating that ‘the people complained in the hearing of the Lord about their misfortunes’ (v. 1a) although, on this occasion, the precise reason for their grievance is not mentioned. Angered by their behaviour, God punishes them by sending a destructive fire which consumes the outskirts of the camp (v. 1b). In their distress, the people appeal to Moses, who duly intervenes on their behalf and, as a result of his intercession, the fire is abated and the danger averted (v. 2).



3.   Themes in Numbers 41

This incident is followed—with no obvious connection—by a further account of rebellion in 11.4-35 (although, intermingled with the rebellion motif in this section is an apparently unrelated account of the appointment of 70 elders to help Moses bear the burden of caring for his people; vv. 24-30). On this occasion, the rebellion evidently originated, not with the Israelites in general, but with the ‘rabble’ that was among them (v. 4), who stirred up the people to complain about the monotonous diet of manna which they were being given to eat in the wilderness (v. 6). They recalled, by contrast, the rich and varied fare which they had enjoyed in Egypt: ‘If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at’ (11.5-6). Moses asks God how he could possibly be expected to satisfy the people’s craving for meat (v. 13), and God responds by granting the people’s request, although it is suggested, rather ominously, that this would be something of a mixed blessing, for meat would be provided for them in such abundance that it would make them feel nauseated (vv. 18-20). Yahweh causes huge quantities of quails to fall beside the camp (v. 31), and the people spend two whole days and the intervening night gathering the birds and begin to eat them. But while they were still eating, and before the stock of quails was exhausted, the people are smitten by a plague (v. 33), and this was deemed condign punishment for their inordinate craving. The place where the incident occurred was called, appropriately enough, Kibroth-hattaavah, which means ‘graves of craving’. The story provided a potent reminder of the dire consequences that inevitably resulted from the blatant ingratitude of the people towards the sustenance that God had generously provided for them. The first serious incident of rebellion in Numbers, however, occurs in chaps. 13–14. Here, just two months after setting out from Sinai, the Israelites are already encamped on the verge of the Promised Land (12.16), and have every opportunity to conquer it. Spies are sent out to reconnoitre the land over a period of 40 days, but the report which they bring back to the people has a devastating effect on their morale, and serves to harbour serious doubts as to whether the people had either the strength or the ability to conquer Canaan. The native inhabitants, they are told, were strong and their cities fortified (13.28), and such negativity on the part of the majority of spies inevitably led to disillusion and despair. Although Caleb, one of the spies, tried to encourage the people to occupy the land ‘for we are well able to overcome it’ (13.30), the other spies counter by saying that the native inhabitants ‘are stronger than we’ (13.31) and, in hyperbolic language, they describe them as giants, besides whom they had appeared merely as ‘grasshoppers’ (13.33). The people openly rebel against their leaders, Moses and Aaron, and express a wish that they had died in Egypt or in the wilderness

42

Numbers

(14.2). The hardships and privations of the wilderness journey, combined with the anticipated difficulty of conquering Canaan, have proved too much for them, and they resolve to choose another leader who would take them back to Egypt (14.4). Caleb, now supported by Joshua (another of the spies) warns the people not to rebel, for it was God’s will to ‘bring us into this land and give it to us’ (14.8). His words, however, go unheeded by the people, who determine to stone both Joshua and Caleb, and were only prevented from doing so by the appearance of the ‘glory of the Lord’ at the tent of meeting (14.10). God condemns the people for their lack of trust in him despite the fact that they had witnessed ample demonstrations of God’s power in the wonders of the exodus and the journey through the wilderness: ‘How long will this people despise me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?’ (14.11). Yahweh vows to strike the people with pestilence (14.12), and only the skilful intercession of Moses on their behalf saves them from utter destruction (14.1319). Moved by Moses’ words, God relents and announces that the people as a whole would not be wiped out, but nor would the transgressors be permitted to enter the Promised Land. Because of their rebellion and their distrust in his ability to bring them into the land of Canaan, they would be forced to spend 40 years wandering in the wilderness, a year for each day the spies had spent reconnoitring the land (14.34). As if to underline the certainty of the punishment, God swears an oath by his own person (14.21, 28)—a form of divine oath that occurs only here in the Pentateuch—to the effect that none of those who left Egypt (apart from Caleb and Joshua; 14.38) would be allowed to enter Canaan; the rest of the people were condemned to die in the wilderness, since the relationship he had established with them had been irretrievably broken. The people were now forced to take a different route ‘by the way to the Red Sea’ (14.25), and the next generation would have to enter Canaan from the east of the river Jordan. Chapter 14 ends with the people trying to take the land, but the venture is doomed, not because the enemy was militarily stronger, but because the ark of the covenant—the very symbol of God’s presence—was not with them (14.44-45). The narrative contained in chaps. 13–14 is generally regarded as a pivotal account in the book of Numbers, for it explains why the Israelites were compelled to spend 40 years in the wilderness instead of entering the Promised Land immediately after leaving the wilderness of Sinai. Unlike the previous instances of rebellion, which involved individuals (Miriam and Aaron) or a group of the people (the ‘rabble’), on this occasion all the people (apart from Joshua and Caleb) are implicated (14.1-2). The severity of the punishment suffered by the people matched the magnitude and gravity of their rebellion. Indeed, there is a certain irony in the chapter, for the people were getting precisely what they had asked for! They received not only the punishment that they deserved but the very fate which they had wished upon



3.   Themes in Numbers 43

themselves! They had expressed a wish to die in the wilderness (14.2), so their wish would be granted (14.29). The people had expressed a desire to return to Egypt (14.4), and God obliges them by sending them back to the wilderness and towards the Reed Sea, in what was effectively a reversal of the exodus journey (14.25). On the other hand, the children whom the rebels thought would perish in the land of Canaan (14.3), would eventually take possession of it (14.31). There is also an ironical link between the 40 days of preparation for entry into the land that would not take place (13.25) and the 40 years of preparation for an entry that would take place—albeit for the new generation (14.34). Chapter 16 appears to contain two separate accounts of rebellion by two different groups—Korah and his followers, on the one hand, and Dathan and Abiram, on the other. Korah and 250 laymen opposed the position of Moses and Aaron on the ground that every Israelite was holy and was therefore equally entitled to approach God (v. 3). Dathan and Abiram instigate a civil rebellion against the leadership of Moses, which they demonstrated by ignoring his command for them to appear before him (v. 12). Moses, they claimed, was little more than a deceiver, beguiling the people with false promises and leading them astray (v. 14). In both cases, the rebellions were duly punished. Korah and his company were invited to present incense before Yahweh (vv. 6, 17), and the dire consequences which followed (vv. 31-35) proved beyond any doubt that their overweening ambition was misplaced. In the case of Dathan and Abiram, Moses arranges a test that would decide the question of his authority once and for all. If nothing unusual were to happen, and the rebels were to die a natural death, then it would be shown that they had been correct, and that Moses’ leadership was, indeed, self-assumed; if, on the other hand, Yahweh was to intervene in a miraculous way and destroy the rebels, then it would be proved that Moses’ authority was by divine appointment (vv. 28-30). In the event, the ‘ground under them was split apart’, and the rebels were swallowed up in the earth (vv. 32-33). Numbers 20.1-13 records a further incident of rebellion on the part of the people. This time, the people complain about the lack of water (v. 2) and reproach Moses for having brought them into the wilderness (v. 4). Such was the hardship which they had had to endure that they wished that they had suffered a similar fate to that of their fellow-Israelites who had ‘died before the Lord’ (v. 3), a clear reference to the destiny which befell some of the people at the time of Korah’s revolt (16.35, 49). On this occasion, however, the complaint of the people appears to have been regarded as perfectly legitimate, and Moses is commanded to remedy the deficiency by striking a rock, an action which caused water to spring forth (vv. 8-11). This section is of particular interest in that it indicates that the judgment previously passed on the rebels in the wilderness, excluding them from the Promised

44

Numbers

Land, now evidently extends to Moses and Aaron (v. 12). The nature of the transgression which they had committed is by no means clear in the chapter, but a clue may lie in the rhetorical question which Moses addressed to the assembly (‘Can we bring water for you out of the rock?’; v. 10), which perhaps indicates an element of doubt that Yahweh’s command could be implemented. Numbers 21.4-9 records one final rebellion on the part of the people, and once again their complaint centred on the frugal life which they were forced to endure in the barren wilderness (cf. 20.3-5). The people were dissatisfied on account of the lack of water in the wilderness and the ‘miserable food’ which they were being given to eat (v. 5). As a punishment for their ingratitude, Yahweh sends among them a plague of serpents and, infected by their poisonous bites, many of the people perish (v. 6). As on previous occasions, the people implore Moses to intercede on their behalf, and he duly complies with their request (v. 7). The intercession proves successful, for Yahweh instructs him to make a model of a serpent and set it up on a pole, so that those who gazed upon it could be healed of their affliction (v. 8). The origin of the ‘rebellion’ motif How did the conviction arise that the Israelites who had experienced the exodus from Egypt were a people who had repeatedly rebelled against God? What, in other words, was the origin of the narrative motif of the people’s discontent and dissention? It should be emphasized at the outset that there is no unified or consistent view of the desert period in the OT, for the negative appraisal of the Israelites during the wilderness wandering is not the only tradition that has been preserved. Some of Israel’s prophets, for example, came to regard the wilderness period in a positive light. Hosea viewed it as Israel’s ‘honeymoon’ period, before the corruption of idolatry set in as a result of the people’s later contact with the indigenous population of the land (Hos. 2.14-15). Jeremiah, similarly, recalled the idyllic origins of Israel, the young bride, who faithfully followed Yahweh in the barren wilderness and dedicated herself completely to God (Jer. 2.2). Other prophets, however, regarded the wilderness period in a much more negative way, seeing it as proof of Israel’s early disobedience and repeated rebellion against God (cf. Ezek. 20.10-26). Since it is the negative aspects of Israel’s behaviour that come to the fore in Numbers, it will be necessary to consider how and why successive generations of Israelites came to remember their forbears who followed Moses out of Egypt as a people who repeatedly exhibited disloyalty towards their God. Some scholars have suggested that such rebellious behaviour reflected memories of actual historical events, for the miserable conditions of life in the wilderness with its constant privations and lack of access to natural



3.   Themes in Numbers 45

resources, such as food and water, would inevitably have caused an element of friction and tension, which would have manifested itself in complaints against their leaders and against their God. Such an explanation, however, is rejected by most biblical scholars, for it presupposes that the account of the wilderness journey reflects actual historical events, whereas, as we shall see (Chapter 5), serious doubts have been raised regarding the reliability of the accounts of this early period in Israel’s history. Others claim that some of the rebellion stories (such as the challenge by Miriam and Aaron to Moses’ authority in chap. 12, or the rebellions of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in chap. 16) reflect actual power-struggles during the later period of Israel’s history, and represent long-standing rivalries which were projected back into the wilderness period. This latter suggestion must remain a possibility, although the nature and cause of these power-struggles is not always entirely clear. A more specific point of origin for the ‘rebellion’ motif in the OT has been proposed by Martin Noth (pp. 122–30), who argues that this motif can be traced back to the story of the miraculous feeding with quails recounted in chap. 11. Noth believes that this was originally a positive story about God’s provision of food in the wilderness for a hungry people. However, the later aetiological association of this episode with the place name Kibrothhattaavah, the ‘graves of craving’ (11.34), provided the story with a different slant, suggesting that the people ‘craved’ again and again for something more and something better, and consequently the story, in its present form, became completely focused on the discontent of the people, their rebellion and subsequent punishment. The providing of quails in response to the people’s complaints was therefore not the blessing which it might have been, but came to be regarded as a punishment for the people’s dissatisfaction and lack of faith, as God delivered an overabundance of quails which became loathsome for the people. This, according to Noth, was the origin of the ‘rebellion’ stories encountered in Exodus and Numbers, for it was from here that the notion of the people’s complaining or ‘murmuring’ spread to other narratives recounting the wilderness journey. Noth’s theory, however, has been criticized, partly because it is overly dominated by his hypothesis regarding the development of the Pentateuch, in which various themes acted as free-floating ‘magnets’, attracting similar themes or traditions. Some have also questioned whether there is a primary connection between the account of the rebellion and the aetiology in chap. 11, in which case it must be regarded as improbable that this naming aetiology was the origin of the entire cycle of rebellion stories in the Pentateuch. Moreover, the fact that other scholars have argued that it is the story of Dathan and Abiram in chap. 16 which was the point of departure for the spread of the rebellion motif merely underlines the speculative nature of such proposals.

46

Numbers

A different suggestion for the origin of the rebellion stories has been suggested by George W. Coats, who has carried out a detailed form-critical and tradition-historical analysis of the rebellion stories encountered in the Pentateuch. He argues that the motif originated within the Jerusalem cult during the early period of the divided monarchy, and that it was intended as a Judean polemic against the claims of the northern kingdom. This polemic was designed as a response to Jeroboam’s decision to establish his cult in Dan and Bethel in the north, an action which implied that it was northern Israel that was to be the bearer of the true Yahwistic covenant, and that only in the northern cult could Yahweh properly be worshipped. The rebellion stories were intended to undermine such a notion by suggesting that the northern rights to election had been forfeited when the fathers in the wilderness had rebelled against God. Crucial for Coats’s argument is his interpretation of the spy story in chaps. 13–14. Coats claims that in the earliest version of the story (from the J source), Yahweh appears emphatically to repudiate Israel, just as the people had repudiated him, and this gives the account a distinct anti-Israelite bias. What provides the story in J’s version with a pro-Judean flavour is that only Caleb, the faithful spy from the tribe of Judah, is permitted to enter the land, and only his descendants would eventually possess it (14.24). Coats finds further support for his thesis in Psalm 78, which he believes exhibits strong similarities to the rebellion tradition in the J source. The psalm recalls how the people rebelled against God in the wilderness, and how they ‘tested God again and again, and provoked the Holy One of Israel’ (v. 41). As a punishment, God rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves’ (vv. 67-68).

Coats believes that it is little wonder that it is the J source, usually agreed to be of southern provenance, that mainly preserves the rebellion stories, for if they were constructed as a Jerusalem polemic against the north, their appeal was obvious to southerners who could use them against their northern rivals; on the other hand, it is easy to understand the silence of the prophets from the north (such as Hosea) concerning the tradition of Israel’s apostasy in the wilderness, for if they were aware of the polemical use that was being made of such stories, they would naturally have ignored such traditions, favouring, instead, a different and more positive portrayal of the wilderness wandering. Coats’s theory, however, encounters numerous problems. In the first place, the connection between Caleb and Judah does not appear in the J version of the spy story; it is the Priestly source that makes this association explicit by describing Caleb as the leader of the Judahites (13.6). Coats is



3.   Themes in Numbers 47

thus compelled to point to other OT texts which suggest that the Calebites were assimilated into the tribe of Judah (e.g. Josh. 14.6), and that this assimilation is presupposed in J’s version of the spy story. Coats’s theory would have been more plausible had the connection been made explicit in J’s version of the story. Moreover, Coats argues that Caleb and his descendants were to occupy the entire territory of Israel, but according to 14.24 (cf. 13.22) they were to be confined to the Hebron area, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that they were allowed to inherit the entire land. Finally, even if the spy story was used as covert propaganda by Judah against northern Israel at some point in its history, it does not necessarily follow that the story was created for that purpose (de Vries). In other words, Coats has signally failed to distinguish between the origin of the rebellion tradition and its later possible polemical application. Although the origin of the rebellion motif has been widely discussed by biblical scholars, no consensus has as yet emerged. Perhaps, indeed, it is no longer possible to determine the historical point of departure for the accounts of Israel’s rebellion against God in the wilderness, and it may be more productive to contemplate the homiletic purpose which these stories served at the time when the traditions were collated and edited. It may well be that these stories were used to explain the tragedy of the exile. This event had precipitated a profound theological conundrum: how could God possibly have allowed such a catastrophe to happen to his people? The prophets of the exile suggest that it was the result of the people’s sins and their failure to respond in a worthy fashion to God’s gracious saving acts in history; what the rebellion stories demonstrate is that such sins were innate in the people and went right back to the wilderness period. In showing such acts of disloyalty to God, the generation of the exile had, indeed, acted ‘true to form’, or, as Ezekiel put it, ‘you defile yourselves after the manner of your ancestors’ (Ezek. 20.30). But, of course, there was another aspect to the rebellion stories: despite Israel’s lack of faith in God’s promises, he had shown mercy and compassion in bringing the people to the Promised Land, and this was intended to provide hope and encouragement for the people in exile. Further Reading On the land, see: Brueggemann, W., The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith (OBT; London: SPCK, 1978). Clines, D.J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTS, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Davies, E.W., ‘Land: Its Rights and Privileges’, in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R.E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 349–69.

48

Numbers

Davis, E.F., Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Frankel, D., The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Ruiten, J. van, and J.C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in the Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort (SVT, 124; Leiden: Brill, 2009). Seebass, H., ‘“Holy” Land in the Old Testament: Numbers and Joshua’, VT 56 (2006), pp. 92–104.

On purity and holiness, see: Douglas, M., In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTS, 158; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). —Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991). Gammie, J.G., Holiness in Israel (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989). Jenson, P.P., Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTS, 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Poorthuis, M.J.H.M., and J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus (Jewish and Christian Perspectives, 2; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Schwartz, B.J., D.P.Wright, J.Stackert and N.S. Meshel (eds.), Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (LHBOTS, 474; London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008). Sklar, J., Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (HBM, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005).

On rebellion, see: Coats, G.W., Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (Nashville, NY: Abingdon Press, 1968). Frankel, D., The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore (SVT, 89; Leiden: Brill, 2002). Kupfer, C., Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste. Eine leserorientiere Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13 (OTS, 61; Leiden/ Boston, MA: Brill, 2012). Noth, M., A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B.W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972). Vries, S.J. de, ‘The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition’, JBL 87 (1968), pp. 51–58.

4

Problematic Passages The census (chaps. 1 and 26) The book of Numbers opens with Moses and Aaron being instructed by God to take a census of all the men, aged 20 or over, who were ‘able to go to war’ (1.3). The number of Israelites is then given, tribe by tribe, and the grand total of all the warriors amounts to 603,550 (1.46). A second census of the people, taken nearly 40 years later in the plains of Moab, is recorded in chap. 26, and a similar total is calculated in this census (601,730; cf. 26.51). Since these totals did not include the women or children (or, indeed, the Levites, who were numbered separately; cf. 1.49; 3.14-39; 4.21-49), it is estimated that the total population of Israelites wandering through the wilderness would have been over two million. Clearly, such numbers cannot be regarded as an accurate representation of the size of Israel’s population during the time of Israel’s sojourn through the wilderness of Sinai, for it is difficult to comprehend how such a vast multitude could have found sustenance in the desert for such a long period, nor is it easy to imagine how they could have encamped around the tabernacle in the neat formation implied in chap. 2. Moreover, quite apart from the sheer logistical problem, the numbers given in the two census counts are difficult to reconcile with statements found elsewhere in the OT. For example, Exod. 23.29-30 and Deut. 7.7, 22 imply that the Israelites who fled from Egypt were too few in number to occupy the land of Canaan, and it is by no means clear how one small clan of 70 people (cf. Gen. 46.27; Exod. 1.5) could have increased so exponentially in the course of a few hundred years. Furthermore, Josh. 4.12-13 records that the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half Manasseh totalled about 40,000, whereas these three tribes totalled 124,350 according to the first census, and 110,580 according to the second census. A further anomaly emerges from the fact that, according to the census lists in chaps. 1 and 26, the tribe of Dan was one of the largest, yet in Judg. 18.11 we are informed that this tribe could muster only 600 armed men. The reference to 22,273 first-born males among the Israelites who were a month old and upward (3.40-43) poses a further difficulty, for this suggests that the ratio of adult

50

Numbers

males to first born males was approximately 27:1; this would mean that an average family would have consisted of 27 sons, and—assuming a similar number of daughters—the average mother would have given birth to over 50 children! Not surprisingly, various attempts have been made by scholars to explain how such large numbers came to be included in the two census counts. One suggestion is that the numbers should be interpreted on the basis of the principle of gematria, a system by which each letter of the Hebrew alphabet was given a particular numerical value. The first ten letters of the alphabet represented the numbers 1-10, the next ten letters represented the number of tens, and the remaining letters represented the number of hundreds. Using this formula, it is possible to assign a numerical value to particular words and phrases. On the basis of this system, it was observed that the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew phrase ‘people of Israel’ (benê-yiśrā’ēl; 1.45), when added together (2+50+10+10+300+200+1+30) yielded the sum of 603, which represented the total, in thousands, of those counted in the first census (603,550; cf. 1.46). With regard to the remaining 550, the letters in the phrase ‘every male, all who were able to go forth to war’ (kol-zāḵār leḵol-yōșē’ șāḇā’; 1.2, 45) yielded a total of 551, which could easily be reduced to 550 if Moses were discounted. However, while such an explanation is undoubtedly ingenious, it is not without its difficulties. The fact is that no such Hebrew phrase has been adduced to explain the totals given for each tribe in either census, and one suspects that practically any number could be conjured up, provided one chooses the correct phrase. Besides, it is by no means certain that the system known as gematria would have been known to the author of chaps. 1 and 26, for it is doubtful if this method of calculation was known in Israel prior to the Hellenistic period, and there is no clear example of the system at work elsewhere in the OT. Another suggestion is that the numbers provided are, indeed, accurate, but represent the population of a later age, such as the period of king David’s reign (cf. 2 Sam. 24.1-9). This theory is based on the supposition that the data contained in these lists must have had a basis of some kind, and since no census could well have been made before the reign of David, and there is no record of any having been made after, it seems reasonable to infer that the numbers contained in chaps. 1 and 26 must originally have related to the census taken at the beginning of the period of the monarchy. This theory, however, also encounters numerous difficulties. In the first place, it is by no means clear how the numbers in chaps. 1 and 26 became dislocated from their original context and ascribed to the census taken by David. Moreover, both census lists presuppose that Simeon was an independent tribe, whereas by the time of the monarchy this tribe was in the process of being merged with the tribe of Judah. Finally, the thesis is usually rejected on the ground that the figures given would be too large even for the period of the united



4.   Problematic Passages 51

monarchy. As we have seen, the numbers given in the two census lists (i.e. approximately 600,000 men over 20 years old) implies a total population of over two million. While it is true that any attempt to estimate the population of Israel in the pre-exilic period is fraught with problems, owing to the lack of accurate statistics available, scholars deem it most unlikely that the inhabitants of Israel during the period of the united monarchy would have numbered far in excess of a million. A third suggestion is that the Hebrew word ’elep  in the two census lists has been misunderstood by a scribe to mean ‘thousand’ whereas, in fact, it was intended as a military term denoting a fighting unit or contingent of troops under its own leader. Thus, in their original form, the two census lists would have given the number of ‘contingents’ or ‘troops’, followed by the number of individuals in each troop who were capable of bearing arms. On this view, the first census would have indicated that the tribe of Reuben, for example, consisted of 46 troops, comprising a total of 500 fighting men, and there would therefore have been an average of 10 or 11 men in each troop (1.21). The 12 tribes together would have provided 598 troops consisting of a total of 5,550 men (according to the first census) or 596 troops consisting of a total of 5,730 men (according to the second census); thus, each troop would have comprised, on average, 9 or 10 men. Later scribes, unfamiliar with the terminology of ancient Israel’s military organization, misunderstood the term ’elep  to mean ‘thousand’, and thus calibrated the incredible totals encountered in 1.46 and 26.51. This theory, originally advocated by G.E. Mendenhall, has been welcomed by several scholars as providing a satisfactory solution to the intolerably high numbers contained in chaps. 1 and 26, and variations on his proposal have emerged in recent scholarly literature (cf. Humphreys, McEntire, Rendsburg). The advantage of this theory is that it reduces the totals in both census counts to far more manageable proportions, and the overall size of the army would have been comparable to the size of armies elsewhere in the ancient Near East. However, this theory, while superficially attractive, encounters some substantial difficulties. In the first place, while the term ’elep  can certainly designate a ‘clan’ or ‘sub-division of a tribe’, it is by no means clear that the term was used specifically to designate a ‘contingent’ or ‘fighting troop’ levied from a particular tribe. The fact that the word ’elep  sometimes appears in a military context does not in itself prove that it was a technical military term. Furthermore, this theory presupposes that the size of the individual troops was extremely small, and none can be said to have represented a particularly formidable contingent. For example, the tribe of Simeon, according to the first census, would have comprised just five men per troop (1.23), and even the largest troop in the first census (Gad) would have consisted of only 14 men. The overwhelming evidence of the OT is that the military units were usually divided

52

Numbers

into much larger groups, consisting of fifties, hundreds, and thousands (cf. 1 Sam. 8.12; 22.7). The main problem with this theory, however, is that the large numbers are equally problematic in the census of the Levites recorded in 3.21-39 and 26.57-62, but ’elep  can hardly be understood in the sense of ‘troop’ or ‘fighting unit’ here, since the Levites were expressly exempt from military service (cf. 1.47-54). A very different approach to the numbers connects them to the astral world and, in particular, to figures known to Babylonian astronomers about the periods of the planetary movements (Barnouin). According to this theory, the census figures, when divided by 100, can be related to various planetary periods found in Babylonian texts. For example, the number in the tribe of Benjamin is given in the first census as 35,400 (1.37), that is, 100 × 354 days (a short lunar year). Other cases involve adding together, or subtracting, various numbers in the census list. For example, the number given for Ephraim in the first census list (40,500 ÷ 100 = 405) added to the number given to this tribe in the second census (32,500 ÷ 100 = 325) gives a total of 730, which is exactly twice the length of the solar year (365 days). By making the tribal figures correspond to the celestial movements of the planets, Israel could be represented as God’s terrestrial army, just as the astral bodies were regarded as his celestial host (cf. Gen. 2.1; Deut. 17.3). The problem with this theory, however, is that the supposed calendrical association with the other census figures is far more complex and obscure than is the case with the two examples cited here, and the very complexity of the mathematical computations must raise serious doubts as to the plausibility of this theory. Moreover, it is by no means clear that the Priestly writer would have been familiar with the complex structure of the Babylonian planetary theory, or that he would have had the requisite knowledge and background to have made the necessary arithmetical calculations; and it is unlikely that his contemporaries would have been sufficiently au fait with the Babylonian astronomical periods to have understood the symbolism which the numbers were intended to convey. It is clear that none of the above attempts to explain the high numbers in the census returns in chaps. 1 and 26 can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. It seems far more probable that the numbers given for the individual tribes, and the grand totals in 1.46 and 26.51 were an idealized construction by the Priestly writer designed to show that God’s promise to the patriarchs of numerous progeny (Gen. 12.1-3) was already being realized even during the wilderness wandering. They also served to demonstrate the miraculous power of Yahweh who was able to sustain such a large throng during the trials and tribulations of the desert sojourn. That the author, in recording these numbers, paid scant attention to historical reality is evident from the fact that, in chap. 1 Ephraim and Manasseh, the strongest tribes in the northern kingdom, are among the smallest numerically, while the small tribe of



4.   Problematic Passages 53

Simeon (which was soon absorbed into Judah) is represented as the third largest of all the Israelite tribes. Some have objected to the view that the figures are purely fictitious on the ground that the numbers calibrated for each tribe give a very realistic impression; however, it is probable that the precision of some of the figures was a device deployed by the Priestly writer to give the census an air of verisimilitude. In fact, a close examination of the numbers given for the various tribes reveals them to be contrived and carefully manipulated. For example, the approximate total given for the 12 tribes in both census returns is 600,000, which would mean that each tribe, on average, contributed 50,000 fighting men. It is thus striking that, in both census counts, six tribes have a number above and six tribes have a number below 50,000. The artificiality of this computation suggests that the Priestly writer was not intent upon preserving what he considered to be authentic information from a bygone age; rather, the numbers were intended to be imbued with a profound theological significance, for they served to indicate that a nation, which seemed small and insignificant at the beginning of its existence, could increase out of all proportion as a result of Yahweh’s blessing and in fulfilment of his promise to the patriarchs. The Balaam tradition (chaps. 22–24) The story of Balaam is undoubtedly one of the most intriguing in the OT. The representation of a heathen seer as an inspired prophet of Yahweh, the literary skill with which the entire episode has been composed, and the religious fervour and optimistic outlook enshrined in the oracles, have combined to invest chaps. 22–24 of the book of Numbers with an unusual interest. This striking narrative, however, has presented commentators with a number of problematic issues. In the first place, these chapters appear to be separate in character and origin from the rest of the book, and seem to be quite unrelated to the surrounding context, the only connection being that the Israelites are encamped on the borders of Moab (22.1), as they are in the chapters immediately preceding and following the Balaam story. Moreover, there is a distinct change of perspective in these chapters, for here the Israelites are viewed from the perspective of the Moabites, who regard them as a powerful threat, whereas, in the rest of Numbers, events are depicted from Israel’s point of view. But how these chapters came to be composed and why they were inserted at this point in Numbers is by no means clear. The fact that the story as it stands contains some repetitions, tensions and contradictions has led many commentators to suppose that it has been composed by combining two originally distinct sources, and it was generally assumed that—apart from the presence of the Priestly editor in 22.1—the sources in question were J and E. Others, however, have argued that the

54

Numbers

Balaam episode should be regarded as a homogenous composition, and have pointed out that any attempt to divide these chapters along traditional source-critical lines encounters formidable difficulties. An added complication is that the literary relation of the narrative sections of the Balaam story to the four oracles uttered by the seer is by no means clear, for while some argue that the poetry and prose sections of chaps. 22–24 are thoroughly integrated, others maintain that the narrative and oracle sections are to be regarded as independent compositions. Furthermore, those who consider the poetry and prose sections as independent of one another cannot agree as to whether the narrative is later and takes its cue from the poems, or whether the poems are later and were compiled on the basis of an already existing narrative. Moreover, the episode concerning Balaam and his ass (22.22-35), characterized by Milgrom as a ‘folk theme with a life of its own’ (p. 469), poses a further difficulty. That this section was originally a separate composition which was only secondarily inserted into the main Balaam story is suggested by the fact that it is entirely devoid of any reference to Balak or the Moabites, and the character of Balaam appears to be portrayed here in a very different light. Finally, scholars have observed significant parallels and similarities between the biblical story of Balaam and a text from Deir ‘Allā in the Jordan Valley, discovered in 1967, entitled ‘The Document of Balaam, the son of Beor’, a discovery which might suggest that the biblical authors were familiar with some form of the Transjordanian Balaam tradition. Before discussing some of these problematic issues, however, it may be helpful to provide a brief synopsis of the story as narrated in chaps. 22–24. The story of Balaam Numbers 22–24 comprise an extended narrative within the book which recounts an attempt made by Balak, the king of Moab, to hire a renowned seer by the name of Balaam, son of Beor, to utter a curse upon the Israelites in order to enhance his own chances of defeating them in battle. Having witnessed what the Israelites had done to the Amorites (22.2), and aware that the enemy was now encamped on the very border of his land (22.5), Balak had every reason to fear that he may be unable to resist an Israelite attack. He therefore sent messengers with the ‘fees for divination’ (22.7) to Balaam with a request for him to pronounce a curse upon the enemy: ‘Come now, curse this people for me, since they are stronger than I; perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them from the land’ (22.6). Balaam initially neither accepts nor rejects the request but merely invites the messengers to stay overnight while he consulted God in order to ascertain the divine will. God instructs him not to curse Israel ‘for they are blessed’ (22.12). The next day Balaam reports back to the messengers and they, in turn, report back to the king of Moab.



4.   Problematic Passages 55

Balak, unwilling to be discouraged by the negative outcome of the first attempt, decides to send a further delegation to Balaam—one which was more numerous and distinguished than before—in an attempt to persuade the seer to change his mind. Again, however, Balaam refuses and says that even were Balak to give him his palace full of silver and gold he could not accede to the king’s request unless permitted to do so by God. Nevertheless, Balaam decides to await further instructions from God, and this time he is permitted to accompany the messengers, but is warned to do only what God had instructed him. Balaam then saddles his ass and sets out to meet Balak. On the way, however, an angel of the Lord with a drawn sword appears and stands in the way of Balaam and his ass, although only the animal was able to see the angel standing before them. The ass, in an attempt to avoid the angel, swerves off the road and turns into a field, much to Balaam’s annoyance, and the seer beats the animal in order to make it turn back onto the road. The ass made two further attempts to avoid the angel standing in its way, and on each occasion the animal is struck by an angry Balaam. Only then are Balaam’s eyes opened to see the angel with a drawn sword in his hand. A repentant Balaam offers to return home, but the angel tells him to continue on his journey. Balaam eventually arrives in Moab, only to receive a hostile reception from Balak, who chides him for his refusal to curse the Israelites. However, undeterred by Balaam’s previous reluctance, Balak accompanies the seer to three different locations from where Balaam could see the people of Israel, and on each occasion an elaborate sacrifice is prepared before Balaam consults God. But the three oracles which Balaam subsequently utters from each location merely confirm that God had singled out Israel for blessing and victory. Not surprisingly, Balak is infuriated with Balaam, and he sends the seer home without any reward. Before returning, however, Balaam utters a fourth unsolicited oracle (24.15-19) predicting the ultimate destruction of Moab (and Edom) by the Israelites. The story ends with Balak and Balaam going their separate ways (24.25). The composition of the Balaam story Earlier commentators were generally agreed that the Balaam story should be viewed as a composite narrative and, typically, 22.2-21, 36-41; 23.1-30 were assigned, for the most part, to the E source, while 22.22-35; 24.1-19 were regarded as mostly emanating from J. The Priestly source was evident only in 22.1 and the three brief oracles in 24.20-24 were considered to have been appended to the Balaam narrative at a later stage. Evidence of the composite nature of the story was seen in the presence of variants, doublets and inconsistencies within the narrative. For example, the Moabites are described as being in ‘great dread’ in 22.3a, and are said to have been ‘overcome with fear’ in 22.3b; Balaam’s messengers are identified as the ‘elders

56

Numbers

of Moab’ in 22.7, but are elsewhere designated as ‘officials’ or simply as the ‘men’ (22.8, 15, 20, 21). The most blatant example of inconsistency within the story, however, occurs in the account of Balaam and his ass in 22.22-35, for in v. 22 Balaam is confronted by an angry God because he had agreed to accompany the messengers of Balak, but this stands in sharp contradiction to the immediately preceding section, where Balaam is expressly permitted to join the expedition to the king of Moab (v. 20). Moreover, in v. 22 Balaam is accompanied not by the elders or officials of Moab but by two servants, and the granting of permission for him to continue on his journey in v. 35 seems redundant in the light of v. 20. This has led most commentators to assume that the episode concerning Balaam’s ass in 22.22-35 has been inserted secondarily into the main narrative. Many commentators have argued that the four oracles uttered by Balaam in 23.7-10, 18-24; 24.3-9, 15-19 have also been inserted into the main narrative at a later stage. The two oracles spoken by Balaam in chap. 24 appear to bear no relation at all with the Balaam narrative in its present form, for in the introduction to both oracles Balaam is spoken of as if nothing were known about him, and he is even spoken of in the third person, although according to the surrounding narrative he himself is the speaker! Despite these difficulties, several recent scholars have argued that chaps. 22–24 should be viewed as a coherent, self-contained unit which was originally composed as a continuous whole. They argue that earlier attempts to divide these chapters between the J and E sources have proved unsuccessful. It was almost impossible, for example, to distinguish between these sources on the basis of their use of the divine names, Yahweh and Elohim, for their distribution in these chapters did not follow the expected pattern encountered elsewhere in Numbers. Indeed, even some of the most ardent source-critics were forced to concede that chap. 22 (apart from vv. 22-35) could not be divided between J and E with any certainty, for their component parts could no longer be distinguished. Moreover, the very fact that some scholars were able to attribute the entire Balaam narrative to J, who combined two separate sources, while others were equally convinced that the entire tradition developed in E circles, merely underlined the unsatisfactory nature of the traditional source analysis of this material. Furthermore, it was argued that the presence of doublets and repetitions within the narrative should not be regarded as evidence of its composite nature; rather, it was a literary device deliberately deployed by the biblical author or editor to achieve a particular effect. For example, the fact that the Moabites are described as showing ‘great dread’ in 22.3a and having been ‘overcome with fear’ in 22.3b was simply the narrator’s way of emphasizing the great alarm and anxiety that they had experienced on account of the Israelite threat.



4.   Problematic Passages 57

Indeed, it was argued that only by reading the Balaam episode as a single, coherent account could we properly appreciate the literary artistry of the composition as a whole. Viewed in this way, the reader was able to discern a development in the four oracles uttered by Balaam which move gradually to a climax, as Balak’s doom gradually draws near. In the first oracle, the seer speaks of the security of Israel from its foes; in the second, the Israelites are blessed by the presence of God in their midst; the third refers to the destruction of all who oppose them, while the fourth mentions Moab by name and predicts its destruction by the Israelites. There is also a development in Balak’s attitude towards the oracles that were uttered, ranging from surprise (23.11), to irritation (23.25), to outright anger (24.10). Moreover, Robert Alter has argued that if the Balaam story is viewed as a single, coherent narrative it may be seen as a carefully crafted story with recurring cycles of three scenes or episodes built into the narrative structure. In the episode concerning the ass, for example, there are three occurrences of the same incident, the animal first turning into a field, then squeezing against a wall, and then simply lying down. The ass is beaten three times by Balaam, as the seer takes his frustration out upon the animal. In the subsequent scene, Balaam is brought to three different locations in order to utter a curse upon the Israelites, and the same preparations (the building of seven altars to sacrifice seven oxen and sheep) are repeated three times (23.1-4, 14-15, 27-30). It is argued that only when the Balaam story is viewed in its entirety can the symmetry between the different parts of the narrative be properly appreciated. But while there is much to be said for reading the narrative in its present form, it seems doubtful whether it was originally composed as a coherent whole. While the attempts to divide the narrative between the J and E sources have proved unsuccessful, it does seem probable that two parallel accounts of the Balaam story existed and that they were combined by a redactor at a later stage in an attempt to form a single narrative. This task was effected with considerable skill, but it was inevitable that, in the process, certain inconsistencies should be introduced and that, consequently, traces of unevenness remain. The account of Balaam and his ass was probably added at a still later stage, perhaps in order to heighten the suspense in the story by delaying the arrival of the seer in Moab. The character of Balaam In 22.5 Balaam is introduced as a distant foreigner who lives in Pethor, near the River (possibly the Euphrates), and who enjoyed an international reputation as one whose professional services could be hired to bless or curse an enemy. In the subsequent story (apart from the ass episode in 22.22-35), Balaam is viewed in a favourable light, and is depicted as an obedient and loyal intermediary of God who can speak only the word that comes from

58

Numbers

Yahweh to him and who can proclaim a blessing or curse only in accordance with the divine will. From the very outset of the story, the seer emphasizes his subservience to the God of Israel, informing Balak’s messengers that he was unable to do or say anything on his own initiative or in obedience to any human commission. Even when a second delegation of messengers from Balak tries to persuade Balaam to curse Israel, the seer steadfastly refuses the generous inducements offered: ‘Although Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God, to do less or more’ (22.18). When Balaam eventually comes to Moab and is taken to a location from which he could see the outer fringe of Israel’s army encamped on the steppes of the Jordan, the seer delivers a blessing on the people. Indeed, such was Balaam’s conviction of Israel’s future happiness and security that he concluded his first oracle with a wish that a similar destiny would befall him: Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the dust-cloud of Israel? Let me die the death of the upright, and let my end be like his! (23.10).

When Balaam is brought to a second location, at the top of Mount Pisgah, he utters another oracle in which he confirms that the God of Israel is neither fickle nor capricious, and that the word which he utters is entirely dependable: God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it? (23.19).

Here, again, Balaam emerges as the true servant of Yahweh, and insists that he cannot revoke a blessing on Israel that God has already given (23.20). When Balaam comes to the third location, at the top of Peor, the seer no longer needs to resort to omens, for the spirit of God falls upon him, and Balaam is able to claim a special intimacy with Yahweh: The oracle of Balaam son of Beor, the oracle of the man whose eye is clear, the oracle of one who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty, who falls down, but with eyes uncovered (24.3-4).

When Balak finally dismisses Balaam without any payment, the seer merely responds that he has been true to his word throughout, for he had made it clear at the outset that he could do only God’s bidding and could not act on his own or on anyone else’s authority: ‘Did I not tell your messengers, whom you sent to me, “If Balak should give me his house full of



4.   Problematic Passages 59

silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the Lord, to do either good or bad of my own will; what the Lord says, that is what I will say”?’ (24.12-13). Why Balaam, who was neither an Israelite nor a Yahweh-worshipper, should have insisted on deferring to the God of Israel is not explained in the narrative, but it can only be presumed that the editors would have found it difficult to conceive of oracles promising such rich blessings upon Israel having emanated from any other source than Yahweh, and thus they had little choice but to depict Balaam as one who was in genuine awe of the God of Israel and entirely dependent upon him for the words he was to utter. Of course, the significance of the acknowledgment of Yahweh by a foreigner who stood in high esteem among Israel’s neighbours would not have been lost on the readers of the story, for it demonstrated Yahweh’s supremacy and his omnipotent control over human events. Given this positive appraisal of Balaam’s character as a true and faithful servant of God, it comes as something of a surprise to find that practically all the other references to him in biblical and post-biblical Jewish literature are predominantly negative and deprecatory. Even within chaps. 22–24, where the pagan seer is virtually metamorphosed into a prophet of Yahweh, the episode concerning Balaam and his ass (22.22-35) portrays him in a very different light, for here the renowned seer is openly ridiculed and denigrated. Indeed, he appears almost as a comic figure who seemingly finds nothing unusual in the fact that his ass was able to speak to him, and he is depicted as responding ‘as though he were accustomed to having daily domestic wrangles with his asses’ (Alter: 106). The story of Balaam and his ass is infused with a rich sense of irony, for the ass is able to perceive the angel of the Lord while the professional seer remains blind to its appearance. The dumb beast is the one who speaks, whereas Balaam, the oracle giver, is mute and uncomprehending (Barré). The irony is achieved by an effective role reversal: the role of the ass (famed in ancient Near Eastern texts for its stupidity and stubbornness) is assigned to Balaam, while the role of Balaam, the seer who could hear the words of God (24.4, 16), is assigned to the ass (Way). Moreover, Balaam’s threefold attempt to make the ass return onto the road from which it had deviated provides a further ironical twist, for the incident shows that the words of the man who was believed to have the power to curse a nation had proved ineffectual even with his own ass. This negative, pejorative portrait of Balaam continues through the rest of the biblical tradition; the only exception appears to be Mic. 6.5, where Balaam is viewed in a positive fashion: ‘My people, remember how Balak, king of Moab, plotted, and how Balaam son of Beor answered him’. According to the Priestly tradition reflected in 31.8, 16, Balaam’s death during Israel’s campaign against Midian was regarded as condign

60

Numbers

punishment for his nefarious involvement in the apostasy of Baal-Peor (25.1-5). Deuteronomy 23.4-5 implies that Balaam was vehemently opposed to the Israelites and was intent upon cursing them but was prevented from doing so by Yahweh, who converted his curse into a blessing, a tradition that appears to be echoed in Neh. 13.2. This negative appraisal of Balaam’s character is also evident in the NT. In Rev. 2.14 he is accused of leading Israel astray, and 2 Pet. 2.15 and Jude 11 imply that Balaam was greedy and motivated by mercenary considerations (‘who loved the wages of doing wrong’), an insinuation that stands in complete contradiction to the depiction of the seer in Num. 22–24, where he is described as refusing to curse Israel even if Balak were to reward him ‘with his house full of silver and gold’ (22.18). The negative appraisal of Balaam was developed at considerable length in post-biblical tradition, possibly because the notion of a heathen seer as the recipient of a genuine divine revelation was regarded as offensive to Jewish sensibilities. Thus, Josephus, for example, puts his own spin on the narrative recorded in chaps. 22–24 by suggesting that Balaam fully intended to comply with Balak’s wishes, and Philo implies that he was even more anxious than the king of Moab to curse the Israelites. The Targumim scarcely have a good word to say about him, and put Balaam on a level with Laban who ill-treated the children of his daughters. The ‘Sayings of the Fathers’ contains a tradition that Balaam was bloodthirsty and deceitful, and since he was the very embodiment of evil and villainy he had no place in the world to come. The animosity of tradition towards Balaam is reflected even in the explanation given of his name, which was variously interpreted to mean ‘devourer’ or ‘corrupter’ of the people. Thus, far from functioning as God’s mouthpiece and being a model of piety, as in Num. 22–24, Balaam appears in later Jewish tradition as the archetypal enemy of Israel, and as one who was reviled on account of his apostasy and avarice. It should be noted in conclusion that Balaam featured prominently in the writings of some early Christian exegetes, although the obloquy aimed at him in Jewish tradition appears here in a much milder form, possibly because the prophecy uttered by Balaam in 24.17 was regarded as a prediction of the coming of Christ. Indeed, in the writings of some of the early Church Fathers, Balaam was sometimes regarded as a model of the Gentile prophet who guides the nations to true religion, and he became established in tradition as the founder of the magi, that is, the first representatives of the nations to recognize and worship the infant Jesus. Yet, even the early Christian writers could hardly ignore completely the biblical evidence regarding Balaam’s wrongdoing, and they were forced to deal with the dilemma that a divinely inspired prophet, appointed to make Christ known to the Gentiles, could, at the same time, be a scoundrel who was unworthy to hold such a privileged office.



4.   Problematic Passages 61

The Deir ‘Allā texts In 1967 a Dutch archaeological expedition digging at Deir ‘Allā in the East Jordan Valley uncovered fragments of an inscription written on wall plaster inside an Iron Age II (900–600 bce) temple. The inscription, entitled ‘The Document of Balaam, the son of Beor’, is usually dated, on palaeographical grounds, to the late eighth or early seventh century bce. The classification of the language of the text has proved problematic, and there has been much discussion as to whether its dialect is Aramaic or Canaanite. The extant text is very fragmentary and contains many lacunae and uncertain readings; moreover, its interpretation is complicated by the fact that the script is a consonantal one, and several words are open to more than one meaning. The various plaster fragments, written in black and (less frequently) red ink, are usually distributed into several groups or ‘Combinations’; of these, the first two are considered to be by far the most important, since they contain the greatest quantity of text. Although the fragmentary nature of the text allows for a great deal of subjectivity in its interpretation, Combination I appears to tell of a certain seer named Balaam, the son of Beor, who received a nocturnal visitation by the gods, who communicate to him an utterance or oracle of El. The content of the message is unclear in the text as it stands, but the experience appears to have had a devastating effect upon Balaam, for the next day he was found crying and refusing to eat. His unusual behaviour aroused the people’s curiosity, and Balaam informs them that he had witnessed in his vision a meeting of the divine council. The gods, sitting in the assembly, had asked a goddess (whose name is unfortunately lost, due to a break in the text) to cover up the heavens with a dense cloud and to seal up the sky forever so that the sun could never rise again and so that the cosmos would be plunged into eternal darkness. The impending catastrophe is vividly portrayed in a series of pictures which depict a reversal of the natural order (e.g. the tiny swallow is described in lines 7-8 as ‘reproaching’ the intimidating griffonvulture). Combination I breaks off at this point. Combination II may be a continuation of the story, although this is by no means certain, and it should be noted that there is no mention of Balaam by name in this text. Only a few scattered words and phrases in this Combination are intelligible, but it has been suggested that it describes some sort of ritual, possibly connected with death, and if there is a link with Combination I it may be that the ritual was designed to placate the angry gods who had brought chaos to the earth, and to overturn the divine curse. If so, the ritual appears to have been effective, for there is mention in this Combination of dew and rain, which suggests that life had returned once more to the earth. An impressive literature has amassed on the Deir ‘Allā texts and, not surprisingly, much attention has been devoted to the similarities it exhibits to the text of Num. 22–24. In the Deir ‘Allā text, Balaam bears the same

62

Numbers

patronymic title given him in the biblical tradition (‘son of Beor’). The fact that the gods appeared to Balaam at night in the Deir ‘Allā text (I. 1) is regarded as significant in the light of Num. 22.20, which reports that God appeared to Balaam ‘at night’. The reference to Balaam getting up in the morning in Num. 22.13, 21 is strongly reminiscent of a phrase in the Deir ‘Allā text (I. 3). Deir ‘Allā 1. 4 mentions Balaam’s ‘people’, and in Num. 24.14 it is to ‘his people’ that Balaam returns after he had been banished by Balak. The most suggestive parallelism, however, is undoubtedly the allusion in the Deir ‘Allā text to a group of gods known as the šdyn, for in Num. 24.4, 16 Balaam describes himself as one who sees the vision of the Almighty (Šadday). The fact that Balaam is designated in the first line of the Deir ‘Allā text as a ‘seer of the gods’ is also regarded as significant, for although Balaam is never given the title ‘seer’ in the OT, it is clear that the biblical authors regard him as a ‘seer’ in all but name, since he was capable of receiving visionary experiences (cf. 24.3-4, 15-16). Despite these parallels, however, the Deir ‘Allā text contributes little to our understanding of the biblical Balaam tradition. Its main significance is that it demonstrates that the tradition about Balaam was current in the eighth or seventh century bce in a non-Israelite Transjordanian community; the story contained in Num. 22–24 was therefore not an isolated account confined to the literature of Israel, but was probably part of a more broadly disseminated tradition current in the ancient Near East. The wilderness itinerary (33.1-49) Numbers 33.1-49 purports to trace the journey of the Israelites through the wilderness from Rameses in Egypt to their present location in the plains of Moab, at the border of the Promised Land. The placing of the itinerary at this point in Numbers is perfectly logical, since the wilderness journey had by now been completed (chaps. 1–21), and all the incidents that had occurred in the Transjordan have already been related (chaps. 22–32). The preparations for the imminent occupation of Canaan were now about to begin, and the remainder of Numbers is concerned with commands regarding the settlement, and the laws which were to govern the life of the people once they had crossed the Jordan (chaps. 34–36). The present chapter thus serves as both a fitting summary and conclusion to the account of Israel’s march through the wilderness. The itinerary in 33.1-49, however, has presented scholars with a number of problematic issues. The first, and most obvious, problem concerns the identification of the various stopping places on the route, for the fact is that only three or four of the places mentioned can now be identified with a reasonable degree of probability, and consequently attempts to trace the route traversed by the Israelites through the wilderness must be regarded as



4.   Problematic Passages 63

highly speculative. Secondly, while various parallels have been observed between 33.1-49 and itinerary notices in the literature of the ancient Near East, it is by no means clear to what extent these parallels confirm the antiquity and reliability of the chapter here under discussion. Thirdly, the relation between the itinerary in 33.1-49 and the account of the wilderness journey recorded in the previous chapters of Numbers has proved problematic since, on the one hand, many of the sites listed in this chapter are not mentioned anywhere in the preceding stories of the wilderness journey, while, on the other hand, many of the places that are mentioned in the preceding chapters do not appear at all in 33.1-49. Identification of the sites Numbers 33 begins by noting that the Israelites departed ‘boldly’ from Rameses, and did so in full view of the Egyptians, while the latter were burying their dead (vv. 1-4). Verses 5-49 then list the places of encampment where the Israelites stayed during their journey through the wilderness. The list is usually divided by commentators into four sections: (i) from Egypt to the wilderness of Sinai (vv. 5-15); (ii) from the wilderness of Sinai to Ezion-geber (vv. 16-35); (iii) from Ezion-geber to the wilderness of Zin (= Kadesh; v. 36); (iv) from Kadesh to the plains of Moab (vv. 37-49). Although no fewer than 40 stopping places are mentioned in the itinerary— making it the largest and most complete example of the genre found in the OT—the fact remains that only a very general impression can be gained from the list concerning the supposed direction of Israel’s march, since few of the places can now be identified with any certainty. Even the location of such prominent sites as Mount Sinai, the Reed Sea, and Kadesh remain controversial, and continue to be the subject of dispute among biblical scholars (Davies 1979). Thus attempts to trace the precise route taken by the Israelites—or, rather, the route supposed by later generations to have been taken by the Israelites—must be regarded as highly conjectural. The list of encampments is sometimes interrupted by a brief description of specific incidents that occurred in the place in question (vv. 3-4, 38-39), and occasionally geographical details are included in order to provide a more precise location for the site in question. Thus, for example, in v. 6 Etham is said to have been located on the ‘edge of the wilderness’, and in v. 7 Pi-hahiroth is said to have been situated to the east of Baal-zephon. Similar geographical data are encountered in vv. 37, 44, 47, 48 and 49. It is doubtful, however, whether such details can be of any real value in identifying the places concerned, since such extraneous elements were probably appended to the itinerary at a later stage, and the original form of the chapter is thought to have consisted merely of a bland list of place names, introduced by a formula repeated in stereotyped fashion, noting the Israelites’ departure from one site and their encampment in the next. Exigencies of

64

Numbers

space preclude a discussion of geographical questions concerning the route of the exodus or the proposed identification of the various sites mentioned; it is suffice here to note that there is no shortage of proposals for many of the locations listed in this chapter, and readers who are interested in tracing the direction of Israel’s march through the wilderness are encouraged to consult the standard commentaries. One striking feature of the itinerary is that no fewer than 16 of the places listed are not mentioned anywhere else in the OT. The fact that these places are grouped together (vv. 18b-30a and 41b-47a) has been taken to indicate that this section of the chapter originally derived from an independent and self-contained document. The origin and background of such a document is unclear, but Noth (p. 221) has suggested that it may have represented an itinerary of a well-known pilgrim route to and from Sinai. His theory, however, must be regarded as highly speculative, for it seems hazardous to infer the existence of a pilgrimage to Sinai in OT times in the absence of any other corroborative evidence from either biblical or rabbinic sources. Moreover, if there ever was a regular pilgrimage to and from Sinai, the comparative oblivion into which the place sank during the period of the monarchy, and the uncertainty that continues to surround its location, would be difficult to explain. It is also worth noting that there is no evidence that the itinerary genre was used anywhere else in the ancient Near East to depict a pilgrimage; rather, as will be seen below, such itineraries were usually used for military or commercial purposes. It seems more probable that the material contained in this section of 33.1-49 was derived from official court archives, and that it was intended to record a route either for travellers in general or for trade and commerce in particular. The itinerary genre Despite the uncertainty regarding the identification of many of the stopping places on the route, most commentators are agreed that 33.1-49 does constitute an ‘itinerary’, and that these verses do not simply represent a haphazard list of place names. Much briefer itineraries, recounting arrivals and departures, are found elsewhere in Numbers (e.g. 11.35; 12.16; 20.22; 21.10-13, 18b-20; 22.1), and such itinerary notices often function to bind together the various stories relating to Israel’s journey through the wilderness. Such itinerary notices are not isolated phenomena but belong to a widely-attested literary genre encountered at various times and places in the ancient Near East. These texts, preserved in archives, were usually records of actual journeys and were regarded as useful for military or commercial purposes. Some of the itineraries from the ancient Near East contain only the bare minimum of detail, and consist of little more than a repetition of a place name, with a preposition serving to connect one location with the next. For example, a letter of Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria (eighteenth century bce), found in the Mari



4.   Problematic Passages 65

archive, contains the following account of a journey: ‘from Shubat-Enlil to Tilla, from Tilla to Ashihim, from Ashihim to Iyati, from Iyati to Lakushir, from Lakushir to Sagaratim’ (ARM I. 26). This provides an interesting parallel to the itinerary notice in 21.18b-20, which similarly contains no verbs, the place names being connected simply by the Hebrew preposition min: ‘From the wilderness to Mattanah, from Mattanah to Nahaliel, from Nahaliel to Bamoth, and from Bamoth to the valley in the region of Moab by the top of Pisgah that overlooks the wasteland’. The itinerary encountered in 33.1-49 bears striking similarities to those found in Assyrian annals of the ninth century bce which record the military campaigns of the Neo-Assyrian kings. In both, each stopping place is mentioned twice, first in connection with arrival and then in connection with departure, and this stereotyped formula in both is sometimes accompanied by expansions of various kinds, perhaps specifying more precisely the location of the camping place or a particular incident that happened en route. Moreover, like the Neo-Assyrian kings, the Israelite tribes appear to be engaged in a military campaign, for they are depicted in Numbers as an army on the march, the census in chaps. 1 and 26 recording all those who were over 20 years old and ‘able to go to war’. Of course, such parallels should not be pressed too far, for there are significant differences between 33.1-49 and the itineraries encountered in the ancient Near East. For example, the latter texts are generally assumed to have derived from participants in the journeys described, whereas 33.1-49 owes its origin to later generations of Israelites who attempted to describe the route taken by their forbears, possibly based on their knowledge of the southern desert derived from court archives. Moreover, examples of the itinerary genre from elsewhere in the ancient Near East suggest that they were designed to provide a complete and comprehensive account of the route described, and gaps between successive sites would normally be the distance covered in a single day. On the other hand, 33.1-49 omits some well-known places on the wilderness route (Massah, Meribah, Taberah), and the journey between two sites is sometimes explicitly stated to have taken longer than a day (cf. 33.8, which refers to a journey of three days after the deliverance at the sea). Furthermore, according to the generally accepted identification of Kadesh and Ezion-geber, the distance between these two sites is estimated to have been approximately 90 miles or 144 kilometres, which could hardly have been covered in a day’s travel (Davies 1979: 60). Despite these differences, however, the parallels which have been found between 33.1-49 and the ancient Near Eastern itineraries are thought by some to have a significant bearing on the date and character of the itinerary in Numbers. Date and reliability of 33.1-49 It was, perhaps, inevitable that parallels such as those cited above should have led some scholars to argue in favour of the general antiquity and

66

Numbers

reliability of the material preserved in 33.1-49. Indeed, some scholars have viewed 33.1-49 as an impressive and credible piece of history writing, and they argue that the specificity and detail contained in these verses is ample evidence that this itinerary accurately preserves the memory of the journey travelled. After all, it is argued, why would a purely fictional account, written centuries after the purported event, bother with such apparently trivial details as the precise geographical location of various sites and the time taken to travel from one location to the next (Hoffmeier)? The fact that 33.2 records that Moses himself wrote down the names of the encampments ‘stage by stage’ is regarded by some as further evidence that the chapter represents an early and accurate historical account (cf. Wenham, Levine). Others, however, argue that the fact that the route described in 33.1-49 seems to differ in some important respects from that presupposed in chaps. 20–21 casts doubt on its reliability and that, far from being an early and reliable source, the itinerary contained in 33.1-49 was a late and artificial construction devoid of any historical value. This was not to say that the editors of Numbers were not influenced by itinerary-like texts, but they probably used the genre to give their work the appearance of a historiographic account, and the reference to Moses in v. 3 was added in order to lend the text an added air of verisimilitude. It should, perhaps, be observed at this point that the arguments in favour and against the reliability and antiquity of the text are by no means as straightforward as is sometimes supposed. For example, those who regard the existence of the ancient Near Eastern parallels noted above as supporting the reliability of 33.1-49, ignore the fact that there is also an extensive ancient Near Eastern tradition in which the itinerary was clearly a fictional creation (van Seters). On the other hand, those who favour a late provenance for the itinerary in 33.1-49 on the ground that it displays elements characteristic of the Priestly source, such as the constant repetition of the simple formula (‘and they set out from A and encamped in B; and they set out from B and encamped in C’ etc.), tend to ignore the fact that such repetitions are characteristic of itineraries elsewhere in the ancient world, and this might be regarded as an argument for the early provenance of the text. Moreover, according to some scholars, the fact that virtually all the stopping places mentioned elsewhere in P are incorporated into the present itinerary, and that some of the places mentioned (e.g. Pi-hahiroth, Mount Hor, Oboth) are known only to the P source, is an argument in favour of a late dating for the text; on the other hand, other scholars argue that the fact that the itinerary omits a reference to the wilderness of Paran (an important site in the Priestly account), and that some of the sites mentioned occur elsewhere in texts usually attributed to the earlier J source (e.g. Moab, Kibrothhattaavah, Hazeroth, Shittim) is an argument in favour of dating the text at an early period.



4.   Problematic Passages 67

On balance, however, it seems preferable to regard 33.1-49 as a late composition by a member of the Priestly circle. Although the use of the repeated stereotyped formula which occurs in the itinerary cannot, of itself, be regarded as decisive evidence of its Priestly provenance (since this was also a characteristic feature of the ancient Near Eastern itinerary genre), the chapter does contain other elements (such as the date of the exodus and the account of Aaron’s death; vv. 3, 38) which betray familiarity with the Priestly tradition. Numbers 33.1-49 and the wilderness narrative One of the problematic features of 33.1-49 is the relation of the itinerary to the preceding wilderness stories in Numbers. Is 33.1-49 a very late compilation tabulating the sites already mentioned in the previous chapters, or is the list an early construction which was used by the editors as a skeleton or frame on which to weave the story of the wilderness wandering that was familiar to them? Those who favour an early dating for 33.1-49 argue that this itinerary provided a kind of blueprint for the Priestly version of Israel’s journey through the wilderness, and they argue that the itinerary notices in the preceding chapters were derived from this passage. As we have seen, however, the balance of probability favours the view that 33.1-49 is a late composition based on the preceding narratives in Numbers. The scribe who composed the list sought to provide a coherent and unified itinerary out of already existing stories about Israel’s desert sojourn, stories which often lacked an element of clarity and cohesion. For example, in the preceding wilderness narratives the Israelites arrive in the wilderness of Paran twice, once in 10.12, and again in 12.16; they also arrive at Kadesh twice, once in 13.26, where the spies are said to have returned after their mission, and again in 20.1. The scribe who composed the itinerary in 33.1-49 tried to avoid such awkward repetitions by omitting the reference to the wilderness of Paran altogether, and ensuring that Kadesh was referred to only once (v. 36). If, on the other hand, the account of the wilderness sojourn was based on a framework provided by 33.1-49, it would be difficult to explain why the redactor should have deliberately created geographical problems by recording double arrivals and departures to and from the same location (Roskop). Further Reading On the census lists, see: Barnouin, M., ‘Remarques sur les tableaux numériques du Livre des Nombres’, RB 76 (1969), pp. 351–64. —‘Les recensements du Livre des Nombres et l’astronomie babylonienne’, VT 27 (1977), pp. 280–303.

68

Numbers

Davies, E.W., ‘A Mathematical Conundrum: The Problem of the Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI’, VT 45 (1995), pp. 449–69. Heinzerling, R., ‘On the Interpretation of the Census Lists by C.J. Humphreys and G.E. Mendenhall’, VT 50 (2000), pp. 250–52. Humphreys, C.J., ‘The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI’, VT 48 (1998), pp. 196–213. Kislev, I., ‘The Census of the Israelites on the Plains of Moab (Numbers 26): Sources and Redaction’, VT 63 (2013), pp. 236–60. McEntire, M., ‘A Response to Colin J. Humphreys’s “The Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI”’, VT 49 (1999), pp. 262–64. Mendenhall, G.E., ‘The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26’, JBL 77 (1958), pp. 52–66. Rendsburg, G.A., ‘An Additional Note to Two Recent Articles on the Number of People in the Exodus from Egypt and the Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI’, VT 51 (2001), pp. 392–96. Waite, J., ‘The Census of Israelite Men after their Exodus from Egypt’, VT 60 (2010), pp. 487–91. Ziemer, B., ‘Erklärung der wichtigsten “demographischen” Zahlen des Numeribuches aus ihrem kompositionellen Zusammenhang’, VT 60 (2010), pp. 271–87.

On Balaam, see: Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981). Barré, M.L., ‘The Portrait of Balaam in Numbers 22-24’, Interpretation 51 (1997), pp. 254–66. Baskin, J.R., Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition (BJS, 47; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Coats, G.W., ‘Balaam: Sinner or Saint’, BR 18 (1973), pp. 21–29 (reprinted in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature [ed. G.W. Coats; JSOTS, 35; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], pp. 56–62). —‘The Way of Obedience: Traditio-Historical and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Balaam Story’, Semeia 24 (1982), pp. 53–79. Hackett, J.A., The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Allā (HSM, 31; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980). Hoftijzer, J., and G. van der Kooij (eds.), The Balaam Text from Deir ‘Alla Re-evaluated (Leiden: Brill, 1991). Moore, M.S., The Balaam Traditions: Their Character and Development (SBLDS, 113; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990). Seters, J. van, ‘From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story’, in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. E.E. Carpenter; JSOTS, 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 126–32. Way, K.C., ‘Animals in the Prophetic World: Literary Reflections on Numbers 22 and 1 Kings 13’, JSOT 34 (2009), pp. 47–62.



4.   Problematic Passages 69

On the wilderness itinerary, see: Davies, G.I., ‘The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study’, TynB 25 (1974), pp. 46–81. —The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Hoffmeier, J.K., Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Roskop, A.R., The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). Scolnic, B.E., Theme and Context in Biblical Lists (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 119; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995). Seters, J. van, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994).

5

Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance Historical value Recent biblical scholarship is characterized by considerable scepticism concerning the historical reliability of many of the traditions contained in the OT. The emergence of new literary approaches to the Bible has led many to question the extent to which the OT can be regarded as a reliable guide to the events of Israel’s history. With regard to the book of Numbers, few scholars today would argue that it contains a factual account of a wilderness sojourn from Sinai to the plains of Moab in the time of Moses, and there is a general consensus that it is practically impossible to reconstruct a coherent picture of the history of Israel in the period prior to the settlement on the basis of the information contained in the OT. The fact that some of the sources underlying Numbers are now thought to belong to a period much later than had hitherto been supposed (see Chapter 1) meant that a gap of several centuries existed between the written records and the events which they purported to describe. Of course, the late dating of sources did not in itself necessitate the conclusion that the traditions which they recorded were unreliable, since a late source may contain reliable historical information (just as, conversely, an early source may turn out to be unreliable). Indeed, some of the religious and cultic traditions in Numbers were thought to reflect customs which were operative at an early period in Israel’s history. The ritual of the red heifer (19.1-10), for example, is regarded by some as an ancient practice incorporated into a ceremony of ritual purification, and the ‘trial by ordeal’ described in 5.11-31 may have originated in early times. The ‘Book of the Wars of Yahweh’, from which a fragment is cited in 21.14-15, is thought to have originally contained ancient poems recording conflicts between the Israelites and the people settled on the border of Canaan, and the list of Levitical cities in 35.1-8 may also reflect one of Israel’s oldest institutions, since six of the cities are related to the ancient right of asylum stipulated in Exod. 21. 13-14. The fact that Numbers contained little of historical value concerning the time of Moses did not, however, mean that the book was of little interest to the historian, for it was regarded as providing indirect evidence for the period during which the various traditions were compiled and edited. In this



5.   Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance 71

regard, scholarly attention shifted from attempting to identify the historical and social reality to which the text supposedly bore witness, to determining the historical and social context in which the text was composed. Numbers was widely regarded as addressing various concerns which had arisen in the socio-political setting of the late exilic and early post-exilic period, and many of the narratives were viewed as an interpretative reflection on the situation of the Jews who were in exile in Babylon during the sixth century bce. These narratives were regarded as the product of the Jewish community’s struggle to come to terms with the pain and punishment of exile, and its implications for Israel’s relationship with God. Significantly, the people of Israel, even at the end of Numbers, are still outside the land of Canaan and awaiting entry into the Promised Land, and this seemed to mirror the experiences of the Jews in the Babylonian exile, many of whom were anxiously awaiting a return to their homeland. Like the Israelites in the wilderness, those in exile found themselves without the security of a settled existence and they, too, were faced with the problem of displacement and loss. For these exiles, the book of Numbers provided a message of hope and encouragement. There is evidence to suggest that many of the Jews in Babylon felt that Yahweh had abandoned them (cf. Isa. 40.27), and thus it was particularly important to emphasize that the God of Israel was not confined to a particular geographical location, and that he could be present with his people in a strange land, just as he was present with the Jews who had remained in Judah. This message was underlined in Numbers by the notion of the portable sanctuary or tent of meeting, which accompanied the Israelites during their sojourn through the wilderness, and thus provided an assurance of God’s continued presence, in guiding and protecting his people. It was in order to provide further reassurance to those in exile that Numbers emphasizes that the promise of land given to Abraham (14.22-23; cf. Gen 12.1-3) had not been nullified, and thus there was every reason to feel confident that those in Babylonian exile would, indeed, arrive safely in the Promised Land. But in addition to the message of encouragement, Numbers also sounded a note of warning for the exiles, for it emphasizes that there must be a wholehearted commitment to the land and a readiness on the part of the people to return when the opportunity arose. The rejection of the land by the Israelites in chaps. 13–14 may well reflect a reluctance or unwillingness on the part of some of the Babylonian exiles to return, and the reference to the Israelites who longed for the delicacies of Egypt rather than engage in battle with the Canaanites may contain an implicit criticism of those who were tempted by the riches and opportunities of Babylon to remain in exile. The fact that Numbers ends with the Israelites poised to enter the Promised Land was not without significance, for it inevitably prompted the question: would the Babylonian exiles, like the first generation of Israelites, remain outside the land promised to them by God?

72

Numbers

Other passages in Numbers appear to be concerned with the needs of the settled community, and in particular with the importance of securing fixed and recognized patterns of leadership and control. In this regard, there is clearly an apologetic motive at work, for the editors provide a carefully selected representation of past events in order to promote their own priestly agenda for the future of the restored community. Such a vision is often communicated in subtle ways. For example, some scholars have discerned an attempt in Numbers to lessen the prestige of Moses, who represented the prophetic office, in order to elevate the role of the priests. In chaps. 5–6, for example, Moses recedes into the background, and it is the priests who implement God’s commands; 11.10-15 depicts Moses as weary and frustrated by the rebellion of the people; in 20.12 he is chastised by God for failing to show his holiness ‘before the eyes of the Israelites’; and in 27.1214 he is told that he will die in the wilderness and will be denied entry into the Promised Land. Significantly, when Joshua is appointed as his successor, he is permitted to posses only some of Moses’ authority (27.20-21). The message could hardly be clearer: it was to be the priest, not the prophet, who was to be crucial for the future of the Jewish community (cf. Leveen, pp. 51–56). But it appears that there were tensions even within the priestly hierarchy during the early post-exilic period. In the newly constituted Jewish community in Jerusalem and Judah, the priestly office was in disarray and in need of urgent reorganization; it was experiencing something of a crisis of authority, and there was a dire need to establish the sole legitimacy of the Aaronite priesthood. To this end, Numbers emphasizes that only the sons of Aaron could properly oversee the functioning of the camp and the tabernacle in the wilderness and so, by extension, only the descendants of Aaron could oversee the proper functioning of the community and its restored temple. The blossoming of Aaron’s rod in the sanctuary (17.1-11) was intended to confirm his unrivalled authority, and the duties and functions assigned to the Levites in chap. 8 confirmed their position as subordinate to the Aaronite priesthood. The ascendancy of the Aaronite priesthood and the concomitant demotion of others to a subordinate status is also reflected in the suppression of Korah’s revolt (chap. 16). Through these narratives, the editors of Numbers used the traditions which had come to them to great effect, for the authority of the past was invoked to legitimate and justify current institutions and hierarchies. But an effective leadership must be properly supported financially, and the aim of chap. 7 was probably to encourage generosity and commitment among the post-exilic laity. The financial support of the priesthood is also emphasized in 18.8-20, which notes the portions of the various sacrifices and offerings which were to be given to the priests and their families. The priestly editors were careful to project their concern for the economic



5.   Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance 73

maintenance of the clerical order back to the beginnings of Israel’s history and to emphasize that this requirement had the ultimate authority of a divine command through Moses. Such support was not therefore to be regarded as voluntary, for it was a divinely ordained responsibility which devolved upon the people. Again, the message of the editors to their contemporary audience was clear and unambiguous: if the new community organized around the Second Temple was to prosper and flourish there must be a disciplined and generous giving by the community at large. It is clear from the above discussion that the recent emphasis on the ideological character of Numbers and on its social, religious, and political function has meant that serious questions have been raised concerning the book’s historical value. Contemporary scholars tend to view the book not so much as a reliable historical source but, rather, as a religious ideology expressing itself in a form purporting to be historical narrative. It is viewed as bearing testimony not to the life of the Israelites in the pre-conquest period but to the developing consciousness of Israel as a community of faith in the sixth and fifth centuries bce. Those who transmitted the biblical material were probably not preoccupied with modern historiographical questions, and their intention was not to write an objective, disinterested account of history ‘as it actually happened’ (to use the phrase made famous by Leopold von Ranke); rather, their aim was to construct a story of Israel’s past that might provide valuable instruction for the present generation. Yet, it is important to recognize that these traditions were directed not just to the Jews in the exilic and early post-exilic period; on the contrary, every generation was invited to appropriate the traditions of the past and apply them to their own times, for the laws given to the Israelites in the wilderness were to be regarded as a ‘perpetual statute throughout your generations’ (15.15). But how can the story of a people in the past be relevant to people in the present? How can the narrative of Israel’s long and tortuous journey through the wilderness as depicted in Numbers be relevant today? And it is to this question that we must now turn. Contemporary relevance The book of Numbers can probably boast the dubious distinction of being one of the least read and most neglected books in the entire Bible. In some respects, this is hardly surprising, for its very title may well be off-putting to many. Although, as was pointed out at the very beginning of this volume, numbers and numerical lists constitute only a relatively small portion of the book as a whole (1.20-47; 26.5-51), readers may be disinclined to turn to the book of Numbers for a variety of other reasons. In the first place, the book at times appears to be tediously and needlessly repetitive, and much of its content appears irrelevant to issues of contemporary concern. After

74

Numbers

all, one may well wonder what benefit could possibly accrue from reading the detailed census returns in chaps. 1 and 26, or the repetitive lists of tribal leaders in chap. 7, or the meticulous organizational details of the camp in chap. 2, or the roster of duties of the various Levitical groups during the march through the wilderness in chap. 3. Moreover, the book certainly makes for a challenging read, for (as was observed in Chapter 1) it is difficult to discern any pattern or coherence which might serve to link the various sections of the book together, and modern readers may well feel disoriented as they negotiate the various chapters, since the book moves swiftly from one topic to another without any obvious or logical reason. Furthermore, some of the texts will no doubt strike contemporary readers as bordering on the bizarre, for the book contains stories about a talking ass, a bronze snake with healing powers, and a rod which miraculously manages to blossom with almonds! Other accounts in the book will no doubt strain the credulity of the modern reader, such as the record of the astonishingly large numbers of Israelites wandering through the wilderness for 40 years, or the story of the precisely engineered earthquake that conveniently managed to dispose of some of the die-hard rebels. But perhaps most off-putting of all is the fact that a number of passages in the book are likely to offend the sensibilities of the modern reader. Many will feel distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of God leading the army of Israel into battle, and commanding his people to destroy the native inhabitants of Canaan (33.50-56). Similarly, the mass extermination of the enemy recorded in 31.1-12 will seem deeply abhorrent to contemporary readers of the Bible, not least because they know that such texts have been used as a warrant over the centuries for the process that today would be termed ‘ethnic cleansing’. The story of Phinehas slaying two idolaters in the camp seems troubling (25.6-9), but even more worrying is the fact that the same Phinehas should then be rewarded by God with an eternal covenant of peace (25.12)! In view of this, it is hardly surprising that one of the early Church Fathers, Origen, writing in the third century ce, should observe that the book was widely neglected in his day, and that it was generally regarded as having little or no relevance for Christian faith and practice. It seemed, said Origen, to contain nothing that was either ‘helpful…or a benefit for the salvation of the soul’. Origen, however, argued that such a perception was misguided, and he mounted a spirited defence of the book’s enduring value, arguing that it was full of wisdom and insight which could serve as a valuable guide for communities of faith. Moreover, two centuries earlier, the apostle Paul, writing to members of the church in Corinth, argued that the stories of the wilderness generation contained important lessons for the church in his own day, for these narratives were ‘written for our instruction’ (1 Cor. 10.11). So how can the book of Numbers be deemed relevant for contemporary society? How can readers in the twenty-first century claim that it was



5.   Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance 75

written for ‘our instruction’? Until comparatively recently, scholarly writings on the book of Numbers have tended to focus on what the book meant for its original author(s) or its original readers rather than what its message might convey to a contemporary audience. The last decade or so, however, has witnessed a number of studies offering homiletical reflections on the book, usually from a Christian perspective, and interpreters have viewed it as a source which continues to inform and inspire, and which is capable of offering spiritual sustenance for contemporary communities of faith. It must be emphasized at the outset, however, that there are certain pitfalls that must be avoided when trying to make the biblical text relevant to the contemporary world. There is a tendency sometimes to construe the significance of a biblical text in suspiciously convenient ways in order to make it support the individual interpreter’s own prejudices and prior judgments. Indeed, some interpreters appear to labour under the misapprehension that no passage of Scripture, whatever it says, ever witnesses to anything other than what happens to chime in with their own personal convictions. Another pitfall that must be avoided is the mistaken belief that all the biblical material must be relevant, and if it is not obviously and directly relevant, it must somehow be made relevant to problems and issues besetting the twenty-first century. Such a view, however, courts the risk of bending the biblical testimony to accommodate utterly alien questions and ‘reading into’ the biblical text what is patently not there. The fact is that biblical texts contain material that has different degrees of relevance, and this must be borne in mind by all who seek to facilitate a dialogue between the ancient text and the modern world. With these provisos in mind we may proceed to consider the relevance of the book of Numbers for contemporary communities of faith. Certainly, some of the issues which it raises—war, disease, survival, hunger, race relations—are among the perennial problems faced by nations across the centuries and across cultures. While individual passages within Numbers may reflect a questionable sense of morality, the book—when viewed in its totality—encompasses a number of important theological themes which recur throughout the OT: the interplay of forgiveness and judgment, sin and punishment; the need to trust in the power of God rather than human might; and the importance of retaining one’s faith in times of adversity. Even some of its most tedious and repetitive passages often contain a profound theological message. Thus, for example, the interminable details concerning the organization of the tent of meeting in 2.1-34 are designed to demonstrate the continued presence of God in the midst of his people; the endless list of gifts given to the priests (18.8-20) and Levites (18.21-24) establishes the principle that those who lead and guide the community in its life of worship must be supported financially for the service which they render to the people.

76

Numbers

Moreover, some of the rituals and traditions practised in contemporary communities of faith may be illuminated by—and perhaps even owe their origin to—certain passages in the book of Numbers. For example, the cycle of daily, weekly and annual observances outlined in chaps. 28–29 has played an important part in Jewish religious life throughout the centuries; the law regarding the wearing of tassels in 15.37-40 reflects a custom which still survives today among orthodox Jews, who continue to wear the tallith; the ritual of ‘laying on of hands’, mentioned in 8.10-12, is still practised in some churches; the reference to tithes presented by the people to the Levites in 18.21-24 reflects a custom which has persisted in some quarters of the Christian church to this day, the setting aside of a tenth of one’s income being viewed as an ideal by which Christians measure their giving. It is also worth noting that one of the best known and most loved passages in the entire Bible, namely the Aaronic blessing, occurs in the book of Numbers (6.22-27); the words of the blessing (‘The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace’) have formed an important part of Jewish and Christian worship through the centuries. Furthermore, some passages in the NT would be obscure without knowledge of certain incidents recorded in Numbers. Thus, for example, Jn 3.1415 compares the lifting up of the Son of Man to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21.8-9); the reference in Heb. 9.13-14 to sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer in order to purify those who had been defiled would be quite incomprehensible without knowledge of the ritual recorded in Num. 19.1-10. But the book of Numbers also seeks to offer answers to some of the perennial problems faced by humankind. What does it mean to be a truly liberated people? How can a nation secure its economic stability and its religious freedom? What principles should govern the life of a settled people? How should they participate in a collective life with a distinct set of rules and values? Such questions are answered in Numbers by means of a powerful metaphor: that of a journey through the wilderness. Of course, the notion of life as a journey is by no means confined to the Jewish faith. The greatest of all Welsh hymn writers, William Williams (1717–1791), saw the wilderness wandering in terms of the Christian’s journey through life under the guidance of God; the words of his best known hymn are familiar to English congregations through the translation of Peter Williams: ‘Guide me, O thou great Jehovah, pilgrim through this barren land’. Interestingly, the hymn contains many words and phrases which recall passages in Numbers: ‘bread of heaven’ (cf. the reference to the manna in 11.6), ‘open now the crystal fountain’ (a phrase which recalls the water emanating from the rock in 20.11), ‘let the fiery, cloudy pillar/lead me all my journey through’ (a clear reference to the cloud leading the Israelites by day and the fire by night;



5.   Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance 77

9.16); and the image of the believer awaiting at the ‘verge of Jordan’ (the very place where the Israelites are encamped at the end of Numbers; 36.13). In Numbers, the journey begins with the Israelites encamped at Mount Sinai (where they had been throughout Exod. 17–40 and the entire book of Leviticus), and it ends with the people in the plains of Moab, east of the Jordan, on the verge of the Promised Land (where they remain throughout Deuteronomy). Far from being an aimless wandering through an arid desert, this was to be a triumphal march with a definite goal in view, namely, possession of a land ‘flowing with milk and honey’ (13.27). People who were once slaves in Egypt had embarked on what Nelson Mandela would have called ‘the long road to freedom’. But it was a journey that involved mistakes, false starts, uncertainties, hunger, thirst and rebellion. Indeed, it was precisely because of the disobedience and rebellion of the people that entry into the Promised Land was postponed, and a journey that could have been undertaken in a relatively short time took all of 40 years. The story of this journey has been especially important for the Jews across the centuries, for it served as a constant reminder of where they had come from, where they were going, and why. Moreover, the story has been repeated by the Jews from generation to generation in the conviction that they should never forget the lessons of the past if they were to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. In his volume Radical Then, Radical Now, the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth, Jonathan Sacks, refers to the account of this journey as being one of the most influential in history: When Oliver Cromwell made the first speech of his Parliament after the Civil War, he referred to it. When Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were designing the Great Seal of the United States, it was their first choice of an image to epitomize their dream. When black Americans struggled for civil rights, they sang it. When South Americans wrote their liberation theologies, it was the text from which they began. In century after century one narrative more than any other has inspired people to break the chains of the past and build a new society on the foundations of liberty—the story of Moses leading the Israelites to freedom across the wilderness towards the promised land. It is the great, enduring narrative of hope (p. 105).

But how might the narrative of this journey through the wilderness be relevant today? What were the lessons learnt by the Israelites which might prove valuable to contemporary communities of faith? The importance of faith and obedience One of the recurring themes in Numbers is the rebellion of the Israelites against God and their lack of trust in his ability to accomplish what he had promised, namely, to bring his people into the land of Canaan. The census numbers recorded in chaps. 1 and 26 serve to affirm that God’s promise to

78

Numbers

Abraham of many descendants—as numerous as the stars of the heavens or the grains of sand by the sea (Gen. 22.17)—was already being fulfilled even at this early period in Israel’s existence. Given the size of Israel’s army (those aged 20 and over who were capable of bearing arms numbered more than 600,000), the people’s reluctance to enter the Promised Land lest they be overwhelmed by the enemy seemed all the more inexcusable. In 10.2932, Moses’ faith stands in sharp contrast to the lack of faith exhibited by the people in the following chapters; while Moses was confident that God’s intention was to do ‘good’ to Israel (10.29, 32), the people were equally convinced that he intended to do them harm (14.3). But the people’s lack of faith was accompanied by their outright disobedience to God’s command. When the Israelites were encouraged to enter the Promised Land, they refused, believing that the native inhabitants were invincible (13.31; 14.1-4); on the other hand, when they were warned by Moses against entering the land (14.42), they went anyway, believing that they could conquer it by their own power and resolve. Their venture, however, was doomed to fail, not because of the strength of the enemy but because of an inherent weakness in themselves: they lacked trust in God and found themselves constantly rebelling against his will and disobeying his command. The lesson for contemporary readers of the story is clear: obedience to God’s will is not an abstract principle but a steadfast commitment to an enterprise, and that commitment calls for faith, action, courage and a single-minded loyalty to God. God’s help in times of need One of the recurring themes in Numbers is the gracious provision of God in caring for his people’s needs. A good example may be found in 11.1015, which describes how Moses, exasperated by the continual moaning of the people, turns to God and, in his despair, vents his anger and frustration before him. He levels against God a series of reproaches cast in the form of rhetorical questions. Why has God dealt with his servant in such a malevolent manner? Why has he placed upon him such an intolerable burden (v. 11)? From where is Moses expected to obtain meat in the wilderness in order to satisfy the people’s hunger (v. 13)? Moses’ fierce outburst concludes with a simple confession: ‘I am not able to carry all this people alone, for they are too heavy for me’ (v. 14). Indeed, life had become so intolerable for him that he pleads for God to kill him and have done with it (v. 15). The story shows that when life appears too burdensome, God is always at hand to provide help and support. In this case he instructs Moses to appoint 70 elders who ‘shall bear the burden of the people along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself’ (v. 17). Moses brings the 70 elders to the tent of meeting (v. 24), where God takes some of the spirit resting on Moses and confers it on the elders who have been assembled (v. 25). Clearly, the



5.   Historical Value and Contemporary Relevance 79

phenomenon of prophecy was not to be confined rigidly to a favoured, chosen few; rather, it was a gift of God’s spirit and, as such, should recognize no boundaries or limitations: ‘Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!’ (v. 29). The idea expressed here is that all God’s people should encounter the power of his energizing spirit, a wish that also finds expression in the great prophecy uttered by Joel: ‘Then afterwards I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my spirit’ (Joel 2.28-29). A future-oriented faith Despite the death of the old generation in the wilderness, the book of Numbers contains a positive message for a new generation, for the story of the march towards the Promised Land is ultimately the story of a journey from bondage to freedom, from despair to hope. It is the story of a new generation struggling to learn the lessons from the failures of the past and looking forward to visions of a renewed life in a land ‘flowing with milk and honey’. One of the failures of the old generation was their hankering for the past. Indeed, just as the people were on the verge of entering the land of Canaan, they express a desire to elect a new leader who would take them back to Egypt (14.4). Clearly, the passage of time had dulled their bitter memories of slavery and the terrible conditions in which they were forced to live under the Pharaoh, conditions described so graphically in Exod. 1.11-14. They now looked back to their period in captivity with a certain longing, recalling the ‘cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic’ which they ate ‘for nothing’ in Egypt (11.5). Their selective memories made them view the past through rose-tinted spectacles and, faced with the uncertainties of the future, all they could do was to look back wistfully to the ‘good old days’. But the message of Numbers is clear: when communities of faith focus too much on the past they are hindered from moving confidently into the future. Sometimes the outlook may appear to be bleak and pessimistic (as, indeed, it was for the Israelites in the wilderness), but Numbers serves as a reminder that there will always be some—like Caleb and Joshua—who will look on the positive side, convinced that, while there may be obstacles on the journey, they are there to be overcome. One of the enduring lessons which the Israelites in the wilderness had to learn was that faith involved the courage to live with uncertainty, and that in spite of their unfaithfulness and rebellion, God’s purpose would prevail and his promises would be fulfilled. And for those today who take refuge in the past and who feel threatened by the complexities and challenges of the turbulent modern world, the book of Numbers serves as a profound message of hope and encouragement.

80

Numbers

Further reading On the historical value of Numbers and the OT in general, see: Barstad, H.M., History and the Hebrew Bible: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (FAT, 61; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Davies, P.R., Memories of Ancient Israel: An Introduction to Biblical History—Ancient and Modern (London and Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008). Finkelstein, I., and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (ed. B.B. Schmidt; Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). Grabbe, L.L., Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007). Grabbe, L.L. (ed.), Enquire of the Former Age: Ancient Historiography and Writing the History of Israel (LHBOTS, 554; London and New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2011). Lemche, N.P., The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2008). Moore, M.B., and B.E. Kelle, Biblical History and Israel’s Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011). Williamson, H.M.G. (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy, 143; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

On the contemporary relevance of Numbers, see: Butterworth, M., Leviticus and Numbers: The People’s Bible Commentary (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 2003). Goldingay, J., Numbers and Deuteronomy for Everyone (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010). Nowell, I., Numbers, New Collegeville Bible Commentary (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011). Riggans, W., Numbers (DSB; Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983). Sacks, Jonathan, Radical Then, Radical Now (London and New York: Continuum, 2000).

Index of Subjects Aaron  11, 14, 36, 41, 43-44, 49 death of  13, 67 rebellion against Moses  2, 23-24, 27, 42, 45 sons of  37, 39, 72 Abiram  2, 15, 43, 45 Abraham  36, 71, 78 adultery  1, 18-19, 21 Amalekites  33 Amorites  34, 54 apostasy  3, 14, 46, 60 Arad  12 ark (of covenant)  33, 42 Assyria  64-65 asylum  4, 70 Baal Peor  11, 60 Balaam  3, 12, 15, 34, 53-62 Balak  34, 54-60, 62 Bashan  34 Benjamin  52 Beor  54, 58-59, 61-62 Bethel  46 blessing  12, 34, 55, 58-60, 76 blood guilt  37

Dathan  2, 15, 43, 45 David  50 defilement  20, 37-38 Deir ‘Allā  61-62 Deuteronomic redactor  5-6 Deuteronomy  7, 13, 36, 77 Documentary Hypothesis  4-7 Edom  3, 6, 33-34, 55 Egypt  3, 4, 6, 36, 41, 62-63, 71, 77 exodus from  11-12, 40, 44, 49 return to  2, 33-34, 42-43, 79 elders  41, 55-56, 78 Eleazar  3, 14, 24, 37, 39 Elohist (source)  4-5 Ephraim  52 Ethiopia  27 Euphrates  57 exile  47, 71, 73 Exodus (book of)  6-7, 36, 45 exodus  6, 13-14, 40, 42-44, 64, 67 Ezekiel  47 feminist biblical criticism  17, 21-22, 2429

Caleb  3, 11-12, 32-34, 40-42, 46-47, 79 Canaan  2, 4, 11, 24, 35-36, 40, 49, 74 border of  9, 34, 70 conquest of  14, 32, 41-43 entry into  3, 13, 62, 79 Canaanites  33-34, 36 canonical approach  7 census  1, 3, 8, 10-12, 34-35, 49-53, 65, 74, 77 covenant  46, 74 curse  34, 54-55, 57-61 Cush  27-28

Gad  4, 49, 51 Gadites  34 gematria  50 Genesis  6-7, 21, 36 Gershon  39

Dan  46, 49 date (of Numbers)  4-5

ideology  20, 25, 73 incense  39, 43

Hebron  47 hermeneutic of suspicion  26 high priest  14, 37 holiness  10, 12, 36-39, 43, 72 Hor  35, 66 Hosea  44, 46

82

Numbers

inheritance  3-4, 24-26, 35 intercession  40, 42, 44 Isaac  36 itinerary  8, 62-67 Jacob  36, 58 Jeremiah  44 Jericho  11-12 Jeroboam  46 Jerome  1 Jerusalem  46 Joel  79 Jordan  4, 11-12, 34-36, 42, 54, 58, 61-62, 77 Josephus  60 Joshua  3-4, 11-12, 33-34, 40, 42, 72, 79 Joshua, book of  5 Judah, land of  71-72 tribe of  46-47, 50, 53 Kadesh  33, 63, 65, 67 Kibroth-hattaavah  41, 45 Kohath  39 Korah  2, 9-10, 15, 24, 39, 43, 45, 72 Laban  60 land  4-5, 32-36, 43, 71 Lebo-hamath  35 leprosy  23-24 Levites  1, 3-4, 35-37, 49, 52, 72, 74-76 Levitical cities  4, 70 Leviticus  7, 36, 77 Manasseh  26, 49, 52 Manna  2, 41, 76 Mari  64 Merari  39 Meribah  11, 65 Midian  4, 59 Midianites  37 Miriam  2, 22-24, 27-28, 42, 45 Moab  1, 3, 9, 11-12, 22, 34, 49, 53-58, 60, 62-66, 70, 77 Moses  2-4, 11, 25, 32, 34, 36, 39-45, 66, 72-73, 78 authority challenged  22-24 death of  7 intercession of  33 marriage of  27-28

oath  18, 20, 42 offerings  4, 20 Og  12, 34 ordeal (see under trial) Origen  74 Paran  2, 66-67 Passover  1, 10, 37 patriarchy  21-27 Paul  21, 74 Pentateuch  1, 4-8, 36, 42, 45-46 Peor  58 Pethor  57 Philo  60 Pisgah  58, 65 plague  41 postcolonial criticism  17, 27-29 Priestly source  4-5, 46, 52-53, 55, 59, 67 priest(s)  3, 18, 36-39 Promised Land  2-4, 9, 11-13, 32-36, 4047, 62, 71-72, 77-79 purity  12, 20, 36-39 Rameses  4, 62-63 reader-response criticism  17-19, 29 rebellion  2-3, 6, 10-15, 33-34, 36, 39-47, 77-79 red heifer  3, 11, 38, 70, 76 Reed Sea  40, 43, 63 Reuben  4, 49, 51 Sabbath  2, 15 sacrifice  39, 55 sanctuary  1, 3-4, 18, 20, 36, 71 Septuagint  1, 27 serpent(s)  3, 44, 76 Sihon  12, 34 Simeon  50-51, 53 Sinai, Mount  1-2, 9, 41, 64, 70, 77 wilderness of  32, 36, 42, 49, 63 slavery  40 source criticism  4-7, 56 spy story  2, 11, 13, 15, 32-33, 35, 41-42, 46-47 tabernacle  10, 36-39, 49, 72 Targum  60 tassels  15, 75 Tent of Meeting  42, 71, 75, 78

Transjordan  3, 15, 34, 54, 62 trial (by ordeal)  17-19, 21, 70 vow  4, 22, 38 Vulgate  1

Index of Subjects 83 Yahwist  4-5 Zelophehad  12, 22, 24-26

Index of Authors Alexander, T.D.  15 Alter, R.  57, 59, 68 Ashley, T.R.  ix Bach, A.  21, 30 Baden, J.S.  7, 15-16 Barnouin, M.  52, 67 Barré, M.L.  59, 68 Barstad, H.M.  80 Barton, J.  28 Barton, M.  28, 30 Baskin, J.R.  68 Bellinger, W.H., Jr  ix Blenkinsopp, J.  15 Blum, E.  6, 16 Brenner, A.  ix, 30-31 Brett, M.G.  29 Brichto, H.C.  20, 30 Briggs, R.S.  29 Brueggemann, W.  47 Budd, P.J.  ix, 14-15 Burns, R.J.  30 Butterworth, M.  80 Carmichael, C.  ix Carpenter, E.E.  68 Childs, B.S.  7, 10-12, 16 Clements, R.E.  47 Clines, D.J.A.  29-30, 47 Coats, G.W.  ix, 46-48, 68 Condren, J.C.  16 Crosman, I.  29 Davies, E.W.  ix, 28-30, 47, 68 Davies, G.I.  63, 65, 69 Davies, P.R.  16, 80 Davis, E.F.  48 Detweiler, R.  29 De Vries, S.J.  47-48 Douglas, M.  16, 48

Dozeman, T.B.  16 Dube, M.W.  29 Edelman, D.V.  16 Exum, J.C.  30 Feinstein, E.L.  30 Finkelstein, I.  80 Fischer, I.  30 Forsling, J.  16 Frankel, D.  48 Frevel, C.  x Frymer-Kensky, T.  20, 30 Gammie, J.G.  48 Goldingay, J.  80 Grabbe, L.L.  80 Gray, G.B.  ix, 5, 8-9, 19 Guest, D.  29 Hackett, J.A.  68 Halmer, M.  30 Heinzerling, R.  68 Hoffmeier, J.K.  66, 69 Hoftijzer, J.  68 Houston, W.J.  16 Humphreys, C.J.  51, 68 Ilan, T.  30 Jenson, P.P.  48 Kelle, B.E.  80 Kislev, I.  68 Knierim, R.P.  ix Kooij, G. van der  68 Kupfer, C.  48 Lee, A.C.C.  ix Lee, W.W.  13-14, 16

Lemche, N.P.  80 Leveen, A.  8, 16, 72 Levine, B.A.  ix, 8, 19-20, 66 Liew, T.B.  29 Lunn, N.P.  16 Maarsingh, B.  ix Mandela, N.  77 Mazar, A.  80 Mbuvi, A.M.  29 Mbuwayesango, D.R.  29 McEntire, M.  51, 68 McKinlay, J.E.  29 Mendenhall, G.E.  51, 68 Meshel, N.S.  48 Milgrom, J.  ix, 8, 10, 20, 54 Moore, M.B.  80 Moore, M.S.  68 Nicholson, E.W.  16 Nihan, C.  16 Noth, M.  ix, 8-9, 45, 48, 64 Nowell, I.  80 Olson, D.T.  ix, 9, 11-12, 15-16 Penner, T.  29 Pola, T.  x Poorthuis, M.J.H.M.  48 Powell, M.A.  29 Ranke, L. von  73 Rendsburg, G.A.  51, 68 Rendtorff, R.  5-6, 16 Riggans, W.  ix, 80 Rofé, A.  16 Römer, T.  x, 16 Roskop, A.R.  67, 69 Ruiten, J. van  48

Index of Authors 85 Sacks, J.  77, 80 Sadler, R.S., Jr  30 Sakenfeld, K.D.  ix, 31 Schart, A.  x Scholz, S.  29 Schwartz, B.J.  7, 16, 48 Schmid, K.  16 Schmidt, B.B.  80 Schmidt, L.  ix Schottroff, L.  29 Scolnic, B.E.  69 Seebass, H.  ix, 48 Shectman, S.  16, 29 Ska, J.-L.  16 Sklar, J.  48 Stackert, J.  48 Sterring, A.  31 Stichele, C.V.  29 Sturdy, J.  ix Sugirtharajah, R.S.  29-30 Suleiman, S.R.  29 Tompkins, J.P.  29 Trible, P.  23, 28, 30 Van Seters, J.  66, 68-69 Vaulx, J. de  ix, 9 Vos, J.C. de  48 Wacker, M.-T.  29 Waite, J.  68 Way, K.C.  59, 68 Wenham, G.J.  ix-x, 8, 14, 66 Whybray, R.N.  6, 16 Williams, W.  76 Williamson, H. G. M.  80 Wright, D.P.  48 Wright, R.M.  16 Ziemer, B.  68