Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161529474, 9783161529481, 3161529472

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

62

Torah and the Book of Numbers edited by

Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola and Aaron Schart

Mohr Siebeck

Christian Frevel, born 1962; 1994 Dr. theol.; 1999 Habilitation; since 2004 Professor for Old Testament at the Ruhr-University Bochum. Thomas Pola, born 1956; 1993 Dr. theol.; 2001 Habilitation; since 2002 Professor for Old Testament at Dortmund University (TU); since 2005 director of the Pnuel excavation in the lower Zarka valley in Jordan. Aaron Schart, born 1957; 1989 Dr. theol.; 1996 Habilitation; since 1999 Professor for Old and New Testament at the University-Gesamthochschule Essen; since 2003 Professor for Old and New Testament at the University Duisburg-Essen.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152948-1 ISBN 978-3-16-152947-4 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface The reconstruction of the redactional processes behind the development of the Pentateuch was certainly an impressive feat of modern exegesis and significant for many people, as the Pentateuch was awarded canonical status in both Judaism and Christianity. It is noteworthy that the so-called Documentary Hypothesis (Urkundenhypothese) emerged as an almost worldwide mainstream that lasted for several decades in scholarly historical-critical Christian exegesis. This domination is even more impressive in that it occurred in spite of the limited evidence upon which such hypotheses could be based due to the reticence of the sources in proffering explicit information about their authors and redactors and the circumstances in which these people undertook their work. It is well known that from the beginning the Documentary Hypothesis worked well in Genesis and Exodus, but markedly less to not at all in Leviticus and Numbers. Hence, within the mainstream of source criticism, particularly the book of Numbers was often put into the rear. On the one hand there were only some allegedly clear pieces of pre-priestly literature and traces of the priestly narrative, but by no means a complete division of the material to the well known documents of Genesis and Exodus. On the other hand, the priestly material in Numbers was reckoned tendentially tedious, less important, theologically epigonal etc. Christian commentaries on Numbers were thus often slender and sometimes even narrow. In recent decades the Documentary Hypothesis has repeatedly come under attack, and a variety of new models for the development of the Pentateuch have been constructed. Thus far however, no alternative model has been able to achieve the widespread acceptance that was previously enjoyed by the Documentary Hypothesis. Paradoxically, the challenge of the Yahwist and the Psource beyond the Sinai narrative directed the discussion back to Numbers. Thus it became a testing field of newer Pentateuchal models in current research. New attention was given to the priestly material and the processes which formed the Pentateuch as Torah. However, the first step was to acknowledge the backlog. In this state of affairs a research project by Christian Frevel (Ruhr Universität Bochum), Thomas Pola (Technische Universität Dortmund), and Aaron Schart (Universität Duisburg-Essen) with the title “Traditions- und Redaktions-

VI 

Preface 

prozesse im Buch Numeri und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Entstehung des Pentateuch” thought to break new ground by defining the core issues and needs of the debate: To clear up (1) the relationship between non-priestly and priestly material in the book of Numbers, (2) its connection and conjunction with the Sinai narrative, the patriarchal narratives and the book of Deuteronomy, (3) the growth of the priestly portions of the law in the book of Numbers and its relation to Exodus and Leviticus, and (4) the formation and finalization of the Pentateuch as Torah. With the financial support of the Mercator Research Center Ruhr (MERCUR) the project’s leadership was able to enlist an exceptional roster of renowned scholars in its research, who partly contributed to a symposium on the topic “Torah in the Book of Numbers” at the Ruhr Universität in Bochum, held on April 12–13, 2011, and were partly later invited by the research group to contribute to this volume on Numbers. We would like to thank the Mercator Research Center Ruhr for its gracious support and excellent cooperation, the staff of our project, especially Kirsten Schäfers, who was in charge of managing the collaboration of the group, and Dr. Jonathan Miles Robker, who has done all of the proofreading of the English-language articles and the final formatting of the whole volume. Sonja Bader, Damaris Brozio, Bastian Buchloh, Arline Klein und Stefanie Schensar have compiled the indices. And finally, we would like to thank the editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe (FAT II), Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith und Hermann Spieckermann and the publisher Mohr Siebeck for publishing this volume. In the period of two years of discussions in a jointly-led research colloquium the approach to the book of Numbers as key area of modern Pentateuchal discussion has been proved, even if there is no hope that a new consensus will be reached in recent times. Nevertheless, the editors of this volume do hope that this volume will contribute new insights into core issues of the Pentateuchal debate. Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, Aaron Schart September, 2013

Contents Preface ............................................................................................................ V Christian Frevel The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah. Some Introductory Remarks .............................................................................1 Thomas Pola Back to the Future: The Twofold Priestly Concept of History ......................39 Thomas Römer Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21 ..................................................66 Horst Seebass Numeri als eigene Komposition .................................................................... 87 Christophe Nihan The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch ....................................................................................... 109 Christian Frevel Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers ...............................................................................138 Aaron Schart The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch ............................164 Reinhard Achenbach Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Numbers 15 ............................................................ 201

VIII

Contents

Joel S. Baden Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17 ................. 233 Adriane Leveen “Lo we perish”: A Reading of Numbers 17:27–20:29 ................................ 248 Herbert Specht Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13* P ............................. 273 Ludwig Schmidt Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.* – Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri ......................................... 314 Jonathan Miles Robker The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch ............334 Olivier Artus Numbers 32: The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes and the Final Composition of the Book of Numbers ........................ 367 Eckart Otto The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah. The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch ................................ 383 Index of Sources .......................................................................................... 399 Index of Authors .......................................................................................... 427

The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah. Some Introductory Remarks1 Christian Frevel

1. To P or Not to P. Difficulties in Attributing Texts in the Process of “Making the Pentateuch” The overarching goal of this volume about “Torah in the Book of Numbers” addresses the so-called priestly (and/or post-priestly) texts in the book of Numbers and their locus in the formation process of the book within the Torah as Torah.2 This concern takes place against the background of the much bemoaned incoherent status quo of recent Pentateuchal research and its heterogeneous models, hypotheses, and methods, and not least its regional fragmentations. The situation regarding the Pentateuch as a whole and the priestly writings respectively is outlined and documented namely in at least three recent volumes, so that we can limit ourselves in this introduction to some crucial points regarding the book of Numbers in particular. 3 Despite the evidence of what Ludwig Schmidt titled the “Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung” (the thicket of Pentateuchal research),4 these latest developments give proof of renewed dialogue 1 I am grateful to Kirsten Schäfers for the assistance in wording this text. All shortcomings and flaws remain unquestionably mine. 2 The phrase “book of Numbers” is used to label the textual nexus introduced by Num 1:1 and closed by Num 36:13. The phrase does not intend to claim a separate existence or reception of this textual continuum as a “book”. Nevertheless, the framing formulae indicate a cohesion of the text, which is clearly discerned (but not separated) from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. 3 The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009; The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid/Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011; Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, SBLAIL 8, Leiden et al.: Brill 2012. 4 Schmidt, Ludwig: Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung. Ein Plädoyer für die umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 400–420.

2

Christian Frevel

and a certain atmosphere of departure aiming to overcome some of the aporias of recent decades. Let me give three examples which are most relevant for our subject. First, I would acknowledge a quasi-consensus that multi-layered post-priestly redactional activity took place in the Pentateuch, which has manifested in Leviticus and Numbers in particular and which was pivotal for the formation of the Pentateuch as Torah. Second, I perceive a quasi-consensus in contemporary debates that there are texts of a more or less non-priestly character that may reflect older tradition(s) but that are integrated only into late post-priestly strata. A third example in my estimation gives rise to an issue of new discussion: Especially in European contributions the importance of the so-called “Pentateuchredaktor” has decreased or been displaced by a more complex multi-layered description of the process(es) in which the Pentateuch as Torah came into light. In the traditional newer documentarian hypothesis following Graf-KuenenWellhausen the “Pentateuchredaktor” was a simple editor who assembled and conjoined P and non-P without adding much and who was placed at the very end of the redactional process. The discussion of the eighties and nineties considered this inadequate and increased the portion of the “Pentateuchredaktor” who became responsible for many texts beyond the redactional linkage of P and non-P. This heavy duty made the “Pentateuchredaktor” a heterogeneous reservoir of redactional processes of “Fortschreibung”, and he lost the formative capacity in terms of “making” the Pentateuch. In more recent discussions the pendulum has swung back again. The term “Pentateuchredaktor” is used in a narrow sense only for the process of combining P and non-P (considered here as pre-P) so that some of the models do not engage the classical “Pentateuchredaktor” either, because they presume that the Priestly source was the starting point of the redactional process. Facing these options, my impression is that the redactional process, which may be described as the “making of the Pentateuch”, has become more complex and multi-layered in recent European discussions. In contrast to that appraisal is the picture drawn in two recent American monographs that focus on the “making of the Pentateuch” by David M. Carr and Joel S. Baden. 5 Both of them determine the proportion of the “Pentateuchredaktor” very differently. While the “neo-documentarian hypothesis” represented by Joel S. Baden minimizes his activity on the one hand (he is responsible only for a few verses) it enlarges his duty in being responsible for

5 Baden, Joel S.: The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven/London: Yale University Press 2012; Carr, David M.: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction, New York: Oxford University Press 2011.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

3

joining all four documents JEDP, which existed separately before this redaction, in a single process into one. The process is called “compilation”;6 hence, the “Pentateuchredaktor” is labeled “compiler” and he is the “maker” of the Pentateuch in the strictest sense.7 There is no reason or instigation for this process, nor even a temporal horizon, when, why, and by whom the four documents where compiled.8 In contrast David M. Carr in his monograph does not employ a final redactor or compiler either. Instead, he is most skeptical in terms of the methodological limits in reconstructing the textual growth of biblical literature. Inner- as well as extra-biblical evidence of ancient scribal practices motivates him to take into account several diffusing factors for the transmission process, like textual fluidity, continuous revisions and extensive harmonization that might have diffused especially the seams of pre-priestly textual traditions. “The most we can hope to achieve is partial reconstruction.”9 Consequently, as he polemically states, “a return to the clarity and simplicity of the documentary hypothesis is no longer possible”.10 Carr imagines the formation of Torah as a conflation of non-P and P sources, which are not reconstructable in detail. Nevertheless, this process took place in several stages whose historical backgrounds can be illuminated for some texts from which criteria for dating others should be extrapolated. 11 Since he desists from taking into account a “Pentateuchredaktor”, the harmonizing process of P and non-P material takes place over time not at a certain point. In the end, “[m]any of the elements assigned in the

6

Baden, Composition, 214–229. For J. S. Baden the redactor/compiler “owes his existence solely to the theory” of four combined documents (op. cit., 215). This is why his role should not be “expanded” beyond his core function as a compiler and is completely different to that of a “genuine author” (215). As a consequence, “[…] every effort must be made to understand a given passage as part of one of the four documents, with an attribution to a redactor being the last resort. [… A]ny text attributed to a redactor must serve the purposes of redaction […]” (215). This redactional process is thought of as limited to compilation: “What we attribute to the compiler can be only those elements that contribute to the process of compilation” (218). This concept deliberately opposes European notions of the term redactor: “The wider conceptual gap between this silent compiler and the active theological redactors of the European approach is worth noting” (224). This compiler “is not an author” (223), instead he is “first and foremost, a preservationist” (224). Furthermore, Baden claims to stick to the “the most economical explanation” (221) by assuming “unless proved otherwise, only as many compilers as are necessary to put the four sources together – in other words, one” (220). 8 It is one of the most problematic points, which has often been criticized, that there is no localization or socio-historical contextualization of the texts and their compilation in Baden’s theory. This is in contradiction to the critical tradition of European scholarship in the GrafKuenen-Wellhausen tradition. 9 Carr, Formation, 148. 10 Op. cit., 124. 11 Cf. op. cit., 215–216 passim. 7

4

Christian Frevel

past to RP may instead be late Hellenistic-period coordinations of disparate P and non-P Pentateuchal materials”.12 In searching for the “Trägerkreise” of these processes, i.e., the groups that had an interest in the formation, adaption, and preservation of the literary material, we are almost stranded in biblical research. Departing from Ezra the scribe, earlier debates drew on the second temple and its priests as the powerhouse behind the formation of the Pentateuch. In times of the “Reichsautorisation” it was the political establishment including the Second Temple administration that must have produced the Pentateuch that had been accepted as imperial law by the Persian authority.13 In theories that fostered the mixed or intermingled character of the Pentateuch by stressing the image of a “compromise” produced to counterbalance deuteronomistic and priestly traditions, sometimes the one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both were engaged in “making the Pentateuch”. In recent research there is no clear consensus about the “Trägergruppen” because there are no identifiable clues of finalization by a specific group. If – as we tend to assume in this volume – the formation of the book of Numbers has something to do with the “making of the Pentateuch” the same questions arise, but may obtain pieces of an answer. Reinhard Achenbach, for example, has identified a certain theocratic trait in late redactional work on the book of Numbers that one may identify with priestly circles. 14 The conflict or better the defined hierarchy between Aaronides and Levites, the decisive role of the priests in processes of legal interpretation, and the privilege of the High Priest therein, etc. may point in the same direction. But what is meant by the attribute “priestly”? In his “Introduction” into “The Strata of Priestly Writings” Baruch J. Schwartz has shaped two different approaches imagining the formation and development of the “priestly writings” in the Pentateuch: On the one hand, one might be moved to imagine priests who, with the aim of preserving, recording, expressing, publicizing, promulgating or legitimizing the laws, interests and beliefs of the priesthood, wrote down their traditions. Over time, it would then follow, some of these compositions somehow found their way into the Bible. Such a reconstruction paints an image 12

Op. cit., 199. For an assessment of the “Reichsautorisation”, the limits of its implementation and the state of discussion see Zenger, Erich et al.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. by Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 82012, 152–157 (with further literature); Schmid, Konrad: Persische Reichsautorisation und Tora, TRu 71 (2006), 494–506; The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. by Gary N. Knoppers/Bernard M. Levinson, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2007; Persia and Torah. The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. by James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2001. 14 Cf. Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, 443–628. 13

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

5

of “Priestly Writers” as literate priests, trained to think, speak and write in a certain unmistakable style, creating, copying and circulating scrolls containing the teachings of the priesthood – the priestly tales and the priestly tôrôt. Some of these, we would then imagine, were eventually gathered together to become components of some of the biblical books. On the other hand, especially in the current climate of biblical studies, one might be persuaded to imagine an entirely different picture: literate priests taking successive turns at reshaping, censoring, expanding and otherwise modifying existing writings which had attained a degree of sanctity. In this conception, the “Priestly Writers” would be those priests who, with the aim of polemicizing and correcting, indoctrinating and controlling, scrutinized the already canonical writings and, with the tools of the scribe, revised and reissued them in their own image.15

He considers that in both mental images – which may for reasons of clarity be sketched in broad strokes – there is some truth, but that nevertheless both are built on the presumed knowledge that there is textual material which is identifiable as “priestly”.16 In sum, the processes of finalization and “making of the Pentateuch” which accumulate and concentrate in the book of Numbers are open for discussion. How precisely can we reconstruct antecedent stages of what now presents itself to us as Pentateuch, what modes of literary production are to be presupposed for it, and what value can and should be given to socio-historical evidence within those reconstructions? Recent proposals still lack a cogent model for the processes of “Fortschreibung”, supplementing and commenting already existing laws in Exod–Num, in short the way from formation to interpretation within (“Fortschreibung”, “innerbiblical interpretation”) to interpretation beyond the finalization of the Pentateuch (“midrash”, “rewritten scripture”, “extrabiblical exposition”, etc.). Both processes interfere and overlap in some way, but we do not see clearly how, yet. Hence, concentration on the finalization and completion of the redactional processes that formed the book of Numbers will be at the core of recent Pentateuchal discussions. Facing this background of discussion in the following introduction I will give a short outline of the present status of research on the book of Numbers with special respect to its (in whatever way) priestly contents (section 2) coming to the conclusion that the search for “Torah in the Book of Numbers” is one of the most crucial aspects of the formation of the Pentateuch (section 3).

15 Schwartz, Baruch J.: Introduction. The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 1–12, 1–2. 16 Cf. ibid.

6

Christian Frevel

2. Core Issues in Contemporary Research on Numbers The present situation in Pentateuchal research sketched above is of utmost importance for research on the book of Numbers and vice versa since most if not all its desiderata lead into the wilderness. This becomes obvious if we trace four different, but by no means separate, developments in recent research. The discussion on Numbers is mainly determined by: (1) The challenge of the European consensus in terms of the end of the P narrative in current source-critical scholarship. (2) The dissent with regard to the existence and extent of Holiness School material in Numbers taking into account the wider background of different concepts of how H and P materials generally relate in the Pentateuch. (3) The challenge of a pre-priestly continuation of the Exodus narrative in the wilderness in some influential parts of present day scholarship. (4) The increased interest for the formation of the Torah in the Persian period and its relation to religious, social, and political developments in the Second Temple period. 2.1. The Challenged European Consensus and the End of P Some 20 years ago in an article entitled “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium”, Lothar Perlitt questioned the substance of P in Deut 34, which had previously been generally accepted.17 Based on linguistic and textual arguments he challenged any allocation of the Priestly source (Pg) in Deut 34 and suggested tentatively the end of the Priestly source in the Sinai narrative. Many scholars were convinced by his argumentation and the discussion on the P narrative and its relation to legal material in particular was reopened again with reinforced severity. Several proposals were suggested for the end of P in the Sinai narrative,18 and all positions have special implications regarding the crucial question of the relationship of legal and narrative material in the Priestly source and the composition of P at all: In Lev 16 (Matthias Köckert, Christophe Nihan),19 Lev

17 Perlitt, Lothar: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, in: Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament, ed. by Otto Kaiser, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1988, 65–88. = Idem: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, in: idem, Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1994, 123–143. 18 For an overview of positions see Zenger et al., Einleitung (82012), 196–203. 19 Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, esp. 340–394; Köckert, Matthias: Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur, JBTh 4 (1989), 29–61; but with a different emphasis idem: Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch, in: Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Siegfried Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dieter Vieweger/Ernst-Joachim Waschke, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995, 147–162.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

7

9:26 (Erich Zenger),20 Exod 40:33b (Thomas Pola),21 Exod 40:34 (Reinhard G. Kratz),22 and most drastically Exod 29:46 (Eckart Otto).23 There were only very few attempts to search for an appropriate ending in the book of Numbers: Num 27:23 (Bernd Janowski),24 and Num 10:9 (Otto Kaiser).25 However, as regards the book of Numbers, these proposals are not followed anymore within the recent discussion. Some scholars defended the standpoint of Julius Wellhausen, i.e., ending the priestly narrative with the death of Moses in Deut 34. They argue that an ending in the Sinai narrative causes shortcomings in the coherence of the structure of P. Furthermore, they identify the lack of an appropriate theory in order to sort the Pg and Ps material in Numbers, whose existence should not be disputed in general (Peter Weimar, 26 Ludwig Schmidt, 27 Christian Frevel,28 and, for example, within a different framework Erhard Blum29). 20 Zenger, Erich et al.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer 1995, 95, as well as in following editions of the study book, e.g. 42001, 150–151; idem: Art. Priesterschrift, TRE 27, 1997, 435–446, 438–439. 21 Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995, esp. 213–349. 22 Kratz, Reinhard G.: Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 105–107, 116–117, and 327–329. 23 Otto, Eckart: Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, TRu 62 (1997), 1–50. 24 Some tentative arguments can be found in Janowski, Bernd: Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption, in: idem, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1993, 214–246, esp. 224, 231, and 243–244. That the end of Pg can be found in Num 27 is also the position of Jean-Louis Ska (cf. idem: Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2006, 147–151; and idem: Le récit sacerdotal. Une „histoire sans fin?“, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 631–653). 25 Kaiser, Otto: Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Band 1: Die erzählenden Werke, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1992, 58–59 and 62. 26 Weimar, Peter: Studien zur Priesterschrift, FAT 56, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, 10– 17 and 26–90. 27 Schmidt, Ludwig: P in Deuteronomium 34, VT 59 (2009), 475–494; idem: Die Priesterschrift – kein Ende am Sinai, ZAW 120 (2008), 481–500; idem: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1993, 207–271, esp. 241–251. 28 Including a detailed survey and critique of the discussion and suggesting Deut 34:8 as the end of Pg, cf. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000; see further the related passages in Zenger et al., Einleitung (82012), 196–203. 29 Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1990, 227–228 and 287; cf. also his reemphasis of his opinion in idem: Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 31–44, 39–41.

8

Christian Frevel

Others neither followed Perlitt’s suggestion, nor the inner differentiation of the P narrative. They assume a Holiness School that added “priestly” material (HS) to the Priestly source to whatever extent. But the book of Numbers causes problems in these alternative models too, because the additional material does not fit comprehensively into the framework of HS either. I will leave this strand of the discussion aside for the moment (see section 2.2). Without going further into detail, 30 the challenge of shortening the P narrative by cutting off the priestly material in Numbers, Leviticus, and large parts of Exodus is obvious as regards the unsettled multiplicity of “post-P” redactional layers within the Penta- or Hexateuch.31 On the contrary, the reduction of the P narrative and the insistence on a homogenous narrative, be it skeletal as it may, carries forward some prejudices of Christian scholarship of the 19th century. Ideological presumptions in handling the priestly material create severe problems by dividing primary “narrative” from secondary “legal” strands; contrasting “Geschichte und Gesetz” (“history” and “law”); forming at least a Priestly Document with an “unpriestly” character that is completely free from ritual, from specifications of priestly operations, orders of sacrifice, and cultic organization, etc. It is an embarrassing and regrettable fact, that this differentiation was often accompanied by a misrepresentation of priestly theology as rigorist, hierocratic, or nomistic – and thus formed one part of common anti-Judaism in Christian theology in the 19th and 20th centuries.32 It keeps us aware that no theory is harmless, even if it has been developed by scholars of highest moral integrity.

30 I have dealt with this problem extensively in my book “Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern” and most recently in the paper “Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen” (Lev 10,20). Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10, in: Gottes Name(n). Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger, ed. by Ilse Müllner et al., HBS 71, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012, 104–136, 107–109 and 131–133. 31 See Noort, Ed: Bis zur Grenze des Landes. Num 27,12–23 und das Ende der Priesterschrift, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 99–119, 104: “je weiter Pg in den Sinaibereich zurückgedrängt wird, desto mehr Bearbeitungsstufen [müssen] postuliert werden“. 32 Cf., e.g., Jan Rohls’ paraphrase of the Wellhausenian view that the law formed no part of the old Israelite cult, but is linked with the emergence of Judaism: “Die Priesterschrift ist das Produkt des Judentums, und ihre Funktion war es, als Form zu dienen zur Aufbewahrung eines edleren Inhalts, der anders als in einer so engen Schale nicht hätte gerettet werden können”. (Rohls, Jan: Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Die Voraussetzungen und das 19. Jh., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997, 802). Cf. additionally on Wellhausen Krapf, Thomas: Die Priesterschrift und die vorexilische Zeit. Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion, OBO 119, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2002, 28–29.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

9

The discussion about the “end of the P narrative” at Sinai or beyond, encompassing texts in the book of Numbers, shares the aforementioned problematization of the false contrast of “law” and “history”. On the other hand we cannot escape the fact that the division of the P narrative and the Ps material within the so called Priestly source was one of the main issues in European scholarship concerning P in the 20th century and thus forms an important part of the history of research on P. The need for a new model regarding the priestly narrative material in Numbers beyond the so called “Strukturgerippe”33 (i.e., “structural skeleton”) of Pg on the one hand meets the quest for the earliest narrative bridge between the Sinai-episode and the border of the land on the other hand; in short, the earliest existence of a literary post-Sinaitic wilderness account as continuation of the Exodus narrative. At the latest since the existence of Deut 1:1–5 one should expect a narrative bridge between Sinai and Moab, which was in my opinion not created for the very first time in Deut 1.34 If one assumes the closure of the Priestly Document in the Sinai narrative, one has to give an explanation for the growth of the narrative regarding the socalled “priestly” material beyond Sinai, esp. in the book of Numbers (Num 1– 33 A phrase polemically coined by Helmut Utzschneider (cf. idem: Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zu Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9), OBO 77, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1988, 28), when he refers to the structural observations on Pg by Peter Weimar (cf. idem: Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung, BN 23 (1984), 81–134; BN 24 (1984), 138–162, 113). But note that already Karl Elliger characterizes the priestly account from Gen 23 onwards as “nackte[s] Gerippe”, i.e., “bare bones” (idem: Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung, ZTK 49 (1952), 121–143. = Idem: Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, TB 32, München: Chr. Kaiser, 1966, 174–198, 177). 34 Deut 1:1–5 does not construct the bridge formulated in Deut 2 by itself because it only mentions the way from Horeb to Qadesh, while the way from Qadesh to Moab remains unmentioned. Detlef Jericke has shown that the location in Deut 1:1 already presupposes a statement of place in Moab (cf. idem: Der Ort des Mose nach Deuteronomium 1:1, JNSL 34 (2008), 35– 57, 40 and 51). Usually Deut 1:1–5 is attributed to a “late” Fortschreibung (in several steps: L. Perlitt), which is dated post-priestly. The crucial question is whether Deut 1:3 presupposes Num 14:33–34, or the other way round. The answer is not independent from the analysis and dating of Num 13–14; see for instance Eckart Otto: “Das Motiv der vierzigjährigen Wüstenwanderung hat seine narrative Begründung im Tetrateuch postpriesterschriftlich in Num 14:33–34“ (idem: Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband 1,1–4,43, HTKAT 8/1, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012, 307). Furthermore, it is questionable whether the forty years in Deut 1:3 presuppose Num 13– 14. Cf. Frevel, Christian: Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert. Numbers 21 as a Compositional Joint, in: The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology. Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. by Jacques van Ruiten/J. Cornelis de Vos, VTSup 124, Leiden/Boston: Brill 2009, 111–135. Achenbach, Vollendung, 174–175 n. 3, attributes v. 3 to the Pentateuchredaction. A different view is held by Seters, John van: The Life of Moses. The Yahwist As Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster Press 1994, 383–404, who chronologically subordinates Num 20–21 to Deut 1–3 and Judg 11.

10

Christian Frevel

10; 13–14*; 15; 16–17*; 18; 19; 20; 25:6–18; 26–31; 33–36). These texts were previously, correctly ascribed to different literary levels. Thus the inner differentiation of the priestly strata in the book of Numbers is an open question, too. The scholarly debate has led to various differentiations and different layers of “Fortschreibung”, e.g., in Num 1–10; 16–18; 19; 20; 25; 26; 27–31; 33; 34; 35; and 36. There are various proposals (a–e) in the recent discussion that are more or less dependent on the framing Pentateuch hypothesis. We will comment on them with short remarks beginning with the most traditional, progressing to the most recent proposal with some additional notes: (a) Linguistic differences between the P texts in Exodus and Numbers led Thomas Pola to the assumption of a new supplement called Pge to which he attributed the materials Num 1–4; 10:11–12; 13–14; and Exod 16*.35 While his analyses were cited often with approval, his proposal was not widely followed by scholars, although the idea of reworking within the separate Priestly source was thought to be highly attractive. One of the obstacles may be the assessment of an addition and its presupposed context. (b) Attributing the predominant part to Ps – meant as a secondary strand of a yet independent stratum of the P narrative in early post-exilic times – is a variant defended mostly by scholars who adhere to the traditional GrafKuenen-Wellhausen source-critical model JEDP in one form or another. 36 However the problem of the inner differentiation of P and the sequence of additions is obvious, as Horst Seebass notices: The additions “lassen sich kaum festen Schichten zuordnen, wie etwa Ps,ss,sss usw., da eine durchgehende Ergänzungstheorie […] bisher nicht gelingen will”.37 Convincing criteria to match these priestly additions to literary strands are lacking in Seebass’ view.38 “Man 35

Cf. Pola, Priesterschrift, 51–146. See for example the work of Diether Kellermann (idem: Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10. Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120, Berlin: de Gruyter 1970) and the commentaries of Ludwig Schmidt (Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri 10,11–36,13, ATD 7/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004) and Horst Seebass (Numeri. 3 Vols., BKAT 4/1–3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2003–2012), although both mentioned commentaries attribute a large amount of text to layers beyond Ps, too. Cf. exemplarily the recent introduction to the commentary of Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/1, 3*– 30*, who assumes a first post-Pg composition dated in the second half of the 4th century BCE, which was supplemented in several stages. The final form has received canonical additions in Num 7:1–88; 9:1–14; and 31:1–54 from the 1st century BCE up to the 1st century CE. 37 Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/1, 30*. His own model to assume an original priestly design of the book of Numbers, a later composition, several additions, and finally canonical additions tries to overcome the lack of a convincing source model and has its merits in combining the source critical model with a fragmentary hypothesis. Nevertheless, it must face the suspicion of circularity in those parts where the original design is presupposed to form a literary argument. 38 “[Es gibt] keine einleuchtenden Kriterien für eine spezifische Zuordnung zu einer der PsVarianten“ (op. cit., 34*). 36

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

11

muß vielmehr mit einer Fülle von P-Nachträgen […] rechnen, ohne daß man diese in eine verläßliche zeitliche Folge bringen könnte oder müßte”.39 (c) The priestly material in Numbers was attributed widely to the “Pentateuchredaktor” including the texts of the Holiness School (HS). This proposal implies that there is not any material from a Priestly source to be found in Numbers but all the more redactional material. The priestly texts were a later redactional layer attached to the corpus of the “Hexateuch-Redaktion”, which included pre-priestly material in the book of Numbers. This suggestion was made by Eckart Otto in general but he has not implemented it in the whole book yet by a continuous analysis of the book of Numbers. Nevertheless, Eckart Otto sees many supplements to this stratum of the Pentateuch which he calls “postP”, “postpentateuchredaktionell” or “postendredaktionell”.40 (d) A remarkable variant of the framework of Eckart Otto was developed by Reinhard Achenbach in his seminal work on “Die Vollendung der Tora”.41 He adopts the two central stages of the “Hexateuch-Redaktion” and the “Pentateuchredaktion” successively in the 5th century BCE, and adds three further redactional layers in the 4th century BCE, which he calls “Theokratische Bearbeitungen” (“theocratic revisions”). To these supplementary reworking phases he 39

Op. cit., 31*–32*. In his general model, as he presents it in Otto, Eckart: Art. Pentateuch, RGG4 6, 2003, 1089–1102, these last supplements in Leviticus and Numbers before the “closure” of the Pentateuch are labeled “postredaktionell” (1101). They comprise controversial issues of law and priestly/levitical hierarchy and only Num 27:1–11; Lev 10; and Num 16–18* are given as examples. In several other of Otto’s contributions the label “postredaktionell” seems to be synonymously used with “postpentateuchredaktionell” and “postendredaktionell” and is also applied to a much larger amount of text in Numbers, as well as to supplements in Deuteronomy. See for example the famous collection of papers in idem: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 461–469, 468; ibid., 515–560, 544 and 558–559; or the monograph idem: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000, 94–101, 106, 133–134, 230–233, 242–244, and 262–264. Moreover, these lables serve as a designation for several additions in the context of the Enneateuch in Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges, esp. in idem: Geschichte der spätbiblischen und frühjüdischen Schriftgelehrsamkeit, in: idem, Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte. Gesammelte Studien, BZAR 8, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2008, 564–602, 582 and 597. Otto’s terminology was often criticized; e.g., Rüterswörden, Udo: Rez. R. Achenbach/M. Arneth/E. Otto, Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen, BZAR 7, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2007, TLZ 134 (2009), 160–162, 162, speaks of Otto’s “charakteristischen, aber nicht unbedingt logischen Terminus”; Frevel, Verhältnis, 108: “contradictio in adjecto“; Schmid, Konrad: Der Pentateuchredaktor. Beobachtungen zum theologischen Profil des Toraschlusses in Dtn 34, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2007, 183–197, 184: “ohne forschungsgeschichtliches Rückraumwissen ist diese Redeweise kaum verständlich”. 41 Achenbach, Vollendung. 40

12

Christian Frevel

attributes much of the priestly legal material in the book of Numbers, which is partly older than the redactional layers in traditional respect. While this model has considerable advantages in differentiating the “late” bulk of texts in the book of Numbers, it has been criticized regarding the criteria that allow the differentiation of the three stages of additional reworking.42 Within the recent discussion, the model of Achenbach was generally lauded as progress, but it was questioned likewise whether it addresses the variety and diversity of the material in the book of Numbers properly. (e) This holds also true for the model of redactional growth in Numbers by Rainer Albertz, which relates to the inner-differentiation of P texts as well. In a sophisticated paper he recently shaped a model for the redactional growth of Num 20–24 from which he explores the redactional history of the whole book.43 Generally, his Pentateuchal model sticks to Erhard Blum’s bipartite KD and KP composition, but develops this further by combining it (a) with Achenbach’s hypothesis on the diachronic differentiation of the late priestly texts within the Hexateuchal and Pentateuchal contexts, and (b) with Thomas Römers suggestion of the book of Numbers as bridge between (Gen–)Exod–Lev and Deut. He assumes five stages of priestly working and reworking. All of the so-called priestly texts in Numbers are later than P144/KP/Pg and P2/HS in Exodus and Leviticus, while the bulk of texts, especially Num 25–36, is ascribed to one or two very late and almost end-compositional priestly strata P4 or P4 and P5. These latest strata were meant to replace the deuteronomistic conception of the book of Joshua and foster a Pentateuch against the former Hexateuch; they are also called “spätpriesterliche Pentateuchredaktionen”.45 Though the analysis of Num 25–36 is still to be continued in detail,46 his proposition embraces the evolution of the Pentateuch and its relation to the Hexateuch and the Enneateuch by integrating former publications on the exodus narrative, on the late D-composition, and on the links between the books of Numbers and Joshua.47 For the 42

Cf. Frevel, Christian: Rez. Achenbach, Vollendung, OLZ 100 (2005), 278–285. Albertz, Rainer: Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie. Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil I und II), ZAW 123 (2011), 171–183 and 336–347. 44 Albertz uses also the sigla PB1–5 for “priesterliche Bearbeitungsschicht”. 45 See Albertz, Rainer: Exodus 1–18, ZBK.AT 2.1, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2012, 25. 46 As is conceded by Albertz himself several times. Cf. his comments in idem: Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, BN NF 149 (2011), 13–43, 38 n. 94; idem, Buch Numeri, 345–346; idem, Exodus 1–18, 25. 47 Albertz, Rainer: The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1–34*). A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., FAT 78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, 243–256; idem, Ex 33,7–11; idem: The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2007, 287–303; idem: The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid 43

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

13

earlier literary stages dated around the exilic times he builds upon single corpora like an exodus narrative,48 the patriarchal narratives, the primeval history, and a core of the book of Deuteronomy. These texts formed the background of a P-composition (P1), which was later extended by the Holiness School (P2), and a DtrG. They were followed by a post-priestly D-composition which then is mostly congruous with Blum’s KD in the adjusted form without the SihonOg, the Balaam, and the Dathan and Abiram narratives. It is within this Dcomposition in the middle of the 5th century BCE that the earliest parts of the book of Numbers49 came into being for the first time, when there was a need to bridge the narrative to Deuteronomy. By considering the narrative bridging function between the Triateuch and Deuteronomy as crucial, he sees himself in line with the idea of Thomas Römer and Christophe Nihan (see below). The further growth of Numbers in his model is significantly contingent on several alternating priestly and non-priestly redactions. The P3-composition added Num 13–14*; 16–18*; 20:1–13, 22–29; 22:1. HexR: 20:14b–21; 21:21–32, 33– 35; 22:2–24:19, 25; […] Josh 24. PentR=P4 and P5: Num 25–36; […] Deut 34, succeeded by a final redactor in the early 4th century BCE. The proposal of Rainer Albertz has its merits in combining some of the most influential assumptions in modern research and it is too complex to deal with it here in detail. Beyond the presupposed literary decisions, 50 one wonders whether it is a convincing model at all. This touches for instance on the priestly stratum as a redactional layer or the theory of the ephemeral Hexateuch, which I have discussed elsewhere. Let me indicate here just two other general aspects: On the one hand one wonders whether the combination of different theoretical assumptions (KD, KP, DtrG, Pentateuch-redaction, Hexateuch-redaction, Triateuch, etc.) leads to one model of “making” the Pentateuch or whether these assumptions remain conflicting aspects of models. In terms of the book of Numbers one may question the (in some way bold) redactional homogeneity of Num 25–36. Not only does the delimitation of this passage remain doubtful in a compositional respect, but so does the attribution of Num 25 (in its entirety with vv. 1–5 as an earlier tradition integrated in the P-strand [sic!]) to the same layer as Num 26, which is linked clearly to the composition of the book of Numbers. The same is true for Num 27 and Num 31, or Num 32 and Num 33, which are each distinct and may not easily be attributed to the same redactional layer. Can the Eleazar-Phinehas thread in Num 25; 27; and 31 actually be seen Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2011, 483–504. 48 See his most recent Exodus commentary Albertz, Exodus 1–18, 19–21. 49 In his view the late deuteronomistic layer is restricted to Num 10:29–36; 11:14–17, 24b– 30; 12:1–10; 13–14*; 21:1–3, and 4–20*, cf. Albertz, Numeri, 336–337. 50 For instance the unity of Num 20:1–13 and its problematic affiliation with Num 20:14– 21 (Albertz, Numeri, 177), which is possible but by no means compelling.

14

Christian Frevel

in the same line as the great priest or high priest in Num 35? Thus it seems more plausible to foster redactional differentiation beyond the twofold P4, P5 level of Rainer Albertz. Of course we could continue to address recent positions in the Pentateuch discussion and their solutions for the so-called priestly texts in the book of Numbers. The situation becomes all the more complex if we take the Leviticus material into account as well, not least because the so called Holiness School for some scholars following Israel Knohl has left positive marks in the redactional reworking of the book of Numbers (see below). Hence, more attention should also be paid to the connections between Leviticus and Numbers. In compositional respect the organization of the narratives in Exodus and Numbers should be taken into account, too. As often was noted, there is a certain correspondence between the wilderness narratives before and after Sinai. For instance there are particular post-priestly relations between Exod 16 and Num 11; Exod 17 and Num 20:1–13, or Exod 19 and Num 11. Apart from redactional repercussions, the book of Leviticus moves into the center of the Torah. This implies in some way “priestly” interest in the compilation of the Torah51 which should be considered in the model building process referred to above, too. However, the handling of the priestly parts of the book of Numbers in recent research has become much more eclectic and multi-layered by bringing in various contexts, presupposition, backgrounds, leading hypotheses, etc. The redactional hypothesis of a multi-layered “Fortschreibung” within the priestly material is in danger of degenerating to a black box without clear contours.52 The present situation is highly dependent on Pentateuchal theories and far from a consensus in recent discussions. If one takes roughly Num 1–10; 13–14*; 15; 16–17*; 18; 19; 20; 25:6–18; 26–31; 33; and 34–36 as belonging to “the priestly material”, the evidence is more complex on a literary level than attributing it to one or two different literary strands. The majority of scholars recently agreed that a differentiated redactional process beyond the so called “Pentateuchredaktor” can be identified, which led at the end to the formation of the book in its final form. Was there a final redactional stage of an “Endredaktion” or not, and if so, were there textual additions or redactional supplements beyond this compositional literary stratum? There is no consensus on how the priestly strata in the book of Numbers relate to each other and not at all on how this redactional process relates to the formation process of the Torah in general. Facing the literary complexity of the texts in the book of Numbers, there should

51

See Zenger, Erich/Frevel, Christian: Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 35–74; Zenger et al., Einleitung (82012), 79–80. 52 For the term ‘black box’ see Blum, Issues, 33.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

15

be a cautious reluctance against redactional models that are too simple and linear, be it as Fortschreibung en bloc or in only a few great chunks of redactional backfilling of the gap between Sinai and the land. We may add that even beyond this trail of discussion the situation remains diverse. However, this is not a phenomenon of (post-)modern depravation, but rather characteristic if not essential in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch historical-critical research from its beginning. 2.2. The Dissent Regarding the Existence and Extent of Holiness School Material in Numbers As was developed above, the apocopation of the narrative of the Priestly source to the Sinai narrative in Exodus or Leviticus produces severe problems in reconstructing the literary process that had formed the narrative between Sinai and the land in the book of Numbers. The material in Numbers is diverse, often related to the former narrative and law, but likewise idiosyncratic. Current models of explanation differ in attributing parts of the material in Numbers to overarching redactional layers that extend this book, comprising either Leviticus and Numbers, Exodus–Leviticus–Numbers, or the Tetra-, Penta-, Hexa-, or Enneateuch. One hotspot of discussion is the intervention of the so called Holiness School in Numbers. While the special role of the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 is relatively undisputed, the affiliation of material related explicitly to the Holiness Code outside is disputed. Thus, defining and confining the amount of text attributed to the Holiness School, esp. regarding the book of Numbers, differs in particular between scholars.53 Nor is there a consensus whether H and HS are just additional redactional layers of “Fortschreibung” outgoing from the implementation of the Holiness Code or whether H and HS intend to correct and contrast explicitly the foregoing priestly texts. Israel Knohl has gone furthest. He sees the Holiness School represented in almost the entire Pentateuch and ultimately responsible for the final composition of the Pentateuch.54 Following the general assumption of Israel Knohl that

53 Against Knohl, cf., e.g., Achenbach, Reinhard: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die Sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion; and Nihan, Christophe: Israel’s Festival Calendars in Lev 23 and Num 28–29 and the Formation of “Priestly” Literature, both in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 145–175 and 177–231; idem: The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 81–122, 120–122. 54 See Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995, 101–106; idem: Who Edited the Pentateuch?, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., FAT

16

Christian Frevel

H follows P and that the Holiness School has integrated or added not only the “Holiness Code” Lev 17–26 to the priestly texts but – in the case of Knohl – much of the legal material in the book of Numbers55 – the literary growth of the book of Numbers beyond the non-priestly material becomes complicated and in fact disputed. The methodological problem, that the Holiness School becomes more vague the more redactional material is attributed to it (which was already outlined for the so called “Pentateuchredaktor” above), is clearly addressed by Baruch J. Schwartz: If all redactional activity is automatically attributed to HS, the catalogue of features associated with HS will soon come to include a number of those having no connection with H whatsoever and whose only qualification for inclusion among the literary features of the Holiness School is that they appear in redactional passages in the Pentateuch […].56

It is also emphasized by Christophe Nihan who states that “H’s phraseology is significantly more diffuse in this book [scil. the book of Numbers] than in Exodus and Leviticus”.57 In contrast to Israel Knohl he argues explicitly against significant redactional traces of H in the book of Numbers. “Indeed, the socalled ‘Priestly’ legislation in Numbers is hardly comparable to the few limited HS interpolations detected elsewhere in Exodus and Leviticus”.58 Comparing language and conception, one may argue in favour of H regarding the second Passover in Num 9:13–14 (cf. Exod 12:48–49), in Num 15 (cf. esp. v. 40), and perhaps also Num 35:33–34. But if one accepts a clear dependence in terminology to the Holiness Code and the holiness-Sabbath-conception, then a redactional layer of H in Numbers is not a convincing solution for the material in Numbers. Methodologically one should restrict the siglum HS (Holiness School) to those texts which are clearly dependent on the Holiness Code. Furthermore, the presuppositions of each redactional approach either to H or to Ps entail far reaching consequences. Joel S. Baden for instance states boldly: […] few scholars today would deny that, for example P is in fact at least two layers, P and H (which stands for Holiness Codes: the laws in Lev 17–26, and perhaps some further material in Exodus and Numbers). […] Yet insofar as these layers are seen as the literary prehistory of a single source, the Documentary hypothesis itself is largely unconcerned with them.59

78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, 359–367. For a detailed and fundamental critique on Knohl’s methodology see Blum, Issues, 34–39, and Nihan, Torah, 571–572. 55 Cf. Knohl, Sanctuary, 71–106. 56 Schwartz, Introduction, 9. 57 Nihan, Torah, 571. 58 Nihan, Torah, 571–72. 59 Baden, Composition, 32.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

17

The embedding of H and the successive H-Fortschreibungen exclusively within a separate Priestly Document is assumed by Jeffrey Stackert as well: “The Holiness authors betray a pre-redactional literary approach”.60 This is accompanied by the far reaching assumption of Baden that neither P nor H relate on the non-priestly material: “Nowhere does H or any other purportedly secondary priestly redaction supplement, revise or interact in any discernible way with the nonpriestly text.”61 This statement begins to waver with regard to priestly material in Numbers, for instance in Num 20:1–13*; 25:6–18*; 26:9; 31:18; 33:40, 51–53, etc., which is by no means totally independent of the non-priestly material.62 Furthermore, that this assumption is axiomatic is in my view deniable in terms of juridical hermeneutics of the Holiness Code (which is much more interpretative revision than replacement63). Nevertheless, this holds more or less true for the HS material outside of the Holiness Code. But also within this material, one has to “call to mind the observation of Knohl that some of his ‘Holiness texts’ show dependence on the pre-priestly material”.64 In sum, the situation in Numbers is much more complex than merely restricting the priestly material to internality within the broader context of the Priestly source. Priestly and non-priestly material in the book of Numbers is often intertwined, both parts have strong relations not only to the book of Exodus, but to Joshua as well, and the understanding of Torah tends to completion by interpretation (see below). 2.3. Interlocking Post-priestly Traditions in the Book of Numbers in a Hexateuchal Horizon One set of problems which has not been mentioned so far is the strong relatedness of the latter part of Numbers Num 25:19–36:13 (or better Num 27–36) to the book of Joshua and the distribution of the land in Josh 13–21.65 Within traditional Pentateuchal models there is no place for this literary reference. Alt-

60

Stackert, Jeffrey: The Holiness Legislation and Its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 187–204, 188. 61 Baden, Composition, 187. 62 Cf., e.g., Knoppers, Gary N.: Establishing the Rule of Law? The Composition Num 33,50–56 and the Relationships among the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 135–152. 63 See for this the argument of Nihan, Torah, 545–559, in contrast to Jeffrey Stackert. 64 Blum, Issues, 42. 65 Cf. Zenger/Frevel, Bücher, 49–53 and 68–70.

18

Christian Frevel

hough the existence of a post-priestly Hexateuch is sometimes disputed or marginalized as a temporal solution, the book of Numbers provides a strong impetus to discuss the development of the Pentateuch-Hexateuch question anew.66 The very late Hexateuchal perspective was a problem already for Martin Noth67 and has been discussed with recent proposals towards the “canonical alignment” of the book of Joshua by Rainer Albertz,68 an extension of the “theocratic redaction” by Reinhard Achenbach 69 or a late post-P Hexateuchal “Fortschreibung” by myself.70 If some of the texts in Numbers are attributed to the Holiness School, one has to ask whether this “Holiness School” can be identified as or equated with the Pentateuch-redactor. Most scholars will apparently answer this suggestion of Israel Knohl with “no” because the framing compositional function comprises only a few texts (Num 5:1–4, 5–8; 35:9–34; 27:12– 14)71 and it remains vague to identify these passages with a final editing of the Pentateuch. 2.4. Interim Conclusion: A Least Common Denominator Proposed Thus, disagreement is one certain fact that meets overall consensus in Pentateuchal research. However, some general consensual points may be addressed cautiously: (a) There is in fact priestly narrative material in Numbers in Num 10*; 13–14*; 16–17*; 20*; 27*; etc. that has linguistic and conceptual peculiarities if it is read against the background of a Priestly source in Exodus, but that is related to the plot of the Sinai narrative or at least sorted into the wilderness on the other hand. It is often related to non-priestly strata or non-priestly material (e.g., in Num 13–14; 16–17). To discuss the literary character of this material and the conclusions which may be drawn from textual observations therein remains an unfinished task. Moreover, it is of renewed importance with regard to the fact that the character and coherence of priestly writings can be 66

See the contribution of Olivier Artus on Num 32 and the two and a half lost tribes in this volume and Frevel, Christian: Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ed. by Hermann-Josef Stipp, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang 2011, 13–53. 67 Cf. his remarks on the function of Deut 1–3, on the supplemental character of Num 25:6– 27:11 and on a post-DtrGW date of Num 32–35* later than Josh 13–21* in Noth, Martin: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Niemeyer 41973, 45–47 and 184–214; and my dicussion of the shortcomings of his argumentation in: Frevel, Wiederkehr, 17–22 and 25. 68 Albertz, Alignment. 69 Achenbach, Reinhard: Der Pentateuch, seine Theokratischen Bearbeitungen und Josua– 2 Könige, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2007, 225–253, esp. 234–239. 70 Cf. Frevel, Wiederkehr, 17–25 and 31–45; Frevel, Joint, 124–134. 71 Cf. Knohl, Pentateuch, 363–365, see further Knohl, Israel: The Guilt Offering Law of the Holiness School (Num. V 5–8), VT 54 (2004), 516–524, 518–519.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

19

seen as a core issue of the question, “is the documentary hypothesis or a model based on source criticism to be abandoned or not”: In addition to the dissent concerning the existence of J and E documents, the well-known and yet never consensually solved dispute whether P(g) (the so-called “Priestly source”) has to be considered as a source or a redaction arises anew. (b) Furthermore, there is much more priestly material in the book of Numbers, especially legal material related to other material in Exodus and Leviticus, which often has some idiosyncrasies, too. Yet, it is nevertheless part of the priestly legislation and its gradual growth.72 (c) A third point of consensus pertains to the shortcomings of the diachronic distinction between narrative an legislative portions in the book of Numbers. Num 27 and 36 are narrative and supplementary legal justification,73 and Num 16–18 has to be seen as entanglement of “Geschichte” and “Gesetz” as well.74 2.5. The Challenge of a Pre-Priestly Continuation of the Exodus Narrative in the Wilderness Let me briefly address the second development in Pentateuchal studies regarding the book of Numbers that has a certain impact on the aforementioned issue of the priestly texts: The challenge of a pre-priestly continuation of the Exodus narrative in the wilderness in some influential parts of current scholarship. The “Forschungsgeschichte” in this regard is well documented in the discussion of the Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen-model and its critics,75 so I may restrict myself to mentioning only the so-called “Farewell to the Yahwist”, which was fostered by a book edited by Jan C. Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. This book – respectively, these books, because a different anthology with the same title was edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid in 2006 documenting the SBL Pentateuch Seminar76 – was much more a provocative hallmark of 72 Treated exemplarily by the contributions of Christophe Nihan, Eckart Otto, and Reinhard Achenbach in this volume. 73 See below. 74 For priestly scribal techniques in this regard, see Reinhard Achenbach’s article on Num 15 in this volume. 75 See exemplarily the Zurich-volume The Pentateuch – International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by T. Dozeman/ K. Schmid/B. Schwartz. Concentrated on the book of Numbers cf. Römer, Thomas: Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten. Anfragen zur 'Quellenscheidung' im vierten Buch des Pentateuch, in: Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by Jan C. Gertz/Konrad Schmid, BZAW 315, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2002, 215–231. 76 Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by Jan C. Gertz et al., BZAW 315, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2002; A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2006; note the remarkable difference: the English title was followed by a question mark!

20

Christian Frevel

some recent trends in the discussion than a beacon of the end of redaction criticism following the source-critical tradition. Nevertheless, it has had a profound impact on the discussion in recent years. Three articles in the German edition focused on Numbers, which underlined the crucial role of this book in recent debate on the textual dimension of the pre-priestly narrative in the Pentateuch. In the English volume Konrad Schmid wrote: The Yahwist (J) has also come under controversial discussion as well in the recent years. Which texts should be assigned to J? […]Where is its literary end? […]It becomes more and more clear that J as a coherent redactional work can only be detected in the book of Genesis. The J hypothesis was developed from the texts in the book of Genesis, and it never really fit the other books of the Pentateuch. Martin Noth, for example, wrote at the outset of his commentary on Numbers: “If we were to take the book of Numbers on its own, then we would think not so much of ‘continuous sources’ […].”77 Limiting J to the book of Genesis means at the same time that one leaves the usual definition of J behind, in which J was understood to be the main ordering thread of the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch. A Yahwistic work that is limited only to the book of Genesis no longer matches the fundamental criteria of this hypothesis. Therefore, it seems appropriate to argue for a “farewell to J”. For some this might sound radical, but it is a scholarly fact that this perception is gaining more and more acceptance at least in the European context.78

Whether this appraisal was premature or not has been discussed recently. The situation is complex: A considerable number of scholars have abandoned the Yahwist already, but there are still a considerable number of scholars who question the cogency of the alternative, that the priestly account is the only remaining document in the Pentateuch; there are some who still adhere to the Yahwist in one or the other variation; some who question that along with the farewell of the Yahwist the pre-priestly account reaching from Genesis to Numbers has become implausible; and finally for some the situation is even worse, because P as the remaining source was not likewise abandoned. In the German anthology “Abschied vom Jahwisten” only Thomas Römer presents an alternative view of the growth of the book of Numbers beyond the hypothesis of a documentary Yahwist, and this may demonstrate the far reaching consequences of a farewell: In his roughly outlined view, the first Pentateuch was a “Tritoteuch”, that is, the collection of traditions in Gen–Lev that were edited (as Noth’s former Tetrateuch) under the auspices of priestly tradents. 79 The deuteronomistic history existed separately and the book of 77 Noth, Martin: Numbers: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press 1968, 4. 78 Schmid, Konrad: The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus, in: A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2006, 29–50, 31 (italics mine). 79 Cf. Römer, Numeri. From this follows that the end of P is supposed to be in Lev 9 or, more likely, following Christophe Nihan in Lev 16; the Holiness Code would then be a later unit.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

21

Numbers was formed within a postexilic process aimed at finding a compromise between priestly and deuteronomistic circles in Persian times: Der erste “Pentateuch” war ein Tritoteuch, d.h. die Zusammenstellung der Traditionen in Gen– Lev unter priesterlicher Federführung. Unabhängig davon gab es ein von Dtn–Kön reichendes “Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk”. Im Rahmen der Bemühungen um ein breit akzeptierbares Gründungsdokument des in der Perserzeit entstehenden Judentums kam es zu einem Kompromiss zwischen priesterlichen und deuteronomistisch-laizistischen Kreisen. Dabei steuerten die Deuteronomisten hauptsächlich das Deuteronomium und deren priesterliche Kollegen ihren von der Gründung der Welt bis zur Gründung des Heiligtums reichenden Bericht (Gen– Lev) bei. Bei dieser Zusammenfügung wurde das Buch Numeri zu einer Art Brücke zwischen Tetrateuch und dem vom DtrG abgetrennten Dtn. Das bedeutet, dass Numeri als das letzte Buch der Torah entstanden ist.80

The book of Numbers was created, resp. composed, to bridge the gap between Tritoteuch and Deuteronomy – Römer calls it “un livre-pont”, a “book brigde”.81 Within this process additions and actualizations were integrated and other texts, such as Num 16–17; 25 and 32, were composed as mediation between priestly and deuteronomistic traditions. The whole book from ‫וידבר יהוה‬ ‫ אל־משׁה במדבר סיני‬in Num 1:1 to ‫אלה המצות והמשׁפטים אשׁר צוה יהוה ביד־משׁה אל־בני‬ ‫ ישׂראל מערבות מואב על ירדן ירחו‬in Num 36:13 is regarded as a post priestly addition or supplement. This appears to “cut the Gordian knot”, but it ultimately causes several problems. One may wonder, for instance, whether Num 1–10 can be simply addressed as a marginal addition to the consecration of the sanctuary in Exod 40;82 or whether Num 16–17 search for a mediation of positions between dtr and priestly circles; why the obviously earlier Balaam narrative was inserted and Balaam killed at the same time;83 why the non-priestly parts of the spy story in Num 13–14, which should be reckoned as dependent on Deut 1 in Römer’s view, were different from this deuteronomistic account; etc. If the non-priestly narratives and their integration are not considered as belonging to one single literary level the question arises whether there were several redactions that aimed at a literary compromise. And if so, what is the relationship to the process of priestly growth in the book of Numbers? Is the book of Numbers really held together by the idea of compromise? However, I have not only mentioned the statement of Thomas Römer to criticize his view but rather to demonstrate the role of the book of Numbers within the discussion on the farewell to the Yahwist and to illustrate the difference, for 80

Op. cit., 222–223. Römer, Thomas: De la périphérie au centre: Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by idem, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 3–34, 22. 82 Cf. Zenger/Frevel, Bücher, 61–68. 83 Cf. Frevel, Christian: Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Has to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in the Book of Numbers, in: Torah in Psalms and Prophecy, ed. by Dirk J. Human/Eckart Otto/Jurie LeRoux, LHBOTS 562, London, forthcoming. 81

22

Christian Frevel

instance, between Joel S. Baden and Baruch Schwartz on the one hand and Thomas Römer and Eckart Otto on the other. My short comments on the debate should also have demonstrated that there is not only strong interrelatedness between the questions of priestly and nonpriestly material in Numbers, redaction criticism, and Pentateuchal models, but also between questions of composition and literary growth as well. Let us turn now to the question of Torah in the book of Numbers. 2.6. Increased Interest in the Social-historical Context of the Formation of the Torah in the Persian Period The final form of the book of Numbers is a compositional unit that has been observed too faintly due to the devastating, but uninformed, judgement of Martin Noth in his commentary, who considered the structure of the book as “reichlich undurchsichtig” (abundantly opaque, amply obscure), which was interpreted a bit more cautiously in the English edition: “From the point of view of its content, the book lacks unity, and it is difficult to see any pattern in its construction”.84 The structure and content of the book are of course undervalued in European critical research. The first steps towards renewed interest and estimation are documented in the Leuven volume edited by Thomas Römer “The Books of Leviticus and Numbers”.85 However, the date of the final form has to be reconsidered against the background of social and political history as well. If we do not employ the theory of “Reichsautorisation” for the implementation of Torah, we have various clues in the book of Numbers that hint at a concrete social background in post-exilic times. These are connected, for example, with questions of land ownership, land law, and inheritance laws, or with the organization of priesthood, its hierarchy, and succession. The role of Aaron, Eleazar, and Phinehas is crucial (Num 17; 18; 25; 31) as regards the leadership of the congregation on the one hand. The role of Moses is minimized on the other hand, but his authority as law-giver is strengthened in some passages that complement and interpret the legal system (Num 15; 27; 36). Thus, the law is becoming “Torah”; a “Regelungsinstanz” (“instance of control”) in the book of Numbers. Let me thus turn to the issue “Torah” in the book of Numbers, which can be addressed on different levels. The easiest perspective is the lexemic occurrence of the term ‫ תורה‬which is attested ten times in the book of Numbers (Num 5:29, 30; 6:13, 21[twice]; 15:16, 29; 19:2, 14; 31:21). The first instances continue the use of ‫ תורה‬in the book of Leviticus. As in Lev 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11; 11:46; 12:7; 13:59; 14:2, 32, 54, 57; and 15:32, ‫ תורה‬is used in combination with the demonstrative pronoun ‫ זאת‬in Num 5:29, introducing the concluding sentence of the 84 Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, 5; idem, Numbers, 1. 85 BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

23

jealousy ordeal (‫ )זאת תורת הקנאת‬in Num 5:11–31, and in Num 6:21 to close the law of the Nazirites (‫ )זאת תורת הנזיר‬in Num 6:1–21. The same ‫ זאת תורת הנזיר‬is used in Num 6:13 as an introductory formula. Comparable is Num 19:14 where ‫ תורה‬introduces a subset of the law of handling death and contact with corpses. These passages together with Num 5:30 and 6:21 use ‫ תורה‬in the sense of “(single) instruction”. In the collective sense of “law” or “instructions”, the term is used in Num 15:16 and 29 where – as in Exod 12:49 regarding the Pesach (cf. the slightly different terminology in Lev 19:34; 24:22; and Num 9:14) – it is stated that the same law (‫ )תורה אחת‬applies to the resident (‫ )אזרח‬and the stranger (‫)גר‬. This equalization follows the treatment of resident aliens in the Holiness Code.86 In these instances ‫ תורה‬becomes a generalized term that may be applied to the single law prescribed in that context or moreover to “any” law, that is “Torah”. Then the direction of impact is the uniqueness and singleness of the Torah, which has meaning and impact for the whole world (cf. Deut 4:8; Mic 4:2; Isa 42:21).87 Because of the fact that the foreigner has to oblige to some, but not all, laws of the Torah, he may be integrated under one and the same law.88 Num 19:2 and Num 31:21 finally attest the sophisticated formula ‫זאת חקת‬ ‫“ התורה‬this is the statute of the law”, which is almost unique in the Pentateuch. ‫ חקה‬in the construct state sg. (!) is not combined with another legal term anywhere else.89 The only other determined noun that is combined in a construct chain with ‫ חקה‬is ‫ הפסח‬in Exod 12:43; Num 9:12 and 9:14; all other 22 instances have ‫חקת עולם‬.90 In light of the frequency of ‫חקת עולם‬, which underlines the stability and invariability of the law given by Moses, the two instances of ‫חקת‬ ‫ התורה‬gain a particular emphasis. As the ‫ חקה‬is invariable and constant, the ‫חקה‬ of Num 19:2 (the ordinance of handling the red heifer) and Num 31:21 (the law of the ban in war contexts) is an invariable part of the Torah. Here, tôrâh is already oscillating between the whole law of Moses as a self-referential term 86 See Achenbach, Reinhard: gêr – nåkhrî – tôshav – zâr. Legal and Sacral Distinctions Regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by idem et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 29–51, 29 and 40–42, who considers Exod 12:19 and 12:48–49 as the endpoint of this development and attributes it to the “Pentateuchredaktion”. 87 This is the rationale of the identification of wisdom and Torah in Ps 19; 119; Sir 24; or Bar 3–4; et al. 88 See Nihan, Christophe: Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 111–134, esp. 116–117. 89 Gen 26:5, which uses ‫ חקה‬beside ‫ מצוה‬and ‫תורה‬, all plural and with suffixes 1. per. sg. Other plural attestations are Lev 18:3, 4, 5, 26, 30; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22, 23; 25:18; 26:3, 15, 43; Num 9:3; Deut 6:2; 8:11; 10:13; 11:1; 28:15, 45; 30:10, 16; etc. 90 Exod 12:14, 17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:9; Lev 3:17; 7:36; 10:9; 16:29, 31, 34; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3; Num 10:8; 15:15; 18:23; 19:10, 21; and only one instance outside the Pentateuch in Ezek 46:14. Cf. ‫ חקת משׁפט‬in Num 27:11; 35:29.

24

Christian Frevel

and the statute of a single law. There can be little doubt that these two instances in Num 19 and Num 31 belong to the latest strata of the book of Numbers where – this may be drawn from the argument – the context is already “Torah”. Thus ‫ חקת‬refers to the legal case and ‫ התורה‬to the context already. It may be debatable whether there is a reference to a set of laws identified as ‫ תורה‬or a reference to a more or less already fixed literary text called ‫ תורה‬of which the single legal cases are part. The different uses of the term ‫ תורה‬in the book of Numbers and its increasingly referring to a textual reality in particular can be read as a signal of processes of the finalization of the Torah. Torah has become more than a single instruction, perhaps even more than “law”. The complex growth and redactional finalization of the book of Numbers were coined appropriately by Reinhard Achenbach in his seminal work on Numbers as “Vollendung der Tora” (completion of the Torah). That “completion”, “redactional and compositional work”, and midrashic “interpretation” intertwine can be shown by the example of the daughters of Zelophehad. 2.7. A Test Case in Exegesis by Supplementing the Torah: Numbers 27 and 36 Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12 prove the specification of a given law and the supplementation of the Torah thus implemented. It is striking that both texts frame the last part of the book of Numbers, which encompasses the material related to the land after the second census in Num 26.91 Finally, the narrative of the daughters of Zelophehad is one of the three stories in the book of Numbers in which law appears couched in narrative or at least narrative contexts (the case of the second Passover in Num 9:6–14; the story of the wood gatherer in Num 15:32–36),92 and Moses resorts to divine adjudication.93 It is striking that these texts in the book of Numbers (and one has to add the story of the curser in Lev 24:10–23 here) are linked by the fact that Moses cannot settle the interpretation

91

I will not go into the discussion of structuring Numbers; see Zenger/Frevel, Bücher, 45– 69. The framing compositional function is suspended in 4Q365 fragment 36 where Num 36:1 is immediately consecutive to Num 27:11. 92 Cf. Lev 24:10–23 for the fourth example in the book of Leviticus. Whether one has to consider these four texts as a “distinct, coherent group” as Simeon Chavel (Numbers 15,32–36 – A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 45–55, 46) has recently stated with reference to Philo and the Targumim, may be open for discussion, but these texts share indeed the same or similar peculiarities of the authorization of legal interpretation. See for further details Chavel, Simeon: ‘Oracular Novellae’ and Biblical Historiography. Through the Lens of Law and Narrative, Clio 39 (2009), 1–27, 14–16 and 25–26. Very close to these passages is the pre-midrashic chapter Lev 10, see Nihan, Torah, 576–607; Frevel, Verhältnis, 114–133. 93 The term is borrowed from Vroom, Jonathan: Recasting Mišpāṭîm. Legal Innovation in Leviticus 24:10–23, JBL 131 (2012), 27–44, 27.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

25

on his own on the basis of the extant law, but rather is dependent on a supplementary revelation from God. The second part of the story of the daughters of Zelophehad in Num 36:1–12 is closely related to Num 27:1–11, but in Num 36 Moses no longer resorts to YHWH in an explicitly oracular manner, but amends the law more or less without a formal procedure. It is only stated in v. 5 that Moses decided according to the mouth of the Lord ( ‫ויצו משׁה את־בני ישׂראל על־פי‬ ‫)יהוה‬. In Num 27 the five daughters of Zelophehad assert that their father had indeed died in the desert, but nonetheless did not belong to the followers of Korah.94 Thereafter they demand the right for daughters to inherit, as there is no male patrilineal descendant (see already the textual anchor in Num 26:33). They do not substantiate this by a claim of a living individual or group, but by remembrance of the deceased. Their father’s name is in danger of dying out without a male descendant. This innocent decrease in social status is not justifiable and demands a regulation in the Torah. The underlying problem is often compared to Levirate marriage in Deut 25:5–10 (cf. esp. v. 7 with Num 27:4) and Ruth (cf. esp. 4:10–11). If there is no male offspring, male familial solidarity shall substitute a begetter by marrying the widow and fathering a son. The institution of Levirate marriage implies that daughters play no role in passing down the clan name in the patriarchal agnatic society. If daughters were permitted to have the right of succession, the position would be completely different. This is the situation with the daughters of Zelophehad in Num 27. To understand the need for clarification, a general remark concerning inheritance law in the Pentateuch is required. Obviously, the bodies of law of the OT contain only a few statements on this matter.95 Deut 21:15–17 rules in an exceptional case that the firstborn of the wife who is not loved (assuming there

94

The rationale of this notice is not quite clear. Korah himself wouldn’t have any heredity title because he was a Levite. His followers (who in contrast to Num 16:7 are not necessarily Levites here) are not excluded from the ownership of the land explicitly. In contrast it is emphasized that Korah had offspring who were not swallowed with his father and his company. No consequences are mentioned regarding the offspring. Even in Num 16–17 there is no indication of any trans-generational condemnation. Thus, the daughters of Zelophehad should not be excluded from inheritance, even if their father would have died with Korah. Furthermore, it is stated explicitly that Zelophehad died “for his own sin” (‫ כי־בחטאו מת‬Num 27:3). Thus, there is no sin that would exclude the daughters from inheritance. This is contested, among others, by Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/3, 207, who divines a principle of law that determines disinheritance because of a serious offence (see already Baba Bathra 117b and 118b). For this he points to 1 Kings 21:15–16; Lev 27:20–21; and Ezra 10:7–8. In my view, none of these cases can support the view that the daughters of Zelophehad would have lost their inheritance if their father would have been part of the Korah’s company. 95 This is reflected in the standard assessment in (at least German) Bible dictionaries (e.g., “Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch”, WiBiLex, and NBL) in the entries on inheritance law, heritage, firstborn, etc. All articles emphasize that the different Old Testament bodies of laws

26

Christian Frevel

are two wives) is not to be disadvantaged. This rule presupposes – as so many texts do – a customary law of primogeniture. If the firstborn inherits a double share compared to the later-born, the son of the disliked wife could be disparaged, should he not earn his entitled share. Lev 25:46 rules that it is possible to bequeath slaves, but it does so without expounding any details of the (presumed) inheritance law. It remains an unanswered question whether Gen 15:2 indeed reflects an established law when it states that the servant Eliezer of Damascus could be rightful heir of childless Abram, being ‫משׁק‬.96 Far more often than specifications of inheritance law, the Pentateuch talks about the right of the firstborn and about the promise of the land as an inheritance. Only the fiction of the allotment of the land to the tribes (Num 26:52–56)97 brings the problem of inheritance law in Num 27 to the forefront.98 Division and distribution are connected with the idea of YHWH as the owner of the land who gives it to the tribes as indefeasible feudal tenure. Land should be kept in the family as tenure (Lev 25:10, 13, 25–28). As stated, this happens not in a general, but a generic sort of way with the exceptional case of the right for daughters to inherit. At the same time, this alludes to a socio-historical fact of the late Persian Period.99 do not include any systematic or developed law of inheritance. By the way, this fact may raise further doubt about the question of the Torah being given as “Reichsrecht”. 96 The explanation of Vieweger, Dieter/Gerber, Christine: Art. Erbe, in: Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch, ed. by Frank Crüsemann et al., Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2009, 114–115, 114, that this is a most exceptional case, is not sufficient to claim an established legal practice. According to Num 27, this case is almost completely impossible. 97 The terminus technicus ‫ נחלה‬occurs more frequently from Num 18:20, 21, 23–24, and 26 (the special position of the Levites without an inheritance) onwards, after some occurrences where it is connected to some exceptions in Gen 31:14; 48:6; Exod 15:17; and Num 16:14. On the conceptual level the instruction for the allotment (Num 26:52–56) is crucial. Up to that point, the verb ‫ נחל‬occurs only in context of the promise of the land (Exod 23:30; 32:13; 34:9), and only once in the context of the bequest of slaves (Lev 25:46). The findings of ‫ ירשׁ‬in the context of hereditary endorsement (Gen 15:3–4; 21:10) seem to be only slightly clearer. In this case, occurrences in context of the promise of the land prevail. Even the rules concerning the ‫ אחזה‬in a jubilee year and in the prescriptions concerning ransom in Lev 25 and 27 are still connected with the idea of the land as inalienable tenure, granted to the tribes by YHWH. 98 See already Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua, KEHAT 13, Leipzig: Hirzel 21886, 177: “Es steht mit der Musterung der Stämme zum Zweck der Ansiedlung C. 26 in Zusammenhang“. 99 See also Job’s daughters in Job 42:15. The dating of the inheritance right of daughters is being currently discussed and some scholars vote for pre-exilic times because of the allusion of the daughters’ names to place names in Samaria (cf. Ben-Barak, Zafrira: Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution, trans. B. Sigler Rozen, Jaffa, Israel: Archaeological Center Publications 2006, 44–64; idem: Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East, JSS 25 (1980), 22–33, 27; Fleishman, Joseph: “Their Father Gave Them nahala ‘an Estate’ among Their Brethren“ (Job 42:15b): What Did Job Give his Daughters?, ZAR 13 (2007), 120–134, 121–122) but the literary history of

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

27

Num 27 and 36 are rightly counted among the latest parts of the Pentateuch.100 Bearing this in mind, we now turn to the how of the inheritance rules. The formulation Moses chooses to bring the case to YHWH for decision in Num 27:5 is quite uncommon (‫)ויקרב משׁה את־משׁפטן לפני יהוה‬. The only other but slightly different occurrence of ‫ קרב משׁפט‬in the hiphil-stem is Deut 1:17, where Moses reminds the Israelites of the instruction to bring him cases (‫ )הדבר‬that are too difficult for them to decide for themselves.101 Thus, it is indicated that Mose is addressed as decision maker. Num 27 is one of the few laws in the Pentateuch not given by God’s initiative, but evolved out of a necessity of regulation and of given rules; hence it is presented to YHWH by Moses with the plea to decide in the matter (see Lev 24:12; Num 9:8). God’s answer is permissive (v. 7a): “Zelophehad’s daughters are right” (‫)כן בנות צלפחד דברת‬. They should receive land tenure (‫להם נתן תתן‬ ‫)אחזת נחלה‬. The phrase ‫ אחזת נחלה‬is almost unique (cf. only Num 32:32). This, the repetition of land transfer in v. 7b with ‫נחלה‬, and the singular ‫ לבתו‬in v. 8 are often considered as indications of a secondary combination of the narrative and the law in Num 27.102 But to me the expression only seeks legal and linguistic accuracy: While ‫ אחזה‬indicates land ownership or tenure as in Lev 25 and Lev 27, the term ‫ נחלה‬indicates inheritance in the land allocation process proper. The phrase ‫ בתוך אחי אביהם‬in v. 7a is very important because it emphasizes that there were brothers of Zelophehad who would have been usually taken as a substitute in the inheritance process. But now the daughters are equated in land ownership. Because up to now no clan has received its allotment, v. 7b emphasizes that Moses or the responsible council (Josh 17:3–4 taking up v. 7) has to transfer land to the daughters of Zelophehad. Thus, v. 7a and v. 7b are two sides of the same coin. Because the regulation in vv. 8–11 is a general decree, which is applicable even beyond the case of Zelophehad, it generalizes. Thus a single son is confronted with a single daughter. Although it

the biblical texts clearly points at a post-exilic date. For the early history and the parallels in ancient Near Eastern law see Ben-Barak, Inheritance 2006, 109–197; see also idem, Inheritance 1980, 23–31, where she differentiates Num 27 and 36 together with Sumerian cases and such from Nuzi and Ugarit (“daughters inheriting without a son”) from Job 42:15 and evidence from Alalakh (“daughters inheriting after sons”). In contrast to her argument and to diverging propositions by Peter Machinist and Jacob Milgrom, Joseph Fleishman (cf. idem, Father, 120–134) doubts the inheritance- as well as the “gift during lifetime”-theory and opts for reading Job 42:13–17 as the giving of a dowry by Job to his daughters. See further the document of a land endowment of a father to his daughter in Weippert, Manfred: Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, GAT 10, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010, no. 291. 100 See for instance Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/3, 205; Achenbach, Vollendung, 569. 101 This brings Exod 18 into play, too, but this cannot be discussed here. 102 Cf. for instance Chavel, Novellae, 22; Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/3, 200 and 205.

28

Christian Frevel

cannot be excluded that vv. 8–11 had a literary antecedent in a collection of laws, this assumption cannot be based on the singular alone.103 For our focus, the processes of interpretative amendment of the law, v. 11b is important. The regulation, based on this particular case, shall become or becomes a law based on a particular adjudication (‫ )לחקת משׁפט‬for the Israelites from then on, again expressed in an uncommon way.104 Yet the rule does not survive for long even in the narrative of the Pentateuch. This is not by chance but in a way programmatic. Shortly after the allotment of the land to the tribes east of the Jordan, the heads of the Gileadites demand amendments from Moses (and the leading council)105 in Num 36, just before his last working day in Deuteronomy. They state that the land is threatened by loss should Zelophehad’s daughters marry exogamously, as long as the given inheritance law is established. With emphasis on the long run they bemoan that even in the case of the Jubilee (v. 4) the inheritance will not revert to their own tribe. The allotted and thus divinely sanctioned portion will be diminished, just as the name of Zelophehad is in danger of diminishing without male heirs (‫ מגרל נחלתנו יגרע‬v. 3, cf. 27:4). Thus, the daughters invoke a classical conflict of objectives. They underline their argument in Num 36:2 by referencing the legal situation and subtly bringing the mentioned difference between the divine and the mosaic lawgiver into play: “And they said, ‘YHWH commanded my lord (‫ )את־אדני צוה יהוה‬to give the land as an inheritance by lot (‫ )בנחלה בגורל‬to the Israelites; and my lord was commanded by YHWH (‫ )ואדני צוה ביהוה‬to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters”. Again, the matter is approved of and Moses orders‫על־‬ ‫ פי יהוה‬that Zelophehad’s daughters must marry endogamously (vv. 5–7). Thus the conflict between the “right to inherit for daughters” and “possession of the land among kin” is solved.106 Num 36 ultimately also records the implementation of this law: The daughters of Zelophehad did as Moses ordered them to do (v. 10: ‫)כאשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה כן עשׂו בנות צלפחד‬. Following Baentsch, Seebass, Achenbach, Kislev, and even Levine and Milgrom (and many others) either Num 36:1–12 or Num 27:1–11 are regarded as a later addition: “Ein später Diaskeuast hat in der Art von Lev 24,10–23;

103

Cf. similarly Achenbach, Vollendung, 569. See only Num 35:29: ‫והיו אלה לכם לחקת משׁפט לדרתיכם בכל מושׁבתיכם‬. 105 The combination ‫( הנשׂאים ראשׁי אבות לבני ישׂראל‬v. 1b) is unique, but against Itamar Kislev (Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation, ZAW 122 (2010), 249–259, 251), it is rather to be taken as indicated by the context than as indication of a later date. The ‫ נשׂיאם‬are mentioned as the leading representatives of the Israelites as is often stated in Numbers. They are sorted in as ‫ ראשׁי אבות‬to form the equal counterpart to the Gileadites who are called ‫ראשׁי האבות למשׁפחת‬ ‫ בני־גלעד‬just before in v. 1a. 106 It is in my view a misinterpretation that the inheritance to the daughters in Num 27 “becomes almost valueless in practice according to chapter 36” (Kislev, Innovation, 251). 104

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

29

Num 9,6–14; 15,32–36 in Kap 36 nocheinmal beispielhaft ‘Folgeverhandlungen‘ zur Erbtöchterfrage erzählt”.107 The traditional sequence of this statement is contested by Seebass: “Überwiegend fiel zwar der Verdacht, sekundär zu sein, auf 36,1–12 […] Es liegt jedoch näher, in 27,1–11 die förmliche, höchstrichterliche Anerkennung von Frauenerbrecht wiederholt zu finden, die auf dem Grundtext von 26,29aα.b.30aß–34a fußt, in denen weibliche Namen Distrikte und Orte vertreten”.108 Yes, there are some peculiarities and differences,109 but the compositional argument, the clear relatedness of Num 36 to Num 27, and the legal adjustment that grows out of the condition that tenure and tribe belong together, may imply the same literary level. To say it with Abraham Kuenen: “This supplement might, of course, be due to a later legislator; but the two laws are so completely in harmony with each other that there is nothing to prevent our assigning them to the same author”.110 However, this is not crucial for the argument here. Num 27 and 36 show a handling of conflicts of law and interests that aims at balancing legal positions in the late strata of the Pentateuch. Exegesis and supplementation are evident within the Mosaic framework still, yet they are distinguished from the preceding story of Moses’ revelation at Sinai by linguistic means. The necessity of regulations stems from the growth of ideas concerning the possession of land. At the same time the decisions settle the issue of succession in cases of childlessness and reassure the theological concept of the land as indefeasible feudal tenure to the kin. This example of supplementing established law by Fortschreibung is based on the post-Sinaitic revelation and bound to Moses’ mediation. The interplay of Num 27 and 36 with the explicit and positively approved need for amendment, expressed by the objection of the people, paradigmatically demonstrates characteristics of legal exegesis in general.111 Most remarkable is the change of an explicit plea of Moses (‫ )קרב לפני יהוה‬in Num 27:5 to the tacit form in Num 36:5 (‫)על־פי יהוה‬. This new formulation stresses the link between the supplementation of the law and the institution “Moses”, as the supplementation is 107

Achenbach, Vollendung, 571. Seebass, Numeri, BKAT 4/1, 25*, cf. also idem, Numeri, BKAT 4/3, 205–206 and 456. However, linguistic arguments favor the traditional position: for instance the combination of ‫ שׁבט‬and ‫ מטה‬in Num 36:3, the ‫( ראשׁי האבות‬with article) in v. 1a, the phrase ‫משׁפחת מטה‬/ ‫מטה‬ ‫ משׁפחה‬vv. 6, 8, 12, etc. 109 As listed by Kislev, Innovation, 250–252. 110 Kuenen, Abraham: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. with the assistance of the author by Philip H. Wicksteed, London: Macmillan 1886, 98; cf. Dillmann, Numeri, 221, who calls it a “Novelle zu jenem Gesetz [Num 27:1–11], vom selben Verfasser”. 111 Again, this may be compared with the three aforementioned other cases of narrative amendment in the Torah; see esp. Fishbane, Michael: Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon 21986, repr. 1989, 98–104 and 236–237. 108

30

Christian Frevel

given without an express order of God. This does not create an autonomous authority, but considerably increases Moses’ competences in establishing law. That the decision of the supplementary legal case is not localized at the entrance of the tent of meeting, as it is the case in Num 27:2, is not an indication of a secondary nature but rather indicates a changed mode of legal decision. Thus, it is by no means by chance that the “elaborative exegesis” – as Kislev calls the development of decision in Num 36 – forms the end of the book of Numbers. Now the principles are provided for any further adaption, be it situational or necessary by conflicting objectives within the existing law. After this implementation of applied-oriented exegesis of the law, the book closes in v. 13. Moses starts to expound the Torah in Deut 1:6 anew. Based on the exemplary case of inheritance laws in Num 27 and Num 36 it is obvious that the legal material in the book of Numbers is not just additional and peripheral, but crucial with regard to several aspects: The organization of the permanent cult (for instance the maintenance of the menorah in Num 8, or the postponed Passover in Num 9) and the organization of cultic activities of the people beyond the official sacrificial cult (for instance the nazîr in Num 6 or the regulations on vows in Num 15 and 30). Many aspects could be added, such as the impurity of corpses in Num 5 and 19. Like the inheritance law every issue has its own social and religious background and some of them clearly hint at the advanced Second Temple period.112 The book of Numbers includes legal material that is clearly linked with material in Leviticus and Exodus from the viewpoint of content (e.g., the festival calendars Num 28–29 with Lev 23;113 the inauguration of the priests in Num 8 and Exod 29/Lev 8–9), as well as from the viewpoint of composition (the unit Num 5:1–4, for instance, links Lev 11–15 and Num 19). It is evident that the redaction history of the book of Numbers has relevance for the formation of the Pentateuch as Torah. Some of the material is obviously situational and sometimes developed from antecedent material. It adds, adapts, and amends legal material, which is neither misplaced nor superfluous. Noth coined the dictum that Numbers is without order: “collections of very varied material with little inner cohesion”.114 Re-

112 Cf. Frevel, Christian: Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses. Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19, in: Les vivants et leurs morts. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’assyriologie et des milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 14 et 15 avril 2010, ed. by Jean-Marie Durand et al., OBO 257, Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012, 199–226; idem: Purity-Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context, in: Purity Conceptions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, ed. by idem/Christophe Nihan, DHR 3, Leiden: Brill 2012, 369–412. 113 Cf. Nihan, Festival Calendars. 114 Noth, Numbers, 2; (“in den meisten Fällen wenig geordnete Ansammlungen sehr verschiedenartiger Materialien” [Noth, Numeri, 6]).

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

31

garding the final section of the book, Num 26–36, he stated: “No proper sequence is maintained in this whole complex of later additions. We shall have to reckon with the fact that the individual units were simply added one after the other in the order in which they appeared”.115 This often borrowed opinion, that Numbers was a sort of reservoir in which material that could not be integrated into the Sinai pericope was inserted without plan or order, proves to be oversimplified. Even if it is true that merely so-called “late” material at the end of the redaction history of the Pentateuch was integrated in the book of Numbers, the product is by no means without a plan.116 But the final form proves to integrate not only legal supplements and amendments, but also their interpretation as Torah. Reinhard Achenbach has made a point with this felicitously chosen title “The Completion of the Torah”. Nevertheless, the process of the formation of the Torah and the role of the book of Numbers therein is disputed, as was argued above. Some still adhere to a concept of a redactional finalization of the Pentateuch, esp. by joining and linking the older sources that had existed separately. Others opt for a variant of the “Reichsautorisation” in which the Pentateuch was created as a compromise between deuteronomistic and priestly schools, and some would not find a final redaction that finalized the Pentateuch intentionally as the “last hand”. As shown above, newer models try to conceptualize the birth of the Torah as a process of densification of self-referencing of the ‫ תורת משׁה‬instead of as an intentional process of finalization. The modifying exegesis of the law, its amendments, and pre-midrashic interpretation indicate completion that is close to closure.

3. The Crucial Role of Numbers The search for “Torah in the Book of Numbers” intends to animate the discussion on the formation process of the book of Numbers in relation to the Torah, within the Torah, and as Torah. The outline provided here has emphasized the close interrelation between both aspects. Desiderata of Numbers must be seen as pivotal for Pentateuchal theories. To go one step further, one crucial set of questions must become the focus: How are the so-called priestly and post-priestly texts in the book of Numbers 115 Noth, Numbers, 10. (“Eine gute Ordnung ist in diesem ganzen Komplex von späten Hinzufügungen nicht enthalten. Man wird damit rechnen müssen, daß die einzelnen Stücke so aneinandergereiht wurden, wie sie eines nach dem anderen hinzukamen”. [Noth, Numeri, 12]). 116 Cf., e.g., Adriane Leveen’s insights with regard to narrative and theological features (idem: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press 2008), even though her assumptions in the field of literary and redactional history, which inter alia base on Israel Knohl, (cf. Leveen: Reading the Seams, JSOT 29 (2005), 259–287) would from my view require further discussion.

32

Christian Frevel

related to other texts within the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and other traditions? To give just some examples: How does the composition of Num 1–10 with its different traditions about the tent of meeting, the Levites, the organization of the camp, the installation of the Sinaitic cult, etc. relate to the differentiated priestly traditions of Exod 25–40*; Lev 1–10; 11–15; 16; 17–26 and their redactional horizons? If one considers the particular relation between the law of the Nazirite in Num 6 and specific regulations for priests in Leviticus, one has to ask how the law of the Nazirite relates to the redactional processes of the book of Leviticus. How are the texts in Numbers related to the Priestly source (Pg), the priestly additions (Ps), or to the Holiness Code? How are the redactional relations between the books of Exodus and Numbers, Leviticus and Numbers, Deuteronomy and Numbers, Joshua and Numbers to be described more adequately and properly? How do the priestly “strata” in Numbers relate to each other (e.g., [the addition of] the Phinehas covenant in Num 25:12–13 to the traditions of Num 1–4 and 18; the laws in Num 18 to the priestly literary strata in Num 16– 17*; the law of Num 5:1–3 to Num 19; etc.), resp. to the non-priestly layers (e.g., the killing of Balaam Num 31:8 to Num 22–24*, the war against the Midianites to the Deuteronomic legislation of war Deut 20, etc.)? Summing up from a more general point of view four aspects of recent Pentateuch-discussion can be determined pivotal: 1. The search for an appropriate explanation for the literary and redactional growth of the book of the book of Numbers, esp. in its priestly parts. 2. The review of recently debated models in the Pentateuch discussion especially as regards their explanatory value for the complex situation in the book of Numbers. 3. The relationship between the legal material in the book of Numbers and the book of Leviticus. 4. The concept of torah in the book of Numbers against the background of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, on the one hand, and the Pentateuch, resp. Hexateuch on the other hand. The present volume contributes to these questions in various ways. I hope to have given the larger framework of discussion of the present volume: the book of Numbers as (part of the) Torah. Bibliography Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by Jan C. Gertz et al., BZAW 315, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2002. Achenbach, Reinhard: gêr – nåkhrî – tôshav –zâr. Legal and Sacral Distinctions Regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

33

Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by idem et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 29–51. –: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die Sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 145–175. –: Der Pentateuch, seine Theokratischen Bearbeitungen und Josua–2 Könige, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2007, 225–253. –: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2006. Albertz, Rainer: Exodus 1–18, ZBK.AT 2.1, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2012. –: Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie. Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil I und II), ZAW 123 (2011), 171–183 and 336–347. –: Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, BN NF 149 (2011), 13–43. –: The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1–34*). A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., FAT 78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, 243–256. –: The Controversy about Judean versus Israelite Identity and Persian Government: A New Interpretation of the Bagoses Story, in: Judah and the Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2011, 483–504. –: The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2007, 287– 303. Baden, Joel S.: The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven/London: Yale University Press 2012. Ben-Barak, Zafrira: Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East: A Social, Legal and Ideological Revolution, trans. B. Sigler Rozen, Jaffa, Israel: Archaeological Center Publications 2006. –: Inheritance by Daughters in the Ancient Near East, JSS 25 (1980), 22–33. Blum, Erhard: Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 31– 44 –: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1990. Carr, David M.: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction, New York: Oxford University Press 2011. Chavel, Simeon: Numbers 15,32–36 – A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 45–55. –: ‘Oracular Novellae’ and Biblical Historiography. Through the Lens of Law and Narrative, Clio 39 (2009), 1–27. Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua, KEHAT 13, Leipzig: Hirzel 2 1886.

34

Christian Frevel

Elliger, Karl: Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung, ZTK 49 (1952), 121– 143. = Idem: Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, TB 32, München: Chr. Kaiser, 1966, 174–198. Fishbane, Michael: Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon 21986, repr. 1989. Fleishman, Joseph: “Their Father Gave Them nahala ‘an Estate’ among Their Brethren“ (Job 42:15b): What Did Job Give his Daughters?, ZAR 13 (2007), 120–134. Frevel, Christian: Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Has to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in the Book of Numbers, in: Torah in Psalms and Prophecy, ed. by Dirk J. Human/Eckart Otto/Jurie LeRoux, LHBOTS 562, London, forthcoming. –: Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses. Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19, in: Les vivants et leurs morts. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’assyriologie et des milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 14 et 15 avril 2010, ed. by Jean-Marie Durand et al., OBO 257, Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012, 199–226. –: “Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen” (Lev 10,20). Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10, in: Gottes Name(n). Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger, ed. by Ilse Müllner et al., HBS 71, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012, 104–136. –: Purity-Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context. Some General Remarks and Exemplary Considerations on Num 5:1–4, in: Purity Conceptions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism, ed. by idem/Nihan, Christophe, DHR 3, Leiden: Brill 2012, 369–412. –: Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ed. by Hermann-Josef Stipp, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt et al.: Peter Lang 2011, 13–53. –: Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert. Numbers 21 as a Compositional Joint, in: The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology. Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, ed. by Jacques van Ruiten/J. Cornelis de Vos, VTSup 124, Leiden/Boston: Brill 2009, 111– 135. –: Rez. Achenbach, Vollendung, OLZ 100 (2005), 278–285. –: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. Janowski, Bernd: Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption, in: idem, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1993, 214–246. Jericke, Detlev: Der Ort des Mose nach Deuteronomium 1:1, JNSL 34 (2008), 35–57. Kaiser, Otto: Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments. Band 1: Die erzählenden Werke, Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 1992. Kellermann, Diether: Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10. Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120, Berlin: de Gruyter 1970. Kislev, Itamar: Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation, ZAW 122 (2010), 249–259. Knohl, Israel: Who Edited the Pentateuch?, in: The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman et al., FAT 78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011, 359–367. –: The Guilt Offering Law of the Holiness School (Num. V 5–8), VT 54 (2004), 516–524. –: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995. Knoppers, Gary N.: Establishing the Rule of Law? The Composition Num 33,50–56 and the Relationships among the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History,

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

35

in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 135–152. Köckert, Matthias: Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch, in: Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Siegfried Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dieter Vieweger/Ernst-Joachim Waschke, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995, 147–162. –: Leben in Gottes Gegenwart. Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur, JBTh 4 (1989), 29–61. Krapf, Thomas: Die Priesterschrift und die vorexilische Zeit. Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion, OBO 119, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2002. Kratz, Reinhard G.: Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Kuenen, Abraham: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. with the assistance of the author by Philip H. Wicksteed, London: Macmillan 1886. Leveen, Adriane: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press 2008. –: Reading the Seams, JSOT 29 (2005), 259–287. Nihan, Christophe: Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 111–134. –: Israel’s Festival Calendars in Lev 23 and Num 28–29 and the Formation of “Priestly“ Literature, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 177–231. –: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. –: The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 81–122. Noort, Ed: Bis zur Grenze des Landes. Num 27,12–23 und das Ende der Priesterschrift, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 99–119. Noth, Martin: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Niemeyer 41973. –: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. –: Numbers: A Commentary, Old Testament Library, Philadelphia, Penn.: Westminster Press 1968. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband 1,1–4,43, HTKAT 8/1, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012. –: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009. –: Geschichte der spätbiblischen und frühjüdischen Schriftgelehrsamkeit, in: idem, Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte. Gesammelte Studien, BZAR 8, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2008, 564–602. –: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000.

36

Christian Frevel

–: Art. Pentateuch, RGG4 6, 2003, 1089–1102. –: Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, TRu 62 (1997), 1–50. The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid/Baruch J. Schwartz, FAT 78, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2011. Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, SBLAIL 8, Leiden et al.: Brill 2012. The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. by Gary N. Knoppers/Bernard M. Levinson, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2007. Persia and Torah. The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. by James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2001. Perlitt, Lothar: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, in: Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament, ed. by Otto Kaiser, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1988, 65–88. = Idem: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, in: idem, Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1994, 123–143. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995. Rohls, Jan: Protestantische Theologie der Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Die Voraussetzungen und das 19. Jh., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997. Römer, Tomas: De la périphérie au centre: Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by idem, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 3–34. –: Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten. Anfragen zur „Quellenscheidung“ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch, in: Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by Jan C. Gertz et al., BZAW 315, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2002, 215–231. Rüterswörden, Udo: Rez. R. Achenbach/M. Arneth/E. Otto, Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen, BZAR 7, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2007, TLZ 134 (2009), 160–162. Schmid, Konrad: The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus, in: A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman/Konrad Schmid, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2006, 29–50. –: Persische Reichsautorisation und Tora, TRu 71 (2006), 494–506. –: Der Pentateuchredaktor. Beobachtungen zum theologischen Profil des Toraschlusses in Dtn 34, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2007, 183–197. Schmidt, Ludwig: Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung. Ein Plädoyer für die umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese, VT 60 (2010), 400–420. –: P in Deuteronomium 34, VT 59 (2009), 475–494. –: Die Priesterschrift – kein Ende am Sinai, ZAW 120 (2008), 481–500. –: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri 10,11–36,13, ATD 7/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. –: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1993. Schwartz, Baruch J.: Introduction. The Strata of the Priestly Writings and the Revised Relative Dating of P and H, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 1–12. Seebass, Horst: Numeri. 3 Vols., BKAT 4/1–3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2003– 2012.

The Book of Numbers – Some Introductory Remarks

37

Seters, John van: The Life of Moses. The Yahwist As Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Louisville, Ky.: Westminster Press 1994. Ska, Jean-Louis: Le récit sacerdotal. Une „histoire sans fin?“, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 631–653. –: Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2006. Stackert, Jeffrey: The Holiness Legislation and Its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 187–204. The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, ATANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009. Utzschneider, Helmut: Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz. Studien zu Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9), OBO 77, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1988. Vieweger, Dieter/Gerber, Christine: Art. Erbe, in: Sozialgeschichtliches Wörterbuch, ed. by Frank Crüsemann et al., Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 2009, 114–115. Vroom, Jonathan: Recasting Mišpāṭîm. Legal Innovation in Leviticus 24:10–23, JBL 131 (2012), 27–44. Weimar, Peter: Studien zur Priesterschrift, FAT 56, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. –: Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung, BN 23 (1984), 81–134; BN 24 (1984), 138–162. = Idem: Die Priesterschrift. Struktur und Komposition eines literarischen Werkes, in: idem, Studien zur Priesterschrift, FAT 56, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, 19–90. Weippert, Manfred: Historisches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, GAT 10, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2010. Zenger, Erich: Art. Priesterschrift, TRE 27, 1997, 435–446. Zenger, Erich/Frevel, Christian: Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 35–74. Zenger, Erich et al.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. by Christian Frevel, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 82012. Zenger, Erich et al.: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Stuttgart et al.: Kohlhammer 1995; 4 2001.

Back to the Future: The Twofold Priestly Concept of History Thomas Pola No doubt,1 the form of the Priestly Code is historiography, as can be seen by its chronology and the permanent use of Hebrew narratives. But theologically the Priestly Code2 (PC) is a new kind of prophecy. It had been prepared by Ezek 20 with its schematic history of revelations and with its new idea of the past being structured in analogy to the structure of the cosmos (“Schöpfungsordnung”), i.e., there is a sapiential concept of history in Ezek 20.3 The PC is not a kind of historiography comparable to the pre-priestly Pentateuch sources (and their pre-Priestly additions) and also not with the Deuteronomistic Work.4 Primitive cultures are characterized by a general attitude of man which is directed toward the past (except Athens). As there is no discernible progress, the primitive humans depend on the experience of their parents, their grandparents, and the ancestors in general.5 The

1 This is the extended version of a paper read at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the SBL in Chicago, Illinois which summarizes the results of the authors contribution to the project “Traditions- und Redaktionsprozesse im Buch Numeri und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Entstehung des Pentateuchs” promoted by Mercator Research Center Ruhr in Essen, Germany. – The author kindly thanks Rev. Monika Riwar (Switzerland), Rev. Wilfried Veeser (Kirchheim), and Rev. Karlheinz Joos (Zwerenberg); from Dortmund University Anna Reich, David Coers, Hannes Schmidt, Sebastian Horstmann, and Tim Steppat. 2 “Priestly Code” (PC) in this essay is defined as Pg, delimited from Gen 1 to Exod 40* according to Th. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg: WMANT 70, Neukirchen, 1995, especially 343 n. 144. 3 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (see n. 2), 349, also 147–212, 275–290, and more. The author still believes in the literary unity of Ezek 20, which cannot be discussed in this essay. 4 A divergent branch of scholarship returns to the pre-Wellhausen opinion that P is the oldest of all Pentateuch sources and layers (cf. E. Otto, Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch: ThR 67 [2002] 125–155). This will be examined elsewhere. 5 Concerning Mesopotamia: „Da mit einer – nicht naturhaft rhythmischen! – Wiederkehr typischer Geschehensverläufe gerechnet wird, studiert man die Vergangenheit, um Gegenwart zu bewältigen und Zukünftiges zu prognostizieren“ (K. Koch, Art. Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie II. Altes Testament: TRE 12, 1984, 569–586 [571]). – Especially Assurbanipal (669–631 B.C.) gave the command to collect and to copy ancient documents in Ninive in favour of the present time (RLA III, 1971, 217–218).

40

Thomas Pola

crucial point is the way in which this was specified in the Old Testament.6 The past (transmitted orally or literarily) is relevant for the present time, e.g., Exod 13:16 (D): “The LORD brought us out of Egypt” (RSV)7 or Jer 6:16a: “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths (‫)נ ְ ִת בוֹת עוֹלָם‬, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls’” (RSV). P and the pre-Priestly literature in the Old Testament expect its recipient to identify with the specific subject (e.g., Noah, Abraham, or the Israelites),8 cf. the use of ‫ זכר‬in the Old Testament (and in Judaism) – “remember” as affecting the person which is the subject of remembering.9 The semantic of ‫“( ֶק ֶד ם‬front”, “east”, and “earlier”) in the Old Testament reveals the attitude of people directed toward the East (from which YHWH came to Mt. Zion, Ezek 43:1–12), and the past – which may be also the future (Jer 30:20, 46:26, Lam 1:7, 5:21).10

As a kind of prophecy the Priestly Code redirects theologically important motifs from the pre-exilic, exilic, and early post-exilic prophecies, mainly from Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah, into its account of the past. Or: The past in the Priestly Code is the eschatological future formerly announced by exilic and early post-exilic prophets. I will explain this thesis by giving examples from the original Priestly Code on the one hand and by presenting a look at the later development in the Priestly stratum by a comparison with Pg, mainly in the Book of Numbers, on the other hand. My synthesis relies also on insights already known from tradition history (“Traditionsgeschichte”) and is a specification of my arguments from 1995.11 This essay presents modified and new arguments for the thesis of the author that was published in 1995. The author still sees the end of Pg in Exod 40:16, 17a, 33b (see n. 2). This

6

L. Köhler, Der hebräische Mensch: Tübingen, 1953, 124–129 (although the views of Köhler concerning Judaism must be rejected). “Allein die vergangene Geschichte liefert Kriterien für die Lösung der anstehenden Probleme” (H.-J. Fabry, Gott im Gespräch zwischen den Generationen. Überlegungen zur ‚Kinderfrage’ im Alten Testament: KatBl 107 [1982] 754–760). 7 Especially the Passover has to be celebrated by identification (Ex 12:11 [P]); see J. Pedersen, Passahfest und Passahlegende: ZAW 52 (1934), 161–175 (161). 8 Sh. Talmon, Kritische Anfragen der jüdischen Theologie an das europäische Christentum, in: Israel hat dennoch Gott zum Trost, ed. by G. Müller, Trier, 1978, 139–159 (= Einladung ins Lehrhaus. Beiträge zum jüdischen Selbstverständnis, ed. by W. Licharz/M. Stöhr, ArTe 4, Frankfurt, 1981 = Sh. Talmon, Juden und Christen im Gespräch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Band 2, InfJud 11, Neukirchen, 1992, 209–225 [216]); H. Gese, Hermeneutische Grundsätze der Exegese biblischer Texte, in: Standort und Bedeutung der Hermeneutik in der gegenwärtigen Theologie, ed. by A. H. J. Gunneweg/H. Schröer, BAR 61, Bonn, 1986, 43–62 (= H. Gese, Alttestamentliche Studien, Tübingen, 1991, 249–265 [263]). 9 W. Schottroff, „Gedenken“ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Die Wurzel zākar im semitischen Sprachkreis, WMANT 15, Neukirchen, 21967 (11964), 339–340. 10 „Angesichts der Not der Exilszeit wird eine nicht eindeutig definierte ‚frühere’ Zeit … als Ideal und Ziel neuer Hoffnung dargestellt“ (T. Kronholm, Art. ‫ קֶדֶ ם‬qæḏæm: ThWAT VI, 1989, 1163–1169 [1167–1168]). 11 This result was already published by the author of this essay in 1995, see Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 349: „Die Geschichtsdarstellung von Pg ist … gattungsmäßig nicht mit J oder Je zu vergleichen, sondern versteht sich wie Ez 20 als prophetische Gattung“.

Back to the Future

41

was accepted by some scholars (some of them added Exod 40:34 to the extension of Pg)12 but it was rejected by other scholars.13 Only some of their arguments can be discussed in this essay. However it should be noted that the author has changed his mind since 1995 concerning the following subjects, mainly by his studies of the theological developments of the early postexilic time:14 As will be demonstrated below the difference between Pg and its additions cannot be made any more by simply distinguishing a ‫שׁכן‬-theology (in German, “Wohntheologie”) for Pg on the one hand and a theology of theophanies (“Erscheinungstheologie”) for the additions to Pg on the other hand. Moreover, Pg was not finished in the late exilic time.15 This results from the analysis of Zech 3, a literary unit (apart from v.5a.bα) that is secondary within the visions of Zech 1–6 but must have been written before the consecration of the temple in 515 BCE.16 Zech 3 demonstrates that the office of the High Priest (‫ ;הַכּ ֹהֵן ַה גָּדוֹל‬not yet mentioned in Ezek 40–48) was an innovation of the early post exilic time. In addition to that Zech 3:9 shows that the atonement theology which characterizes Pg (and its additions) and the institution of the ‫( יוֹם ַה ִכּ פּ ִֻר ים‬Lev 23:27–28; 16) was introduced in Zech 3 (although the atonement theology was prepared by the Ezekiel

12 A. de Pury, Der priesterschriftliche Umgang mit der Jakobsgeschichte, in: Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. by R.G. Kratz et al., BZAW 300, Berlin and New York, 2000, 33–60 (= Die Patriarchen und die Priesterschrift/Les Patriarches et le document sacerdotal. Gesammelte Studien zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Recueil d'articles, à l'occasion de son 70e anniversaire, ed. by J.-D. Macchi et al., AThANT 99, Zürich, 2010, 43–72 [44–47]) and idem, Pg as the Absolute Beginning, in: Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L'Hexateuque et de L'Ennéateuque, ed. by Th. Römer/K. Schmid, BEThL 203, Leuven, 2007, 99–128 (= AThANT 99, Zürich, 2010, 13–42 [20– 22]); R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB 2157, Göttingen, 2000, 226–248; M. Bauks, « Une histoire sans fin ». L'impasse herméneutique de la notion de « pays » dans l'Œvre Sacerdotale (Pg). Quelques réflexions suite à la lecture d'un livre récent: ETR 78 (2003), 255–268 (and in other publications). See also Chr. Nihan – Th. Römer, Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: Introduction à l'Ancien Testament, ed. by Th. Römer et al., Le monde de la Bible 49, Genf, 2004, 85–113 (95). 13 Selected titles: E. Otto, Forschungen (see n. 4); E. Zenger, Art. Priesterschrift: TRE 27, 1997, 435–446 (438–439); W. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg. Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischen Hintergrund, OBO 159, Göttingen, 1998, 205–208; S. Owczarek, Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift. Zur Heiligtumstheologie der priesterschriftlichen Grundschrift, EHS.T 625, Frankfurt et al., 1998, 29–31; Chr. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al., 2000, passim; E. Blum, Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by S. Shectman/J.S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich, 2009, 31–44 (40). 14 Th. Pola, Das Priestertum bei Sacharja. Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung, FAT 35, Tübingen, 2003. 15 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 347. 16 Th. Pola, Sacharja (n. 14), 223; see also Th. Pola, Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3, in: Yahwism After the Exile. Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Papers read at the first meeting of the European Association for Biblical Studies, Utrecht 6.–9. August 2000, ed. R. Albertz/B. Becking, Studies in Theology and Religion 5, Assen, 2003, 156–167.

42

Thomas Pola

School according to Ezek 43:18–27 and 45:18–20).17 As the anointing of the pre-exilic king (or, post-exilic, of the High Priest) indicated his pneumatisation by the ‫רוּחַ־י ְהוָה‬ (1 Sam 16:3; Isa 61:1), the fact that YHWH will give the High Priest entry to the heavenly court (Zech 3:7) leads to the conclusion that the anointing of the pre-exilic king was transferred to the High Priest according to Zech 3. A later development than the consecration of the temple in 515 BCE becomes visible by the anointing of even the ordinary priests in the additions to P (e.g., Exod 28:41; 30:30). As the author elaborated specific characteristics of Pg in 1995 he aims at an analysis of P in general which will be presented in a monograph, hopefully. A new synthesis concerning P as a whole was given by Israel Knohl in his monograph “The Sanctuary of Silence” from 1995 (English version).18 It demonstrates that the additions to Pg, esp. Lev 10–27 and the book of Numbers, cannot be neglected any more in the discussion about the theology of P and its historical background. Any future analysis of P must take it into account as a whole. According to Knohl, a “Priestly Torah” (PT) from the time between Solomon and Ahas19 was enlarged by a “Holiness School” (HS) which worked between 743 and 701 BCE. This HS was mainly responsible for the theology of P. In addition to that, the HS added many pre-PT texts to the growing composition which finally became the Pentateuch with the P-texts as its thread. Among others, Erhard Blum called this synthesis in question.20 According to Blum P was written in the Persian era but relied on older oral tradition. For Lev 17:1–9 the centralization of the cult by Josiah is a given fact. As certain passages fundamental for the theology of P but belonging to HS like Gen 17, Exod 2:23aγ.b, 24–25; 6:2–9; and 29:45–46 are missing from PT the question arises: What did the PT aim at theologically? Moreover, according to Blum the modification of the arguments of Knohl by Jacob Milgrom21 leads to circular arguments.22 To sum up, Blum cannot accept the synthesis given by Knohl and those who support it. In addition to that the author of this essay calls into question the ensuing axiomatic decision of Knohl to isolate the following idioms as typical for the HS: 1. The formula (‫ ֱא ֹלהֵיכֶם‬or ‫ֲא נ ִי ) ֱא ֹלהֶיָך‬ ‫ יהוה‬in the concluding position of a line or passage,23 2. concluding formulas starting with ‫ ֲא נ ִי‬, and 3. those variants of the “Bannformel” (… ‫ ) ְו נ ִכ ְְר ָת ה ַה נּ ֶפֶשׁ ַה הִוא‬ending with ‫ֵמ ֲע ַד ת‬ ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ י‬or ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫( י‬e.g., in Exod 12:15, 19) instead of ‫( ֵמ ַע ֶמּ י ָה‬or similar) which is supposed to be typical for the PT.24 If you remove those formulas which are attributed to the extension 17 An influence of P (Exod 28:36–39; 39:27–31; Lev 8:9; 16:4) on Zech 3 can only be found in v. 5a.bα, an addition. In contrast to that the expression ‫ שׁמר משׁמרת‬in Zech 3:7 generally belongs to Priestly language (H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch: Freiburg i.B. and Leipzig, 1893, 344) and does not allow to claim any influence. 18 I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School: Minneapolis, 1995 (reprinted in 2007). 19 PT is – expressed in the traditional terms – Pg and Ps without Ph, but see below. 20 E. Blum, Issues (see n. 13). 21 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AncB 3A, New York, 2000, 1326–1327. 22 Blum, Issues (n. 13), 34–38. 23 This formula was called “Hoheitsformel” in its shorter version and “Huldformel” in its extended version by K. Elliger, Ich bin der Herr – euer Gott, in: Glaubenswagnis. Festschrift für Karl Heim zum 80. Geburtstag, dargebracht von der Evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät in Tübingen, Hamburg, 1954, 9–34 (= Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament. Zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 7. März 1966 herausgegeben von H. Gese und O. Kaiser, TB 32, München, 1966, 211–231). 24 I. Knohl, Sanctuary (n. 18), n. 3 on pp. 1–2.

Back to the Future

43

of the PT by the redaction of HS there is nothing relevant left in a fundamental passage as Exod 2:23aγ.b, 24–25; 6:2–9. Consequently, the author of this essay cannot follow the definition of a PT and a HS by I. Knohl and its refinements by other scholars. However, the method used by the author of this essay is the “Total-Interpretation” defined by Meir Weiss.25

1. Pg Moves the Eschatological Future Expected by Pre-Exilic to Early Post-Exilic Prophecies into the Past. 1.1. P and the Latter Prophets in the History of Research It is well known that J. Wellhausen introduced the view that P relied on the preexilic and exilic prophets. This opinion is still held in contemporary scholarship, especially by Werner H. Schmidt: “Innerhalb des Pentateuch setzt die Priesterschrift recht eindeutig die Botschaft der Schriftpropheten voraus”.26 He demonstrated that Exod 7:1 quotes ‫ נָבִיא‬and ‫ נְתַ תִּ יָך‬from Jer 1:5 (see to ‫ נְתַ תִּ יָך‬also Jer 6:27; Ezek 3:17; 12:6; 33:7). Moreover, ‫ אַתָּ ה תְ דַ בֵּר אֵת כָּל־ ֲאשֶׁר ֲא ַצ ֶוּ ָךּ‬in Exod 7:2 is taken from Jer 1:5, too.27 But in contrast to Jeremiah, Moses and Aaron are not expected “to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (Jer 1:10 RSV). Their task is to announce judgements (‫שׁ ָפטִים‬ ְ ; Exod 12:12) to Pharaoh who represents the pagan world.28 The hardening of the heart of Pharaoh in Pg mirrors the hardening of the Judeans who were confronted with the judgement announcement by the pre-exilic prophets, namely Isaiah (cf. Isa 6:9–10; 29:9–10) and Jeremiah (Jer 5:21).29 The crucial point is: To what extent does P reflect eschatological prophecy? This was discussed in more detail in the late 19th and early 20th century by

25 M. Weiss, Die Methode der „Total-Interpretation“. Von der Notwendigkeit der StrukturAnalyse für das Verständnis der biblischen Dichtung, in: Congress Volume, Uppsala, VT.S 22, Leiden, 1972, 88–112, and in other publications. 26 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie. Eine Skizze zu Verschiedenartigkeit und Einheit alttestamentlicher Theologie, in: Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, BZAW 185, ed. by V. Fritz et al., Berlin, 1989, 181–195 (= Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens. Bd. 1: Studien zu Hermeneutik und Methodik, Pentateuch und Prophetie, ed. by A. Graupner et al., Neukirchen, 1995, 226–240 [236–237]). 27 W.H. Schmidt, Exodus, BK.AT 2/2, 1995, 324, and in other publications. 28 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie (see n. 26), 237 (reprint). 29 W.H. Schmidt, Exodus (see n. 27), 327.

44

Thomas Pola

Bernhard Stade,30 Heinrich Holzinger,31 and others.32 In 1977, Norbert Lohfink asked again for this probably eschatological character of P.33 According to him the PC turns historical tradition into mythology. The PC as a whole is a kind of primeval history.34 The hope for the present time is not taken from eschatological prophecies but from the past.35 To sum up, there were/are scholars in the history of research who realized that P is not a traditional kind of historiography as it reflects eschatological motifs. The following survey of selected passages will demonstrate this thesis. 1.2. Gen 5:21–24: Enoch in P Presupposes an Esoteric Priestly Speculation Concerning Enoch It is well known that the passage concerning Enoch Gen 5:21–24, the seventh patriarch of ten, within the genealogy v. 5:1–28, 30–32; 9:28–29 (Pg) has at least two roots, the genealogy 4:17–18 (J; and v. 25–26) on the one hand and Sumerian and Babylonian lists of antediluvian kings which show a development from the Sumerian culture until the Persian Era on the other hand (testified by Berossos in the Hellenistic Time36).37 In these lists of ten kings the seventh 30 B. Stade and O. Holtzmann, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Zweiter Band. I. Geschichte des vorchristlichen Judenthums bis zur griechischen Zeit. II. Das Ende des jüdischen Staatswesens und die Entstehung des Christenthums: Berlin, 1888, 142–145. The protagonists of the post-exilic theocracy expected a realization of the eschatological prophecies of Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah on the one hand and they saw the deficiency of this realization in their present time on the other hand. Consequently, they turned the “messianic” (Stade) expectations into the past. 31 H. Holzinger, Einleitung (see n. 17), 388–390. 32 But A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEH 13, Leipzig, 2 1886, objected. 33 N. Lohfink, Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte: Congress Volume Göttingen, 1977, ed. by J.A. Emerton, VT.S 29, Leiden, 1978, 189–225 (= Studien zum Pentateuch, SBAB 4, Stuttgart, 1989, 213–253 [245–253]). 34 B. Janowski believes in a primeval character of the post-diluvian parts of P, too. See B. Janowski, Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption: Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung, JBTh 5, ed. by I. Baldermann et al., Neukirchen, 1990, 37–69 (64) (= B. Janowski, Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen, 22004 [11993], 214–246 [241]). 35 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch: Göttingen, 31966 (11948), 267; Chr. Frevel, Land (see n. 13), 386; A.B. Leveen: “ … priestly determination shapes a vision for the future that is paradoxically placed in the distant past” (Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, Cambridge, 2008). 36 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker: Bd. III C1, Leiden, 1958; G.P. Verbrugghe and J.M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt: Ann Arbor, 1996, 46–49. 37 W.G. Lambert, Art. Babylonien und Israel: TRE 5, 1980, 67–79 (73–77). According to Lambert the version used by (J and) P is not determinable. However, the versions were transmitted to Ancient Syria in the Amarna period (76). But it is much more plausible to think of

Back to the Future

45

position is kept by a god named Εὐεδωράγχος (= Enmeduranki = Enmeduranna).38 An older type lists eight antediluvian kings in which the fifth is the god Dumuzi.39 It cannot be excluded that P knew a version (or many) from the Persian Time from which one was transmitted by Berossos in the Early Hellenistic Time.40 However, the PC was not literarily dependant on its original. Instead of a list of kings (or gods), P presents a genealogy of patriarchs with names different from the (known) Mesopotamian lists. The (still) high numbers in the PC do not exceed 1000. The introduction (Gen 5:1–2) extends the royal character to man generally. In contrast to Dumuzi, who descends to the underworld, Enoch was taken up (v. 24), obviously near to God, in consequence of Enoch’s walking with God during his lifetime (v. 24; cf. Gen 6:9, 17:1 P).41 Moreover, by this combination of given motifs P contradicts the Mesopotamian tradition in which Ξισουϑρος / Ziusudra (= Utnapishtim = Atrahasis)42 vanished after the flood.43 In the PC Enoch vanishes instead of Noah as the latter had to become the father of postdiluvian humanity. Consequently, the P-school was only little inspired by the Mesopotamian king list tradition(s), as the priests of the P-school developed their own conception of the list of the ten antediluvian patriarchs (reworking the older lists given in Gen 4) and especially of Henoch.44 ‫ ֲחנוְֹך‬from the root ‫“ חנך‬dedicate” and “train” (DCH)45 means “Einweiher, Gründer”, or “Gefolgsmann”46 (Gesenius18), “a man dedicated to and trained by God, corresponding to the passage

returning Judeans from Mesopotamia in the Persian Era, see Chr. Böttrich, Astrologie in der Henochtradition: ZAW 109 (1997), 222–249 (224–225). – For the possible Vorlage of P see H.S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61, Neukirchen, 1988, 235–236, 322. 38 Εὐεδωράγχος according to Berossos; “Enmeduranki“ according to cuneiform Babylonian lists (cf. F.H. Weißbach, RLA II, 1938, 394–395); “Enmeduranna“ according to the Sumerian King List (ANET 265). 39 F.H. Weißbach, Art. Dumuzi: RLA II, 1938, 239; F.R. Kraus, Zur Liste der älteren Könige von Babylonien: ZA NF 16 (1952), 29–60. 40 H. Seebass, Genesis I. Urgeschichte (1,1 – 11,26): Neukirchen, 32009 (11996), 182–183. 41 On the level of literary criticism there are no indications of secondary elements in v. 24. 42 W. Sallaberger, Das Gilgamesch-Epos. Mythos, Werk und Tradition, C.H. Beck Wissen 2443, München, 22013 (12008), 76–77. 43 Verbrugghe, Berossos (see n. 36), 49–51 (50). See also H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 176–178, 231. 44 H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 53. 45 H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 41; Gesenius18: “einweihen” and “erziehen”. 46 This corresponds to ‫( ַויּ ִתְ ַהלְֵּך חֲנוְֹך אֶת־ ָהאֱֹלהִים‬v. 24).

46

Thomas Pola

‘Enoch walked with God’”,47 according to P Enoch “lived in an intimate spiritual relationship with God” (H.S. Kvanvig).48 Did Enoch, according to P, detect the solar year consisting of 365 days (cf. Gen 5:21–22)?49 The flood in the PC takes exactly 365 days. The lifetime of Enoch prepares the ancient reader for the origin of this number. In addition to that, is P interested in associating astronomical skills with Enoch (before Jub 4:17–18)?50 Moreover, did P believe that Enoch was introduced to mysteries in the visible and the non-visible, spiritual, reality (before Sir 44:16)?51 The (almost apocalyptic) interpretation of ‫“( ַויּ ִתְ ַהלְֵּך חֲנוְֹך אֶ ת־ ָהאֱֹלהִים‬Enoch walked with God”) by Hermann Gunkel was: “antik gesprochen: ihm ist Gott erschienen und hat ihm Geheimnisse offenbart”.52 However, the discovery of Hebrew fragments of apocalyptic Enoch literature next to the Dead Sea in the second half of the 20th century urged some scholars to believe in exilic roots of the Astronomical Enoch.53 To sum up, Gen 5:21–24 indicates that there was a Priestly esoteric Enoch speculation in the Persian Era. It was known to the contemporaneous readers of P. The PC simply alluded to this arcanum. This is generally comparable with Gen 2:1, the only hint at angels in the PC before the Cherubim commandments in the tabernacle account (Exod 25:18–22 etc.). The early apocalyptic Enoch speculation does not have its roots in Gen 5:21–24 but in the esoteric tradition behind it.

47

H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 46. H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 53. 49 H. Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, HK I/1, Göttingen, 21902 (11901), 120, and E.A. Speiser, Genesis. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AncB 1, Garden City / New York, 1964, 43, mention Enmedurannna’s capital city, “the ancient center of the sun god of Sippar” and the priority of the revelations of Šamaš (and Adad) for Enmeduranki (Gunkel; W.G. Lambert, Art. Babylonien (see n. 37), 77. 50 „Sein Lebensalter von 365 J. läßt zugleich einen Bezug zu astronomisch-kalendarischen Diskussionen erkennen“ (Chr. Böttrich, Art. Henoch: DNP 5, 1998, 348–349 [348]). 51 C. Westermann, Genesis. I. Teilband: Genesis 1–11, BK.AT 1/1, Neukirchen, 21976 (11974), 486, believes that there is no imagination of a heavenly sphere underlying Gen 5:24*. This is implausible as P makes a difference between ‫“ ה ָָר ִקי ַע‬sky” (Gen 1:6–8, 14, 15, 17, 20) and ‫שּׁ ַמי ִם‬ ָ ‫“ ַה‬heaven” (1:1, 2:1, 4a). ‫ ְוכָל־ ְצבָאָם‬in 2:1 is the only hint at an angelology in the PC (except the Cherubim, e.g. in Ex 25:18–22). 52 H. Gunkel, Genesis (see n. 49), 120. 53 H.S. Kvanvig, Roots (see n. 37), 325–329 (Persian Age, but prior to P); G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Art. Enoch, Books of: EncDSS 1, Oxford 2000, 249–253 (249, concerning the fragments from 1Hen: “Its component parts were composed in Aramaic between approximately 400 BCE and the turn of the era …”); cf. F. Förg, Die Ursprünge der alttestamentlichen Apokalyptik, AzB 45, Leipzig, 2013, 36–37. An origin from the Hellenistic Time is proposed by M. Albani, Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch, WMANT 68, Neukirchen, 1994 (Aramaic Enoch later than 250 BC.); Chr. Böttrich, Astrologie (see n. 37), 222–249 (in the Hellenistic Time), and others. 48

Back to the Future

47

1.3. Gen 6–9*: The Priestly Code Presents a New Understanding of the Flood My thesis is: The PC sees in the flood the eschatological judgement as a cosmic catastrophe. The flood aims at a new being of humanity (Gen 6:18; 9:1–6, 7– 17).54 The commands concerning blood relevant for the whole of humanity (9:1–6) are given in view of the atoning cult of Mt. Sinai. Arguments: In the pre-Priestly narrative the flood is part of the primeval history Gen 2:4–11:9*. In the Priestly Code Gen 5:1–2 is the beginning of history. There is no primeval history in P; Gen 5 to Exod 40 is just history starting with Gen 5:1–2.55 As in the pre-Priestly narrative, the prologue of the Priestly flood account in Gen 6:9–22 reveals its specific understanding. It is well known that Gen 6:13 quotes ‫ בָּא הַקֵּ ץ‬from Ezek 7:2, 6 (Amos 8:2):56 Amos 8:2 Ezek 7:2 Ezek 7:6 Gen 6:13

‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל ֹלא־אוֹ ִס יף עוֹד עֲבוֹר לוֹ׃‬ ְ ִ ‫בָּא ַה ֵקּ ץ ֶא ל־ ַע ִמּ י י‬ ‫ָאָר ץ׃‬ ֶ ‫ַל־אַר בַּע ַכּ נ ְפוֹת ה‬ ְ ‫ בָּא ַה ֵקּ ץ ע‬57‫ֵק ץ בָּא‬ ‫ֵק ץ בָּא בָּא ַה ֵקּ ץ ֵה ִק יץ ֵא ָל י ְִך ִה נּ ֵה בָּאָה׃‬ ‫שׂ ר בָּא ְל ָפ נ ַי‬ ָ ‫ֵק ץ כָּל־ ָבּ‬

Moreover, Gen 6:9,13 quotes Isa 6:3. By using the word ‫“( ָחמָס‬violence”) as the object of what the world is filled with, P calls into the mind of its readers a key word from the accusations of the pre-exilic prophetic writings.58 Consequently, the Priestly flood account brings the flood into a cosmic dimension (Gen 7:11). In addition to that, the reason for this cosmic catastrophe is an argument which was used by the pre-exilic and exilic prophets in order to announce the judgement executed by the Assyrians and Babylonians. P turns the catastrophe of 587 BCE into the past and enlarges it into a cosmic judgement. According to Rudolph Smend (jun.),59 the Priestly flood account aims at the consolation of its exilic audience because the result of the flood in Gen 9:1–17 is the divine promise expressed in a covenant (‫ )בּ ְִרית‬that this cosmic judgment will never happen again. To my mind, the intention of the PC goes beyond the consolation of its exilic audience. This is evident from the inner logic of the 54

According to E. Blum, P is “ein Kontinuum eigentümlicher Brechungen und Neuanfänge” (Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57, Neukirchen, 1984). 55 Moreover, there is no distinction between the genealogy in Gen 11:10–27, 31–32 and the beginning of the Priestly Abraham narrative. 56 There are indications for a cosmic dimension of the judgement in Ezek 7, too. 57 M is the result of haplography. Insert ‫ בָּא‬with G, V, and T. 58 Amos 3:10; 6:3; Zeph 1:9; Jer 6:7; 20:8; 51:35,46; Mic 6:12; from exilic and post-exilic time Ezek 7:11, 23; 8:17; 12:19; 28:16. In Ezek 45:9 and Isa 53:9 it is used in the context of salvation. See also ‫שׁפַּט דָּ מִים ְו ָהעִיר ָמלְאָה ָחמָס‬ ְ ‫ָאָרץ ָמלְאָה ִמ‬ ֶ ‫ ה‬in Ezek 7:23, similarly in Ezek 8:17; 12:19; 28:16. See also Lohfink, Priesterschrift (n. 33), 213–253 [213/239]) who believes that Ezek 28:1–19 is the background of Gen 6:13. 59 R. Smend, “Das Ende ist gekommen.” Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift, in: Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by J. Jeremias/L. Perlitt, 1981, 67–72 (revised in: Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien Bd. 1, BEvTh 99, München, 1986, 154–159).

48

Thomas Pola

PC: The PC avoids any hint at sacrifices as the atonement cult is restricted to Mt. Sinai in the PC (in consequence of the cultic centralization of the reform of Josiah).60 The special commands concerning the blood of man and of animals in Gen 9:4–6 point to the atonement cult commands. Obviously the stability of the cosmos after the flood in the Priestly Code relies on the institution of the atonement cult although the atonement cult is practiced by the ‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְבּנֵי י‬only.61 Humanity is not completely wicked in the PC but it needs salvation (see below). 1.4. Exod 25–29: The Priestly Code Presents a New Understanding of the Sanctuary and of Its Sacrifices It is acknowledged that Mt. Sinai in P is Mt. Zion, transferred into the Utopia of a desert landscape in the past.62 My thesis is: The tabernacle aims at the atoning cult, i.e., at the most holy and mysterious meeting of YHWH with the ‫ ְבּנֵי י ִשְׂ ָראֵל‬, the consecration (‫ קדשׁ‬hi., pi., and ni.) of the ‫ ְבּנֵי י ִשְׂ ָראֵל‬, and, last but not least, the New Man created by YHWH as it was expected for the near future by Ezekiel and his school (Ezek 11:19–21; 36:25–32;63 37:15–28 and more).– Arguments: The atonement cult results from the pessimistic anthropology of the prophets. W.H. Schmidt asks: “Ist nicht auch die von der Priesterschrift bezeugte Konzentration des Kults auf die Sühne eine Antwort auf die von den Propheten aufgewiesene Schuld des Volkes?”.64 In Egypt, in the Ancient Orient, and in the Priestly Code the temple is a symbol of the cosmos.65 Moreover, Exod 24:15–18* and the ‫שׁכן‬-theology (in German “Wohntheologie”)66 of Pg stress the lasting indwelling of YHWH and his heavenly ‫ כָּבוֹד‬on Mt. Sinai.67 The purpose of the tabernacle is the atoning cult (‫ כפר‬pi. and pu.), i.e., the institution of the most holy meeting (‫ יעד‬ni.) of YHWH with the representative 60

This is the reason why the number of animals taken to the ark is reduced in P. Does the institution of the killing of the sacrificed animal mirror or institutionalize the catastrophe of 587 BCE as the Second Temple community is expected to identify itself with the blood of the sacrifice? 62 B. Jacob, Der Pentateuch. Exegetisch-Kritische Forschungen: Leipzig, 1905, 155; M. Görg, Das Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels, BBB 27, Hanstein, 1967, 74, 172. 63 Ezek 36:23*–38 is missing in P967. 64 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie (see n. 26), 239, n. 48 (reprint). 65 B. Janowski, Der Himmel auf Erden. Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt Israels, in: Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte, ed. B. Janowski/B. Ego, FAT 32, Tübingen, 2002, 229–260. 66 See the use of the root ‫“( שׁכן‬to dwell”) taken from Zion theology in the formula ‫י ְהוָה‬ ‫ ְצבָאוֹת הַשֹּׁכֵן ְבּהַר צִיּוֹן‬in Isa 8:18, also in 1 Kgs 8:12–13 (M). 67 In Pg also in Exod 29:43; secondary in P in Exod 16:7, 10; 40:34–35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; by R Num 14:21–22. Cf. Ezek 1:28; 3:12, 23; 10:4, 18; 11:23, 43:2–5; Hag 1:8; Zec 2:9. 61

Back to the Future

49

of the ‫( ְבּנֵי י ִשְׂ ָראֵל‬Exod 25:22; 29:42–43; in the additions to the PC: Exod 30:6, 36; Num 7:8968) in the tabernacle,69 at the ‫כַּפּ ֶֹרת‬. The atoning does not concern single sins; it concerns the being of those who identify themselves with the atonement rites. This ontological understanding of the Priestly soteriology was prepared by Ezekiel and his school.70 To my mind Exod 29:45–46, to be precise, the sequence of Exod 25:8a.9; 29:45–46 in Pg depends on Ezek 37:26bβ–28. This concluding passage of the salvation composition of Ezek 34–37 recalls in the mind of the readers much more than the announcement of the presence of YHWH and his sanctuary in midst of his people, of the covenant, and of the ‫ גּוֹי ִם‬to know the presence of YHWH in midst of his people. Ezek 37:26bβ–28 is the conclusion of 37:15–28 (which is the work of the prophet and of his school by succeeding additions): It announces – the gathering of the scattered people and its way (eisodus) into their own land (v. 21– 22aα71), – one king (‫ ) ֶמלְֶך‬for the reunited monarchy (v. 22aβb72, 24a73), – no impurity any more (this will only work with a new being),74 – no apostasy any more (this also requires a new being),75 – and covenant (v. 23).

V. 24b-28,76 an exilic addition, announces the consequences of this new being: – perfect obedience to all commandments (v. 24b), – everlasting dwelling in their own land (v. 25a.bα), – David (= the ideal ruler) will be the servant of YHWH and the ‫ נָשִׂיא‬forever (v. 25bβ; cf. 34:23–24), – making of a new and everlasting covenant of peace by YHWH (v. 26a77).

In short, according to Ezek 37:15–28 the granting of the sanctuary in the midst of the people forever and the (new) covenant (v. 26bβ–28) include the creation of a qualitative New Man in the land (like Ezek 11:1978), i.e., dependent on the presence of YHWH on Mt. Zion. The Priestly Code moves this into the past of the Sinai revelation (except the making of the covenant and except 68

Num 7:89 is the execution report or fulfillment of Exod 25:22. E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin et al., 1990, 294 and more. 70 This results from the function of the Sabbath commandment stressed in Ezek 20. 71 ‫ָאָרץ ְבּה ֵָרי יִשׂ ְָראֵל‬ ֶ ‫ בּ‬is probably an addition. 72 ‫ עוֹד‬is an addition to M, missing in G. 73 According to W. Zimmerli v. 24a is an addition (Ezechiel, BK.AT 13/2, Neukirchen, 2 1979 [11969], 907) but looks more like an original inclusio with v. 22. 74 ‫שׁעֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ וּ ְבשִׁקּוּצֵיהֶם וּבְכ ֹל ִפּ‬is an addition to M as it is missing in G. 75 Probably read ‫“( מְשׁוּב ֹתֵ יהֶם‬your apostasies”) instead of ‫מוֹשְׁב ֹתֵ יהֶם‬. 76 W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (see n. 73), 913. 77 In v. 26b ‫ וּנְתַ תִּ ים ְוה ְִרבֵּיתִ י אוֹתָ ם‬is probably an addition. 78 Read with G ‫ אַחֵר‬instead of ‫אֶ חָד‬. 69

50

Thomas Pola

the ideal Davidic ruler). I agree with Bernd Janowski who called the erection of the tabernacle in the Priestly Code “Höhepunkt und Ziel des priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsentwurfs”.79 He continues: “Da am Sinai die im Exodusgeschehen sich vollziehende ‘Schöpfung’ des JHWH-Volks zum Abschluß kommt (vgl. Ex 29,45f), kann man im Blick auf Ex 19,1 – Ex 40,34f (?) / Lev 9,23f* auch von einer ‚Neuschöpfung’ Israels und seiner gesamten Lebenswelt durch JHWH sprechen. Als ‚Himmel auf Erden’ ist das Heiligtum am Sinai deshalb auch für den Geschichtsweg des Gottesvolks konstitutiv …”80

1.5. Gen 17: The Priestly Code Presents a New Understanding of the Covenant of YHWH with Abraham It has already been recognized by W. Zimmerli81 that the traditional motif of the Sinai covenant was moved in Pg to Gen 17.82 By taking this into account my thesis is: The covenant granted to Abraham in Gen 17 (Pg) is the New Covenant (‫ )בּ ְִרית חֲדָ שָׁ ה‬as announced by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34) and also Ezekiel (the covenant formula in Ezek 34:24–25; 36:28; 37:24; announcement of a ‫ בּ ְִרית עוֹלָם‬in 37:26), now reverted into the past.83 This has been seen already by scholars like W.H. Schmidt,84 Chr. Levin,85 and others. “Beide Texte, Gen 17 wie Jer 31,31ff., entstammen vermutlich einer ähnlichen oder gar gleichen Situation, der exilischen oder nachexilischen Zeit, welche das Eintreffen der prophetischen Unheilsdrohungen bereits vor Augen hatte. … Gottes, sei es vormals geschlossene oder als bevorstehend fest zugesagte, Gemeinschaft ist endgültig und unauflöslich” (W.H. Schmidt).86

79

B. Janowski, Himmel auf Erden (see n. 65), 110. B. Janowski, Himmel auf Erden (see n. 65), 110. 81 W. Zimmerli, Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift: ThZ 16 (1960), 268–280 (= W. Zimmerli, Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, TB 19, München, 21969 [11963], 205–216). 82 Exod 31:12–17 (Ps) reveals that the oral priestly material formerly contained a narrative about a covenant at Mt. Sinai. It was eliminated by the authors of Pg. 83 It must be admitted that the expression ‫“( בּ ְִרית חֲדָ שָׁה‬new covenant”) is restricted to Jer 31:31 in its context. But as the context in the book of Ezekiel is the New Man (the adjective ‫ חָדָ שׁ‬is used in Ezek 11:19 and 36:26 [twice]) the covenant announced in the book of Ezekiel must be a qualitative New Covenant. See Chr. Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137, Göttingen, 1985, 214–222 (relying on other arguments). 84 W.H. Schmidt, Nachwirkungen prophetischer Botschaft in der Priesterschrift, in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, AOAT 215, ed. by A. Caquot et al., Kevelaer, 1985, 369–377 (375–376). 85 Chr. Levin, Verheißung (see n. 83), 222–234. 86 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie (see n. 26), 239 (reprint). 80

Back to the Future

51

Arguments: The covenant is called ‫“ בּ ְִרית עוֹלָם‬eternal covenant” (in Pg: Gen 9:16;87 17:7, 17, 19; in Ps Exod 31:16; in Ph Lev 24:8) which relies on Ezek 37:26 (Ezek 16:60 within v. 59–63 is rather the work of the Ezekiel school but announces the New Covenant,88 combined with the knowledge of YHWH [‫] ְוי ָדַ עַתְּ כִּי־ ֲאנִי י ְהוָה‬, and the atonement), but Isa 24:5; 55:3;89 61:8, and Jer 32:40 (within v. 36–41!) indicate that the eternal covenant (‫ )בּ ְִרית עוֹלָם‬is a central motif for the exilic and post-exilic theology.90 Its eternal character is stressed in view of the human failure of the first covenant (Jer 31:32). Its human failure is expressed by terms like ‫“( ֹלא עַמִּ י‬not my people”) in Hos 1:9 or ‫“( ָהעָם ַהזֶּה‬this people”) in Isa 6:9–10; 8:6, 11–12; 9:15; 28:11, 14; 29:13–14 (also many times in Jer).91 Moreover, the renaming of Abram and Saray to Abraham and Sara is new compared with the pre-P-texts, i.e., Gen 15.92 It indicates a new being granted by YHWH in consequence of the covenant. This new being is necessary for the eternal character of the New Covenant. Are the patriarchs and the ‫שׂ ָראֵל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְבּנֵי י‬the New Man in Pg? They show perfect obedience and it is a well-known fact that Pg (!) omits each kind of negative characterization of its protagonists (selected examples): – there is no conflict between Esau and Jacob; Esau’s only blame is marrying Canaanite women, but afterwards he corrects his mistake and marries a legitimate woman (Gen 26:34–35; 27:46; 28:8–9), – Jacob has no problems with Laban at all (Gen 28:5; 31:18aβγδ.b), – instead of a rivalry between Joseph and his brothers like in Gen 37:3–11 (pre-P) “Joseph brought an ill report” (‫ )דִּ בָּה ָרעָה‬of some of his brothers “to their father” (Gen 37:2b; RSV),93 so the integrity of Joseph (and of his father) is stressed, – Moses’ murder of an Egyptian and Moses’ journey to Midian are omitted,

87

Except v. 16 it is simply called ‫ בּ ְִרית‬in Gen 6:9, 11–13, 15, 17. B. Renaud, L'alliance éternelle d'Éz 16,59–63 et l'alliance nouvelle de Jér 31,31–34: Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. by J. Lust, BEThL 74, Leuven, 1986, 335–339 (‫“[ חֲדָ שָׁה‬new“] was replaced by ‫“[ עוֹלָם‬eternal“]); Chr. Levin, Verheißung (see n. 83), 225. 89 Cf. Isa 54:10: ‫בּ ְִרית שְׁלוֹמִי‬. 90 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie (see n. 26), 239, including n. 50 (reprint); Chr. Nihan, The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of »P«, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings, ed. by S. Shectman/J.S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich, 2009, 87– 134 (99–103). 91 See for these expressions W.H. Schmidt, Nachwirkungen (see n. 84), 372 n. 11, and pp. 375–376. 92 The renaming of Jacob in Gen 35:10 depends on 32:28–29 (pre-P). – For some authors Gen 15 is dependant on Gen 17, e.g., Th. Römer, Genesis 15 und Genesis 17. Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der „neueren“ und „neuesten“ Pentateuchkritik: DBAT 26 (1989/90), 32–47. 93 Unfortunately we do not know anything about the development of this plot due to the lacuna after Gen 37:2b P, provided v. 2b is of Priestly origin. 88

52

Thomas Pola – the Israelites in Exod 6:9 are excused for not listening or obeying to Moses. The excuse ‫“( מִקּ ֹ ֶצר רוּ ַח וּ ֵמעֲב ֹדָ ה ָקשָׁה‬because of their broken spirit and their cruel bondage” [RSV]) merely reflects the conditions of the exilic background,94 and as W.H. Schmidt stresses, they are still ‫“( ַעמִּי‬my people”) according to Exod 7:4, although they did not “listen” (Exod 6:9, 12),95 – there is no murmuring or revolt story in Pg (Exod 16* belongs to a secondary Priestly layer96).

To sum up, the eternal covenant of Gen 17 mirrors the expectation of the New Covenant on the one hand and the realization of the New Man on the other hand. Because the New Man is created by God (who gave the commandments for the Priestly atonement cult) the New Covenant will last forever. 1.6. Exod 14*: The Priestly Code Presents a New Understanding of the Deliverance at the Sea According to Pg the deliverance at the sea (Exod 14*)97 differs from the pre-Pversion discernible in Exod 14 not only by its geographic setting and other details but mainly in presenting the deliverance as an act of creation by YHWH: “Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left” (Ex 14:21–22, RSV).

The PC has this cosmological interpretation of the (New) Exodus in common with Deutero-Isaiah, especially in 51:9–10:98 “Awake, awake, put on strength,99 O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon? Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep (‫) ֵמ י ְתּ הוֹם ַר בָּה‬ that didst make the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over?” (RSV).

94 According to W.H. Schmidt, Exodus, BK.AT 2/1, Neukirchen, 1988, 279–280 (and in other publications), Exod 6:9 is influenced by the motif of the missing success of the prophets, namely of Isaiah (28:12; 30:9) and Ezekiel (3:7, 11; 20:8 and more). 95 W.H. Schmidt, Pentateuch und Prophetie (see n. 26), 238 (reprint). 96 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (see n. 2), 134–143. 97 In Exod 14 Pg consists of the verses 1–4, 8a, 10aβγ, 15–18, 21aα.b, 22–23, 26, 27aα, 28– 29. This is accepted by the majority of scholars. 98 F. Förg, Die Jahwe-König-Psalmen und die Apokalyptik, Dortmunder Beiträge zu Theologie und Religionspädagogik 11, Münster, 2012, 97–100. 99 Cf. Ps 93:1a: “The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed, he is girded with strength” (RSV).

Back to the Future

53

There is an influence of 51:9–10 on the Pg-version of Exod 14 (or at least a common root of both texts, cf. Ps 77:16–21 and Enuma Eliš).100 However, the call to repeat the traditional exodus as a New Exodus of Isa 51:9–10 is in Pg expressed as happened in the past (the New Exodus is announced in Ezek 20:34–35; 34:13; 36:24; 37:12, 21, too). The expectation of DeuteroIsaiah for the near future has become future in the past in the PC. 1.7. Gen 1:1 to 2:4a is a Protological and an Eschatological Passage My thesis is: ‫( טוֹב מְא ֹד‬Gen 1:31) is related to the quality of the creation in a protological and in an eschatological sense. Gen 1:1 to 2:3 opens the PC which announces an ideal future. Arguments: The pre-P narrative in Gen 2:4b to 4:26 was not interested in the problem of the predators like lions and snakes within the “Schöpfungsordnung”, although 2:16 implies that there were no poisonous plants yet in the garden. In contrast to that the eschatological prophecy was concerned with the problem that there are predators and poisonous snakes among the animals (Isa 11:6–8; 65:25; cf. 35:8–10; Ezek 34:25; Lev 26:6). Consequently, Gen 1:29– 30 was inserted into Gen 1. Also Lev 6:12–16 mirrors an expectation supported by the eschatological prophecy that there had been a Golden Age101 in which human nutrition was restricted to plants (this was revised after the flood in Gen 9:2–4). However, 1:11–12 implies, that the earth became covered completely by vegetation (J had given an aetiology of a desert in consequence of human sin in 19:1–29*). Also the primary text of Gen 1:1–28, 31; 2:1–3 shows intertextual affinities with eschatological prophecies. The usage of ‫“ ברא‬to create” in the Old Testament is, as is well known, restricted to P,102 exilic and postexilic references in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (see below), certain Psalms,103 and few other late 100 J. Scharbert, Das Schilfmeerwunder” in den Texten des Alten Testaments: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, AOAT 212, ed. by A. Caquot/ M. Delcor, 1981, 395–417; cf. B.S. Childs, Isaiah. A Commentary, OTL, Louisville, KY, 2001, 403– 404. – According to A.S. Kapelrud Deutero-Isaiah knew P because the latter was finished before 550 BCE (The Date of the Priestly Code [P]: ASTI 3 [1964] 58–64 [= A.S. Kapelrud, God and His Friends in the Old Testament, Oslo, 1979, 21–27]). 101 A protological Golden Age is a common motif in antiquity, cf. the Sumerian text “Enki, Ninsikila und Ninchursaga” (TUAT III/3, Gütersloh, 1993, 363–386 [365–367]) and especially Vergil, Ekloge IV, 18–25, 28–30, 40–45; Georgica I, 130; Ovid, Metamorph. XV, 96; Fasti I, 337, 347; Hesiod, Erga 106–126. According to the Sumerian passage there was neither sickness nor lament in the Golden Age. As a matter of fact, Isa 35:8–10 (an addition to v. 1–7) combines the expectation of a world without lions with the announcement of the New Man which points to a New Creation expected in Isa 35:1–7.8–10, comparable with Isa 35:15–20 (an addition to the preceding passage). 102 Apart from Gen 1:1–2:3 also in 5:1–2. Redactors used it in 2:4a; 6:7. 103 Ps 51:12 (later than Ezek); 89:13, 48 (exilic); 102:19, 104:30 (later than P); 148:5.

54

Thomas Pola

references.104 It is characteristic for Late Biblical Hebrew, and God is generally the grammatical subject of ‫ ברא‬in the Old Testament. As P also uses ‫“ עשׂה‬to make” in Gen 1:7, 16, 25–26, 31; 2:2–3, the usage of ‫ ברא‬is no substitute for the traditional ‫( עשׂה‬2:4b, 18). The crucial point is the usage of ‫ ברא‬not only concerning the protological context,105 but also in eschatological prophecies announcing a New Creation and a New Era in history in the future: Isa 41:20: 45:8: 48:6–7: 65:17–18: 4:5: Jer 31:22:

New Creation creation of salvation in history and New Creation creation of salvation in history New Heaven and New Earth Theophany and New Creation106 New Era in history and New Creation.

There is no doubt that the literal context of ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1 to 2:3, introduced by ‫ בּ ְֵראשִׁית‬and framed by ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1; 2:1, 3b is protological and related to the present time, too (creatio continua).107 But can we exclude that ‫ ברא‬in the solemn opening passage of P also implicates the New Creation? Most important is, concerning Deutero-Isaiah, that the announcement of a New Era in history (starting with the Persian king Cyrus, Isa 44:28; 45:1) and the expectation of a New Creation as a ‫ ברא‬by YHWH belong together – is it the intention of the PC (!) in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 to open a document which describes or announces an ideal future? Moreover, it has been seen by many scholars (Michaela Bauks108 and others) that Gen 1:1–2:3 must not be read as an isolated passage. It is part of the structure of the history of revelation (“Offenbarungsgeschichte”) of the PC. It also comprises the emergence of the ‫ ְבּנֵי י ִשְׂ ָראֵ ל‬in Exod 1:1a, 2–5, 7109 and the making of the tabernacle by Moses (Exod 39:32, 42–43 is related with Gen 1:31; 2:1–3).110 A tradition underlying eschatological prophecy is also mirrored in the creation of the divine light (‫ )אוֹר‬in Gen 1:3 (against the preceding darkness [‫שְׁך‬ ֶ ֹ ‫)]ח‬, to be associated with conscience, truth, even God himself. As is well known, the creation of the sources of the visible light shining from sky in Gen 1:14–19, called ‫מְא ֹר ֹת‬, is separated from the creation of the light of Gen 1:3. The background for the latter emerges in Isa 60:19–20 and Zech 14:7:111 104

Exod 34:10, Num 16:30; Deut 4:32; Amos 4:13. Isa 40:26, 28; 42:5; 43:7; 45:7, 12, and more; Ezek 21:35; 28:13, 15; Mal 2:10; Eccl 12:1. 106 Isa 65:17–18 and 4:2–6 were possibly written later than Gen 1:1 to 2:3. 107 W.H. Schmidt restricts the usage of ‫ ברא‬in Gen 1:1 to 2:3 to a protological sense (Art. ‫ ברא‬brʾ schaffen: THAT I, 21975 [11971], 336–339 [338]). 108 M. Bauks, Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg), in: Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History, ed. by A. Wénin, BEThL 155, Leuven, 2001, 333–345. 109 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 65–66. 110 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 227. 111 Also in Rev 21:23–25; 22:5. 105

Back to the Future

55

“The sun shall be no more your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night; but the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun shall no more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning shall be ended” (Isa 60:19–20, RSV). “And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light” (Zech 14:7, RSV).

It must be admitted that there is a difference between the quoted passages and Gen 1:14–19, as the “night” (‫ )ח ֹשְֶׁך‬still exists in the creation account as it opens the history of revelation of the PC. But the darkness (‫ )חֹשְֶׁך‬is indirectly rebuked because only the light is approved by God in v. 4 (“and God saw that the light was good”, RSV). “The picture of Endzeit here in Isa 60:19 … reverses the order of Urzeit from the primordial light of Gen 1:3 to the light of the sun and moon in Gen 1:14” (M.S. Smith).112 It cannot be excluded that there were mystical, esoteric priestly conceptions underlying Gen 1:3.113 Last but not least, the description of the chaos114 in Gen 1:2 (“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters”, RSV) is obviously recalled in an apocalyptic context, in Dan 7:2–3: “Daniel said, ‘I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another’” (RSV). As in Gen 1:1–2:3; 5*, the history is developed out of a primary substance. Gen 1 and Dan 7 have this in common although Dan 7–12 was written in consequence of the crisis in Jerusalem caused by Antiochus IV (175– 164 BCE). To sum up, according to Gen 1:31 the quality of the creation was ‫טוֹב מְא ֹד‬ (“very good”) in a protological and in an eschatological sense, concerning a New Era in history and a New Creation.

112 M.S. Smith, Light in Genesis 1:3 – Created or Uncreated: A Question of Priestly Mysticism?, in: Birkat Shalom. Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Vol. I, ed. Ch. Cohen et al., Winona Lake, 2008, 125–134 (129). 113 “This presentation of creation in Genesis 1 might not give away the whole store of Priestly lore; it may have held back secret speculations and associated visionary praxis that the priesthood may have wished to keep to itself” (M.S. Smith, Light [see n. 112], 135). 114 B. Janowski, Die Welt des Anfangs. Gen 1,1–2,4a als Magna Charta des biblischen Schöpfungsglaubens: Schöpfungsglaube vor der Herausforderung des Kreationismus, ed. by B. Janowski et al., Theologie interdisziplinär 6, Neukirchen, 2009, 27–53 (30).

56

Thomas Pola

1.8. Exod 40 and Lev 8–9: The Expectations Concerning the Consecration of the Zerubbabel Temple Were Reverted in Pg into the Past Thesis: The problem of the delay of the fulfilment of eschatological expectations was minimized in Pg by reverting the fulfilment into the past. Arguments: On the one hand the consecration of the Second Temple in 515 BCE was connected with eschatological expectations (according to DeuteroIsaiah, Ezek 43:1–12, Hag 2, and Zech 1–6, as I analyzed elsewhere).115 On the other hand these expectations were not fulfilled according to the extremely reluctant consecration report in Ezra 6:14–18. We do not find anything about the return of YHWH to Zion, nothing about the ‫כְּבוֹד־י ְהוָה‬, about the indwelling of YHWH in Ezra 6. This problem of delay was solved in two ways: 1.) For the YHWH-kingship hymns (Ps 47; 93; 96–99) many eschatological expectations, mainly from Deutero-Isaiah are already fulfilled in the cult of the Second Temple, especially the experience of the kingship of YHWH.116 By this kind of cultic experience of reality the problem of delay becomes restricted to the world outside the temple. Moreover, there is in Ps 99:6–8 a cultic glance into the past of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel. Its structure is comparable with Pg: The past of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel is the present and the future for the congregation that uses this hymn in their worship. 2.) The Priestly Code reverts many (not all) of the mentioned eschatological expectations into the past (Exod 40, Lev 8–9). Consequently, the mentioned expectations were still valid and the problem of their lacking fulfilment in the present time was minimized. Even the deuteronomistic report of the consecration of Solomon’s temple in 1 Kgs 8 was extended by a passage from the Priestly school in v. 10–11 concerning the ‫כְּבוֹד־י ְהוָה‬.

1.9. Summary Pg moves the eschatological future expected by pre-exilic, exilic, and early post-exilic prophecies into its presentation of the past of the cult at Mt. Sinai.

2. The Extension of Pg: Reversion of Present Problems and Social Developments at the Second Temple into the Past Why was the Priestly Code (Pg) extended by a Priestly layer from different authors of the late Priestly school? What is theologically new in this layer? This will be answered through a comparison of Pg with its secondary extensions. As

115 116

Th. Pola, Priestertum (see n. 14). F. Förg, Jahwe-König-Psalmen (see n. 98), 48–66.

57

Back to the Future

a matter of fact these extensions are far from being a kind of literary and theological unit, although they have much in common. Pg (as defined in n. 2)

Additions to Pg

Pg moves many expectations of eschatological prophecies into the past. For Pg they were fulfilled but still valid. Instead of the messianic hope117 the new office of Aaron, the high priest, is stressed. The judgement prophecy is once and for all fulfilled in the flood account.

The Priestly additions to Pg move Korah, Eleazar, Itamar, and Phinehas, individuals of the history of the Second Temple, i.e., the present time of the authors of the Priestly school, into the past118 dependent on judgement prophecy terminology (W.H. Schmidt).

The tabernacle is situated at Mt. Sinai (this is dependent on Ezek 40–42*; 43:1– 12). Consequently, YHWH dwells (‫)שׁכן‬ in midst of His people.119

The tabernacle becomes mobile (this is dependent on Exod 33:7–11 [pre-P]120). The introductory key passage is Exod 40:36–38.121 Consequently, to the ‫שׁכן‬-theology122 a theophanic theology was added.123

Pg is characterized by an optimistic anthropology (except the negative development in Gen 5 which results in the flood as a universal judgement124). Starting with Noah man is characterized by absolutely perfect obedience,125 which is expressed by the execution formula.126 This is possible because Pg believes that the New Creation known from eschatological prophecy is realized in midst of the cultic reality of the Israelites of the desert time.

The additions to Pg return to the pessimistic anthropology (which was typical for J from the late pre-exilic time). The Israelites rebel against YHWH in the desert (Exod 16:1–15*; Num 13–14*) and even Moses and Aaron are fallible (Num 20:1– 12*).

Consequently, the New Covenant ( ‫בּ ְִר ית‬ ‫שׁה‬ ָ ‫ ) ֲח ָד‬of Jer 31:31–34 (cf. Ezek 37:26) is

The additions to Pg show further developments concerning a covenant theology.

117

Th. Pola, Sacharja (n. 14). E. Blum, Komposition (see n. 69), 270. 119 Exod 24:16; 25:8–9; 29:45–46; 40:34–35 (Ps?); cf. Ezek 43:7–9. 120 Num 11:11–12, 14–17, 24b, 25–30; 12:2–11*; Deut 31:14–15, 23, too. 121 For the secondary character of Exod 40:36–38, see M. Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus, ATD 5, Göttingen, 51973 (11958), 228. 122 Exod 40:34–35 (Pg?); Lev 15:31; 16:16; 26:11–13; Num 5:3; 9:17–18, 22; 10:12; 35:34. 123 Temporary theophanies in P are restricted to secondary or redactional passages, i.e., Exod 16:7, 10; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10, 21–22; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6; cf. Deut 5:24. 124 There is no mention of the lapsus adae although Gen 5 indicates that humanity is not ‫ טוֹב מְא ֹד‬any more like in Gen 1:31, also ‫שׁחָתָ ה‬ ְ ִ‫ָאָרץ ְו ִהנֵּה נ‬ ֶ ‫ ַויּ ְַרא אֱֹלהִים אֶת־ה‬in 6:12; cf. W.H. Schmidt, Nachwirkungen (see n. 84) 374. 125 The inability of the Israelites to listen to Moses in Exod 6:9 is excused. 126 Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 116–114 and recently J.S. Baden, A Narrative Pattern and Its Role in Source Criticism: Hebrew Studies 49 (2008), 41–54. 118

58

Thomas Pola

mirrored by the Eternal Covenant ( ‫בּ ְִר ית‬ ‫ )עוֹלָם‬of Gen 9:16; 17:7, 17, 19.127

There are attempts to harmonize the covenant of Pg with deuteronomistic covenant conceptions on the one hand, and there is a conception of a covenant with Levi (relying on the deuteronomistic motive of a covenant with David).128

The129 Israelites are called ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ ְבּ נ ֵי י‬or ‫( ֵע ָד ה‬and three times ‫ ָק הָל‬130). This relies on a new definition of “people” in late pre-exilic prophetic texts on the one hand131 and on the mentioned optimistic anthropology of Pg on the other hand. The fact that the males “bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring” (Gen 17:12) participate in the covenant of Gen 17 indicates the background that proselytes may become “Israelites” in Pg with its exilic and postexilic background. To sum up, in Pg the Israelites are understood in a qualitative sense, they are idealized.

The addition of ‫ כל‬to the words for “people” used by Pg indicates a quantitative understanding of these words.132 This is also true for the late compilations of these words (‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ כּ ֹל ְק הַל ֲע ַד ת־י‬Exod 12:6133; ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ כָּל־ ְק הַל י‬Lev 16:17; ‫ כָּל־עַם ַה ָקּ הָל‬Lev ְ ִ ‫ כָּל־ ֲע ַד ת ְבּ נ ֵי־י‬Num 13:26 and 16:33134; ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ 14:7; ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ כָּל־ ְק הַל ֲע ַד ת ְבּ נ ֵי י‬Num 14:5). The substantive ‫ ָק הָל‬, known from deuteronomistic language, is used frequently,135 also ‫שׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ בֵּית־י‬from the pre-P language.136 Even the word ‫עַם‬, in pre-Pg-texts the normal word for “people”, in Pg only used in formulas,137 is used in the secondary Ptexts,138 indicating the return of a quantitative understanding of “Israel”.

127

Secondary also in Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8. Num 25:10–22; Jer 33:17–26 (postexilic); Mal 2:1–9; Neh 13:29; Sir 45:15–16. 129 Concerning the terminology concerning the Israelites see Th. Pola, Priesterschrift (n. 2), 159–174. 130 In Pg restricted to the expression ‫ ְקהַל גּוֹי ִם‬in Gen 28:3, 35:11, and 48:4. 131 Isa 3:15; 14:32; 28:16; Zeph 3:12–13. 132 Exod 12:3, 47; 16:1–3, 6, 9–10; 17:1; 35:1, 4, 20; Lev 4:13; 8:3; 9:5; Num 1:2, 18; 3:7; 8:9, 20; 10:3; 13:26; 14:1–2, 5, 7, 10, 35–36; very frequently in Num 15–16; 17:6; 20:1, 22, 27, 29; 27:19–22. 133 This is one of the traces of redactional activity in Exod 12* (Pg). 134 ‫ עַם‬is missing in G. 135 Exod 16:3; Lev 4:13–14, 21; Num 10:7; 15:15; 16:3, 33; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4, 6, 10, 12. 136 Exod 16:31; 40:38 (!); Lev 10:6; Num 20:29. This is the main argument against Exod 40:34-Lev 1:1 as the possible end of Pg. 137 The expression ‫ ְקהַל ַעמִּים‬in Gen 28:3 and 48:4; the covenant formula in Exod 6:7; 7:4; the ban formula (in P in Gen 17:14; Exod 30:33, 38; 31:14 and more, and in Ph in Lev 17:9; 19:8; 23:29), and the burial formula which is typical for P in general (Gen 25:8–9, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Num 20:24; 27:13; 31:2; cf. Deut 32:50). 138 Exod 36:5–6; Lev 9:7, 15, 18, 22–24 (!); 10:3; 16:15, 24, 33; Num 17:6, 12. This is the main argument against Lev 9 as the possible end of Pg. 128

Back to the Future

59

Pg is characterized by an ideal geography after Exod 14*139 because ‫“( ִמ ְד בַּר־ ִס ין‬wilderness of Sin”; Exod 16:1; 17:1abα) is obviously an artificial name derived from ‫“( ִמ ְד בַּר ִס ינ ָי‬wilderness of Sinai”; 19:1 [Pg]), provided that Exod 16:1 and 17:1abα belong to Pg (which is rather doubtful; see below). The general expressions ‫ ִמ ְד בַּר־ ִס ין‬and ‫ ִמ ְד בַּר ִס ינ ָי‬demonstrate that Pg was not interested in a detailed geography (except ‫ הַר ִס ינ ַי‬in Exod 24:16).140 However, the Sinai of Pg is a utopia because it resembles the pre-P-Sinai of Exod 19:2b, 3–25 on the one hand but according to Exod 24:15–18* “the mountain” (‫ ) ָה הָר‬is described by a terminology traditionally associated with Mt. Zion (‫“ שׁכן‬to dwell” [grammatical subject: YHWH];141 ‫“ כְּבוֹד־י ְהוָה‬the glory of YHWH”)142 on the other hand. Except Egypt and the Canaanites, called “Hittites” (Gen 23:3, 5, 7, 10, etc.), there are no other peoples around.143

Fictional geographical names like ‫ה ֹר ָה הָר‬ “Mount Hor” (Num 20:22, 25, 27; 33:38; 34:7) can also be found in the additions to Pg but it is generally admitted that the Priestly and redactional passages of Num 10–36* return to a more realistic geography. Moreover, the Israelites are confronted with the hostility of other peoples, i.e., the Amalekites (Num 14:39–45; 20:14–21).

According to Pg the land promise to the patriarchs was fulfilled pars pro toto by the purchase of Machpelah (Gen 23). Gen 35:12 (Pg) says “The land which I gave (‫ )!נ ָ ַת ִתּ י‬to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you”.

The theme of Num 1–36* P is the preparation of the military conquest of the promised land. This process becomes delayed by the revolt of the people in Num 13–14* and in 20:1–13*.144

In the additions to Pg the tabernacle becomes a mobile sanctuary. Consequently, the ‫שׁכן‬-theology (German “Wohntheologie”) was extended to a theology of theophanies (“Erscheinungstheologie”). A pessimistic anthropology is the background of the revolts of Korach, Datan, Abiram (Num 16), and the ‫ְבּנֵי‬ 139

M. Milani, Il Passaggio del Mare (Es 14): Parole di Vita 4 (1997), 13–19. H. Holzinger, Numeri erklärt, KHC IV, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1903, 39. 141 Isa 8:18 (‫י ְהוָה ְצבָאוֹת הַשֹּׁכֵן ְבּהַר צִיּוֹן‬, “YHWH of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion”; preexilic); 1 Kgs 8:12 (‫י ְהוָה אָמַר ִלשְׁכּ ֹן ָבּע ֲָרפֶל‬, “YHWH has said that he would dwell in thick darkness”; this sentence, supported by the Septuagint, is of pre-exilic origin). 142 Isa 3:8; 6:3; and more. 143 Stade, Geschichte (n. 30), 143. 144 But the eschatological orientation was not given up. This is evident from the use of ‫דִּ בַּת‬ ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫( ה‬Num 13:32; 14:36–37) which alludes to ‫ וְדִ בַּת־עָם‬in Ezek 36:3, and of ‫שׁבֶי ָה הִוא‬ ְ ‫א ֶֶרץ א ֹ ֶכלֶת יוֹ‬ (Num 13:32; 14:9) taken from Ezek 36:13–14. As Ezek 36:1–15 announces the restitution of the land and its people in an eschatological context. Whoever among the exiled Judeans criticizes the land should know that his point of view is an adoption of the opinion of the surrounding peoples (Lohfink, Priesterschrift [n. 33], 238–239). 140

60

Thomas Pola

‫שׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ִ ‫ י‬in Exod 16*, Num 13–14, and 20:1–13, mirroring the pre-exilic and exilic judgement prophecy (W.H. Schmidt).145 Korah, Eleazar, Itamar, and Phinehas reflect individuals of the history of the Second Temple, i.e., the present time of the authors of the Priestly school. This attitude towards the past corresponds to the attitude of the other Old Testament writings concerning its conception of the past.

3. Conclusion The Priestly concept of history is twofold: The Priestly Code (Pg; ending in Exod 40), a kind of prophecy,146 reverts the eschatological future into the past and is characterized by ‫שׁכן‬-theology (dwelling theology), an optimistic anthropology and the fulfilment of the New Covenant in the past with Abraham. The additions to Pg, mainly in Exodus and Numbers, revert judgement prophecy into the past and are characterized by reverting persons and problems of its present time into the past and are characterized by theophanic theology (“Erscheinungstheologie”). The historical background for this development within the P-school are a kind of reconciliation within the late deuteronomistic school on the one hand and the restorative way from the temple community in the sixth century BCE to the situation of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE on the other hand. The intention of the final form of the Priestly literature in the Tetrateuch is to present the addition of Pg and its additions in a complementary way: The idealistic view of Pg of the eschatological future in the past is complemented by the additions referring to problems of the cultic history of the present time reversed into the past. The eschatological character of Pg and of P as a whole was the reason for the end of the literary history of the Pentateuch. It was not possible any more to increase motifs like the perfect creation in Gen 1:1–2:4a, the New Covenant, and the New Man. As P became the thread of the Pentateuch the theology of the Pentateuch was determined by the P-source and –strata. In consequence of that the literary history of the Pentateuch came to an end. It gained a canonical character. Not only the Priestly texts were deeply influenced by prophecy; J from the time of Ezekias,147 the protodeuteronomic passages in the Tetrateuch from the 145

W.H. Schmidt, Nachwirkungen (see n. 84); 372–373. The use of the introductory particle ‫ ָלכֵן‬in P (Exod 6:6 Pg; secondary in Num 16:11; 20:12) was taken from prophetic language (in salvation context: Ezek 36:14, 22; 37:12, and more). 147 Th. Pola, Wirkungen der vorexilischen Schriftprophetie auf das Werk des Jahwisten im Pentateuch, in: Die Bibel und ihre vielfältige Rezeption. Vorträge zu Ehren von Detlev 146

Back to the Future

61

seventh century, and Deuteronomy148 were influenced by the pre-exilic prophecy to a high degree, too. In consequence of that, the knowledge of the prophetic writings was necessary in order to understand the Pentateuch.149 This explains why the process of canonization of the Latter Prophets in addition to the Torah became inevitable. Bibliography Albani, Matthias: Astronomie und Schöpfungsglaube. Untersuchungen zum astronomischen Henochbuch, WMANT 68, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1994. Baden, Joel S.: A Narrative Pattern and Its Role in Source Criticism, Hebrew Studies 49 (2008), 41–54. Bauks, Michaela: Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (Pg), in: Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and History, ed. by André Wénin, BEThL 155, Leuven: University Press 2001, 333–345. Bauks, Michaela: «Une histoire sans fin». L'impasse herméneutique de la notion de «pays» dans l'Œvre Sacerdotale (Pg). Quelques réflexions suite à la lecture d'un livre récent, ETR 78 (2003), 255–268. Blum, Erhard: Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1984. Blum, Erhard: Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2009, 31–44. Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin et al.: de Gruyter 1990. Böttrich, Christfried: Art. Henoch, DNP 5, Stuttgart: Metzler 1998, 348–349. Böttrich, Christfried: Astrologie in der Henochtradition, ZAW 109 (1997), 222–249. Childs, Brevard S.: Isaiah. A Commentary, OTL, Louisville: Westminster John Knox 2001, 403–404. Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEH 13, Leipzig: Hirzel 1886. Elliger, Karl: Ich bin der Herr – euer Gott, in: Glaubenswagnis. Festschrift für Karl Heim zum 80. Geburtstag, dargebracht von der Evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät in Tübingen, Hamburg: Furche 1954, 9–34 (= in: Elliger, Karl: Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, ed. by Hartmut Gese/Otto Kaiser, TB 32, München: Kaiser 1966, 211–231). Fabry, Heinz-Josef: Gott im Gespräch zwischen den Generationen. Überlegungen zur ‚Kinderfrage’ im Alten Testament, KatBl 107 (1982), 754–760.

Dormeyer, ed. by Th. Pola/B. Roebben, Dortmunder Beiträge zu Theologie und Religionspädagogik 4, Münster, 2010, 5–19. 148 K. Zobel, Prophetie und Deuteronomium. Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium, BZAW 199, Berlin et al., 1992. 149 H. Gese, Die dreifache Gestaltwerdung des Alten Testaments: Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch. Texte des Berner Symposiums vom 6.–12. Januar 1985, ed. by M.A. Klopfenstein/U. Luz, JudChr 11, 1987, 299–328 (= H. Gese, Alttestamentliche Studien, 1991, 1–28).

62

Thomas Pola

Förg, Florian: Die Jahwe-König-Psalmen und die Apokalyptik, Dortmunder Beiträge zu Theologie und Religionspädagogik 11, Münster: Lit 2012, 97–100. Förg, Florian: Die Ursprünge der alttestamentlichen Apokalyptik, AzB 45, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2013. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg: Herder 2000. Gese, Hartmut: Die dreifache Gestaltwerdung des Alten Testaments, in: Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch. Texte des Berner Symposiums vom 6.–12. Januar 1985, ed. by Martin A. Klopfenstein/Ulrich Luz, JudChr 11, Bern: Peter Lang 1987, 299–328. Gese, Hartmut, Hermeneutische Grundsätze der Exegese biblischer Texte, in: Standort und Bedeutung der Hermeneutik in der gegenwärtigen Theologie, ed. by A. H. J. Gunneweg/ H. Schröer, BAR 61, Bonn: Bouvier 1986, 43–62 (= in: Gese, Hartmut: Alttestamentliche Studien, Tübingen: Mohr 1991, 266–282). Görg, Manfred: Das Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels, BBB 27, Bonn: Hanstein 1967. Gunkel, Hermann: Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, HK I/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1902. Holzinger, Heinrich: Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg i. B. and Leipzig: Mohr 1893. Holzinger, Heinrich: Numeri erklärt, KHC IV, Tübingen and Leipzig: Mohr 1903. Jacob, Benno: Der Pentateuch. Exegetisch-Kritische Forschungen, Leipzig: Veit & Comp 1905. Jacoby, Felix: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Bd. III C1, Leiden: Brill 1958. Janowski, Bernd: Der Himmel auf Erden. Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt Israels, in: Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte, ed. by Bernd Janowski/Beate Ego, FAT 32, Tübingen: Mohr 2002, 229–260. Janowski, Bernd: Die Welt des Anfangs. Gen 1,1–2,4a als Magna Charta des biblischen Schöpfungsglaubens, in: Schöpfungsglaube vor der Herausforderung des Kreationismus, ed. by Bernd Janowski, Theologie interdisziplinär 6, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 2009, 27–53. Janowski, Bernd: Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 2004. Janowski, Bernd: Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption, in: Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung, ed. by Ingo Baldermann et al, JBTh 5, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1990, 37–69. Kapelrud, Arvid S.: The Date of the Priestly Code (P), ASTI 3 (1964), 58–64 (= in: Kapelrud, Arvid S.: God and His Friends in the Old Testament, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget 1979, 21– 27. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress 1995. Koch, Klaus: Art. Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie II. Altes Testament. TRE 12, 1984, 569–586. Köhler, Ludwig: Der hebräische Mensch, Tübingen: Mohr 1953. Kratz, Reinhard G.: Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB 2157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Kraus, Fritz.Rudolf: Zur Liste der älteren Könige von Babylonien, ZA NF 16 (1952), 29–60. Kronholm, Trygve: Art. ‫ קֶדֶ ם‬qæḏæm, ThWAT 6, 1989, 1163–1169. Kvanvig, Helge S.: Roots of Apocalyptic. The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man, WMANT 61, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1988. Lambert, Wilfried G.: Art. Babylonien und Israel, TRE 5, 1980, 67–79. Leveen, Adriane B.: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008.

Back to the Future

63

Levin, Christoph: Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1985. Lohfink, Norbert: Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte, in: Congress Volume Göttingen 1977, ed. by John A. Emerton et al., VT.S 29, Leiden: Brill 1978, 189–225 (= Lohfink, Norbert: Studien zum Pentateuch, SBAB 4, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1989, 213–253). Milani, Marcello: Il Passaggio del Mare (Es 14), Parole di Vita 4 (1997), 13–19. Milgrom, Jacob: Leviticus 17–22. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AncB 3A, New York: Doubleday 2000. Müller, Gotthold: Israel hat dennoch Gott zum Trost. Trier: Paulinus 1978. Nickelsburg, George W. E.: Art. Enoch, Books of, EncDSS 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, 249–253. Nihan, Christophe/Römer, Thomas: Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: Introduction à l'Ancien Testament, ed. by Thomas Römer et al., Le monde de la Bible 49, Labor et Fides: Genf 2004, 85–113. Nihan, Christophe: The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of »P«, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings, ed. by Sarah Shectman/Joel S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2000, 87–134. Noth, Martin: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 3 1966 (11948). Noth, Martin: Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus, ATD 5, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 5 1973 (11958). Oswald, Wolfgang: Israel am Gottesberg. Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischen Hintergrund, OBO 159, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1998. Otto, Eckart: Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch, ThR 67 (2002), 125–155. Owczarek, Susanne: Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift. Zur Heiligtumstheologie der priesterschriftlichen Grundschrift, EHS.T 625, Frankfurt: Lang 1998. Pedersen, Johannes: Passahfest und Passahlegende, ZAW 52 (1934), 161–175. Pola, Thomas: Das Priestertum bei Sacharja. Historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühnachexilischen Herrschererwartung, FAT 35, Tübingen: Mohr 2003. Pola, Thomas: Form and Meaning in Zechariah 3, in: Yahwism After the Exile. Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Papers read at the first meeting of the European Association for Biblical Studies, Utrecht 6–9. August 2000, ed. by Rainer Albertz/Bob Becking, Studies in Theology and Religion 5, Assen: Royal Van Gorcum 2003, 156–167. Pola, Thomas: Wirkungen der vorexilischen Schriftprophetie auf das Werk des Jahwisten im Pentateuch, in: Die Bibel und ihre vielfältige Rezeption. Vorträge zu Ehren von Detlev Dormeyer, ed. by Thomas Pola/Bert Roebben, Dortmunder Beiträge zu Theologie und Religionspädagogik 4, Münster: Lit 2010, 5–19. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1995. Pury, Albert de: Der priesterschriftliche Umgang mit der Jakobsgeschichte, in: Schrift-auslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Reinhard G. Kratz et al., BZAW 300, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 2000, 33–60 (=Pury, Albert de: Die Patriarchen und die Priesterschrift/Les Patriarches et le document sacerdotal. Gesammelte Studien zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Recueil d'articles, à l'occasion de son 70e anniversaire, ed. by Jean-Daniel Macchi et al., AThANT 99, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 2010, 43–72).

64

Thomas Pola

Pury, Albert de: Pg as the Absolute Beginning, in: Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L'Hexateuque et de L'Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BEThL 203, Leuven: University Press 2007, 99–128. Renaud, Bernard: L'alliance éternelle d'Éz 16,59–63 et l'alliance nouvelle de Jér 31,31–34, in: Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, ed. by Jan Lust, BEThL 74, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1986, 335–339. Römer, Thomas: Genesis 15 und Genesis 17. Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der „neueren“ und „neuesten“ Pentateuchkritik, DBAT 26 (1989/90), 32–47. Römer, Thomas: Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: Introduction à l'Ancien Testament, ed. by Thomas Römer et al., Le monde de la Bible 49, Genf: Labor et Fides 2004, 85–113. Römer, Willem H. Ph.: Enki, Ninsikila und Ninchursaga, TUAT III/3, Gütersloh: Gütersloher 1993, 363–386. Sallaberger, Walter: Das Gilgamesch-Epos. Mythos, Werk und Tradition, C.H. Beck Wissen 2443, München: Beck 22013 (12008). Scharbert, Josef: Das „Schilfmeerwunder” in den Texten des Alten Testaments, in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, AOAT 212, ed. by André Caquot/ Mathias Delcor, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1981, 395–417. Schmidt, Werner H.: Art. ‫ ברא‬brʾ schaffen: THAT 1, 1971, 336–339. Schmidt, Werner H.: Exodus, BK.AT 2/1, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1988. Schmidt, Werner H.: Exodus, BK.AT 2/2, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1995. Schmidt, Werner H.: Nachwirkungen prophetischer Botschaft in der Priesterschrift, in: Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Mathias Delcor, AOAT 215, ed. by Aandré Caquot et al., Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1985, 369–377. Schmidt, Werner H.: Pentateuch und Prophetie. Eine Skizze zu Verschiedenartigkeit und Einheit alttestamentlicher Theologie, in: Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Volkmar Fritz et al, BZAW 185, Berlin: de Gruyter 1989, 181–195 (= Schmidt, Werner H.: Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens. Bd. 1. Studien zu Hermeneutik und Methodik, Pentateuch und Prophetie, ed. by Axel Graupner et al. Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1995, 226–240). Schottroff, Willy: „Gedenken“ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Die Wurzel zākar im semitischen Sprachkreis, WMANT 15, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 21967 (11964). Seebass, Horst: Genesis I. Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), Neukirchen: Neukirchener 32009 (11996). Smend, Rudolf: „Das Ende ist gekommen.” Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift, in: Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by Jörg Jeremias/Lothar Perlitt, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1981, 67–72 (revised in: Smend, Rudolf: Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien Bd. 1, BEvTh 99, München: Kaiser 1986, 154–159). Smith, Mark S.: Light in Genesis 1:3 – Created or Uncreated: A Question of Priestly Mysticism?, in: Birkat Shalom. Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Vol. I, ed. by Chaim Cohen et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2008, 125–134. Speiser, Ephraim A.: Genesis. Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AncB 1, Garden City / New York: Doubleday 1964. Speiser, Ephraim A.: Art. Geschichtswissenschaft, RLA 3, 1971, 217–218. Stade, Bernhard/Holtzmann, Oskar: Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Zweiter Band. I. Geschichte des vorchristlichen Judenthums bis zur griechischen Zeit. II. Das Ende des jüdischen Staatswesens und die Entstehung des Christenthums, Berlin: Grote 1888.

Back to the Future

65

Talmon, Shemaryahu: Kritische Anfragen der jüdischen Theologie an das europäische Christentum, in: Israel hat dennoch Gott zum Trost, ed. by Gotthold Müller, Trier 1978, 139–159 (= in: Talmon, Shemaryahu: Juden und Christen im Gespräch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Band 2, InfJud 11, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1992, 209–225). Verbrugghe, Gerald P./Wickersham, John M.: Berossos and Manetho Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Ann Arbor. Michigan: University of Michigan Press 1996. Weiss, Meir: Die Methode der „Total-Interpretation“. Von der Notwendigkeit der StrukturAnalyse für das Verständnis der biblischen Dichtung, in: Congress Volume Uppsala 1971, VT.S 22, Leiden: Brill 1972, 88–112. Weißbach, Franz H.: Dumuzi, RLA II, 1938, 239. Weißbach, Franz H.: Enmeduranki, RLA II, 1938, 394–395. Westermann, Claus: Genesis. I. Teilband: Genesis 1–11, BK.AT 1/1, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1976. Zenger, Erich: Art. Priesterschrift, TRE 27, 1997, 435–446. Zimmerli, Walther: Ezechiel, BK.AT 13/2, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 21979 (11969). Zimmerli, Walther: Sinaibund und Abrahambund. Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift, ThZ 16 (1960), 268–280 (= in: Zimmerli, Walther: Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament, TB 19, München 1963, 205–216). Zobel, Konstantin: Prophetie und Deuteronomium. Die Rezeption prophetischer Theologie durch das Deuteronomium, BZAW 199, Berlin: de Gruyter 1992.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21 Thomas Römer

1. Preliminary Note: The Role of the Book of Numbers in Pentateuchal Studies Today Probably for the first time since the beginnings of historical-critical exegesis, the Book of Numbers is considered to be of decisive importance in current pentateuchal debates. As early as 1966, Noth noted that the traditionally employed documentary hypothesis could only be maintained by means of a petitio principii for the book of Numbers: “If we were to take the book of Numbers on its own, then we would think not so much of ‘continuous sources’ as of an unsystematic collection of innumerable pieces of tradition of very varied content, age and character (‘Fragment hypothesis’).”1 In fact, the book’s complex literary design speaks against interpretative approaches comparable to those commonly used for the books of Genesis or Exodus because the texts contained in Numbers cannot be read, whether linguistically or on a content-related level, as a continuation of the priestly or non-priestly texts of the previous books. Nevertheless, two recent commentaries on the book of Numbers adhere to the documentary hypothesis, which they consider the best explanatory model, namely the Biblischer Kommentar by Seebass and the commentary in Altes Testament Deutsch composed by Schmidt.2 Seebass does, however, take into account the peculiarity of the book of Numbers, and sees it characterized by a “Numbers composition” which dates back to the late 4th century BCE and has no structural

1 M. Noth, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, 1977 (3rd edition), 8 [“Nimmt man das 4. Mosebuch für sich, so käme man nicht leicht auf den Gedanken an ‘durchlaufende Quellen,’ sondern eher auf den Gedanken an eine unsystematische Zusammenstellung von zahllosen Überlieferungsstücken sehr verschiedenen Inhalts, Alters und Charakters (‘Fragmentenhypothese’)”]; ET: Numbers: A Commentary, London: SCM Press, 4. 2 H. Seebass, Numeri 10,11-22,1, BK.AT 4/2.1–5, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1993– 2002; Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2004–2007; L. Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

67

parallel in the other books of the Pentateuch.3 Similarly, Schmidt concedes that for the evolution of Numbers, the “focal point lay in the exilic-postexilic time from which most texts stem.”4 In contrast to Seebass, Schmidt regards the later additions as the results of redactional works on the Pentateuch, and he places much less emphasis on the particular character of Numbers. Levin also attempts to trace the “Yahwistic” thread of narration in Numbers, but only very scarcely succeeds in doing so, mainly for Num 11* and some verses from the Balaam pericope.5 An even more extreme theory is put forward by Kratz. He thinks that no more than three verses of Numbers can be attributed to the “Elohist” who is responsible for the texts of Exodus through Joshua (20:1*; 22:1; 25:1a).6 Van Seters also believes that the book of Numbers contains Yahwistic and priestly texts that start in Genesis.7 Similarly, Blum identifies texts in Numbers that belong to the D-composition (beginning in Ex 3) as well as to the P-composition which starts in Genesis 1.8 An alternative model, suggested by Otto and particularly by Achenbach, assumes that the book of Numbers does not contain any texts belonging to P or to pre-priestly “sources.” Taking up some “traditions” (whose outlines remain, however, rather vague), this model characterizes Numbers as a result of interventions by the Hexateuch and Pentateuch redactions.9 According to Achenbach, the actual specific shape of Numbers must be attributed to the intervention of three theocratic redactions, younger than the redaction of the Pentateuch, from which the majority of texts in Num 1–10 and 26–36 stem. 3 H. Seebass, Das Buch Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 233–259, 239. 4 L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 10 [“[…] der Schwerpunkt […] in der exilisch-nachexilischen Zeit [lag] aus der die meisten Texte stammen”]. 5 C. Levin, Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993, passim; idem, Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der Jahwist, in: Große Texte alter Kulturen. Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom, ed. by M. Hose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2004, 63-85, he considers that the end of J might have been lost. 6 R.G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB 2157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 301–304. 7 J. Van Seters, The Pentateuch. A Social Science Commentary, Trajectories 1, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1999. 8 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin: de Gruyter 1990; idem, Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus. Ein Gespräch mit neueren Forschungshypothesen, in: Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuchs in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by J.C. Gertz et al., BZAW 315, Berlin: de Gruyter 2002, 119–156. 9 E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumsrahmen, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000; R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003; idem, Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123.

68

Thomas Römer

Which one of the two alternatives seems more conclusive largely depends on how one is inclined to answer the questions of how P originally ended and whether a composition “J” or “D” existed which comprised several books. This complex debate cannot be unrolled again in this present paper. What we will do here is analyze the question of how the book of Numbers is intertwined with the other pentateuchal books, taking a close look at the rebellion narratives of Numbers 11–21.

2. Num 11–21 within the Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch I am inclined to agree with Noth, who characterizes the content of the book as “very inconsistent” and its structure as “highly obscure.”10 According to formal and textual criteria, it is, however, possible to distinguish the following large sections: Beside descriptions of making camp and the size of the different tribes, Num 1–10 mainly contains addenda to priestly texts in Exodus; the end of this section is marked by the departure from Sinai in Num 10. Numbers 11– 21 contains all of the rebellion narratives.11 In Num 20–21, we find the first interlaced accounts of the march through and the conquest of Transjordan, introducing the last great section (21–36), which is the least homogeneous, with the theme of conquest being disrupted by a series of addenda to feast regulations, vows, law of succession, Levitical cities, etc. We do not know if the redactors favored this kind of tripartite division, and it is certainly possible that Num 1 and 26 actually suggest a two-part structure.12 Even geographically, the rebellion narratives of Num 11–21, set in the “wilderness,” contrast strongly with 1–10 (Sinai) and 22–36 (in the steppes of Moab). They can be structured as follows:

10 Noth, Numeri, 5 [“Inhalt des Buches … sehr uneinheitlich”, “Aufbau reichlich undurchsichtig”]. 11 Num 25 no longer talks about the rebellion in the wilderness, but about apostasy in Transjordan. 12 Cf. especially D.T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New. The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies 71, Chico Calif.: Scholars Press 1985.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

69

A 11:1–3 Introduction: the people’s complaining, YHWH’s anger, and Moses’ intercession B 11:4–34: food; Moses’ revolt against YHWH C 12:1–15: revolt against Moses D 13–14: revolt of the people against the exodus (return to Egypt); Moses’ intercession C’ 16–17: revolt against Aaron (and Moses)13 B’ 20:1–13: water; Moses’ and Aaron’s revolt against YHWH A’ 21:4–9 Conclusion: revolt of the people against Moses and YHWH, YHWH’s anger, and Moses’ intercession

According to this structure, Num 21:4–9 and 11:1–3 can be understood as a frame embracing the cycle of rebellion, with the refusal of conquest as its central point. However, Num 21:4–9 can also be read as an enhancement, for the pericope constitutes the only narration in which the people not only criticize Moses, but openly turn against YHWH. Within the framework of the Pentateuch, Num 11–21 has certain parallels in Exod 15–18 and in Deut 1–3. The latter, however, contains no rebellion narratives apart from the spies’ report (Deut 1:9–45), and instead insists on the conquest of Transjordan (Deut 2–3). This focus makes the spies’ report appear as an introduction to the topic. The instruction of the judges in Deut 1:10–17 can be compared with the discharge of Moses in Num 11, though the theme of rebellion is completely absent, and the content of Deut 1:10ff. is undoubtedly closer to Exod 18. This might imply that the conquest of Transjordan in Numbers is part of a much older tradition which predates the rebellion narratives that were apparently unknown to the author or the authors of Deut 1–3. The numerous connections between Exod 15–18 and Num 11ff. have often been described.14 Let us briefly name the most important parallels: manna and quails (Exod 16 and Num 11), water out of the rock (Exod 17 and Num 20), Amalekites and military conflict respectively (Exod 17 and Num 13–14), Moses’ wife (Exod 18: Zipporah; Num 12: the Cushite woman) and his father-inlaw (Exod 18: Jethro; Num 10:29ff.: Hobab). At the same time, there are two interesting differences between Exod 15ff. and Num 11ff. that seem to have been created purposefully and which have also often been commented on. While in Exod 15–18, the lamenting of the people is always caused by lifethreatening shortages (of water and food), the protests in Num 11ff. often arise from conflicts within the community (Num 12: Miriam and Aaron against Moses; Num 14 and 17: the people against Moses and Aaron; Num 21: the people – with no apparent reason – against Moses and YHWH, etc.). The lamentations in Exod 15–17 lead to YHWH’s helping intervention, while in Numbers 11– 13 The rebellion narratives directed against Aaronic priesthood are placed in a context of mostly priestly topics and instructions (Num 15 and 18–19). 14 Cf., e.g., E. Zenger/C. Frevel, Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 35–74.

70

Thomas Römer

21, the discontent expressed by the people and their leader causes YHWH’s anger and retribution. This contrast is probably related to the fact that Exod 15– 18 narrates events from before the revelation of the law at Mount Sinai, while Num 11ff. refer to a later period.15 The extensive parallels between the description of the time spent in the wilderness in Exodus and Numbers are reinforced by a certain “subtheme” that can be characterized as “Egypt nostalgia.” Seven lamentation and rebellion narratives, as much as the exodus account itself, not only deal with specific dangers or conflicts between different groups or individuals, but also involve an idealization of Egypt and in this context generally question the exodus.

3. The Motif of “Egypt Nostalgia” in Exod 14 to Num 21 The following texts address the people’s criticism of their being led out of Egypt: Exod 14:11–12 (see also 13:17b); 16:3; 17:3; Num 11:18–20 (see also v. 5); Num 14:2–4; Num 16:12–14; Num 20:3–5; and Num 21:5. All three Exodus passages in question are found in contexts which have a counterpart in Numbers, and, interestingly, the parallel texts in Numbers strongly accentuate the discontent of the people. While Exod 16:3 speaks of an actual shortage of food, the desire for the meat in Egypt expressed in Num 11:18–20 appears to stand for mere hedonism and greediness of a people who have grown weary of the manna. Whereas the thirst of the people is the focus of Exod 17, Num 20 seems much more morbid because instead of asking for water, the first thing the people utter is a death wish. And while in Exod 14, the people are effectively in mortal danger, in Num 13, they interpret the scouts’ account pessimistically and reject YHWH’s order of conquest. Two text passages in Numbers have no counterparts in Exodus, namely the ungrounded refusal of Dathan and Abiram to “come up” in Num 16, and the ungrounded criticism that the people make of Moses and YHWH in Num 21. The verses in Exodus and Numbers that question the exodus are composed of the following elements (see the appended table): 1. A question, mostly starting with (‫( למה )זה‬in Exod 14 ‫ ; מה זאת‬in Num 16 with an interrogative he),16 followed by a verb which expresses the movement away from Egypt into the wilderness (‫יצא‬, qal or hif; ‫עלה‬, hif; ‫בוא‬, hif). 15

The later redaction section in Exod 15:25b–26 attempts to level this contrast, explaining YHWH’s accusation in Exod 16:28. 16 Only Exod 16 contains no explicit question, but a direct accusation, which raises the question whether the text can be rated among the corpus outlined above. Given that Exod 16:3 expresses nostalgia for Egypt, it does make sense to take this verse into account. The variance in (1) can possibly be explained on the basis of diachronic developments (see below).

‫‪Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21‬‬

‫‪71‬‬

‫למות במדבר‬

‫העליתנו‬ ‫ממצרים‬

‫למה‬

‫‪Num 21:5‬‬

‫אל־המדבר הזה‬ ‫למות שׁםאנחנו‬

‫‪v. 4‬‬

‫העליתנו ממצרים‬ ‫להביא אתנו אל־‬ ‫המקום הרע‬

‫‪v. 4‬‬ ‫…ולמה הבאתם‬ ‫‪ v. 5‬ולמה‬

‫‪Num 20:4–5‬‬

‫להמיתנו במדבר‬

‫העליתנו מארץ‬ ‫זבח חלב ודבשׁ‬

‫המעט כי‬

‫‪Num 16:13‬‬

‫‪v.3.4‬‬

‫מי־יתןמותנו‬ ‫ביד־יהוה‬ ‫בארץ מצרים‬

‫כי טוב לנו‬ ‫עבד את־מצרים‬ ‫ממתנו במדבר‬

‫למות במדבר‬

‫לקחתנו‬

‫שׁוב מצרימה‬ ‫ונשׁובה מצרימה‬

‫להמית אתי‬ ‫ואת־הבני‬ ‫ואת־מקני‬ ‫בצמא‬

‫אל־המדבר‬ ‫הזה להמית‬ ‫את־כל־הקהל‬ ‫הזה‬

‫העליתנו‬ ‫ממצרים‬

‫־הוצאתם‬ ‫אתנו‬

‫להוציאנו‬ ‫ממצרים‬

‫)‪(cf. 13:17‬‬

‫כי־טוב לנו‬ ‫במצרים‬

‫‪v. 18‬‬

‫יצאנו‬ ‫ממצרים‬

‫‪v. 20‬‬ ‫למה זה‬

‫למה זה‬

‫כי‬

‫מה־זאת עשיא‬ ‫לנו‬

‫ושׁבו מצרימה‬

‫לו־מתנו‬ ‫בארץ מצרים‬ ‫או במדבר הזה‬ ‫לו־מתנו‬

‫‪v. 2‬‬

‫הלוא טוב לנו‬

‫לנפל בחרב‬

‫יהוה מביא אתנו‬ ‫אל־הארץ הזאת‬

‫‪v. 3‬‬ ‫ולמה‬

‫‪Num 14:2–4‬‬

‫‪Num‬‬ ‫‪11:18–20‬‬

‫‪Exod 17:3‬‬

‫‪Exod 16:3‬‬

‫–‪Exod 14:11‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪5.‬‬ ‫‪Return to‬‬ ‫‪Egypt‬‬

‫‪4.‬‬ ‫‪Wish for‬‬ ‫‪death‬‬

‫‪3.‬‬ ‫"‪"it is better‬‬

‫‪2.‬‬ ‫‪"to (allow‬‬ ‫‪to) die in the‬‬ ‫"‪desert‬‬

‫‪1.‬‬ ‫"‪a. "Why‬‬ ‫‪b. Exodus‬‬

72

Thomas Römer

2. The accusation that the purpose of the exodus is the people’s death in the wilderness (infinitive + ‫מות‬, qal or hif; in Num 14 ‫)נפל‬.17 3. A (comparative) remark, opened with ‫טוב לנו‬, which characterizes Egypt as preferable to the current situation. 4. A radicalization of (3): death is preferable to life in the wilderness (‫)מות‬. 5. The (scarcely attested) intention of the people to return to Egypt (‫)שוב‬. This table shows that the elements (1) and (2) are consistently attested, while the idea of a return to Egypt is only explicitly mentioned in Num 14 and again – in an anticipating manner – in Exod 13:7. It is important to note that only very few similar texts can be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The project of a return to Egypt is mentioned again in Neh 9:17: “they stiffened their necks and determined to return to their slavery in Egypt.”18 According to Coats, this text, which is probably a literary combination of Exod 14:12 and Num 14:4, constitutes “the only explicit reference to the problem of the Exodus which appears outside of the Pentateuch.”19 Apparently, the motif of exodus criticism uttered by the people in the books of Exodus and Numbers serves to describe the entire period spent in the wilderness as being profoundly characterized by Israel’s intransigence. Relevant references occur from Exod 13–14 through to Num 21, thus embracing the beginning and the end of the period spent in the wilderness, which implies that they have a redactional function. We need to determine where this motif stems from and whether it is possible to attribute all references to one consistent redactional layer.

4. The Theme of the “Return to Egypt” in Deuteronomistic and Late Deuteronomistic Texts In the last part of the deuteronomistically reworked curse chapter in Deut 28, v. 68 contains the following threat: “The LORD will bring you back (‫שוב‬, hif) in ships to Egypt, by a route that I promised you would never see again,” which,

17 A similar accusation can be found in Deut 1:27: “You grumbled in your tents and said, ‘It is because the LORD hates us that he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to hand us over to the Amorites to destroy us’ (‫[ ”)שמד‬quoted, like all biblical passages, from: NRSV]. However, this verse differs greatly from the aforementioned texts, because it refers to a negative intention of YHWH. 18 Thus in LXX and in some Hebrew manuscripts. MT reads “in their disobedience.” 19 G.W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions in the Old Testament, Nashville: Abingdon Press 1968, 246.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

73

as von Rad stated, constitutes a “divine liquidation of the entire salvation history arranged by YHWH.”20 Similar threats can be found in Hos 8:13, 9:3, and 11:5, which probably stem from a deuteronomistic redaction of the book.21 Here, in the same way as in Deut 28, the idea of a return to Egypt is placed within the context of divine judgment, which is seen as a “revocation of YHWH’s salvation act.”22 In Deut 17:16, the king is told not to “return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’” Notwithstanding the fact that, from a literary point of view, the historical classification of this verse has been controversially discussed,23 we can establish that here, again, the initiative does not come from the people, and if the king decided to lead them back to Egypt, he would act against the expressed will of YHWH. The only passage in the Deuteronomistic History that speaks of a return of the people (still in Judea) to Egypt is found in 2 Kgs 25:26: “Then all the people, high and low and the captains of the forces set out and went (‫ )בוא‬to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans.” Interestingly, the common root ‫ שוב‬is not used in this context. Within the Deuteronomistic History, this historical event, in connection with Deut 28, can well be seen as a movement “from Egypt to Egypt,”24 as Friedman called it, which consists in the revocation of the entire salvation history. Possibly, this mention represented the starting point for the idea of questioning the exodus already at a time when it was only just happening. Late deuteronomistic texts like 2 Kgs 21:15 (“because they have done what is evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger, since the day their ancestors came out of Egypt, even to this day”) and Jer 7:25–26 underline the attitude of disobedience of the people which sets in with the exodus, although its actual character is not specified (in Ezek 20, where the same idea is discussed, the disobedience of the people after they left Egypt consists in idolatry and noncompliance with YHWH’s commandments). The motif of questioning the exodus can therefore 20 G. von Rad, Das fünfte Buch Moses. Deuteronomium, ATD 8, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1964, 126 [“göttliche Liquidation der gesamten von Jahwe veranstalteten Heilsgeschichte”]. 21 G.A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical Investigation, SBL Diss. Series 102, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1987, 196ff.; 209ff.; 221ff. 22 J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea, ATD 24/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983, 117 [“Revozierung der Rettungstat Jahwes”]. 23 From a literary point of view, this might allude to Solomon’s horse trade. According to R. Albertz, the text refers to the situation under Jehoahaz, while N. Lohfink (Hos. xi 5 als Bezugstext von Dtn. xvii 16, VT 31, 1981, 226–228) has considered a polemic of the Babylonian against the Egyptian diaspora. 24 R.E. Friedman, From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2, in: Traditions in Transformation. Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. by B. Halpern/J.D. Levenson, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1981, 167–192.

74

Thomas Römer

be understood as a late or post-deuteronomistic continuation of the deuteronomistic theme of Israel’s permanent disobedience.

5. The Literary Classification of the Occurrences in Exod 13–Num 21 a. Exod 14:11–12 (and Exod 13:17) With some certainty, we can distinguish a priestly and a non-priestly version (“J” and “D”) in the exodus narrative of Exod 14. The accusation of Moses in vv. 11–12, in which the people prefer the servitude in Egypt to death in the wilderness, does not belong to any of these lines of narration. Moses’ answer in v. 13, which completely ignores the people’s protest of 11–12 (“Do not be afraid”)25 directly takes up the narrative line developed in v. 10 (“In great fear the Israelites cried out to the LORD”) and has to be attributed to a post-deuteronomistic and post-priestly redaction.26 Verse 13:17b belongs to the same redactional layer because it prepares for 14:11.27 b. Exod 16:3 The literary and diachronic history of Exod 16 has been discussed much more controversially than that of Exod 14. Traditionally, the original version of Exod 16 used to be attributed to Pg or Ps, which was later revised by post-priestly “deuteronomizing” redactors (cf., e.g., vv. 4, 28, etc.). Ruprecht and Schmidt attribute verses 2–3 to an original priestly document.28 In contrast to that, Otto, Gertz, and others claim that Exod 16:3 textually depends upon Exod 14:11–12 and must therefore also be part of a “pentateuchal redaction” or a post-priestly revision.29 According to Frankel, we can discern in Exod 16 a non-priestly (16:4a, 5, 21, 27–20) and a priestly (16:2, 9–10, 14–15a, 31–35*) text tradition. He suggests that Exod 16:3 was worked out by a redactor, combining the two 25

J.-L. Ska, Le passage de la mer. Etude sur la construction du style et de la symbolique d'Ex 14,1–31, AnBib 109, Rom: Biblical Institute 1986, 64. 26 Cf., e.g., J.C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999, 212f.; 218, containing older literature. Even logically, 11–12 do not fit into the narrative context, as the people have not even reached the wilderness at this point. 27 Cf., e.g., P. Weimar, Die Meerwundererzählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17 - 14,31, ÄAT 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1985, 244. 28 E. Ruprecht, Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift, ZAW 86, 1974, 269–307, 279f.; L. Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993, 36–45; idem, Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16, ZAW 119, 2007, 483–498. 29 Otto, Deuteronomium, 36–45; Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 202f.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

75

narratives.30 A precise diachronic segmentation of Exod 16 will hardly be possible today,31 though some recent studies imply that Exod 16:3 must be classified as a redactional element.32 c. Exod 17:3 In the thirst narration of Exod 17, the twofold lamentation of the people in vv. 2 and 3 constitutes a redundancy.33 The explicit demand for an intervention to remedy the shortage of water in v. 2 (“The people quarreled with Moses, and said, ‘Give us water to drink.’ Moses said to them, ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test YHWH?’”) is answered by YHWH in vv. 4–5.34 By contrast, v. 3 (“But the people thirsted there for water; and the people complained against Moses and said, ‘Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock35 with thirst?’”) poses a much more fundamental question, which, however, remains unanswered in the further course of the narration, where we do not even find trace of a reaction. As Coats, quite rightly, pointed out, there is “no word in the response about the problem of Moses’ authority in the Exodus.”36 Thus, following Aurelius, we can attribute v. 3 (“the position and origin of which has been unclear since M. Noth”37) to a postpriestly redactor.38 This redactor might be the very same person whose textual work is reflected in Exod 13:17 and 14:11–12 and who was possibly also involved with Exod 30 D. Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, VT.S 89, Leiden: Brill 2002, 324–329. For the reconstruction of an old pre-priestly basis see also Levin, Jahwist, 77 and 353–355: 16:1a*, 4a, 13b–14ba, 15, 21, 31. 31 Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 233, who sees in 16:3a, 84, 11–15* a hypothetical original version (232). 32 Theoretically, it is, however, possible to assume that Exod 16:3 represents the oldest text, which inspired the redactors of 14:11–12 and other texts. This might be suggested by the fact that Exod 16:3 contains the only reference where the exodus criticism is not introduced by means of a question. 33 Differently in Blum, Studien, 150, n. 205. 34 The mention of the elders in v. 5 possibly triggered the plural form in the lamentation passage of 2a. Differently Achenbach, Vollendung, 304, n. 1, who suggests an original singular form which “was discreetly changed into the plural, in view of the fact that Aaron is counted among the leaders of the exodus” [“unter der Perspektive, dass Aaron zu den Führern des Exodus zählt, unterschwellig in den Plural gesetzt worden”]. 35 The singular form, corrected in most versions, which we find in the second half of the verse, seems to collectively refer to the people. The preceding “us” must then be understood as summarizing the following list (“me, my children, my livestock”). 36 Coats, Rebellion, 69. 37 Blum, Studien, 150, n. 205. 38 E. Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, CB.OT 27, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 1988, 167f. Aurelius estimates that the basic narrative dates back to postexilic times.

76

Thomas Römer

16:3, unless the latter stems from an older, “priestly” textual layer which provided the starting point for the exodus criticism. d. Num 11:18–20 The existence of two main themes (quails, the endowment of the seventy elders with Moses’ spirit) in Num 11 is unquestionable. It does, however, prove to be difficult to reconstruct two complete and independent narratives here because the central concept of ’asaph is present in both lines of narration (vv. 4, 16, 22, 24, 30, 32 [2x]39). The starting point of the narrative development is probably a food narration,40 which, differently from Exod 16, takes a negative turning. This, following the general introduction in 11:1–3, opens the rebellion cycle of Num 11–21*. In all probability, Num 11* refers to the combination of manna and quails in Exod 16 and midrashically continues this narration, in order to emphasize the permanent rebellion of the people. A redactor reworked this (already postexilic) text and integrated the themes of “endowment with spirit” and “discharge of Moses,” reinterpreting Num 11 as a confrontation of “flesh” and “spirit.”41 The verses 18, 19, and 20 probably belong to a later complex which consisted of vv. 17–23.42 YHWH’s instructions in vv. 18–20, which Moses shall communicate to the people, go beyond the initial lamentations of the people in vv. 4–6, interpreting them as a general criticism of the exodus: “because you have rejected the LORD who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt?’” In all of Num 11, however, this exact question can only be found in YHWH’s recapitulating speech (11:20), where it is not directly uttered by the people. The way the question is asked implies that the people themselves initiated the exodus, which is also the case in the aforementioned late deuteronomistic passages of 2 Kgs 21:15 and Jer 7:25f. (cf. Deut 9:27). This coincides with the accusation of having rejected YHWH which, in this exact wording (‫)מאס‬, is attested only this once in the whole Pentateuch.43 Schmidt seems to be right to ascribe vv. 18–20 to a pentateuchal redaction that underlines a difference to the original quails-manna narrative in Exod 16*, by means of these verses. Very different from a feeding miracle, Num 11 turns 39 Verses 4, 22, and 32 are part of the quail narrative, while vv. 16, 24, and 30 refer to the spiritual endowment. 40 Within the framework of the documentary hypothesis, the quail narrative was generally regarded as being older, but cf. Seebass, Numeri, 36–40. 41 Cf. H.-C. Schmitt, Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel, in: Pluralismus und Identität, ed. by J. Mehlhausen, Gütersloh: Gütersloher 1995, 259278; 276. 42 Thus, e.g., P.J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary 5, Dallas: Word Books 1984, 125; Schmidt, Numeri, 22. 43 Similar passages in the Pentateuch, with different objects, can be found in Lev 26:15, 43– 44, and Num 14:31.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

77

the offering of meat into a form of retribution for the Israelites, because according to vv. 18–20 they rejected the exodus and thus their God.44 e. Num 14:2–4 After the people have heard the account of the scouts, they not only question the exodus, but openly utter the idea of returning to Egypt. In that respect, the theme of “Egypt nostalgia” has its first point of culmination. Now comes true what YHWH had feared at the beginning of Exodus: Exod 13:17 (‫)ושבו מצרימה‬ is fulfilled in Num 14:4 (‫)ונשובה מצרימה‬. Together with Num 21, Num 14 is still the only passage where YHWH is directly accused of having initiated the exodus: ‫( ולמה יהוה מביא אתנו אל־הארץ הזאת‬v. 3).45 Furthermore, Num 14 is the first text where divine retribution responds directly to the people’s Egypt nostalgia and the death wish they uttered: “‘I will do to you the very things I heard you say: your dead bodies shall fall (‫נפל‬, cf. v. 346) in this very wilderness (‫במדבר הזה‬, cf. v. 2)’” (vv. 28–29). For the first time, Joshua and Caleb make a case for the land promised to the Israelites (14:6–9), thus responding, at least indirectly, to the question of why the exodus is taking place; the land pejoratively referred to as ‫ הארץ הזאת‬by the Israelites (v. 3) is described by them as being “exceedingly good” (v. 7) and a “land that flows with milk and honey” (v. 8).47 Differently from Exod 14; 17; and Num 11, the criticism of the exodus and the project of a return to Egypt cannot be separated from the larger narrative context. Contrary to a widely accepted opinion, there is no need to assume a tension between v. 3 and v. 448 because v. 4 presents the first step to the realization of the plan outlined in v. 3. Even if many scholars want to ascribe Num 14:1–10 to “P,” I am inclined to think of it as a “mixed text” which is linguistically characterized by priestly,

44

Schmidt, Numeri, 26f. In Exod 14:11, 17:3, and Num 16:3, Moses is accused, in Exod 16:2 and Num 20:4, Moses and Aaron are accused, and in Num 21:5, YHWH and Moses are criticized by the people. 46 The use of ‫ נפל‬instead of the verb ‫מות‬, which is otherwise consistently used in “element 2,” can be explained by the narrative context referring to a warlike situation. 47 Thus in Achenbach, Erzählung, 106. If, according to the traditional documentary hypothesis, one wanted to characterize 14:1ff. as a Pg text (thus, e.g., Schmidt, Numeri, 36, 39), one has to understand v. 8 as a later addendum, though from the literary point of view, there are barely any arguments that speak in favor of such an assumption. 48 Thus, e.g., Noth, Numeri, 95. Against that, quite rightly, Seebass, Numeri, 88, who, however, postulates a “fraction” between verses 2 and 3. For that, there is no compelling reason, unless you want to achieve to a structure composed of two parallel narrative lines. 45

78

Thomas Römer

deuteronomistic, and other traits. Thus, v. 3 “does not take up P-texts, but continues Exod 14:12 and Num 11:18,”49 while with ‫ולמה יהוה מביא אותנו אל־הארץ‬ ‫הזאת‬, it also refers to Exod 6:8: ‫והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ‬.50 The thesis of ascribing Num 14:1ff. to a late pentateuchal or similar redaction is supported not only by the aforementioned relation between Num 14:3– 4 and Exod 13:17 and Exod 14:11-12, but also by the war speech delivered by Joshua and Caleb, which, like Exod 14:13, contains the encouragement‫אל תיראו‬. Thus, Num 14 seems to be based on the latest redaction of Exod 14, which turned Moses’ plea for fearlessness into a response to the Egypt nostalgia uttered by the people (see above). For these reasons, I am inclined to assume a late redactional composition of 14:1–10, like Otto,51 the actual extension of which (Pentateuch or Hexateuch) cannot be determined at this point. f. Num 16:12–13 Numbers 16 is an even more complex passage than Num 11, comprising three rebellions: Dathan and Abiram, the rebellion of the 250 men, and the revolt of “Korah and his company.” Of these three, the Dathan-Abiram narrative is often considered the oldest pre-priestly tradition.52 Nevertheless, scholars have conceded that of this old narrative, “only fragments” have been preserved, and that, as Schmitt has noted, “the existing version of the Dathan-Abiram passages in 16:12–15* and 16:25–34* are of post-priestly character.”53 The use of ‫ נחלה‬in Dathan and Abiram’s rejection of the exodus (14:14) represents a combination of deuteronomistic and priestly language, and similarly, the ironic reference to the “land that flows with milk and honey” (vv. 13–14) presupposes deuteronomistic use of language, which is satirized here. Thus, it is possibly best to read the entire Dathan-Abiram account, like Schorn, “as a subsequent theological re-composition and final redaction of transmitted priestly writings.”54 As in Num 14, the criticism of the exodus, which in Num 16:12–13 is leveled against 49

Aurelius, Fürbitter, 132 [“nicht im Anschluss an P-Texte, sondern an Ex 14:12 und Num 11:18 formuliert”]. 50 Cf. A. Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Göttingen/Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Universitätsverlag 1990. 51 Otto, Deuteronomium, 27, 38–40. See also Achenbach, Erzählung, 100–110, who, however, postulates a cesura in v. 5 and attributes vv. 6–10a to a theocratic redaction. 52 E.g., Seebass, Numeri, 189: “J”; also Blum, Studien. 270: D-composition. 53 Schmitt, Identität, 270 [“die jetzt vorliegende Fassung der Datan-Abiram-Stellen in 16,12–15* und 16,25–34* nachpriesterlichen Charakter aufweist”]. Cf., e.g., ‫ עדה‬in 16:26, ‫ברא‬ in 16:30, and ‫ קהל‬in 16:33. 54 U. Schorn, Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num. 16f*/Deut. 11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. by S.L. McKenzie/T. Römer, BZAW 294, Berlin: de Gruyter 251–268, 261.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

79

Moses, cannot be detached from the episode, even if the other two biblical references to Dathan and Abiram in Deut 11:6 and Ps 106:16–18 do not mention a critical attitude towards the exodus. In vv. 12 and 14, this criticism is embraced by a ‫לא נעלה‬. This line is, at first sight, ambiguous, as it might relate to the walk up to the sanctuary, but, as verses 13 and 14 illustrate, it also comes to stand for the refusal to go to the Promised Land.55 Egypt, originally the place of servitude, is so greatly idealized here that it is now ironically referred to as the “land flowing with milk and honey.” Within the narrower context of Numbers, the positive description of the Promised Land given by Joshua and Caleb in Num 14:8 is now rejected. The accusation that Moses wants to rule over the Israelites takes up the reproach he faced in Egypt (Exod 2:1456). The reason why Moses sends for Dathan and Abiram is not given in the narrative, and, as Noth has stated, “the reaction of ‘angry Moses’ is peculiar, for it does not seem to respond to the specific content of the accusation.”57 Against this backdrop, we could consider if the verses 12–13 were not, after all, added at a later stage, considering the resumption (Wiederaufnahme) of ‫לא נעלה‬. In that case, however, Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion would be entirely incomprehensible, and the purpose of adding this episode would remain obscure.

The Dathan-Abiram episode thus serves the “final redaction” by adding to the conflict narrative of Korah and his company and the 250 men, the theme of general exodus criticism. g. Num 20:4–5 It is almost uncontested that the narrative of Num 20:1–13 refers to Exod 17:1– 7* which it re-interprets and continues. The questions of the literary origin and the consistency of the pericope, however, have been controversially discussed. The different scholars who have suggested that the pivotal narrative of Num 20:1–13 is to be ascribed to Pg have come up with extremely diverging reconstructions of the core of priestly writings. Thus, while Schmidt believes that P ends in 20:12, Frevel presents “ten reasons that speak against the idea that v. 12 is part of the basic text.”58 According to Frevel’s interpretation, the Pg narrative contains no rebellion of the leaders of Israel, but “emphasizes that the

55

Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 44. In this verse, Moses is even accused of intent to kill. 57 Numeri, 111 [“Reaktion des ‘zornigen Mose’ … seltsam, weil sie auf den besonderen Inhalt des Vorwurfs nicht einzugehen scheint”]. 58 C. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBSt 23, Freiburg: Herder 1999, 328–330 [“zehn Gründe gegen die Zugehörigkeit von v. 12 zum Grundtext”]. 56

80

Thomas Römer

alleviation of water shortage is a truly merciful deed of YHWH.”59 Such a narrative, however, seems completely unmotivated and incomprehensible in the framework of the rebellion cycle of Num 11–21, as Achenbach has quite rightly pointed out.60 Similarly incomprehensible is the dropping of the etiology of Meribah in v. 13 and its preparation in v. 3a (the quarreling of the people), especially if Num 20 is to be read as a priestly version of Exod 17. Yet another problem that contests the thesis of Num 20:1–13 being a P-text is the mention of Moses’ staff, which constitutes a redactional parenthesis within the exodus narration, as Gertz has demonstrated,61 and it is thus excluded from the core narration of Num 20 not only by him, but also by Frevel, Schmidt, and others. Apart from the petitio principii, however, there are no compelling reasons for this. Quite the opposite, v. 11b (‫)ויצאו מים רבים ותשת העדה ובעירם‬, which is normally counted among P, relates directly to v. 8b, which together with the mention of the staff in 8a does not seem to belong to Pg:62 ‫והוצאת להם מים מן־הסלע‬ ‫והשקית את־העדה ואת־בעירם‬.63 Furthermore, the mention of the staff in v. 8a and 8b constitutes, at least partly, a literal repetition of Exod 17:5 and 6, which confirms that Num 20 does, in fact, represent a rewritten version of Exod 17 (including its redactional additions). As Nihan has observed, the staff has an important function in Num 20, because in relation to Exod 4:1–17 (a post-deuteronomistic and post-priestly text64), it defines the role of Moses and Aaron. According to Exod 4:15, Aaron and Moses shall speak in the name of YHWH. The staff, on the other hand, is a symbol of Moses’ miracle-performing authority, and this same idea is at the base of Num 20.65 This implies that Num 20:1–13 as a whole should be characterized as postpriestly.66 Such an interpretative model may also explain the presence of verses 3–5. Struppe, however, thinks that 20:4–5 does not feature the characteristic narrative style and was probably added “in order to reinforce the people’s accusation 59

Frevel, Blick, 326f. [“unterstreicht, dass die Behebung der Wassernot … ganz und gar gnadenhafte Zuwendung YHWHs”]. 60 Vollendung, 308f. 61 Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 313f. See also Schmidt, Studien, 19–20. 62 Thus, e.g., in Schmidt, Numeri, 90. 63 Observed by U. Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift, ÖBS 9, Wien: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988, 193; this thesis was taken up and further investigated by C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II/25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 27. 64 Cf., e.g., Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 305ff.; T. Römer, Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, ed. by R. Roukema, CBET 44, Leuven: Peeters 2006, 65–79. 65 See also Achenbach, Vollendung, 312–314. 66 Thus Otto, Deuteronomium, 15–16; Achenbach, Vollendung, 302–317; Nihan, Torah, 26–30.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

81

against Moses and Aaron and emphasize their rebellion.”67 But this explanation is imprecise. Without a doubt, verses 4–5 (and v. 3) serve to underline the intransigence of the people, a motif which helps to ensure that Moses and Aaron are perceived as representatives of a rebellious community rather than two stubborn individuals. Thus, there are no compelling reasons to diachronically separate the exodus criticism of vv. 3–5 from the rest of the narrative. On the contrary, there are some aspects which speak against this possibility. Together, the end of v. 5 (the shortage of water) and v. 2a form a frame around the lamentation of the people.68 The mention of the livestock in v. 4 is taken up again in verses 8 and 11. The fact that the mention of the wilderness in v. 4 precedes the question of why Moses brought the people out of Egypt (v. 5) does not suggest that these verses have to be treated separately from a literary point of view69 because both verses quote from Exod 17:3 according to “Seidel’s law”:70 Exod 17:3bα: Exod 17:3bß:

‫למה זה העליתנו ממצרים‬ ‫להמית אתי ואת־בני ואת־מקני‬

Num 20:5a: Num 20:4b:

‫ולמה העליתנו ממצרים‬ ‫למות שם אנחנו ובעירנו‬

If our thesis is correct that Exod 17:3 is to be ascribed to a “pentateuchal redactor,” the very same person might have redacted the verses of Num 20:1–13.71 And should this redactor have wanted to establish a connection with Num 16:13–15, the expression ‫ המקום הרע הזה‬in v. 5 might contain an anti-deuteronomistic undertone because in Deuteronomy it designates the sanctuary chosen by YHWH or the land given to the Israelites (cf. Deut 26:9: ‫ויבאנו אל־המקום הרע‬ ‫הזה‬, and Num 20:5: ‫)להביא אתנו אל־המקום הרע הזה‬. Just like the re-interpretation of the “milk and honey” motif whose meaning is twisted right around by the rebels in Num 16:13–14, the criticism of the people can be understood as a rejection of deuteronomistic maqôm theology. After the death of Miriam (20:1) and that of Aaron (20:22–29), which stems from the same redactional layer as Num 20:1–13, Moses is the only one left of the leaders of Israel. It is against him and YHWH that the people turn their last great criticism in Num 21:4–9. h. Num 21:5 The narrative of the serpent of bronze is separated from the account of Aaron’s death by a peculiar mention of a military campaign in the Negeb, which

67 Herrlichkeit, 190 [“um die Anklage der Gemeinde gegen Mose und Aaron zu verschärfen und so ihre Rebellion herauszustreichen”]. 68 Nihan, Torah, 28. 69 Thus, e.g., in Seebass, Numeri, 271–273. 70 Nihan, Torah, 28. 71 In fact, there are particularly close connections between Exod 17:3; Num 20:4–5; and 21:5.

82

Thomas Römer

Schmidt considers “younger than the pentateuchal redaction.”72 It is very difficult to determine the origin and intention of this parenthesis which has no counterpart in the parallel narratives of Deut 1–3. The redactor(s) might have wanted to subtly hint at the possibility that the conquest of the Promised Land already began under Moses.73 There is a great consensus among academics that the narrative of 21:4–9 is in itself homogeneous. Conspicuously, no specific reason is given for the discontent of the people here, which makes the narrative look like a “combination of several preceding complaint narratives.”74 Verse 5b summarizes the different reasons that, according to preceding narratives, led to the rebellion: hunger (Exod 16:3), shortage of water (Exod 17:1; Num 20:2), and probably also the tiresomeness of the manna. This summary is preceded by a criticism of the exodus in which YHWH and Moses together appear as the initiators of the exodus. A similar idea can be found in Deut 34:10–12, a passage which in recent studies has mostly been attributed to a pentateuchal redaction. As Noth noted,75 the accusation against YHWH and Moses ( ‫וידבר העם באלהים‬ ‫ )ובמשה‬contrapunctually refers to Exod 14:31 (‫ ובמשה עבדו‬76‫)העם … ויאמינו ביהוה‬, a verse that is counted among the same redaction as Exod 14:11–12. Further cross-references to Exod 13:17–14:31 are represented by the mention of ‫ים סוף‬ (21:4), which recalls Exod 13:18, and by the accusation‫ למות במדבר‬in Num 21:5, whose (only) literal counterpart is found in Exod 14:11. All of this confirms our thesis that Num 21:4–9 was deliberately designed to connect not only to the rebellion cycle of Num 11–20,77 but also to the period in the wilderness that starts with the exodus described in Exod 13:17–14:31. Thus, Num 21:4–9 should also be regarded as a late redactional composition, which has in fact been suggested in several recent studies. The episode of the serpent of bronze finally emphasizes the crucial role of Moses as an intermediary. The origin of the serpent motif, which cannot be clearly identified, might be related to religious practices in the Temple in Jerusalem. However, the motif of life-threatening serpents is also used in an account of Esarhaddon’s military campaign against Arabia and Egypt in the course of which “the Great King of

72

Numeri, 100 [“jünger als die Pentateuchredaktion”]. Moses is (deliberately?) not mentioned explicitly. Cf. T. Römer, Les guerres de Moïse, in: La construction de la figure de Moïse – The Construction of the Figure of Moses, ed. by T. Römer, Transeuphratène Suppl. 13, Paris: Gabalda 2007, 169–193, 174–175. 74 Aurelius, Fürbitter, 147 [“Kombination aus mehreren vorhergehenden Murrgeschichten”]. See also Coats, Rebellion, 119; Blum, Studien, 123. 75 Numeri, 138; see also Aurelius, Fürbitter, 147; Blum, Studien, 124. 76 LXX reads τῷ θεῷ 77 The structural analogies between Num 11:1–3 and 21:4–9 have been pointed out by Aurelius, Fürbitter, 141–160, and, more recently, by Schmidt, Numeri, 102f. 73

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

83

Assyria must fight several times with different deadly serpents in the wilderness, until Marduk comes to rescue him.”78 A similar motif can be found in Herodotus (II, 75) and in Moses legends preserved in the works of Artapanus and Flavius Josephus (cf. Deut 8:15). Seebass has correctly emphasized the Egyptian traits of this narrative. The fact that the wilderness narrative concludes with Moses erecting the image of a serpent might be related to the inclusion of a popular narrative motif. Possibly, the author of Num 21:4–9 aimed to show that despite the continuous rebellion of the people and despite his own anger, YHWH decides not to destroy but to spare his people. YHWH’s healing intervention, however, largely depends on Moses’ intercession. This illustrates that despite Moses’ and Aaron’s wrongful act which is related in Num 20, Moses remains the indispensable intermediary between YHWH and his people. This does not necessarily mean that the narratives of 20:1–13 and 21:4–9 have to be ascribed to two different authors or redactors, though it is, of course, possible. One gets the impression that 20:1–13 very discreetly seeks a form of “minimal guilt,” in order to be able to justify the narrative fact that neither Moses nor Aaron can enter the Promised Land within the framework of a theology of individual guilt.

The emphasis of Moses’ intercession in Num 21 assumes a compositional function within the rebellion cycle of Num 11–21, as it is mentioned in the beginning (11:1–3) and repeated both in the middle (Num 14) and at the end of the narrative. The question of whether Num 21:4–9 must be seen in connection with 2 Kgs 18 requires more detailed analysis. It is possible that the author of Num 21 wanted to deliver a positive etiology of the bronze serpent, which 2 Kgs 18 locates in the Jerusalem Temple of the monarchic period and ascribes to Moses. If this is true, Num 21 could stand for an “anti-deuteronomistic” and more liberal concept of worship. The two last rebellion narratives are interlaced with accounts (20:14–21; 21:1–3; 21:10–35) that introduce the third main theme of the Book of Numbers: the conquest and occupation of Transjordan. These passages are composed of different, partially old layers of narrative material, some of which was integrated into Deut 2–3. The texts in question are aimed at clarifying Israel’s relations with its eastern neighbors (Edom, Moab), but they also emphasize Moses’ military qualitites, which are further developed in non-biblical legends that possibly stem from Jewish communities in the Egyptian diaspora.

78

M. Arneth, Die Hiskiareform in 2 Reg 18,3–8, ZAR 12, 2006, 169–215, 207 [“bei dem der neuassyrische Großkönig im Rahmen seines Wüstenaufenthalts mehrfach mit unterschiedlichen todbringenden Schlangen zu kämpfen hat, bevor ihm Marduk zu Hilfe eilt”].

84

Thomas Römer

6. Conclusion and Open Questions The rebellion narratives in Num 11–21 have an important compositional function, not only with reference to the book of Numbers, but also for the Pentateuch as a whole. Together with Exod 15–17(18), they embrace the Sinai pericope and underline its coherence. In this way, the affinity of Num 1–10 with the Sinai revelation is underlined, even though these supplemental chapters are separated from the “actual” revelation by the titles and subtitles used in Lev 26; 27; and Num 1. Within this framework, narrative prototypes for Num 11ff. can be detected in Exod 16–17. These narratives originally related YHWH’s caring attitude toward his people, without emphasizing their persistent fractiousness. Thus, the oldest wilderness tradition characterized the relationship between YHWH and his people as a positive one, much like other texts in the books of Hosea and Jeremiah do. The negative image79 of the wilderness period that prevails in the Pentateuch as we know it today is, in Exod 13–17, strongly influenced by the interventions of one or several redaction(s) of Egypt nostalgia which can possibly be traced back to the priestly “complaint theme.” In Exod 13–14 and 17 (and possibly in 16), the passages questioning the exodus are easily recognizable as redactional interventions. With the exception of Num 11:18–20, the relevant verses in the Numbers text, however, can be discarded only with great difficulty, if at all. This implies that a large part of the text in Numbers stems from the same redactors who transformed the rebellion narratives of Exod 13ff. And if that is true, the relevant Numbers narratives represent a later textual layer, which speaks for a late composition of the book of Numbers. Obviously, the origin of Num 11–21 requires a more profound analysis. With regard to the question discussed in this paper, we will have to determine whether all texts pertaining to the “Egypt nostalgia” tradition belong to the same textual layer or whether a diachronic differentiation is necessary. This raises the important methodological question of how consistent different redactions or authors have to be from a literary and theological point of view. We will, furthermore, have to look at the radius of these redactions. Are we looking at pentateuchal or hexateuchal redactions, or is their radius a much narrower one? Just recently, Seebass and Fistill have argued in favor of a specific “Numbers redaction,” whose goal was the completion of the youngest Torah scroll. If we could reach a consensus as to how redactions can be defined and differentiated from one another, Old Testament research would take a big step forward. 79

With the exception of the war with Amalek in Exod 17 and Moses’ encounter with his father-in-law in Exod 18.

Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21

85

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123. Arneth, Martin: Die Hiskiareform in 2 Reg 18,3–8, ZAR 12 (2006), 169-215. Aurelius, Erik: Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, CB.OT 27, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 1988. Blum, Erhard: Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus. Ein Gespräch mit neueren Forschungshypothesen, in: Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuchs in der jüngsten Diskussion, ed. by Jan Christian Gertz/Konrad Schmid/Markus Witte, BZAW 315, Berlin: de Gruyter 2002, 119–156. Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin: de Gruyter 1990. Budd, Philip J.: Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary 5, Dallas: Word Books 1984. Coats, George Wesley: Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions in the Old Testament, Nashville Tenn.: Abingdon Press 1968. Frankel, David: The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore, VT. Supp. 89, Leiden et al.: Brill 2002. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBSt 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. Friedman, Richard Elliot: From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2, in: Traditions in Transformation. Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. by Baruch Halpern/Jon Douglas Levenson, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1981, 167-192. Gertz, Jan Christian: Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1999. Jeremias, Jörg: Der Prophet Hosea, ATD 24/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983. Kratz, Reinhard G.: Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik, UTB 2157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Levin, Christoph: Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Levin, Christoph: Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der Jahwist, in: Große Texte alter Kulturen. Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom, ed. by Martin Hose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2004, 63-85; = idem: Verheißung und Rechtfertigung. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II, BZAW 431, Berlin: de Gruyter 2013, 20-42. Lohfink, Norbert: Hos. xi 5 als Bezugstext von Dtn. xvii 16, VT 31 (1981), 226-228. Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II/25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Noth, Martin: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 31977. Noth, Martin: Numbers: a Commentary, London: SCM 1968. Olson, Dennis T.: The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New. The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies 71, Chico Calif.: Scholars Press 1985. Otto, Eckart: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumsrahmen, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Rad, Gerhard von: Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium, ATD 8, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1964.

86

Thomas Römer

Römer, Thomas: Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Interpretation of Exodus. Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, ed. by Riemer Roukema, CBET 44, Leuven: Peeters 2006 65–79. Römer, Thomas: Les guerres de Moïse, in: La construction de la figure de Moïse – The Construction of the Figure of Moses, ed. by Thomas Römer, Transeuphratène Suppl. 13, Paris: Gabalda 2007, 169-193. Ruprecht, Eberhard: Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift, ZAW 86 (1974), 269–307. Schart, Aaron: Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Göttingen/Freiburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/Universitätsverlag 1990. Schmidt, Ludwig: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993. Schmidt, Ludwig: Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16, ZAW 119 (2007), 483–498. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph: Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel, in: Pluralismus und Identität, ed. by Joachim Mehlhausen, Gütersloh: Gütersloher 1995, 259-278. Schorn, Ulrike: Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num. 16f*/Deut.11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. by Steven L. McKenzie/Thomas Römer, BZAW 294, Berlin: de Gruyter 2000, 251–268. Seebass, Horst: Numeri 10,11-22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. Seebass, Horst: Numeri 22.2-36.13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007. Seebass, Horst: Das Buch Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 233–259. Seters, John van: The Pentateuch. A Social Science Commentary, Trajectories 1, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1999. Ska, Jean-Louis.: Le passage de la mer. Etude sur la construction du style et de la symbolique d'Ex 14,1–31, AnBib 109, Rom: Biblical Institute 1986. Struppe, Ursula: Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift, ÖBS 9, Wien: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988. Weimar, Peter: Die Meerwundererzählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,1714,31, ÄAT 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1985. Yee, Gale A.: Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical Investigation, SBL Diss. Series 102, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1987. Zenger, Erich/Frevel, Christian: Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 35–74.

Numeri als eigene Komposition Horst Seebass Eine bisher einflussreiche und sachlich attraktive Sicht auf das Buch Numeri ordnete es nach großen Traditionskomplexen des Pentateuch. Dabei bot es sich an, zuerst das Dtn als eigenen Komplex für sich zu nehmen. Die Bücher Gen bis Num schienen sich dann in einer Art von Geschichtserzählung ziemlich überzeugend gliedern zu lassen in I. Urgeschichte, Gen 1,1–11,26 II. Vätergeschichte, Gen 11,27–50,26 III. Israel Zug aus Ägypten zum Gottesberg/zum Sinai, Ex 1,1–18,27 IV. Israel am Berg Sinai/ in der Wüste Sinai, Ex 19,1–Num 10,10 V. Der Weg vom Sinai zu den Steppen Moabs, Num 10,11–36,13. Auf diesem Weg verfehlte die Exodus-Generation das verheißene Land, die nachfolgende musste neu vorbereitet werden: ein Generationenbruch. Diese einflussreiche Sicht als Tetrateuch plus Dtn hat einen schweren Mangel, der jedoch einstmals erträglich erscheinen mochte: Das Buch Lev, das man wohl als eigene Komposition zu begreifen hat (s.u.), verschwindet nämlich in diesem Gesamtkonzept, es steht gleichsam in einer Klammer. Es wird mit Ex 1–40 einerseits, mit Num 1,1–36,13 andererseits umgeben und zumeist nur durch Lev *8–10 (16,1–28?), ja vielleicht nur durch Lev 9,23f. als mit Num verbunden gedacht.1 Dass aber Lev seine ganz eigenen Kompositions-Probleme stellt und diese eine eigene Lösung herausfordern, ist inzwi1

Anders vor allem P.J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5, Waco, TX: Word Books 1984, xixf; s. jetzt C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, der Lev *1–3.*8–10.*16,1–28 für den ursprünglichen Anschluss an Ex *40 in Anspruch nimmt. Eine Abhängigkeit von Numeri gegenüber Levitikus hatte besonders J. Milgrom, Numbers, JPS, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1990, xxi angenommen. Aber seine Begründungen haben nichts Zwingendes. Dass etwa Num 28,1–30,1 eine Erweiterung des Kultkalenders von Lev 23 sei, lässt sich gewiss nicht beweisen (s. H. Seebass, Numeri Kap. 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007, zu Num 28,1–30,1). Der häufige Einschluss des ‫ רע‬in Num-Gesetzgebungen sei ein Indikator dafür, dass dies auf dem sog. Heiligkeitsgesetz Lev 17–26 fuße, wo die Doktrin der Einbeziehung von Fremdlingen ihre Grundlage erhalte. Ferner gehöre Num 19 eher zu Lev als zu Num, es sei von dort transponiert. Das sind pure Behauptungen, die zu dem großen Lev-Kommentar von Jacob Milgrom hinführen sollen.

88

Horst Seebass

schen offenkundig und hat bereits zu Lösungen der Verselbständigung geführt2, die neben Bruchstücken wie Lev *1–3.*8–10.16,*1–28 Pg nur noch einen Rest an Ergänzungsmaterialien von Lev 17–Num 36 gelten lassen wollen. Gravierend ist ebenso ein zweiter Mangel, dass nämlich Num wie eine Sammlung nicht notwendig zusammengehörender Traditionsstücke erscheinen kann und dadurch zum Objekt von Ergänzungstheorien geworden ist.3 Das verkennt aber nicht nur die Bedeutung von Lev 17–26(.27) für Lev als Buch, sondern eben auch die eigene Gestalt des Buches Numeri, die es zu begreifen gilt. Es gibt jedoch inzwischen mindestens einen großen Entwurf zu Num, der dieses als ein selbständiges Buch oder als eine selbständige Komposition begreift und sich dabei nicht nur auf einzelne Bruchstücke stützt, sondern den gesamten Bestand des Buches nachvollzieht. Eine solche Durchführung an den Einzelüberlieferungen leisteten Knierim und Coats.4 Man hat inzwischen allen Grund, der Auffassung von Rolf P. Knierim zu folgen. Danach war die Num-Komposition insgesamt die Erzählung oder Tradition von einer heiligtumsgeführten Kampagne aus der Sinaiwüste ins Land.5 Diese Kampagne scheiterte an der Glaubensverweigerung der Israeliten nach Num 13–14, so dass eine ganze Generation in der Wüste versterben sollte und die nächste, ab Num 25,59–26,64 in den Vordergrund tretende Generation da wieder anfangen musste, wo die ihr vorhergehende bereits in Aktion getreten war. Es 2

S. besonders C. Frevel, Kein Ende in Sicht? Zur Priestergrundschrift im Buch Levitikus. Eine synchrone Lektüre mit diachroner Perspektive, in: Levitikus als Buch, hg. von H.-J. Fabry/H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 47–84. 3 So jedenfalls C. Nihan/T. Römer, Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: Introduction à l´Ancien Testament, hg. von T. Römer et al., Le Monde de la Bible 49, Genf: Éd. Labor et Fides 2004, 85–113; T. Römer, Nombres, ebd. 196–210. Den Boden für eine solch radikale Sicht bereitete vielleicht zu einem Teil auch das sehr negative Urteil des großen Martin Noth: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, 5–7, obwohl sein Kommentar dann eher konservative Erklärungen liefert. In Wirklichkeit ist Numeri alles andere als ungeordnet, s.u. 4 R.P. Knierim/G.W. Coats, Numbers, FOTL 4, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005, 9–26. 5 Eine gleichartige Grundauffassung vertrat J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres, Paris: Gabalda 1972, 11f; s. auch die Übereinstimmung mit der Globalgliederung von E.W. Davies, Numbers, New Century Bible Commentary, London: Marshall Pickering/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995, li–lvii. Die Grundauffassung beruht auf einer Nachzeichnung der einzelnen Stationen und will so eine Buch-Gliederung nicht ersetzen, für die es mehr als eine Möglichkeit gegeben hat, s.u. Ein Votum für eine innere Einheitlichkeit und Wohlgeordnetheit bei relativer Selbständigkeit von Num gegenüber Lev (und Ex) verdankt man auch Budd, Numbers, xvii– xxi. Seine Durchführung litt allerdings an zu starker Vereinfachung der Redaktionsprozesse. Es geht schon zu weit, etwa wie G.J. Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Leicester: Inter Varsity Press 1981, 1f., Num 26–36 so zu beschreiben, dass die Israeliten am Ende darauf warteten, den Jordan zu überschreiten. Num 26–36 blicken zwar auf die viel spätere Landnahme aus, sie bereiten sie aber nicht vor, sondern regeln nur Letztmögliches, von Jahwe selbst Gewolltes.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

89

reichte dann in Numeri nur noch zur Vorbereitung auf das Land und dessen Einnahme, nicht bis zu deren Beginn. Dabei ist u.a. bezeichnend, dass zwar die neue Generation nicht ohne das Jahwe-Heiligtum hatte sein müssen (zuletzt 20,6; 25,6; 27,2; indirekt 27,21 mittels Eleasar im Zelt), aber nun nicht mehr unter Jahwes Führung stand.6 Der Spannungsbogen der NumKomposition reicht also in der Tat von Num 1–2, der Musterung einer geradezu ungeheuerlichen Zahl von Kriegern und ihrer Gestaltung durch ein großes Kriegslager von dreimal vier Großlagern im Osten, Süden, Westen und Norden mit dem Jahwe-Heiligtum in der Mitte, bis zum Ende von 36,1–12,7 mit 36,13 als Schlussnotiz. Dies gilt es, unbeschadet aller quellenkritischen Einsichten und literarischen Probleme am Endtext kritisch nachzuvollziehen.8

1. Nachvollzug des Handlungsablaufs 1.1. Vorbereitungen für den Marsch in das verheißene Land Einen ersten Abschnitt findet man in Num 1,1–10,10, der den Vorbereitungen zum anschließenden Marsch gewidmet ist. Num 1 beginnt mit einer Berufung des Mose in das Begegnungszelt zum Befehlsempfang bei Jahwe als dem Kriegsherrn, um alle männlichen Israeliten der zwölf Stämme (ohne den Stamm Levi, mit Ephraim plus Manasse als Stämmen) von zwanzig Jahren an aufwärts zu mustern (anders Lev 1,1: Mose wird vom Zelt her gerufen). In diese Musterung wird Levi nicht einbezogen, vielmehr dessen eigene Musterung nur vorbereitet (1,48–53). Die wichtigste Pointe von Num 1 ist offenbar die enorm hohe Zahl der Krieger von 603.550 (1,46; die Zahl stammt als heilige aus den späten Notizen Ex 38,25f.; 30,11–16). Num 2 ergänzt dazu eine 6 S. dazu die wichtigen Beobachtungen von O. Artus, Le problème de l´unité littéraire et de la spécificité théologique du livre des Nombres, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, hg. von T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 121–144, 142. Die Führung sollte ja am Ende nicht mehr Mose mit dem Jahwe-Zelt, sondern schließlich Josua haben: so Num 27,12– 23. 7 Num 36,1–12 enthält eine Stämme-Ordnungs-Tradition, nach der erbberechtigte Frauen nur Männer aus ihrem je eigenen Stamm heiraten sollten. Wegen einiger Gemeinsamkeiten mit 27,1–11wird jedoch 36,1–12 gern als dessen späte Dublette erklärt. S. dagegen Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 22,2–36,13, zu 36,1–12. 8 Den Gedanken, mit einer kritischen Nacherzählung des Buches Numeri zu beginnen, habe ich von Walther Zimmerli, Ezechiel, BK.AT 13, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1969, 1*–4* übernommen. Der Abschnitt I setzt damit zwar die kritische Ausarbeitung der Exegesen im Kommentar zu allen Buchelementen voraus, jedoch in globaler Form, ohne auf Spezifika der schon erfolgten Auslegungen einzugehen. Wichtig ist es, die Geschehensfolge nachzuzeichnen, die das Buch durchzieht. Andere große Kommentare wie etwa die von Milgrom, Numbers, und Davies, Numbers, bieten ebenfalls Nacherzählungen, unterwerfen sie aber kritischen Ausscheidungen als durch äußere Einflüsse anderer Bücher provoziert.

90

Horst Seebass

Lagervorstellung der Stämme ringsum das Begegnungszelt Gottes (2,2), die vier Lager zu je drei Stämmen bildet und für die Jahwe die Kommandeure der zwölf Stämme ernennt, deren Namen bereits 1,5–15 zur Begleitung der Kriegserzählung eingeführt hatte. Plausibel folgt dem mit Num 3–4 eine Neubestimmung der nicht zu einem der Stämme Israels bestimmten Größe namens Levi: als einerseits den Priestern zum Dienst am Zelt zuzuordnen (3,1– 4), andererseits wie in Dtn 18,*1–8 als von Jahwe selbst zum Heiligtumsdienst erwählt (3,5–13). Diese Neubestimmung erforderte eine doppelte Musterung der Leviten, also einmal die aller männlichen Glieder ab einem Monat von (genealogisch) Gerschon, Kahat und Merari für die allgemeine Dienstverpflichtung des Stammes ringsum das Gotteszelt (1,48–53: 3,*20b– 39; dazu 3,40–51 als Weiterung), sodann die der für die Priester tatsächlich diensthabenden Leviten von Kahat, Gerschon und Merari in 4,1–3. 22.23.29.30.34–49 (mit Ergänzungen in 4,4–21.24–28.32–33) im Alter von dreißig bis fünfzig Jahren mit Zuordnungen zu je definierten Tätigkeiten im und am Zelt nach dem fünfzigsten Lebensjahr. Wegen der sehr massiven Tradition zur Neuordnung des Levitenwesens hatte sich in früheren Erklärungen der Eindruck verfestigt, dass bereits mit Num 5 Anhänge an Num 1–4 bis hin zu 10,1–10 angeschlossen seien. Aber das ist unzutreffend. Num 5,1–4 mit seinen Vorschriften zur rituellen Reinhaltung des Kriegslagers enthält sachgemäße Vorbereitungen auf den Marsch. Zudem erwähnen Num 5,1–4 erstmals Frauen, die zum Lager der Israeliten gehört haben müssen. Analoges ergibt sich zum Gottesgebot des aaronitischen Segens durch Mose in 6,22–27. Weil die im Kriegslager versammelte Edah wohl kaum ohne göttlichen Segen gedacht sein sollte, gehört auch 6,22–27 in die Marschvorbereitungen. Dagegen sind 5,5–10; 5,11–31 und 6,1–21 drei Ergänzungen zu den Marschvorbereitungen unter dem Gesichtspunkt, priesterliche Kompetenzen nach der massiven Vorstellung des Levitismus Num 3– 4 hervorzukehren,9 ohne dass ein Bezug zur Marschvorbereitung erkennbar wäre. Num 5,5–10 handelt nämlich von einer Ermächtigung Gottes für Personen, die unter Falscheid einem Nächsten einen Vermögensschaden zugefügt hatten, dem Geschädigten nun aber durch ein förmliches Geständnis im Heiligtum vor einem Priester nicht wie in Ex 22,8–10 doppelten, sondern einfachen Ersatz plus 20% der Schadenssumme und die Darbringung eines Versöhnungswidders wegen Falscheides (5,8) zu leisten haben (mit Anhängen in 5,9f.). Gewichtig schon wegen der Häufung von heiligen Riten ist danach die Tora gefährlicher Eifersuchtsausbrüche10 (5,29) von 5,11–31, die nicht eine 9 So treffend auch Milgrom, Numbers, xiv, der allerdings 5,1–4; 6,22–27 ebenfalls für zugefügt hielt. Aber dafür gibt es keinen hinreichenden Grund. 10 In der Auslegung ist 5,11–31 häufig mit mSotah in Verbindung gesetzt worden; aber die Mischna bietet ein streng juristisches Verfahren, das nach Num 5,11–31 aus Mangel an Zeugen nicht möglich war. V. 29 nennt denn auch den Abschnitt „Tora gefährlicher Eifersuchts-

Numeri als eigene Komposition

91

„normale“ Eifersucht eines Ehemannes gegen seine Frau verhandelt, sondern eine in der Art Othellos. Aus Mangel an Zeugen war der Fall nur vor Gott im Heiligtum zu entscheiden – man denkt beim eifernden Ehemann hintergründig an Jahwe selbst, der nach Hos 2,16f.; Jer 2,1b–3 Eifersucht gegen seine Frau Israel geäußert hatte. Num 6,1–21 handelt schließlich von der Möglichkeit für Männer und Frauen, sich auf Zeit als Nasir11 vor einem Priester zu weihen, deren Hauptverpflichtung neben kleineren Enthaltungen im freien Wachsenlassen des Haupthaares auf Zeit bestand. Kern dieser Tora ist eine Bindung solcher Weihen an das Priestertum. Mit Num 7,1–88 begegnet ein erster nicht der Num-Komposition vom Ende des 4. Jh.s v. Chr., sondern erst dem Kanon vom 1. Jh.v. – 1.Jh.n.Chr. zu verdankender Zusatz (cf. noch 9,1–14; 31,1–54). In Ex 40 hatte Gott Mose eine Reihe von Anordnungen übermittelt, die alle bis auf die von Ex 40,9 dort auch erfüllt wurden. Ein sehr später Ergänzer hat nun mit Num 7,1f. hier Ex 40,9 umgesetzt und daran Maßnahmen der Stammeshäupter zugunsten einerseits des Transportes des Gottes-Zeltes, andererseits listenartig und dasselbe wiederholend, umfangreiche Ausstattungen und Gaben der Stämme für den Altar in einer Reihung von zwölf Tagen angeschlossen. Das Ganze hatte hervorzuheben, wie bereitwillig die Edah, vertreten durch ihre Häupter, sich den Maßnahmen Gottes vor dem Marschbeginn einfügte (im Kontrast zu Num *11ff.).

Num 7,89 ist ein Ein-Vers-Element und so einzig der Ausnahmestellung Moses bei und vor seinem Gott in Einlösung von Ex 25,22 gewidmet: Problemlos gehört das zur Marschvorbereitung12 (cf. später 12,6b–8a; Dtn 34,10). 8,1–4 enthält eine weitere Notiz zur Vorbereitung des vom Heiligtum geleiteten Marsches. Aaron wurde nämlich angewiesen, von da an die sieben Lampen auf dem siebenarmigen Leuchter, dessen Herstellung Ex 35,31–40 dem Mose in vielen Details geboten war, von der Südwand des Heiligtums aus nach Norden bzw. zur Mitte des Zeltes hin auszurichten (Licht als Symbol der Gegenwart Gottes im Führungszelt). 8,5–22 verordnet eine förmliche Weihe der Leviten zu deren jeweiligem Dienstantritt durch Mose und Aaron, mit einem Opferterminus „Tenuphah“ genannt, im Rahmen weiterer begleitender Riten. 8,23–26 tragen dazu später nach, dass Leviten bereits mit fünfundzwanzig Jahren ihren Dienst antreten und ab dem fünfzigsten Lebensjahr noch erleich-

ausbrüche“ des Ehemanns, nicht eine „Tora der Sotah“. Zum Plural ‫ הקנאת‬in 5,29 s. D. Michel, Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Teil 1: Sprachwissenschaftliche Methodik, Genus und Numerus des Nomens, 40ff. „(Torah der) Eifersuchtsausbrüche“ und HALAT3 III, 1038. 11 Der genaue Sinn dieses Wortes ist nicht mehr zu ermitteln, da der einzig verlässliche Text zu ihnen, Am 2,11f., sie nur neben den Nebi’im erwähnt, sie aber nicht charakterisiert; s. H. Seebass, Numeri Kap. 1,1–10,10, BK.AT 4/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen 2012, zu Num 6,1–21. 12 Dass 7,89–8,26 nicht zum Datum von 7,1 (1.1. des Jahres II) gehören, ergibt sich zumal aus 8,5–22, die das Datum von 3,1–4,48 (1.2. des Jahres II) fortsetzen.

92

Horst Seebass

terte Dienste im Auftrag der Priester versehen sollten: eine Num 4 korrigierende Ergänzung zu den Marschvorbereitungen. Mit Num 9,1–14 folgt ein zweiter, erst kanonischer Nachtrag, da 9,1 in den 1. Monat des Jahres II und nicht in dessen 2. Monat datiert (so aber 1,1–6,27; 7,89–8,2613). Bei der PassaVorbereitung im 1. Monat des Jahres II sei als Grundsatzproblem aufgetreten, dass Familienhäupter, die das Passa am vorgeschriebenen Termin, dem 14.1. des Jahres II, wegen ritueller Unreinheit durch Totenberührung die von Jahwe gestiftete Opfergabe des Lammes nicht schlachten durften und damit automatisch aus der Jahwe-Gemeinde ausscheiden würden. Ein Gottesentscheid löste das Problem zusammen mit einem analogen für Fernreisende durch den Ausweichtermin am 14.2. II. Anders als Budd, Numbers, xvii–xviii vorschlug, kann man 9,1– 14 nicht als Schluss von Num 1–8 erklären, selbst wenn man wie Budd 9,1–14 nicht als Nachtrag, sondern als Teil der Num-Komposition ansehen würde. Vor allem ist nämlich 9,15–23 nicht die Eröffnung des Aufbruchs mit weitem Ausblick auf die spätere Wanderung, sondern mit 10,1–10 zusammen ein Übergang zum Aufbruch, der selbst massiv erst in 10,11– 36 erscheint.

Num 9,15–23 blickt, den Marsch vorbereitend, weit aus bis in die weitere Zukunft und erzählt ganz isoliert von einer exakten Befolgung der durch Gottes Wolke über dem Zelt geregelten Aufbrüche bzw. Aufenthalte in einer fast poetisch zu nennenden Form (nur scheinbar eine Wiederaufnahme des dort jedoch längst als sekundär erkannten Ex 40,36–3814). Num 10,1–10 verordnet die Herstellung von zwei silbernen Trompeten, einesteils zum Aufbruch, andernteils zur Einberufung der ganzen Gemeinde am Offenbarungszelt (10,1– 8) und viel später noch sowohl zum Jahwekrieg als zu großen Festen: eine Art Anmerkung zu 9,15–23. Demnach bilden Num 1; 2; 3–4; 5,1–4; 6,22–27; 7,89; 8,1–4; 8,5–22; 9,15–23 den Grundstock der Marschvorbereitung, einerseits erweitert um 8,23–26; 10,1–10 und andererseits, nun ohne Beziehung zur Marschvorbereitung, als Profilierung der Priester nach der der Leviten durch 5,5–10; 5,11–31; 6,1–21. Erst im Kanon kamen 7,1–88; 9,1–14 hinzu. Als Bestand der NumKomposition vom Ende des 4. Jh.s v. Chr. (zu ihr s. § 3) hat man also nur Num 1,1–6,27; 7,89–8,26; 9,15–10,10 anzusehen. 1.2. Der Marsch vom Sinai bis zur Tat des Pinchas Num 10,11–36 eröffnet mit dem Marschbeginn der Kampagne einen umfangreichen Zusammenhang, der spätestens vor 25,19–26,64, der Zählung der neuen Generation nach der Katastrophe der alten endet (s.u. zur Katastrophe in Num 13f.), ohne Zwischenabschnitte auszuschließen.15 Jenem wohlgeglie13

Das Datum ergibt sich aus 8,5–22, das zweifellos Num 3–4 voraussetzt, s. Seebass, Numeri Kap. 1,1–10,10, z.St. 14 S. die Erklärung in Seebass, Numeri Kap. 1,1–10,10, z.St. 15 Wie schon erwähnt, gibt es mehr als eine Möglichkeit, das Buch Num zu gliedern. Die hier verfolgte hat rein praktische Gründe für sich, ohne absolute Richtigkeit beanspruchen zu wollen.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

93

derten Marschbeginn ringsum das Jahwe-Zelt (10,11–28) ist eine alte Tradition 10,29–32 angeschlossen, nach der Mose einen gewissen Hobab ben Reguel als Führer in der Wüste zu gewinnen suchte (cf. Ri 1,16; 4,11). Solche Führung wird dtr durch die Erwähnung der Bundeslade und einer theophanen Wolke (10,33f.) überhöht. Krönend im Blick auf den militärischen Erfolg des Marsches folgen schließlich zwei alte Ladesprüche (10,35f.). Num 11,1–3 kontrastiert den großen Anfang mit völlig unerwartetem Jammern des Volkes in Tab‘era („Brandstätte“), das Jahwe mit Feuer ahndete, welches aber auf Moses Fürbitte hin verlosch. Ein erster schwerer Aufruhr der Israeliten schließt sich aber sogleich in 11,4–35 an, der eine seltsame Mischung aus berechtigter Klage des Mose gegen Zugelaufene im Volk (‫ )אספסף‬und Jahwes Unterstützung für Mose durch eine Versorgung des aufsässigen Volkes mit Wachtelfleisch enthält, an dem dann im Gotteszorn viele aus dem Volk sterben (Kibrot Ha-Ta‘awah „Gräber an der Landmarke“; weitere Motive sind eingelagert, 25b–29 bilden einen Nachtrag). Num 12,1–15 umgeben eine der drei großen Würdigungen Moses durch den Gottesspruch 12,6–8 (neben 7,89; Dtn 34,10; auch Ex 34,10?16), ausgelöst durch eine Beschwerde der MoseSchwester Mirjam, die Aaron unterstützte: eine Beschwerde wegen Nichtbeachtung ihres eigenen Gotteswort-Zugangs. Mirjam erlitt darauf als göttliche Sanktion eine siebentägige Hautkrankheit. Num 13,1–14,45 beschreiben danach die fundamentale Katastrophe der so aussichtsreichen Heiligtumsgeleiteten Kampagne, weil das Volk bzw. die Edah nach Aussendung von Kundschaftern aus Kadesch bzw. der Wüste Paran einerseits bis nach Hebron, andererseits bis weit nach Norden ans Ende des Libanon („Lebo Hamat“) den Gottesbefehl zu Einmarsch und Sieg mit bösartigen Gründen verweigerte. Die ganze Generation mit Mose und Aaron wurde im Gotteszorn zum Tod in der Wüste verurteilt, so dass nur Kaleb (bei P auch Josua) mit der nächsten Generation das Land besetzen sollten. Ein verspäteter Versuch des Volkes, doch noch das Land zu erobern, scheiterte böse bei Horma im Negeb wegen der Nichtunterstützung des Vorhabens durch Jahwe (14,39–45). Bezeichnend für die Buch-Komposition ist nun: 15,1–21 schließt mit zwei Gesetzen zu Opfern und weiteren Riten an, die nur und erst im Land verwirklicht werden konnten. Sie machen also die Einkehr der Nachkommen ins Land gewiss und setzen in dieser Weise Num 13–14 fort.17 Jener Gesetzgebung folgen mit 15,22–31 ver-

16 S. dazu R. Albertz, Die vergessene Heilsmittlerschaft des Mose. Erste Überlegungen zu einem spätexilischen Exodusbuch, EvTh 69 (2009), 443–459, der im Gefolge von B: Jacob, Das Buch Exodus, Stuttgart: Calwer 1997, 1073, die These vortrug, dass Ex 34,10.29–34 ein Motiv besonderer Mose-Auszeichnung wiedergibt, welches Ex 34,10 eröffnete, in sie aber 34,11–28 eingeschoben seien. Albertz will dies allerdings zu einer neuen Theorie der Entstehung des Ex-Buches ausgebaut wissen. 17 So m.R. vor allem Milgrom, Numbers, xiv.

94

Horst Seebass

feinerte juristische Entscheidungen zur Rechtspraxis später im Land, sie verleihen damit 15,1–31 insgesamt großes Gewicht. Den meisten Auslegern entgeht der Einschnitt durch 15,32–36, der die fortgesetzte Wüsten-Wanderung markiert (Verbalsatz in 32a)18 und da alle Aufmerksamkeit einem in der Wüste verhandelten Kasus der Sabbatobservanz widmet. Num 15,37–43 leiten vorbereitend zu dem Thema einer Heiligung im Lebensvollzug über,19 das in 16,1–17,28 prominent wird. Diese erzählen von einem kultisch-rituellen Aufruhr in mehreren Stufen, angetrieben von Korach-Leviten auf der Basis des Mottos „Wir, die Gemeinde, sind heilig“ (16,3) und mit der Konsequenz, dass sie statt der Priester die rituell hochheiligen Räucheropfer darbringen wollten. Solche Selbstermächtigung führte zu einer mehrstufigen Katastrophe mit vielen Toten, beendet einerseits durch die legitime Ausführung des nur von Priestern zu leistenden Räucheropfers durch Aaron (17,11–13), andererseits durch den positiven Erweis, dass das Haus Levi, dessen Stab zu blühen beginnt (Aarons Stab vertritt ganz Levi), den alleinigen Zugang zum Gottes-Zelt durch Gottesurteil erhält. Eingelagert ist in Num 16 aus älterer Tradition ein Protest von Rubeniten gegen Mose, weil er als Führer nicht in der Lage sei, Weinberge zu vergeben. Ein Erdbruch und ein Feuer verschlingen die Zelte der Protestierenden. Positiv folgt aber jenen Katastrophen in Num 18 eine politische Gesetzgebung, nach der die Leviten den Priestern (wie in 3,5–9) zwar angelehnt, aber von den Priestern stets als Erwählte Jahwes zu respektieren waren (1–7 wie 3,10–13). Dazu ergeht eine breite Regelung erst zu Priestereinkünften (sehr vollständig), dann zu Leviteneinkünften (18,8–32). Darauf folgt die wohl kurioseste Gesetzgebung des Pentateuch (rabbinisch ‫„ פרה אדמה‬die rote Kuh“), welche Riten man zur Reinigung nach Totenberührung befolgen sollte (lose angeknüpft an die vielen Toten in 17,1–15? Ein Echo gibt es nur in 31,22–24, einem KanonNachtrag; s.u.). Verborgen hinter einer Verurteilung Moses und Aarons findet man nach Num 19 in 20,1–13 eine erste heilvolle Wendung für die nachwachsende Generation20 in der sterbenden: Jahwe war gesonnen, dem Kahal in Wüstennot Wasser in der Wüste bei Meribat Kadesch zu gewähren, während Mose und Aaron dem Kahal wegen seines Jammerns heftig zürnten und den Gottesbefehl der Wassergewährung nur im Zorn ausführten. So verurteilte

18 Besonders offenkundig ist dies bei Davies, Numbers, liii, der vorher innere Kohärenzen aufmerksam aufzählte, aber bei 15,32ff. stockte, weil er den Verbalsatz verkannte. Aber er ist keine Ausnahme. 19 Treffend beobachtete Milgrom, Numbers, xiv, dass 15,37–41 keinen rechten Zusammenhang mit dem Vorhergehenden haben, postuliert aber willkürlich einen Zusammenhang mit Num 13–14. Richtiger hat wohl Davies, Numbers, 161 eine Verwandtschaft mit der Sprache des Heiligkeitsgesetzes notiert, die nicht an 15,32–36 anschließt. 20 Man beachte, dass 20,1 den Tod Mirjams meldet: also eines prominenten Gliedes der zum Tod in der Wüste verurteilten Generation.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

95

Jahwe Mose und Aaron dazu, das Volk nicht mehr ins verheißene Land führen zu dürfen (kein Hineinkommen galt ja seit Num 13f.). Noch von Kadesch aus, außerhalb des verheißenen Landes, verhandelte Mose dann mit Edom um einen Durchzug durch sein Gebiet zur Erreichung ostjordanischer Wege, wurde aber abgewiesen (20,14–21). Im Kontrast dazu gewährte Jahwe nach 21,1–3 dem nachwachsenden Israel (ohne Moses Beteiligung!) auf ein Bittgelübde hin einen großen Sieg über Negebbewohner beim (wohl noch unbewohnten) Horma.21 Num 21,4–9 erzählt danach von einer im Negeb geläufigen Schlangen-plage zu törichtem Volksgejammer. Wunderbarerweise wandte aber Mose nach Gottes Anweisung die Plage durch die Herstellung einer Bronze-Schlange mit der singulären Anordnung ab, dass der, der diese Schlange anblickte, nach Gottes Willen geheilt leben sollte. Num 21,10–20 bildet wohl eine vierteilige Einheit: a) aus drei Itinerarangaben in 21,11–13 vom „Bach Sered“ (wadi el-hasa) nordwärts in die Wüste östlich von Moab; b) einem Zitat 21,14–15 aus dem Buch der Kriege Jahwes zum Arnon und seinen Schluchten; c) einem Brunnenlied 21,16–18a; und d) Angaben zu mehreren Stationen/Landschaftsnamen bis zum Gefilde Moabs am Pisga-Gipfel (21,18b–20).22 Num 21,21–24.31 handeln von einem Sieg der Israeliten nördlich des Arnon über einen Amoriterkönig Sichon, erweitert durch 25–30 mit dem späten Siegeslied 27–30.23 Dem fügt 21,32 eine Notiz von einem Sieg Moses über den Ort Ja‘ser an. Num 21,33–35, eine Tradition zu einem König Og von Baschan, ist nach communis opinio aus Dtn 3,*1–6 abgeleitet. Mit 22,1 erfolgt ein Einschnitt, weil Israel die Steppen Moabs erreichte, die östlich des Jordan israelitischem Gebiet im Westen gegenüberlagen. Ostjordanisch war Israel im Land, westjordanisch ihm gegenüber und deshalb bis 36,13 noch nicht wirklich im Land: eben in den Steppen Moabs. Hier einen Einschnitt anzunehmen, ergibt sich aus der auffallend umfangreichen Bileam-Tradition 22,2–24,25, die nach Moab entrückt. Ihre gelegentlich behauptete Isolation im Kontext ist freilich unbegründet, da sie den bisher schon erwähnten Konflikt der Israeliten mit Moab anleuchtet, auf dessen Gebiet sich Israel ja bewegte. Gottheitliche Grundsatzworte durch Vermittlung des fremden Divinators Bileam gegen Fluchwünsche Moabs sind angesichts der Ankunft der Israeliten in den Steppen Moab zwar bemerkenswert, aber den Sprüchen ging es ja um Jakob-Israel, und Gottessprüche des berühmten 21 Dass damals der König von Arad Israels Gegner gewesen sei, meldet erst eine Glosse zu 21,1, s. Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 10,11–22,1, z.St. 22 Dies ist mein Vorschlag zum Verständnis von 21,10–20, s. Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 10,11–22,1, z.St. 23 Dieses Lied ist leider weitgehend unverständlich, a.a.O. z.St.

96

Horst Seebass

Divinators in Moab sollten Israeliten in Moab kaum verborgen bleiben: Ihnen wurde indirekt ein großer Ausblick auf ihre Zukunft gewährt. Schockierend folgt mit 25,1–18 ein von den Ältesten und Häuptern, also den Oberen der abtretenden Generation, veranlasster Abfall Israels zum Baal Pe‘or, der einen vernichtenden Zorn Jahwes auslöste (24.000 Tote). Als mitten im Zornesausbruch ein Simeonit mit einer midianitischen Fürstentochter sich verbinden wollte, tötete der Jungpriester Pinchas beide und erwirkte so ein Ende der Gottesplage durch Beendigung des Abfalls. Pinchas wurde von Jahwe als Vorbildpriester für Generationen geehrt: trotzdem ein bitteres Kapitel der Untreue am Ende der abtretenden Generation. 1.3. Von der Zählung der neuen Generation bis zu Erbrechtsregelungen für die Töchter Zelofhads Mit (25,59) 26,1–64 erfolgt der letzte große Einschnitt nach dem von 10,11ff. Es handelt sich um die umfangreiche Sippenliste der zwölf schon in Num 1–2 genannten Stämme mit Manasse und Ephraim statt Levi sowie deren jeweiliger Zählung, also eine Generation nach der von Num 1 und mit fast der gleichen Anzahl an Männern. Zu der Sippenliste, die z.T. Ortsnamen enthält, gehören Anweisungen an Mose zum Verfahren der Landverteilung nach den Namen der Stämme und Sippen (26,52–56), dazu noch eine Sippenliste für die Leviten (57–58a) und eine Genealogie Aarons (58b–61). Den Abschluss bilden die Angaben, dass kein Mitglied der Vorgänger-Generation mehr lebte und tatsächlich nur Kaleb mit Josua aus der älteren Generation das Land sehen sollten, wie das Num 13–14 angekündigt hatte. Num 25,59–26,64 verweisen damit klar an eine Vorbereitung der Landnahme. Num 27,1–11, berühmt für seine Konstituierung von Frauenerbrecht in ganz großem Rahmen, gibt sich wie eine Konsequenz aus der Sippenliste Manasses zum Erbe Zelofhads mit dessen fünf Frauensippen als „Töchtern“ nach 26,*29–34.24 Solchem Ausblick folgt in 27,12–23 die Anweisung Jahwes an Mose, das AbarimGebirge zum Sterben zu ersteigen und davor Josua als seinen Nachfolger unter Übertragung nur eines Teils seiner Erhabenheit bei Gott einzusetzen. Diese Anweisung ermöglichte Numeri also nur noch Traditionen von letzten Taten des Mose, deren Zahl der zwingende Gottesbefehl an Mose, sich zum Sterben zu begeben, nachdrücklich einschränkte. Problemlos folgen daher nur Anweisungen Jahwes, die Mose ausführte. So erließ Jahwe nach 28,1–30,1 eine sehr umfassende Opferordnung für das Volk im Land, gestaltet wie eine Memorialtafel im Heiligtum. Num 30,2–17 ergänzen zu 29,29 eine Gottesweisung für spezielle Gelübde-Erfüllungen von Frauen (Meldepflicht von Gelübden beim

24

Ausgenommen leichte Bearbeitungsspuren in 29a.30a; s. dazu Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 22,2–36,13, 166f.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

97

Ehemann sollte es wohl nur bei Betroffenheit von Familienvermögen, nicht bei eigenem Vermögen der Frau geben). Num 31 würde, weil es mit einem Gottesgebot beginnt, zwar gut in die Situation seit 27,12ff. passen, ist aber wohl ein Pentateuchnachtrag, dessen Hauptinhalt eine ungewöhnlich ausführliche Beuteregelung darstellt, sowohl zugunsten des Heiligtums als zugunsten der Armee und dem Tross. U.a. zeigt eine Liste arabisch-nabatäischer Namen das späte Datum an, s. z.St.

Num 32 geht nicht auf ein Gottesgebot, sondern auf eine noch unbedingt notwendige Maßnahme des Mose zurück. Weil Mose nämlich nach Num 26 den Auftrag hatte, die Stämme in die zukünftigen Wohnsitze einzuweisen, musste er noch selbst, sozusagen als sein Vermächtnis, die kommenden Wohnsitze der Stämme Gad und Ruben im Vorhinein verordnen. Num 32 ist zwar stark bearbeitet (ganz jung sind 7–15), enthält aber wahrscheinlich sehr alte ostjordanische Ortstraditionen in 32,*34–38.42–43. Num 33,1–48 geht wieder auf ein Gottesgebot zurück, das die Memoria der so überlangen Wüstenbewegungen Israels durch Ortsnamen festhalten sollte, nach ca. 40-jährigen Wanderungen (die Hälfte bilden bisher unbekannte Namen). Das Gottesgebot 33,50– 56 blickt voraus auf die ab dem Dtn geplante Einnahme/Eroberung des Landes mit gründlicher Vertreibung der Vorbewohner und einer Maßgabe zur Landverteilung: ein erneuter Ausblick auf die zu leistende, aber nicht geleistete Landnahme. Num 34,1–15 überrascht mit dem Gottesgebot an die Israeliten, selber die Grenzen Kanaans, ihres zukünftigen Landbesitzes, zu ziehen. Nicht das spätere Siedlungsgebiet, sondern wahrscheinlich das Kanaan der ägyptischen 18. Dynastie (15./14.Jh. v. Chr.) wurde so als möglicher Besitz in Erinnerung gebracht, da die Nordgrenze, soweit erkennbar, am Ausgang der Beqa bei Lebo Hamat und Safed in Mittel-Syrien zu finden ist. Solche Ausdehnung war wohl noch Am 6,14 und 2 Kön 14,25 (mittlere Königszeit) bekannt. Der Jordan als Ostgrenze wird jedoch bereits dtr. Vorstellungen voraussetzen. Dies sehr große Gebiet hat Israel nie wirklich besetzt, es sollte als eine Art ägyptischer Vorgabe zum israelitischen „Kanaan“ gedacht sein. Verse 34,13–15 versäumen jedoch nicht, die in 32,34–38 für Gad und Ruben genannten ostjordanischen Gebiete hier nachzutragen. Gegenüber der Größe dieses Kanaan blieb das historische Israel also unerfüllt. Nach 34,16–29 benannte Jahwe dazu zehn Stammesfürsten für die angemessene Landverteilung im Westen. 35,1–8 umreißt als Gebot an die Stämme Israels Gebiete, die jene den Leviten einzuräumen hatten. Die Priester gelten hier wie in 17,16–26 als Leviten. Num 35,9–34 widmet sich west- und ostjordanischen Asylstädten (cf. Jos 20) für die Wahrnehmung von Asylie, ergänzt um eine gründliche Unterscheidung von nicht gewolltem Totschlag und Mord mit Hinweis auf die Heiligkeit des Landes. Num 36,1–12 kommt noch einmal auf das Erbrecht von Töchtern am Beispiel der Töchter Zelofchads zurück, nun aber unter dem Gesichtspunkt einer Stämmeregelung: Ausnahmsweise erbberechtigte Frauen sollten nur Männer aus ihrem Stamm heiraten, damit die Stammesanteile je

98

Horst Seebass

erhalten blieben. Da geht es also um ein Stämme-Bodenrecht, nicht um Individualrechte. Am Ende von Num fand demnach Platz, dass der dem Tod geweihte Mose wie in Num 32 einen weitreichenden Landbeteiligungsbescheid zu treffen hatte und von Gott auch dazu autorisiert wurde (36,5).25 Das rundet den Blick auf das Land: So endet Num in den Steppen Moabs mit 36,13. 1.4. Zusammenfassung Nach Abschluss dieses Nachvollzugs der Inhalte kann man schwerlich einen inneren Geschehensvollzug und d.h. dessen inneren Zusammenhang im Buch Numeri übersehen. Gebots- und Gesetzespartien sind ja offenbar stringent in einen Zusammenhang eingebunden.26 Abgesehen von den erst kanonischen Zusätzen 7,1–88; 9,1–14; 31,1–54, die aber die Gedanken- bzw. Geschehensfolge bloß zeitlich unterbrechen, ragt wohl nur Num 19, die seltsame Tradition von einer Reinigung nach Totenberührung auf der Basis der Asche einer roten Kuh, aus dem kontinuierlichen Erzählduktus heraus, und dazu bedarf noch die Dublette von 27,1–11 zu 36,1–12 einer Erklärung. Da ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass 27,1–11 eine späte, höchst kunstvolle und durch das Beschlussgremium besonders gewichtige Umsetzung von 26,33 bilden, wo die „Töchter Zelofhads“ Gebiete in Manasse bezeichnen wie in 36,1–12, als dass dieses sekundär ist; denn 36,1–12 dient unmittelbar der Vorbereitung auf die Landnahme und deren Prinzipien.27 Man kommt daher bei Num zwar nicht zu einer Geschichtserzählung – die Num-Komposition hat eine solche offenbar vermieden. Dies zeigt sich vor allem daran, dass die längste überspannte Zeit, nämlich das Versterben einer ganzen Generation in der Wüste nach Num 13– 14, keines Wortes würdig war. Memoria war zu stiften. Aber es war nicht der Memoria wert, also nicht einer Erinnerung über Generationen hinweg, den Tod einer ganzen Generation von ca. vierzig Jahren im Einzelnen nachzuvollziehen. Eine Ausnahme bilden nur der Tod von Rubeniten wegen eines überaus bösartigen Konflikts mit Mose und die vielen Toten beim Konflikt von 250 angesehenen Männern und von Leviten unter Leitung Korachs um die Heiligkeit der Gemeinde zur Befähigung von Räucheropfern in Num 16–17. Die Memoria setzt erst wieder ein, seit die nach Num 13f. versterbende Generation an ihre Altersgrenze kam (Mirjam, Aaron in Num 20) und die nach25 Inzwischen hat I. Kislev, Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation, ZAW 122 (2010), 249–259, 36,1–13 mit ganz fragwürdigen Sprach-„Beweisen“ als sehr späte Ergänzung zu Num erklären wollen und 27,1–11 als älter. 26 Treffend sprach bereits deVaulx, Nombres, 11 davon, dass der Wechsel von Erzählung zu Gesetzen dem „double objet du livre, à la fois historique et spirituel“ entspreche, also geplant ist. Das blieb in seiner Zuspitzung leider unbeachtet, wohl weil die spirituellen Erläuterungen seines Kommentars problematisch blieben. 27 Zur Begründung im Einzelnen Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 22,2–36,13, zu 27,1–11 und 36,1–12.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

99

wachsende Jahwes Zuvorkommen erfuhr (20,1–13; 21,1–3.4–9.21–31). Leveen28 fand für das Buch Numeri/‫ במדבר‬den passenden Titel „Memory and Tradition“, wobei Memory sich auf in dem Ablauf der Zeit Ausgesuchtes bezieht, was der Memoria wert war, tradiert zu werden, wie etwa der Anfang der Kampagne (Num 1–2), die Erwählung der Leviten (Num 3–4), Moses und Aarons Zurechtweisung (20,1–13), Aarons Tod (20,22–27), vor allem aber Bileams Auftreten und Weissagungen (22,2–24,25) sowie der bittere Abschluss der alten Generation in 25,1–18, wo nur der Enkel Pinchas in die Zukunft weist. Ist nicht im Grunde das Buch Numeri so wie das Buch Exodus eines von Geschehnisfolgen? Num ist die „story“ von einem großen Vorhaben der Edah, des Kahal, das Land zu besetzen, auf der Basis einer göttlichen Weisung, und von ihrem Scheitern an der Glaubenslosigkeit der Israeliten dem Gott des Exodus gegenüber, so dass erst eine nachwachsende Generation sich auf das vorbereiten durfte, was die vorige hatte vorbereiten können.29 Es ist so auch ein „theologisches“ Buch mit Bezug zu Altisraels innerer Geschichte im Rückblick, u.zw. in einem theologisch gewichtigen Rückblick auf ein erschreckendes Versagen des Gottesvolkes der Ursprungs-Generation, ausgerechnet der des Mose, und in einem bloßen Ausblick für die nachwachsende Generation.

2. Poetische Passagen im Numeribuch Wenn man sich solcherart von dem Vorurteil befreit hat, Numeri für nur anhangsweise an Exodus (oder gar an Teile von Leviticus?, s. aber u.) gestaltet anzusehen, kann man erst richtig zur Geltung bringen, dass es eine Reihe erzählerisch verfeinerter, ja poetischer Elemente gibt, die die Geschehensfolge durchziehen. So enthält Num poetisch geformte Sprüche, die z.T. wohlbekannt, z.T. aber leider nicht als für Num bemerkenswert erkannt sind. Das beginnt bereits mit den drei Segenssprüchen in 6,24.25.26. Poetisch beschwingt redet sodann der Abschnitt über Israels Gehorsam gegenüber Jahwes Führungswolke in 9,18–23. Bekannt, aber literarisch etwas isoliert sind die kraftvollen Ladesprüche in 10,35f. Mit 12,6–8a folgt eine Dichtung im Gottesspruch zu Moses Ausnahmerolle vor der Gottheit in der Wüstenführung. Poetische Schönheit entfaltet die Erzählung vom Blühen des Levistabes (bzw. Aarons als Vertreter Ganz-Levis) im Jahwe-Zelt als Zeichen levitischpriesterlicher Ausnahmebefugnis zum Betreten des Zeltes. Im Wortspiel geformt ist die Schlussnotiz 20,13 zum Wassersegen aus dem Fels von Meribat 28

S. A. Leveen, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, New York: Cambridge University Press 2008, deren Grundidee Numeris Tendenz treffend erläutert, sie aber dann auf eine besondere Hervorhebung der Priesterschaft engführt. 29 S.u. § 2.

100

Horst Seebass

Kadesch. Ein Briefformular liegt der Bitte Moses an den König von Edom um Durchzug durch sein Land zugrunde (20,*14.18).30 Gleich zwei Spruchgedichte gibt es in dem leider textlich nicht sehr gut erhaltenen 21,10–20, nämlich den Arnon-Spruch aus dem sonst unbekannt gebliebenen Buch der Jahwekriege 21,14–15 und einen Brunnenspruch 20,17b–18 zu weiterer Wanderung in Ostjordanien. Beim Sieg Israels über den Amoriterkönig Sichon wird das Heschbon-Lied 21,27b–30 erinnert, dessen genauer Sinn textlich leider nicht sicher verständlich ist – ein Problem nicht der Komposition, sondern der Textüberlieferung. Die Bileam-Perikope enthält vier große Gedichtsprüche 23,7b–10; 23,18b–24; 24,3b–9; 24,15b–19 neben kleineren, angehängten (s.u.) und dazu noch ein literarisches Kuriosum, nämlich ein Spottelement („lampoon“) auf den großen Divinator Bileam vor der Eselin in 22,22–34. Unter den Bileam-Anhängen gehören drei weitere poetische Sprüche zu Amalek 24,20b, den Kenitern 24,21b–22 und den Kittim 24,24. Danach formen 25,17f. im Vorblick auf Num 31 einen Rachespruch gegen die Midianiter (die freilich in 25,1–15 nicht als Verursacher des Übels von 25,1–15 gelten). Ein rhetorisch außerordentlich wohlgeformtes Element ist 27,1–11, das den Erwerb eines Erbrechts für Frauen regelt. Einen Merkspruch zur Gültigkeit von Frauengelübden bietet 30,14–16. Zwar ist unverkennbar, dass solche poetischen oder literarisch-gewählten Elemente diejenigen, die der Num-Komposition keine eigene Gestalt abzugewinnen vermögen, schwerlich sehr beeindrucken. Es gilt nur umgekehrt: Wenn man Numeri verstehen will, muss man sich darauf einlassen, was es von sich aus gibt, und dann sind eben auch die poetischen Elemente für das Ganze signifikant, sobald man sie als Muster in einer Geschehensfolge (nicht einer Geschichtserzählung) zu würdigen versteht.

3. Gesetzespassagen im Numeribuch Ein weiteres Kennzeichen besonderer Formung schien der vor allem von Milgrom31 und Douglas32 beachtete Wechsel von Erzählung einerseits, Gesetz andererseits. So beginnt Num deutlich mit Erzählungen u.zw. auch dann, wenn Gottesreden in sie eingegangen sind. Dies gilt für Num 1; 2; 3–4. Dann folgen mit 5,1–4.5–10.11–31; 6,1–21.22–27 offenbar Torot, denen 7,1–88 als Liste angefügt wurde. Aber 7,89; 8,1–4; 8,5–22; 9,1–14; 9,15–23 sind wieder zweifelsfrei Erzählungen (eingelagert ist die Kurztora 8,23–26 zu Dienstzeiten der Leviten), während 10,1–10 erneut Tora bietet. In 10,11–14,45 folgen 30

S. Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 22,2–36,13, z.St. Milgrom, Numbers, xv–xvi. 32 M. Douglas, In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, JSOT 158, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001, 106–108. 31

Numeri als eigene Komposition

101

Erzählungen, während 15,1–21.22–26.27–31 Torot bieten. 15,32–36 setzt mit Erzählung fort. Die Tora 15,37–43 bereitet mit dem Motiv „heilig“ die ausführliche Erzählung 16,1–17,28 vor. Num 18 und 19 sind wieder Torot, 20,1– 25,18 aber eindeutig Erzählung, und mit Douglas33 gegen Milgrom34 bieten auch 26,1–27,23 Erzählungen, nicht Gesetze. Die folgen erst wieder mit 28,1– 30,1; 30,2–17. Danach sind (31,1–54) 32,1–43; 33,1–49 erneut Erzählungen und 33,50–35,34 Gesetze. Num 36,1–12 schließt mit einer Erzählung, der nur noch die Schlussnotiz 36,13 folgt. Indem man dem Kriterium des Wechsels von Erzählung und Tora Raum gibt, bestätigt man einerseits nur den im ersten Abschnitt schon aufgezeigten Nachvollzug der Geschehensfolge, die nicht durchweg aus Erzählung besteht, sondern Geschehen auch über die Gottesworte weiterverfolgt. Dies aber gilt auch umgekehrt: Numeri ist literarisch durchaus kunstvoll angelegt mit seinem ständigen Wechsel von Erzählung und Gesetz, Gesetz und Erzählung. Je nach Geschmack mag man das zwar reichlich künstlich finden wie in manch älterer Forschung und Auslegung. Man ist aber erneut der Eigenheit auf der Spur, die Numeri als Komposition ausmacht. Seinen vollen Sinn gibt nämlich das Kennzeichen der Formung durch Erzählung und Gesetz erst im Nachzeichnen der Geschehensfolge. In BK IV/2 (2003) 151f. war bereits die weitergehende Idee von Douglas, Wilderness, 116– 118 abgelehnt, Numeri in zwei einander gegenüberstehenden Kolumnen nach der Maßgabe von Erzählung und Gesetz im Wechsel zu gliedern, weil sie ein Erzählelement (15,32–36) übergangen hatte und die Idee von zwei einander entprechenden „rungs“ den tatsächlichen Befund verfehlt. Ein Hauptproblem wäre vor allem, dass die Stoffmengen, auf Erzählung und Gesetz verteilt und in zwei Kolumnen geordnet, groteske Missverhältnisse in der Zuordnung ergäben. Die Idee einer Ringkomposition lässt sich nicht halten und ist bisher in keinem Kommentar übernommen worden.

4. Numeri im Ganzen des Pentateuch Die Einsichten in die Komposition des Buches Numeri wären nicht hinreichend bedacht, wenn man nicht auch einen Blick auf seine Bedeutung im Ganzen des Pentateuch wirft. Wie o. vor § 1. gesehen, lag es ja über lange Zeit nahe, den Pentateuch, u.U. noch unter Einbeziehung des Buches Josua, als Ganzheit zu gliedern. Kurz vor Ende des 20. Jh.s wurde es der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion aber immer wichtiger, die einzelnen Bücher je als Ganzheiten zu verstehen.35 Das musste oben zu Numeri geleistet werden. 33

Douglas, Wilderness, 123. Milgrom, Numbers, xv. 35 So zusammenfassend einstweilen notiert bei H. Seebass, Art. Pentateuch, TRE 26, 1996, 189–209, 185–187. 34

102

Horst Seebass

Früher hatte auch Seebass36 jene weithin plausible Gliederung für richtig gehalten: A Gen 1,11–26 Urgeschichte und B Gottes Berufung und Konstitution des Volkes Israel Gen 11,27–Dtn 34,12 B1 als Zeit der Väter Gen 11,17–50,26, B2 Israel in der Wüste Ex 1,1–18,27, B3 Berg und Wüste Sinai Ex 19,1–Num 10,10; B4 In der Wüste bis in die Steppen Moabs Num 10,11–25,18; B5 Regelungen in den Steppen Moabs Num 26–36; B6 Moses Torarede mit Einleitung, Segen und Fluch Dtn 1–30; und B7 Josua und der Ausblick auf das Land Dtn 31–34, vgl. palindromisch geordnet auch Milgrom37 (s.o. Abschnitt 1.).

Eine derartige Gliederung erfasst zwar eine mögliche Gruppierung des Pentateuch-Endstadiums unter dem Gesichtspunkt großer Überlieferungskomplexe. Ihre Nützlichkeit ist aber, wie oben in Abschnitt 1. erwähnt, völlig zweifelhaft, wenn man sich um den Erklärungsgewinn für die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri bemüht. Denn es lassen sich zwar die Genesis, das Deuteronomium und wohl auch das Buch Exodus als je eigene Buch-Größen verstehen; aber das in sich äußerst erklärungsbedürftige Buch Levitikus verschwindet in diesem Rahmen ganz, und Num 1,1–10,10 wirken dann, wenn man die Sinaiperikope als von Ex 19–Num 10,10 reichend zugrundelegt, wie Füllstoffe38: Man sehe nur jüngst wieder den Umgang mit ihnen von Römer und Nihan39 sowie Römer.40 Jedoch ist ebenso seit Langem bekannt, dass Numeri aus dem Buch Levitikus nicht viel mehr als einige wenige Verse aus Lev *9 (bes. 9,23f.) zu benötigen oder vorauszusetzen schien, weil eine Einführung von Aaron in den Opferkult in Num 3,5–10; 6,22–27 vorausgesetzt sein könnte. Das ist aber nicht zwangsläufig so und bedarf nur der Einsicht, dass Num 3,5–10; 6,22–27 auch ohne Rückgriff auf Lev 9,23f. gut verständlich sind. Immer wieder wird Num 1,1–10,10 also ganz verfehlt als Fortsetzung des Buches Levitikus bedacht und analysiert. Von Num selbst her gibt es lediglich zwei einigermaßen mögliche Verbindungen zum Buch Lev. Das gilt einmal für Num 1,1 mit der Betonung, dass Jahwe Mose ins Jahwe-Zelt zu weiterer Beratung einforderte, was Lev 1,1 zu überbieten scheint, wo Mose vom Begegnungszelt aus mit Aufträgen versehen wird. Zum Zweiten scheint es für Num 3,5–13 zuzutreffen, da im Prinzip Aaron in das Zelt als seinen Dienstort 36 H. Seebass, Genesis I, Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003, 48–50. 37 Milgrom, Numbers, xvii–xix. 38 S. klassisch G.B. Gray, Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: Clark 1903, xxiv. 39 Nihan/Römer, Le débat actuel, 85–113. 40 T. Römer, De la périphérie au centre: Les livres de Lévitiqe et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, hg. von T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 22–25. 3

Numeri als eigene Komposition

103

eingeführt sein sollte, wenn es wie in 3,5–9 um seine Amtstätigkeit daselbst geht. Aber Beides ist nicht wirklich zwingend, die Num-Texte sind in sich verständlich und sinnvoll. Num 1,1 besagt ja nur, dass Jahwe souverän genug war, Mose dahin zu beordern, wo er Mose hinhaben wollte, und Analoges gilt unabhängig für Lev 1,1. Man kann die beiden Stellen in eine Beziehung zueinander setzen; aber notwendig ist das beiderseits nicht, da Lev 1 Regelungen zum Opferkult bietet, während in Num 1,1 Jahwe als Kriegsherr Mose in seinen Kommandostand ruft.41 Für Num 3,5–9 scheint es zwar plausibel, dass Aaron in das Begegnungszelt eingeführt sein sollte, um dort seines Amtes walten zu können. Aber dafür ist Lev 9,23f. nicht notwendig, da Aaron bereits durch Ex 29,45 Pg im Begegnungszelt präsent ist. Umgekehrt gibt es inzwischen hinreichende Zweifel daran, dass Lev *9 insgesamt und speziell 9,23f. noch zu Pg gezählt werden können, wie Frevel42 gezeigt hat. Man kann daher nicht mehr behaupten, dass das Buch Numeri das Buch Levitikus voraussetzt.43 Es steht – unseren Ausgaben in MT und LXX zufolge – lediglich in einer Reihe nacheinander. Die hebräischen Benennungen der beiden Bücher bieten aber sachgemäßere Hinweise. Numeri heißt da glücklicherweise nicht „Zahlen“ (Ἀριθμοι / Numeri) wie in der LXX und der Vulgata, was das Buch im Ganzen, wie allgemein bekannt, nicht treffend erfasst,44 während der hebräische Buchtitel ‫„ במדבר‬In der Wüste von...“45 seit dem Anfang in der Sinai-Wüste über die Wüste Paran bis hin zu den Steppen Moabs46 zutrifft.47 Ebenso charakterisiert der Name Levitikus das Buch nicht gut, weil die Leviten ja bis auf eine Notiz in Lev 25,32f. nicht vorkommen. Hebräisch hat es aber die treffende Überschrift ‫„ ויקרא‬Und so kündete er“, erfasst also 41 Einen neuen Vorschlag entwickelte Nihan, Priestly Torah, derart, dass Lev *1–3 mit Lev 8–10 und 16,1–28 den ursprünglichen Schluss der PG gebildet habe. So sorgfältig Nihan diesen Vorschlag begründete, überzeugt er nicht da Lev 16,1–28 kaum den Schluss der Pg bildete und in Lev 1–3 bekanntlich ältere vorformulierte Texte zitiert werden, die nicht sicher zu Pg führen. 42 Frevel, Kein Ende in Sicht, 109–119. Vgl. ders., Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBSt, Freiburg: Herder 2000, 150–180 u.ö. 43 So auch Budd, Numbers, xix–xx. 44 Zahlen dominieren nur in 1,20–26; 4,15–51; 7,10–88; 28,1–30,1; 31,32–54, cf. de Vaulx, Nombres, 11, Sie sind also nicht repräsentativ für das Buch als Ganzes, und es ist kaum ein Zufall, dass zwei Belege erst in Num-Nachträgen auftauchen: 7,10–88; 31,32–54 (s.o. unter 1). 45 Nach W.G. Plaut, Bemidbar – ‫ במדבר‬Numeri, Die Torah, Band IV, Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher 2003, 12 ist diese „gängige“ Bezeichnung des vierten Buches Mose dem 5. und 6. Wort von Num 1,1 entnommen: „in der Wüste Sinai“. Es war weise, diese gängige Bezeichnung nur auf das Wort „Wüste“ zu beziehen. Bis hin zu den Steppen Moabs waren die Israeliten des Buches Be-Midbar in Midbarim. 46 Sie werden hebräisch durch Midbar erfasst, s. Lexika. 47 de Vaulx, Nombres, 11 notierte, dass „in der Wüste“ auch „l´itinéraire spirituel du peuple de Dieu“ erfasse.

104

Horst Seebass

den Tatbestand, dass Levitikus im Wesentlichen aus Gesetzeskündungen der Gottheit besteht.48 Levitikus steht damit gleichsam im Interim zwischen Exodus und Numeri, d.h. die Zeitfolge ist unterbrochen, um GesetzesPromulgationen einbringen zu können. Lev bildet so etwas wie ein Sonderthema zwischen Ex und Num. Nicht zufällig galt demnach Levitikus im rabb. Judentum als die reinste Form der Tora im Gesamt des Pentateuch und wurde den nachwachsenden Kindern je als erstes Buch nahegebracht.49 Dies erklärt schließlich einen Befund, der von Levitikus aus zuungunsten von Numeri verwandt worden ist: Die Gesetzgebungen in Levitikus haben keinen bisher entdeckten zwingenden inneren Zusammenhalt. Einfacher gesagt: Levitikus ist schwerlich als innere Einheit konstituierbar, es sei denn unter dem Gesichtspunkt aneinandergereihter Gesetzespromulgationen. So kann man z.B. als mögliche Reihe gliedern: Lev 1–3; 4–7; 8–10; 11–15; 16; 17–26 (eventuell weiter unterteilt); 27. Zwar wird Levitikus von Milgrom50 dazu verwandt, in ihm Schichtungen vorzunehmen, die gesamtpentateuchisch anzusetzen seien. Aber das Problem ist nicht beseitigt, da solche Schichtungen ohne inneren Zusammenhang bleiben. Wer jedoch wie etwa Römer51 (s.o.), Garcia-Lopez,52 und cf. jüngst Nihan, Priestly Torah, nur zur Hälfte als grundlegend von Pg gestaltet ansieht und Lev 17–27 als bloß angelagert, dem macht es keine Mühe, auch den Anfang von Numeri demselben Verdikt zu unterziehen. Levitikus steht in Wirklichkeit in einer Pause zwischen Exodus und Numeri. Dass aber der in unseren Ausgaben herrschende Zusammenhang von Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri in dieser Reihenfolge nicht auf unangefochten alter Kanon-Überlieferung beruht, sondern einer bestimmten Kanon-Entwicklung der hebräischen Bibel in den christlichen Jahrhunderten bis hin zu Ben Ascher und Ben Naphthali (10./11.Jh.) folgt, hat jüngst Mosis mit größter Akribie nachgewiesen.53 In seiner Aufarbeitung geht Mosis aus von der um 170 n.Chr. anzusetzenden Kanonliste des christlichen Bischofs Melito v. Sardes, die zum 48

Man kann gelegentlich als Argument für die Folge Lev–Num finden, dass Lev 7,38; 26,46; 27,34 Gesetzgebungen ‫ בהר סני‬erlassen wurden; aber die übliche Übersetzung „auf dem Berg Sinai“ (so jüngst noch die Einheitsübersetzung und die Zürcher Bibel) passt schlecht zum Kontext, weil Mose sich seit Ex 40,34–38 nicht mehr auf dem Berg befand. Neuestens übersetzt daher Nihan, Priestly Torah, 263f. beiderseits treffend „am Berg Sinai“, scil. in der Sinaiwüste, wie in Num 1,1 vorausgesetzt. Das wird sicher auch für den letzten Beleg zum Sinai im Buch Lev gelten, nämlich 25,1: Mose sprach am Berg Sinai zu Mose. 49 S. dazu G.J. Wenham, Leviticus, NICOT 3, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1979, vii; H.-W. Jüngling, Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung, in: Das Buch Levitikus als Buch, hg. von H.J. Fabry/H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 2f. Anm.6. 50 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AncB 3,1, New York: Doubleday 1991, 13–42. 51 Römer, De la périphérie au centre. 52 F. Garcia-Lopez, Comment lire le Pentateuque, Genf: Labor et Fides 2005. 53 R. Mosis, Die Bücher des „Alten Bundes“ bei Melito von Sardes, in: Schätze der Schrift, FS Hans F. Fuhs, hg. von A. Moenikes, Paderborn: Schöningh 2007, 131–176.

Numeri als eigene Komposition

105

Pentateuch die griechisch-sprachige Folge „Genesis, Exodos, Arithmoi, Levitikon, Deuteronomion“ hat: also das Buch Numeri nach dem Buch Exodus.54 In gründlicher Untersuchung stellt Mosis dazu heraus:55 a) dass Melito diese Liste durch eine Nachprüfung in Palästina, wahrscheinlich in Jerusalem selbst, bei Judenchristen vorfand, die Liste also als jüdisch anzusetzen ist, weil Judenchristen keinen Anlass hatten, von der jüdischen Kanonliste abzuweichen. b) Es hat relativ lange innerjüdische Diskussionen um die Reihenfolge der (22) 24 Bücher des hebräischen Kanons bis hin zu den großen Handschriften von Ben Ascher und Ben Naphthali im 10./11.Jh. n.Chr. gegeben, nicht nur im letzten Kanonteil, sondern bekanntlich etwa zur Stellung des Buches Jesaja (nach Jer, Ez), des Buches Daniel (als Prophet neben Jes, Jer, Ez) und des Buches Esther. c) Neben Melitos Kanonliste ist eine analoge bei Leontios v. Byzanz (Anfang des 3. Jh.s n.Chr.) und eine von Mommsen in Cheltenham entdeckte, 1886 publizierte56 belegt, die je Numeri nach dem Buch Exodus haben. Mosis gibt dazu die bemerkenswerte Vermutung, dass die Anordnung „Gen, Ex, Num, Lev, Dtn“ die eher „historischen“ Bücher Gen, Ex, Num und die präskriptiven Lev, Dtn je für sich gestellt habe.57 Diese Deutung scheint einen Anhalt in den jüdischen Überschriften ‫ויקרא‬ „Und er (Gott) kündete“ sowie ‫„ דברים‬Worte“ für Lev und Dtn gefunden zu haben, die je Präskriptives andeuten und sachlich so zusammengehören. In dieser historischen Vorab-Einordnung der jetzigen Buchfolge von Lev zu Num kann es aber nicht darum gehen vorzuschlagen, die Reihenfolge von nun an im Abdruck der hebräischen Bibel entsprechend zu ändern – wegen der Erwähnungen von Gesetzeserlassen in Lev 7,38; 25,1; 26,46 am Berg Sinai (Zusätze?) kann man literarisch Levitikus nicht an Numeri (Ende in den Steppen Moabs) anschließen. Vielmehr geht es um die wichtige Einsicht, dass das Buch mit dem Titel ‫ במדבר‬und dem leider geläufigen Titel Numeri nicht den Anschluss an Levitikus nötig hat, um verständlich zu sein. Es ist, wie oben klargestellt, eine ganz selbständige Komposition, die sachlich eher an Exodus als an Levitikus anschließt.58 Es war daher sachlich notwendig, wie o. geschehen, als Erstes den inneren Zusammenhang der einzelnen Perikopen des Buches Numeri, besser des Buches ‫במדבר‬, aus ihnen selbst zu erschließen, der 54

Mosis, Bücher des Alten Bundes, 138. Mosis, Bücher des Alten Bundes, 135–162. 56 S. T. von Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II/1, Erlangen: Deichert 1890, 143–145; H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge: Univ. Press 1900 (Nachdruck 1968), 212f. 57 Mosis, Bücher des Alten Bundes, 162. 58 Dies wendet sich u.a. gegen die verfehlte These der sehr gelehrten Arbeit von Nihan, Priestly Torah, dass Lev *1–16 ursprünglich auf Ex *40 gefolgt sei. 55

106

Horst Seebass

im Übrigen nicht einmal durch die erst kanonischen Ergänzungen 7,1–88; 9,1–14; 31,1–5459 beeinträchtigt wird. Dies Bild rundet sich auch dadurch ab, dass es bekannte MotivEntsprechungen zwischen Ex und Num, nicht aber zwischen Lev und Num gibt. So erwähnt Num neben der in Num herrschenden Tradition vom Begegnungszelt (2,17; 3,38; 10,21 u.ö.) auch das aus Ex 33,9 bekannte Zelt außerhalb des Lagers in Num 11,26; 12,5. Das Manna begegnet in Ex 16,15.31. 33.35 P und in Num 11,6f.11 J*, nicht in Lev. Die Wachteln belegen Ex 16,13 P und Num 11,31f. J*.60 Schließlich ist gemeinsam die Ägyptenklage des aufsässigen Volkes gegen seinen Gott in Ex 17,3; Num 11,5.18.20; 14,3f.; 20,5; 21,4; 32,11.61 Sachlich gehört Numeri eben in die Folge des Buches Exodus.

5. Schluss In Abschnitt 1 war entwickelt worden, dass das Buch Numeri von Perikope zu Perikope geplant ist. Es war dies eine Planung ohne 7,1–88; 9,1–14 und 31,1– 54, die erst nach der Num-Komposition (Ende des 4.Jh.s v. Chr.) im Kanon (1.Jh.v.–1.Jh.n. Chr.) nachgetragen worden sind. Der Nachvollzug der vorliegenden Planung erbrachte aber Hinweise, dass es einige Elemente gibt, die der Planung nicht ganz ungezwungen eingepasst sind. So war aufgefallen, dass Num 19,1–22, möglicherweise uralte Tradition in sich bergend,62 im Kontext nur eben eingefügt wurde, aber keine rechte Bindung an ihn erkennen lässt. Ähnliches galt für die Notiz 15,37–41, die nicht an 15,32–36 anschließt, sondern nur zur Vorbereitung auf das Thema „Die ganze Gemeinde ist heilig“ von Num 16f. dient.63 Wie ebenfalls im ersten Abschnitt vermerkt wurde, schließen 5,5–10; 5,11–31 und 6,1–21 sich nicht gut mit ihrem Kontext zusammen, weil sie keinen Bezug zum Oberthema der Marschvorbereitungen in *1,1–10,10 haben. Num 8,23–26, der Nachtrag zum Arbeitsalter der Leviten bei Dienstantritt gegenüber Num 4, hat mit der vorhergehenden Weihe der Leviten bei Dienstantritt nichts unmittelbar zu tun. Schließlich scheint auch 27,1–11 hierher zu gehören. Nach der wichtigen Sippenliste der zwölf Stämme ohne Levi in Num 26 und dem Auftrag an Mose, ihnen das Land angemessen zuzuteilen (26,52–56), folgt 27,1–11 nämlich merkwürdig, weil es zu 59

S.o. unter § 1. Das Sternchen deutet je daraufhin, dass jeweils Näherbestimmungen zu J nötig sind, da Num 11,4–35 mehrere Traditionen in sich vereint hat. 61 M.E. ist daher die Deutung der Verwerflichkeit der Ägyptenklage in Num nicht unbedingt auf den inzwischen erfolgten Bund am Sinai zurückzuführen, wie häufig angenommen, sondern auf Wüstengejammer trotz klarer Landaussicht. 62 S. Seebass, Numeri, Kap. 10,11–22,1, 247ff. 63 Dies beobachtete z.B. auch Milgrom, Numbers, xiv. 60

Numeri als eigene Komposition

107

begründen scheint, was für die „Töchter“ Zelofhads in 26,30–33 bereits gilt und von diesen als allgemeines Gesetz für Frauen verlangt wird. Die sachgemäße Fortsetzung von Num *26 wäre gewiss die Berufung Josuas zu Moses Nachfolger im Blick auf den bevorstehenden Marsch ins verheißene Land, der aber in Num nicht mehr erfolgen soll. Die Beachtung solcher Ergänzungen schwächt nicht die unter 1. geleistete Entwicklung der Geschehensfolge, sondern macht eine etwas ältere Planung als die der Num-Komposition wahrscheinlich. Dies auszuarbeiten, wird die Aufgabe zur Klärung der literarischen Verhältnisse, der Schichten und der Ergänzungen bis hin zu den möglichen Quellen sein. Bibliographie Albertz, Rainer: Die vergessene Heilsmittlerschaft des Mose. Erste Überlegungen zu einem spätexilischen Exodusbuch, EvTh 69 (2009), 443–459. Artus, Olivier: Le problème de l´unité littéraire et de la spécificité théologique du livre des Nombres, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, hg. von Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 121–144. Budd, Philip J.: Numbers, WBC 5, Waco, TX: Word Books 1984. Davies, Eryl Wynn: Numbers, New Century Bible Commentary, London: Marshall Pickering/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995. de Vaulx, Jules: Les Nombres, Paris: Gabalda 1972. Douglas, Mary: In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, JSOT 158, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001. Frevel, Christian: Kein Ende in Sicht? Zur Priestergrundschrift im Buch Levitikus. Eine synchrone Lektüre mit diachroner Perspektive, in: Levitikus als Buch, hg. von Heinz-Josef Fabry/Hans-Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 47–84. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBSt 23, Freiburg: Herder 2000. Garcia-Lopez, Felix: Comment lire le Pentateuque, Genf: Labor et Fides 2005. Gray, George Buchanan: Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: Clark 1903. Jacob, Benno: Das Buch Exodus, Stuttgart: Calwer 1997. Jüngling, Hans-Winfried: Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung seit Karl Elligers Kommentar aus dem Jahr 1966, in: Das Buch Levitikus als Buch, hg. von Heinz-Josef Fabry/HansWinfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 1–45. Kislev, Itamar: Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation, ZAW 122 (2010), 249–259. Knierim, Rolf P. und George W. Coats: Numbers, FOTL 4, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2005. Leveen, Adriane: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, New York: Cambridge University Press 2008. Michel, Diethelm: Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax. Teil 1: Sprachwissenschaftliche Methodik, Genus und Numerus des Nomens, Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1977. Milgrom, Jacob: Leviticus 1–16, AncB 3,1, New York: Doubleday 1991. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers, JPS, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1990. Mosis, Rudolph: Die Bücher des „Alten Bundes“ bei Melito von Sardes, in: Schätze der Schrift, FS Hans F. Fuhs, hg. von Ansgar Moenikes, Paderborn: Schöningh 2007, 131– 176.

108

Horst Seebass

Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Nihan, Christophe/Römer, Thomas: Le débat actuel sur la formation du Pentateuque, in: Introduction à l´Ancien Testament, hg. von Thomas Römer/Jean-Daniel Macchi/Christophe Nihan, Le Monde de la Bible 49, Genf: Labor et Fides 2004, 85–113. Noth, Martin: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. Plaut, Wolfgang Gunther: Bemidbar – ‫ במדבר‬Numeri, Die Torah, Band IV, Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher 2003. Römer, Thomas: De la périphérie au centre: Les livres de Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, hg. von Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 3–34. Römer, Thomas: Nombres, in: Introduction à l´Ancien Testament, hg. von Thomas Römer/ Jean-Daniel Macchi/Christophe Nihan, Le Monde de la Bible 49, Genf: Labor et Fides 2004, 196–210. Seebass, Horst: Art. Pentateuch, TRE 26, 1996, 189–209. Seebass, Horst: Genesis I, Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 32003. Seebass, Horst: Numeri, Kap. 1,1–10,10, BK.AT 4/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2012. Seebass, Horst: Numeri, Kap. 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. Seebass, Horst: Numeri, Kap. 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007. Swete, Henry Barclay: An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge: University Press 1900 (Nachdruck 1968). Wenham, Gordon J.: Leviticus, NICOT 3, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1979. Wenham, Gordon J.: Numbers, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Leicester: InterVarsity Press 1981. Zahn, Theodor von: Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II/1, Erlangen: Deichert 1890. Zimmerli, Walther: Ezechiel, BK.AT 13, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1969.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch Christophe Nihan

1. “Priestly” Laws in Numbers and the Holiness Legislation The legal materials preserved in various passages of Numbers (ch. 1–10; 15; 18–19; 27–36) have traditionally been associated with the Priestly (P) stratum on the basis of their phraseology and content. However, it has long been observed that these laws present several parallels not only with P, but also with the Holiness legislation (H) in Lev 17–26. One good example can be found in Num 15, a collection of instructions whose formulation is often reminiscent of H. The legal case developed in 15:32–36, which furthers the prohibition against the kindling of fire during Sabbath in Exod 35:3 by adding a prohibition against gathering wood on the Sabbath, is clearly modeled upon the story of the mĕqallēl (blasphemer) in Lev 24:10–23, and the finale in Num 15:36 repeats almost verbatim Lev 24:23.1 Likewise, Num 15:40–41 concludes with a motivation clause that connects the law’s observance not only with Israel’s sanctification – a recurrent motif in H, see Lev 19:2; 20:7–8 and 22:31–33 – but also with YHWH as the god of the exodus, as in Lev 22:31–33 already (compare Num 15:41 and Lev 22:33).2

1 Like the blasphemer, the wood gatherer is brought to Moses (although Num 15:33 includes “Aaron and the entire community” as well) and kept in custody (each time with the expression wayyanniḥû bammišmār). Moses then receives an oracle from YHWH, who commands that the culprit be stoned by the whole community outside of the camp. For a detailed study of the parallels between the two cases, see now R. Achenbach, “Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion”, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 145– 175, here p. 171–174. 2 Num 15:41 is clearly a paraphrase of Lev 22:33, combined with the beginning of 22:31, except that it consistently adds ‫ אלהיכם‬after ‫ ;אני יהוה‬compare Num 15:41: ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם אשׁר‬ ‫הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלהים אני יהוה אלהיכם‬, Lev 22:33: ‫המוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות‬ ‫לכם לאלהים אני יהוה‬, and Lev 22:33 ‫אני יהוה‬. (Although the comparison is based on MT, the text of SamP is identical with MT in those passages; LXX likewise appears to have been based on a Hebrew text corresponding to MT). Note also, that the formulation of Num 15:40a ( ‫למען תזכרו‬

110

Christophe Nihan

Scholars have advanced a number of theories in order to account for such parallels between H and the laws of Numbers, each model reflecting a certain view of the relationship between P and H. For instance, J. Wellhausen surmised that a text such as Num 15 was added by the “editor” (Bearbeiter) who revised H and introduced that document into the Priestly narrative (Pg).3 Interestingly, this explanation, which was soon adopted by several other commentators,4 already raised the possibility that the editorial combination of P and H was part of a broader scribal process of bringing together and revising “priestly” material within the Pentateuch, thus anticipating some key aspects of the more recent discussion (see below). However, neither Wellhausen nor his students were very interested in exploring this sort of issue further; their focus was much more on the isolation of the “sources” or documents of the Pentateuch than on the later scribal processes by means of which the Pentateuch reached its final shape. Alternatively, another view that was developed by A. Klostermann assumed that those pentateuchal texts evincing close parallels with H were once part of that legislation and were later separated from it, although the reasons for this were somewhat unclear.5 This view is still reflected, for instance, in the 1964 study of Christian Feucht, who regarded a passage such as Num 15:37–41 as a “fragment” of the Holiness legislation that had been misplaced by the editors of the Pentateuch.6 For all their differences, both explanations – i.e., the one regarding H-like passages in Numbers and elsewhere as late editorial supplements and the one regarding those passages as fragments of the original H legislation – were based ‫ )ועשיתם את־כל־מצותי‬corresponds to Lev 22:31, except for the replacement of the verb ‫ שמר‬with ‫ זכר‬and the addition of “all” (‫ )את־כל‬before the reference to the divine commands. On the relationship between observance of the laws, sanctification, and the exodus as a key aspect of H, see the classic study by F. Crüsemann, Der Exodus als Heiligung. Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, in: Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Erhard Blum et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1990, 117–129. 3 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1899), Berlin: de Gruyter 41963, 175: “Kapitel 15 […] scheint von dem Bearbeiter (nicht von dem Autor) der Sammlung Lev.17–26 verfasst, denn es finden sich bemerkenswerte Reminiscenzen und Ähnlichkeiten”. 4 See already A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, 2 vols, Leipzig: Schulze 1885, 1. 92–93; and further G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1903, 169 with the note (*), who lists other critics adopting Wellhausen’s views on Num 15 as stemming from the hand of the same scribe who introduced the H legislation into P. 5 See A. Klostermann, Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz (1877), in: A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig: Deichert 1893, 368–418. 6 C. Feucht, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz, TA 20, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1964; compare for this view already Klostermann, Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 377; or B. Baentsch, Numeri, HK I, 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903, 533.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

111

on the same assumption: namely, that Lev 17–26 initially comprised a discrete legal collection, comparable to the Covenant Code (Exod 20:22–23:33) or the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 12–26).7 This view was gradually challenged in the past decades, starting with K. Elliger’s 1954 article for the RGG in which he argued that Lev 17–26 never formed such a discrete collection but was composed from the beginning as a supplement to the P narrative (Pg).8 Later studies, especially by I. Knohl and J. Milgrom, have gone further, arguing that H presupposes not only the narrative portions of P but also its legal portions as well.9 Today, the latter view appears to have gained broad recognition, with only few exceptions.10 In addition, various recent studies by E. Otto, J. Stackert and myself have emphasized the reception in H not only of P, but of other legal traditions as well, such as – especially – Deuteronomy; the main divergence concerns whether H was intended to supplement other legal collections (and thus be transmitted alongside them) or, on the contrary, to replace them, as Stackert, in particular, would hold.11 This reversal of the classical view regarding H’s chronological priority visà-vis P has logically led scholars to reassess those passages in the Pentateuch, and especially in Numbers, that evince significant parallels with H. Knohl, in particular, argues that the presence of such passages points to the existence of a “Holiness School” (HS) in the Pentateuch, which would be responsible not

7 This view, which was introduced by K.H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten testaments. Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig: Weigel 1866, 75–83, rapidly became the communis opinio, and was only marginally disputed before the second half of the 20th century. For a recent overview of scholarship on H, see C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 4–11. 8 K. Elliger, Art. Heiligkeitsgesetz, RGG3, 1959, 175–176, and further his commentary on Leviticus: K. Elliger, Leviticus, HAT I/4, Tübingen: Mohr 1966. 9 I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3, New York: Doubleday 1991; idem, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A, New York: Doubleday, 2000, esp. 1327–1330, 1349–1352 and passim; idem, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3B, New York: Doubleday 2001. 10 See especially K. Grünwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie, BZAW 271, Berlin: de Gruyter 1999. 11 E. Otto, Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by Heinz-Josef Fabry/Hans-Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 125– 196; J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, FAT 52, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 395–575. For a similar assessment regarding the relationship between H, D and P, see also for instance D. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: University Press 2011, 298–303.

112

Christophe Nihan

only for the composition of H, but also for the addition of those passages outside of Lev 17–26 sharing H’s phraseology.12 Especially in Israel and in North America this model has been accepted by several scholars, although sometimes in a revised form such as Milgrom’s “Holiness redaction”;13 it is also consistently presupposed for instance in the recent study by Stackert.14 It needs to be remarked, however, that the range of the texts assigned to H or HS evinces considerable variation from one scholar to another. 15 The latter observation raises an important issue, to which I will return below, regarding the criteria used for identifying H material in the Pentateuch as well as for assessing the nature of that material from a redaction-critical perspective. Other scholars, especially (albeit not exclusively) in continental Europe, have been more critical toward the theory of a “Holiness School” in the Pentateuch, although for various reasons. Some scholars tend to regard the Priestly texts as part of a more or less unified composition, and consequently do not regard the distinction between “P” and “H” as being significant.16 Others – presumably a majority – accept that Priestly texts are not unified but evince a complex redactional development, with the legal material in Numbers probably belonging to its latest stages; yet few attempts have been made by these scholars to account for the presence in Numbers and elsewhere of texts that evince close parallels with H. One example is H. Seebass, who frequently notes such parallels in his recent commentary on Numbers but does not really offer a comprehensive explanation for them; the close relationship between the festal calendars of Lev 23 and Num 28–29, for example, is explained by the notion that 12

See Knohl, Sanctuary. Milgrom, while he initially accepted Knohl’s theory of a Holiness School, later rejected it in favor of a Holiness “redaction” (Hr). For him, this redactor is apparently identical with the final redactor of the Pentateuch; see J. Milgrom, HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah, in: The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. by Rolf Rendtorff/Robert A. Kugler, VTSup 93, Leiden: Brill 2003, 24–40. See also idem, Leviticus 17–22, 1345–1347 and passim. 14 Stackert, Rewriting. I also adopted it, in a revised and nuanced version, in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 562–575; but see below. 15 Compare the “maximalist” view of H passages in Knohl, Sanctuary, 104–106, and the much more “minimalist” view advocated by Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1337–1344; and see further below, § 2 of this essay. 16 Among recent studies, see E. Blum, Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich: TVZ 2009, 31–44; A. Marx, Le système sacrificiel de P et la formation du Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 285–303; idem, Lévitique 17–27, CAT, Genève: Labor et Fides 2011, and his comments on p. 10–16. See also A. Ruwe, “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”: literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Levitikus 17–26, FAT 26, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999. 13

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

113

both texts were produced by priestly circles that were related to each other.17 One major exception is found in a 2008 essay by R. Achenbach, in which he addresses this very issue in relation to his general theory of a “theocratic edition” (theokratische Bearbeitung) that would be responsible for the final shaping of Numbers, as well as for some additions in other books. For Achenbach, the composition of the Holiness legislation by a “pentateuchal redactor” led in turn to a series of Fortschreibungen in the Pentateuch, and especially in Numbers, in the form of the insertion of several “sacral instructions” (sakrale Ordnungen) that frequently develop and amplify basic aspects or notions already contained in H.18 In this model, therefore, the presence in Numbers (as well as in a few other passages of the Pentateuch) of a phraseology reminiscent of H does not point to the existence of a “Holiness School”, but rather to a later, postH phase in the composition of the Pentateuch. This model is complicated, however, by the fact that Achenbach also identifies such post-H, “theocratic” additions within Lev 17–26 (especially in Lev 24), so that the distinction between the two stages that he reconstructs (H and post-H) is somehow blurred. As is shown by the last example, this discussion is basically about how we evaluate both continuities and discontinuities between the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 and other pentateuchal texts that evince a phraseology reminiscent of H. Namely, are the parallels between Lev 17–26 and other priestly texts important enough to warrant their assignment to the same “school” or “redaction”, or do these parallels point instead toward related but nonetheless discrete stages in the composition of the Pentateuch? One of the points I will be making in the following essay is that we need to consider the possibility that the reuse of H material may actually be distinct from one book to the other, so that we need to better differentiate. To this end, I will begin with a general reassessment of H-like passages in the Pentateuch (§ 2 below), showing that the case of Numbers is indeed different in this regard from other pentateuchal books, such as Exodus or Leviticus. In order to shed further light on this phenomenon, I will then turn to a detailed analysis of one specific case, the tithe law of Num 18, in relation with the tithe law of Lev 27 (§ 3); this example suggests, as I will argue, 17 H. Seebass, Numeri. 3. Teilband. Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2007, 239–253. See his comment on p. 251: “Ez *45–46 und Num 28–29 sowie Lev 23 bewegen sich wahrscheinlich in einem priesterlichen Diskussionsraum unter den gleichen exilisch-nachexlischen Bedingungen”. Compare in the same sense for instance L. Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 52–60 and 171–181, who observes that texts such as Num 15 and 28–29 consistently depend on H and likely belong to the latest additions to the book. However, no attempt is made to analyze more specifically the role played by H in the final redactions or editions of Numbers. 18 Achenbach, Heiligkeitsgesetz; and see already idem, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, esp. 443–628. For H’s assignment to a “pentateuchal redactor”, see already Otto, Innerbiblische Exegese.

114

Christophe Nihan

that the distinct reuse of H material in Numbers should be related to the compositional separation between Leviticus and Numbers into discrete “books”.19 Finally, the case of the Numbers tithe law also has some interesting implications regarding the much debated issue of the reception in Numbers of other legal collections, especially of Deuteronomy (§ 4). Closer analysis of this issue will suggest that the standard alternative between “supplementation” and “replacement” may not fully do justice to the evidence at our disposal in Numbers, and that this evidence calls for a more sophisticated model. A concluding section will develop the main implications of these findings (§ 5).

2. “H” Insertions in the Torah and the Alignment of Priestly Laws with the Holiness Legislation It was already observed above that one major issue with the theory of a “Holiness School” in the Torah concerns the range of texts assigned to H, as well as the criteria that are considered to be relevant for such assignment. For this reason, the discussion of this theory should start, in my opinion, with the passages in the Torah that are especially close to the language and the concepts of Lev 17–26.20 One typical example is found in the context of the Passover legislation in Exod 12, vv. 14–20. The original Priestly instruction is presumably preserved in 12:1–13; the various additional prescriptions concerning the celebration of maṣṣôt (Unleavened Bread) that are found in 12:14–20 have traditionally been regarded as later supplements, and this view is probably correct.21 In particular, 19 The possible significance of book division for late compositions or editions of the Pentateuch has already been raised by some scholars recently. In the case of Numbers, specifically, see especially T. Römer, De la périphérie au centre. Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, BEThL 215, ed. by Thomas Römer, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 3–34, especially p. 23; and more generally, see also the recent essay by C. Levin, On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch, in: Penta-teuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. by Thomas Dozeman et al., SBL.AIL 8, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2011, 127–154. 20 For this methodological point, see already my brief remarks in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 564. The argument presented in this section partly builds on my earlier position, but also goes beyond it in various ways. 21 Among recent authors, see, e.g., K. Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift, BBB 85, Frankfurt a.M.: Philo 1992, 90–96; S. Bar-On, Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Exod 12,21–27, ZAW 107 (1995), 18–30, here 25–26; J. C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 31–37; J. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, BZAR 6, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2005, 93–96. For a survey of earlier authors holding this view, cf. P. Laaf, Die Pascha-

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

115

through the twofold reference to “this one day” (hayyôm hazzeh) in vv. 14 and 17, the ritual of pesaḥ on the evening of the 14th day of the 1st month is interpreted as marking the beginning of the seven-day celebration of maṣṣôt, of which nothing was previously said in vv. 1–13.22 It is disputed whether vv. 14– 20 are internally consistent, or whether 12:14–17 and 18–20 were introduced by different scribes; yet this point would require a longer discussion and is not important here.23 Contrary to vv. 1–13, which evince virtually no parallel with H apart from the date for the celebration of pesaḥ (compare Exod 12:2–6 and Lev 23:5), the language of Exod 12:14–20 is consistently reminiscent of the corresponding instruction about the celebration of pesaḥ and maṣṣôt in Lev 23:5–8 – an observation that further corroborates the distinct origin of these verses vis-à-vis 12:1–13.24 In Exod 12:14b, the expression ḥag laYHWH lĕdorotêkem ḥuqqat ‘ôlām tĕḥagguhû takes up the reference to maṣṣôt as ḥag laYHWH in Lev 23:6a and combines it with the expression “a permanent statute throughout your generations”, which is distinctive of H.25 Verse 15 takes up verbatim the command in Feier Israels. Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie, BBB 36, Bonn: Katholischer Verlag 1970, 10 n. 34 and 21 n. 94. Knohl, Sanctuary, 19–21, assigns all of Exod 12:1–20 to HS, but does not discuss the evidence for distinguishing between vv. 1–13 and 14– 20. 22 See on this point already Bar-On, Analyse, 25–26; Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 35–36; and C. Nihan, Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 177–231, here p. 220. A few authors, such as M. Köckert, Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur, JBTh 4 (1989), 29–61, here p. 48 and n. 83; and Grünwaldt, Exil, 74–75, regard v. 14aα as the conclusion to P’s Passover instruction in vv. 1–13. However, the separation of v. 14aα from the following seems artificial, as several authors have noted, and is precluded by the inclusion between vv. 14 and 17 noted here. Despite some attempts to the contrary, the sudden introduction of the instructions for the celebration of maṣṣôt in 12:14–20 cannot be explained by the narrative context alone; this is too harmonistic. To be sure, the scribes who composed and transmitted these instructions were fully aware that the Israelites could not celebrate maṣṣôt during the exodus. Yet this observation does not account for the change in phraseology that takes place from v. 14 onward. 23 For the latter view, see, e.g., Grünwaldt, Exil, 90–96; Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 31–37. See also E. Otto, pāsaḥ/pesaḥ, TDOT 12 (2003), 1–24. While it cannot be denied that the language of 14–17 and 18–20 is somewhat redundant, it must also be observed that the two units serve distinct functions, and are therefore more complementary than is often assumed. Verses 14–17 connect Passover with Unleavened Bread, whereas vv. 18–20 fix the precise date of this festival, thus solving the problem still left open by the mere juxtaposition of these two feasts. 24 Generally, the dependence of Exod 12:14–20 on the instruction of Lev 23:5–8 has been rightly acknowledged by scholars (among recent authors, compare, e.g., Wagenaar, Origin, 95– 96), although they have not always paid as much attention to the parallels with other passages in H. 25 See Lev 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; and 24:3. Otherwise, it is also found in Exod 27:21; Lev 3:17; 7:36; 10:9; Num 10:8; 15:15; and 18:23. Outside of Lev 23, the identification of maṣṣôt

116

Christophe Nihan

Lev 23:6b (šib‘at yāmîm maṣṣôt to’kēlû) and expands it by specifying the implications of this command, in a language that is again reminiscent of H.26 Exod 12:16 corresponds almost verbatim to Lev 23:7 and 8b. The exhortation to observe the celebration of Azymes that follows in Exod 12:17 repeats the expression lĕdorotêkem ḥuqqat ‘ôlām (v. 17b) and combines it with a reference to the exodus, a device that has a parallel in the instruction about Sukkôt (Booths) in Lev 23:41–43.27 The beginning of Exod 12:18 corresponds to Lev 23:5a. Exod 12:19a repeats the prohibition of 12:15, but specifies that it applies to the “resident alien” (gēr) and to the “native” (’ezraḥ) alike, another feature that is distinctive of H.28 Finally, Exod 12:20 specifies that the celebration of pesaḥ and maṣṣôt applies bĕkŏl môšĕbotêkem, “in all your settlements”, an expression which is also found several times in H, and especially in the calendar of Lev 23 (see 23:3, 14, 21, and 31). In short, what we have here in Exod 12:14–20 is best described as a sophisticated legal exegesis that seeks to conform the earlier Priestly instruction for the celebration of Passover to the instruction for the celebration of pesaḥmaṣṣôt in H. This legal-exegetical adaptation was also the occasion to expand and even clarify the law of Lev 23:5–8. Thus, the celebration of pesaḥ-maṣṣôt is now explicitly connected with the exodus (Exod 12:17), as in the case of Sukkôt already (Lev 23:43); and like the first day of the seventh month in Lev 23:24, it is also defined as a day of “memorial” (zikkarôn, Exod 12:14). Likewise, the celebration of pesaḥ-maṣṣôt is now defined as ḥuqqat ‘ôlām, a “permanent statute”, as was already the case for the other festivals in Lev 23 (see 23:14, 21, 31, and 41). The ban against any form of “servile” work (kŏlmĕle’ket ‘ābodāh) in Lev 23:7 is changed to a general prohibition against any kind of work (kŏl-mĕlākāh) in Exod 12:16; this change, in turn, makes necessary the addition of the following comment, absent from Lev 23:5–8: “Only what every person is to eat, this will be made for you”. Above all, whereas Lev as a festival (ḥag) is only found in Deut 16:16, as well as in Exod 13:5–10 (v. 6), a late prescription that already presupposes Exod 12:14–20. See on this, for instance, Gertz, Exoduserzählung, 68–71. 26 See especially the formulation of the punishment for transgressing the prohibition against eating leaven (wĕnikrĕtāh hannepeš hahiw’ mîyiśrā’ēl), and compare with Lev 19:8; 22:3, and further, for instance, Num 19:13. The phrase bayyôm hāri’šôn also has a parallel in Lev 23:7aα. 27 More generally, as noted above, the tendency to combine key exhortations with the reference to the exodus is a distinctive feature of H within the legal collections of the Pentateuch: compare Lev 19:36; 22:33; 23:43; 25:38, 42, 55; 26:13, and 45. 28 Lev 17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 24:16, and 22. Although this combined reference occurs in a few other passages of the P strata of the Pentateuch (Exod 12:48; Lev 16:29; Num 9:14; 15:29, and 30), these passages are presumably all late additions that postdate Lev 17–26. See on this now in detail R. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes. Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers”, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives form the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 53–69, esp. 56–67.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

117

23 merely juxtaposed the evening celebration of pesaḥ with the seven-day celebration of maṣṣôt, Exod 12:14–20 now merges the two festivals more closely, by specifying that the celebration of pesaḥ marks the beginning of a unified seven-day celebration extending from the evening of the fourteenth day to the evening of the twenty-first (see Exod 12:18); this instruction implies a conception according to which a day lasts from sunset to sunset.29 Other similar examples of such legal-exegetical reworking of earlier Priestly laws in order to adapt them to the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 can be found in some passages of Exodus and Leviticus, such as especially Exod 12:43–49; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 3:17; 7:22–27; 11:43–45; and 16:29–34a.30 In Genesis and Deuteronomy, the evidence is less compelling, except perhaps in the case of Gen 17:9–1431 – a finding that is consistent with the observation that these two books contain no Priestly laws outside of the law of circumcision in Gen 17 (and of the Noachide laws in Gen 9, which represent, however, a somewhat distinct case). In my view, the phenomenon analyzed here – i.e., the legal-exegetical reworking of earlier Priestly laws from the perspective of H – forms the particula veri of Knohl’s thesis of a “Holiness school” in the Torah. However, and contrary to what I maintained in earlier publications,32 it is misleading to attribute such legal-exegetical reworking to the work of a distinctive “school”. We should probably not even speak of a Holiness “redaction”, at least if we understand this term to refer to a comprehensive reworking and reshaping of earlier material.33 What we have here is much more a limited scribal phenomenon, in which the introduction of the Holiness legislation in the Torah led to the alignment of earlier Priestly tôrôt in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus with this new legislation. This phenomenon is best described as a post-H revision, or edition, of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus; but it does not require presuming the existence of a specific “Holiness school” behind these books. 29

On this issue, see especially now Wagenaar, Origin, 139ff. For a concise discussion of these passages, see Nihan, Priestly Torah, 566–569. In the case of Exod 31:12–17, various scholars, while acknowledging the parallel between this passage and Lev 17–26, would nonetheless reckon with an older P stratum; see, most recently, J. Stackert, Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath. Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3, JHS 11/15 (2011), 1–20 (http://www.jhsonline.org/jhs-article.html; accessed 7/6/12). I remain unconvinced by this view, which relies, in my opinion, on questionable arguments; however, this issue is not directly relevant for the present discussion and may be left open here. 31 On the relationship between this passage and H, see now the detailed and thorough discussion by J. Wöhrle, The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives form the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 71–87. 32 See Nihan, Priestly Torah, 559–572; cf. also idem, Festival Calendars. 33 Milgrom’s adoption of the designation “Holiness redaction” instead of “Holiness school” (see Milgrom, HR in Leviticus, and above note 13) is consistent with the fact that he regarded the scribe responsible for the composition of H as being, simultaneously, the redactor of the Pentateuch – a view, however, that is difficult to support. 30

118

Christophe Nihan

When we turn to the book of Numbers, the situation appears to be different. Some texts, such as the story of the man gathering wood on Sabbath in Num 15:32–36 already mentioned above, present clear parallels with Lev 17–26. Yet in most instances, what we find are some stock phrases reminiscent of H’s style and language – such as especially the combined reference to the “resident alien” (gēr) and the “native” (’ezraḥ), or the specification that a law is a “permanent statute” (ḥuqqat ‘ôlām) applying “throughout your generations” –, stock phrases which occur within texts that otherwise present few or no parallels with H.34 Because such stock phrases consistently recur in the priestly legislation of Numbers, Knohl assigned most of that legislation to H. Yet he could not really explain why these so-called H laws in Numbers usually present far fewer parallels with Lev 17–26 than in the case of those H inserts in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus discussed above.35 As a result, H appears to be more like a sort of “default” tag, covering all the texts in Numbers that cannot be assigned to “P”, even when the parallels with the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 are minimal. The difficulties raised by this approach can be illustrated through one specific example. In his recent study, Stackert offers a detailed and thorough discussion of the asylum legislation in Num 35:9–34, which he rightly – and convincingly – argues to be a legal-exegetical adaptation of the parallel legislation on asylum in D (see Deut 19:1–13). 36 Following Knohl, Stackert considers Num 35:9–34 to be a typical instance of an H legislation in Numbers. Yet when we look more closely at the evidence for H features in Num 35, such evidence appears to be quite limited. Like other passages in Numbers, Num 35:15 mentions the resident alien (gēr) alongside the native Israelite (’ezraḥ). Num 35:25 refers to the high priest as hakkohēn haggādol ’ašer mašaḥ ’otô bĕšemen haqqodeš, a designation which is not characteristic of P but has a close parallel in Lev 21:10. Num 35:29 uses the formula lĕḥuqqat mišpaṭ lĕdorotêkem bĕkol môšĕbotêkem, an expression that appears to adapt H’s formula ḥuqqat ‘ôlām lĕdorotêkem bĕkol môšĕbotêkem while replacing ‘ôlām with mišpaṭ. Finally, in 35:34 Stackert mentions that “the concern for blood pollution in the land (…)

34 For the combined reference to the gēr and the’ezraḥ, see Num 9:14; 15:29, and 30; for the phrase ḥuqqat ‘ôlām (lĕdorotêkem/ lĕdorotām), compare Num 10:8; 15:15; and 18:23. For some additional examples of H language in Numbers, see Nihan, Priestly Torah, 571 n. 676. 35 See Knohl, Sanctuary, 71–101, and compare the summary on p. 105–106. Except for Num 5–6*; 19*; and 28–29*, Knohl assigns the rest of the priestly legal material in Numbers to HS. 36 Stackert, Rewriting, 57–96. Although I disagree with his assignment of Num 35 to HS (see below), Stackert’s discussion is, in my view, one of the most thorough and most comprehensive analyses of this legal text. For a recent attempt to assign portions of Num 35 to H, see also P. Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005, 121.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

119

is conceptually analogous to H’s pollution of the land by sexual transgressions”.37 Whether such features warrant the conclusion that Num 35 should be defined as an “H” legislation in Numbers is, in my opinion, open to discussion. In this case, as in the case of the majority of the priestly laws in Numbers, the situation is quite distinct from the kind of legal-exegetical alignment of earlier Priestly laws with H that can be observed in a few passages of Exodus and Leviticus such as Exod 12:14–20 discussed above. What we have here is much more an entirely new composition by priestly scribes who were obviously influenced by, and dependent upon, the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 and who have integrated some of this legislation’s distinctive features in their own reworking of the Deuteronomic asylum legislation. The presence of a limited number of idioms reminiscent of H certainly suggests that the scribe who composed a text such as Num 35 had internalized the language of that legislation, and could freely use it. But it does not require the assumption that this scribe stood in the kind of intellectual or even institutional continuity with the scribes who composed Lev 17–26 that seems to be implied by the notion of a Holiness “school” or “redaction”. The previous discussion has shown why the model of a Holiness school or redaction may not be adequate to describe the exegetical reuse of the phraseology and ideology of the Holiness legislation in various pentateuchal texts situated outside Lev 17–26. This discussion has also pointed to the possibility that such exegetical reuse in Numbers may actually represent a distinct phenomenon from what can be observed in Exodus and Leviticus, thus raising the more general issue of the relation between H’s reuse in Numbers and the compositional separation of that book from Leviticus. This issue will now be briefly addressed through detailed study of one text, the tithe law of Numbers 18:20– 32.

37 Stackert, Rewriting, 63. Stackert further mentions the first person address of the deity to the Israelite congregation in 35:34, as well as “[t]he concept of the deity dwelling (*‫ )שׁכן‬among the people” in the same verse (Stackert, 63). In the latter instance, however, Stackert relies upon Knohl’s thesis that this notion would be in its entirety a creation of H, unknown to P. In my view, that thesis is problematic, already with regard to the problem of P’s narrative coherence. For a detailed criticism of Knohl’s assignment of passages such as Exod 25:8–9; 29:45–46 and related passages to H, see my remarks in Priestly Torah, 34–35 n. 72. Note that Stackert would now also acknowledge the importance of P’s narrative coherence as a central redaction-critical criterion when dealing with the P strata of the Pentateuch. Compare idem, Compositional Strata, 2 and passim (“[…] P’s narrative qualities provide the most reliable basis for identifying strata in these texts […]).

120

Christophe Nihan

3. The Legislation about Levitical Tithes in Num 18 and Lev38 The legislation about Levitical tithes is part of a set of oracular instructions following the story of Korah’s rebellion (Num 16) and its aftermath (Num 17:1–5, 6–15, and 16–28). The first instruction, 18:1–7, deals with the distinction between priestly and Levitical roles and duties with regard to the sanctuary. It comprises an exegetical amplification of the former instruction given to Moses about the status and duties of the Levites in Num 3:6–10, which it combines with some other passages concerning priests and Levites in Num 1–10, especially in 8:5–22, the account of the Levites’ dedication.39 As such, the basic function of this passage is to reassert, and even strengthen, the unique status of priests and their authority over Levites – as already laid out in Num 3–4 and 8:5–22 – after the story of Korah’s rebellion. At the same time, the passage also justifies the introduction of a new legislation in 18:8–19, the function of which is to define the prebend (mošḥāh) that Aaron and his sons are allowed to receive from the tĕrûmôt, the contributions brought by the Israelites to the sanctuary. The transition between the two units is aptly effected by the expression mišmeret tĕrûmôt in 18:8, a unique expression in the HB that combines the key terms of vv. 1–7 (mišmeret) and 8–19 (tĕrûmôt) respectively. It suggests that priestly prebends over the Israelites’ sacred donations (tĕrûmôt) are not merely a kind of reward for the “guard duty” (mišmeret) that the priests must perform over the altar and the tent (v. 5, further v. 7), as most commentators would understand,40 but – more pointedly – that such prebends are somehow presented here as an extension of their sacred obligations vis-à-vis the sanctuary as defined in the previous unit.41 The list that follows in vv. 9–19 consists of a comprehensive enumeration of the donations to the sanctuary, with a basic division 38 Few studies have been recently devoted to the tithe law of Num 18:20–32. A major exception is Stackert, Rewriting, 165–208. See also the brief comments by P. Altmann, Festive Meals in Ancient Israel. Deuteronomy's Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context, BZAW 424, Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 212–215. 39 For analysis of these parallels, see, e.g., Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 153–157. 40 E.g., H. Seebass, Numeri. 2. Teilband, Numeri 10,11–22,1, BKAT 4/2, NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2003, 229. 41 J. Milgrom, Numbers ‫במדבר‬. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, JPSTC, Philadelphia/New York: The Jewish Publication Society 1990, 149, notes in this respect that the phrase mišmeret tĕrûmotāy in 18:8 “can mean either ‘the guarding of the gifts due to Me’ (i.e., that they may not be profaned or used improperly) or ‘the reserved of My gifts’ (i.e., those gifts kept back from the altar as perquisites for the priests)”. Accordingly he suggests rendering mišmeret tĕrûmotāy as “the charge of my gifts”, which is perhaps the best translation in context. B.A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4, New York: Doubleday 1993, 443, renders mišmeret in 18:8 by “control, jurisdiction” and translates mišmeret tĕrûmotāy as “control over my levied donations”, which I find less satisfactory, since it does not include the twofold aspect of “guard” and “prebend” correctly identified by Milgrom.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

121

between “most sacred” (qodeš qŏdāšîm, vv. 9–10) and “sacred” (qodeš, vv. 11– 19) donations.42 The importance of these instructions for the priests is further emphasized by the fact that both 18:1–7 and 8–19 are presented as divine oracles addressed to Aaron specifically. Outside of Num 18, this feature occurs only in the oracle of Lev 10:8–11, which is presumably a very late addition to the book of Leviticus.43 The legislation on priestly prebends in 18:8–19 is then completed in 18:20– 32 by a series of instructions concerning the income perceived by the rest of Levi’s tribe (see the mention libnê lēwî at the beginning of v. 21).44 A first unit, vv. 20–24, identifies this income with the tithe (ma‘ăśēr) brought by the Israelites to the sanctuary. Such income is expressly presented in v. 21 as being “in exchange for” (ḥēlep) their menial work (‘ăbodāh) at the sanctuary. Verses 22– 23 develop this idea by recalling that Levites have been specifically appointed for the service of the sanctuary, in a language that links this unit with Num 18:1–7 (and further Num 3–4). 45 At the end of v. 23, however, Levitical ‘ăbodāh is connected with a new notion which is introduced here for the first time in the pentateuchal narrative, namely, that Levites have no ancestral allotment (naḥălāh) among the Israelites (v. 23b, and see further Deut 18:1–2); as such, their situation compares with that of the Aaronite priests according to 18:20. In the next verse (18:24), this notion is motivated by the assertion that, for the Levites, the tithe will be their naḥălāh: since Levites have no land from which to derive an income, that income will be generated by the products brought by Israelite landowners to the sanctuary as their tithe. The assignment 42

As noted, e.g., by Milgrom, Numbers, 148; for a detailed analysis of the gifts mentioned in vv. 9–10 and 11–19, see Milgrom, Numbers, 150–154. 43 See on this in detail Nihan, Priestly Torah, 576–607, esp. 590–593. 44 Admittedly, the precise delimitation of the conclusion of the second oracle in Num 18 is an issue, and several commentators would prefer taking v. 20 with vv. 8–19; compare, e.g., P.J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5, Waco: Word Books, 1984, 202–203; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 436; Seebass, Numeri, 218 (note on 20a) and 219. Apparently, this was already the understanding of the Masoretes, who placed a sĕtûmâ after v. 20. The main argument against this division is that elsewhere in ch. 18 the mention of a new speech by YHWH (18:1, 7, and 25) indicates the beginning of a new unit. It seems logical to consider that this is also the case here, and that the mention of YHWH’s speech to Aaron serves to introduce the next unit consisting of vv. 20– 24. Furthermore, v. 20 introduces the prohibition for members of Levi’s tribe to hold land, which forms a central aspect of the legislation on the Levitical tithe in vv. 21–24; see below. For the interpretation proposed here, retaining v. 20 with 21–24 rather than with 8–19, see already A. Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEH XIII/4–6, 2nd ed., Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886, 102; and more recently for instance Schmidt, Numeri, 78, 81. 45 Thus, the reference to the menial work (‘ăbodāh) of the Levites at the tent of meeting in 18:21 refers to 18:4 and 6, and further to passages such as Num 3:7, 8, etc. The reference in v. 22 to the Israelites who must not approach the tent of meeting corresponds to the notion stated in 18:5, which is itself related to the people’s complaint in 17:27–28. The reference to the Levites “bearing their sin” (with nś’ ‘wn) for their potential mistakes while serving at the sanctuary corresponds to the notion already stated in 18:1 for Aaron and his sons.

122

Christophe Nihan

of tithes to the Levites is thus presented as serving a twofold function: as a reward for their menial work at the sanctuary, and as a compensation for the absence of an estate on which they would be able to survive.46 This instruction raises a further issue, which is developed at length in the fourth and last unit of this chapter, vv. 25–32 – incidentally the only unit that is not presented as a divine oracle to Aaron, but as an oracle to Moses.47 Because the tithe perceived by the Levites over the produce of the land, is their own naḥălāh, it is also subject to the tithe just like the naḥălāh of the other 46 V. 24b is thus not a mere repetition of v. 23b, but explains the rationale for 23b in light of the notion stated in 24a. Although the construction of this unit is admittedly complex, I regard it nonetheless as a unified composition. Its structure is largely based on the repetition and the development of some key statements. Thus, the statement in v. 21a that the tithe belongs to the Levites is justified in 21b by the notion that the Levites have been tasked with the service of the tent, which is itself justified in v. 22 by the concern that Israelites will no longer die because they have approached the tent (Num 17:27–28; 18:5, and the previous note). The repetition in v. 23a of the statement that Levites have been tasked with the service of the tent serves to introduce a new notion: in exchange for their service, Levites will not receive an ancestral allotment (v. 23bβ) but the tithes of the Israelites (v. 24a); the latter statement returns to the beginning of the unit (v. 21a), but does not merely repeat it, since, as noted above, the giving of the tithe to the Levites is not only presented as a reward for their service (as in v. 21) but also as a compensation for the absence of an estate on which they can survive. Failure to perceive the inner logic of this complex, but nonetheless unified, structure has sometimes led commentators to dispute the compositional unity of this passage, yet on the basis of problematic criteria in my view. Seebass, Numeri, 235, regards v. 22 as a later addition, disrupting the transition from 21 to 23. This is possible, but certainly not necessary; without v. 22, it becomes difficult to understand why it was necessary to repeat the content of v. 21b in v. 23a. Seebass also views v. 24 as a later addition, which would basically repeat the information already found in v. 21. Yet this interpretation seems mistaken; v. 24 does not simply repeat v. 21, and without it one cannot understand the reason why v. 23b affirms that the Levites receive no naḥălāh (in the sense of ancestral allotment). Schmidt, Numeri, 81, identifies v. 22 and 23a, bα as later supplements: a later scribe would have introduced the specification found in v. 22 by repeating the content of v. 21b in 23a, bα. Again, this solution is possible but not necessary. The fact that v. 23bβ can be read immediately after v. 21 is not an argument per se for the secondary character of v. 23a, bα, and since the function of v. 22 is to connect this unit with the beginning of Num 18 (see the previous note), one wonders why such a connection should necessarily be assigned to a later scribe rather than to the one who composed this law. Once it is recognized that each repetition in this unit cannot automatically be viewed as pointing to the presence of a later addition (as Schmidt himself would admit, since he retains v. 21a and 24a in the core text of this law), there is in fact no reason to regard v. 23a, bα (and together with it v. 22) as later supplements. Note, finally, that there are no significant differences between MT, SamP, and LXX in this unit. 47 Pace Schmidt, Numeri, 82, I see no compelling reason to regard Num 18:25–32 as a later supplement. On the contrary, the instruction found in these verses forms a necessary complement to the previous legislation: once the tithe is defined as the Levites’ naḥălāh, which replaces their ancestral allotment, the question necessarily arises whether or not that naḥălāh is itself subject to the tithe.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

123

Israelites. Accordingly, a portion of all Israelite tithes – designated in v. 26 as “a tithe from the tithe” (ma‘ăśēr min-hamma‘ăśēr) – must be “withheld” (rwm Hiphil) in order to be given to Aaron as tĕrûmat YHWH (v. 28). This portion, to be taken from the best part (literally, the “fat”) of the tithe, is further identified with the “consecrated” portion of the tithe (v. 29); the term miqdĕšô, in MT’s phrase ’et miqdĕšô mimmennû, should presumably be repointed in mĕquddāšô, as per the reading of LXX.48 By contrast, the rest of the tithe may be eaten by the Levites and their families “in any place” (bĕkŏl māqôm) and is apparently not regarded as holy, as various commentators have rightly observed.49 This aspect of the tithe legislation in Num 18 stands in marked contrast with the other pentateuchal tithe laws in Lev 27 and Deut 14:22–29 (with its complement in Deut 26:12–15), in which the whole tithe brought to the sanctuary is expressly regarded as consecrated. This observation, as we will see, has some far-reaching implications for the relation of Numbers with H and, more generally, with other pentateuchal legal collections.50 Especially in the case of the two instructions about the Levitical tithe in vv. 20–24 and 25–32, it is possible to identify in Num 18 some parallels with the language of Lev 17–26. Nonetheless the evidence for such H language again remains very limited. The most obvious examples concern the phrase ḥuqqat ‘ôlām lĕdorotêkem “a permanent statute for your generations” in v. 23, as well as the formulation of the warning against profaning sacred offerings in v. 32, wĕ’et qŏdšê bĕnê yiśrā’ēl lo’ tĕḥallĕlû “and (thus) you will not desecrate the sacred (offerings) of the Israelites,” which is reminiscent of other references to profanation in H. 51 Otherwise, the additional evidence for H language marshaled by Knohl and others who want to assign the tithe law to a Holiness

48 The Masoretic pointing, miqdĕšô, is presumably intended to avoid a confusion with the usual meaning of miqdāš, “sanctuary”; see Levine, Numbers 1–20, 452–453; likewise Seebass, Numeri, 218 (note on 29a). LXX has τὸ ἡγιασμένον ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ for MT ’et miqdĕšô mimmennû, which – as noted by Levine – suggests a Hebrew pointing mĕquddāšô. 49 See, e.g., Milgrom, Numbers, 156; Stackert, Rewriting, 176–178. 50 As in the case of the previous unit, I regard vv. 25–32 as forming a unified composition. Seebass, Numbers, 236–237, regards vv. 27 and 28a as later additions, but the omission of v. 27, with its reference to “the grain from the threshing floor (goren) and the ripe fruit from the vat (yeqeb)” forces him to regard v. 30bβ as being likewise a later addition, since it also refers to the produce from the threshing floor (goren) and from the vat (yeqeb). Schmidt, Numeri, 82, rightly holds the unit consisting of 18:25–32 to form a unified composition, but mistakenly suggests that it represents a later supplement to the legislation in Num 18; against this view, see the remarks above, note 47. 51 For the latter expression, compare Lev 19:8; 20:3; 21:12, 23; 22:15, and 32; otherwise it only occurs once more in Exod 31:14, one of the passages characterized above (§ 2) as an “H” insertion in the Torah/Pentateuch.

124

Christophe Nihan

“school” or “author” is much more fragile in my opinion, even when we consider the chapter as a whole and not just vv. 20–32.52 For instance, Knohl and, more recently, Stackert, mention the fact that the use of the term mošḥāh “portion” and the address to Aaron in v. 8 are features that only appear in texts that attest the phrase ḥuqqat ‘ôlām lĕdorotêkem. However, these features do not appear together in H itself, but only in two passages outside of Lev 17–26, Lev 7:35 and 10:8, which Knohl assigns to the Holiness school, so that the argument is indirect at best. Num 18 is therefore a further illustration of the point made above with regard to the so-called “priestly” legislation in Numbers. As in the case of Num 35 and other laws, H’s language and legal concepts are restricted here to a couple of formulaic expressions scattered throughout the chapter. But the central topics of that chapter, such as the distinction between priestly and Levitical duties, or the notion of Levitical tithe, have no parallel in H. Moreover, the same is true about many of the legal concepts used in Num 18, such as, e.g., the expression nś’ ’et-‘ăwon hammiqdāš in 18:1; the definition in 18:8 of the tĕrûmôt, the contributions of the Israelites to the sanctuary, as priestly “prebend” (mošḥāh); the use of the phrase bĕkŏl māqôm, “in any place,” in v. 31 (more on this below); or the inclusion of the tithe among the qodšê bĕnê yiśrā’ēl, the sacred donations of the Israelites,53 none of which has an equivalent in Lev 17–26 (nor, for that matter, in any other passage assigned to “H” outside of Lev 17–26). When we seek to evaluate how continuous, or discontinuous, the tithe law of Numbers is with regard to the H legislation, the relation between Num 18 and the tithe law of Leviticus becomes especially significant. In Lev 27:30–33, the tithe is not given to the Levites but is defined as qodeš laYHWH, “the sacred portion for YHWH” (27:30 and 32), an expression also used in Deut 26:13; in Lev 27, this expression equally applies to agricultural products (vegetables and fruits, 27:30) and domestic animals (large and small cattle, 27:32).54 As such, 52

See on this Knohl, Sanctuary, 53–54; and more recently Stackert, Rewriting, 193–194. Knohl’s assignment of Num 18 to H has been followed by other scholars, compare, e.g., S. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 135 n. 54. 53 As noted by Levine, Numbers 1–20, 453, this expression is normally reserved in the Priestly literature to sacrificial offerings (compare, e.g., Lev 22:15). Interestingly, however, its use with reference to the tithe has a parallel in one passage of Chronicles, cf. 2 Chr 31:6. 54 From a historical perspective, the notion of a tithe on domestic animals, which is unique to Lev 27, raises a distinct issue that cannot be discussed here in detail. See on this the comments by Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2398–2399, as well as by B. Levine, Leviticus ‫ויקרא‬. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, JPSTC, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society 1989, 199–200. As both commentators observe, the reference to this practice in some biblical texts, such as Gen 14:20 and 34:22, or in the context of the privileges assigned to the Israelite king in 1 Sam 8:15–17, may suggest that it has some sort of historical background (even though the latter remains difficult to determine) and is not a mere

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

125

the tithe belongs to the sanctuary, and this is presumably the reason why that instruction was included in the legislation of Lev 27.55 Accordingly, although the tithe may be redeemed, the cost is the tithe’s value plus an additional 20%, in keeping with the general rule for possessions belonging to the sanctuary.56 In Num 18, however, only the tithe withheld from the tithe given to the Levites is said to be holy, whereas the rest of the tithe, as noted above, may legitimately be eaten by the Levites and their households bĕkŏl māqôm, “in any place” (v. 31). This idiom contrasts with the expression bĕmāqôm qādoš, which is consistently used in P in connection with the consumption of sacred foods by the Aaronite priesthood inside the sanctuary’s precincts, 57 thereby emphasizing that – contrary to sacred foods – the Levitical tithe may legitimately be eaten anywhere outside the sanctuary.58 The tensions between the two priestly tithe laws in Lev 27 and Num 18 have long been noted, especially as regards the problem raised by the apparent “desanctification” of the Levitical tithe in Num 18, although they have been variously interpreted by commentators. Interestingly, the relation between these two laws appears to have proved especially problematic for the scholars assuming the thesis of an H school or stratum in these books. On the basis of the evidence mentioned above, Knohl assigns Num 18 to H and seems to regard the Numbers tithe law as later than its Leviticus counterpart, but does not assign

fiction. However, its omission in pentateuchal laws, as well as in texts such as Neh 10:38–39, probably indicates at the same time that this practice was occasional rather than usual. 55 The legislation of Lev 27 concerns persons, animals and things dedicated to the sanctuary, as well as the possibility to withdraw a person, animal or thing consecrated to the sanctuary against monetary compensation; the principle being, in this case, that only consecrated gifts that may not be consumed on the altar may be redeemed, except if they were consecrated as ḥērem, in which case they are most sacred and cannot be withdrawn. See on this especially Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2402–2407. 56 Lev 22:14; 27:13, 15, and 27; further Lev 5:16, 24; and Num 5:7. 57 See Lev 6:9, 19, 20; 7:6; 10:13; and 24:9. Strikingly, Num 18:10 uniquely employs the expression qodeš ha-qŏdāšîm in this context, although it normally refers to the inner-sanctum, the most holy part of the sanctuary that can only be accessed once a year by the high priest (Lev 16). 58 This point was also finely noted by Stackert, Rewriting, 176, who notes how the use of the phrase māqôm in Num 18 simultaneously relates the Levitical tithe to P’s cultic system and marks its distinctiveness within that system: “‫ בכל מקום‬in Num 18:31, however, is unique to pentateuchal Priestly literature: nowhere else does P or H employ the term ‫ מקום‬in the context of eating without positive reference to the place’s holiness or purity. Yet Num 18:31 does correlate with these other Priestly place designations, for this verse addresses the parameters for Levitic consumption of the Israelite tithe contribution and specifically outlines the tithe’s desanctification. Such desanctification becomes the key to understanding this Holiness innovation vis-à-vis other examples of P/H ‫ מקום‬designations”.

126

Christophe Nihan

Lev 27 to a specific source or stratum.59 Milgrom initially regarded Lev 27 to be older than Num 18;60 in his Leviticus commentary, however, he assigned Lev 27 to H and argued that Num 18 should consequently be assigned to P.61 Stackert, who offers the most recent treatment of that issue, assigns both Lev 27 and Num 18 to H, but because he rightly recognizes that the two laws cannot be reconciled he ends up suggesting that they belong to different strata within H, the chronology of which remains unclear by his own admission.62 In my view, it is easier to understand the tithe law of Numbers as an exegetical expansion and revision of the Leviticus law rather than the other way around.63 The unique reinterpretation in Num 18 of the tithe as Levitical income which, after deduction of the portion of the tithe reserved for the sanctuary, is no longer regarded as holy and can be enjoyed by the Levites and their families in their homes, corresponds to the introduction in that book of the systematic distinction between two different categories of ritual experts – priests and Levites – and, accordingly, to the necessity of securing a distinct source of income for the second-rank category of ritual experts. The book of Leviticus, however, ignores this distinction between classes of ritual experts; although Levites are mentioned once, in Lev 25:32–34, this is a non-cultic context and, besides, there are good reasons to regard this passage as a late interpolation in the legislation

59

For the assignment of Num 18 to HS, see Knohl, Sanctuary, 53–54; elsewhere, Knohl expressly states that he views Lev 27:30–33 as older than Num 18:21–32 (Knohl, Sanctuary, 80 n. 66), but he does not assign Lev 27 either to P or to H. 60 See J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ‘Aboda, Univ. of California Near Eastern Studies 14, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press 1970, 67; see also Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 17. 61 Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2397. However, as perceptively noted by Stackert, Milgrom’s reconstruction of the tithe’s history elsewhere in the same volume requires a sequence in which Lev 27 comes before, and not after Num 18; furthermore, as observed by Stackert, Milgrom’s reasons for assigning Num 18 to P, instead of H, in his most recent discussion are not entirely clear. Compare Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2425, and on this the remarks by Stackert, Rewriting, 192. 62 Stackert, Rewriting, 191–198. He concludes that “the discrepancies between Lev 27:30– 33 and Num 18:20–32 cannot be reconciled, strongly suggesting that these two texts stem from different strata in the Holiness corpus” (197) but that, “[i]n the case of the Holiness tithe laws, however, it is not possible to determine priority between Lev 27:30–33 and Num 18:20–32” (198). 63 See, e.g., Budd, Numbers, 204; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 450–451. Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 171 with n. 82, considers Num 18 to be older than Lev 27:30–33, but does not give specific arguments to substantiate this view. However, his opinion that all of Lev 27 is one of the latest additions to the Pentateuch that postdates Num 18 is contradicted by the various observations showing that Num 18 presupposes the legislation of Lev 27; see below.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

127

of Lev 25.64 Therefore, the author of Lev 27 had no need to differentiate between a priestly/holy and Levitical/profane portion of the tithe, and he could still regard the whole tithe as holy. This conclusion can be supported, to some extent, by the observation that some passages in the law about priestly prebends in Num 18:8–19 likewise appear to take up and expand earlier instructions in Lev 27, as is shown in Fig. 1 below.65 For instance, the instruction about the financial redemption of human firstborns in Num 18:16 corresponds to Lev 27:6, but adds the specification that the shekel of the sanctuary is worth twenty gērāh. Likewise, the following prohibition in Num 18:17–18 against redeeming the firstlings of oxen, lambs, and goats because they are holy corresponds to the rule already laid out in Lev 27:9–10 concerning the non-redemption of sacrificial animals, but applies it now to the category of the firstborn of these animals specifically. Lev 27:6a ‫ואם מבן־חדשׁ ועד בן־חמשׁ שׁנים והיה ערכך‬ ‫הזכר חמשׁה שׁקלים כסף‬ Lev 27:9–10 ‫ואם־בהמה אשׁר יקריבו ממנה קרבן ליהוה כל‬ ‫אשׁר יתן ממנו ליהוה יהיה־קדשׁ׃ לא יחליפנו ולא־‬ ‫ימיר אתו טוב ברע או־רע בטוב ואם־המר ימיר בהמה‬ ‫בבהמה והיה־הוא ותמורתו יהיה־קדשׁ׃‬

Num 18:16 ‫ופדויו מבן־חדשׁ תפדה בערכך כסף חמשׁת‬ ‫שׁקלים בשׁקל הקדשׁ עשׂרים גרה הוא׃‬ Num 18:17–18 ‫אך בכור־שׁור או־בכור כשׂב או־בכור עז לא‬ ‫תפדה קדשׁ הם את־דמם תזרק על־המזבח ואת־חלבם‬ ‫ובשׂרם יהיה־לך תקטיר אשׁה לריח ניחח ליהוה׃‬ ‫כחזה התנופה וכשׁוק הימין לך יהיה׃‬

Fig. 1: Comparison between Lev 27:6a, 9–10 and Num 18:16, 17–18.

In addition, the statement in 18:14 that “whatever has been subjected to the proscription (ḥērem, G anáthema)” belongs to the priests appears to presume the rule laid out in Lev 27 according to which the ḥērem, contrary to other types of donation to the sanctuary, can never be redeemed and therefore definitely becomes the property of the temple (cf. 27:21 and 28–29). In order to grasp the full implications of what may seem, at first sight, a rather technical issue, it must be reminded that the legislation of Lev 27, at least in its present form, has long been recognized to be a late supplement, which was not part of the original H legislation. This is suggested, in particular, by the presence of a new subscription in 27:34 after the original one in 26:46.66 Since 64 Lev 25:32–34 forms a supplement to the law about the redemption of houses, specifying that Levites will enjoy a permanent right of redemption for houses situated within Levitical towns. The passage has long been identified as a later addition in its context, compare, e.g., Elliger, Leviticus, 339–340, and further Nihan, Priestly Torah, 522 with n. 503. 65 As rightly noted by some commentators; compare, e.g., Levine, Numbers 1–20, 448; Seebass, Numeri, 232; pace Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 160–161. 66 That Lev 27 was added after ch. 17–26 because of the presence of a new subscription in 27:34 is commonly acknowledged by commentators; compare, e.g., Levine, Leviticus, 192; Grünwaldt, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 128; Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2401–2402. In its present form

128

Christophe Nihan

H, as recalled above, has now been convincingly shown to be later than Lev 1– 16 (or most of it), this means that Lev 27 is probably one of the very last additions to Leviticus. The question why this late addition was introduced in Leviticus, rather than in Numbers, has often puzzled commentators. However, M. Douglas and J. Milgrom made the important observation that the legislation of Lev 27 formed a complement of sorts to the legislation on offerings with which Leviticus begins (Lev 1–7) in that it offers a comprehensive enumeration of valuables consecrated to the sanctuary other than sacrifices; as such, the function of Lev 27 was apparently to “book-end” Leviticus.67 If the interpretation of the relationship between Lev 27 and Num 18 that I have proposed here is correct, and if the tithe law of Numbers is a revision of the tithe law of Leviticus that was prompted by the introduction in Numbers of the distinction between different classes of ritual experts for whom distinct types of income had to be secured, it implies that the law of Num 18 – and, presumably, other so-called “priestly” laws in Numbers to which Num 18 is related – actually postdates the completion of Leviticus and its delineation as a discrete book, at least at a conceptual level. It is tempting to assume that the revision of Lev 27 in Num 18 corresponds to a stage when Leviticus was already contained on a separate scroll, although in the absence of any material evidence for the pre-Hasmonean period this must necessarily remain a mere hypothesis.68 Conversely, the composition of the priestly laws of Numbers appears to correspond to the introduction of a whole new set of legal issues and concepts with regard to ritual matters – and even to other civil and penal matters at least, the legislation of ch. 27 clearly presupposes H, as is shown among others by the reference to the jubilee in 27:16–24 (cf. Lev 25). The literary unity of ch. 27 has sometimes been disputed; in my view, a case can be made for viewing this chapter as a unified composition, see Nihan, Priestly Torah, 552–553 n. 613. 67 See M. Douglas, Leviticus as Literature, London: Oxford University Press, 1999, 244 (and for this idea already M. Douglas, Poetic Structure in Leviticus, in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells, FS J. Milgrom, ed. by David P. Wright et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995, 239–256); Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1365–1366; idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2409. See also the study by R.O. Ashlock, As the Lord Commands: Narrative Endings and Closure Strategy in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Diss. Baylor University, 2002, 138ff., who offers a detailed discussion of the closing function of Lev 27 in relation with Lev 1–7. I also briefly addressed it in Nihan, Priestly Torah, 94, 552–553 and passim. 68 The earliest witness for the transmission of Leviticus on a separate scroll is 11QpaleoLev (Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus). This scroll was dated to ca. 100 B.C.E. by R.S. Hanson, see his analysis in D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews (with contributions by R.S. Hanson), The PaleoHebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1985, 15–23, here p. 20– 23. Other manuscripts of Leviticus, such as 4QLevb, 4QLevc, 4QLevd, 4QLeve, and 4QLevg, are somewhat later, probably from the last decades of the 1st century B.C.E. 4QExod-Levf and 4QLev-Numa attest to the alternative practice of preserving Leviticus on a scroll together with Exodus or Numbers; even so, however, some blank lines were presumably left to separate between those books. In the case of 4QLev-Numa, see the discussion in DJD 12, 162–163.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

129

as well –, such as the distinction between priests and Levites, but also the discussion of new categories of impurity (Num 5 and 19), of new types of holiness beyond the boundaries of the sanctuary (the nazîr in Num 6), etc. Although it is occasionally possible to identify idioms and expressions that are reminiscent of H in these texts, their composition nonetheless appears to correspond to a distinct stage in the composition of the Pentateuch that postdates the compositional closure of Leviticus and, perhaps, the transmission of that book on a separate scroll.69

4. Beyond “Revision” and “Supplementation”: Num 18 and Deut If, as argued here, Num 18 postdates the tithe law of Lev 27 and revises it in order to introduce a second-rank category of ritual experts, a question that remains concerns the relation of that law to the Deuteronomic tithe law. Close examination shows that the law of Num 18:20–32 shares several parallels with the corresponding text in Deut 14:22–29 (and its complement in 26:12–15), suggesting that one of the two laws is based on the other (Fig. 2 below).

69 It is difficult to be more specific about the origins of the tithe law of Num 18:20–32. As observed by various commentators, this law appears to be presupposed in one passage of Nehemiah, see Neh 10:38b–39 (or 40a). However, not only is the origin of the section to which this passage belongs (Neh 10:31–40) disputed, but this passage has long been identified as a later supplement in its context; compare, e.g., J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary, London: SCM Press 1988, 318; and more recently K.-D. Schunck, Nehemia, BK.AT 23/2,4, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2006, 308–309, with further references. See also T. Reinmuth, Reform und Tora bei Nehemia. Neh 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der Tora in der Perserzeit, ZAR 7 (2001), 287–317; according to his detailed analysis, the account in Neh 10:31–40 would have undergone a revision after the completion of the Pentateuch, and it is to this revision that a passage such as 10:38b–39 should be assigned. The account of Neh 13:10– 14 refers to the praxis consisting in distributing the tithe brought to the temple among the Levites (see vv. 12–13). However, there is no clear indication whether this account already presupposes the law of Num 18:20–32. This may lend support to the view advocated by some scholars, according to whom we would have in Neh 13:10–14 the first attestation of a praxis that was later codified in the legislation of Num 18 (see, e.g., Schmidt, Numeri, 81–82).

130

Christophe Nihan

Deut 14:27 ‫והלוי אשׁר־בשׁעריך לא תעזבנו כי אין לו חלק ונחלה‬ ‫עמך‬ Deut 14:29a … ‫ובא הלוי כי אין־לו חלק ונחלה עמך‬ Deut 14:23a, 26b … ‫ואכלת לפני יהוה אלהיך במקום אשׁר־יבחר‬ ‫ואכלת שׁם לפני יהוה אלהיך ושׂמחת אתה וביתך‬ Deut 26:12 ‫כי תכלה לעשׂר את־כל־מעשׂר … ללוי לגר ליתום‬ ‫ולאלמנה ואכלו … ונתתה‬

Num 18:20 ‫בארצם לא תנחל וחלק לא־יהיה לך בתוכם אני‬ ‫חלקך ונחלתך בתוך בני ישׂראל‬

Num 18:31a ‫ואכלתם אתו בכל־מקום אתם וביתכם‬ Num 18:24 ‫כי את־מעשׂר בני־ישׂראל אשׁר ירימו ליהוה תרומה‬ ‫נתתי ללוים לנחלה על־כן אמרתי להם בתוך בני ישׂראל‬ ‫לא ינחלו נחלה‬

Fig. 2: Comparison between Deut 14:22–29 (and 26:12–15) with Num 18:20–32.

In general, commentators have concluded that the tithe law of Numbers is based on Deuteronomy, rather than the opposite; this conclusion, which was also elaborated in detail in the recent analysis by Stackert, can be supported by various observations.70 In particular, as rightly noted by Stackert, the notion in Num 18:20 that the Levites have no “portion” (ḥēleq) nor “inheritance” (naḥălāh) in Israel is never found elsewhere in the priestly literature, but is found several times in D.71 In Deuteronomy’s tithe law, this notion already served to motivate the obligation for the Israelite paterfamilias to include the Levite either in the festal journey to the sanctuary that is to take place two out of every three years (14:27), or among the beneficiates of the tithe when it is given every third year to the local underclasses (14:29). In Num 18, the same notion is now reused to motivate the assignment to the Levites of the whole tithe that must be brought by the Israelites to the sanctuary (18:20, further 18:23–24). Another observation that favors the chronological priority of Deut 14 is that the prescription regarding the consumption of the tithe by the Levites in 18:31, wa’ăkaltem ’otô bĕkŏl-māqôm ’atem ûbêtĕkem, “You shall eat it in any place, you (pl.) and your household”, appears to combine the language of Deut 14:23a and 26b; but because the Levitical tithe is no longer considered to be holy Num 18 replaces the

70 See Stackert, Rewriting, 171–191; and for other recent commentators adopting this view, compare, e.g., Levine, Numbers 1–20, 450; Seebass, Numeri, 235; Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 168–172. For a recent, comprehensive discussion of Deut 14:22–29 in the context of the Deuteronomic legislation, see Altmann, Festive Meals, 215–237, with further references. 71 See Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1; and 32:9; and compare the relevant comment on this point by Stackert, Rewriting, 181, who remarks: “This lexical tie is especially important for understanding both the Holiness legislator’s reaction to the Deuteronomic view of Levitical service and his reconceptualization of the tithe”.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

131

reference to the consumption of the tithe at the one place (māqôm) chosen by YHWH in Deuteronomy with a reference to “any place” (bĕkŏl-māqôm).72 At this point, however, it is important to consider what aspects of Deut 14 are actually revised in Num 18. Basically, the tithe law in Num 18 reuses the language of Deut 14 in order to prescribe that the tithes brought by the Israelites to the sanctuary must be given to the Levites and their families instead of being eaten there by the Israelite households; in addition, the fact that the tithe law of Numbers makes no distinction between the tithe of the first two years and the tithe of the third year seems to indicate that the author of Num 18 tacitly rejects this aspect of the Deuteronomic legislation, as noted by various commentators. What Num 18 does not rewrite, however, is the Deuteronomic prescription that the tithe must be brought to the sanctuary (Deut 14:22–25). This notion is consistently presupposed in Num 18, but never effectively prescribed; incidentally, the same observation applies in the case of Lev 27:30–33. Some commentators, especially those disputing the dependence of the Numbers tithe law on Deuteronomy, have sought to account for this observation by the idea that the tithe, in P, would not be mandatory but voluntary.73 However, this view raises a number of issues and it is hardly compatible in any case with the formulation of Lev 27:30–33, which seems to imply a mandatory tithe, as observed by scholars like Milgrom or Z. Zevit.74 The result is that even though the tithe law in Deut 14 is significantly rewritten in Numbers to be replaced by a new legislation regarding the way in which the tithe is to be disposed of, the Deuteronomic tithe law nonetheless retains some kind of authority as far as the obligation to bring the tithe to the sanctuary is concerned. Even Stackert, who contends that the reception of D in H was 72 Stackert, Rewriting, 175–183, offers some additional arguments for the priority of Deut 14 (and 26:12–15), such as the fact that the standard Deuteronomic sequence consisting of “grain, wine and oil” (see Deut 7:13; 11:14; 12:17; 14:23; 18:4 and 28:51) is also cited once in Num 18:12 (179). Although these observations may not be as compelling as the ones listed above, they nonetheless corroborate the conclusion that Num 18 is based on the Deuteronomic tithe law. 73 See Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, Chicago: University of Chicago press 1960, 189–193; M. Haran, art. ‫מעשר‬, in: ‫אנציקלופדיה‬ ‫מקראית‬, vol. 5, Jerusalem, 1968, 204–212, here 206–208; idem, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978, 116 n. 8. 74 This interpretation was already criticized by J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, SJLA 18, Leiden: Brill, 1976, 55–58; more recently, idem, Leviticus 23–27, 2426–2431; see also Z. Zevit, Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P, ZAW 94 (1982), 481–511, here p. 487 n. 29, who notes that a text such as Lev 27:30–33 makes no reference to vows or voluntary gifts, and that interdictions against substitutions for the animal tithe make sense only if that tithe is mandatory. “Why should a vow offering be encumbered by restrictions prohibiting substitution of a good by a bad animal? Why doesn’t the text mention vowing or donating?”. See also the remarks by Stackert, Rewriting, 190.

132

Christophe Nihan

meant to replace the Deuteronomic laws rather than supplement them, must admit that in this case that, “through his imitation, revision and assumption of key elements in the Deuteronomic tithe, the Holiness author paradoxically solidifies the prestige and canonical importance of the source text that he seeks to marginalize completely. Without the Deuteronomic tithe, there is no pentateuchal law that requires every lay Israelite to tithe his produce.”75

Here, as it seems, the mere alternative between legal-exegetical revision or supplementation of earlier non-Priestly laws in Numbers may not fully do justice to the complexity of the evidence. The text of Num 18 does offer significant revision of the former tithe law in Deuteronomy, yet it does not abrogate, or supplant, or replace that law entirely. Whether or not this was the intention of the scribe who wrote Num 18 – which is ultimately difficult to verify – the revision of Deut 14 in Numbers results in a legal-exegetical situation in which the obligation to bring the tithe to the central sanctuary remains associated with the legislation in Deuteronomy, not the one in Numbers, so that some form of complementary reading between these two laws is nonetheless possible and – to some extent – even required.76

5. Numbers, H, and the Pentateuch: Some Conclusions The previous discussion allows for some provisional conclusions with regard to the general issue of the relation between the priestly laws of Numbers, the Holiness legislation of Leviticus, and the composition of the Pentateuch. To begin with, Knohl and others were correct in assuming that much of the material traditionally assigned to P is actually based on the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26, and therefore postdates P. However, this finding does not justify the assumption of a Holiness school, or stratum, in the Pentateuch. In some cases, the introduction of H led to an editorial alignment of earlier P laws with H which can be seen in some limited H inserts, especially in Exodus and Leviticus (chs. 1–16). As observed above, such inserts are too limited to warrant an 75 Stackert, Rewriting, 205. See also on this the remarks already made by E. Otto, review of Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, Review of Biblical Literature [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2008), 5–6. 76 It is also possible that we find the same phenomenon in another passage of Num 18, the instruction about the firstborns of humans and animals in vv. 15–18. This instruction concerns exclusively what the priests are to do with these firstborns. The obligation to bring these firstborns to the central sanctuary is never mentioned, only presupposed; yet the phraseology used at the beginning of the passage, with the idiom kŏl-peṭer rēḥem (“all that opens the womb”) is typical of the terminology used in the two laws about firstborns in Exod 13 and 34 (see 13:2, 12, 15; and 34:19), which do assert that firstborns of humans and animals belong to YHWH and must be brought to the sanctuary (13:12, 15b; and 34:20b). However, that case would require a longer discussion.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

133

H school or stratum in the Pentateuch; more simply, they point to a post-H revision of some aspects of the former Priestly legislation in order to align that legislation with Lev 17–26. The presence of a terminology reminiscent of H in the priestly laws of Numbers comprises a separate phenomenon, which should not be identified with these H inserts in Exodus and Leviticus. Although the priestly laws of Numbers were composed by scribes who had fully internalized the phraseology and basic concepts of H, their assignment to an H stratum is misleading because it fails to do justice to the chronological, compositional and conceptual caesura between these laws and the H legislation in Lev 17–26. The case of the tithe law in Num 18 suggests instead that we have to do with a text that was created at a stage when the book of Leviticus had already more or less reached its final shape and was possibly transmitted on a separate scroll, whereas the wilderness narrative in Numbers was still susceptible to being augmented with additional material. The point made here about the correlation between different pentateuchal books, or even scrolls, on the one hand, and between priestly strata, on the other, has some far-reaching implications. To begin with, it corroborates the view of those scholars who already argued that the editorial closure of the book of Numbers took place later than in the case of Leviticus, and that the late, postLeviticus material in that book is most visible in the legal instructions that were traditionally assigned to P.77 More generally, however, it also implies that when we speak about the revision, or editing, or supplementation of earlier P material, we probably need to better differentiate from one book to another. The reception of H in Numbers seems to be part of a different process than in other pentateuchal books, such as especially Exodus and Leviticus. Putting it differently, the correct insight of Knohl is that the introduction of H in Lev 17–26 and the subsequent closure of Leviticus triggered a complex redactional and editorial process that informs much of what is usually referred to as “late Priestly” and “post-Priestly” materials in the Pentateuch. But the way this process worked appears to have been distinct from one book to the next, so that we need to think much more in terms of the relationship between post-H material and the compositional closure of a given book. Achenbach’s theory of a post-H “theocratic” edition that would be responsible for the final shaping of the book of Numbers offers an important insight in this respect, even though I would express some reservations regarding the use of the term “theocratic”, as well as about the historical reconstruction underlying this model.78 77

This view was already advocated by Milgrom in his commentary on Numbers, see Milgrom, Numbers, xxi and passim. More recently, see, e.g., Römer, De la périphérie au centre, 23 with note 103, who lists other recent scholars holding this view. 78 The theory of a “theocratic” edition in Numbers is largely based on the assumption that this book was completed in a historical and political context when the Persian province of Yehud was more or less controlled by the high priest of Jerusalem: see Achenbach, Vollendung

134

Christophe Nihan

Finally, the discussion concerning the reception of the tithe law of Deut 14 in Num 18 suggests that the relationship between the late, post-Priestly stratum in Numbers and the Deuteronomic legislation cannot be adequately described in terms of the classical alternative between “revision” and “supplementation”. While Num 18 does involve a significant revision of Deut 14 and cannot be described as a mere “supplement” to the Deuteronomic tithe law, it does not entirely replace it either but de facto acknowledges Deuteronomy’s authority in matters of cult centralization, thereby opening the way to a complementary reading of the two laws. This conclusion has some significant implications with regard to the recent pentateuchal discussion, insofar as it indicates that such complementary readings did not only develop after the completion of the Pentateuch in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, but already emerged in the context of the process by which different legal and narrative traditions were brought together into a single, comprehensive document.79 Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 145–175. –: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Albertz Rainer: From Aliens to Proselytes. Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives form the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 53–69. Altmann, Peter: Festive Meals in Ancient Israel. Deuteronomy’s Identity Politics in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context, BZAW 424, Berlin: de Gruyter 2011. Ashlock, Rodney O.: As the Lord Commands: Narrative Endings and Closure Strategy in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Diss. Baylor University 2002. Baentsch, Bruno: Numeri, HK I, 2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903. der Tora, esp. 130–140. This historical reconstruction is based on scanty evidence – mostly a small silver coin with the Paleo-Hebrew legend ywḥnn hkwhn, “Yohanan the (high) priest”, presumably dating 335–333 B.C.E. –, and has been criticized in a series of recent studies. See especially D. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs. The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, OTM, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000; L.S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2004; and more recently J.W. Cataldo, A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Province, LHB/OTS 498, New York/London: T & T Clark 2009. 79 While the present argument only applies to the priestly laws of Numbers, I address the issue of the relation between the Holiness legislation in Lev 17–26 and non-Priestly traditions (especially Deuteronomy) in a forthcoming essay: see C. Nihan, “Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch. Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26”, to appear in a volume of collected essays published by F. Hartenstein, Abschied von der Priesterschrift?, VWGTh, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2013.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

135

Barmash, Pamela: Homicide in the Biblical World, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press 2005. Bar-On, Shimon: Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Exod 12,21–27, ZAW 107 (1995), 18–30. Blenkinsopp, Joseph: Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary, London: SCM Press 1988, 318. Blum, Erhard: Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings, in: The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, AThANT 95, Zürich: TVZ 2009, 31–44. Budd, Philip J.: Numbers, WBC 5, Waco: Word Books, 1984. Carr, David: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: University Press 2011, 298–303. Cataldo, Jeremiah W.: A Theocratic Yehud? Issues of Government in a Persian Province, LHB/OTS 498, New York/London: T & T Clark 2009. Crüsemann, Frank: Der Exodus als Heiligung. Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes, in: Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Erhard Blum et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1990, 117–129. Douglas, Mary: Leviticus as Literature, London: Oxford University Press 1999. –: Poetic Structure in Leviticus, in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells, FS J. Milgrom, ed. by David P. Wright et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1995, 239–256. Elliger, Karl: Art. Heiligkeitsgesetz, RGG3, 1959, 175–176. –: Leviticus, HAT I/4, Tübingen: Mohr 1966. Feucht, Christian: Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz, TA 20, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1964. Freedman, David N./Mathews, Kenneth A. (with contributions by R.S. Hanson): The PaleoHebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1985. Fried, Lisbeth S.: The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2004. Gertz, Jan C.: Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Graf, Karl H.: Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig: Weigel 1866. Gray, George B.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1903. Grünwaldt, Klaus: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26. Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie, BZAW 271, Berlin: de Gruyter 1999. –: Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift, BBB 85, Frankfurt a.M.: Philo 1992. Haran, Menahem: art. ‫מעשר‬, in: ‫מקראת אנציקלופדיה‬, vol. 5, Jerusalem 1968, 204–212. –: Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1978. Kaufmann, Yehezkel: The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1960, 189–193. Klostermann, August: Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz (1877), in: A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig: Deichert 1893, 368–418. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995. Köckert, Matthias: Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur, JBTh 4 (1989), 29–61. Kuenen, Abraham: Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments, 2 vols, Leipzig: Schulze 1885.

136

Christophe Nihan

Laaf, Peter: Die Pascha-Feier Israels. Eine literarkritische und überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studie, BBB 36, Bonn: Katholischer Verlag 1970. Levin, Christoph: On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch, in: Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. by Thomas Dozeman et al., SBL.AIL 8, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2011, 127–154. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4, New York: Doubleday 1993. –: Leviticus ‫ויקרא‬. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, JPSTC, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society 1989. Marx, Alfred: Le système sacrificiel de P et la formation du Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 285– 303. –: Lévitique 17–27, CAT, Genève: Labor et Fides 2011. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers ‫במדבר‬. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Commentary, JPSTC, Philadelphia/New York: The Jewish Publication Society 1990. –: Studies in Levitical Terminology: The Encroacher and the Levite. The Term ‘Aboda, Univ. of California Near Eastern Studies 14, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press 1970. –: Cult and Conscience: The ASHAM and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, SJLA 18, Leiden: Brill 1976. –: HR in Leviticus and Elsewhere in the Torah, in: The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception, ed. by Rolf Rendtorff/Robert A. Kugler, VTSup 93, Leiden: Brill 2003, 24–40. –: Leviticus 1–16: A Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3, New York et al.: Doubleday 1991. –: Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3A, New York et al.: Doubleday 2000. –: Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3B, New York et al.: Doubleday 2001. Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 4–11. –: Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 177–231. –: Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch. Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26, to appear in a volume of collected essays published by F. Hartenstein, Abschied von der Priesterschrift?, VWGTh, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2013. Otto, Eckart: Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by Heinz-Josef Fabry/Hans-Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 125–196. –: pāsaḥ/pesaḥ, TDOT 12 (2003), 1–24. –: review of Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, RBL [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2008), 5–6. Reinmuth, Titus: Reform und Tora bei Nehemia. Neh 10,31–40 und die Autorisierung der Tora in der Perserzeit, ZAR 7 (2001), 287–317. Römer, Thomas: De la périphérie au centre. Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, BEThL 215, ed. by Thomas Römer, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 3–34. Rooke, Deborah W.: Zadok’s Heirs. The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, OTM, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000.

The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch

137

Ruwe, Andreas: “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”: literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Levitikus 17–26, FAT 26, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das vierte Buch Mose - Numeri 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. Schunck, Klaus D.: Nehemia, BK.AT 23/2,4, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2006. Seebass, Horst: Numeri. 3. Teilband. Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2007. Stackert, Jeffrey: Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation, FAT 52, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. –: Compositional Strata in the Priestly Sabbath. Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3, JHS 11/15 (2011), 1–20. Wagenaar, Jan A.: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar, BZAR 6, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2005. Wellhausen, Julius: Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1899), Berlin: de Gruyter 41963. Wöhrle, Jakob: The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives form the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 71–87. Zevit, Ziony: Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P, ZAW 94 (1982), 481– 511.

Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers1 Christian Frevel ‫“ !רב לכם בני לוי‬You have gone too far, sons of Levi” (NRSV, Num 16:7). The claim for priesthood on the basis of the general holiness of the whole congregation is one of the most striking incidents in the narrative of the book of Numbers. From the beginning of ‫ במדבר‬everything seems so clear, so arranged as clearly hierarchical, and then suddenly the conflict between the Aaronides and Levites breaks out. Within the narrative the uprising of the Korahites is repulsed and thereafter the priestly world is back in order. Aaron blossoms as first and foremost priest in Num 17 and is never challenged again. But is there really a fissure between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers? Even more, are the Levites disparaged in the book of Numbers as they are in Ezek 44:9–15? Or are they instead rehabilitated or not yet denigrated? The complex history of priesthood cannot be dissolved from the book of Numbers and the positioning of the Levites therein. However, one of the starting points of this paper is the fact that within the Pentateuch, Levites are present mostly in the book of Numbers. It is striking that on the one hand, Levites are almost absent in Exodus and Leviticus, and that on the other hand, the concept of Deuteronomy differs in most parts regarding the position of Levites. This paper will ask some new questions and question some practiced answers regarding priests and Levites in the Pentateuch. A preliminary remark should be made in advance: Method, argumentation, and results of this paper may be sometimes puzzling because its line of argument operates on different levels. Although it is not aiming at a historical reconstruction in terms of an institutional development of Levites, Aaronide priests, and high priest, the results are relevant for this development. But this is not at the core. The diachronic perspective of literary development is present all the time, but the paper does not aim at a complete reconstruction of textual 1 The present paper is part of the MERCUR research project on the relation of non-priestly and priestly texts in the book of Numbers and an extended version of a paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting Chicago, November 16th–20th, 2012.

Ending with the High Priest

139

growth. In particular the connection between the Chronicler and the latest layers in the book of Numbers is pushed into the background and will require further research. The observations will be relevant to determine the relationship of P and H, and in particular regarding the question whether the book of Numbers has a bridging function in a literary-historical respect. However, not all aspects of the relations of Numbers with the Triateuch, esp. Exodus and Leviticus, the book of Deuteronomy, and the book of Joshua can be discussed here in detail. Most of the argument will stick to the narrative organization of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers and to a (diachronic but also synchronic) development in/of the text and the textual world which tends to the growing implicitness of the high priest and/or Aaron and Eleazar as highest priest/high priest. The paper contributes to crucial questions of the present volume: First, the relationship between the book of Numbers and the book of Leviticus, and second, how can the priestly material of the book of Numbers be arranged in the recent Pentateuchal discussion. At the end of the paper I will contribute to the discussion of the “bridging hypothesis” of Thomas Römer. Let me start with a statement regarding the final text of the book of Numbers: Apart from the Levitical cities (Num 35),2 I consider the conception of the relation of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers as consistent, without excluding literary growth in principle. Aaronides and Levites are related to each other; they are assigned to the same range, but not to the same rank. The book of Numbers develops a clear hierarchical structure with superior Aaronide priests, but it gives the Levites a non-priestly honorary position at the same time. The instruments of this appreciation are a unified genealogy, elective selection, and equated care of the Levites (see as a crucial example Num 18). Nevertheless, the Levites are under the total control of the Aaronide priests;3 apart from their purification (Num 8:21) and their entering into office (Num 8:22), which are both also demanded by God, they never act alone or on their own at any point. Furthermore they are never addressed directly in the book of

2

In my view, the selection of Levitical cities in Num 35:2 (‫לשׁבת ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחזתם ערים‬ ‫ )ומגרשׁ לערים סביבתיהם תתנו ללוים׃‬outruns the concept of service at the sanctuary that was developed in Num 1–4; 8; and 18. Either the Levitical cities are intended only for the women, the children, and the age-related men who are no longer fit for service (which may include alternate shifts for the Levites as described in Num 8:26), or the construction of Levitical cities produces ghost towns. 3 For ‫ נתונים‬and ‫ מתנה‬see provisionally Frevel, Christian: “… dann gehören die Leviten mir”. Anmerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Num 3; 8 und 18, in: Kulte, Priester, Rituale. Beiträge zu Kult und Kultkritik im Alten Kultkritik im Alten Testament und Alten Orient. FS Theodor Seidl, ed. by Stephanie Ernst/Maria Häusl, ATSAT 89, St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag 2010, 133–158, 138–140.

140

Christian Frevel

Numbers.4 It is only Num 16 that reproaches the Levites to act as priests on their own authority. This claim is forcefully rejected with reference to the exceptional position of the Levites which is thereby cemented further at the same time. Hence, on the textual level the conception is entirely consistent, even up to the hierarchy of priests, as we shall see in the course of this paper.

1. Three General Observations on Levites and Priests in Numbers Basic evidence for the consistency of the clerical order in Numbers can be drawn from an overview of the conception in Numbers, as three general remarks and observations on priests and Levites in the book of Numbers will indicate: (1) The importance of Levites in Numbers, (2) the hierarchy of the priests and Levites, and, (3) finally, the question of a particular tension between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. 1.1. The Importance of Levites in Numbers The concept of Levites as cultic servants (clerus minor) in the book of Numbers bridges the concept of priestly Levites in the book of Deuteronomy and the more or less “Levite-less” Triateuch (Gen–Lev). Apart from the Levites in the book of Numbers there would be no Levitical cultic personnel in the wilderness sanctuary besides the priests in the cult of the tabernacle. At least this is true for the narrative of the Pentateuch. Besides the eponym Levi (Gen 29:34; 34:25, 30; 35:23; 46:11; 49:5; Exod 1:2), his daughter Jochebed (Exod 2:1), and Aaron “the Levite” (‫ אהרן אחיך הלוי‬Exod 4:14), the genealogy with Levi, his sons, the clan, and the families of the Levites (Exod 6:16–255), Levites are mentioned only in the story of the golden calf (Exod 32:26, 28), where they serve Moses as executors of the punishment. But this does not represent an engagement in the cult. There is one “substantial” reference in the book of Exodus in Exod 38:21. It makes mention of the Levites being under the supervision of Ithamar (‫)ביד איתמר בן־אהרן הכהן‬. Although their function stays unspecified, this remark is implicitly connected to their service in the cult (for further details, see below). 4

In Num 16:7 and 8 Korah is addressed directly but (some of) the Levites are included explicitly: ‫ רב־לכם בני לוי‬and ‫שׁמעו בני לוי‬. In vv. 10–11 they are included implicitly, e.g., in the accusation ‫ובקשׁתם גם־כהנה‬. 5 The passage ends remarkably with the first mentioning of ‫הלוים‬: “These are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their clans” (‫)אלה ראשׁי אבות הלוים למשׁפחתם‬. The genealogy is mentioned again in Num 26:57–62. The literary development of both passages cannot be dealt with, here.

Ending with the High Priest

141

Finally, Lev 25:32–33 refer to the Levitical cities and issues of property without mentioning the cultic duties of the Levites.6 Thus, the Levites are involved in the construction of the tabernacle, but they are not engaged in the sacrificial cult, which is initiated in Lev 8–9. If we consult Exodus and Leviticus only, Levites do not assist the priests in any way within the cult. The situation does not change radically in Deuteronomy, if we set aside for a moment the information that we get from the book of Numbers. Most of the references to the Levites address the cult in the land, not the cult in the wilderness. Only Deut 10:8–9 bridges the wilderness situation and the Levites in the land of promise within Deuteronomy. The landless position (cf. Num 18:23–24), which is crucial for the Levites in Deuteronomy, is connected (‫ )על־כן‬to their segregation and their threefold cultic duty that lasts from the wilderness till Moab ( ‫עד היום‬ ‫)הזה‬: carrying the ark of the covenant (‫)לשׂאת את־ארון ברית־יהוה‬, standing before YHWH to minister him (‫)לפני יהוה לשׁרתו לעמד‬, and blessing in His name ( ‫ולברך‬ ‫)בשׁמו‬.7 Besides Deut 10:8–9 and the Levitical ministry in the land, Levites are mentioned in Deut 31:9 and 25 carrying the ark of the covenant. No further cultic function is referenced. Finally, Deut 33:8–9 brings up the Levites within the blessing of Levi, mentioning the Thummim and Urim as privilege of a man (‫ )לאישׁ‬and (if we take the subject for granted) that they observed the word of the Lord and kept His covenant (‫)שׁמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו‬. The enigmatic reference to the Urim and Thummim and the temptation at Massah addresses Aaron, but the postscript may refer to the Levites. Nevertheless, there is no cultic function or ministry mentioned explicitly. Thus again, without the book of Numbers the wilderness cult would take place almost without the participation of the Levites in terms of employment, function, or charge. By contrast the role of Levites in the book of Numbers is crucial: They are responsible for managing the transport of the sanctuary, they assist the priests in the sacrificial cult, and they are consecrated in a rite that has many parallels to the consecration of 6

See n. 12 for further remarks. The focus above is only on the connection between the wilderness situation and the cult in the land, esp. in Jerusalem. Just to mention the difficulties connected with Deut 10:8–9 in the final text of Deuteronomy: The ministry of the Levites is mentioned in Deut 18:7 (‫ושׁרת‬ ‫ )בשׁם יהוה אלהיו ככל־אחיו הלוים העמדים שׁם לפני יהוה‬as well as in Deut 21:5 and 31:9 (‫הכהנים בני‬ ‫)לוי‬. The blessing is mentioned in Deut 21:5 and the carrying of the ark in Deut 31:9. The situation in Deuteronomy is much more complicated; see for a description Dahmen, Ulrich: Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, BBB 110, Bodenheim: Philo 1996, 6–20 and 388–404; Samuel, Harald: Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Levi und den Leviten in der Literatur des Zweiten Tempels, Ph.D. diss., Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 2012, 85– 155. I am grateful to Harald Samuel for sharing the manuscript of his doctoral dissertation with me. The print version is forthcoming as: Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zum alttestamentlichen Kultpersonal, BZAW 448, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter 2013. 7

142

Christian Frevel

priests in Lev 8. More than once their duty is called ‫עבודת‬, ‫משׁמרת‬, ‫“ קרב‬service”, “charge”, “work”, “nearing”, “assistance”, etc. The general importance of the Levites in the book of Numbers is corroborated by statistical observations, even if these do not take the involvement in the cult into account. Besides the occurrence of the eponym Levi, the determined noun/adjective singular ‫ הלוי‬and plural ‫ הלוים‬require special attention. The greatest number of the determined ‫ הלוי‬in the singular within the Pentateuch can be found in Deuteronomy with reference to the personae miserae (apart from Deut 10:8) while the two instances in Exodus (Exod 4:14; 6:19) and the four verses in Numbers (Num 3:20, 32; 18:23; 26:57) that attest ‫ הלוי‬do not refer to the Levite as persona misera, but rather to the Levites as a nonpriestly group in the vicinity of the temple. The vast majority of the determined plural ‫ הלוים‬can be found in the book of Numbers, where 55 instances stand against 2 in Exodus, 4 in Leviticus, and 8 in Deuteronomy. Regarding the term in general, Genesis focuses the eponym Levi with 6 attestations, Exodus has only 11 instances in 9 verses (and only two of them are not related to the eponym), while Leviticus has only 4 attestations of ‫ הלוים‬in two verses. Deuteronomy has 26 attestations and thus lays emphasis on the Levites, in whatever way. The sheer superior quantity of 75 attestations in Numbers is striking. The crucial function of the book of Numbers with regard to the Levites becomes even more important if one goes into further detail. Although this paper cannot develop a complete diachronic outline, some remarks on the verses where Levites become engaged in the cult may be helpful. As was already noted, Exod 38:21 is more or less the only substantial reference to the Levites and their function in the cult in the book of Exodus. Exod 38:21 reads: ‫אלה פקודי המשׁכן משׁכן העדת אשׁר פקד על־פי משׁה עבדת הלוים ביד איתמר בן־אהרן הכהן׃‬ This is the sum of the things for the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, as they were counted at the commandment of Moses, for the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest (RSV).

Actually, this reference appears to be anachronistic because Ithamar is explicitly set over the Gershonites and Merarites in Num 4:28. Exod 38:21, which is often neglected in modern commentaries, has to be considered as an anticipation of the situation portrayed in Numbers. In a diachronic respect, it is – as part of vv. 21–31 – usually identified as a secondary addition,8 either attributed with Exod 35:4–40:38 to a later priestly layer Ps or HS,9 or as an addition to the

8 “Daß wir es hier, wie auch in Ex 30,11–16, mit einem Nachtrag zu tun haben, ist nahezu Konsens”, Samuel, Priestern, 302. 9 See Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995, 66 and 83.

Ending with the High Priest

143

already secondary text.10 Considering Exod 38:21 as a conceptual intrusion, it can be attributed to the latest strand of the “Levitical story” (“letztgültige Durchsetzung der priesterschriftlichen Sichtweise”11). In a compositional and redactional respect it is noticeable that Exod 38:21 is the only intrusion of the Levitical concept from the book of Numbers into Exod–Lev! Strikingly there are no other Levites in the priestly texts in Exodus and in Leviticus;12 they are neither involved in the building process or in the early performance of the cultic service, nor are they excluded from the financial support of the cult (Exod 30:12–16). There is no doubt that the other hinge of a cultic function outside of the book of Numbers, Deut 10:8–9, is not part of the early conception of the Levites in Deuteronomy. Although ‫“ בעת ההיא‬at that time” links up to the reference of the tablets and the situation to the descent of Moses in Deut 10:5,13 it is probably not the voice of Moses speaking but that of the narrator of the book. There is a broad consensus that this passage has to be considered an addition.14 Ulrich Dahmen has evaluated the intrusion as one of the latest redactional passages in

10 Cf. Wagner, Thomas: Gottes Herrlichkeit. Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffes kābôd im Alten Testament, VTSup 151, Leiden et al.: Brill 2012, 55. See for discussion Samuel, Priestern, 302, who attributes Exod 38:21 to the latest layers of the Pentateuch. 11 Samuel, Priestern, 303. 12 The only exception in Lev 25:32–33 solves the subsequent logical problem that follows from the lack of property of the Levites on the one hand and the living space in the Levitical cities which implies real houses that can be sold to someone who is not Levite, on the other hand. Thus Lev 25:32–33 comes up with a ‫גאלת עולם‬, so that the character of Levitical cities can be preserved permanently. In terms of diachrony Lev 25:32–33 has to be regarded as a late addition as the analysis of Christophe Nihan has shown, cf. idem: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 522 and 546. 13 This is more appropriate than connecting v. 8 to v. 7 where the death of Aaron is mentioned. Because this scenario is placed in the fortieth year after the exodus, the implementation of the Levites would be displaced. Whether this may have diachronic consequences is disputed. The use of ‫ בדל‬links up to Num 8:14 and 16:9, and the reference to ‫ שׁבט הלוי‬has to be regarded as priestly phraseology (see ‫ משׁפחת הלוי‬in Exod 6:19; Num 3:20; Josh 13:14, 33; ‫ נשׂאי הלוי‬in Num 3:32; and ‫ פקודי הלוי‬in Num 26:57). This holds true although the use of ‫ שׁבט‬instead of ‫מטה‬ is not the terminology of Numbers, but rather of Deuteronomy (Deut 18:1) and the Chronicler. In sum, it is impossible to attribute vv. 8–9 to a late Deuteronomist (pace Samuel, Priestern, 28). The reference to the death of Aaron presupposes P in Num 20 and the list of places in Num 33:30 so that Deut 10:6–7 may be later than v. 8–9 (Samuel, Priestern, 23: “gelten allgemein als spätester Zusatz innerhalb des Abschnitts”). It is the claim of priesthood and the hierarchical pole position of the Aaronides which is cemented again in Deut 10:6–7. 14 “In der älteren wie jüngeren Literatur besteht nahezu allgemeiner Konsens darüber, daß diese beiden Verse (und vv. 6f) durch ihr Thema und ihr anders gelagertes Interesse aus dem Zusammenhang der Erzählung herausfallen”, Dahmen, Leviten, 23, see 23–73 for the most comprehensive and concise analysis of both verses.

144

Christian Frevel

the Pentateuch.15 It is a late theoretical peak with systematic aspiration.16 Deut 10:8 – it is not by chance that this verse opens the statements on Levites in Deuteronomy – bridges the conception of Numbers and Deuteronomy ( ‫בעת‬ ‫ההוא‬/‫ )עד היום הזה‬in combining several functions. However, it must be noted that the assignment of powers does not agree with the Levites’ status in Numbers, but is contrastive to it. The Levites’ honorary position as a general characteristic which precedes the functional perspective is of utmost importance and takes up the position of Numbers: The whole tribe of Levi is segregated (‫ בדל‬Num 8:14; 16:9). And this special position qualifies the Levites now (1) to carry the ark of the covenant (Num 3:31; Deut 31:9, 25), while covering the ark is reserved to the Aaronides (Num 4:5); (2) to stand before YHWH (Deut 18:5, 13), while Num 3:6 and 8:13 let the Levites stand before Aaron or the Edah (Num 16:9); (3) to serve YHWH (‫ בשׁם יהוה‬Deut 18:5, 7; cf. 21:5) and not Aaron (Num 3:6; 18:2); (4) to bless in His name, while Num 6:23 (cf. Lev 9:23) restricts the blessing to Aaron and his sons. In sum, the responsibilities and skills of the Levites in Deuteronomy exceed the designations in the book of Numbers, but at the same time they do not put the Levites on one level with the priests. Thus Deut 10:8–9 mediates in favor of the Levites and goes as far as possible within the standards of the book of Numbers. Deut 10:8 is an attempt at a very late adaptation of different conceptions. Maybe the reference to Aaron’s priesthood in Deut 10:6–7 again turns back the clock by cementing the priestly position of the Aaronides. In sum: Both passages which relate to a cultic function of the Levites outside the book of Numbers are late redactional intrusions which presuppose the conception developed in Numbers. The formative power of structuring the ministry in the wilderness sanctuary has to be considered in the book of Numbers. The importance of its conception within the Pentateuch is pivotal. The second point will concentrate on the hierarchy within this conception. 1.2. The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in Numbers The hierarchy of priesthood in the book of Numbers is quite clear. It is the family of Aaron that is ordained to perform the priestly duty. Aaron is pater familias, eldest, and thus leading priest. Nevertheless, in the narrative world there is in fact a very small circle of priests. After the death of Nadab und Abihu, only Eleazar and Ithamar act as priests next to their father (Lev 10). Although there are 71 attestations of the lexeme ‫ כהן‬in the book of Numbers, strictly 15 Cf. Dahmen, Leviten, 71: “nach RP und nach den späten dtr Redaktionsschichten des Dtn und DtrGW”. 16 Seebass, Horst: Art. Levi/Leviten, TRE 21, 1991, 36–40, 38: “theoretische Spitzenformel”. Cf. also Samuel, Harald: Levi, the Levites, and the Law, in: Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Devorah Dimant/Reinhard G. Kratz, BZAW 439, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter 2013, 215–230, 216.

Ending with the High Priest

145

speaking there are just these three priests performing the whole cult in the wilderness. This is made explicit in Num 3:2–4: ‫ ואלה שׁמות בני־אהרן הבכור נדב ואביהוא אלעזר ואיתמר׃‬2 ‫ אלה שׁמות בני אהרן הכהנים המשׁחים אשׁר־מלא ידם לכהן׃‬3 ‫ וימת נדב ואביהוא לפני יהוה בהקרבם אשׁ זרה לפני יהוה במדבר סיני‬4 ‫ובנים לא־היו להם‬ ‫ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על־פני אהרן אביהם׃‬ Here, it is stated that neither Nadab nor Abihu had children and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, is not mentioned yet either. From the genealogical perspective v. 4 narrows the priestly family to two lines. However, we have to acknowledge that besides the genealogical notices (Num 3:2, 4; 26:60) Ithamar is mentioned more explicitly only three times in Numbers (Num 4:28, 33; 7:8), where he is set over the Gershonites and Merarites (regarding Exod 38:21, see above). Implicitly he is demanded to blow one of the two trumpets (Num 10:8), but that is his whole concrete duty. There are no descendants of Ithamar mentioned in the book of Numbers.17 Besides Num 3:418 it is not distinctly stated that Ithamar performs any cultic service. Thus the priestly lineage in the narrative of Numbers is de facto narrowed to Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. However, Ithamar holds the title ‫ הכהן‬several times,19 although Eleazar does so much more often and explicitly (e.g., Num 17:4; 19:3, 4). Phinehas is the only mentioned descendant of Eleazar, so that the total number of priests increases to four (although in fact they remain three because Aaron is already dead beyond Num 20). The main line stresses the sequence Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. Nevertheless, the importance of Num 3:3 cannot be underestimated. All four sons of Aaron are qualified as ‫“ הכהנים המשׁחים‬the anointed priests” ‫אשׁר־מלא ידם‬ ‫“ לכהן‬whose hand he/one had filled to act as priest”. Whoever is subject of the verb (Moses, Aaron, YHWH, or an impersonal singular, with the Septuagint an impersonal plural20) the ordination refers back to Exod 28:41; 29 and Lev 8. Due to the ‫ אשׁ זרה‬incident the first and second born are cut out of the genealogical succession. In taking up the verb ‫ כהן‬v. 4b makes clear that only Eleazar 17

See 1 Chr 24:3 and Ezra 8:2 for descendants of Ithamar. Cf. 1 Chr 24:2–6 where a strong emphasis is laid on the priority of the Eleazarides, although a priestly service of the Ithamarides with half of the “heads” is mentioned. 19 Ithamar is associated with the title ‫ הכהן‬only following the filiation ‫( בן־אהרן‬Num 4:28, 33; 7:8) so that the title could be related to Aaron as well. Is he “the son of Aaron, and the priest” or “the son of Aaron, who is priest”? Num 25:7, 11 (Phinehas); and 26:1 (Eleazar) where the designation of the title ‫ הכהן‬takes place after Aaron’s death reveal that the title should be related to Ithamar as well. Thus the title “priest” is not only applied to the genealogical successor and the current high priest. 20 Moses is most probably following Exod 28:41; 29:9, and 35. An impersonal singular may link the passage to Exod 29:29, 33; and Lev 8:33. For the preference of the lectio difficilior see Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995, 79 n. 124. 18

146

Christian Frevel

and Ithamar are legitimate successors and the only remaining priests to minister (with) Aaron. The structure and unity of Num 3:1–4 are a frequent subject of discussion.21 We cannot go into detail here, though it is striking that each of the first three verses begin with the demonstrative pronoun ‫אלה‬. The integration of Moses in v. 122 is often scrutinized, much less the repetition of v. 2aα in v. 3aα.23 For Kellermann and others this is no problem (“Trotzdem liegt kein triftiger Grund vor, 2 von 3 zu trennen”24); Möhlenbrink and others consider vv. 2–3a an addition.25 The repetition v. 3a can also be considered some kind of “Wiederaufnahme” that indicates the insertion of v. 3. In the text the demonstrative pronoun has a different function: While in v. 2a it is cataphoric “these are the names of the sons of Aaron:” in v. 3a it is anaphoric “these were the names of the sons of Aaron.” V. 3 expresses the election and inauguration of the priests in Exod 28; 40 and Lev 8. The unique phrase ‫ המשׁחים הכהנים‬is put in front as a kind of honorific title: they are the anointed priests. This resembles Exod 28:41; 30:30 and 40:15 where the anointment of the sons of Aaron is combined with the root ‫כהן‬, too. The exceptional position is emphasized by the relative clause that highlights the ritual of installation (of filling the hand26) as empowerment and qualification to act as priest (‫)לכהן‬. Hence, Num 3:3 makes clear that the priesthood is restricted to the three Aaronides, who were employed before. V. 4 again puts particular emphasis on this point: Ithamar and Eleazar served as priests (‫ כהן‬D-stem) during the lifetime of their father (‫)על־פני אהרן אביהם‬.27 V. 6 explicitly subordinates the Levites to this small group, especially to Aaron

21 Note, for example, the structural correlation of Num 3:1–4 and Num 3:10 and its framing function observed by Lunn, Nicholas P.: Numbering Israel. A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1–4, JSOT 35 (2010), 167–185. 22 See, e.g., Möhlenbrink, Kurt: Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments, ZAW 52 (1934), 184–231, 190; Kellermann, Diether: Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10. Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120, Berlin: de Gruyter 1970, 46; Samuel, Priestern, 170–171. 23 Read with many manuscripts both verses beginning with a copula (‫)ואלה‬. 24 Kellermann, Priesterschrift, 46. 25 See, e.g., Möhlenbrink, Überlieferung, 190. 26 For this phrase see Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32; and 21:10; note the singular of ‫ מלא‬in every instance, which indicates a different formula. 27 For this interpretation see Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers. [Ba-midbar]. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society 1990, 15; Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 1–20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4, New York et al.: Doubleday 1993, 156.

Ending with the High Priest

147

(‫)אהרן הכהן ושׁרתו אתו׃ הקרב את־מטה לוי והעמדת אתו לפני‬. Thus, “priests” is a family affair in the book of Numbers.28 Generally, priests that are not to be identified with Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar, and Phinehas in Numbers are rare; they are mentioned mostly in rituals which shall be performed repeatedly (Num 5:8–10, 15–30; 6:10–20; 15:25–29; 19:6, 7; 35:25, 28, 32). Within the ritual scripts there are priests acting and the text does not identify them with Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, or Ithamar explicitly. For instance the restitution of Num 5:8 belongs to “the priest” if the wronged party is not accessible because there is no next of kin. Or the priest who is conducting the ritual of Num 5:11–31 is called “the priest” only. Within the textual world of the book of Numbers the priest is mostly Aaron, sometimes Eleazar. The ritual in Num 19 forms a special case. It mentions Eleazar explicitly, but besides there is a priest acting in vv. 6–7, who is considered unclean until the evening.29 This may be a further priest, but it cannot be excluded that it is also Eleazar. Only some passages burst the limits of the narrative logic clearly: When God declares in Num 18:11 and 19 that all taxes and tributes are given to Aaron, his sons, and his daughters with him (‫ ולבנתיך אתך לך ולבניך‬v. 18) then the narrative world of Aaron and his four sons is transcended towards a class of priests. The regulation of wages in Num 18 is formulated as an everlasting law, which shall function in the land, too. The same holds true for the law of refuge, where the genealogical succession of the high priest seems to exceed the sequence Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. If a falsely accused manslayer shall live in the city of refuge until the (high) priest’s death, the succession line is generalized. But beside these noted exceptions and special cases the narrative world in the book of Numbers restricts priesthood to the mentioned members of the family of Aaron. Strikingly, the cult prescribed in the books of Exodus and Leviticus operates without Levitical assistance on the textual level. But is this a realistic scenario? One may question whether the cult prescribed could be performed without the assistance of cultic personnel. However, the textual world does not employ the Levites in the sacrificial cult proper (e.g., Lev 1–7) before Num 8. From another point of view one may ask whether questions of operationalization are appropriate to a narrative world. Be that as it may, the introduction of Levitical staff to perform the sacrificial cult and to assist the very small group of priests is 28 However, it is striking that only Exod 19:22 and 24 may escape this small circle. These passages mention priests before the ordination of priests. In my view this is a compelling argument for a diachronic approach and a pre-priestly Sinai theophany, which existed independently from the priestly narrative. 29 For Num 19:6–7 see Frevel, Christian: Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses. Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19, in: Les vivants et leurs morts. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’assyriologie et des milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 14 et 15 avril 2010, ed. by Jean-Marie Durand et al., OBO 257, Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012, 199–226, 203–206, esp. 204.

148

Christian Frevel

consistent. Thus, on the one hand, diachronic concepts in which Num 1–10 are dated post-priestly and much later than Exod 25–40; Lev 1–7; 8–9; 16, and where Num 1–10 are postponed to the end of the redactional processes of the Pentateuch raise serious questions about the operationalization of the cult. This should be kept in mind in the discussion of literary growth. On the other hand, it remains a mystery why the Levites are not introduced earlier or why they are not even mentioned or added to the narrative of the initial sacrifices in the wilderness (Lev 9) or in other texts. The very small circle of acting priests responsible for the ritual performance of the cult raises the question whether there are already tensions between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. Or, to put it differently: Is the hierarchy of Aaronides and Levites contested in the book of Numbers? 1.3. Is There a Particular Tension between Levites and Priests in Numbers? Let us start with a thought experiment: If we leave Num 16 aside for a moment, it is striking that in neither the so-called non-priestly passages of the book of Numbers (roughly Num *11–14; *21:1–25:5; *32) nor in the passages that were formerly often attributed to the Priestly source (Num 13–14*; 20:1–13, 22–29; 27:12–23) do the Levites play any role. In the diachronic respect, the Levites enter the book of Numbers in later literary stages. If Num 1–10* are not attributed to the first priestly narrative, there are no Levites as cultic personnel that should pop up in the land. Given the fact that the Deuteronomy was already the continuation of the Tetrateuchal narrative at this stage of literary growth, which is probable in my view, the beginning of Deuteronomy is compatible with the “Levite-less” Tetrateuch. Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar, and Phinehas belong to the tribe of Levi – and that’s it. Even the ‫ הכהנים הלוים‬in Deut 17:9 may be unproblematic as addressing the family of Aaron. The clash in the synchronic respect comes to light in Deut 18:6–7, where the Levite from the towns comes to the central sanctuary and is demanded to take part in the service of his brothers, the Levites (‫)העמדים שׁם לפני יהוה ככל־אחיו הלוים‬. This definitely reflects a group beyond the scope of Aaron’s family. The situation is different in the book of Numbers. There is no explicit contradiction with the Levitical concept of the book of Numbers, even if the text lacks Num 1–10. For example: Although one spy from every tribe is sent to Canaan (‫אישׁ אחד למטה‬, Num 13:2), the tribe of Levi is exempted and the enumeration in vv. 5–15 lists 12 representatives by splitting up the tribe of Joseph into Manasseh and Ephraim, because the tribe of Levi will not inherit the land that YHWH will give to Israel (‫אשׁר־אני נתן לבני ישׂראל‬, Num 13:2). Hence, the tribe of Levi should

Ending with the High Priest

149

not participate in the inspection of the land.30 Overall, the concept of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers is consistent, even beyond their introduction and inauguration in Num 1–10. The book reads as if there were Levites. This holds also true for the narrative, in which the priesthood of the descendants of the Aaronides is challenged, Num 16. This narrative is often taken as a general indicator that there is a tendency of denigration of the Levites in the book of Numbers.31 The group, part of the clerus minor, and led by Korah, had revolted against the clerus major, but was wrestled down.32 But does this understanding meet the intention of the text? In Num 16:8–10 Moses reproaches the Levites by addressing Korah directly: ‫ ויאמר משׁה אל־קרח שׁמעו־נא בני לוי׃‬8 ‫ המעט מכם כי־הבדיל אלהי ישׂראל אתכם מעדת ישׂראל להקריב אתכם אליו‬9 ‫לעבד את־עבדת משׁכן יהוה ולעמד לפני העדה לשׁרתם׃‬ ‫ ויקרב אתך ואת־כל־אחיך בני־לוי אתך ובקשׁתם גם־כהנה ׃‬10

The accusation presumes the election of the Levites (‫ בדל‬H-stem) and their appointment as cultic servants (‫ קרב‬H-stem). Both aspects resemble Num 8: Bringing the Levites close to the Lord by ‫ קרב‬H-stem (in both instances the subject is Aaron!) is the rationale of their installation in Num 8:9–10 (esp. v. 10: ‫)והקרבת את־הלוים לפני יהוה‬. The separation of the Levites recalls the demand of Num 8:14 (‫)והבדלת את־הלוים מתוך בני ישׂראל והיו לי הלוים‬,33 which is the only attestation of the root ‫ בדל‬in Numbers besides Num 16:21.34 The formulation in Num 16:9 emphasizes the intermediate position of the Levites “to serve the service of the tabernacle of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to minister them” (‫)לעבד את־עבדת משׁכן יהוה ולעמד לִפני העדה לשׁרתם‬. Exactly ‫עבדת‬ ‫ ]ה[משׁכן‬is used for the Levites in Num 3:7–8 (and 1 Chr 6:33) acting vicariously for the congregation (‫לשׁרתם‬, cf. Ezek 44:11). V. 10a frames the twofold job 30 The list of the names and the emphasis on the representatives in Num 13 is often regarded as secondary [e.g., Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, 92]. If not, the conception of Num 13:2 and 13:5–15 should be regarded as antecedent to the Levi-conception. This would imply that there was no tribe of Levi (n.b. Levi is lacking in the listings in Num 1; 2; and 7). This is most unlikely because Levi is mentioned in the lists of Gen 29:31–30:24; 35:23–26; 46:8–27; 49:3–7; and Exod 1:2–4. 31 Because the focus here is on the literary presuppositions of the Levitical conflict I will not go into detail regarding the narrative and its diachronic profile. Also I will not engage the old problem whether Korah was a Levite from the beginning. For the literary problems, see Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, 37–172; and Berner, Christoph: Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden. Zum Ort der Korachbearbeitung innerhalb der Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 16–17, BN 152 (2012), 3–28. 32 See for instance Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEHAT 13, Leipzig: Hirzel 21886, 89; or Holzinger, Heinrich: Numeri, KHC 4, Tübingen: Mohr 1903, 66. 33 See further Deut 10:8 and Neh 10:29. 34 But the subject is Aaron, in contrast to Num 16, where it clearly is God himself (cf. v. 10).

150

Christian Frevel

characteristics of v. 9 and ends with an accusation: “and now you also seek the priesthood” (‫ ;)ובקשׁתם גם־כהנה‬thereby again using the terminus technicus ‫כהנה‬ that is crucial for the restriction of priesthood to the Aaronides. Thus, it is quite clear that Num 16:8–10 already presume the overall concept of cultic hierarchy in Numbers that is developed in Num 3 and 8. The reproach of Moses against his cousin and the Levites being insolent by claiming the priesthood like Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar is neither the beginning nor the origin of a conflict that gave birth to the hierarchy in Num 1–4; 8 but rather already presumes the explicit hierarchy. Within the narrative of Num 16 we are not confronted with a denigration of the Levites as such, but only of those Levites who break from the “given” system by claiming priesthood. In the narrative those guys are conjoined with Korah, but we do not really know more about this group. However, although the Levites are rebuked on the one hand, their particular rank is emphasized on the other hand, too. Priesthood and Levitical ministry are correlated and the Levitical part cannot be withdrawn from the priestly and the other way around. Hierarchy becomes a stabilizing function as regards the system of cultic service in the book of Numbers. If this holds true, some diachronic consequences are obvious: the Korah thread that redactionally conjoins the profane conflict of Dathan and Abiram and the 250 men episode in Num 16 is at least on the same diachronic level or later than the hierarchal order of priests and Levites in Num 8, i.e., postpriestly.35 From the basic evidence that the hierarchy of priests is already presupposed rather than introduced in or developed from Num 16, a fresh look at the topic of hierarchy in Num 17 may provide further insights. 1.4. Blossoms of Hierarchy: The Election of Aaron and the Levites in Num 17 Obviously, the narrative of Num 17:16–28 [Eng. Num 17:1–13] establishes Aaron as the head of all Levites. This is termed ‫ ראשׁ בית אבות‬in Num 17:17–18: Twelve staffs represent the twelve “families” (‫)בית אבות‬, i.e., the twelve tribes, and each staff will bear the name of a single chieftain (Num 17:16–17). The rod of Levi carries the name of Aaron (Num 17:18). The purpose of the ordeal is to show the person (‫ )האישׁ‬who is chosen by God. The staff of the chosen one will blossom, and that is Aaron’s rod. The ordeal aims to single out one of the rods. The phrase ‫ראשׁ בית אבות‬, which is used in Exod 6:14 (for the Rubenites exemplarily); Num 1:4; 7:2; and Josh 22:14 makes clear that it is one descendent of the tribe only. While until Num 17 no head of the tribe of Levi was revealed explicitly, Num 17 catches this up with Aaron, who is a third generation representative (Levi  Kohath  Amram  Aaron). The same can be presumed for Nahshon, representative of the tribe of Judah (Num 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 35

In the sense of post-priestly narrative.

Ending with the High Priest

151

10:14), whose sister married Aaron and gave birth to Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar (Exod 6:17). Following this line Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, the representative of Zebulun (Num 1:9; 16:1; 26:9), are part of the fourth generation as are Eleazar and Ithamar, while Korah belonged to the third generation and was an opponent to Aaron!36 But the narrative of the ordeal takes place after the death “of the rod” of Korah (‫ כל־האדם אשׁר לקרח ואת‬Num 16:32).37 If Aaron’s leadership was questioned by the representatives of the other tribes, the result could have been: Nahshon, representative of Judah, instead of Aaron, representative of Levi (or the like). On the one hand, the result of the ordeal singles out Aaron as the sole legitimate representative. On the other hand, the tribe of Levi is chosen together with its representative (v. 23). It is not any of the twelve staffs, but the staff of the tribe of Levi. The proclamation of “all the congregation are holy, all of them” (‫ כי כל־העדה כלם קדשׁים‬Num 16:3) is rebuked again by the result of the ordeal: The tribe of Levi is chosen within the twelve tribes, but Aaron and his family are the legitimate representatives within the tribe of Levi. At the end of the ordeal this is performed symbolically: While the Levite rod of Aaron is deposed in the holy of holies, the other rods are brought back to the representatives and remain outside (vv. 22–24). It is a play with “in” and “out”, coming near or not (Num 16:5; 17:5). In sum: With the ordeal Aaron and the Levites are lifted likewise; the aim of the ordeal is a twofold one: to prove the special position of the Levites together with the leadership of the Aaronides. The result is the same as in Num 16: the hierarchy of priesthood, or even better, the hierarchy within the cultic personnel is already set. The Levites are the chosen ones and Aaron is the foremost priest. His name is in the holy of holies, no one else’s (cf. Lev 16). Nevertheless, Aaron’s leadership role goes beyond his cultic function as the foremost priest. One must not forget the reason and aim of the ordeal: to end the murmuring against Moses and Aaron (Num 17:20; cf. 17:6; 16:3). Had it been Aaron alone, the issue could have been narrowed to the cultic service, but since the murmur is against both of them (cf. Exod 16:2; Num 14:2) the “political” and the “cultic” level are intermingled. As the murmur against the leadership of Moses and Aaron is terminated by approving Aaron only, the tendency to the priestly top position within a hierocratic conception is implicitly given already. At the end of Num 17 Aaron is the foremost leader even if Moses has not resigned.38

36 From this viewpoint it is hard to believe that Deut 11:6, where Dathan and Abiram are already Rubenites, is the origin of the Dathan and Abiram tradition. 37 It is not clear in the narrative whether Korah is killed or not, but cf. Num 17:5 and 26:10. 38 Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 293.

152

Christian Frevel

In order to corroborate the result that the hierarchical construction of priests has singled out one “highest” priest from the beginning implicitly which becomes increasingly explicit in the narrative of the book of Numbers, we have to move on to the narrative of Num 25 and the crucial covenant of priesthood.

2. The Covenant of Phinehas I will not engage below in the diachronic analysis of the narrative with its different parts vv. 1a, 3, 5 (“pre-priestly”), vv. 1b, 2, 4 (“non-priestly”), vv. 6–9, 10–13, 14–15, 16–19 (“priestly”) (in whatever reification), or in the background of the zeal of Phinehas or in the particular concept of atonement in this narrative which parallels Num 17:1–5.39 Instead I will focus on the threefold question: Whose covenant is the covenant of Phinehas in Num 25 and by whom is it granted and what is its content? 2.1. Whose Covenant Granted by Whom? The speech of God begins in v. 10 and runs most probably till v. 13. Following the Masoretic Text vv. 12–13 say: ‫ לכן אמר הנני נתן לו את־בריתי שׁלום׃‬12 ‫ והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם‬13 ‫תחת אשׁר קנא לאלהיו ויכפר על־בני ישׂראל׃‬ 12

Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13a And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.40

The translation of the KJV may help to focus the crux immediately: The Codex Leningradensis clearly attests an imperative singular ‫אֱמ ֹר‬, whose subject is not the speaker himself, but the addressee. “He”, Moses (v. 10a), shall declare to give “him”, Phinehas (v. 11a), the covenant. Milgrom comments: “Say That is, 39 Some of the work was already done in papers in which I addressed the Baal-Peor incident, the mixed marriage issue, the link to the Balaam narrative and to Num 31, and finally the covenant of Phinehas: cf., inter alia, Frevel, Christian: Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Has to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in the Book of Numbers, in: Torah in Psalms and Prophecy, ed. by Dirk J. Human et al., LHBOTS 562, London: T&T Clark, forthcoming; idem: The Discourse on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible, in: Mixed Marriages. Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, ed. by idem, LHBOTS 547, London/New York: T&T Clark 2011, 1–14; idem/Benedikt Rausche: Deepening the Water. First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible, in: op. cit., 14–45; idem: “Mein Bund mit ihm war das Leben und der Friede”. Priesterbund und Mischehenfrage, in: Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, ed. by Christoph Dohmen/Christian Frevel, SBS 211, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2007, 85–93. I will not refer to these previous papers extensively here. 40 Translation and orthography: KJV.

Ending with the High Priest

153

to the people, in the form of an oath”.41 It makes a difference whether Phinehas is decorated by God or by Moses. However, there is no easy way to decide whether the imperative was the common understanding from the beginning.42 The uncertainty is amplified with the enclitic personal pronoun my covenant: The parallels in Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; and Mal 2:5 suggest God as subject not only of the covenant, but also as subject of the granting. If the speech is not a declaration by the speaker God (“I say”) but a call for attributing the covenant to Phinehas, then the first person suffix with ‫“ בריתי‬my covenant” puzzles even more. If one presumes that a construct chain in which the first element is determined by a pronominal suffix would be grammatically incorrect,43 then ‫בריתי‬ ‫ שׁלום‬is not a construct chain, but rather a double accusative, “taking the two nouns as appositional”:44 ‫ שׁלום‬does not explain the covenant (“my covenant of peace”) but rather is its content. “Behold, I give to him my covenant: (that is) peace/welfare/prosperity/well-being/salvation”.45 Hence, it is not clear whether “my covenant” in v. 12 is identical to the ‫ ברית כהנת‬of v. 13a. However, the declarative speech in vv. 12–13 indicates that both are identical. In this view, everlasting priesthood is identified with šālôm, whatever that means. Within the Masoretic Text, the covenant of perpetual priesthood is granted most probably by the addressee of the speech of v. 12, that is Moses, and through Moses the whole community of Israel. He shall grant his or the covenant to Phinehas, and this covenant comprises the ministry. This appears odd because the Aaronides are chosen by God himself. However, it is actually Moses who ordains the Aaronides as priests, e.g., in the instruction Num 3:10: “you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their priesthood (RSV; ‫”)תפקד ושׁמרו את־כהנתם‬.46 It is important to note that Num 3:10 is not the first time that Moses is commanded to assign the priesthood to Aaron. This becomes clear if one takes the two other instances of the keyword ‫“ כהנה‬priesthood” outside of the book of Numbers into account. Exod 29:9 reads (and the addressee is Moses again): ‫וחגרת אתם אבנט אהרן ובניו וחבשׁת להם מגבעת‬ 41

Milgrom, Numbers, 216. The Greek ειπον can be read as imperative aorist or 1st pers. sg. respectively. Thus it does not help in determining the oldest understanding of the subject. 43 See for a solution Freedman, David N.: Broken Construct Chain, Bib 53 (1972), 534– 536. See ‫ ברית שׁלום‬in Isa 54:10 (‫ ;)ברית שׁלומי‬Ezek 34:25; and 37:26. Another example is ‫קדשׁי‬ ‫ שׁם‬which occurs very often. 44 Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 21–36. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A, New York et al.: Doubleday 2000, 289. 45 See for this understanding Mal 2:5 ‫בריתי היתה אתו החיים והשׁלום‬. The enclitic suffix at ‫בריתי‬ is lacking in the original Greek and in the Peshitta, so that a construct chain “covenant of peace” is possible. 46 The other instances of ‫ כהנה‬in the book of Numbers are Num 16:10 where the Levites are challenged to claim priesthood and two instances in Num 18:1 and 7. 42

154

Christian Frevel ‫והיתה להם כהנה לחקת עולם ומלאת יד־אהרן ויד־בניו׃‬

And you shall gird them with sashes and tie headdresses on them; and the priesthood shall be theirs by a perpetual ordinance. You shall then ordain Aaron and his sons (NRSV).

As was already noted, the second passage using the abstract ‫ כהנה‬is Exod 40:14–15: ‫ ואת־בניו תקריב והלבשׁת אתם כתנת׃‬14 ‫ ומשׁחת אתם כאשׁר משׁחת את־אביהם וכהנו לי ְוהיתה להית להם משׁחתם לכהנת עולם לדרתם׃‬15 14 You shall bring his sons also and put tunics on them, 15 and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests: and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout all generations to come (NRSV).

If we take this for granted, we have to notice a certain anachronism in Num 3:10 and even more so in Num 25:12: Aaron and his sons had already been commissioned about 40 years ago at the inauguration scene at Sinai! Num 3:10 has to be understood as a durative commission: You shall assign Aaron permanently. It is repeated just to complement the assignment of the Levites under the supervision of Aaron in Num 3:9. While the anachronism in Num 3:10 is placed in the same context as Exod 29:9 and 40:14–15 in time and space (and Num 1–9 is Janus-faced several times),47 the situation in Num 25:12 remains puzzling. The sons of Aaron already have a ‫ כהנת עולם‬from their investiture at Mount Sinai. If this holds true, the sense of the demand for the declaration in Num 25:12 may hint at a contextual understanding. According to the proviso that Moses is actually the subject of “my covenant”, this can be elaborated as follows: It is not Moses as an individual person who is called upon to grant the covenant, but rather Moses by virtue of his office as a representative of all Israel. He declares vicariously that they will not challenge the priesthood of the Aaronides anymore, even if they are hotheaded: “Šālôm!”. “My covenant” is granting peace by accepting the claim of leadership. YHWH calls on Moses to transfer the claim of leadership to the Aaronides. Because the initiative comes from God, the leading position of the Aaronides regarding cult, morals, and public order is sanctioned by God. The declaration of Moses functions implicitly as a disclaimer: We will never pretend to holiness again. The conflict is solved substantially from Phinehas onwards. 2.2. Priesthood and Leadership in Num 25 In a deeper understanding Israel has “learned” (already in Num 16–17, but at the latest) in the Cozbi affair that the Aaronides and their zeal for the purity of the community and within its living space form a necessary commitment that 47 See Zenger, Erich/Frevel, Christian: Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 35–74, 61–68.

Ending with the High Priest

155

ensures Israel’s existence. This is as important as the sacrificial cult and thus expressed by the same phrase ‫ויכפר על־בני ישׂראל‬.48 They have to expiate the people by performing the cult and by their profane acts which push through their moral and religious standards (which are interpreted as God’s standards as well). The priest’s function is “to go between” (Num 17:13), to protect the holy and the sanctum as well as the people. Analogously, but from an opposite perspective, in Num 3:9–10 the focus lies on the segregation of the Levites from the Israelites for the service at the tabernacle in order to build a protective tier between the people and the holy. Let me skip the alternative interpretation, in which one assumes that YHWH is the subject of v. 12 (“I declare”). At a first glance this would more readily match the vicarious position of Phinehas expressed in v. 11. But apart from that the interpretation would run in the same direction. And as was already said: the Masoretic Text cannot be neglected so easily. So the question remains: Does this emphasis on Phinehas and the Aaronide family imply a disparagement or even a denigration of the Levites as is often argued? I would cast severe doubts on this interpretation and, as already stated at the beginning of this paper, in my view such a statement cannot be substantiated in the whole book of Numbers either. For Num 25 this may be corroborated by the reception in Malachi where the covenant is explicitly a covenant of Levi which shall endure ( ‫להיות בריתי‬ ‫ את־לוי‬Mal 2:4). The assurance is connected with life and well-being ( ‫בריתי היתה‬ ‫)אתו החיים והשׁלום‬.49 Another passage that shows the general tendency of the correlation with the whole Levitical cosmos rather than the Aaronide priesthood, is Jer 33:21 which speaks of “my covenant” (‫ )בריתי‬with David and with the priestly Levites “my ministers” (‫)ואת־הלוים הכהנים משׁרתי‬.50 Finally, we should mention Neh 13:29 where it is a covenant of Priests and Levites: “Remember them, my God, for they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites (RSV)” ( ‫זכרה להם אלהי על גאלי הכהנה וברית הכהנה‬ ‫)והלוים‬.51 Again it is the context of intermarriage and the morality connected to endogamy which forms the background in Neh 13:28. At a first glance the phraseology is plethoric especially regarding the double ‫ הכהנה‬and the ‫ והלוים‬at the very end of the verse. This has led some scholars to assume that “and the Levites” should be regarded as an addition.52 A redactor brought in the Levi perspective from Deut 33:9 and Mal 2. But what if there were not two parallel 48

Cf. Num 17:11–12; 28:22, 30; 29:5; and 31:50. For the connection with Num 25 see Frevel, Priesterbund, 90–92. 50 Note the unique and striking order with double determination ‫הלוים הכהנים‬. See ‫הכהנים‬ ‫ הלוים‬Deut 17:9, 18; 24:8; Josh 8:33; 1 Chr 9:2; 2 Chr 5:5; 23:18; 30:27; Ezra 10:5; Neh 10:29, 35; 11:20; and Ezek 43:19. 51 The Septuagint is again more explicit and reads καὶ διαθήκης τῆς ἱερατείας καὶ τοὺς Λευίτας. 52 See, for instance, Blenkinsopp, Joseph: Ezra-Nehemiah. A Commentary, OTL, Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press 1988, 362. 49

156

Christian Frevel

concepts: the covenant of Phinehas with the Aaronides and the covenant of Levi with the Levites? What if the hierarchical correlation of Aaronides and Levites, as is proposed in this paper, is the direction in Neh 13:29, too? Although all passages imply an association of Levites with the covenant, they cannot provide strict evidence to the fact that the covenant of Phinehas and his descendants in Num 25 does not intend or imply the denigration of the Levites. Nevertheless, the opposite may be questioned by the evidence of the covenant of Levi outside the Pentateuch. But the challenge of the traditional view is obviously given, if one does not share the common view that Levites and Aaronides were opponents throughout the history of priesthood. 2.3. Holiness and Genealogical Succession in the Narrative World Let me finally add one further thought on the genealogy of the Aaronides: With Num 25 Phinehas enters the stage. He is mentioned first in the priestly genealogy in Exod 6:25 which starts with the toledôt of the sons of Levi in Exod 6:16 (‫)ואלה שׁמות בני־לוי לתלדתם‬.53 This list is concluded by the formula “these are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites by their families (RSV)” ( ‫אלה ראשׁי‬ ‫ )אבות הלוים למשׁפחתם‬and the person last mentioned in the genealogical line is Phinehas, member of the fourth generation of the house of Levi. The structure of the list in Exod 6, which is not the same as in Num 1–3, has a three-leveled organization: tribe, ancestral houses, and families. Whoever the ‫ ראשׁי אבות‬in Exod 6 are and regardless of the difficult question whether Phinehas is one of them or not, he is mentioned as the last offspring of Eleazar. His son Abishua (1 Chr 5:30–31; 6:35; Ezra 7:5) is not mentioned in the whole Pentateuch. This may be read as a correspondence of Phinehas being mentioned as the last generation of the genealogy in Exod 6. Besides Num 25:7 and 11 Phinehas is mentioned in the context of the Midianite war in Num 31:6 for the last time in Numbers. There he carries and handles the holy vessels and the (two) trumpets ( ‫כלי‬ ‫)הקדשׁ וחצצרות התרועה בידו‬.54 Although Phinehas does not play a major role in the book of Numbers, the concept of the family of Aaron, and with that the priesthood and hierarchy of priests seems to be deliberately measured. Phinehas is the spearhead of Aaronide priesthood in multiple meaning. Phinehas forms an open end in the succession of priests. He is entrusted with substantial functions and assists his father Eleazar as Eleazar and Ithamar have assisted Aaron

53 There are serious problems in understanding the composition of the list in vv. 14–25, which presents only Reuben, Simeon and Levi in a different manner. These problems cannot be discussed here in detail (for an overview of the textual problems cf. Schmidt, Werner H.: Exodus 1–6, BKAT II/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1988, 295–311). At the risk of being overly simplistic one may stick to the fact here that it is more or less common to sort in vv. 14–15 as a post-priestly (in the sense of post-Pg) addition to Exod 6. 54 See the note above on Ithamar and his possible duty to blow one of the trumpets.

Ending with the High Priest

157

before his death. The successional model of priesthood and liability is continued in the narrative quite conspicuously. Aaron is the dominant figure in Num 1–18. Eleazar is mentioned only sporadically in Num 3:2 and 4 within the genealogical notice of the offspring of Aaron. The reference to him in Num 3:32 is substantial: He is introduced as chief over the leaders of the Levites (‫)ונשׂיא נשׂיאי הלוי אלעזר בן־אהרן הכהן‬. In Num 4:16 he is in charge of the oil for the light. Associated with a case of illicitly breaking into the cultic sphere by offering incense without authorization, he is employed in Num 17:2 (Eng. 16:35) to take up the censers out of the blaze, which lie in front of the tent of meeting. The responsibility is substantiated by the statement “for they have become sacred” (‫)כי קדשׁו‬. Since the application of the covering around the altar which is made of the censors Num 17:4 requires direct contact with the altar in front of the tent of meeting, it has to be a highranking priest who acts. Because the material has been in contact with corpses it cannot be Aaron, the priest of the highest rank. The dangerous defiling capacity of corpses is perhaps also the rationale of mentioning Eleazar in Num 19:3–4. Aaron is not engaged in the whole ritual although he is – together with Moses – the addressee in Num 19:1.55 After that Eleazar becomes prominent in Num 20, where he is named as Aaron’s successor (Num 20:25, 26, 28). From Num 26 onwards he frequently acts in roles that were previously filled by Aaron. Why not in Num 25? Taking the substitution of Aaron in Num 17 for granted, it is quite consistent that Phinehas is employed instead of Eleazar. As in the case in Num 17, the Cozbi affair in Num 25 is associated with an illicit and “idolatrous” action, with the defilement of the sanctuary by breaking through the tabooed line and the holiness of the inner sanctuary (if one may assume ‫ הקבה‬as the ‫“ היכל‬main hall”, or even the ‫דביר‬, that is the “holy of holies”, which cannot be discussed here). Moreover, the priest comes into contact with the dead couple at least through his spear and thereby he defiles himself. Following Lev 21:10–12 any such task must not be done by the “high priest”, who is qualified as ‫הכהן הגדול מאחיו‬. In sum: the overall genealogical concept of the priesthood and the restriction within the very small family circle of father and son (or father and sons, father and son and uncle, etc.) implies the charge and function, if not appointment of a single priest of the highest rank. In the narrative world of the book of Numbers, these are in genealogical sequence Aaron and Eleazar. The book of Numbers implies in several narratives the charge of a ‫ הכהן הגדול‬even if he is not addressed by this term. From this de facto or conceptual presence of a priest with a highest rank or priest entitled ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in parts of the book of Numbers two subsequent crucial issues emerge and need closer enquiry: First, does this 55

See Frevel, Corpses, 204–205.

158

Christian Frevel

conceptual implication already refer to the function of the high priest as “high priest” in the sense of the (later) Second Temple period, or does it refer to the high priest as a priest of the highest rank who only has a superior function in some cultic respects? In other words: If the leading role of the Aaronides in the narrative world is not restricted to the cultic sphere, how far does it extend into the political sphere in a hierocratic concept? And second, how is the explicit reference to ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in Num 35:28 and 32 to be integrated into this picture? Of course, these two tasks transcend the mere immanent perspective on the narrative cosmos of the book of Numbers primarily applied in this paper. Therefore, diachronic and historical consequences will be subsequently addressed in section 4.

3. Ending with the High Priest Read from the evidence presented in section 2, Aaron is installed as the “high priest” in Num 17 not only in the story of the rod of Aaron but in the expiation scene as well. His role of leadership exceeds the cultic realm and so does the approbation in the ordeal. Although the family of priests is small and restricted to Aaron and his living sons within the narrative of the Torah, the position of the high priest and his ministry within the cult, administration, and society is already implicit in the text of the Torah. This is more or less a common assumption made already by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld or in a way by Deborah Rooke.56 But in contrast to Hossfeld, Rooke is inclined to restrict the power of the high priest until the time of the Maccabees de facto to the cultic realm. Othmar Keel, following her in this regard, states: “Aaron ist nur für bestimmte kultische Funktionen zuständig. Wir haben es nicht mit dem Entwurf einer Hierokratie zu tun”.57 This is an important historical question that should deserve much more attention. The argument of this paper comes to a different conclusion. Below I will focus on some further observations to the intermingled (or better politically colored) power of the priest with the highest rank in some OT passages. Due to the restriction of this paper, a comprehensive analysis is beyond our objective.

56 Cf. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar: Art. Hohepriester. Alttestamentlich-jüdisch, RAC 16, 1994, col. 4–23, 11–12; Rooke, Deborah W.: Zadok’s Heirs. The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford, England/New York: Oxford University Press 2000, 11–39 and 120–122. 57 Keel, Othmar: Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 2, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2007, 991; cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 133: “Der Hohepriester nahm zwar im 5. Jh. eine hohe Stellung in der jüdischen Gesellschaft Jerusalems ein, hatte aber keine politische Führungsposition”.

Ending with the High Priest

159

The first clue is the conclusion of the Yom Kippur ritual in Lev 16. After the initial execution by Aaron is demanded in God’s speech, the directive to Moses addresses the whole community in vv. 29–31. Within the second part of the ‫( חקת עולם‬vv. 29, 31, 34), it is prescribed in v. 32 that the priest, who is anointed and consecrated as priest, who is in a genealogical succession to his father, and who wears the holy garments shall make atonement (‫אשׁר־ימשׁח אתו וכפר הכהן‬ ‫)ואשׁר ימלא את־ידו לכהן תחת אביו ולבשׁ את־בגדי הבד בגדי הקדשׁ׃‬. There can be no doubt that on the textual level this ritual shall be performed by the legitimate Aaronide offspring.58 However, it is striking that neither Aaron nor his living son Eleazar (who replaces the firstborn Nadab) are addressed here to perform the rite periodically, but the priest who acts instead of his father. This cannot be Aaron himself, although he is still alive and may perform the rite for about forty years (Num 33:38) until his death in Num 20:28. Therefore it is quite clear that the perpetual ordinance in vv. 29–34 aims at the cult beyond the desert. Thus, vv. 29–33 already imply the institution of a high priest in the cult. Viewed from this point the phrases used in Lev 16:29–33 become indicative: “the anointed priest” (Exod 28:41; 30:30; 40:13–15; Num 3:3), especially if one of the priests is singled out (‫ הכהן המשׁיח‬Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15), indicates that the high priest or highest priest is meant. This is by no means a high priesthood in the sense of a political leadership. However, the first and foremost Aaronide obtains a role that radiates into the political sphere. On the final-text level this slightly alters the role of Aaron in the Sinai and wilderness narratives (Exod 16–Num 17). The inauguration of Joshua in Num 27 is indicative in this way. If Joshua has to stand before Eleazar and if Joshua has to follow the judgments of the priestly Urim and Thummim (Josh 27:19–22), then Joshua’s political leadership is subordinated under Eleazar. Leaving the theocratic idea of the divine oracle aside, the priest with the highest rank has the superior political power. This is narratively explicated in Num 31:6 by the engagement of Phinehas in the Midianite war. Num 35:25 is of special importance in this context. It mentions the death of the great priest (‫ )הכהן הגדל‬as indicative for the release of one guilty of manslaughter (‫הכהן הגדל אשׁר־משׁח אתו בשׁמן הקדשׁ‬, cf. Num 35:28, 32). We cannot go into detail of the institutional background of the suspension of blood revenge, which is linked with the lifelong term of the priest of the highest rank. But we may stress that beyond Num 35 (and Josh 20:6 which is closely related), the title ‫ הכהן הגדול‬is used only in Lev 21:10 where the high priest or priests’ provost is addressed. Thus it is quite clear that Num 35 follows the preceding texts in installing a genealogical successive priesthood with a high priest as the head of the priests. From the historical development the institution of refuge is merely 58 Lev 16:32 is the only instance where the acting priest is assigned ‫( תחת אביו‬cf. 1 Kgs 14:21; 23:30, 34; 1 Chr 29:23; 2 Chr 26:1; 36:1). On the narrative level the position is not fixed; it may be Eleazar, Phinehas, or whoever is in the row of succession afterwards.

160

Christian Frevel

a cultic institution, but it transcends this realm the moment it is dissolved from the central sanctuary and combined with a lawsuit at the general court. Thus, it is not only the concern for doctrine and the teaching of the Torah (Lev 10), the role of the superior priest already goes far beyond that. From a synchronic viewpoint it is important that Num 35 ends with a successional concept of the high priest. Compared to Num 35, in Num 36 there is only interpretation of a law already given, but no new revelation anymore. Thus the impression is that the institutional development in the Torah (leaving the special role of the Deuteronomy, e.g., Deut 17:12; 20:2 and 26:3, aside) ends with the installation of a high priest who reigns in genealogical succession. This textual institutional implicitness disembogues into the institutional explicitness of high priesthood in the late Persian period.59

4. Diachronic outline If we take as our starting point the relative consensus that a) Lev 16:29–33 is a post-priestly H text, b) Lev 21:10 is part of a “Fortschreibung” which is presumed in Lev 10, and c) Exod 6:14–26 is an addition later than the Priestly source then the hierarchical concept of a high priest in the book of Numbers becomes a relatively late concept. However, the explicit concept of high priest in Num 35 is on the same level or later than Lev 21:10. Within the book of Numbers it is later than the more or less implicit concept of the highest priest in Num 17 and 25. In other words Num 35 is rather later than the aforementioned H or H-influenced texts.60 Although the genealogical sequence of Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas (and then N.N. beyond the Hexateuch) appears to be a consistent consecutive concept with an open end, it is, on the one hand, likely that the Eleazar and Phinehas line is earlier than the suspension of the blood revenge linked to the death of the high priest.61 On the other hand, the concept of Num 17 and Num 25 already presumes the impurity by corpses of Num 19 and the intensification of purity requirements for the high priest in Lev 21.

59 See Keel, Geschichte, 990 with fig. 620, the famous coin of “Johanan, the Priest”. Another extrabiblical indicator for the high priesthood in Jerusalem in the late 5th, early 4th cent. B.C.E. can be found in the Elephantine Papyri (e.g., TAD 4.7/4.8). For a discussion, see Grabbe, Lester L.: A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 1. Yehud. A History of the Persian Province of Judah, LSTS 47, London: T&T Clark 2004, 230–235. 60 H is taken here as a heuristic concept of priestly Fortschreibung. With the use of the acronym I do not intend to subscribe to any of the recent concepts on P and H. For the recent discussion and my standpoint, see the introductory paper in the present volume. 61 The complex relation between Num 35 and Josh 20 cannot be dealt with here. See Schmidt, Ludwig: Leviten- und Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42, VT 52 (2002), 103–121.

Ending with the High Priest

161

Much more complicated is the overall introduction of Levites as cultic servants and the development of the hierarchy of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. Here, we cannot stick to the discussion which offers various positions. If we take the installation of Aaron and his sons in Exod 28–29 as the starting point for the development, we may suggest a slightly post-priestly date, or in traditional terminology Ps. The main features of the system together with the reduction of the priestly class to a handful of priests on the narrative surface level induce the introduction of Levites in some way. The same holds true for the transportation of the sanctuary, which requires some sort of manpower and a schedule of responsibilities. Roughly spoken there are two possibilities to elucidate the peculiarity of the Levites in the Tetrateuch: 1) The almost complete absence of Levites in the book of Leviticus indicates that the whole book of Numbers should be postdated to Leviticus, including the H and later parts. In this line of argumentation it seems probable to date the Levites conception to literary strata that presume Pg, but are rather a sequel to Ps as on the same literary-historical level as Exod 35–40* because Levites are not mentioned there, too. This would be a most sever consequence of the distinctiveness of the book of Numbers. The whole book would be dated later than the Triateuch (Gen–Lev) and only very few redactional intrusions of Levites would have linked the concept between the Triateuch and Deuteronomy. The Levites would bridge the concept of Aaronide priests in Exodus and Leviticus and the Levitical priests in Deuteronomy. 2) The absence of Levites in the book of Leviticus may have narratological or conceptual reasons and does not imply that Numbers as a book is just a redactional bridge between the Triateuch and the Deuteronomy. Postponing the whole book of Numbers in a literary respect is too radical a consequence. If there are portions of the Priestly source in the book of Numbers (for instance in Num 13–14* or Num 20) and if there is a non-priestly and pre-priestly narrative thread, then we should investigate more to understand the concept of the book of Numbers. Judged from the argument above, the bridging hypothesis has some merits, but a post-H composition of the book of Numbers becomes a rather complicated matter within the late fifth century. Additionally, this paper has emphasized that the concept of the Levitical priests in Deuteronomy and the Aaronide family in Exod–Lev is not really bridged in a substantial way. The two concepts do not really blend or merge in the conception of the book of Numbers; by contrast they still contradict each other. If the book of Numbers had been designed to bridge the Triateuchal concept of priesthood with the Deuteronomistic concept of the Levitical priests in the book of Deuteronomy, it must be said that it has failed. Thus, there is enough room for further discussion.

162

Christian Frevel

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Berner, Christoph: Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden. Zum Ort der Korachbearbeitung innerhalb der Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 16–17, BN 152 (2012), 3–28. Blenkinsopp, Joseph: Ezra-Nehemiah. A Commentary, OTL, Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press 1988. Dahmen, Ulrich: Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, BBB 110, Bodenheim: Philo 1996. Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, KEHAT 13, Leipzig: Hirzel 21886. Freedman, David N.: Broken Construct Chain, Bib 53 (1972), 534–536. Frevel, Christian: Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Has to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in the Book of Numbers, in: Torah in Psalms and Prophecy, ed. by Dirk J. Human/Eckart Otto/Jurie LeRoux, LHBOTS 562, London: T&T Clark, forthcoming. –: Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses. Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19, in: Les vivants et leurs morts. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’assyriologie et des milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 14 et 15 avril 2010, ed. by Jean-Marie Durand et al., OBO 257, Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012, 199–226. –: The Discourse on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible, in: Mixed Marriages. Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, ed. by idem, LHBOTS 547, London/New York: T&T Clark 2011, 1–14. –: “… dann gehören die Leviten mir”. Anmerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Num 3; 8 und 18, in: Kulte, Priester, Rituale. Beiträge zu Kult und Kultkritik im Alten Kultkritik im Alten Testament und Alten Orient. FS Theodor Seidl, ed. by Stephanie Ernst/Maria Häusl, ATSAT 89, St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag 2010, 133–158. –: “Mein Bund mit ihm war das Leben und der Friede”. Priesterbund und Mischehenfrage, in: Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. FS Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, ed. by Christoph Dohmen/Christian Frevel, SBS 211, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2007, 85–93. –/Benedikt Rausche: Deepening the Water. First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible, in: Mixed Marriages. Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, ed. by idem, LHBOT 547, London/New York: T&T Clark 2011, 14–45. Grabbe, Lester L.: A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 1. Yehud. A History of the Persian Province of Judah, LSTS 47, London: T&T Clark 2004. Holzinger, Heinrich: Numeri, KHC 4, Tübingen: Mohr 1903. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar: Art. Hohepriester. Alttestamentlich-jüdisch, RAC 16, 1994, col. 4–23. Keel, Othmar: Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 2, Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4/1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2007. Kellermann, Diether: Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10. Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 120, Berlin: de Gruyter 1970. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 1–20, AB 4, New York et al.: Doubleday 1993. –: Numbers 21–36, AB 4A, New York et al.: Doubleday 2000.

Ending with the High Priest

163

Lunn, Nicholas P.: Numbering Israel. A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1–4, JSOT 35 (2010), 167–185. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers. [Ba-midbar], The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society 1990. Möhlenbrink, Kurt: Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments, ZAW 52 (1934), 184–231. Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1995. Rooke, Deborah W.: Zadok’s Heirs. The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel, Oxford Theological Monographs, Oxford, England/New York: Oxford University Press 2000. Samuel, Harald: Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zum alttestamentlichen Kultpersonal, BZAW 448, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, forthcoming 2013. –: Levi, the Levites, and the Law, in: Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Devorah Dimant/Reinhard G. Kratz, BZAW 439, Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter 2013, 215–230. –: Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zu Levi und den Leviten in der Literatur des Zweiten Tempels, Ph.D. diss., Georg-August-Universität Göttingen 2012. Schmidt, Ludwig: Leviten- und Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42, VT 52 (2002), 103–121. Schmidt, Werner H.: Exodus 1–6, BKAT II/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1988. Seebass, Horst: Art. Levi/Leviten, TRE 21, 1991, 36–40. Wagner, Thomas: Gottes Herrlichkeit. Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffes kābôd im Alten Testament, VTSup 151, Leiden et al.: Brill 2012. Zenger, Erich/Frevel, Christian: Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven et al.: Peeters 2008, 35–74.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch1 Aaron Schart The story about Israel’s resistance to marching into the land that YHWH provided for them is a very sad example of Israel’s enduring failure to trust in God’s guidance over the course of history. After all the hardships they had experienced in Egypt and in the wilderness the people are so hopeless and mistrust God so much that they – although they can see and smell the delicious fruits that the spies had brought back from their mission – would rather return to Egypt and die there as slaves than to conquer the land and live there in freedom and according to God’s will. This story was so impressive and characteristic for the religious experience of Israel that it was not only infused into an artistic and dramatic narrative but also retold and rewritten several times. It is a good example of a so-called “Mehrfachüberlieferung”. The different versions of the so-called spy narrative and their relation to each other reveal a lot about how Israel thought about the interrelatedness of God, the Torah, the land, and Israel’s character in different situations. God’s love to Israel entails that God gives them the land as a place to live in well-being, freedom, and in adherence to God’s Torah. The land is almost personified as an independent agent, very vividly expressed in the negative statement of some of the spies: “This is a land that eats up its inhabitants” (Num 13:32). If the people do not develop a grateful relationship to the land when it offers the Israelites its best fruits, then God also feels offended. This network of relations was felt to be vital for Israel’s existence in different situations, especially when the possession of the land was in danger or even lost. In addition, Mehrfachüberlieferungen have always been taken as a clear sign of the clash of different written sources that were brought together by later editors, who had more interest in preserving different variants of the same episode than in creating a coherent narrative for the reader. The analysis 1 I would like to express my thanks to the Theological Faculty of the University of Pretoria, especially my gracious host Prof. Dirk Human, for giving me the opportunity to stay there in February 2013. The discussions there aided in the development of this article. I also want to thank Prof. Jaco Gericke from North-West University for his hospitality and his critical questions.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

165

of the different versions of the spy story can serve as an anchor for the separation of sources within the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and beyond.2 In this article I will compare the different versions of the spy story and ask what consequences for the reconstruction of the redaction history of the Hexateuch can be drawn. I take it for granted that Num 13–14 combines two versions of the spy story: The older version told how Moses sent some spies into the hill country before them (13:17b–20*). The spies happened to arrive in the area of Hebron, where they saw the inhabitants and the fruits (13:22a*, 23– 24*). They came back to Moses and the people, but delivered an ambiguous report: The land was good, but the inhabitants seemed to be very strong (13:27–29*). Although Caleb, one of the spies, tried to convince them otherwise, this was reason enough for the people not to seize the Promised Land (13:30–31*; 14:1b). In reaction to this, YHWH sentenced the adult Israelites, with the exception of Caleb, to die in the wilderness (Num 14:11a*, 21a*, 23a*, 24*). Although the Israelites responded by trying to conquer the land immediately, albeit against YHWH’s will, they were beaten severely (14:40, 41*, 43–45*). This version can be attributed to the Yahwist.3 The second version apparently knew this one, but reworked it substantially: Aaron was inserted as a companion to Moses. The military character of the mission was eliminated, instead an official delegation of Israel was sent to inspect (verb: ‫ )תור‬not only a limited area, but the whole land. This delegation failed by launching a defamation campaign, according to which the land would eat its inhabitants and the giants from before the flood (‫ )נפילים‬would live there. The congregation (‫)עדה‬, believing this defamation, fearfully complained and even wanted to replace Moses as leader and return to Egypt. Against this defamation Joshua and Caleb reacted jointly. But the situation escalated. Then YHWH’s ‫ כבוד‬appeared at the tent of meeting and YHWH swore that this generation would not reach the land with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, but their children would seize it. Finally, the men, who had 2 R. Achenbach, Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123, 56 even speaks of a “Schlüsselstellung” that the analysis of the spy story possesses for understanding the redaction process of the Pentateuch as a whole. See also E. Otto, The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah, in this volume, 384. 3 The core of this version can be reconstructed with reasonable certainty, although the beginning of the account is lost and the reconstruction within Num 14:11–25 is only tentative. This was the opinion of the mainstream of scholars represented, for example, by M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose, Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. L. Schmidt, Die Kundschaftererzählung in Num 13–14 und Dtn 1,19–46. Eine Kritik neuerer Pentateuchkritik, ZAW 114 (2002), 40–58 has convincingly defended this hypothesis against some newer studies. My own study of the spy story, Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Freiburg, Schweiz/ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990, 58–96, 149–159, and 218–220 also followed Noth’s analysis; it must be refined now.

166

Aaron Schart

defamed the land, died in one fell stroke before YHWH. This version admittedly shares many characteristics with P.4 Both sources were combined by a redactor, who tried to preserve the Pversion as much as possible, inserted chunks of the J-narrative into the flow of the P-version, and did some minor work to reformulate or add some words in order to smooth out some tensions.5 The traditional label for this important redactor “Endredaktor” has been disputed in recent decades because this was certainly not the last redactor to insert texts into the Pentateuch, as the literal meaning of the term may suggest. It is simply the redactor who combined the priestly source with that part of the Non-P-material that was incorporated into the resulting composition. The siglum “Rp” should be a neutral and nevertheless telling label.6 Before and after “P” and “non-P” were merged some additions were made, the most important of which is the intercession of Moses in Num 14:11–25*.7 The most important parallel to the spy story is Moses’ retrospective retelling of the event in Deut 1:19–46, but there are some shorter reiterations of the story in Num 32:8–13; Deut 9:1–2, 22–29; Josh 14:8–16; 15:13–19 (cf. Judg 1:12–15) and Ps 106:24–27. My starting point will be the text Deut 1:19–46.

1. Deuteronomy 1:19–46 1.1. Form-Critical Analysis Deuteronomy 1:19–46 contains a speech in which Moses retrospectively tells his audience how the first exploration of the land went. The Horeb incident and the spy story are of special importance for Deuteronomy: both events envision a situation in which Israel is close to its final destruction by the anger of God, but is given a “second chance”.8 It is the first event after the departure 4 E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, Bd.1: Dtn 1,1–4,43, HThK.AT, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012 and Achenbach, Landnahme, admit that there are features characteristic of P, but nevertheless postulate a Hexateuch redactor that must be distinct from P. Their main argument seems to be that the original P-source cannot have included a narrative about the land as the ultimate goal of Israel’s exodus. But why not? 5 Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 43–51 has rightly insisted that the P- and the Jversions can be understood independently of each other; consequently, the redactor has to be a third party and cannot be identified with the author of P. 6 Because the resulting composition was the formative basis of the Pentateuch, the redactor may well be called “pentateuchal redactor” (“Pentateuch-Redaktor”), however, this label excludes a Hexateuch-perspective and is used by Eckart Otto in a different sense. 7 The list of the noble men (Num 13:4–16), who were chosen to inspect the land, was probably added to P while the P-version still existed as an independent work. 8 J. Taschner, Die Mosereden im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, FAT 59, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008, 338: “Mose trifft eine Auswahl aus den Ereignissen, von denen der biblische Erzähler in den Büchern Gen-Num berichtet. Ausgerechnet auf die

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

167

from Horeb that Moses finds worth recapitulating in order “to inculcate this law” (Deut 1:5).9 This episode is in line with the overall perspective of Deuteronomy, namely that the law is presented as the foundation for living in the land. In order to survive in the land perpetually, Israel must respect YHWH as the only god, obey YHWH’s will, perform the adequate cult, practice certain norms to form a nation tied together by the spirit of brotherhood, and treat the land in a way that it permanently provides enough material resources in order for the people to live. The retelling of the spy story serves as a reminder that Israel has the fundamental tendency to mistrust God and to deny the land and other goods that YHWH is providing. What is puzzling concerning its location in Deut is that Moses addresses his audience as if they had experienced the spy incident themselves (“you”, instead of “your fathers” as in Num 32:8). After the second census of the people in Num 26 it is clear that Moses has a new generation before him that was not involved in the spy event and consequently was not guilty. As is standard in Deuteronomy, the text represents a speech of Moses. The speech presents a sequence of events: The location where the incident took place is indicated (itinerary) (Deut 1:19b). Immediately following this is Moses’ command to seize the land (v. 20–21). However, the people want Moses to send spies first, which Moses approves and does (v. 22–23). A short report of how the spies fulfilled their mission is given, which culminates in a very positive evaluation of the land (v. 24–25). But, without having any reason, the people refuse to seize the land (v. 26–28). Even Moses’ effort to convince the people otherwise (v. 29–31) does not succeed; in contrast, the stubborn people insist on their position (v. 32–33). As a reaction to this YHWH becomes angry and issues a punishment to the present generation that – with only the exceptions of Caleb and Joshua – all persons will die in the wilderness (v. 34– Kundschaftererzählung und die Geschehnisse am Sinai bzw. Horeb greift er ausführlich zurück. Der Exodus und erst recht die Erzelternzeit nehmen vergleichsweise wenig Raum ein, wiewohl sie innerhalb des Gedankenganges eine zentrale Rolle spielen. Die Kundschaftererzählung und die Geschehnisse am Horeb haben gemeinsam, dass sie Ereignisse sind, in denen Gott seinem Volk eine zweite Chance einräumt. Beim Horeb geschieht dies durch die Erneuerung der Tafeln (Ex 34; Dtn 10,1–5). Nach der verspielten ersten Landnahme (Num 13/14; Dtn 1) steht die Chance nach erfolgtem Generationswechsel noch aus. Die neue Generation ist zum Zeitpunkt der Rede des Mose im Begriff, sie zu ergreifen. Wenn nun die Kundschaftergeschichte die Moserede eröffnet, wird deutlich, dass die bevorstehende Landnahme die eigentliche Überschrift aller Reden insgesamt darstellt. Mose teilt der neuen Generation Israels jetzt kurz vor der Bewährung all das aus der Zeit der Eltern noch einmal mit, was sie braucht, um die Möglichkeit zu nutzen, die die Eltern beim ersten Landnahmeversuch verspielt haben.” 9 The meaning of the Verb ‫ באר‬is disputed (see Otto, Deuteronomium, 303–304). To my mind it originally must have meant something like “inculcate, intensify”; because of its position at the very beginning of Deuteronomy, however, on the level of the final text it serves as a concept that comprises everything what Moses does in the following text corpus.

168

Aaron Schart

40). Somewhat shocked, the people then realize that they have sinned against YHWH and finally want to go up into the land as was commanded in the first place (v. 41). However, the situation has completely changed. After God’s anger had been aroused and the punishment had been initiated, there could be no return, as if nothing has happened, despite the fact that the people now are aware that they have committed a sin and confess that before YHWH. As a consequence, YHWH prohibits starting the military campaign (v. 42). But the people again do not heed YHWH’s command (v. 43). As a result, the campaign leads to a terrible defeat (v. 44). But even this catastrophe, so the narrative ends, did not bring YHWH to respond to the complaint of the people (v. 45–46). At the very end, serving as a kind of frame, the people finds itself again in Kadesh, which shows that it is not a single step closer to its goal than before. At first glance the plot of the story seems overly complicated, some elements seem to be displaced, and some turns in the narrative are difficult to understand. In addition, there are a lot of minor disruptions of cohesion that make it obvious that this text must have a complicated literary history. And finally, there are marked differences between the speech of Moses and the narrative in Num 13–14, which Moses purports to recount.10 In the following I try to combine the secondary passages in clusters according to the sourcecritical arguments that most importantly disclose their secondary character. 1.2. Comparison with the Septuagint Version It is always wise to start with those conclusions that can make use of data that are easily observable. In the case of Deut 1 the comparison with the Septuagint version readily reveals some short additions that came into the Masoretic tradition only after the text was translated into Greek. In Deut 1:25 the complete Hebrew sentence ‫ וישבו אתנו דבר‬has no equivalent in the Greek translation, which otherwise represents every morpheme of the Hebrew Vorlage with a Greek equivalent. It is highly probable that the Hebrew Vorlage did not contain the sentence in this case. In addition, one can also see what the reason for inserting the sentence was: It reports that the spies have done exactly what Moses had commanded them to do in v. 22bα. However, although this sentence has its equivalent in the Septuagint in this case, it stands a little bit awkward syntactically and semantically within its context. In addition, the sentence is also found in Num 13:26a, where it fits perfectly within its context. The suspicion emerges that the sentence was cop10 As Taschner, Mosereden, 1 has rightly stated, Numbers and Deuteronomy differ in the way that the author of the text is “recognizable” by the reader. In Numbers the reader realizes at first glance that the events that are “recorded” in the text are arranged and dramatized by the author of the text, whereas Deut 1 gives the impression that the author of the text simply provides a verbatim protocol of what Moses actually said.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

169

ied from Num 13:26a into Deut 1:22bα.11 If one eliminates the sentence in both cases, Deut 1:22bα and 25, the flow of the remaining text is certainly smoother.12 It seems to be wise to exclude the sentence in both cases, in order not to build conclusions on uncertain data. In Deut 1:35 the phrase ‫ הדור הרע הזה‬does not have an equivalent in the Greek version. Again it is obvious that its “omission certainly improves the text”.13 The phrase is similar to the one in Num 14:27 “this evil community”. In this case it can be discerned why the phrase was inserted, namely to avoid the possible misunderstanding that the phrase “these men” refers only to the spies and not to all of Israel.14 The possibility of this misunderstanding is especially high if Deut 1 is read against the background of Num 14:30, 32, and 37, where two events are clearly separated: on the one hand the spies die immediately through one hit by YHWH, whereas the whole generation dies within the time period of 40 years. In Deut 1:35 the ‫ לתת‬of the Masoretic text is not represented in the Septuagint and is probably, as Otto has rightly stated, secondary.15 In Deut 1:39 the words ‫ אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה ובניכם‬have no equivalent in the Greek version. Again, these words add a detail that is superfluous within its current context. The whole text is completely identical with Num 14:31a and was obviously borrowed from there, where it recalls the fear of the people expressed in Num 14:3. The redactor who inserted these words wanted Moses’ speech to more accurately resemble the narrative in Num 13–14. The text of the Septuagint’s Hebrew Vorlage is impressively confirmed by 4QDeuth.16 In Deut 1:41 the Septuagint has the variant “YHWH, our God” against simply “YHWH” of the MT. The expression “our God” was probably not contained in the Vorlage, but the translator simply adapted this formulaic expression to that at the end of the verse “YHWH, our God”.17 11

J.S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009, 119 n. 62, tries to argue that the sentence originally belongs to the Dtn version and was copied from there into Num 13. However, he neglects the evidence from the Septuagint. 12 The phenomenon was noted many times, e.g., by J.W. Wevers, Notes on Deuteronomy, SCS 39, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1995, 15, and taken as evidence for a secondary insertion into the shorter Hebrew Vorlage. Otto, Deuteronomium, 371–372 thinks that the MT maintains the original reading, whereas the LXX has undertaken a “stilistische Glättung”, but the exact execution of Moses’ command is smooth and does not need a “Glättung”. 13 Wevers, Notes on Deuteronomy, 21. 14 Otto, Deuteronomium, 373, however, considers the MT, which is supported by the Samaritanus, as the more difficult and thus original text. 15 See Otto, Deuteronomium, 373–374. 16 Otto, Deuteronomium, 374; J. A. Duncan, 4QDeuth, in: Qumran Cave 4 vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. by E. Ulrich et al., DJD 14, Oxford: Clarendon 1995, 61– 70. 17 Otto, Deuteronomium, 374: “Die LXX, Samaritanus und Peschitta sowie hebräische Handschriften fügen zu ‚wir haben gegen JHWH gesündigt‘ ein ‚unseren Gott‘ hinzu und

170

Aaron Schart

There are some minor cases, where the Septuagint indeed has an equivalent to the Masoretic Text but only one that potentially presupposes a different Hebrew Text in the Vorlage. In Deut 1:28a the Masoretic ‫ ָרם‬is a misspelling of ‫;רב‬ ָ LXX and Samaritanus preserve the original form.18 In Deut 1:30 the Septuagint has συνεκπολεμησει αυτους for the Masoretic ‫י ִ ָלּחֵם‬, which gives special mention to the enemies. 19 In Deut 1:36 the Septuagint renders the Masoretic ‫ מִ לֵּא אַח ֲֵרי‬as “to stick to”, an expression that the Septuagint also uses in Deut 4:4, presumably because a literal translation would have been difficult for the Greek readers to understand. And finally the Septuagint presupposes a different vocalization of the Masoretic ‫“ וַתָּ ֻ ֥שׁבוּ‬you returned” and translated “you sat down”, thereby adapting the meaning to the first word of the following verse Deut 1:46.20 In sum, the Septuagint allows us to make a firm judgment about the original text in most cases and, by the same token, provides insight into the redactional or scribal activities that occurred in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint on its way toward its Masoretic form. In addition, the motive behind the additions in Deut 1:35 and 39 is easily discernible: The reader of Deut 1 has read the narrative of Num 13–14 before and was disturbed by the fact that Moses’ version of the incident differs markedly from what he or she must think was the true course of events. As a conclusion, one must be cautious about isolated sentences or phrases that harmonize Num 13–14 with Deut 1 because these were often added within the course of Hebrew textual transmission even after the Hebrew text was translated into Greek.21 1.3. Passages in the Singular The hearers of Moses speech are throughout addressed in the plural. However, there are two exceptions: In Deut 1:21, in very formulaic language, inforpassen damit die Gottesbezeichnung an folgendes ‚wie JHWH, unser Gott, es uns befohlen hat‚ an.” 18 Otto, Deuteronomium, 372. 19 Otto, Deuteronomium, 372. 20 Otto, Deuteronomium, 375. 21 D. Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A new Construction, New York: Oxford University Press 2011has assembled a lot of examples, where the manuscript evidence shows that scribes harmonized tensions between “Doppelüberlieferungen”, for example, in cases where an important narrative figure reviewed events that were told earlier in the narrative (cf. 98: “we have widespread documentation of scribal coordination and harmonization of various texts with each other. Some such interventions happened on a micro level, linking texts separated only by a sentence or two, while others coordinated widely disparate but related texts, such as Tetrateuchal narratives with the reviews of those narratives in Deuteronomy.”) The need to harmonize parallel accounts was felt by a narrator who performed a text orally from memory as well as by a scribe who copied a manuscript as well as by a translator. Therefore it is notoriously difficult to decide, in which phase of the textual transmission a variant was generated.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

171

mation is given that spells out what is already contained in v. 20bβ a little more bombastically.22 And in Deut 1:31, the way in the wilderness is added to the mentioning of the Exodus in the verse before. Both are secondary additions and may even belong to the same hand, because both address the audience in the singular, but given the complexity of the alteration of singular and plural-addresses in Deuteronomy this is not at all certain. 1.4. Problem of Dtr Phrases In the text there are several typical formulaic deuteronomic or deuteronomistic phrases and expressions. This certainly is standard for a deuteronomic or dtr author; however, some of them are not firmly rooted in their context and must be suspected as secondary. The problem of the formulaic phrases and sentences was addressed, for example, by Steuernagel: The majority of the formulae stem from copyists or redactors, who simply added them wherever they felt they would emphasize the case in question. In contrast, the original author of the text probably used these formulas in a specific way.23 However, deciding whether a formula belongs to the original text is notoriously difficult to make. As a rule of thumb, I consider the formula secondary if it can be eliminated in such a way that a sentence remains that is grammatically correct and semantically intelligible. According to this rule the following elements can be classified as secondary:  In Deut 1:19a:24 ‫את כל־המדבר הגדול והנורא ההוא אשר ראיתם‬  In Deut 1:19a: ‫כאשר צוה יהוה אלהינו אתנו‬  In Deut 1:26b: ‫ ותמרו את־פי יהוה אלהיכם‬25 In Deut 1:20b, 25b, and 35b there is also stereotypical language in order to designate the land, which lies before Israel:  In Deut 1:20b “the hill of the Amorite” is qualified as ‫אשר־יהוה אלהינו‬ ‫נתן לנו׃‬  In Deut 1:25b the “good land” that the spies have seen is qualified with exactly the same proposition  In Deut 1:35b the “good land” is qualified by YHWH as ‫אשר נשבעתי‬ ‫)לתת( לאבתיכם‬. 22 Otto, Deuteronomium, 378 likewise sees a secondary character: “So knüpft Dtn 1,21 bis in den Wortlaut hinein an die göttliche Landzusage in Dtn 1,8 an, steigert so das Skandalon, dass das Volk trotz der göttlichen Zusage nicht in das Verheißene Land ziehen will.” 23 C. Steuernagel, Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HK 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1900, III–IV. 24 Otto, Deuteronomium, 377. 25 The stereotypical character of the expression is less certain. However, the sentence appears again in Deut 1:43b. The repetition of the sentence may serve a narrative function. However, it is slightly more probable that a redactor copied the sentence from v. 43b and pasted it in here.

172

Aaron Schart

In contrast to the previous cases, in which the formulae where simply superfluous, in the case of the designation of the land, there seems to be a deliberate design. In the first instance the quality of the land is not yet a topic and Moses is clear that the land is not empty but is inhabited by others. Only after the spies have seen the land is the phrase ‫ הארץ הטובה‬used. In addition, the spies are now convinced that YHWH is going to give the land to Israel. This last statement is not repeated within the punishment speech of YHWH, because it is no longer true: YHWH still holds to his oath to the fathers, but this generation will not seize the land. The language is typical deuteronomistic, and the qualifying propositions are also standard (cf. Dtn 8:7). However, it is completely appropriate that in this place, where the quality of the land is evaluated for the very first time by Israelites that have seen the land with their own eyes, and this evaluation stands in the very center of the story, the standard language and formulae were used as solemn expression by the original author. 1.5. Overfilled Sentences In two places the verses appear to be overly bulky and cumbersome. Again, the phenomenon is that this is characteristic of deuteronomic and deutronomistic style. However, as is the case with the formulaic expressions, throughout Deuteronomy one has to reckon with the possibility that this style was generated by later scribes. The following elements must be suspected of being secondary:  In Deut 1:22b: ‫את־הדרך אשר נעלה־בה ואת הערים אשר נבא אליהן׃‬  In Deut 1:24b: ‫וירגלו אתה‬. The third-person feminine singular suffix must refer to the land, but this is not mentioned in the sentence before.26 The addition wants to make sure that the spies examined the whole land, as described in Num 13:21, and not only a single spot. 1.6. Break of Coherence The most obvious break in the text is, as often has been noted, the discrepancy between the different versions of the report of the spies. In Deut 1:25b Moses quotes the report of the spies as an unambiguous statement that the land is good and identical with the land that YHWH has decided to give to Israel. In striking contrast the people give their version of what the spies have said in Deut 1:28. According to them they said nothing about the quality of the land, but portrayed the inhabitants as taller, the cities as large, and the fortifications as scratching the sky. This is a stunning contradiction and a serious break in 26 Otto, Deuteronomium, 371 thinks that the suffix rather refers to the ‫נחל אשׁכל‬. However, as he himself admits, ‫ נחל‬is a masculine substantive. The assumption that the gender changes to feminine, because ‫ נחל‬becomes part of a proper name, is far-fetched.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

173

the narrative and can only be reconciled with the assumption that Moses only quoted the first part of the report of the spies and suppressed the second, whereas the people withheld the first and only quoted the second part. However, this solution is only possible for someone familiar with Num 13–14; there are no hints at this within Deut 1 itself. The wording and the structure of v. 28 very closely resemble Num 13:28 in order to recall that text.27 The preferable explanation therefore is that a redactor inserted v. 28 in order to provide a reason why the people rejected the command to seize the land and, at the same time, wanted to bring in the ambiguity of the report of the spies, which is so dramatically recounted in Num 13–14. However, the redactor inserted the information in the wrong place, because, as the text now stands, the reaction of the people becomes even worse in that they now blatantly lie about what the spies have actually said.28 If one considers v. 28 secondary, one has to admit that the reaction of the people appears completely unwarranted. Taking into account that, according to deuteronomistic thinking, the people is indeed perceived as fundamentally stubborn and constantly opposing YHWH, Moses’ speech very effectively demonstrates this characteristic essence.29 The next problem is Deut 1:37. In the first half Moses contends that YHWH got angry at him “because of you” (= the addressees), and in the second he quotes the verdict that he was not allowed to go into the land as proof. This verse is very enigmatic and has aroused many discussions. First, there is no reason within Deuteronomy why YHWH should get angry at Moses. The 27

The phrase that designates the “Anakites” differs from passage to passage: ‫בני ענקים‬ (Deut 1:28; 9:2); ‫( ילדי הענק‬Num 13:22, 28; Josh 15:14); ‫( בני ענק‬Num 13:33; Deut 9:2); ‫בני‬ ‫( הענק‬Josh 15:14; Judg 1:20); ‫( ענקים‬Josh 11:22; 14:12); ‫( הענקים‬Dtn 2:10, 11, 21; Josh 11:21; Josh 14:15); ‫( הענק‬Josh 15:13). This raises the question, whether at least some variants, e.g., ‫( ילדי הענק‬Num 13:22, 28; Josh 15:14; additionally, in Num 13:22; Josh 15:14 and Judg 1:10 the names of the three sons of Anak “Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai” are given), can be attributed to the same redactional hand; cf. Otto, Deuteronomium, 379 who maintains: “Das Anakitermotiv ist hier wie in Num 13,22a.28b.33a postpriesterschriftlich und verweist auf Jos 14,6–15.” 28 Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 52 who maintains that v. 28 belongs to the original layer because “Wenn die Kundschafter keine Gründe nannten, die einer Landnahme entgegenstanden, bleibt es völlig unverständlich, daß das Volk unter Hinweis auf die Amoriter die Landnahme verweigerte”, apparently does not see this consequence. 29 This concurs with the analysis of the tendency of the story by Otto, Deuteronomium, 378: “Dass das Volk nach dem positiven Bericht der Kundschafter so ablehnend reagiert, ist in der deuteronomistischen Erzählung in der Intention der Autoren begründet, die Verlagerung von Gesetzespromulgation und Bundesschluss vom Horeb in das Land Moab zu erklären, wobei sichergestellt werden muss, dass die gesamte Horebgeneration ausstirbt, die Zweite Generation das Gesetz des Deuteronomiums also nicht kannte. So bedurfte es einer krassen Darstellung des Versagens des Volkes, das sich trotz des eindeutig positiven Berichts der Kundschafter weigert, in das Verheißene Land zu ziehen, um das Volk, so die deuteronomistischen Autoren, um so verstockter erscheinen zu lassen; siehe auch Dtn 29,3.”

174

Aaron Schart

comparably best explanation would be that Moses committed a transgression by accepting the proposal of the people to send out spies at all. However this would imply that YHWH would have demanded from Moses and the people that they should have entered into a military campaign completely unprepared and without knowing that the land before them is indeed the Promised Land. Since the mission of the spies leads to an evaluation of the land that is completely in line with the expectation of YHWH, it seems far-fetched and difficult to defend an understanding that this enterprise was against YHWH’s will in the first place. Second, a lot of fantasy is required to fill out in a reasonable way what “because of you” should mean. To infer a vicarious suffering of Moses requires too much speculation. The assumption that the divine anger was extended to Moses simply because he, as the leader, was liable for what the people have done is better, but there is no clear hint that the author has intended this unusual meaning either.30 Quite to the contrary, the text clearly differentiates between Moses and the people.31 The most fitting explanation seems to be that Moses was pressed by the people to commit a sin to which YHWH nevertheless held Moses accountable. Again, within Deut 1 there is no element that could lead to this conclusion. However, a redactor who was familiar with Num 20:1–12 could have understood the narrative in Num 20 in such a way that the aggressive behavior of the people pushed Moses to react in a reciprocal way against them.32 That led ultimately to YHWH’s judgment that Moses (and Aaron) could not bring Israel into the land (Num 20:12). The verdict in Deut 1:37 is reminiscent of the one in Num 20:12b.33 Again, the verse can best be understood as the work of a redactor who sought to smooth out a tension that emerges when one reads Deut 1 after he or she has read Num 20. Moses’ Kriegsansprache in Deut 1:29–30, (31,) 32, (33) offers the least probable but still considerable case of a break in coherence.34 First, it comes 30 Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium, 398, who himself believes that Moses had to die because the biblical narrator wanted Israel to enter the land with the written torah as the only possible access to YHWH’s will: “Einen Zugang zum Gotteswillen gibt es von dort an nur durch die Auslegung der Tora, für die Mose selbst mit der Moabtora zum Vorbild geworden ist. Die Funktion des mosaischen Amtes der Offenbarungsvermittlung ist auf die schriftliche Tora übergegangen. In diesem Sinne musste Mose sterben, um in die verschriftete Tora »aufzuerstehen«, die mit dem Volk über den Jordan in das Verheißene Land einziehen wird.” 31 Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 55. 32 This is the perception of Ps 106:32–33. 33 Otto, Deuteronomium, 379: “Verweigert JHWH in Dtn 1,37 die Teilnahme am Einzug in das Verheißene Land, so ist diese knappe, auf eine explizite Begründung verzichtende Notiz nur auf dem Hintergrund von Num 20,12–13, dessen Kenntnis in Dtn 1,37 mit ‚um euretwillen‘ (biglalkaem) vorausgesetzt ist, zu verstehen, setzt also die postdeuteronomistische Erzählung in Num 20,10–13 voraus.” 34 V. 31 was identified as secondary in its context above; that V. 33 likewise is a secondary expansion will be argued in the following.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

175

as a surprise that the people’s reaction to the encouraging speech is not given. In fact, the speech goes by unheeded, almost unheard; it has no narrative function. The reaction of YHWH, namely that his anger is aroused, comes as if Moses had not spoken at all. If one eliminates the verses 29–33 nothing is missing. Quite to the contrary, the cohesion between v. 27 and v. 34 increases.35 In addition, the spirit, the wording, and the form of the speech are typical for a deuteronomistic “Kriegsansprache”.36 Lastly, this speech of encouragement by Moses himself has no basis in Num 13–14. Instead, Caleb and Joshua had been the two who opposed the negative vote of their spy fellows and encouraged the people to seize the land despite the obstacles. In striking contrast, Moses and Aaron fell upon their faces and remained silent (Num 14:5). All of these observations combined can best be explained by the assumption that a redactor wanted Moses to react to the people’s complaint; he or she could not imagine that Moses did not try to convince the people otherwise, but let them become the object of YHWH’s deadly anger almost without pity. This redactor did not use Num 13–14 as a source. 1.7. Harmonization Having identified certain secondary materials, it could be discerned that an important motive for the redactional expansion of the text was the reconciliation of Deut 1 with the parallel account in Num 13–14, which the reader happened to have read only a few chapters before. If one is on this track, some other verses appear to have been added to the same end. Deuteronomy 1:40 displays close verbal parallels to Num 14:25.37 In addition, it is without narrative function within Deut 1, but fits well into Num 13– 14. There YHWH ironically commands the people to go in the direction they themselves wanted to go in the first place, namely back to Egypt (Num 14:3). This desire to return to Egypt is not mentioned within Deut 1. In conclusion, the whole verse Deut 1:40 probably stems from a redactor who wanted to bring the final command of the first YHWH speech in Num 14 into Deut 1.38

35

V. 28 was identified as secondary above. Otto, Deuteronomium, 379 also considers this passage to be secondary. 36 J.G. Plöger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26, Bonn: Hanstein 1967, 48–49; Achenbach, Erzählung, 72: “Das Ermutigungsorakel v. 29b vergleiche man hierzu mit Dtn 7,21; 20,3; 31,6, die Zusage der Führung Jahwes v. 30aα mit Dtn 31,8, aber auch Ex 13,21; Jer 45,2; Jes 52,12b, die Zusage des Streites Jahwes für Israel Dtn 1,30 mit Dtn 3,22; 20,4; Jos 23,3.10; Ex 14,14 und Neh 4,14!”. 37 Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium, 379. 38 Deut 1:42 is almost identical with Num 14:42. The only difference is that the text is given as a direct speech of Moses in Numbers, whereas in Deut it is presented as a command to Moses. This is clearly a case of harmonization, but in this case it is more probable that a

176

Aaron Schart

There are four other instances of harmonization, but these display an even wider horizon. Deut 1:33 mentions the pillar of fire and cloud. This is clearly an adaption of a concept that is used only a few times within the Pentateuch (Exod 13:21, 22; 14:24; Num 14:14). It can be suspected that one redactor inserted all the occurrences in different books at the same time.39 Most evidently, Deut 1:36 is secondary. It mentions Caleb, who is a hero in Num 13–14 because he was the first who stepped in and tried to encourage the people. Within Deut 1 he has no narrative function. Quite the opposite, within Deut 1 it is completely unimaginable why YHWH declares that Caleb and – in v. 38, Joshua – are exceptions among the people.40 To mention him, however, is important, because in the end his braveness gets its reward, inasmuch as he receives a piece of land in the area of Hebron (Josh 14).41 In this case it would be the simplest assumption, if the redactor worked in Deut 1 and in Josh 14 simultaneously. Following this line this could be a trace of a Hexateuch redaction. If Caleb was added, one has no reason to doubt that Joshua was added too (Deut 1:38). Again the reference to the book of Joshua is evident, inasmuch as it is explicitly stated that Joshua will let Israel inherit the land (‫)נחל‬.42 There is also a problem with the “twelve men from each tribe” in Deut 1:23b, because the wording ‫ ואקח מכם שנים עשר אנשים איש אחד לשבט‬is almost identical to that of Josh 3:12 and 4:2, so that all three passages may stem from the same editor, who presumably insisted on the involvement of representatives of all tribes in case of the first seizing of the land, which was not successful, and the second and final one. On the other hand the narrative needs a note that Moses had sent out the spies. Otherwise the beginning of v. 24 would be missing its subject.43 It may be that the editor replaced a word or two.44

redactor has inserted a verse from Deut into Numbers, cf. Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 43 n. 11. 39 Cf J.C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 214. 40 Taschner, Mosereden 212: “Der Grund für die beiden Ausnahmen Josua und Kaleb wird ohne die Kenntnis der Numeriversion nicht deutlich.” 41 Otto, Deuteronomium, 379: it is an “Anknüpfungspunkt für die postdeuteronomistischen Erzählungen in Jos 14,6–15 und Jos 15,13–19“. 42 Otto, Deuteronomium, 381. 43 Otto, Deuteronomium, 378 has no difficulties declaring the whole sentence secondary. 44 The number of the spies has long been a puzzling detail for those who maintained that Dtn 1 only knew a JE version of Num 13–14 because the number of twelve is crucial for the P source but not for JE. However, since the beginning of JE was deleted anyway, when a redactor combined the JE and the P versions, the number twelve may have already been contained

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

177

1.8. The Itinerary Notice Usually it is thought that Deut 1:46 belongs to the redactor who had brought different episodes into a geographical scheme. I approve this argumentation. To my mind the localization “in Kadesh” stems from later editors who set up a route that Israel has taken during the wilderness wanderings. Within their concept, Kadesh, a synonym with Kadesh-Barnea, played the central role on the route from Sinai to Moab. 1.9. The Oldest Layer By summing up the different source-critical arguments, one can now reconstruct the oldest layer of the text. This layer presents a text that is grammatically in order and without lack of cohesion. A good argument that always adds significantly to the validity of the source-critical analysis is when the reconstructed oldest layer is grammatically sound, has no semantic gaps or breaks, and has a well-designed form. Plöger has pointed to the fact that the oldest layer seems to be organized as a concentric structure.45 His scheme should be rearranged a little bit; one has only to look at the speeches. Be that as it may, in any case the center of the composition is the evaluation of the land by the spies. After this statement the story changes dramatically for the worse. A. v. 19–20: Speech of Moses: “the land that YHWH is going to give” ‫ ַונֵּלְֶך דֶּ ֶרְך הַר הָ ֽאֱ מ ִֹרי‬19) And we went on the way to the hill of the Amorite.

‫ וָא ֹמַ ר אֲ ֵלכֶם‬20) And I said to you, ‫" בָּאתֶ ם עַד־הַר הָאֱ מ ִֹרי‬You have come to the hill of the Amorite, which YHWH our God is going to give us.” ‫אֲ שֶׁ ר־י ְהוָה אֱ ֹלהֵינוּ נ ֹתֵ ן לָ ֽנוּ׃‬ B. v. 22: Answer of the people: “explore the land for us” (v. 22) ‫ וַתִּ קְ ְרבוּן אֵ לַי ֻכּ ְלּכֶם וַתּ ֹאמְ רוּ‬22) Then all of you came to me and said, ‫“ נִשְׁ ְלחָה אֲ נָשִׁ ים ְל ָפנֵינוּ‬Let us send men ahead of us to explore the land for us.” ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ְוי ַ ְחפְּרוּ־לָנוּ אֶ ת־ה‬ C. v. 23–25: Mission of the spies: “land that YHWH is going to give us” ... ‫ ַויּ ִיטַב ְבּעֵינַי הַדָּ בָר‬23) This plan was good in my view, …

‫ ַויִּפְנוּ ַויַּעֲלוּ ָהה ָָרה‬24) They set out and went up onto the hill, ‫ ַויּ ָב ֹאוּ עַד־נַחַל אֶ שְׁ כּ ֹל‬and reached the Valley of Eshcol in the JE version (cf. Wellhausen, Composition, 199). But the assumption that the exact number of twelve men was added later would solve this riddle in a more probable way. 45 Plöger, Deuteronomium, 50.

178

Aaron Schart

‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ַויּ ִקְחוּ ְבי ָדָ ם מִ פּ ְִרי ה‬ ‫וַיּ ִֹורדוּ אֵ לֵינוּ וַיּ ֹא ְמרוּ‬ ‫ָאָרץ‬ ֶ ‫ט ֹובָה ה‬ ‫אֲ שֶׁ ר־י ְהוָה אֱ ֹלהֵינוּ נ ֹתֵ ן לָ ֽנוּ׃‬

25) and took in their hands from the land's fruits, and brought them down to us. They said, “Good is the land that YHWH our God is going to give us.”

B´. v. 26–27: Answer of the people: Desire for the “land of Egypt” ‫ וְֹלא אֲ בִיתֶ ם ַלעֲֹלת‬26) But you were unwilling to go up. ‫וַתֵּ ָרגְנוּ בְאָ ֳהלֵיכֶם וַתּ ֹא ְמרוּ‬ ‫בְּשִׂ נְאַת י ְהוָה א ֹתָ נוּ ה ֹוצִיאָנוּ מֵ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצ ְָרי ִם‬ ‫לָתֵ ת א ֹתָ נוּ ְבּי ַד הָאֱ מ ִֹרי ְלהַשְׁ מִ ֵידֽנוּ׃‬

27) You grumbled in your tents and said, “It is because YHWH hates us that he has brought us out of the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorite to destroy us.”

A´. v. 34–35, 39: YHWH‘s decree of punishment: the land will be given to the next generation ‫ ַויּ ִשְׁ מַ ע י ְהוָה אֶ ת־ק ֹול דִּ ב ְֵריכֶם‬34) And YHWH heard the sound of your ‫ֵאמ ֹר׃‬ ֽ ‫ ַויּ ִקְ צ ֹף ַויּ ִשָּׁ בַע ל‬words, and became angry and swore: ‫ אִם־י ְִראֶ ה אִישׁ בָּאֲ נָשִׁים הָאֵ לֶּה‬35) “Not one of these men shall see the ‫ָאָרץ הַטּ ֹובָה‬ ֶ ‫ אֵ ת ה‬good land that I swore to give to your ancestors, ‫אֲ שֶׁ ר נִשְׁ ַבּעְתִּ י לָתֵ ת לַאֲ ב ֹתֵ יכֶ ֽם׃‬ ‫וּ ְבנֵיכֶם אֲ שֶׁ ר ֹלא־י ָדְ עוּ הַיּ ֹום ט ֹוב ו ָָרע‬ ‫הֵמָּה י ָב ֹאוּ שָׁ מָּ ה‬ ‫ְו ָלהֶם אֶ תְּ נֶנָּה ְוהֵם י ִָירשֽׁ וּהָ׃‬

39) But your children, who today do not yet know good and bad, they will enter there; to them I will give it, and they shall take possession of it.”

B´´. v. 41: Answer of the people: Desire to go up on the hill ‫ וַ ֽתַּ עֲנוּ וַתּ ֹא ְמרוּ אֵ לַי‬41) You answered me, ‫" ָחטָאנוּ לַ ֽיהוָה אֲ נַחְנוּ‬We have sinned against YHWH! Let us go up and fight, ‫ נַ ֲעלֶה ְונִ ְלחַמְנוּ‬just as YHWH our God has commanded ‫ כְּכ ֹל אֲ שֶׁ ר־ ִצוָּנוּ י ְהוָה אֱֹלהֵינוּ‬us." ‫ וַ ֽתַּ ְחגְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶ ת־ ְכּלֵי מִ ְלחַמְ תּ ֹו‬So all of you strapped on your battle gear, ‫ וַתָּ הִינוּ ַלעֲֹלת הָהָ ָֽרה׃‬and thought it easy to go up to the hill. A´´. v. 42: YHWH’s command not to go up ‫ וַיּ ֹאמֶ ר י ְהוָה אֵ לַי אֱ מ ֹר ָלהֶם‬42) The LORD said to me, “Say to them, ‫‘ ֹלא ַ ֽתעֲלוּ וְֹלא־תִ ָלּחֲמוּ‬Do not go up and do not fight, for I am not in the midst of you; ‫ כִּי אֵינֶנִּי בְּקִ ְר ְבּכֶם‬otherwise you will be defeated by your ‫ וְֹלא תִּ נָּ ֽגְפוּ ִל ְפנֵי אֹיְבֵיכֶ ֽם׃‬enemies.’” B´´´. v. 43: Reaction of the people: going up nevertheless ‫ וָאֲ דַ בֵּר אֲ לֵיכֶם וְֹלא שְׁ מַ עְתֶּ ם‬43) I told you, but you did not listen. ‫ וַתַּ מְ רוּ אֶ ת־פִּי י ְהוָה וַתָּ ז ִדוּ‬You rebelled against the mouth of YHWH; you were presumptuous ‫ וַתַּ עֲלוּ הָהָ ָֽרה׃‬and went up on the hill.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

179

D. v. 44: The Amorite beats the people ‫ ַויֵּצֵא הָאֱ מ ִֹרי הַיּ ֹשֵׁ ב ָבּהָר הַהוּא לִקְ ַראתְ כֶם‬44) The Amorites who lived on that hill ‫ ַויּ ְִרדְּ פוּ אֶ תְ כֶם כַּאֲ שֶׁ ר תַּ עֲשֶׂינָה הַדְּ ב ִֹרים‬went out against you and chased you as bees do. They beat you in Seir until Hormah. ‫וַ ֽיַּכְּתוּ אֶ תְ כֶם בְּשֵׂ עִיר עַד־ח ְָרמָ ֽה׃‬ E. v. 45: No contact between YHWH and the people anymore ‫ וַתָּ שֻׁבוּ וַתִּ בְכּוּ ִל ְפנֵי י ְהוָה‬45) Then you returned and wept before ‫ ְוֹלֽא־שָׁ מַ ע י ְהוָה בְּק ֹ ְלכֶם‬YHWH, but YHWH did not hear your voice and did not pay attention to you. ‫וְֹלא הֶאֱ ז ִין אֲ לֵיכֶ ֽם׃‬ 1.10. Summary: Redaction History The final argument in support of a source-critical analysis is whether one can reconstruct – on that basis – a redaction history that reckons with discernible and intelligible motives of the different redactors and fits into a historical framework that is plausible for reasons beyond those that the source-critical analysis used in the first place. At this stage one can only propose a rough sketch of the redaction history of Deut 1. The redactors had at least four different intentions:  The basic layer is a self-contained speech of Moses in which he recalls the spy story. The reader does not need additional information in order to understand the speech that drastically shows the mistrust of the people, who reacted to a favorable report of the spies in such a harsh way.  Several additions and insertions harmonize the account with Num 13– 14 and, at the same time, mitigate the harshness of the people’s reaction.  The formulaic additions could have come in at any time, presumably even from different redactors, in order to bring the text in line with deuteronomic and deuteronomistic style and add some emphasis to theological standard topoi. The Septuagint shows that small scale additions in this style were made even after the Hebrew Vorlage was translated into Greek.  Other additions bring in formulations from other parts of the Hexateuch, among them are some that bridge the gap to the book of Joshua. For the sake of the model’s simplicity, it is always preferable not to assume more redactional hands than necessary, but it seems to be unrealistic to reduce the redactional hands to only two, as proposed by Otto.46 46

Otto, Deuteronomium, 381: “In Dtn 1,19–46 sind zwei literarische Schichten zu differenzieren. Die deuteronomistische Erzählung der Moabredaktion, die die literarische Grundlage für Dtn 1–4* gelegt hat, umfasst Dtn 1,19a*.20.22–23.a.b*.27a*.28a.34–35a.b*.39a*.b. 40–45. Durch die nachexilische Fortschreibung in Dtn 1,19a*.b.21.23b*.27a*.b.28b–33.35b*. 36–39a*.46 wird die Erzählung in den Pentateuch integriert, wobei die Fortschreibungen auch eine hexateuchische Perspektive der Beziehung auf das Josuabuch zu erkennen geben.”

180

Aaron Schart

Since the desire to harmonize Deut 1 with the parallel account in Num 13– 14 is an important motive within the redaction history of Deut 1, a comparison of Num 13–14 and Deut 1 will help to bring the hypothesis to greater clarity and validity.

2. Comparison of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19–46 The ongoing debate in source criticism about Num 13–14 concerns, first, the exact delineation of the two basic sources and other additions; secondly, the question, whether both sources had existed as independent stories; thirdly, the relation of the two sources to each other before they were merged into one text; fourthly, whether the versions belonged to the same strata of J and P that can be found elsewhere in the Pentateuch or Hexateuch; and finally, the question whether the redactor of Num 13–14, who put together the P and the J sources also worked in Deut 1. Concerning the first point, a complete source-critical analysis of Num 13– 14 is not necessary in this context because only those elements are of interest that have an equivalent in Deut 1.47 Secondly, the assumption that the two sources J and P must have existed independently best explains why it is possible to reconstruct two coherent narrative strands with distinct vocabulary and style that can be read without inferring information from the other. This is an important point and should not be neglected. Only if one overlooks the coherence and in most cases also the cohesion between the chunks can one come to the conclusion that one of the sources, usually J, must be divided into a lot of originally independent additions to the other, usually P, by different hands. As L. Schmidt has rightly stated, the chunks usually attributed to J do not enhance the narrative flow of the P version but instead bring in narrative elements and ideas alien to P that disturb the coherence significantly.48 Therefore it is unlikely that the author of the P-source has itself incorporated the J-pieces, but much more likely that a third party combined the P-version with the J-material and deliberately changed the message of P by adding the J-material. This is a strong argument against the identification of P with the final redactor. Concerning the third point, it will again be shown through the following comparison to Deut 1 that the P version is younger than the J version. The fourth question, whether the sources of Num 13–14 belong to layers that can also be detected in other places in the Pentateuch, is very complex. This can only be clarified by comparison with other text-passages. For the P 47

Schart, Mose, 80–89 evaluates the basic source-critical arguments. Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 50 rightly emphasizes this point against various models that understand one source as additional material that was inserted into the other. 48

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

181

material it is obvious that there are very close similarities with other text passages traditionally assigned to P. It is only, if one argues that P originally ended somewhere in the Sinai episode (let it be Exod 29, Exod 40, Lev 9, or Lev 16) that one must deny the clear connections between the P texts. As I have shown elsewhere, the P source has developed its own “Textmuster”, namely that of the “Kabod-narrative”, according to which all its narratives in the wilderness are structured.49 This is very strong evidence that the P source in Num 13–14 indeed belonged to the same narrative strand as in Exod 16 and Num 20:1–13.50 The evidence that the J portions likewise belonged to a source that can be detected elsewhere is much more limited, as is universally acknowledged. However, this is so, because J uses a style that is much less repetitive and idiosyncratic than that of P or the Deuteronomist. Nevertheless, L. Schmidt has found at least one striking verbal agreement between Num 14:40 and Num 10:29: ‫המקום אשר־אמר יהוה‬.51 All of the questions, especially the third and the fifth ones, can only be answered after a comparison of Num 13–14 with Deut 1, to which I now turn. The oldest layer of Deut 1 will serve as the starting point. 2.1. The People Take the Initiative to Send the Spies (Deut 1:20) In Deut 1:20, as has often been noted, the initiative to send spies into the land, comes from the people, whereas in Num 13 YHWH commands it. 52 Both openings differ from the typical element of the text genre “Kundschaftergeschichte”, in which the leader of the campaign sends the spies.53 It is obvious that the version of Deut 1 wants to enlarge the guilt of the people: Although they themselves made the proposal to send spies, they mistrusted their report so much that they believed the opposite of what the spies said. 2.2. The Spies in the Land (Deut 1:24–25a) Deut 1:24–25a contains a shorter version of what the spies did compared to Num 13:21–25. However, the recounted details are close to Num 13. In both cases the men went up into the highlands. In Num 13:23 it is stated that they reached the ‫ נחל אשׁכל‬and in Num 13:20 the “fruits of the land” are men49

See Schart, Mose, 137–148. This is far better evidence than observations on the distribution of isolated words that do not show up in statistically significant numbers. I still think that traces of P can be detected in Deut 34. Carr, Formation, 138–140 uses the death report of Moses as an example on what shaky grounds some scholars argue for or against the hypothesis that Deut 34 contains elements of P. 51 Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 48–49. The second, less convincing, reason is the crying of the people, which can also be found in Num 11:4, 10; 14:1. 52 Taschner, Mosereden, 208: “Hier kommt die Idee, vor der Landnahme Kundschafter vorauszuschicken, vom Volk und nicht wie in Num 13 von Jhwh.” 53 Schart, Mose, 73. 50

182

Aaron Schart

tioned. 54 An important detail that is missing, however, is the huge grape, which could only be carried by two men. It is difficult to explain why this detail would have been deleted, if the author of Deut 1 knew it, because it would have added some quite impressive evidence to the evaluation of the spies that “the land is good” (Deut 1:25b). 2.3. The Report of the Spies (Deut 1:25b) Compared to the complicated and dramatic report of the spies in Num 13:26– 33, the report in Deut 1:25b is very brief: everything is entailed in two statements in stereotypical language: “This land is good” and “it is the land that YHWH is going to give to Israel”. 55 Any negative aspects are completely missing in the oldest layer of the text; only later did the negative aspect come in, but only within the response of the people (Deut 1:28). The version of Deut is completely self-dependent, and only the motive is shared with Num 13: that the land appeared to be a fruitful place, where one can live sustainably. This points more in the direction of a shared oral tradition than in that of literary dependence. 2.4. The Reaction of the People (Deut 1:26–27(28) // Num 14:2–3) Compared to the short but positive report of the spies, the reaction of the people in Deut 1 is described as very aggressive toward God. The people even insinuate that God has planned to kill them. And if this were not enough, Deut 1 makes clear that the reaction of the people comes out of nowhere.56 Nothing in the mission of the spies can lead to the very harsh judgment of the people, who even accuse YHWH of hating Israel! As we have seen, later editors were puzzled by this unmotivated reaction of the people and brought in the idea from Num 13 that the report of the spies was at least ambiguous. Thematically in both texts the people question the exodus and fear that the exodus now will lead to the death of the whole generation, but significant overlap in the wording is missing. As a result, there is no evidence for direct literary dependence in either direction.

54 Plöger, Deuteronomium, 46–47 lists the similarities, but assumes no dependence on either side. This too easily dismisses the need for an explanation. 55 Taschner, Mosereden, 209: “Es geht in der Moseversion nicht darum, in komplexen Dialogen aufzuzeigen, wie eine Fehlentscheidung zustandekommt, die auf Gerüchten und Zaghaftigkeit beruht, sondern darum, dem Volk den Nachweis der Schuld der gesamten Generation zu erbringen, die nicht ins Land ziehen darf.” 56 Taschner, Mosereden, 210: “Von daher wirkt das Nicht-Wollen des Volkes in Dtn 1,26 völlig unmotiviert.” Taschner also notes the marked contrast between v. 28 und v. 25; Plöger, Deuteronomium, 52: “völlig unerwartet, schockierend, und zunächst unverständlich”.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

183

2.5. YHWH’s Verdict (Deut 1:34–35* and 39) YHWH’s speech contains a verdict that is similar in content to Num 14:21– 23, 28–35: The generation that experienced the exodus must die, but their children will reach the land. Besides this global thematic similarity, no verbal overlap supports the hypothesis of direct literary dependence. Remarkably, only YHWH’s taking an oath (v. 34) resembles Num 14:21, 28. A big difference is that Moses’ intercession in Num 14:11–25* is completely absent.57 In the oldest layer of Deut 1, Moses does not undertake any attempt to rescue Israel. It was already noted that a later redactor felt that this did not fit the character of Moses as known from elsewhere and added the “Kriegsansprache”. 2.6. Failure of the Unauthorized Conquest (Deut 1:41–45//Num 14:41–45) In this case again, the plot of the narrative is identical in both passages. Concerning the wording one has to be aware, however, that a redactor harmonized them.58 Num 14:42 is almost identical with its counterpart in Deut 1:42, so that direct literary dependence must be assumed. Since the text in Num 14:42 interrupts the flow from the preceding to the following sentence, it is more likely that Num 14:42 was borrowed from Deut 1 than the other way around.59 Uncertain is the case of the confession “we have sinned” in Num 14:40b and Deut 1:41. On the one hand the sentence stands quite isolated at the end of the Numbers text, but is well integrated in Deut 1:41a, which would lead to the assumption that it was secondarily added in Num 14:40. On the other hand the sentence contains the object “against YHWH” in Deut 1:41, which could be explained if Deut 1 had enhanced the incomplete sentence in Num 14:40. In the other cases the verbal overlap is not significant enough to assume direct literary dependence, but Otto is right in these instances that Deut 1 must represent the party that borrowed from the version underlying the text in Numbers and not the other way around.60 57 Taschner, Mosereden, 212: “Die Fürbitte Num 14,13–19 fehlt völlig. Dies könnte einer Schematisierung zu verdanken sein, dass sich Mose in Dtn 9–10 ein für alle Mal als der Fürbitter schlechthin darstellt.” Taschner is right that Moses is seen in Deut 9–10 as the intercessor without whose help Israel would no longer exist; cf. J. Jeremias, Der Zorn Gottes im Alten Testament. Das biblische Israel zwischen Verwerfung und Erwählung, BThSt 104, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2009, 152: “Ohne Mose hätte Gottes Zorn Israel schon am Sinai/Horeb getroffen. Mit Mose aber ist Israel vor diesem Zorn sicher — nicht nur am Sinai, sondern für alle Zeiten.” However to claim that the author of Deut 1 left out the Mosaic intercession with respect to Deut 9–10 is very speculative. 58 Otto, Deuteronomium, 382–383 provides a nice synopsis of both texts that shows the overlap. 59 So rightly Schmidt, Kundschaftererzählung, 43 n. 11. 60 The small detail that the people “wept” is not too significant, but it is possible that Deut 1 borrowed it from Num 14:1. Otto, Deuteronomium, 384: “Die Autoren der deuteronomisti-

184

Aaron Schart

2.7. In Sum The comparison of Num 13–14 and Deut 1 adds additional evidence to the internal source-critical analysis of Num 13–14. Both texts are the result of complex redactional work. There are no signs that the oldest layer of Deut 1 had any knowledge of the P version. Instead, it seems to have known the spy story roughly in a form as presented in the J version of Num 13–14. However, the similarities are limited to the plot of the story and only few details. In places where significant verbal agreements that would suggest a direct literary dependence are obvious, this can better be explained with the redactional activity of harmonization that happened apparently in both directions. This pattern of overlap of narrative elements with only minor verbal agreements is typical for cases when two texts share the same oral tradition. It is therefore wise to assume that the J version in Num 13–14 and the oldest layer of Deut 1 are mutually independent versions of an oral version of the story. When they were written down, the two literary versions must originally have been part of two distinct text corpora; otherwise one could not explain why two versions displaying such strong variance between them became part of the same corpus. In fact, when they became part of the same narrative strand one following after the other, great difficulties emerged because the reader was compelled to ask why in Deut 1 Moses remembers things so differently – and also to his own advantage – from how they actually happened according to Num 13–14. Smoothing out this discrepancy was the source of several additions. In the second phase Deut 1, and the J version of Num 13–14 for that matter, was edited as an independent unit; the redactor who inserted Deut 1:29– 33* probably did not even know the J version. The addition is completely understandable as an attempt to bring the story more in line with other passages that deal with military campaigns in the deuteronomistic narrative tradition. The redactor felt that a “Kriegsansprache” was missing and composed one using stereotypical language from other texts (v. 30 ‫ לחם‬Ni. plus the preposition ‫ל‬, importance of trust, root ‫)אמן‬. Likewise, the passage was made to cohere more with the rest of Deuteronomy by the addition of stereotypical phrases. As a consequence, at least some of them could have been added in this phase, but the need to adapt the style of the passage to accord better with the rest of the corpus was obviously felt in other phases, too. In the third phase Deuteronomy became connected to an earlier version of Numbers, in which the spy story had played a central role. The first bodily contact with the land, although only the spies actually walked over the soil, collected some fruits, and saw the inhabitants with their own eyes, discourschen Moabredaktion setzen das Motiv, das Volk habe aufgrund des Berichts der Kundschafter geweint (Num 14,1b), an den Schluss der Kundschaftererzählung in Dtn 1,45, um zu zeigen, dass mangelndes Vertrauen auf das Wort Gottes Trauer und Verzweiflung nach sich ziehen.”

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

185

aged the people and revealed their mistrust in YHWH and YHWH’s plan for Israel. Now the necessity emerged to harmonize the speech of Moses with the Numbers version. Clearly there are harmonizations that only presuppose the J version of Num 13–14, namely Deut 1:28 and Deut 1:40. Likewise, it is obvious that there are additions that presuppose the P version: Deut 1:36 and 1:38. The addition of the name of the father in both cases, which can only be found in P, is a clear indicator. In addition, Deut 1:37b presupposes Num 20:12, which belongs to P. As a consequence, the final version of Deut 1:19–46 clearly presupposes a version of Num 13–14, in which J and P are combined. However, given the diversity of the harmonizing additions, it is safe to assume that they were not all made by the same hand. It seems plausible to differentiate between harmonizing additions on the basis of J and a second set of additions that operated with the P version in mind. It is important to note that this second redactional layer obviously had not only the P version but at the same time the book of Joshua as part of its larger narrative framework. In the case of Caleb and likewise in that of Joshua, their role during the conquest of the land is emphasized. The information that the two were exempted from YHWH’s verdict in the first place was needed because they had an important role to play in Joshua. As a result, there is some evidence for a redactor who knew the P version and thought to bridge the gap between the spy story and Joshua. Difficult to evaluate is the point where Moses’ intercession in Num 14:11– 20* came in. It is clear that it is not mentioned or alluded to on any level of Deut 1. An easy explanation would be that the intercession was inserted in Num 14 very late, when nobody felt the need to allude to it in Deut 1 anymore. But the problem with an argument e silentio is well-known. One would have to argue that Deut must have mentioned the intercession motive, if Deut had found it in its Vorlage. At least one can be sure that the intercession of Moses is of eminent importance in Deut 9. There the author clearly implies that Israel would have ceased to exist if Moses had not interceded with God on its behalf. If the author of Deut 1 had had a Vorlage that contained the intercession motive, there would have been no reason why he or she should have neglected it. And, the other way around, the arguments that Moses advances against YHWH’s anger in Num 14 are totally in line with the reasoning in Deut 9–10, so that the author of Deut 1 should have had no objection to this passage. This suggests that the Vorlage of the author of Deut 1 did not contain the intercession motive. This assumption perfectly matches the source-critical analysis of Num 13–14, where there are clear signs that the intercession of Moses was added later by a redactor. On the other hand one must admit that so far no evidence has been given that allows us to identify when the intercession in Num 14:11–20* was inserted.

186

Aaron Schart

3. Comparison with Numbers 32:8–13 In Num 32 two tribes of the second generation after the exodus, the Reubenites and Gadites, approach Moses because they want to stay on the Eastern side of the Jordan. Some redactor inserted a passage (v. 8–13) in which Moses retells the spy story as a warning for the Reubenites and Gadites not to repeat the great mistake that their fathers had made, namely, to reject the gift of the Promised Land and to discourage the people on their way to the Western side. A comparison of this passage with the spy story in Num 13–14 shows that Num 32:8–13 clearly presupposes the P-layer. This can be derived from the following observations:  The phrase “the land that has been given” is reminiscent of Num 13:2.  The specification that only those persons will “not see the land” who are “more than 20 years old” stems from P (Num 14:29).  That the sojourn in the wilderness will last for 40 years likewise is told in the P stratum (Num 14:33).  That Caleb and Joshua are characterized by the name of their fathers is also typical for P. Likewise there are clear signs that Num 32 presupposes the J-Layer.  That the spies shall see (‫ ראה‬v. 8, 9) the land can be found in Num 13:18.  The valley ‫ אשכול‬is also mentioned only in the J layer (Num 13:23–24) and in Deut 1:24a.  In Num 32:12 it is stated that Caleb and Joshua “stood fully behind YHWH”. This phrase stems from J (14:24) and can also be found in Deut 1:36. However in J, Caleb is not identified with his patronymic.  The notion in v. 11 that YHWH not only promulgated his judgment but even took an oath that the men will not see the Promised Land is close to the formulation in Num 14:23 (secondary to J) and resembles the one in Deut 1:35a.  In addition, it is stated two times (Num 32:10 and 13; cf 32:14) that the anger of the Lord was kindled. This phrase can be found in pre-priestly material Exod 4:14; Num 11:10; 12:9; 25:3, but not in Num 13–14. Likewise the phrase ‫( כל־העם הזה‬Num 32:15) “this whole people” is found in Exod 18:23; Num 11:11,12,14; (Jer 27:16), but not in Num 13–14. Finally Num 32 has some peculiarities that do not stem from a different text:  Moses’ audience is clearly separated from the generation that became guilty, since Moses consistently talks about the guilt of the fathers.  The misconduct that the spies committed is paraphrased as “they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel” (Num 32:9). The exact

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

187

phrase is not found elsewhere, although the concept is equal to that expressed in Deut 1:28.61 One point is shared with Josh 14:6: In v. 12 Caleb is introduced not only with his father’s name but also with his gentilic identity.62 This suggests the following assumptions: Num 32:8–13 in any case presupposes that J and P had already been merged in Num 13–14. The passage is also familiar with the topic of the recurrent anger of the Lord, which is characteristic of Num 11–12.63 It is significant that Num 32 does mention two details from the J-layer that recur in Deut 1 (“valley Eschkol” and the oath) and one detail, the name “Kadesh-Barnea”, which seems to stem from Deut 1. The passage was inserted by a redactor who wanted to clearly distinguish between the first generation that experienced the exodus and the Sinai/Horeb event, but failed to seize the land and the second generation, which stood in front of Moses when he held his last speech reported in Deuteronomy. Since this separation is not clear enough in Deut 1:19–46 itself, the redactor created Num 32:8–13 as a bridge. Therefore, it is probable that the redactor worked after J, P and Deut* were combined in one work. The use of the gentilic as an apposition to Caleb points in the direction that the redactor also has had access to Josh 14:14.64

4. Comparison with Deut 9:1–2 and 23–29 Within the Book of Deuteronomy Deut 1 is quoted in Deut 9:1–2, 23–29: The phrases ‫“ גוים גדלים ועצמים ממך ערים גדלת ובצרת בשמים‬nations larger and mighti61

Schmidt, Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad, 500. L. Schmidt, Die Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland in Numeri 32,1–38. ZAW 114 (2002), 497–510, 499–500 considers V. 12 to be a secondary insertion; however, besides the gentilic element connected with the name of Caleb there is no additional evidence for this. 63 Baden, J, E, and the redaction of the Pentateuch, 142–148 has tried to separate two independent layers of E and P in Num 32 that were combined by a redactor, who, at the same time, inserted words from chunks of one layer into chunks of the other and added material that harmonized the resulting mixed text with the final version of Num 13–14 comprising already J and P. This theory seems overly complicated, cf. Carr, Formation, 137 n. 82. The hypothesis of a basic layer that was expanded by different redactors is much more convincing; although one certainly can opt differently concerning the details, Schmidt, Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad, 506–507 provides a plausible analysis. 64 Otto, Deuteronomium, 373 may be too confident when he declares: “Num 32,6–15 ist ein später Einschub in den Pentateuch, der mit der Redaktion des Pentateuch im ausgehenden 5. oder frühen 4. Jahrhundert im Gespräch ist”. Otto also seems to downplay the connection of the passage to Joshua, which would suggest that the passage belongs to a Hexateuchredaction. 62

188

Aaron Schart

er than you, great cities, fortified to the heavens” (Deut 9:1 NRSV) is almost verbally identical with ‫ עם גדול ורם ממנו ערים גדלת ובצורת בשמים‬in Deut 1:28a and must therefore stem from direct literary dependence. Likewise Deut 9:2 combines the expression ‫עם־גדול ורם‬65 with the phrase ‫בני ענקים‬, which both stem from Deut 1:28. It is clear that Deut 9:1–2 presupposes Deut 1 only at a developmental stage when the cited dtr expressions had already been inserted. Deut 9:23 combines the name “Kadesh-Barneah” from Deut 1:19 with phrases from Deut 1:8 (‫ )ורשו את־הארץ אשר‬and Deut 1:26, 43 (‫)ותמרו את־פי יהוה‬ and the statement that the hearers did not trust (root ‫ )אמן‬in God (Deut 1:32). This can also best explained by the assumption that Deut 9 made use of formulations and motifs from Deut 1. Especially interesting is that in Deut 9:25–29 Moses retells his intercession on the people’s behalf. This motif is shared with Num 14:11–23, but is not mentioned in Deut 1. It is important to note that a similar intercession passage can also be found in the golden calf incident (Exod 32:11–13). In Deut 9:25– 29 Moses advances three arguments against YHWH’s plan to destroy Israel: First, he argues that the relation to the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jakob establish a relation that should be remembered in case of stubbornness of a later generation. This argument is also used in Exod 32:13. Second, he points to the possible misunderstanding in the sight of the Egyptians that YHWH was not capable of bringing Israel into the land or destroying them because YHWH hated them.66 This argument with the witness of the Egyptians is used in a very close way to Num 14 and to Exod 32 (cf. Deut 9:28 with Num 14:16 and Exod 32:12). Third, he takes it for a permanent self-determination by YHWH that Israel is God’s people and inheritance, even if Israel itself calls this into question. This argument is only implicit in Num 14:13–14 and in Exod 32:11. However, not all of the arguments that Moses uses in Num 14 are part of the intercession in Deut 9. It is especially noteworthy that the reference to YHWH’s merciful essence (Num 14:18; cf. Exod 34:6–7) is not mentioned in Deut 9, neither in the recapitulation of the stay at Horeb (Deut 9:8–21; cf. Exod 34:6–7) nor in the context of the spy story. Given the weight of this argument, it is easier to imagine that the composer of Deut 9 did not know it than that the composer deliberately choose to avoid it. In sum, Deut 9:1–2 is directly dependent on Deut 1, whereas the intercession passage in Deut 9:25–29 does not share the same strong verbal similarities with the intercession in Num 14:11–23. This can be explained with the hypothesis that Deut 9 knew Num 14:11–23 at an earlier stage of its development or that Num 14:11–23 took up the Egyptian argument from Deut 9. In any case, Deut 9 does not display any knowledge of the source P. 65

Note the same confusion of ‫ רם‬and ‫ רב‬as in Deut 1:28 and 9:2. That YHWH hated Israel was presumed as a motive that YHWH has brought Israel out of Egypt by Israel itself in Deut 1:27. 66

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

189

5. Comparison with Josh 14:6–15a Josh 14:6–15a is secondary within its context and not a unity in itself, especially the verses 10–11 stand out as dealing with a different matter. It is obvious on first glance that the core of the passage coheres with the J-layer in Num 13–14 because Caleb is singled out as the only spy who encouraged the people to seize the land, whereas the others let the people’s heart melt. The characterization of the cities in Josh 14:12 as “great and fortified” and the mentioning of the “Anakim” further underline that Josh 14 knew the J-layer. In addition, there are some details that occur in Num 13–14 and at the same time in Deut 1: The words ‫“ אנכי מלאתי אחרי יהוה‬I was full behind YHWH” stem from Num 14:24a and Deut 1:36. And the phrase ‫ואשב אתו דבר‬ is used in Num 13:26b and Deut 1:22b. The use of the verb ‫( רגל‬Josh 14:7, 9) to designate the activity of the spies in the land can only be found again in Deut 1:24. Also there are details that are shared with Num 32:8–13, especially the use of the gentilic in the name of Caleb, the name Kadesh-Barnea (Num 32:8; Josh 14:6, 7), the motif of “melting the heart of the people” (Josh 14:8 cf. Num 32:7, 9). In sum, there is unambiguous evidence that Josh 14 knew the J-layer of Num 13–14. There is further evidence that Josh 14 new Num 32:8–13. Only the use of the verb ‫ רגל‬could be proof that Josh 14 knew Deut 1. But there is no evidence that Josh 14 made use of the P-layer in Num 13–14. Quite to the contrary, if P would have been known, one would expect that Caleb had included some reference to the fact that Joshua, to whom he now appeals to fulfill what Moses has promised, was once a partner on the spy mission.

6. Comparison with Josh 15:13–14 (cf. Judg 1:10–15) In Josh 15 the lot of the tribe of Judah is described. After the borders of the lot are described precisely, for some reason Caleb, who is obviously representing a Judahite clan, is singled out and it is told how he could get his part of the lot in the area of Hebron. Only in the verses 13–14 are some details given that have their equivalents in Num 13–14: In Josh 15:13 Caleb is identified with his father’s name, Jefunne, which presupposes P. And in Josh 15:14 it is told that Joshua displaced the sons of Anak, whose names are given as Scheschai, Ahiman, and Talmai (Josh 15:14b). These names are also given in a very similar way in Num 13:22, the combination of the three names in one place and the phrase ‫ ילידי הענק‬is exclusive to these two passages, so that a direct literary dependence is obvious: Josh 15:14b: ‫את־ששי ואת־אחימן ואת־תלמי ילידי הענק‬

190

Aaron Schart

Num 13:22: ‫ותלמי ילידי הענק‬ ‫אחימן ששי‬ The names are superfluous for the narrative in both cases. Judg 1:10 mentions the names Scheschai, Ahiman, and Talmai, exactly in the order as they appear in Josh 15:14, which is evidence for their direct literary dependence.67 It is slightly more probable that the concept that the Anakites comprised the three figures Scheschai, Ahiman, and Talmai originated within the conquest tradition and was then inserted into the J-version of the spy story (Num 13:22, 28) than the other way around.68 Since in Judges Caleb is consistently not designated with his father’s name and likewise in Joshua 15:14, 16, 17, 18, it is probable that Caleb’s patronymic (Josh 14:6, 13, 14 and 15:13) is later. Either the P source picked up Caleb’s father name from Judges or the patronymic was inserted at some places by scribes that knew the P-version of the spy story. In sum, there is clear evidence that a redactor worked with a Hexateuchperspective. The goal was to intertwine the spy story in Numbers with the conquest of the Promised Land. This Hexateuch-redaction very likely did not yet work on the basis of a corpus that included the P-version of the spy story. In turn, one may conclude that a Hexateuch-layer existed that already comprised the J-layer, a deuteronomistic version of Deuteronomy, in which Deut 1 and 9 were integrated, and a version of Joshua to which secondary passages like Josh 14:8–13 were already added. Only later was this Hexateuch combined with the P-layer.

7. Comparison with Ps 106 In Ps 106 the spy story shows up in v. 24–26. This is only a very short summary; the story is condensed to serve the goal of the psalm. In the first bicolon (v. 24) the land is praised in a way that comes closest to Deut 1:25b and 35b. In the second bicolon (v. 25), the mistrust of the people is mentioned, which is reminiscent of Deut 1:32, but closer to Deut 9:23. In v. 25 the “murmuring in your tents” is an exact and exclusive match to Deut 1:27a. To be sure, the murmuring motif appears a couple of times, but the wording never matches as closely. In the second colon in v. 25, the sentence “they did not hear the voice of YHWH” is a standard phrase, but it is again attested in Deut 9:23. In v. 26 the lifting of the hand can be found in Num 14:30, however, there the gesture 67

In the MT the three figures are not related to Anak, but the LXX has γεννήματα τοῦ Ενακ, what suggests that the apposition ‫ ילידי הענק‬was part of the LXX-Vorlage. 68 Even later, when the J-version was combined with the P-version, the Anakites were identified with the descendants of the Nephilim (Num 13:33) in order to smooth out a tension between the Anak-additions to J and P. This could have been done by the redactor who combined J and P or, because the gloss “the Anakites come from the Nephilim” has no equivalent in the LXX, more probably, by a later copyist (cf. Carr, Formation, 93).

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

191

serves to confirm the giving of the land, but not the punishment of the people. The closest parallel stems from Ezek 20:23, where the gesture of lifting the hand also confirms that YHWH had already decided in the wilderness to disperse the people between the nations.69 The statement in the second colon of v. 26, namely that the people will “fall in the wilderness” (‫ )נפל במדבר‬comes close to that in Num 14:29, 32, (33), which belongs to P. However, the formulation is not especially significant. When all of the evidence is combined, the psalm clearly presupposes the spy story versions of Deut 1 and 9. 70 There is no independent detectable knowledge of the J-layer of Num 13–14. Only in one case might knowledge of the P-version be possible, but the significance of the verbal overlap is weak. This leads to the assumption that Ps 106 adapted the deuteronomistic spy story only. This can best be explained, if the dtr spy story existed independently of Num 13–14. By implication it is likely that P was merged with the J-layer and with the deuteronomistic edition of Deuteronomy only after Ps 106:24–26 was composed.71

8. Conclusions 8.1. Redaction-critical conclusions The comparison of the different versions of the spy story confirms the basic assumptions of the documentary hypothesis. The origin of the development was an oral version of the spy story, which is reflected in the two independent versions of the Yahwist (Num 13–14*) and the oldest layer of the deuterono69 See J. Gärtner, Die Geschichtspsalmen. Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter, FAT 84, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012, 218. 70 Gärtner, Geschichtspsalmen, 216 notes the influence of Deut 1:19–46. 71 It is usually presupposed that Ps 106 used a Hexateuch-version, in which P already was included; cf. H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, HKAT 2,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1926, 465 and recently Gärtner, Geschichtspsalmen, 208. However, since the psalm summarizes the hexateuchal narratives in a brief, poetical, and creative way, unambiguous verbal links are minimal and confined to specific sections, e.g. v. 16–18 (cf. Baden, above, 237). Also, it is not clear whether the psalm does not contain secondary harmonizations with the final form of the Pentateuch. If the author of Ps 106 had used P as written Vorlage throughout, it would be difficult to explain, for example, why Korach is not mentioned in v. 18 or important concepts of P, like the tent of meeting, are missing. Shared motifs without significant lexical overlap with P, e.g., the rebellion against both Moses and Aaron in v. 16, can also be explained by oral influence. In any case, P did not exercise any conceptual influence on the author of Ps 106, who represents a much more deuteronomistic way of thinking (Kraus, Psalmen, 727: “Bemerkenswert ist die Durchdringung aller dieser Traditionen mit dem thematischen Prinzip–Jahwes Huld und Israels Schuld. Dieses Gestaltungsprinzip erinnert an die auch formal scharf konturierte deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie.“).

192

Aaron Schart

mistic framework of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:9–45*). The oldest layer of Deut 1:9–46 was already composed to fit its place within the opening passage of Deuteronomy. This is made clear by the fiction that Moses is retelling something that his hearers already know.72 In addition, the spy story connects to the situation as described by Deut 1:6–8, e.g., “hill of the Amorite” (Deut 1:7a//17a).73 Several observations tend to suggest that the literary connection between Num and Deut 1 was not in place when the oldest layer of Deut 1 was written down. First, the story itself does not provide any indication that Moses is in fact addressing the second generation after the exodus. This contradicts the overall plot of the Numbers–Deuteronomy sequence on the level of the final text, namely that the first generation excluded itself from the land and had to die in the wilderness, that the second generation, however, will have a new chance and will manage to seize the land with the help of a new covenant in the area of Moab and with a new version of the law, which was originally given at Sinai/Horeb, but now is actualized by Moses. Likewise, the addition of the Kriegsansprache (Dtn 1:21) would naturally fit into a stage of textual development when Deut 1 was not attached to Numbers; at least there is no indication that the author of this speech wanted to remind the reader of the speeches by Caleb and Joshua. Again, some of the deuteronomistic Phrases may also have been added at this stage, for example the sentence “as YHWH, our God, has commanded us”, a sentence that enhances the style according to dtr standards and at the same time serves to tighten the connection between the spy story and the command in Deut 1:6–8. The additions that clearly have the goal of harmonizing Deut 1 with Num 13–14 presuppose that both versions became part of the same narrative sequence, presumably by attaching a dtr version of Deuteronomy to a Tetrateuch that contained the J-version of Num 13–14, and were read one after the other; otherwise the need for the harmonization of the two versions would not have emerged in the first place. In accordance with the principle of not postulating more hands reworking the text than necessary, it would follow that the redactor who attached Deuteronomy to Numbers also was responsible for inserting at least some of the harmonizing additions. One can differentiate between two groups of harmonizations: One group only presupposes the J-layer of Num 13–14, and the other presupposes the P layer. The second group of additions must therefore stem from the redactor who combined J with P or from one who had the combined work before her or him. 72

That of course is the oldest layer that can be reconstructed from the text we have. It may be that there was a written source before it, which narrated the story in the third person. 73 Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium, 384. The direction of literary dependence, however, is not clear in this case.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

193

It is remarkable that at the same time both groups of additions want to provide some sort of transition to Joshua.74 In the case of Caleb, there is the phenomenon that he is designated as “the Kenizzite” three times (Num 32:12; Josh 14:6, 14). This rather unmotivated detail may even support the thesis that the redactor who inserted Josh 14:6–15a is identical with the person that inserted Num 32:8–13. In any case, although the data collected in this analysis are too limited to allow far-reaching hypotheses, they do support the hypotheses that redactional additions in Numbers tried to build bridges to Joshua and vice versa.75 The Hexateuch-perspective should gain more attention than in most studies from the previous decades.76 The hypothesis of Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach, however, that a Hexateuch-redactor is responsible for combining the J- and the P-version of the spy story in Num 13–14 and at the same time substantially reworked Dtn 1:19–46 and included both texts into the same narrative sequence contains more speculation than the data allow.77 The above analysis also shows clear indications that the Hexateuchperspective was already brought in before the P-layer was combined with the Non-P-material. P knew the J-version of the spy story but created its own version, which was transmitted as an integral part of the P-source, but completely independent from the J-version and the deuteronomistic version: The literary connec74 Otto, Deuteronomium, 381: “Die nachexilische Fortschreibung in Dtn 1,19–46 interpretiert die Kundschaftererzählung im Horizont des Tetrateuch einerseits, des Josuabuches andererseits. Hinweise auf literarische Bezüge, die über das Josuabuch etwa in einer enneateuchischen Perspektive hinausweisen, fehlen dagegen.” 75 The tendency to link the narratives in Numbers to Joshua is strong in the late additions to Numbers, too. C. Frevel, Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt am Main et al.: Lang 2011, 13–53, has put together a nice chart to demonstrate this, and he concludes: “Es kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass die Komposition des hinteren Teils des Numeribuches auf das Josuabuch bezogen ist. Mit der Einschätzung, dass dies ein nachdeuteronomistischer Zusammenhang ist, der das Dtn bereits im Hexateuchkontext voraussetzt, und dass die entsprechenden Texte des Numeribuches nach Pg entstanden sind, wird Noth sicher recht haben.”(23) 76 Frevel, Hexateuchperspektive. To be sure, although in Jewish tradition it is quite clear that it is the Pentateuch alone that is designated by the term “Torah” and that this part of the Hebrew Scriptures is of higher canonical value than the others, before the Second World War it was a well-established practice in Christian circles to perceive the Hexateuch as a literary unity instead of only a Pentateuch. Quite a few scholars assumed that the sources that could be isolated in the Pentateuch could also be found in the book of Joshua. This tradition ended with Martin Noth’s very influential works: M. Noth, Das Buch Josua HAT 1,7. Tübingen: Mohr 1953, 1. ed. 1938; idem, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Niemeyer 1957, 1. ed. 1943; and idem, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1948. 77 Otto, Deuteronomium, 367–407; Achenbach, Landnahme; see in this volume Otto, Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah, 385.

194

Aaron Schart

tion between the J-Tetrateuch and the dtr edition of Deuteronomy was implemented before P was merged with this material.78 In the next step a redactor combined the narrative comprising J and the dtr Deuteronomy with the P-source.79 Again, this redaction, probably at the same time, worked in a Hexateuch-context, since some of the elements added to Joshua presuppose that the J- and the P-version in Num 13–14 were already combined. It is difficult to perceive the different elements as a unified redactional layer with a distinct style, wording, and profile. Rather one has the impression that different hands felt the need to smooth out tensions between Numbers and Joshua. It is notoriously difficult to decide whether a motif, e.g., the different designations associated with Caleb, Hebron, the ‫נחל אשׁכל‬, the Anakites, the names of the three descendants of Anak, and Kadesh-Barnea, originated in the course of the redaction history of Joshua and was then retrojected into Numbers or the other way around. 8.2. Num 13–14 and Deut 1 within the Final Composition The redaction-critical task is not finished by explaining how the different versions are related to each other; it is imperative to interpret how they function within the framework of the final canonical text.80 In this respect it is of special importance to understand the juncture between Numbers and Deuteronomy. The character of the connection between Numbers and Deut 1–3 is disputed. On the one hand it is claimed that the retelling of stories that the reader knows from Numbers is per se a significant break in the coherence between Numbers and Deuteronomy, especially since there are significant differences between the stories in Numbers and those in Deuteronomy, as could be shown in the case of the spy story. Some, most prominently Wellhausen and Noth, have therefore concluded that Deut 1–3 must have served as the introduction to a version of Deuteronomy that existed independently from Numbers. 81 Noth for example proposed that Deut 1–3 was written as an opening for the 78 The limited textual base of this study does not allow far-reaching conclusions concerning P, but no evidence was found that would support the thesis that the P-version of Num 13– 14 does not belong to the Grundschrift of this source either. 79 This study therefore lines up with Wellhausen’s judgment: “Am Schluss meiner Untersuchung angelangt, fasse ich ihre Ergebnisse noch einmal kurz zusammen. Aus J und E ist JE zusammengeflossen und mit JE das Deuteronomium verbunden; ein selbständiges Werk daneben ist Q. Erweitert zum Priestercodex ist Q mit JE+Dt vereinigt und daraus der Hexateuch entstanden.“ (J. Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Berlin: de Gruyter 41963 = 31899, 207). 80 This task was especially emphasized by B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia, Fortress 1979. Otto, Deuteronomium, for example, masterfully switches between a source-critical analysis and a reading of the final canonical text, which does justice to both perspectives. 81 Wellhausen, Composition, 193.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

195

Deuteronomistic History and had nothing to do with the Tetrateuch.82 Only later editors, who desperately wanted Deuteronomy to be part of the Pentateuch, smoothed out some of the discrepancies in the narrative flow and tolerated the others for the sake of their more important goal, presumably because they wanted the laws contained therein to have a comparable legal status to the Sinaitic laws. On the other hand scholars take the retelling of the stories from Numbers as a fitting narrative transition from Sinai – which is called Horeb in Deut – to Moab, where Deuteronomy locates Moses’ last speech. According to this opinion, Deut 1–3 was written not independently of or to separate, but to attach the book of Deuteronomy, which had emerged as an independent literary work, to the book of Numbers.83 What can the comparison of the different versions of the spy story contribute to this discussion? The first problem when asking for coherence of the sequence of the different retellings of the spy story is the perspective, in which the “biblical narrator”, this is the label with which the author of the final canonical text can be designated, presents the narrated events.84 The narrative strategy of the biblical narrator in Num 13–14 is to give an account of the things as they really happened. In Num 32 the event is retold by Moses himself and the author simply confines himself to reporting what Moses said. There is no explicit evaluation of the statement of Moses, but there is nothing in the report that explicitly contradicts the version of Num 13–14. It is even clearly stated that Moses is faced with the second generation and distinguishes them from the generation of their fathers. In Deuteronomy, likewise, the biblical narrator purports simply to present Moses’ own words without giving the reader any additional information. This version of Moses, however, markedly differs from the event as it had actually happened according to Num 13–14. This is puzzling to the reader. First, it is not clearly stated in Deut 1:19–46 that Moses is addressing the second generation. In contrast to Num 32:8–13, where the first and the second 82

Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 12–16. Cf. J.C. Gertz, Kompositorische Funktion und literarhistorischer Ort von Deuteronomium 1–3, in: Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke in den Büchern Genesis bis 2. Könige. Neue religions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur jüngsten "Deuteronomismus"Diskussion, ed. by M. Witte et al., BZAW 365, Berlin: de Gruyter 2006, 103–123 perceives Deut 1–3 as a “relecture” of some parts of Numbers, which gives the deuteronomic laws its appropriate place in relation to the Sinaitic laws (esp. 122); Frevel, Hexateuchperspektive, 33 agrees: Dtn 1–3 “[waren] niemals Einleitung eines eigenständigen und vom Tetrateuch unabhängigen Literaturwerks”. Taschner, Mosereden, represents an approach that asks for the narrative function of Dtn 1–3 solely on the basis of the given Masoretic text. 84 Taschner, Mosereden, differentiates between the perspective of the biblical narrator (“biblischer Erzähler”) and that of the narrative figure of Moses, which serves as a “personaler Erzähler”: “Der biblische Erzähler und Mose kommen beide deutlich voneinander abgehoben zu Wort. Sie sind zwei klar zu unterscheidende, gleichsam erzähltechnische Größen.” (62) 83

196

Aaron Schart

generation are clearly differentiated, the impression in Deut 1 appears quite to the contrary. The constant addressing of the audience as if they remember the event themselves is in tension with the view that after Num 26 the second generation is in place, which cannot be accused of being guilty in the spy incident. However, Moses is speaking to them as if they themselves have constantly rebelled against YHWH’s guidance and not their parents. The reader probably has to infer the concept that even the second generation, who theoretically could separate itself easily from the first, is commanded by Moses to perceive its own identity as if they were identical with the generation of their mothers and fathers.85 Second, the phenomenon that Moses only recalls the favorable part of the report of the spies, namely that the land is good (Deut 1:25b), and that the skeptical part is left to the people’s response (Deut 1:28) is puzzling, too. The reader must excuse that as an insignificant slip in memory or the reader would have to assume a clear bias against the people on Moses’s side. Third, that Moses – according to his memory – had himself tried to convince the people not to deny the conquest of the land, and not Caleb and Joshua, might likewise be accepted by the reader as the well-known tendency of human memory to increase one’s own importance and to downplay the role of others; alternatively the reader would have to assume that Moses tried to impress his hearers by overstating his own role. Fourth, the reason why Moses is not allowed to enter the Promised Land, which implies that he cannot conclude the mission for which he was elected in the first place (Exod 3), is seen differently by Moses on the one hand and by the biblical narrator on the other. Taschner has observed that within the passages that deal with Moses’ death (Num 20:12, 24; 27:14; Deut 1:37; 3:26; 4:21; 31:2; 32:52; 34:4) the biblical narrator consistently assumes a personal guilt of Moses, whereas Moses himself never mentions such a possibility.86 According to his self-perception he was pushed to his conduct solely by the 85 Otto, Deuteronomium, 405 insists that the spy story in Deut 1 is of eminent importance for understanding the relation of Sinai-torah and Moses own presentation in Deut: “Die Differenzierung von Erster und Zweiter Generation durch die Kundschaftererzählung in Dtn 1,19– 46 erstellt überhaupt erst den narrativen Rahmen, um in gesamtpentateuchischer Perspektive auf die der Ersten Generation promulgierten Sinaitora eine auslegende Moabtora in Gestalt des Deuteronomiums folgen zu lassen, da die Zweite Generation die Sinaitora nicht gekannt haben kann.” The reader of the final text would be pushed to identify with the second generation. However, at least with equal strength, the reader is led to identify with the first generation. As Otto himself points out, the second and subsequent generations are not much better than the first (406), but they can trust in God’s merciful essence that Moses has brought forth through his intercession at Horeb/Sinai once and for all time: God simply is incapable of destroying God’s people, even if it provokes God’s anger (Jeremias, Zorn, 152: “Wie in Ex 32,7–14 ist auch in Dtn 9–10 vom Zorn Gottes nur darum die Rede, weil den Lesern eingeprägt werden soll, dass Gott zur Vernichtung seines Volkes gar nicht fähig ist.”). 86 Taschner, Mosereden, 213–217.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

197

people, not by his own free decision. Following the biblical narrator, however, this self-perception expresses Moses’ unwillingness to take over responsibility for what he has actually done.87 The author of Ps 106, however, has adopted the perspective of Moses: Moses was led to his behavior by the people because they rebelled so often that in the end even he could not hold back his anger. 8.3. Theological implications However the historical process behind the conquest tradition really was, the Israelites developed the self-understanding that they were somehow alien to the land they lived in. The space where Israel could feel at home was not the unquestioned possession of Israel since the creation of the world. The land was given in the course of history by YHWH and it was taken away by the same God for a couple of reasons and this cycle was reiterated a number of times over the course of Israel’s historical experience. As a result, the lifesecuring possession of the land was perceived as fragile and endangered. The gift of the land had to be handled with great care and in full accordance with YHWH; otherwise it could be taken away again. Within this framework, the spy story served to clarify the basic conditions Israel had to fulfill, even before it got the chance to settle there permanently. This topic was thought over again every time that Israel’s possession of the land was endangered or even lost. Although we do not have enough data to reconstruct this process precisely, it is important to get at least a rough understanding of the process, so that the biblical texts can be read in the correct historical setting and then inspire new adequate solutions, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic ones, how Israel can find peace in its land among the nations.

87 Taschner, Mosereden, 218: “In beiden Episoden [Num 13–14 and 20, AS] ist zwar das Volk der Auslöser für die ‘Schuld’ des Mose, aber am Ende dieser Episoden unterscheidet sich Moses Verhalten nicht von dem des Volkes. Insofern hat die Art, wie Moses seinen Tod interpretiert, auch ihr Recht. Aus seiner Perspektive ist er ‘wegen’ des Volkes schuldig geworden. Doch der biblische Erzähler fügt seine Sichtweise hinzu: Das hätte anders kommen können, wenn Mose Jhwh vor der Gemeinde ‘geheiligt’ hätte. Gerade aus dieser Doppelung der Perspektive ergibt sich somit eine Reflexion über die Ausführung eines religiösen Amtes auf höchstem Niveau. Die wirklich tiefgehende Kritik der Tora an Mose, die diese beiden Sichtweisen umschließt, besteht jedoch darin, dass sie Mose selbst nicht zu dieser Erkenntnis gelangen lässt. Nur der Leser wird dazu aufgefordert, aus der doppelten Perspektive seine Schlüsse zu ziehen. Diese subtile Kritik an Mose als Individuum, in der sich die Gefährdungen des religiösen Amtes generell spiegeln, ändert jedoch nichts an seiner alles überragenden Bedeutung.”

198

Aaron Schart

Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs. ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123. Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Baden, Joel S.: J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Baentsch, Bruno: Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, HKAT 1,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903. Carr, David: Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A new Construction, New York: Oxford University Press 2011. Childs, Brevard S.: Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress 1979. Driver, Samuel Rolles: A critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC, Edinburgh : T & T Clark 1996; = 31902. Driver, Samuel Rolles: Einleitung in die Litteratur des Alten Testaments, nach der 5.Auflage übersetzt und hg. von Johann Wilhelm Rothstein, Berlin: Reuther & Reichard 1896. Duncan, Julie Ann: 4QDeuth, in: Qumran Cave 4 vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. by Eugene Ulrich et al., DJD 14, Oxford: Clarendon 1995, 61–70. Finsterbusch, Karin: Das Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung, UTB Theologie 3626, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2012. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. HBS 23. Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. Frevel, Christian: Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ed. by Hermann-Josef Stipp, ÖBS 39. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Lang 2011, 13–53. Gärtner, Judith: Die Geschichtspsalmen. Eine Studie zu den Psalmen 78, 105, 106 und 136 als hermeneutische Schlüsseltexte im Psalter, FAT 84, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2012. Gericke, Jaco: The Hebrew Bible and philosophy of religion, SBLRBS 70, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2012. Gertz, Jan Christian: Kompositorische Funktion und literarhistorischer Ort von Deuteronomium 1–3, in: Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke in den Büchern Genesis bis 2. Könige. Neue religions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur jüngsten "Deuteronomismus"-Diskussion, ed. by Markus Witte et al., BZAW 365, Berlin: de Gruyter 2006, 103–123. Gertz, Jan Christian: Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Gunkel, Hermann: Die Psalmen, HKAT 2,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1926. Holzinger, Heinrich: Einleitung in den Hexateuch, Freiburg i.B., Leipzig: Mohr 1893. Jeremias, Jörg: Der Zorn Gottes im Alten Testament. Das biblische Israel zwischen Verwerfung und Erwählung, BThSt 104, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2009. Kraus, Hans-Joachim: Psalmen, Bd.2: Ps 60-150, BK.AT 15/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 61989. Lohfink, Norbert: Die Ursünden in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung, in: idem: Studien zum Pentateuch, SBAB 4, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988, 169-189. Noth, Martin: Das Buch Josua, HAT 1,7, Tübingen: Mohr 1953, 1. ed. 1938.

The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch

199

Noth, Martin: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1948. Noth, Martin: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Niemeyer 1957, 1. ed. 1943. Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose, Numeri. ATD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium 1–11, Bd.1: Dtn 1,1–4,43, HThK.AT, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012. Otto, Eckhart: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. Tübingen: Mohr 2000. Perlitt, Lothar: Deuteronomium, Dtn 1,1–2,23, BK.AT 5/1–2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1990. Plöger, Josef G.: Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26, Bonn: Hanstein 1967. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1995. Rabe, Norbert: Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Revidierte Text- und Literarkritik der Kundschaftererzählung Numeri 13.14 als Neuansatz der Pentateuchforschung, Tübingen et al.: Francke 1994. Rad, Gerhard von: Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1934. Schart, Aaron: Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs. Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, BZAW 260, Berlin: de Gruyter 1998 Schart, Aaron: Martin Noth: Auf dem Hintergrund der NS-Zeit gelesen, in: Kontexte. Biografische und forschungsgeschichtliche Schnittpunkte der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. by Thomas Wagner et al., Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2008, 235-252. Schart, Aaron: Mose und Israel im Konflikt: eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990. Schmidt, Ludwig: Die Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland in Numeri 32,1–38. ZAW 114 (2002), 497–510. Schmidt, Ludwig: Die Kundschaftererzählung in Num 13–14 und Dtn 1,19–46. Eine Kritik neuerer Pentateuchkritik. ZAW 114 (2002), 40–58. Schmidt, Ludwig: P in Deuteronomium 34. VT 59 (2009), 475–494. Schmidt, Ludwig: Die Priesterschrift — kein Ende am Sinai! ZAW 120 (2008), 481–500. Schmidt, Ludwig: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das vierte Buch Mose - Numeri, 10,11-36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. Seebass, Horst, Numeri. 1. Teilband: Num 1,1–10,10, BK.AT 4/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2012. Seebass, Horst, Numeri. 2. Teilband: Num 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. Steuernagel, Carl: Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HK 3, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1900. Taschner, Johannes: Die Mosereden im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, FAT 59, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008.

200

Aaron Schart

Tov, Emanuel: Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy, in: Mishne Todah. Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment. FS Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. by Nili Sacher Fox et al., Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 2009, 15–28. Veijola, Timo: Das fünfte Buch Mose Deuteronomium, Band 1 Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8,1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. Wellhausen, Julius: Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, Berlin: de Gruyter (3. ed. 1899) 41963. Wevers, John William: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCS 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1995. Wevers, John William: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. SCS 46. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press 1999.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Numbers 15 Reinhard Achenbach

1. The Problem of the Literary Position of Numbers 15 The method or technique of late priestly scribal additions in the Pentateuch can best be studied in book of Numbers. The technique of catenation as observed in various layers of priestly rewriting and Fortschreibung is based on a complementary reading of older texts and traditions. When the scribes found unclear or even contradictory elements in the tradition, they sought to put them into an order that explained their existence as providing evidence of a development in several stages. The development of the Festival Calendar from Lev 23 in the revisionary text of Numbers 28–30 can serve as an example for this technique.1 The origin of these methods can be found in the wisdom and legal tradition, as Michael Fishbane,2 Eckart Otto,3 Yair Zakovitch4 and others have demonstrated. From the compositional sequence of the Law Codes in the Pentateuch it can be seen that Deuteronomy (in an early stage of Deuteronomistic tradition and framing) was interpreted as a Collection of 1 Cf. C. Nihan, Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Number 28–29, and the Formation of “Priestly” Literature, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven, 2008, 177–232, 232: “Perhaps more than any other portion of the Torah the Priestly literature is the product of a creative yet highly coherent process of reception, revision, and re-formulation spanning the totality of the Persian period, from the first return of exile and the rebuilding of the Temple to the end of the Achaemenid domination in Southern Levant, continuously adapting the doctrine of previous generations of scribes to the everchanging historical circumstances in order to meet the religious and political requirements of their time.” 2 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, 1988. 3 E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel. Eine Rechtsgeschichte des „Bundesbuches“ Exod XX 22 – XXIII 13, Studia Biblica 3, Leiden et al., 1988; idem, Körperverletzungen in den Keilschriftrechten und im Alten Testament. Studien zum Rechtstransfer im Alten Orient, AOAT 226, Neukirchen-Vluyn/Kevelaer, 1991. 4 Y. Zakovitch, Introduction to Inner Biblical Interpretation, Even Yehuda, Kadima, Reches, 1993.

202

Reinhard Achenbach

Laws and Regulations received by Moses from God as the document of the Covenant at Mount Horeb. When – alternatively – it was stated that the Covenant Code had been the original document from the revelation at the mountain of God, the historical framing of Deuteronomy maintained that the official promulgation of the book had taken place after the desert wandering in the plains of Moab, thus being the foundation of a renewal of the Covenant with a new generation of Israelites. When Deuteronomy was combined with the Covenant Code in a scroll I would call “Hexateuch,” the preponderance of Deuteronomy as a new explanation of God’s covenantal will and distinctions became evident. When, later, the priestly narrative parts of the Pentateuch were expanded by Lev 10; 16; and the so-called Holiness Code (Lev 17–26*), the preponderance was shifted to the Sacral Law in the Sinai-Pericope and Deuteronomy was interpreted as a Mosaic explanation with respect to the political order of the Israelite religious community and its catechetic teaching and education (Deut 1:5).5 The development of the sacral law in the priestly tradition of the Second Temple takes up methods of the scribal schools and introduces new measures and norms, deduced from ritual and sacral concepts. The impact of priestly redactions has already been observed for the collections of legal material; when it became clear that the material of the Holiness-Code is a new formation and interpretation of older priestly and non-priestly legal tradition,6 the scribes were not just editors of a Priestly document only, as argued earlier by I. Knohl7 and J. Milgrom.8 As in legal tradition, the basis for the combina5 For the hermeneutical impact of this generative process of scribal erudition in the Pentateuch see B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, Oxford, 1997; B. M. Levinson, “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation, FAT 54, Tübingen, 2008; E. Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt, 2007; E. Otto, Rechtshermeneutik im Pentateuch, in: E. Otto, Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden, 2009, 490–514. Deut 1:5 contains a clear reference to Exod 24:12, as confirmed again by S. Paganini: Deuteronomio. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento, I Libri Biblici – Primo Testamento 5, Milano, 2011, 79: “Dt 1,5 esprime chiaramente il contenuto del libro: si tratta di una spiegazione dettagliata del contenuto della prima alleanza stretta tra JHWH e il suo popola al Sinai che è destinata a essere scritta. Ciò che sarà esposto è definito «questa tôrāh», cioè non solo ordinamento legislativo, ma anche insegnamento educativo di carattere sapienziale, didattico e catechistico. Mosè – iniziando a parlare – esegue l’ordine datogli da JHWH in Es 24,12 sul monte Sinai.” 6 E. Otto, Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by H.-J. Fabry/H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin, 1999, 125–196; C. Nihan, The Holiness-Code between P and D, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by R. Achenbach/E. Otto, FRLANT 206, Göttingen, 2004, 81–122; C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II 25, Tübingen, 2007, 401–562. 7 I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis MN, 1995.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

203

tion of law and narrative can be reconstructed from the relation between case studies and casuistic laws; the association of formerly independent narratives from the pre-exilic or Deuteronomistic non-priestly tradition with priestly matters required a new technique of connoting and associating thoughts and concepts. One method that we can observe in the Pentateuch in order to associate sacral rules with narratives was the insertion of texts that contained answers that were developed in the confrontation of older narratives with the demands of a sacralization derived from the sacral and purity law. A good example for that technique is Num 15. Here, the narrative of the rebellion in Kadesh Barnea recounted in Num 13–14 and its continuation in Num 16 with the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram – the leaders of the tribes, and the Levitical group of Korahites9– is interrupted by a sermon with divine obligations concerning sacrificial accoutrements that could only be observed when the Israelites would have reached their destination in the Promised Land; the text addresses meal offerings and wine libations, which “could not be required in the wilderness, because they are the products of an agricultural society,”10 as J. Milgrom already has pointed out. Num 15 contains a series of regulations in the sacral or ritual law. The contents can be structured as follows: 8 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, New York et al., 2000; id., Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, New York et al., 2001; the scribal erudition on the basis of the HC was interpreted as the work of a “Holiness-School” (HS), but it may rather be seen as part of late priestly redactional reworkings of the Pentateuch, cf. C. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 562–575; R. Achenbach, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by T. Römer, BETL 215, Leuven, 2008, 145–176. 9 The episode of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram is a late or post-dtr continuation of the narrative of Numbers 13–14 and even younger than Pg, cf. U. Schorn, Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num 16f*/Deut 11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, FS John van Seters, ed. by S.L. McKenzie/T. Römer, BZAW 294, Berlin, 2000, 251–268; R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden, 2003, 37–54; the episode was expanded successively, cf. ibd., 55–140. The story reflects the disputes over the legitimacy of post-exilic priestly institutions, cf. F. Cocco, Sulla Cattedra di Mosè: La legitimazione del potere nell’ Israele post-esilico (Nm 11; 16), Bologna, 2007. A new approach was suggested by C. Berner, Vom Aufstand Datans und Abirams zum Aufbegehren der 250 Männer. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Anfängen der literarischen Genese von Num 16–17, BN NF 37, 2011, 9–34. He affirms the notion that the Dathan and Abiram episode is a “post-priestly” narrative, and assumes that “a later hand shaped the punishment of the two rebels as an ordeal;” the story was then supplemented with the narrative of the 250 lay people to “propagate the ideal of a theocracy without priests and are proven wrong in a sacrificial contest” (Berner, Aufstand Datans, p. 31). 10 J. Milgrom, Numbers ‫במדבר‬, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia – New York, 1990 (5750), 118.

204

15:1–12 15:13–16 15:17–21

15:22–26 15:27–28 15:29 15:30–31 15:32–36

15:37–41

Reinhard Achenbach 1. Ritual Obligations Obligations about additional cereal-offerings (‫ – מנחה‬minḥāh) in case of the giftofferings (‫’ – אשׁה‬iššæh) Obligations for aliens to follow the same rules as indigene citizens Obligations about the presentation (‫ – תרומה‬terûmāh) of bread and of coarse meal (‫‘– עריסות‬arisôt) 2. Sacral obligations in case of violations of the ritual law Obligations in case of inadvertent violation of the law by the community Obligations in case of inadvertent violation of the law by an individual Obligations in case of inadvertent violation of the law by aliens karet-sanction for intentional violations of the law death-sanction in case of intentional violation of the Sabbath: The case of the wood-gatherer 3. Reminder of ritual obligations Obligation to wear tassels as symbolic reminders of the law.

We can see from this sequence that it consistently develops a series of successive arguments from the beginning to the end. The aim is to offer a priestly Torah teaching that was expected to be acknowledged as relating to Moses, although it was considered to be younger than the revelations that were collected as laws from the Tent of Meeting (‫אהל מועד‬, Lev 1:1; cf. Exod 40:34), as the superscript in Num 1:1 rendered ‫במדבר סיני באהל מועד‬. The chapter concerns ritual obligations and cases of inadvertent or intentional violation of regulations in the realm of sacral law. The first part concerns the demand of additional offerings of cereals and libations of oil or wine in all cases of sacrifices, so that no offering of meat should be without an additional cereal part. The corresponding distinctions concerning gift-offerings, burnt-offerings, sacrifices, gifts in fulfillment of a vow or free-will offerings (Num 15:3) were already mentioned in the previous texts of Exodus and Leviticus. The most important systematic teaching about the ‫’ – אשׁה‬iššæh, the particular gift to God,11 can be found in Exod 29 for the priestly obligations12 and in Lev 1 concerning the obligations of the community.13 The rules about the minḥāh we find already in Lev 2;14 about the burnt-offering or holokauston (‫ )עלה‬in Lev 1:3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, etc.; about the sacrifice of well-being ( ‫זבח‬ 11

Ugaritic ’tt, cf. J. Hoftijzer, Das sogenannte Feueropfer: Hebräische Wortforschung, FS W. Baumgartner, VTSup 16, 1967, 113–134; R. Rendtorff, Leviticus, BK.AT 3/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985, 63–65. 12 Exod 29:18, 25, 41; 30:20; see also Deut 18:1. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 150–159, argues that Lev 1–3 was as an older document edited by “the author of Exod 29; Lev 8–9.” However, it is shown also by Nihan, as by many other authors before, that the insertion of Lev 1–7 into the narrative of P was a secondary development, cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 198–268. 13 Lev 1:9, 13, 17. 14 Lev 2:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

205

‫שׁלמים‬15) in Lev 3:1, 3, 6, 9, etc.; and cases of the fulfillment of vows or freewill offerings (Num 15:3: ‫ )לפלא־נדר או בנדבה‬have already been mentioned in Lev 7:16 and in the Holiness-Code (Lev 22:18, 21, 23; 23:38). In general we can conclude from that situation that the author of Num 15 intended to insert further regulations about that issue into the Pentateuchal Torah, but he wanted to make clear that these were additional rules, not from the first revelation at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–Lev 26:46, par. Lev 27:34) but from the series of revelations in the desert (Num 1:1). The second half of the chapter investigates cases of intentional or unintentional violations against the commandments of God, building a thematic bridge between the narrative about the intentional disobedience of the community (Num 13–14) and the intentional disobedience of single persons or groups (Num 16–17). The obedience to the word of God includes oral commandments, written law and sacral obligations: the whole Torah is considered as an expression of a sacralized law. Everything, without exception, concerns the Torah as the law of the Holy People.

2. Intertextual References between Narrative and Law However, Readers have always been confused about the chapter Num 15,16 because – according to the preceding account – YHWH had condemned the whole Exodus generation to die in the wilderness, cf. Num 14:29: “In this very wilderness shall your carcasses drop!…” The only comfort given to the people is recounted in 14:31: “Your children, whom you said, would be carried off – these will I allow to enter. They shall know the land that you have rejected.” This is the reason why, in the rabbinic interpretation, it was assumed that the text intended to offer at least a little consolation for the future 15 For the philological difficulties with the translation of the term ‫שׁלמים‬, J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB, London – New York, 1991, 220–221; on the difference between ‫ זבח‬and ‫ שׁלמים‬and the combination of the terms cf. R. Rendtorff, Leviticus, BK.AT 3,3, 1990, 120– 127, who translates the combined term “Gemeinschafts-Schlachtopfer”; cf. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 221–228. 16 The irritation of readers found its classical expression in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s “Noten und Abhandlungen zum besseren Verständnis des ‘West-östlichen Divans’” (Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 3: Epen. West-östlicher Divan. Theatergedichte, Zürich, 1977), p. 505: “Den Gang der Geschichte sehen wir überall gehemmt durch eingeschaltete zahllose Gesetze, von deren größtem Teil man die eigentliche Ursache und Absicht nicht einsehen kann, wenigstens nicht, warum sie in dem Augenblick gegeben worden, oder, wenn sie späteren Ursprungs sind, warum sie hier angeführt und eingeschaltet werden.” Attempts to explain the connections between the chapters are not really convincing, e.g. J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres, SB, Paris, 1972, 179: “Bien que retardé par son péché, le peuple doit continuer à préparer son entré dans la Terre promise, c’est pourquoi l’auteur nous montre Moïse édictant diverses lois qui y seront en vigueur.”

206

Reinhard Achenbach

generation of Israel after the lost battle of Horma (Num 14:45) with the perspective of entering the land someday as mentioned in v. 2.17 However, this cannot be the only basis for introducing the chapter here, as the sequence of obligations treated in chapter 15 goes far beyond the narrative horizon of the surrounding chapters 13–14 and 16. Some reasons to insert the chapter in this proper context may be found, when we assume a method of mental association that was provoked through the narratives.18 A first aspect in this context was the disbelief – contrary to the evidence – of the fruitfulness of the land as presented by the scouts according to Num 13:26–27 par. (cf. Num 14:11; Deut 1:25, 32), including a huge cluster of grapes, Num 13:23! As a result of that disbelief the Israelites do not obey the commandments to follow God. The motif of disobedience finds further explication in the last episode of the account, when it becomes clear that, after the condemnation, the belated will to follow him was not accepted by God (Num 14:39–45; par. Deut 1:41–46). Thus the first realm of associations concerns the issue of the fruits and produce of the Promised Land, the second refers to the matter of willingness to obey the commandments of God or the intentional or unintentional contravention. With concern to the word-field of ‫שׁגה‬, ‫שׁגג‬, ‫( שׁגגה‬cf. Num 15:22–31) aspects of criminal law19 – but also aspects of sacral law20 – are touched upon, and this seems to 17 The traditional medieval Jewish exegesis names two reasons, why the chapter was inserted: first, the members of the generation that has to die in the desert is comforted and assured that at least their children would inherit the Promised Land, and second, by integrating teachings concerning foreigners (cf. 15:14–16, 26, 29) they refer also to Caleb (cf. T. Staubli, Die Bücher Leviticus Numeri, NSKAT 3, Stuttgart, 1996, 256–257). Another deliberation was rendered by Milgrom, ibid., adding that “during the long sojourn at Kadesh the people began to engage in agriculture and in other phases of settling life, thus requiring new legal and cultic provisions.” (J. Milgrom, Numbers, 117). However, already Rashi pointed out that the text of Num 15 with respect to its immediate context basically had a promissory character, cf.‫ – רש״י על התורה‬Raschis Pentateuchkommentar, hg. v. Rb. S. Bamberger, Basel (4. Aufl.), 2002, 449. The treatment of Num 15 and 18 in Sifre Numbers §§107–115, skips the context with Num 13–14 and 16–17 (translation, D. Börner-Klein, Der Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri. Teil I: Übersetzung, Teil II: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte, Rabbinische Texte 2. Reihe: Tannaitische Midraschim III, Stuttgart et al., 1997, 179–220, cf. also 559–560). 18 The text has to be interpreted in an inverted way compared to the phenomenon of haggadic exegesis of cultic laws, that we can find, e.g., in Jer 2:3 with respect to Lev 22:14–16, in Jer 3:1 with respect to Deut 24:1–4, or in Jer 2:26, 34 with respect to Exod 22:1–2a (M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 300–314: “The Exegesis of Cultic Laws without Formulae of Citation and Comparison”). In adding the halakhic material in between the narratives the scribes shed new light on the biblical stories. 19 For aspects of criminal law see Deut 19:4 (‫ ;)בבלי דעת‬Num 35:11, 15; Josh 20:3, 9 (‫)בשׁגגה‬. 20 Collective or individual violation, ‫ בשׁגגה‬Num 15:24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 cf. Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14; ‫ שׁגה‬Num 15:22; cf. Lev 4,13; ‫ שׁגג‬Num 15:28; cf. Lev 5:18. For the conceptual discussion of the terms, cf. A. Schenker, Der Unterschied zwischen Sündopfer ‫חטאת‬

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

207

give a hint concerning the evaluation of the events told in Num 14 and 16. Whereas those who were guilty of disobedience towards God’s commandments were all punished together (Num 13–14), even immediately and personally (Num 16), for those who were affected by the sins of the “fathers” a perspective of hope has been given: for those who inadvertently transgress a divine law, there were the rituals of atonement including the possibility of meal offerings and libations, cf. Num 15:24–29! The catchwords for the first connotations can already be found in Moses’ order to find out the quality of the land, cf. Num 13:20, ‫– מה הארץ השׁמנה הוא‬ “whether the land (= soil) is oil-like (= rich).” The spies’ result shows that the land is fruitful, and thus, for those who will come to enter the land it becomes clear that – together with their sacrifices to God – the thankfulness of Israel shall find its expression in the offering of meal-offerings (‫מנחה‬, Num 15:4, 6, 9, 24) and libations (‫ )נסך‬of oil (‫שׁמך‬, Num 15:4, 6, 9) and wine (‫יין‬, Num 15:5, 7, 10)21. Yet it is obvious that there is not an immediate linear connection between the narrative and the sacral obligations. The intertextual references go far beyond the frame of the narrative into the Holiness Code and into the priestly torot of Lev 1–7. Whereas the catchword in the closer context of the narrative provides evidence of a more or less loose allusion, the broader context of priestly sacral law offers the systematic frame for the understanding of the text. From a diachronic point of view it should be taken into account that Num 15 thus presupposes the expansion of Pentateuchal narratives by the und Schuldopfer ‫ אשׁם‬im Licht von Lev 5,17–19 und 5,1–6, in: idem, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament. Achtzehn Studien, OBO 172, Freiburg (Schweiz) – Göttingen, 2000, 104–112. Schenker argues that ‫ בשׁגגה‬does not mean that the person offending the law does not know that he does it, but it means that the person commits a fault unwillingly and unintentionally, p. 106: “Lv 4,13.23.28 zeigt, dass auf die unabsichtliche Übertretung eines göttlichen Verbots zwei Dinge folgen: es entstand Schuld, Haftung (‫ )אשׁם‬und die Sünde wird eventuell bekannt. Nach dem Bekanntwerden kann der unabsichtliche Übertreter das Opfer zur Versöhnung darbringen. Die erste Folge, Schuld und Haftung, tritt immer ein. Nach jeder Übertretung ist ein objektives Defizit entstanden. Die zweite Folge, die Entdeckung der Übertretung, braucht nicht sogleich einzutreten! Das liegt in der Natur der Sache. Denn zur Unabsichtlichkeit gehört immer Ignoranz. Ohne ein Stück Ignoranz gibt es keine unabsichtliche Tat. Die biblischen Autoren waren sich der Möglichkeit ausdrücklich bewusst, dass Verbote übertreten werden konnten, ohne dass die Übertreter es sicher wussten. In Lev 4,23.28 stehen die Formulierungen: ‘…so wird er schuldig/haftbar, oder es wird ihm zu Bewusstsein gebracht.’ Es ist eine Alternative! Entweder haftet er für die unbewusste Übertretung, oder sie wird ihm zu Bewusstsein gebracht, und er kann sich mit JHWH versöhnen.” 21 H. Seebass, Numeri. 2. Teilband Numeri 10,11 – 22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2003, 134: “15,1–16 haben zudem eine assoziative Anknüpfung an Num 13f., weil die Gegend von Hebron durch Wein ausgezeichnet war (13,22–24) und in 1–16 Wein für mehr als eine Opferart als Gußopfer vorgesehen ist. Das erklärt den Anschluß von 15,1–21 an Num 13f.”.

208

Reinhard Achenbach

priestly collections of sacral law and obligations.22 Complementary reading then means the combination of motifs, thoughts and concepts found in diverse layers of the foregoing priestly Pentateuchal tradition. In this process the text of the late additional Fortschreibung accepts additional implications made in the priestly laws that were read together with the implications made in the pre-Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomistic or even post-Deuteronomistic narratives. One of these implications is that according to the Holiness Code (Lev 25:18–19) even obedience to the written “laws and rules” of God is considered a condition for the fruitfulness and prosperity of the Promised Land and for a secure life. According to the priestly torot this would include the offering of cereals and fruits (cf. Lev 2) even in addition to the non-vegetarian sacrifices (Lev 1:3–4). Thus the allusion provoked by Num 13–14 was the idea that once Israel would be in the land, to offer meal offerings and libations at any time would be possible and a natural consequence of the land’s prosperity in the context of ritual performances. Libations are mentioned only with a general remark in P (Exod 25:2923), the mentioning of the libation of wine in Exod 29:40–41 is part of a late secondary insertion.24 According to the concepts of Ezek 40–48, it should be the task of the leader of the Israelites, to assure “the burnt offerings, the meal offerings, and the libations on festivals, new moons, Sabbaths” (Ezek 45:17), but for the tamîd they only demand an additional meal-offering (‫ )מנחה‬with oil, not any libations. The Holiness-Code demands that a libation is assured in addition to the offering of the first sheaf of the harvest (Lev 23:13), at Shavu’ot (Lev 23:18), and at Sukkot (Lev 23:37). Thus, the regulation on the libations with the tamîd as it was inserted in Exod 29:38–42 in parallel to Num 28:3–8 is later than the Holiness Code’s insertion into the Sinai pericope. The text demands libations with the tamîd (cf. Exod 29:40: ‫ ;ונסך רביעית ההין יין לכבשׂ האחד‬Num 28:7 ‫)ונסכו רביעת ההין לכבש האחד‬.

22 It is on the basis of this orientation at an almost final form of the text that the systematic reconstruction of M. Douglas, In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, Oxford – New York 1993 (repr. 2004), makes sense. She discovers that the community imagined in the book as a whole represents a social enclave with a clearly defined priestly hierarchy, and that the national narrative about the desert wandering is systematically included into a pattern of story and law, where the central concerns are keeping faith against defilement, and being constantly aware of the holy times and the obligations concerning purification in order to ensure the identity of the community. 23 Exod 37:16 and Num 4:7 refer to that text. 24 M. Noth, Das 2. Buch Mose. Exodus, ATD 5, Göttingen 61978, 191; C. Houtman, Exodus. Volume 3 Chapters 20 – 40, HCOT, Leuven, 2000, 549–553 (for Exod 30:9 see Noth, 191–193; Houtmann, 553–561).

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

209

When we look at Num 15, the motif of the immense grape in Num 13:23 seems to have caused the connotation of the special gift of wine in the Promised Land, and it is Num 15:5, 7, 10, and 24 that want to make sure that an adequate libation of (this) wine would be offered regularly with the meat and meal-offerings! Libations of wine then were demanded even for the New Moon in Num 28:14, and libations were added for a number of occasions (Num 28:7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39)! Another allusion was provoked by the catchword ‫ מנחה‬in Num 16. This chapter renders a dispute about the authority of Moses in a conflict with the Reubenites Dathan and Abiram, when Moses – in an execration against the rebels – prays to God: “Pay no regard to their meal offering (‫( ”!)מנחה‬see below). The account continues, telling about the rebellion of laymen and the Korahite Levites who stand in opposition to the priestly competence of Aaron. As a result, a clear hierarchy between Aaronides, Levites, and laymen is established and the obligations and privileges of the priesthood are met by respective rules for the charges of the priesthood.25 Obedience in this context would mean bringing all offerings to the priests who are authorized to perform the ritual. This includes the right to participate in the donations and sacred offerings of the Israelites granted to the sanctuary (‫כל־קדשׁי בני־ישראל‬, Num 18:8), including the gifts for the special priestly offerings (‫*אשׁה‬, v. 9a LXX),26 all sorts of individual offerings (‫)כל־קרבנם‬, cereal offerings (‫כל־מנחתם‬, v. 9bα), and sin- and guilt offerings (‫כל־אשׁמם‬, ‫כל־חטאתם‬, v. 9bβ). In order to purport rules for the priestly share the general obligations from Lev 1–7 about special tribute of priestly gift-offerings (‫ )אשׁה‬for the burnt offering (‫עלה‬, Lev 1:2–16), the cereal offering (‫מנחה‬, Lev 2:1–15), the sacrifice of well-being offerings (‫זבח שׁלמים‬, Lev 3:1–17), the sin or purification offering (‫חטאת‬, Lev 4:1–5:13) and the guilt or reparation offering (‫אשׁם‬, Lev 5:14–26) are presupposed to some extent. Moreover, the fact that the special rules of Num 15 were not inserted into the material of the collection in Lev 1–7 gives reason to assume that the insertion of the rules into the composition in the book of Numbers should be dated later. However, if the scribes intended to introduce further details about sacral donations and duties of the people, it could only be done before the rules on priestly provisions in Num 18.

25

For a close analysis of these chapters cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 37–172; The etymology of the word is not definitely clear. The traditional derivation from ‫– אשׁ‬ “fire-offering” – is a more vulgar etymology; the term seems to be connected with Ugaritic ’ITT – “gift”; as a technical term it designates those offerings from which special portions are designated for the priests only (Deut 18:1; Exod 29:25; Lev 10:15; Num 18:9), cf. W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18. Aufl., Vol. I, Berlin et al., 1987, 106. 26

210

Reinhard Achenbach

The remarkable motif in Num 16 is the utterance of Moses in the confrontation with Dathan and Abiram in Num 16:12 and 15: 12) Moses sent for Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, but they said, ‘We will not go up with you (‫( )לא נעלה‬i.e.: to the promised land)!’ … 15) Moses was much aggrieved and he said to YHWH: ‘Pay no regard to their minḥāh (‫ !)אל תפן על־מנחתם‬I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them!’

The somewhat irritating plea to God not to turn his face toward27 (= to accept) the minḥāh of the rebels can be elucidated from biblical parallels. After it is God’s sovereign decision to accept or to reject a sacrifice (Gen 4:4–5 – ‫)ואל־מנחתו לא שׁעה‬, and consequently a prayer is directed to him to “turn toward” the person and his prayers (1 Kgs 8:28 – ‫)פנית אל־תפלת עבדך‬, the refusal of offerings demands rites of repentance and penitence (Mal 2:13).28 Further parallels for the curse of Moses can be found already in ancient execration texts.29 It is combined with an emphatic statement of innocence from the side of Moses, comparable to 1 Sam 12:3.30 The inner logic of Moses’ execration seems to be derived from the argument of Dathan and Abiram. They describe Egypt (!) as the “land flowing with milk and honey” and refuse to believe that 27 The verb ‫ פנה‬in that context is related to the noun ‫פנים‬. For the semantic range, cf. F. Hartenstein, Das Angesicht JHWHs. Studien zu seinem höfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32–34, FAT 55, Tübingen, 2008, 196–198 passim. 28 R. Kessler, Die Theologie der Gabe bei Maleachi, in: idem, Gotteserdung. Beiträge zur Hermeneutik und Exegese der Hebräischen Bibel, BWANT 170, Stuttgart, 2006, 153– 163.158, has pointed out the theological scope of Mal 2:13: “In (Mal) 1,6–2,9 … liegt der Mangel, der kritisiert wird, in der Gabe selbst. Hier dagegen liegt der Mangel im Verhalten der Geber. Weil sie sich im religiösen und im zwischenmenschlichen Bereich … falsch verhalten, kann auch ihre Gabe die Kommunikation mit Gott nicht wieder herstellen”. Num 16:15 reflects a broader context of dispute about the mode of acceptability of minḥāh – offerings among post-exilic priestly groups. 29 B.A. Levine, Numbers 1–20. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4/1, New York, 1993, 414.426–427 mentions the curse of Adad-it’i, the governor of Guzana: “Whosoever removes my name from the furnishings of the temple of Hadad, my Lord, may Hadad, my Lord, not receive either his food offerings or his libations from his hand.” (cf. A. Abou-Assaf/P. Bordreuil/A. Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription biblingue assyro-araméenne, Etudes Assyriologiques 7, Paris, 1982, 65; C. Dohmen, Die Statue von Tell Fecherije und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie, BN 22, 1983, 91–106.106) and the curse in an inscription of Panamuwa I. from Zinjirli against a successor who “offers sacrifice to this same Hadad, but does not pronounce the name of Panamuwa …[may Hadad not receive] his sacrifice nor view it with favor; and whatever he asks, may he not grant to him” (cf. J.C. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Inscriptions 2, 1975, 66–67: no. 13 l. 12–13.21–23). 30 B.A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 425–426, hints also to a parallel form El Amarna (EA 280:24–29; Knudtzon 1964 1.849) in a declaration from a vassal of the Pharao: “Furthermore: Let the king, my lord, inquire, if I have misappropriated a single person, or if a single ox, or if a single mule from him.”

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

211

Moses will lead them to such a land, where they would possess fields and vineyards (‫נחלת שׂדה וכרם‬, v. 14). Thus the reader can have the impression that Moses – who himself believes in the promise of YHWH – now wishes that once Israel would have arrived there, the leaders of the Reubenites should be punished by rejection of their first meal offerings, because they had rejected the Holy Land. The story ends with the report that those who did not believe, already had to go to še’ôl at the same time, already during the period of the wilderness wandering (Num 16:27b–32a, 33abα, 34), according to the principle of immediate retaliation (cf. Deut 7:10, ‫)ומשׁלם לשנאיו אל־פמיו להאבידו‬. Taking a more synchronic perspective on the texts of Num 16 within the frame of the Pentateuchal narrative one could raise the question whether, according to that account, the Israelites did perform minḥāh offerings during the desert wandering. According to the priestly text in Exod 40:29, Moses did so after the desert shrine was erected. The people had to present a cereal offering mixed with oil (‫ )מנחה בלולה בשׁמן‬according to Lev 9:4 when the high priest Aaron began his ministry (cf. Lev 9:17). According to Num 7 even the leaders of every tribe had presented a minḥāh at the dedication of the tabernacle.31 The latter account presupposes that the rules of a minḥāh offering from Lev 2 where part of the Torah revealed, and in an additional liturgical account the scribes imagine that it was applied already from the time of the dedication of the desert shrine. From a synchronic perspective, combining the reading of non-priestly texts with the priestly layers, the idea that the Israelites could have presented a minḥāh even during the wilderness wandering was not so far from all plausibility. Perhaps also some external evidence can cast light on the case. When the restoration of the YAHW-temple in Elephantine was permitted by the satrap at the end of the 5th century B.C.E., he connected this allowance with the obligation for the Jewish community to bring only meal-offerings (minḥāh) and incense (leḇōnāh).32 The texts show that in post-exilic times Jews could imagine that Judean and Samarian Israelites outside the Promised Land in Egypt were allowed to present the minḥāh. The people adhering to that somehow “un-deuteronomistic” or “un-orthodox” perspective at least tolerated the performance of these minor offerings as legitimate rituals. However, some people could have understood Num 16:15 as a plea that God might not accept the

31 Cf. Num 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 87; cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 529–536. 32 B. Porten/A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 1: Letters, The Hebrew University Department of the History of the Jewish People, Winona Lake, IND., 1986, Text 4.9 line 9–10; 4.10 line 11.

212

Reinhard Achenbach

minḥāh of those who loved staying in Egypt more than seeing the Promised Land.33 Certainly all this was written within the horizon of those priestly editors who inserted Lev 1–5 into the book of Leviticus. They wanted to make sure that every presentation of burnt offerings or meal offerings should be dedicated in contact with the priests of the central sanctuary. They used the narrative of P as a frame to introduce torot with a general scope, as we can see from Lev 1:1–2, when the community of Israelites in the desert is addressed (Lev 1:1 “YHWH summoned Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting [Exod 40:34], and said: 2) ‘Speak to the Israelites, and say to them: When any person among you (‫ )מכם‬presents an offering of livestock to YHWH…”), or from Lev 2:1–2, when the rule of presenting cereal offerings in the form of semolina is connected with the presentation before the “sons of Aaron”. However, if these rules were read as part of the wilderness-wandering narrative, it seems not at all clear where the Israelites could have taken the grain for the sôlaet from. Although in Exod 12:38 we read that the Israelites had a lot of cattle and thus were able to bring all the sacrifices at mount Sinai, Exod 12:39 states only: “With the dough they had brought from Egypt, they baked cakes of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves.” On the other hand, we read that according to the legend the Israelites lived from Manna (Exod 16; Josh 5:12). The idea that the Israelites had brought cereal offerings in the wilderness is not consistent with this theory. The author of the Holiness Code was more consistent in that perspective. With respect to the minḥāh, Lev 23 says: 9) YHWH said to Moses: 10) Speak to the Israelites and say to them: “When you come into the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. 11) He is to wave the sheaf before YHWH… 12) On the day you wave the sheaf, you must sacrifice as a burnt offering to YHWH a lamb a year old without defect, together with a minḥāh of two tenths of an ephah of solæt mixed with oil – as an ’iššæh made to YHWH, as a pleasing odor, and ¼ hin as a libation of wine!

Reading Num 16 from that perspective, it seems to be rather obvious that Moses did not “mean” a minḥāh in the wilderness, but the minḥāh in the Promised Land or just any presentation of a minḥāh in general. The issue of the secondary layers in Num 16 is the quest for ritual competence by noble laymen and by Levites and its rejection by a divine ordeal, and this seems to be perhaps the main reason for the scribe who inserted Numbers 15 to choose 33 Further evidence that the issue was under discussion in post-exilic times may be found in 2 Kgs 5:17–18, where it seemed thinkable that a believing non-Israelite could perform sacrifices for YHWH on an altar on earth from the “holy land”, cf. bGit 57b; bSanh 96b; V. Haarmann, JHWH-Verehrer der Völker. Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, AThANT 91, Zürich, 2008, 166–169.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

213

this position in the scroll: If any instructions concerning the presentation of any sort of offering should be meaningful, it should have been mentioned before the general dispute about the ritual competence of priests and Levites in Num 16–18. Whereas in the older layer of Num 16 the prayer of Moses was a general statement with respect to the ritual status of the Reubenites before God, not really taking into account any ritual observances during the desert wandering, the Holiness Code considered the revelation of rules for the ritual observances as promulgated with respect to the obligations in the Promised Land. But when with the introduction of Num 1–4 and the concept that Israel transported the tabernacle and the altar through the wilderness, and when additionally in the latest layers of Num 16–18 reflections about ritual observances in general could even be imagined for the time of the wilderness-wandering, Num 15 was inserted between Num 13–14 and 16.34 However, Num 15 takes the perspective of the Holiness Code from the beginning because the rules given in this chapter are additions to the Sinaitic laws referring to the time “when you come into the land…” (Num 15:2/Lev 23:10). If we read the execration of the Reubenites in a synchronic way together with Num 15, the curse sounds even worse: as the meal-offerings in most cases are only additional, their rejection involves the rejection of all the other sacrifices named, a horrible condition for the further existence of the forefathers of the “lost tribe”, almost comparable to the condition of a Cainitic existence!

3. The Obligations of Numbers 15 within the Intertextual Context of the Priestly Legislation in the Pentateuch 3.1. The Ritual Law 3.1.1. Num 15:1–12 1 2 3 4 5

And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them, “when you come into the land where you are to live, which I am giving to you, and when you offer to Yahweh from the herd or from the flock a gift (‫ )אשׁה‬or a whole offering (‫)עלה‬, or any sacrifice (‫)זבח‬, to fulfill a vow (‫)נדר‬, or as a freewill offering (‫ )נדבה‬or at your appointed feasts (‫)מועד‬, to make a soothing odor to YHWH, then he who brings his offering (‫ )קרבן‬shall offer to YHWH a cereal offering of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil. And wine for the libation (‫)נסך‬, a quarter of a hin, you shall prepare with the whole

34 R.E. Gane, Loyalty and Scope of Expiation, ZAR 16, 2010, 248–262, 261, has observed that the inner coherence between the chapters Num 13–14 + 15 + 16–17 can be described as reflecting the contrast between loyalty (Num 15:1–29, 37–41) and disloyalty (30–36).

Reinhard Achenbach

214

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

offering, or for the sacrifice, for each lamb or for a ram, you shall prepare for a cereal offering (‫ )מנחה‬two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil. And for the drink offering you shall offer a third of a hin of wine, a soothing odor to Yahweh. And when you prepare a bull for a whole offering, or any sacrifice, to fulfill a vow, or for shared offerings (‫ )שׁלמים‬to YHWH, then you shall offer with the bull a cereal offering (‫ )מנחה‬of three tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with half a hin of oil. And you shall offer for the drink offering half a hin of wine, as an offering by fire, a soothing odor to Yahweh. So it shall be done for each bull or ram, or for each of the male lambs or the kids. According to the number that you prepare, so shall you do with every one according to their number.”

The introductory formula in Num 15:1–5 is almost identical with Leviticus 23:9–10a, as we can see in a synoptic overview (cf. the table below). Lev 23:9–14 9 10 12

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ‫כי־תבאו אל־הארץ‬ ‫אשׁר אני נתן לכם‬ ‫ועשׂיתם ביום הניפכם את־העמר‬ ‫כבשׂ תמים בן־שׁנתו לעלה ליהוה‬

Num 15:1–5 1 2 3 4

13

14

‫ומנחתו שׁני עשׂרנים סלת‬ ‫בלולה בשׁמן‬ ‫אשׁה ליהוה ריח ניחח‬ ‫ונסכה יין רביעת ההין‬

5

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ מושׁבתיכם‬ ‫אשׁר אני נתן לכם‬ ...‫ועשׂיתם אשׁה ליהוה עלה‬ ...‫לעשׂות ריח ניחח ליהוה‬ ‫והקריב המקריב קרבנו ליהוה‬ ‫מנחה סלת עשׂרון‬ ‫בלול ברבעית ההין שׁמן‬ ‫ויין לנסך רביעית ההין‬ ‫תעשׂה על־העלה או לזבח לכבשׂ האחד‬

‫… חקת עולם לדרתיכם בכל משׁבתיכם‬

The simple sentence ‫ וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר‬has the function of providing a formative structure to the priestly Torah throughout the Pentateuch, starting with connection to Exod 6:2 (‫ )וידבר אלהים אל־משׁה ויאמר אליו אני יהוה‬in Exod 6:10 and ending in Num 35:9.35 The expression ‫ מושׁבתיכם‬is characteristic of the Holiness Code, and is already applied in connection with the Sabbath in Lev 23:3 (21, 31) and with the offering of bread and cereal offerings in 23:14

35 Exod 6:10, 29; 13:1; 14:1; 16:11; 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22; 31:1, 7; 40:1; Lev 4:1; 5:14, 20; 6:1, 12, 17; 7:2, 28; 8:1; 12:1; 14:1; 17:1; 18:1; 19:1; 20:1; 21:16; 22:1, 17, 26; 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33; 24:1, 13; 27:1; Num 1:48; 3:5, 11, (14), 44; 4:21; 5:1, 5, 11; 6:1, 22; 8:1, 5, 23; 9:1*, 9; 10:1; 13:1; 15:1, 17; 16:23; 17:1, 9, 16; 18:25; 20:7; 25:10, 16; 26:52; 28:1; 31:1; 33:50; 34:1, 16; 35:1, 9; Deut 32:48; (in specific cases the formula includes Aaron (cf. Exod 4:30), see in Lev 11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1; Num 2:1; 4:1, 17; 14:26; 16:20; 19:1).

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

215

and 17 (cf. Lev 23:3, 14, 17, 21, 31). It appears also in the secondary priestly ritual texts.36 The rule concerning the minḥāh with the lamb in Num 15 is identical with the regulation in Lev 23:9–14. When bringing the firstlings of the harvest the Israelites should bring one ‘omær as minḥāh, and – in addition with the minḥāh they should offer a two-year old lamb without any defect as a burnt offering, and all together this will be an ’iššæh. The Holiness Code has a rule for the minḥāh offering in case of the firstlings of the harvest, where the offering of a lamb is demanded (Lev 23:9–14). In Lev 23:15–22 we find similar formulas in the context of the distinctions for Shavu‘ot, when – in addition – the offering of seven lambs, one young bull (‫ )פר בן־בקר אחד‬and 2 rams ( ‫ואלים‬ ‫ )שׁנים‬is demanded (v. 18). Lev 23 refers to the holy feasts and the priestly editors give further explanations to these rules, when the account of Numbers has arrived at the second generation who is prepared to enter the land (Num 28–30). It is obvious that the author of Num 15 presents a Fortschreibung of these distinctions of the Holiness-Code with respect to individual offerings. The case discussed in Num 15 is the wish to present an ’iššæh-offering to YHWH (v. 3) as a special gift (‫קרבן‬, v. 4), as producing “an odor pleasing to YHWH” (‫ריח ניחח ליהוה‬, v. 3). As Exod 29:18, 25, 41; 30:20 are treating the obligation of the High Priest to perform the ’iššæh-ritual (cf. also Lev 8:31, 28; 10:12, 13, 15; and Lev 21:6, 21; 22:22, 27), we find regulations about the presentation of an ’iššæh from the Israelites again in Lev 23:8, 13, 18, 25, 27, 36, 37; 24:7, 9. The regulations for presenting an ’iššæh (Lev 23:8: ‫והקרבתם‬ ‫ )אשׁה ליהוה‬concern the Pesah (23:8), the presentation of the firstlings (23:13), at Shavu‘ot (v. 18), at the beginning of the seventh month and at Yôm Kippûr (v. 25, 27), Sukkot (v. 36), and all distinct set times (‫מועדים‬, v. 37), when an ’iššæh is expected in form of the burnt offering (‫)עלה‬, the meal offering (‫)מנחה‬, the usual sacrifice (‫)זבח‬, and libations (‫)נסכים‬. In the priestly rules in Lev 1–4, further explanations are given for all general occasions of Israelite offerings. And we can observe in Num 15 that it is also a Fortschreibung refering to these texts. Here we find the distinctions on the offering of an ’iššæh in Lev 1:13, 17, 22–15; 3:3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15; 4:35; 5:12; 6:10–11; 7:5, 25, 30, 35. In Lev 1–7* we find the treatment of individual offerings. The language of Num 15:1–4 is clearly connected to the regulations in Lev 1:1–13! Lev 1 1

‫ויקרא אל־משׁה‬ ‫וידבר יהוה אליו מאהל מועד‬

36

Num 15 1:1

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה במדבר סיני באהל‬ ‫מועד‬

Lev 3:17; 7:26; 13:46; cf. Exod 12:20; 35:3; Num 15:2; 35:29; beyond these texts the expression can only be found in Ezek 6:6, 14.

Reinhard Achenbach

216

2a

3

9b

‫לאמר׃‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ‫אדם כי־יקריב מכם קרבן ליהוה‬ ‫אם־עלה קרבנו מן־הבקר‬ ‫זכר תמים יקריבנו‬ ‫אל־פתח אהל מועד יקריב ליהוה‬ ‫לרצנו לפני יהוה‬ ‫והקטיר הכהן את־הכל המזבחה‬ ‫עלה אשׁה ריח־ניחוח ליהוה׃‬

15:1 2

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר׃‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ...‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ מושׁבתיכם‬

4a 3

‫והקריב המקריב קרבנו ליהוה‬ ...‫ועשׂיתם אשׁה ליהוה עלה או־וזבח‬ ‫מן־הבקר או מן־הצאן׃‬

3b

‫לעשׂות ריח ניחח ליהוה‬

Whereas the Holiness-Code names the numbers and amounts of public offerings for the feasts, in Lev 1 we find the ritual instructions for individual offerings the ’iššæh in the form of an ‘olāh (1:2 ’adām kî yaqrîb) from cattle or from the flocks (v. 1–9 min habbāqār, 10–13 min ha-ṣō’n) or – according to vv. 14–17 – from birds (for the poor). In Lev 2 the ritual regulations for the personal minḥāh are given, v. 1–3 the general ritual, v. 4–16 for baked or cooked minḥāh etc. In Lev 3:1–15 the cases of zæḇaḥ are named (v. 1–5 bāqār, v. 6–11 ṣō’n, v. 12–15 ‘ēz). In all cases it is clear that the priest has to perform the ritual! When he offers the minḥāh, he is obligated to add incense to the ’iššæh (2:1). Whereas the Holiness Code gives measures for the necessary amounts of a minḥāh in connection with the carnal sacrifices, there are no measures or amounts named in the context of individual minḥāh in Lev 2! A second gap in the regulations is obvious: it is not clear, if or how much of a minḥāh has to be added for a burnt or a meal offering in connection to the animal chosen to be sacrificed. Consequently we find in Numbers 15 an additional Torah combining the regulations from the Holiness Code with those of the Priestly Rules in Lev 1–3, and all this can be traced in almost literal contextual connections. In Num 15:3 several other possibilities of cases for individual offerings as the fulfillment of vows (‫)נדר‬, freewill offerings (‫)נדבה‬, and special occasions (‫ )מועדיכם‬are taken into account. In addition to the cases named in Lev 1 the offering of a minḥāh is mentioned in addition to the sacrifices. The form and amount of the minḥāh is named and listed together with several different sorts of animals (Lev 1:3–9, 10–13, 14–17). Offering ‫אשׁה‬ connected to ‫( עלה‬Lev 1:1–9)

Animal 1 ‫( בקר‬Lev 1:1–9) 1 ‫( צאן‬Lev 1:10–13) 1 ‫( איל‬Lev 23:1837)

‫סלת מנחה‬

‫שׁמן‬

‫נסך יין‬

1/10 Hin 1/10 Hin 2/10 Hin

¼ Hin ¼ Hin ¾ Hin

¼ Hin ¼ Hin ⅓ Hin

37 ‫ איל‬as a free gift: Lev 23:18; Num 6:17, 19; 7:15, 17 passim; in contexts of sin offerings for inadvertent sins Lev 5:16, 18, 25; 19:21, 22. For priests: Exod 29; Lev 8–9. From Lev 4 and 5 the author of Num 15:22–31 is reminded of inadvertent sins because the offering of ‫איל‬

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

and

‫זבח‬

1 ‫( בן־בקר‬Lev 1:5) 1 ‫( פר‬Lev 23:1838) 1 ‫( כבשׂ‬Lev 1:10) 1 ‫( עז‬Lev 1:10)

3/10 Hin 3/10 Hin + 1/10 Hin + 1/10 Hin +

½ Hin ½ Hin + ¼ Hin + ¼ Hin +

217 ½ Hin ½ Hin + ¼ Hin + ¼ Hin +

Again we have to ask, why these regulations were inserted before Num 16, if the proper location could have also been in Lev 1–3. In the visions of Ezek 45 on the renewal of the second temple we find a certain concept to make sure the tariff and responsibilities of the Israelites with respect to the amount of animals, that had to be at hand for the rituals, cf. Ezek 45:17: It shall be the duty of the leading dignitary (‫ )ועל־הנשיא יהיה‬to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and libations (‫ )העולות והמנחה והנסך‬at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths – at all appointed feasts of the house of Israel (‫)בכל־מועדי בית ישראל‬. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offering to make atonement for the house of Israel!

The authors want to make the leading authorities of the religious community responsible for the regular performance of the rituals. In Num 16 we find the legend of Dathan and Abiram expanded by the motif that 250 men of these “dignitaries of the community who were responsible for the appointed festival-times” (‫נשיאי עדה קראי מועד‬, v. 2b) came into a conflict with Moses and Aaron about the question, how far the dignitaries had the responsibility and the right to be involved in the performance of the ritual. (Note: from Ezek 45 we understand, they were expected to pay for the animals!) The author of this expansion has a concept of the community that is close to the concept of Ezek 45; for that reason he mentions the order of the people under the surveillance of nesi’îm already in the wilderness. His story wants to make clear, where the borders of the responsibility intended in Ezek 45 had to be drawn! The nesi’im put their question to the program of Exod 19:6 and argue about the status confessionis: is all of the congregation holy (‫גוי קדושׁ‬, Exod 19:6 → Num 16:3: ‫ )כל־העדה כלם קדשׁים‬or is it only the priestly authorities who make it become a kingdom of priests (‫ממלכת כהנים‬, Exod 19:6)? The legend gives a clear interpretation voting for the hierocratic interpretation: the rebels are struck by the holy fire from God when they try to bring only some incense of minor value (‫ )קטרת‬close to him, whereas Aaron alone is saved. The story stresses again that it can only be an Aaronite priest who will be allowed to perform any sacrificial ritual. and ‫ פר‬is connected with it. The catchword ‫ שׁגגה‬from Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18 is obviously taken up in Num 15:24–29! 38 Exod 29; Lev 8–9; and Exod 24:5; Lev 23:18 and Num 7; Num 23; 28:11–29:37; Ezek 43:19–25; 45:18–24; 46:6, 7, 11 – as free gifts; Lev 4:3–21 and Lev 16:3–27 – as sin offerings. In Num 28–29 the ‫ פר‬very often is identified with a ‫בן־בקר‬. The expression stands close to Num 28f.

Reinhard Achenbach

218

Lev 2 interrupts the sequence of rules for burnt offerings and šelāmîm (Lev 1:2–3; 3:1) and provides rules for the offering of a minḥāh through lay people of whatever subordinate status in the society they may come from ( ‫נפשׁ‬ ‫ )כי־תקריב קרבן מנחה ליהוה‬B.J. Schwartz explains in his notes to the text in JSB: The word (minḥāh) means tribute paid to a superior (e.g. Gen 32.14,22; etc.) or a ruler (e.g., Judg 3.15ff.; 1 Sam 10.27) and is used in non-Priestly texts to refer to sacrifices in general, e.g., Cain and Abel’s offerings (Gen 4.3–5) and the offerings at the Shiloh sanctuary (1 Sam 2.17). This expresses the basic notion underlying the sacrificial system: that the Israelites, as a people and as individuals, are expected to offer to God regular tokens of His lordship over them. P uses the term in a specific sense of “offering made of grain.” This ch […] was introduced here to provide an opportunity for even the poorest Israelite to make a freewill offering, from grain.39

The chapter offers rules for different forms of preparation of the grain (‫)סלת‬, regularly it is prepared together with oil (‫ בלול בשׁמן‬Lev 2:2, 4, 5; Num 15:4). In Lev 2 it is clear from the beginning that the priest only has the authority to perform the sacrifice “as a pleasing odor to YHWH” (‫)אשׂה ריח ניחח ליהוה‬, he is adding the frankincense and taking his share of the ’îššæh (Lev 2:2–3).40 Num 15:4 now adds the commandment that at any time the Israelites want to prepare an animal for a sacrifice “as a pleasing odor to YHWH” (Num 15:3) a tenth of choice flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil has to be offered as a minḥāh in addition to it. Again we can observe that Num 15 presupposes a series of regulations and narratives. So we may find another exterior reason why the priestly editors inserted Num 15 before Num 16: the danger in contact with the holy fire for the sacrifices can never be faced by laymen – as already underlined by the legend of Lev 10:1–7. Num 15 thus does not accept a distinction between the ordinary people and the nesi’îm in case of individual offerings. The dignitaries have only representative functions as described in Num 7 and 31. From the perspective of the Holiness Code, Lev 1–7, and Num 1–10 it is made clear, that for all offerings from Israelites the high-priestly family will have the responsibility. Num 15 makes clear in how far the laymen are responsible for the dedication of offerings; Num 16 makes clear that only the high-priestly family has the right to perform the sacrificial rites. 3.1.2. Num 15:13–16 13 14

Every native Israelite (‫ )כל־האזרח‬shall do these things in this way, in offering an offering by fire, a soothing odor to YHWH (‫)אשׁה ריח־ניחח ליהוה‬. And if a resident alien (‫ )גר‬or someone permanently settled among you wishes to offer

39 B.J. Schwartz, Leviticus. Introduction and Annotations, in: The Jewish Study Bible, ed. by A. Berlin et al., Oxford – New York: Jewish Publication Society 2004, 203–280.208. 40 Lev 10:12–13 adds rules about the place where the high-priestly family has to eat the holy meal.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

15 16

219

an offering by fire, a soothing odor to YHWH, he shall do as you do. For the assembly (‫ )קהל‬there shall be one statute for you, and for the resident alien, a permanent statue throughout your generations. As you are, so shall the resident alien be before YHWH. There shall be one law and one ordinance for you (‫ )תורה אחת ומשׁפט אחד‬and for the resident alien with you.

Learning from the protection laws about the resident aliens (gērîm) in the rule about Sabbath of the Decalogue (Exod 20:10) and in the Covenant Code (Exod 22:20; 23:9, 12) and Deuteronomy, the Holiness Code took over the distinctions on protection and ritual integration, whereas the ben-nēḵar was not integrated into the ritual (Exod 12:43; cf. Lev 22:25; cf. also Josh 24:20, 23: foreign gods are not accepted) because he remained a stranger under foreign, non-Israelite law even when he had some time of permanent stay in the realm of Yehud or Samaria.41 The authors of Isa 56:3, 6; 60:10!; 61:5! 62:8 take a different position, which shows that the issue was under heavy dispute during the Second Temple period.42 Deut 16:11 and 14 had allowed the gerîm to share Shavuot and Sukkot, but not Passover. Now Exod 12:48–49 allowed the gerîm to share the Passover, but only if they were circumcised.43 In the context of Mazzot and Passover the rule of the one Torah is mentioned in a programmatic way for the first time in the Pentateuch, Exod 12:19, 38, 49: ‫תורה‬ ‫ !אחת יהיה לאזרח ולגר הגר בתוככם‬Consequently the priestly editors had to add regulations for foreigners in the context of rules for sacrifices as well, and so they did in Num 15.44 In the Priestly Code the gērîm had not been mentioned. As we have seen from Ezek there was a reluctance to integrate the gērîm into rituals from cer41 R. Achenbach, gêr – nåkhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden, 2011, 29–52. 42 V. Haarmann, “Their Burnt Offerings and their Sacrifices will be Accepted on my Altar” (Isa 56:7): Gentile Yhwh-Worshipers and their Participation in the Cult of Israel, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden, 2011, 157–172; C. Nihan, Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake, 2011, 67–104. 43 For this issue cf. also J. Wöhrle, The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden 2011, 71–88; and T. Naumann, The Common Basis of the Covenant and the Distinction between Isaac and Ishmael in Gen 17: The Case of Ishmael and the Non-Israelite Descendants of Abraham in the Priestly Code, ibid., 89–110. 44 R. Albertz, From Aliens to Proselytes: Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden, 2011, 53–70.

Reinhard Achenbach

220

tain priestly circles. For the priestly editors the first commandment the gērîm had to obey was the commandment of Sabbath days, and this might be the reason why the first time the gērîm are mentioned again is the rest and the fasting of Yôm Kippur (Lev 16:29). It is the Holiness Code where the principle of equality is demanded with respect to the holiness of the land, Lev 17:8 (‫אישׁ אישׁ מבית ישראל ומן־הגר אשׁר־יגור בתוכם אשׁר־היעלה עלה או־זבח‬, cf. also Lev 16:29; 17:8, 10, 13, 15; 18:26; 19:10, 33, 34; 20:2; 22:18; 23:22; 24:16, 22; 25:23, 35, 47).45 After the Holiness Code had been established in the Pentateuch, we find insertions of a series of regulations about the participation of the resident aliens in Num 9:14 and 15:14, 15, 16, 26, 29, 30; 19:10; 35:15.46 3.1.3. Num 15:17–21 17 18 19 20 21

YHWH said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel: ‘When you come into the land to which I bring you, and when you eat of the bread (‫ )לחם‬of the land, you shall present a contribution (‫ )תרומה‬to YHWH. Of the first portion of your dough (‫ )ראשׁית ערסתיכם‬you shall present a loaf (‫ )חלה‬as a contribution; as a contribution from the threshing floor, so you shall present it. Of the first of your dough you shall give to YHWH a contribution throughout your generations.’”

Here we have a case of another addition that was considered to be necessary. In the Covenant Code in Exod 23:19 and in the Law of the Covenant Renewal in Exod 34:26 we find the obligation to offer parts of the firstlings, as in the Holiness Code (Lev 23:10) and in the priestly regulations (Lev 2:12). In Deuteronomy these are considered to be the first offerings in the land (Deut 26:2), and according to Deut 18:4 they even serve to support the priests. This might have been the reason, why in the ’amanāh from the time of Nehemiah the citizens of Jerusalem have to promise (Neh 10:38): We will bring to the storerooms of the House of our God the first part of our dough, and our gifts of grain and of the fruit of every tree, wine and oil for the priests ( ‫ואת־ראשׁית עריסתינו‬ ‫ )תרומתינו ופרי כל־עץ תירושׁ ויצהר נביא לכהנים‬and the tithes of your land for the Levites!47

45 C. Nihan, Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden, 2011, 111–134. 46 R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 511–528.547–549, assumed that these layers belong to late priestly editings, called “theocratic editings” in the period after Ezra’s reforms in the 4th century B.C.E., i.e., Num 15 and 19 belong to a ThEd II (together with Num 5–6) and Num 9 to a ThEd III (together with the additional chapters Num 7–8). R. Albertz, From Aliens, 53– 70.63–66 assigns these texts to late priestly editors (according to his theory “P4”, and “P5”), and he assumes that they have been written already during the period after Nehemiah. 47 Deut 18:4 additionally mentions wool, an aspect that was left out in Neh 10.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

221

In the priestly collections when there is a rule about the minḥāh, the texts speak of solæt (cf. Lev 2:1, 11, 12) made from wheat! Any mention of the barley bread of the poor people is left out. But among the rules for the priests in Ezek 44 we read v. 28–30: 28) I am to be the only inheritance the priests have. You are to give them no possession in Israel: I will be their possession (‫)נחלה‬. 29) They will eat the minḥāh, the ḥaṭṭa’t and the ’āšam, and everything in Israel that is devoted (‫ )חרם‬to YHWH will belong to them. 30) The first of all firstfruits and all your special gifts from all your terumôt will belong to the priests, even the first portion of your dough (‫ )ראשׁית ערסתיכם‬to the priest, so that a blessing may rest on your household (‫!)להניח ברכה אל־ביתך‬

But Num 18:12 offers a rule in accordance with Ezek 44: “All the best of the new oil, and all the best of the new wine and grain – the rê’šît, they present to YHWH – I give to you!” This principle is mentioned in the ’amanāh of the Jerusalemites in Neh 10:38! The ‘arîsāh seems to be the firstling’s gift from the personae miserabiles. 3.2. Violations of the Ritual Law 3.2.1. Num 15:22–31: Inadvertent and Intentional Violations 22 23 24

25

26

27 28

29

1. Inadvertent Failure of the Religious Community But if you (pl.) inadvertently fail and do not observe all these commandments which YHWH has spoken to Moses, all that YHWH has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that YHWH commanded, and onward throughout your generations, then, if it was done inadvertently without the knowledge of the congregation, all the congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt offering, a soothing odor to YHWH, with its cereal offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a purification offering. And the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the people of Israel. And they shall be forgiven because it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to YHWH, and their purification offering before YHWH, for their error. And all the congregation of the people of Israel shall be forgiven, and the resident alien with them, because the whole congregation was involved in the error. 2. Inadvertent Failure of an Individual If one person sins inadvertently, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a purification offering. And the priest shall make atonement before YHWH for the person who commits an error, when he sins inadvertently, to make atonement for him. And he shall be forgiven. 3. Inadvertent Failure of a Resident Alien You shall have one law for him who does anything inadvertently, for him who is native among the people of Israel, and for the resident alien with them.

Reinhard Achenbach

222

30 31

4. Intentional Violation of the Law But the person who does anything with upraised hand (‫ = רמה ביד‬with deliberate defiance), whether he is native or an alien, reviles YHWH, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of YHWH, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off. His guilt shall be on him.”

The series of regulations continues the additional comments with respect to Lev 4, where the regulations of sin offerings in case of inadvertent violations of the sacral law are listed. Lev 4:2: ‫נפשׁ כי־תחטא בשׁגגה מכל מצות יהוה אשׁר לא‬ ‫“ – תעשׂינה‬when a person sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of YHWH's commands…” In a comparison of Num 15:22–29 (31–32) to Lev 4, A. Toeg (according to M. Fishbane) “conclusively demonstrates that Num. 15:22–9 is based on Lev. 4:13–21,27–31: for not only can one observe a precise terminological correspondence in the consecution of these two sets of legal matters (cf. Lev. 4:13 and Num. 15:22–24aa; Lev 4:14 and Num. 15:27a; Lev 4:28b and Num. 15:27b; and Lev 4:31b and Num. 15:28), but, more importantly, Num. 15:22–9 is characterized by a variety of exegetical expansions which supplement the skeletal frame which it shares with Lev 4.”48

Lev 4 13

14

20b

‫ואם כל־עדת ישׂראל ישׁגו‬ ‫ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל‬ ‫ועשׂו אחת מכל־מצות יהוה‬ ‫אשׁר לא־תעשׂינה ואשׁמו׃‬

‫וכי תשׁגו‬

23 24

‫ולא תעשׂו את כל־המצות האלה‬ ‫אשׁר־דבר יהוה אל־משׁה׃‬ … ‫והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשׂתה לשׁגגה‬

‫ונודעה החטאת אשׁר חטאו עליה‬ ‫והקריבו הקהל‬ ‫פר בן־בקר לחטאת‬ ‫והביאו אתו לפני אהל מועד׃‬ ‫וכפר עלהם הכהן‬ ‫ונסלח להם׃‬

27

‫ואם־נפשׁ אחת תחטא בשׁגגה מעם הארץ‬ ‫בעשׂתה אחת ממצות יהוה‬ ‫אשׁר לא־תעשׂינה ואשׁם׃‬

28

‫או הודע אליו חטאתו אשׁר חטא‬ ‫והביא קרבנו‬ ‫שׂעירת עזים תמימה נקבה‬ ‫על־חטאתו אשׁר חטא׃‬

48

Num 15 22

‫ועשׂו כל־העדה‬ … ‫פר בן־בקר אחד לעלה‬ ‫ושׂעיר־עזים אחד לחטת׃‬ 25 27

‫וכפר הכהן על־כל־עדת בני ישׂראל‬ ‫ונסלח להם‬ ‫כי שׁגגה הוא‬ ‫ואם־נפשׁ אחת תחטא בשׁגגה‬

‫והקריבה עז בת־שׁנתה‬ ‫לחטאת׃‬

A. Toeg (Num 15:22–31. Midrash Halacha, Tarbiz 43, 1973/74, 1–20; cf. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 189–194 (191).

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15 31b

‫וכפר עליו הכהן ונסלח לו׃‬

28

223

‫וכפר הכהן על־הנפשׁ‬ ‫השׁגגת בחטאה בשׁגגה לפני יהוה‬ ‫לכפר עליו ונסלח לו׃‬

The case of inadvertent offences against the law within the religious community (‫)עדה‬, wherever it happens concerns not only the whole religious community (‫)כל־עדת ישראל‬49 and thus has the aspect of a pollutant, but the public assembly of the people of Israel including even its innocent members (‫)קהל‬ (Lev 4:13). Whereas Lev 4:13a still makes a distinction between the qahal and the ‘edah, this difference seems to have been graded (evened) in Num 15:24a, because here the publication of the delinquency concerns Israel mostly as a religious community, in v. 26aβb the perspective is expanded to the whole people (‫ )קהל העם‬as identical with the sacral community including the foreigners (‫)וכפר הכהן על־כל־עדת בני ישׂראל ולגר הגר בתוכם‬. The core of the formulas is identical; in Num 15:23, 25b, 26 we find a remarkable parenetic expansion. With respect to Lev 4 now the quantity of the offerings demanded is increased: the bull has to be sacrificed as a burnt offering and for the sin offering an additional goat is obligatory (Num 15:24). The additional minḥāh and the additional libation have to supply the burnt offering. The rule for the individual sinner in Num 15:27–28 remains quite the same as in Lev 4:27–28, only that he is not considered as member of the ‘am ha’aretz (Lev 4:27a) in Num 15:27. The version in Num 15 can be shorter because the ritual is clear from Lev 4:27–31 (32–35), and with the sin offering a meal offering is not obligatory in that case.50 Additionally the foreigners are mentioned also in this context. Verse 29 applies the rules for ‫ אזרח וגר‬as developed above; v. 30–31 presents a general formula for the case of intentional violation of the law. The formula ‫ ביד רמה‬as a metaphor alludes to mighty, demonstrative acts,51 either as “gesture of the Deity against His enemies or of a man against God Himself”52. The metaphor is illustrated by the case-study 49 The term is part of an redactional structure of a priestly reworking in the Pentateuch, cf. Exod 12:3, 6, 19, 47; 16:12, 9, 10, 22; 17:1; 35:1, 4, 20; Lev 4:13; 8:3; 9:5; 10:6; 19:2; 24:14, 16; Num 1:2, 18; 3:7; 8:9; 10:3; 13:26; 14:1, 2, (5), 7, 10, 35, 36; 15:24, 25, 26, 33, 35, 36; 16:3, 19, 22; 17:6; 20:1, 22, 27, 29; 25:6; 26:2; 27:2, 19, 20, 21, 22. It is also part of the theocratic reworkings in the books of Joshua (Josh 9:18, 19, 21; 18:1; 22:12, 16, 18, 20), Judges (Judg 21:13) and Kings (1 Kgs 8:5). Outside these contexts it is only found in 2 Chr 5:6. 50 For a more detailed discussion on the limitation of expiation to inadvertent sins and for the different victims for expiation of communal inadvertent sin, cf. R. E. Gane, Loyalty, 252– 257. 51 Of deities, cf. C.J. Labuschagne, The Meaning of beyād rāmā in the Old Testament, in: Von Kanaan bis Kerala. FS J.P.M.v.d.Ploeg, ed. by W.C. Delsman et al., AOAT 211, Neukircen-Vluyn, 1982, 143–148; or of the God of Israel (Ex 14:8; Num 33:3), D. Kellermann, Bemerkungen zum Sündopfergesetz in Num. 15,22ff., in: Wort und Geschichte. FS Karl Elliger, ed. by H. Gese/H.P. Rüger, AOAT 18, Kevelaer, 1973, 107–113. 52 J. Milgrom, Numbers, 125; cf. Hi 38:15: ‫!וימנע מרשׁעים אורם וזרוע רמה תשׁבר‬

224

Reinhard Achenbach

in Num 15:32–36:53 After Exod 16:26–30 (commandment to gather Manna six days and not to do so on the seventh); 31:14–15 (death-sanction against those who do any work on Sabbath) and 35:2–3 (“…whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day!”), the gathering of wood on a Sabbath day must be interpreted as a taunt, an intentional violation of the former commandments. According to Exod 16:28 it is a refusal to keep the commandments of YHWH and the Torah (‫)עד־אנה מאנתם לשׁמר מצותי ותורתי‬, and thus “spurns the word of YHWH and violates His commandment” (‫כי דבר־יהוה בזה ואת־מצותו הפר‬, Num 15:31); the act is condemned as blasphemy (Num 15:30a54); the rule has to be applied for foreigners and citizens (‫ )כגר כאזרח‬and thereby is a parallel to Lev 24:10–16 (see below). The aspect that the formula ‫ ביד רמה‬is mirroring a gesture that is usually used to explain divine acts underlines the blasphemous aspect of the act. Whereas in the traditional cases capital crimes (with deathsanction, ‫ )מות יומת‬such as homicide, the decision has to be made whether there is a case of deliberate act or accident (Exod 21:12–14; Deut 17:10–12; 19:4–13; Num 35:16–34), the author of Num 15 considers the offense against the Sabbath commandment as a contravention against sacral law, as he uses a metaphor with sacral connotations to describe the specific religious or ritual aspect of the case. The unique character of the language is a marker for a very specific approach of sacralization of the law.55 From a synchronic holistic perspective, the statutory violations – be they inadvertent or advertent – focus the question of responsibility from a sacral point of view on the legal hermeneutics. Thus it seems to give an answer to questions about responsibility raised by Num 13–14. Here the main concern is a disobedience caused by disbelieve, and the whole religious community (‫ )כל־העדה‬is involved (Num 13:26; 14:1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 27, 35, 36; cf. Num 15:24, 25, 26!), but also single persons, be they dignitaries (‫נשיא‬, Num 13:2) or just individuals (‫נפשׁ‬, Num 15:27, 28) as Kaleb and Joshua (Num 13:30; 14:30). 53 K. Grünwaldt, Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift, BBB 85, Frankfurt a.M./Hain 1992, 194–195. 54 ‫ גדף‬pi. cf. 2 Kgs 19:6, 22; Isa 37:6, 23; Ezek 20:27. 55 H. Seebass, Numeri, BK 4/2, 134–153, argues that Num 15:32–36 represent an older layer because the case is located in the wilderness, where the Israelites are supposed to be after Num 13–14, and that Num 15:1–31 is part of a final redactional reworking of the book of Numbers as such (p. 148–152). This forces him to assume that the next section, Num 15:37–41, has to be treated as still another “addition”, distinct from both texts. If the notion is correct, that the function of the text is to launch a method of execution in addition to Exod 31:14–15 and to interpret the case in alignment with blasphemy (Lev 24:14, 16, 23) because it is a case of wanton violation of the Sabbath (“provokative Sabbatverletzung”, Seebass, ibd., 156–157), Seebass’ own interpretation includes the theory of Num 15:30, so that v. 32–36 stand in the same complementary position towards Exod–Lev as the whole chapter. His conclusion that v. 1–31 must be derived from a later scribe, is not compulsory.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

225

Num 16–17 – after the failure at Kadesh-barnea – reflects the intentional rebellion of individuals as Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:1b), representatives of the religious community (‫נשיאי עדה‬, Num 16:2), or clerical groups as the Korahites; the story reflects also how guilty individuals are singled out from the religious community that is polluted as a whole (cf. Num 16:20–22, 26–27; 17:3 and Num 17:6–15). 3.2.2. Num 15:32–36: Intentional Violation of the Sabbath In that connection the scribes give a case-story which is very close in style to the story of the blasphemer in Lev 24:10–14, which was inserted into the collection of the Holiness Code at a late stage of the reworking of the Pentateuch.56 These parallels have often been listed, and they show that the scribes of Num 15 also continue their “Fortschreibung” in the style they took over from the collection in Lev 17–26.57 Again we have a case of complementary reading. The style of the story is inspired from Exod 16. The commandment to keep the rest of the Sabbath in combination with the interdiction to do any work at that day is repeated in the Decalogue (Exod 20:8–11), in the Covenant Code (Exod 23:12), at the end of the second revelation on Mount Sinai (Exod 31:12–17) and the sanction of a death penalty is proclaimed for all who offend or violate the law. The offender has to suffer the death penalty ( ‫מהלליה‬ ‫מות יומת‬, v. 14bα.15b) and the expulsion from the religious community ( ‫ונכרתה‬ ‫)הנפשׁ ההוא מקרב עמיה‬.58 Then it is mentioned again among the commandments of the covenant renewal (Exod 34:21). At the beginning of the first convocation after the covenant renewal in Exod 35:2 it is repeated again ( ‫וביום השׁביעי‬ ‫ )יהיה לכם קדשׁ שׁבתון ליהוה‬together with the threat of punishment by a death sanction: “whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.” Exod 35:3 adds a new explanation: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlement on the Sabbath day (‫)ולא־תבערו אשׁ בכל משׁבתיכם ביום השׁבת‬.” After that the Sabbath is mentioned in Lev 16:31; 19:3, 30; 23:3(!), 15, 16, 32, 38; 24:8; 25:2, 4, 6, and 8. In Lev 26:2, 6, 34, 35, and 43 the Sabbath has a prominent role because it proclaims the theory that the national fate of Israel will depend on the observance of the Sabbath (v. 43): “For the land shall be forsaken of them, making up for its Sabbath years by being desolate of them, while they atone for their iniquity…”! The next mentioning of the Sabbath in the Pentateuch we find in Num 15:32 (and then in Num 28:9, 10, in Deut only in the Decalogue, Deut 5:12, 14, 15). Without the references quoted above, there would not be clear evi56 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 98–102; F. Crüsemann, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Gütersloh, 32005, 121–122; C. Nihan, Priestly Torah, 512–520. 57 R. Achenbach, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 171–175. 58 J. Milgrom, Numbers, 408–409.

226

Reinhard Achenbach

dence, whether the act of wood gathering on Sabbath really was a transgression of the law, and if the issue of Num 15:22–31 had not been treated, it would have been even unclear, if the act was an accidental failure. But as the focus is on the question as to how the death penalty should be executed and the answer is given as stoning (so that nobody from the community will be contaminated from the corpse of the offender who has violated the most holy and sacred rule of Israel), it becomes clear, that the passage already builds on the regulations on Sabbath in the books of Exodus and Leviticus together with the treatment of inadvertent and deliberate failure, where the Holiness Code is intertextually connected with, e.g., Exod 31:12–17 and 35:2; cf. Lev 23:3: ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון מקרא־קדשׁ‬ ‫כל־מלאכה לא תעשׂו‬ ‫שׁבת הוא ליהוה בכל מושׁבתיכם׃‬ The complementary reading is completed by the use of the word ‫ מושׁבות‬in Num 15:2, where we find the very unusual formula ‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ מושׁבתיכם‬, clearly connected to the language use in Exod 35:3 (‫)לא־תבערו אשׁ בכל משׁבתיכם‬ and to Lev 23:3. The expression ‫ מושׁבתיכם‬is characteristic of the Holiness Code (cf. Lev 23:3, 14, 17, 21, 31) and the secondary ritual texts (Lev 3:17; 7:26; 13:46; cf. Exod 12:20; 35:3; Num 15:2(!); 35:29; other than these attestations the expression can only be found in Ezek 6:6, 14, see also s.v. ‫)מושׁב‬. The theory of texts concerning the Sabbath and the sacred rituals is that they should be observed in “all your settlements”. Lev 23 contains the rules on all ‫ מועדי יהוה‬where there is a proclaimed a sacred occasion, ‫( מקרא קדשׁ‬v. 2), foremost, the Sabbath (23:3, see also v. 21, 31), then Pæsaḥ and Mazzot (23:4–8). For the other festivals Lev 23:10b uses the historical introduction formula ‫תבאו אל־הארץ אשׁר אני נתן לכם‬. The regulation about the presentation of the firstlings says that it will not be allowed to eat any bread or parched grain or fresh ears before the firstlings have been presented to YHWH from all the settlements (Lev 23:14). For Shavu‘ot the Israelites shall bring bread as elevation offering from all settlements (Lev 23:17). The introductory formula in Num 15:2 combines the introductory formula of Lev 23:10 and the expression ‫ מושׁבתיכם‬from Lev 23:3, 14, 17, 21, 31.59

59 A huge cluster of similarities has been observed between Lev 23:9–22 and Num 15; cf. R. E. Gane, Loyalty, 258–259! As differences he names among others (p. 259) “Only Numbers focuses on cases of sin that require sacrificial expiation or are too serious for it. […] Only Numbers describes a case of Sabbath violation. […] Resident aliens … in Numbers are accountable to the law along with Israelite citizens.” Num 15 reflects the problem of “disloyalty and rebellion by the larger Israelite community, including aliens, in chapters 11–14.” (p. 260).

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

Lev 23:9–10 9 10

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר׃‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ‫כי־תבאו אל־הארץ‬ ...‫אשׁר אני נתן לכם‬

227

Num 15:1–2 1 2

‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר׃‬ ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל ואמרת אלהם‬ ‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ מושׁבתיכם‬ ‫אשׁר אני נתן לכם׃‬

The texts make a distinction between the observance of the Sabbath and of the festivals because the Sabbath can be observed in the desert as well as in the land. But whereas the commandments on additional minḥāh with the meat offerings can only be observed in the Promised Land where the products necessary for that can be found, in the wilderness Israel collects and eats manna where the Sabbath is the only commandment that can be followed completely (cf. Exod 16)! This is the reason why suddenly the location of the desert is mentioned in Num 15:32. The Sabbath is the basis of the whole of the sacral regulations in the Torah and the Sabbath commandment is valid everywhere at every time (Gen 2:2–3). J. Milgrom60 has argued that Exod 31:13–17 is younger than Num 15:32– 36 because in Exod 31 death sanction and karet-sanction are combined,61 whereas in Num 15 only the death sanction is mentioned. However, as Milgrom himself observes, the violation of the Sabbath commandment stands parallel with 15:30–31, saying that “brazen violations of God’s commandments are punished by karet.”62 If 15:32–36 is interpreted as a complementary case example in connection to 15:30–31, both can be understood as continuations of the sacral law on Sabbath and on karet-sanction that are dispersed over the whole corpus of priestly sacral law, especially in the Holiness Code (cf. Exod 12:15, 19; Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 6, 18; 22:3, 29; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:20). The discussion of the whole chapter concerning inadvertent and intentional violations of the Torah implies that in case of inadvertent violation of the Sabbath there was not a death sanction.63

60

J. Milgrom, Numbers, 408–410. The karet-sanction implies exclusion from the religious and ethnic community; the text shows that this can be combined with a death sanction. Otherwise it would just mean social and religious “death” in a very existential symbolic ritual, but it could just mean a Cainitic form of life, an expulsion, cf. C.T. Hobson, Punitive Expulsion in the Ancient Near East, ZAR 17, 2011, 15–32. 62 J. Milgrom, Numbers, 410. 63 CD XII:3–6: ‫ וכל אשׁר יתעה‬... 3 ‫ לחלל את השׁבת ואת המועדור לא יומת כי על בני האדם‬4 ‫ משׁמרו ואם ירפא ממנה ושׁמרוהו עד שׁבע שׁנים ואחר‬5 ‫ יבוא אל הקהל‬6 61

228

Reinhard Achenbach

3.3. Reminders of Obedience: The Symbolic Marking of Israelite Clothes in Num 15:37–41 37 38 39 40 41

YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels (‫ )ציצת‬for themselves for the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put upon the tassel of each corner a violet thread. And it shall be to you a tassel to look upon and remember all the commandments of YHWH (‫)כל־מצות יהוה‬, to do them, and not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to go after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your god. I am YHWH your God.”

After the Sabbath has been reflected as the main principle of all observance for the Israelites, be it within or outside the Promised Land, and that advertency is demanded at any time and at any place, the issue of remembering the obligations has become essential for the Israelite existence as a whole. This is the reason why the Torah of Num 15:37–41 finishes the commandments for laymen from the ’ōhæl-mô‘ēd in the wilderness: the sacralization of everyday life finds a significant expression in the specific “Israelite” clothes.64 The ṣîṣît have the function of reminding the Israelites of the commandments and of keeping up a permanent awareness in order to prevent all the cases reflected in Num 15:22–36, cf. v. 22: ‫!וכי תשׂגו ולא תעשׂו את כל־המצות האלה אשׁר־דבר יהוה‬65 The additional torot in Num 18 and 19 are directed to Aaron, i.e., the priests; the other torot are directed immediately to the next generation (Num 27–36). The scribe explains Deut 22:12 (“Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.”), connecting this tradition to the commandments to remember the law. At the same time the garment is a metaphor for the Jewish identity, as we see in Zech 8:23: In those days 10 men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you!’

The rationale for this symbolic marking is inspired by the leading motif and catchword of Num 13–14, the story of the scouts. Their order is to “scout” – hebr. ‫ – תור‬the land (Num 13:2, 16, 17, 21, 25) and to give a report about it in accordance with the will and commandment of YHWH. Instead the scouts 64 Whoever has seen the reliefs of the Achaemenid palaces at Pasargadae and Persepolis showing the specific ethnic identities conceptualized in the way they wore their dresses will understand why, for the Jewish religious community in the Second Temple period, it became essential to differentiate itself by certain clothes and other cultural markers, as e.g., dietary laws (cf. Lev 11). 65 Thus the “small unit” has an immensely important and clear connection with its context (vs. H. Seebass, Numeri, BK 4/2, 158, who argues that “diese kleine Einheit keine überzeugende Beziehung zum Kontext [hat].”)!

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

229

(‫ )תרים‬give a false picture of what they have seen (14:6, 7, 34, 36) according to their own mind. This leads Israel not to follow the guidance and commandment of YHWH.66 The ṣîṣît has the function “to remind the Israelites of the commandments of YHWH and to observe them, so that you do not ‘scout’ following your heart and your eyes in your lustful urge” ( ‫ולא־תתרו אחרי לבבכם‬ ‫)ואחרי עיניכם אשׁר־אתם זנים אחריהם‬, Num 15:39b. The language comes close to the late wisdom language of Eccl 7:25 ( ‫סבותי אני ולבי לדעת ולתור ובקשׁ חכמה‬ ‫)וחשׁבון‬.67 The unusual combination with the polemic formula ‫ אחרי לבבכם‬alludes intentionally to the catchword ‫ תור‬on the one hand and to formulas such as 1 Kgs 14:8: ‫ולא־היית כעבדי דוד אשׁר שׁמר מצותי ואשׁר־הלך אחרי בכל־לבבו לעשׂות רק הישׁר בעיני׃‬ Whereas Kaleb is “completely following” God (‫וימלא אחרי‬, Num 14:24; cf. Deut 1:36), the Israelites have “turned from following YHWH” ( ‫שׁבתם מאחרי‬ ‫יהוה‬, Num 14:43)! To turn away from God is connected with the motif of seduction and idolatry (cf. Deut 7:4; 13:3, 5, 7; 1 Kgs 11:2, 4–6) and described as an act of “whoredom” (‫זנה תזנה הארץ מאחרי יהוה‬, Hos 1:2; 2:7, 15). To follow one’s own mind and view is seen in contrast to an attitude that totally follows the commandments of God (cf. also 1 Sam 16:7b). Num 15:37–41 thus represents a realistic interpretation of the symbolism of Deut 6:8–9 and 11:18–1968. The text ends with allusions to the first words of the Sinaitic revelation, i.e., to the Decalogue, and the last words, i.e., the end of the Holiness Code! Num 15:41 41

‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים‬

Exod 20:2 + Lev 26:44–45 20:2 26:44 26:45

‫להיות לכם לאלהים‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם׃‬

‫אנכי יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים‬ ‫אני יהוה אלהיהם׃‬ ‫וזכרתי להם ברית ראשׁנים‬ ‫אשׁר הוצאתי־אתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫לעיני הגוים‬ ‫להית להם לאלהים‬ ‫אני יהוה׃‬

So the final sentence provides a signal with respect to the texts named before, that the author understands his additions as a completion of the revelation that had been previously received. His way of complementary reading leads to complementary teaching. His reflections are inspired by the successively 66 Cf. Deut 1:33: it was YHWH “who goes before you on your journeys – to scout (‫)לתור‬ the place where you encamp”. YHWH as subject of the verb ‫ תור‬see also Ezek 20:6! 67 Cf. also Eccl 1:13; 2:3. 68 For further evidence on the custom and its historical development, cf J. Milgrom, Excursus 38: The Tassels “Tsitsit”, Numbers, 410–414!

230

Reinhard Achenbach

grown narratives, a theology combining traditions from P (the Priestly Code in its basic form, that was incorporated into the Hexateuch), the Deuteronomists, the Holiness Code, and priestly ritual commandments in Lev 1–7* – and thus leads to a further development of the Torah, led by the intention to provide a pervasion of everyday life by ritual obligations and permanent awareness of holiness of Israel. The intention of those who inserted the text of the Holiness Code into the Pentateuch is continually taken up and results in a concept of sacralization of everyday life in the Israelite religious community of the Second Temple period. Bibliography Abou-Assaf, Ali/Bordreuil, Pierre/Millard, Alan Ralph: La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne, Etudes Assyriologiques 7, Paris: Recherches sur les civilisations 1982. Achenbach, Reinhard: gêr – nåkhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 29–52. –: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 145–176. –: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Albertz, Rainer: From Aliens to Proselytes: Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 53–70. Berner, Christoph: Vom Aufstand Datans und Abirams zum Aufbegehren der 250 Männer. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Anfängen der literarischen Genese von Num 16–17, BN NF 37 (2011), 9–34. Börner-Klein, Dagmar: Der Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri. Teil I: Übersetzung, Teil II: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte, Rabbinische Texte 2. Reihe: Tannaitische Midraschim III, Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln: Kohlhammer 1997. Cocco, Franceso: Sulla Cattedra di Mosè: La legitimazione del potere nell’ Israele postesilico (Nm 11; 16), Bologna: EDB 2007. Crüsemann, Frank: Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Gütersloh: Gütersloher 32005. Dohmen, Christoph: Die Statue von Tell Fecherije und die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Ein Beitrag zur Bilderterminologie, BN 22 (1983), 91–106. Douglas, Mary: In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, Oxford – New York: JSOT Press 1993 (repr. 2004). Fishbane, Michael: Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon 1988 (repr. 2004). Gane, Roy E: Loyalty and Scope of Expiation, ZAR 16 (2010), 248–262. Gesenius, Wilhelm: Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 18. Aufl., Vol. 1, Berlin et al.: Springer 1987.

Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Num 15

231

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang: Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 3: Epen. West-östlicher Divan. Theatergedichte, Zürich: Artemis 1977. Grünwaldt, Klaus: Exil und Identität. Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift, BBB 85, Frankfurt a.M.: Hain 1992. Haarmann, Volker: JHWH-Verehrer der Völker. Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, AThANT 91, Zürich: TVZ 2008. –: “Their Burnt Offerings and their Sacrifices will be Accepted on my Altar” (Isa 56:7): Gentile Yhwh-Worshipers and their Participation in the Cult of Israel, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 157–172. Hartenstein, Friedhelm: Das Angesicht JHWHs. Studien zu seinem höfischen und kultischen Bedeutungshintergrund in den Psalmen und in Exodus 32–34, FAT 55, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. Hobson, C. Thomas: Punitive Expulsion in the Ancient Near East, ZAR 17 (2011), 15–32. Hoftijzer, Jacob: Das sogenannte Feueropfer, in: Hebräische Wortforschung, FS W. Baumgartner, VTSup 16, Leiden: Brill 1967, 113–134. Houtman, Cornelis: Exodus. Volume 3: Chapters 20 – 40, HCOT, Leuven: Peeters 2000. Kellermann, Diether: Bemerkungen zum Sündopfergesetz in Num. 15,22ff., in: Wort und Geschichte. FS Karl Elliger, ed. by Hartmut Gese/Hans P. Rüger, AOAT 18, Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker 1973, 107–113. Kessler, Rainer: Die Theologie der Gabe bei Maleachi, in: idem, Gotteserdung. Beiträge zur Hermeneutik und Exegese der Hebräischen Bibel, BWANT 170, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 2006, 153–163. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis MN: Fortress 1995. Labuschagne, Casper J.: The Meaning of beyād rāmā in the Old Testament, in: Von Kanaan bis Kerala. FS J.P.M.v.d.Ploeg, ed. by Wilhelmus C. Delsman, AOAT 211, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker 1982, 143–148. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 1–20, AB 4/1, New York: Doubleday 1993. Levinson, Bernard M.: Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press 1997. –: “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation, FAT 54, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. Milgrom, Jacob: Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, New York a.o.: Doubleday 2000. –: Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB, New York a.o. Doubleday 2001. –: Numbers ‫במדבר‬, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia – New York: Jewish Publication Society 1990 (5750). Naumann, Thomas: The Common Basis of the Covenant and the Distinction between Isaac and Ishmael in Gen 17: The Case of Ishmael and the Non-Israelite Descendants of Abraham in the Priestly Code, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 89–110. Nihan, Christophe: Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period. Negotiating Identity in an International Context, ed. by Oded Lipschits et al., Winona Lake Ind.: Eisenbrauns 2011, 67–104. –: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007.

232

Reinhard Achenbach

–: Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Number 28–29, and the Formation of “Priestly” Literature, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 177–232. –: The Holiness-Code between P and D, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach/Eckart Otto, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 81–122. –: Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 111–134. Noth, Martin: Das 2. Buch Mose. Exodus, ATD 5, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 6 1978. Otto, Eckart: Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2007. –: Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by Heinz-Josef Fabry/Hans-Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 125–196. –: Körperverletzungen in den Keilschriftrechten und im Alten Testament. Studien zum Rechtstransfer im Alten Orient, AOAT 226, Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker 1991. –: Rechtshermeneutik im Pentateuch, in: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch, ed. by Eckart Otto, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 490–514. –: Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel. Eine Rechtsgeschichte des „Bundesbuches“ Exod XX 22 – XXIII 13, Studia Biblica 3, Leiden – New York: Brill 1988. Paganini, Simone: Deuteronomio. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento, I Libri Biblici – Primo Testamento 5, Milano: Paoline 2011. Porten, Bezalel/Yardeni, Ada: Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt 1: Letters, The Hebrew University Department of the History of the Jewish People, Winona Lake, IND.: Eisenbrauns 1986. Raschi: ‫ – רש״י על התורה‬Raschis Pentateuchkommentar, ed. by Rb. Selig Bamberger, Basel: Goldschmidt 42002. Rendtorff, Rolf: Leviticus, BK.AT 3/1ff. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1985ff. Schenker, Adrian: Der Unterschied zwischen Sündopfer ‫ חטאת‬und Schuldopfer ‫ אשׁם‬im Licht von Lev 5,17–19 und 5,1–6, in: idem, Recht und Kult im Alten Testament, OBO 172, Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000, 104-112. Schorn, Ulrike: Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num 16f*/Deut 11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, FS John van Seters, ed. by Steven L. McKenzie/Thomas Römer, BZAW 294, Berlin: de Gruyter 2000, 251–268. Schwartz, Baruch J: Leviticus. Introduction and Annotations, in: The Jewish Study Bible, ed. by Adele Berlin et al., Oxford – New York: Jewish Publication Society 2004, 203–280. Seebass, Horst: Numeri. 2. Teilband Numeri 10,11 – 22,1, BK 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. Staubli, Thomas: Die Bücher Leviticus Numeri, NSKAT 3, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 1996. Toeg, Arie: Num 15:22–31. Midrash Halacha, Tarbiz 43 (1973/74), 1–20. Vaulx, Jules de: Les Nombres, SB, Paris: Gabalda 1972. Wöhrle, Jakob: The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach et al., BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 71–88. Zakovitch, Yair: Introduction to Inner Biblical Interpretation, Even Yehuda, Kadima, Reches, 1993.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17 Joel S. Baden The idea of stratification in the Pentateuch has come to be considered an essential element of non-Documentary Hypothesis theories regarding the composition of the canonical text. After all, stratification seems to imply the very opposite of compilation: not independent pieces that have been combined at one go, but rather layers – layers of composition, layers of redaction, layers of theological reworking. In this essay, I would like to address the question of stratification and secondary additions in a single chapter, Numbers 17, with the aim of addressing the issue of how stratification in and of itself contributes to our understanding of the growth of the Pentateuch.

1. History of Research From a very early time in pentateuchal scholarship, it has been argued, or taken for granted, that Numbers 17 is not a unified piece. The foundational claim in this regard was that of Abraham Kuenen, in his highly influential article on Numbers 16 and 17.1 Kuenen divided Numbers 17 into two strata: the earlier stratum of 17:6–26, and the later stratum of 17:1–5. This division was followed by many of the classical documentary scholars: Julius Wellhausen, H. Holzinger, Bruno Baentsch, J. Estlin Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, W. E. Addis, and George B. Gray, many of whom included 17:27–28 in the earlier stratum as well.2 The rationales offered for this division are diverse. First, it is 1

Abraham Kuenen, “Bijdragen tot de critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua. IV. De opstand van Korach, Dathan en Abiram,” Theologische Tijdschrift 12 (1878): 139–62. 2 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1885), 179–180; W. E. Addis, The Documents of the Hexateuch (2 vols.; London: David Nutt, 1892), 2:410–412; J. Estlin Carpenter and G. HarfordBattersby, The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version (2 vols.; London: Longmans,

234

Joel S. Baden

noted that while 17:6–26 seems to reflect a rebellion of the laity against the cultic prerogatives of the Levites – insofar as it is the people as a whole who complain to Moses and Aaron in 17:6, and who are threatened with the destruction by plague in 17:11–15, and insofar as the test with the tribal staffs speaks to the prioritization of the tribe of Levi as a whole over the other eleven tribes – while these verses reflect a revolt against the Levites, 17:1–5 reflect an argument for the priority of the Aaronids over against the other Levite families, as 17:5 makes clear: “No one not of Aaron’s offspring should presume to offer incense before Yahweh.” Second, 17:1–5 seems to be an etiology for the copper plating on the altar, and as such constitutes a later development from the original priestly narrative in these chapters. Third, it is noted that in 17:1–5 the main actor is not Aaron, as in the remainder of the chapter, but rather his son Eleazar – who, it is argued, has a more prominent role in later priestly materials than in earlier strata of P. In more recent treatments, such as those of George W. Coats, Volkmar Fritz, and Josef Scharbert, yet another stratification has been suggested.3 No longer is 17:6–26 taken as a unified whole; rather, it is divided into 17:6–15 and 17:16–26. The rationale for this stratification is relatively clear: in 17:6–15 we have the ostensibly self-contained narrative of the people’s complaint and the subsequent plague, checked by Aaron’s offering of incense as expiation for the people, while in 17:16–26 we have another ostensibly self-contained narrative, of the test of the tribal staffs. Each has a distinct beginning and ending: 17:6 begins with “The next day the whole Israelite community railed against Moses and Aaron,” and 17:15 concludes with “Aaron then returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting, since the plague was checked”; 17:16 begins anew with “Yahweh spoke to Moses,” and 17:26 ends with the standard concluding phrase “This Moses did; just as Yahweh had commanded him, so he did.” Although, or perhaps precisely because, both episodes seem to react to the same events in Numbers 16, they appear to constitute something of a doublet. Each individually presents a conclusion to the rebellion of the previous chapter, at the end of which the authorization of levitical cultic leadership is Green & Co., 1900), 2:215–216; H. Holzinger, Numeri (KHC 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1903), 66–67; Bruno Baentsch, Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT I/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 549–553; George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 208–218. The same analysis was offered by Wilhelm Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua (BZAW 68; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1938), 82. 3 George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 181–183; Volkmar Fritz, Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten (Marburg: N. G. Elwart, 1970), 26; Josef Scharbert, Numeri (NEchtB 27; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), 70. A similar, though somewhat more complicated, analysis is offered by Ludwig Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift (BZAW 214; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 146–157.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 235

affirmed: in the first episode by Aaron being the one who, through the cultic act of offering incense, checks the plague; in the second episode by the levitical staff alone sprouting blossoms and almonds. As it is unlikely, or so it is claimed, that an original priestly narrative would have contained two such conclusions, one must be an addition to the other. How these passages are chronologically prioritized is unclear: while Coats considers 17:16–26 to continue the original priestly stratum of Numbers 16, with 17:6–15 belonging to a secondary stratum, Ludwig Schmidt takes 17:6–13 as original, and 17:16–26 as later; both Fritz and Scharbert decline to put the strata of Numbers 17 in any clear chronological order. Common to all the aforementioned treatments of Numbers 17 is the belief that the strata of Numbers 17 are in fact strata of P – they are, in other words, developments within the priestly writings, extensions of the posited priestly strata identified in Numbers 16, and unconnected with any non-priestly material in Numbers 16. This belief accords well with the classical documentary view that the priestly writings constituted an independent document, rather than a layer of redaction to the non-priestly material. Yet even among some classical documentary scholars, we find an alternative view: that the later strata of Numbers 17 are in fact additions not to P alone, but to the combined priestly and non-priestly material in Numbers 16–17.4 Thus Kuenen – not in his article, but in his book on the composition of the Hexateuch – attributed 17:6–26 to a stratum of P, but 17:1–5 to the redactor.5 So too August Dillmann and Benjamin W. Bacon.6 For these scholars, the etiology of the plated altar in 17:1–5 is considered so late that it might as well be the work of the same redactor who conjoined the Korah and Dathan-Abiram stories in 16:24 and 27. Alternatively, both Rudolf Smend and Otto Eissfeldt considered both 17:1–5 and 17:16–26 to be secondary additions to the combined text: 17:1–5 because the etiology is late – post-redactional, in fact – and 17:16–26 because, following Hugo Gressmann, it is seen as an independent tradition, another etiology of a bit of presumed cultic realia, that is, the presence in the Temple of the levitical staff.7 4

Martin Noth, in his Numbers (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 122–131, suggests that either analysis is possible. 5 Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. Philip H. Wicksteed; London: MacMillan & Co., 1886), 334. 6 August Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (2nd ed.; Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886), 95–99; Benjamin W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford: Student Publishing Company, 1894), 192–194, 200–202. More recently see Horst Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2 (BKAT IV/2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 172–189. From a slightly different perspective, but with the same view of the secondary nature of 17:1–5, see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 79. 7 Rudolf Smend, Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht (Berlin: Reimer, 1912), 200–204; Otto Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1922), 175–176

236

Joel S. Baden

It is in the last few decades, however, that the view has come to the fore that the strata of Numbers 17 are, in part or in whole, redactional supplements to an already combined priestly and non-priestly text. The precise division of original P material and supplementary redactional or post-redactional material in Numbers 17 is not settled among those who take this view, however. For A. H. J. Gunneweg and Erik Aurelius, 17:6–15 are the continuation of the original and independent priestly strand from Numbers 16, which spoke only of the rebellion of the 250 men against the tribe of Levi, while 17:1–5 are part of the redactional work of the author of the Korah narrative, which both introduced the Korahite rebellion against the priority of the Aaronids and combined the previously independent narratives of the 250 men and Dathan and Abiram.8 Reinhard Achenbach assigns 17:11–15 to the Pentateuchal Redaction layer, that is, to the narrative of the 250 men, while 17:1–10 and 16–28 belong to the Theological Reworking layer, that is, to the Korah redactional strand.9 For Erhard Blum, 17:6–28 belong to the KP redactional layer, which also comprises all of Numbers 16, while 17:1–5 are a younger supplement thereto.10 Rainer Albertz sees KP as comprising only 17:6–15 and 27–28, while 17:1–5 and 16–26 are further priestly supplements.11 Ferdinand Ahuis uniquely sees 17:7–13 as original priestly material, with 17:6 and 14–15 belong to a deuteronomistic redaction of the originally distinct priestly and non-priestly narratives, and 17:1–5 and 16–28 as post-Dtr additions.12 J. de Vaulx considers 17:16–26 to be a piece originally connected with the non-priestly Dathan and Abiram narrative, though subsequently reworked by RP, while 17:6–15 are an addition inserted after the last redactional insertion in Numbers 16, that is, according to de Vaulx, 16:19–22, and 17:1–5 are even more recent than that.13 Thus for de Vaulx every part of Numbers 17 is later than the entirety of the canonical Numbers 16; so and 277. See Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen (FRLANT 1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 275–283, who attributes all of 17:6– 28 to an independent tradition of Aaron’s staff. 8 Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 182–184; Erik Aurelius, Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament (CBOT 27; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell International, 1988), 193. 9 Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 63–82. 10 Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 267–270. 11 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; trans. John Bowden; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 2:633 n. 143. 12 Ferdinand Ahuis, Autorität im Umbruch: Ein formgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literarischen Schichtung und der zeitgeschichtlichen Bezüge von Num 16 und 17 (Calwer Theologische Monographien 13; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1983), 72. 13 J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1972), 197–204.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 237

too Reinhard G. Kratz, who simply ascribes the various pieces of Numbers 17 to “further additions” to the canonical text of Numbers 16.14 Despite the disparities in analysis among these scholars, they have in common the claim that some or all of the material in Numbers 17 was written to supplement, and therefore written with full cognition of, both the priestly and non-priestly material in Numbers 16. Yet we must ask: what evidence is there that any part of Numbers 17 knows anything at all about the non-priestly narrative of Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16?

2. Biblical texts dependent on the combined priestly and non-priestly narratives of Numbers 16 We may begin to address this question by recognizing that we are fortunate enough to have two biblical texts that are clearly dependent on the combined priestly and non-priestly narratives of Numbers 16. First, we have the reference to this chapter in Ps 106:16–18: “They were jealous of Moses in the camp/ of Aaron the holy one of Yahweh; the earth opened and swallowed up Dathan/ and covered the congregation of Abiram; fire broke out among their congregation/ a flame consumed the wicked.” In this passage the two stories, of Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses and Korah’s rebellion against Aaron, are clearly combined. In v. 16 we have the reference to the rebellion against Moses in the first half of the verse, and against Aaron in the second half. In v. 17 we have the earth opening up and swallowing Dathan and Abiram, while in v. 18 we have the fire consuming the rebels. Not only the content, but also the language of the two stories is intermingled: ‫ קדוש‬in v. 16 from the Korah story; ‫ תפתח־ארץ ותבלע‬in v. 17a from the Dathan and Abiram story; ‫ עדה‬in vv. 17b and 18a from the Korah story; ‫ ותכס‬in v. 17b from the Dathan and Abiram story; ‫אש‬ in v. 18a from the Korah story; ‫ רשעים‬in v. 18b from the Korah story. None of this is surprising, of course: it has long been known that Psalms 105 and 106 base their surveys of Israel’s history on the canonical Pentateuch. The second text that demonstrates a clear knowledge of the combined account of Numbers 16 is Num 26:9–11, which, in the midst of the priestly census list, upon reaching the Reubenite clan, tells us: The descendants of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the same Dathan and Abiram, ‫קריאי העדה‬, who rebelled against Moses and Aaron in the congregation of Korah, when they rebelled against Yahweh, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with Korah, when that congregation died, when the fire consumed the 250 men, and they became an example – but the sons of Korah did not die. (Num 26:9–11)

14 Reinhard G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. John Bowden; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 107.

238

Joel S. Baden

Again, just as in Psalm 106, we have here a combination of the two narratives, as clear as can be: Dathan and Abiram are described as ‫קריאי העדה‬, which is in fact the description of the 250 men from the Korah story; the rebellion is described as being against both Moses and Aaron; Dathan and Abiram are described as being “in the congregation of Korah”; we have the combination of both the earth swallowing Dathan and Abiram – and, it should be noted, Korah too – and the fire consuming the 250 men. Again, the assimilation of the content of the two stories is matched by the assimilation of their respective linguistic markers: from the Korah story we have ‫קריאי העדה‬, ‫עדה‬, ‫ ;באכל אש‬from the Dathan and Abiram story we have ‫ – ותפתח הארץ את־פיה ותבלע אתם‬a direct quote from Num 16:32. As many have observed, this passage in fact tries to solve an interpretive problem posed by the canonical account of Numbers 16, namely, where, when, and with whom does Korah actually die?15 In the original priestly stratum, this is clear: Korah dies along with his 250 followers in 16:35, when the fire goes forth and consumes them. (There is no need to worry, as some have, about whether Korah was actually consumed, even though he is not mentioned by name; the description of the consumed as “the 250 men offering incense” clearly includes Korah in their company.) In the canonical text, however, Korah’s name has been inserted in 16:32, when “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah’s people, and their possessions,” thus making it appear as if Korah died with Dathan and Abiram. In the original non-priestly text of 16:32, of course, Korah was nowhere mentioned, and in place of ‫ ואת כל־האדם אשר לקרח‬it would have read ‫ואת כל־האדם אשר להם‬.16 The author of Num 26:9–11, therefore, follows the canonical text – and the canonical text only – by having Korah die along with Dathan and Abiram when the earth swallows them, and has the 250 men die thereafter, in the fire. Numbers 26:9–11 is, as virtually everyone agrees, an insertion into the text, and,

15 This interpretive problem is highlighted by ibn Ezra (on 16:35), who presents the multiple possibilities: that Korah was swallowed by the earth with Dathan and Abiram, that Korah was burned with those offering incense, and the conflationary reading of the Talmud (b. Sanh. 110a), that Korah was both swallowed and burned (the Talmud here also preserves an argument that Korah was neither swallowed nor burned). Ibn Ezra then goes on to decide that Korah was, in fact, burned along with those offering the incense before the Tent of Meeting. 16 In 16:30 Moses predicts that the earth will swallow “them and all that belongs to them” (‫)ואת כל אשר להם אתם‬. The fulfillment of this prediction in 16:32 simply expands the word “all” to make explicit its constituent elements: households, people, and possessions. As the phrase ‫ אשר להם‬is present in an uncomplicated manner in 16:30, it seems plausible that it should have been part of the original E narrative in 16:32 as well. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: JPS, 1990), 416; Knohl, Sanctuary, 78–79.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 239

given its canonical orientation regarding Numbers 16, is taken by most everybody to be a late, post-redactional piece – or, for those who see stratification even in these three brief verses, a series of late, post-redactional pieces.17 The purpose of describing in such detail these two passages is to provide a template: we have good biblical evidence, agreed on by virtually everyone, of what a text should look like if it is reading and reacting to the combined priestly and non-priestly stories in Numbers 16. Such a text, as the two examples show, should contain references to both the Dathan and Abiram and the Korah narratives, in such a fashion that they appear to be a single event; it should contain language from both narratives, again, intermingled; and, at least as we have in the case of Numbers 26, it might attempt to solve an exegetical issue arising from the narrative problems created by the combination of these two distinct stories.

3. Did Numbers 17 know the non-priestly narrative of Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16? Now back to our original question: what evidence is there that any part of Numbers 17 knows anything at all about the non-priestly narrative of Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16? Or, in light of what we have just seen, does Numbers 17 have any of the features we should expect from a passage written in light of the canonical text of Numbers 16? 3.1. Num 17:6-15 As we have already had occasion to note, there have been a number of different arguments regarding which sections of Numbers 17 were in fact written in light of the combined priestly and non-priestly text of Numbers 16. Given the diversity of opinion, we are best served to examine each section independently, leaving the most commonly agreed on late text, 17:1–5, for the end. We can begin, therefore, with 17:6–15, the episode of the plague. It is immediately apparent that there is nothing in this section that relates to the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram; rather, every aspect follows on the priestly narrative of Numbers 16 alone. The complaint of the congregation against Moses and Aaron – “You have brought death upon Yahweh’s people” – is relevant only to the priestly narrative, in which Moses has driven Korah and his band to offer incense in a 17

Cf., e.g., Kuenen, Hexateuch, 100; Dillmann, Numeri, 173; Addis, Documents, 2:424; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, 231; Holzinger, Numeri, 132; Baentsch, Exodus, 630; Gray, Numbers, 389–390; Noth, Numbers, 205–206; Arnold B. Ehrlich, Miqra ki-peshuto (3 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1969), 1:295; Fritz, Israel, 87; Blum, Studien, 132–133 n. 128; Scharbert, Numeri, 106–107; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 317; Achenbach, Vollendung, 453.

240

Joel S. Baden

way that would, as the community knew from the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, result in death. From the perspective of the people, the test that led to the deaths of Korah and his band was of Moses’s own devising, as the people were not privy to Yahweh’s instructions to Moses. With P as the background, then, the people’s complaint is sensible. The deaths of Dathan and Abiram, however, are explicitly from Yahweh; in fact the very nature and purpose of their deaths should have forestalled the complaint of 17:6. By the unheard-of opening of the earth, Moses demonstrated once and for all that Yahweh was in fact the one making the decisions: the deaths of Dathan and Abiram proved precisely that Moses did not bring death on the people. After that display, with its explicit message, the people could scarcely turn around and blame Moses and Aaron. The divine response to the people also follows only on the priestly narrative, as the apotropaic use of the incense to halt the plague reflects the very means by which Korah and his followers died, and not at all the opening of the earth in the non-priestly narrative. And, of course, the reference in 17:14 to “those who died on account of Korah” makes no mention of Dathan and Abiram, despite the clear combination of those characters and their rebellions in the previous chapter. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that 17:6–15 is written in entirely priestly language: ‫עדה‬, ‫אהל מועד‬, ‫הענן‬, ‫כבוד יהוה‬, ‫מחתה‬, ‫אש‬, ‫מזבח‬, ‫קטרת‬, ‫כפר‬, ‫מגפה‬. We may also mention the almost direct quotations in 17:10 from the priestly sections of Numbers 16: “Remove yourselves from this community, that I may annihilate them in an instant” (cf. 16:21) and “They fell on their faces” (cf. 16:22) most prominently. There is not a single verbal element of 17:6–15 that has any resonance with the Dathan and Abiram story. If this passage is a secondary addition, rather than simply the continuation of the priestly narrative, then it has all the signs of being a secondary addition to P alone, rather than to the combined priestly and non-priestly narratives. 3.2. Num 17:16-26 We may turn then to 17:16–26, the test with the staffs. Here too we may observe a complete lack of narrative elements from the Dathan and Abiram story, while every element relates rather to the priestly narrative. The test with the staffs is intended to identify clearly the Levites as the sole group authorized to perform the duties of the cult, and of Aaron as their designated leader, which is the concern only of the priestly narrative.18 There is no mention in 17:16–26 of any 18

Should it be doubted that 17:16–26 is actually about Aaron’s leadership rather than simply that of the Levites, we may note that while every tribe’s staff is inscribed with the name of the ‫ראש בית אבותם‬, the staff of the Levites has Aaron’s name on it (17:18), though Aaron is not, according to the priestly genealogy of Exodus 6, the head of the Levite tribe: he is from the line of Kohath, the second of Levi’s sons; theoretically it is Gershon’s descendants who should be the heads of the levitical families.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 241

challenge to Moses’ prophetic authority, which is the entire point of the Dathan and Abiram story. Indeed, the focus of the episode is explicitly on the challenge that Korah and his band posed not to Moses’s leadership but to Yahweh’s choice of the Levites: as Yahweh says, with notable first-person emphasis, “I will rid myself of the incessant mutterings of the Israelites” (17:20) and “Put Aaron’s staff back before the ‫עדות‬, so that their mutterings against me may cease” (17:25). The test of the staffs is parallel to the test of the firepans – not something mysterious and unheard-of, as in the case of Dathan and Abiram, but something absolutely clear from the beginning: God will designate, by an obvious sign, the person he has chosen. There is no sign whatsoever in this passage that the author knows anything of the content of the Dathan and Abiram story; it is entirely explainable on the grounds of the priestly narrative alone. Furthermore, as is once again obvious, there is not a shred of language from the Dathan and Abiram narrative in these verses, while they are instead permeated with priestly language and concepts: the use of ‫ מטה‬to stand, literally and figuratively, for the individual tribes, ‫נשיאים‬, ‫אהל מועד‬, ‫העדות‬, the notion that the ‫ עדות‬is kept in the same place where Yahweh meets with Moses and Aaron, ‫תלונות‬, ‫לפני יהוה‬, ‫למשמרת‬, ‫לאות‬. If 17:16–26 was written in light of the canonical text of Numbers 16, it shows no signs of having taken into account anything relating to Dathan and Abiram. 3.3. Num 17:1-5 Finally, we may turn to 17:1–5, the passage most commonly considered to be the latest layer of the chapter. If the stories of Korah and Dathan and Abiram had already become one text before this passage was written, then the author has done a remarkable job of ignoring all of the events related to Dathan and Abiram. This passage concentrates on the firepans, which are to be removed from the charred remains of those who perished in the divine fire (17:2) – but what of the firepans of those who, in the canonical text of Numbers 16, perished by being swallowed alive? Particularly Korah himself? Surely his firepan should be treated the same way, unless he took it with him when he went down to Sheol. Moreover, the firepans are described as belonging to “those who have sinned at the cost of their lives” (17:3) – though according to the canonical text of Numbers 16, there were those who sinned at the cost of their lives who never had firepans, namely, Dathan and Abiram and their households. The etiology of 17:1–5, the copper plating on the altar, is to serve as a reminder to the Israelites: “so that no outsider, one not of Aaron’s offspring, should presume to offer incense before Yahweh and suffer the fate of Korah and his band” (17:5). Evidently the people need no reminders not to presume to question Moses’ authority and suffer the fate of Dathan and Abiram. The complete ignorance of the narrative elements of the non-priestly narrative is paralleled in the language used: not a word, phrase, idea, or theme from

242

Joel S. Baden

the Dathan and Abiram episode appears in 17:1–5, while virtually all the language hearkens back to the Korah story (not least of all in the explicit mention of Korah and his ‫ עדה‬in 17:5): ‫המחתות‬, ‫השרפה‬, ‫האש‬, ‫קדש‬, ‫חטאים‬, ‫מזבח‬, ‫הקריב‬, ‫אות‬, ‫זכרון‬, ‫איש זר‬, ‫קטרת‬, ‫לפני יהוה‬, ‫עדה‬, ‫ביד־משה‬. 3.4. Conclusion We know what a text looks like when it takes the canonical, combined version of Numbers 16 as its basis: it combines both the narrative and linguistic elements of the priestly and non-priestly strands and treats them as a single story. None of that is evident in any segment of Numbers 17 – neither those segments considered to be earlier nor those considered to be later. Rather, all of Numbers 17 looks precisely like those texts that clearly know only one of the two narratives: for the non-priestly story, Deuteronomy 11:6 – “what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab sons of Reuben, when the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, along with their households, their tents, and everything in their train, from amidst all Israel” – and for the priestly story, Numbers 27:3 – “He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against Yahweh.” It is sometimes hard, from our perspective as scholars, to remember what it means to have a text with multiple strata. We spend our time pulling the pieces apart, understanding each in its own context: its individual plot, theme, theology, language, and historical setting. Yet once two pieces have been put together, or once an original piece has been overlaid with a secondary layer, there are no longer two strata, two pieces: there is but one, and until the advent of critical biblical scholarship in the Enlightenment, no reader of the biblical text understood a stratified text as stratified. From the very moment that the priestly and non-priestly texts of Numbers 16 were fused into a single story – however that may be imagined to have happened – there were no longer a priestly and a non-priestly text. There was no longer a Korah story and a Dathan and Abiram story: there was only a Korah, Dathan, and Abiram story. No longer a story about rebellion against Moses and a story about rebellion against Aaronid leadership, but a story about rebellion against Moses and Aaron, together. No longer a story about the earth opening and a story about fire consuming, but a story about the earth opening and fire consuming, together. Any authors assumed to have known the combined text of Numbers 16, therefore, cannot be imagined to have reacted to only one of the strata that we, modern biblical critics, identify in the text. It is thus impossible to imagine that an author – much less a series of authors – writing on the basis of the canonical text of Numbers 16 would have systematically ignored the non-priestly story in favor of the priestly; there were no such stories. The only way that the author or authors of Numbers 17 could have

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 243

written the texts they did is if the only story they had before them was the priestly story of Korah’s revolt. Thus we cannot accept the arguments of those scholars who claim that some part of Numbers 17 was written after the combination of the priestly and nonpriestly stories in Numbers 16. There are, however, those, from Bacon to Blum, who see some segments of Numbers 17 as part of the same redactional layer that originally combined the Dathan-Abiram and “250 men” stories, that is, the layer that added the Korahite rebellion against Aaron. For these scholars, the rationale for seeing parts of Numbers 17 as reacting to both the non-priestly and priestly parts of Numbers 16 is that those parts of Numbers 17 are in fact the continuation of this purported redactional layer. Although this essay is about Numbers 17, and I do not wish to digress too much into the previous chapter, it should be noted that the supposed “Korah” layer of Numbers 16 is equally ignorant, in content and language, of the non-priestly Dathan and Abiram story.19 As far as I can tell, the only argument put forward to support the notion that the author of the “Korah” layer in fact knew the non-priestly text at all is that 16:16–17 are a Wiederaufnahme, repeating the original priestly content of vv. 6–7a, that is, the instructions to Korah and his company to bring their firepans to the tabernacle, and serving to envelop the new Korah material in vv. 7b–11 along with the Dathan and Abiram material in vv. 12–15. It must be admitted that this is a relatively weak basis on which to demonstrate the knowledge of the non-priestly narrative on the part of the supposed redactor. On the one hand, given that vv. 7b–11 are taken as part of this redactional layer, there is no reason why the author could not have used the same technique of resumptive repetition in vv. 16–17 to bind those verses to the earlier vv. 6–7; that is, the non-priestly passage in vv. 12–15 is not necessary to explain this ostensible editorial feature: it may well have taken place entirely within the growth of the priestly strata. After all, vv. 16–17, in that they lead directly into the test of the firepans in vv. 18–24, have to come after vv. 12–15 no matter what their redactional history. On the other hand, as Baruch Schwartz demonstrated in the paper he delivered at this conference, vv. 16–17 should not be regarded as a repetition, resumptive or otherwise, of vv. 6–7 at all, thereby vitiating the entire argument. In short, even if one wishes to argue that, the Dathan and Abiram material set aside, there are multiple strata in Numbers 16 and 17, there is no basis whatsoever, on the evidence of the text alone, to think that they are anything other than layers of the priestly writings; they are not additions to the combined priestly and non-priestly narratives.

19 For a fuller argument that the posited redactional layers of Numbers 16 are in fact layers of the priestly material only, see Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 166–168.

244

Joel S. Baden

4. Implications for the nature of the priestly writings In light of the topic of this volume and the conference from which it emerged, it is worth noting that what I have just claimed regarding the strata of Numbers 17 is true everywhere in the book of Numbers: the priestly parts of the book demonstrate no knowledge of, dependence on, or relationship with the nonpriestly parts. Not Pg, Ps, P1, P2, P3, H, or any other sigla we want to attach to any number of priestly strata we want to imagine – neither the earliest nor the latest stratum of P shows any cognizance whatsoever of non-P. And those passages in priestly contexts that do seem to refer to non-priestly material, such as we have already seen in Numbers 26:9–11, are so few and far between, and so patently secondary even to their priestly context, that they are virtually universally acknowledged to be not part of a layer of redaction, but to be stand-alone, practically midrashic insertions. The layers of priestly material, in Numbers 17 and elsewhere in the book, do not therefore serve any redactional function with regard to the non-priestly material; they do not serve to unite, shape, or create the book of Numbers, or the Torah as a whole. They are, rather, additions to and expansions of the priestly materials alone. This recognition has profound implications for the question of the nature of the priestly writings. If the later priestly layers show no knowledge of the non-priestly material, then the earlier priestly material cannot be redactional strata overlaying the non-priestly text. They can only be an independent document. The stratification of the priestly writings, then, is a clear and, to my mind, incontrovertible piece of evidence for the existence of an independent P document. Moreover, it is evidence that this independent document was transmitted over some period of time, supplemented and expanded and altered in various degrees at various stages. And thus whenever one chooses to date the latest of these priestly layers, that date can serve also as an indication of when this priestly document existed independently. If one sees in the last priestly layer a clear setting in the Persian period, on whatever basis one can come to such conclusions, then the priestly document was independent down into the Persian period. Internal stratification requires independent existence, and the nearly universally acknowledged stratification of Numbers 17 only supports this conclusion. In Numbers 16 and 17, then, we have not two stories that have been combined and subsequently overlaid with redactional additions, but, rather, two independent stories – one of which, it may be argued, has a lengthy history of internal development, growing from whatever priestly kernel one identifies in Numbers 16 and eventually encompassing any and all strata of Numbers 17. It was this text, after all of its potential expansions and redactions and supplementations, that was combined with the non-priestly Dathan and Abiram story in

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 245

Numbers 16. The only text that can be assigned to this process of combination – that is, the only text that clearly shows knowledge of and intent to bring together both the priestly and non-priestly material – and therefore the only text that can be dated after both had reached their final stages of composition, are the well-known combinations of the names of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in Numbers 16:24, 27, and 32. Every other bit of text is readily assigned to either P, in its broad sense of encompassing the full development of the priestly writings with all their supplements, or non-P. What we have in Numbers 16 and 17, then, is not supplementation, but compilation: two independent texts brought together by a third hand. In short, what we have is a fine case study supporting the Documentary Hypothesis. Two documents, each with its own compositional history, brought together into a single narrative by a single compiler. In the end, then, we may conclude that the Documentary Hypothesis is not at all undermined by the existence of multiple strata within the independent pentateuchal documents – which, I maintain, is the only type of stratification that can be verifiably identified in the Pentateuch. In fact, as I have tried to show, such stratification can serve to support the documentary theory, as it is among the best evidence we can muster for the very independence of the posited documents. I should also point out that the existence of post-compilation additions to the pentateuchal text, such as we find in Numbers 26:9–11 and in a number of other places, also do not pose any challenge to the Documentary Hypothesis. They provide us with an important control, as I have tried to demonstrate above. To know what a post-compilation passage looks like serves to reveal just how little of the pentateuchal text actually conforms to such a description. Stratification of the priestly writings in the book of Numbers is, I think, incontestable – though, I ought to say, I think it’s highly contestable in the chapters under discussion in this essay. But on the whole, I am convinced that there are multiple priestly strata in the book of Numbers. This stratification is, however, a significant point in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis, not a basis for any objections to it. Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Addis, William E: The Documents of the Hexateuch. 2 vols. London: David Nutt, 1892. Ahuis, Ferdinand: Autorität im Umbruch: Ein formgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literarischen Schichtung und der zeitgeschichtlichen Bezüge von Num 16 und 17. Calwer Theologische Monographien 13. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1983. Albertz, Rainer: A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

246

Joel S. Baden

Aurelius, Erik: Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell International, 1988. Bacon, Benjamin W.: The Triple Tradition of the Exodus. Hartford: Student Publishing Company, 1894. Baentsch, Bruno: Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Carpenter, J. Estlin and G. Harford-Battersby: The Hexateuch According to the Revised Version. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900. Coats, George W.: Rebellion in the Wilderness. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1886. Ehrlich, Arnold B: Miqra ki-peshuto. 3 vols. New York: Ktav, 1969. Eissfeldt, Otto: Hexateuch-Synopse. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1922. Fritz, Volkmar: Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten. Marburg: N. G. Elwart, 1970. Gray, George B.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Gressmann, Hugo: Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J.: Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Holzinger, Heinrich: Numeri. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1903. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Kratz, Reinhard G.: The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Kuenen, Abraham: “Bijdragen tot de critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua. IV. De opstand van Korach, Dathan en Abiram.” Theologische Tijdschrift 12 (1878), 139–162. Kuenen, Abraham: An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. London: MacMillan & Co., 1886. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers. Anchor Bible 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Milgrom, Jacob: The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: JPS, 1990. Noth, Martin: Numbers. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Rudolph, Wilhelm: Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1932. Scharbert, Josef: Numeri. Neue Echter Bibel 27. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992. Schmidt, Ludwig: Studien zur Priesterschrift. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 214. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Seebass, Horst: Numeri, vol. 2. Biblische Kommentar Altes Testament IV/2. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Smend, Rudolf, (1851–1913): Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: Reimer, 1912. Vaulx, Jules de: Les Nombres. Sources bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1972.

Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis 247 Wellhausen, Julius: Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin: Reimer, 1885. Wellhausen, Julius: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer, 3rd ed. 1886.

“Lo we perish”: A Reading of Numbers 17:27–20:29 Adriane Leveen At the end of a series of dramatic and lethal deaths of a large segment of the people Israel that include the families of Dathan and Abiram, 250 followers of Korah, and most dishearteningly, an entire generation liberated from Egypt condemned to die in the wilderness, the children of Israel cry out, stuttering in their despair: “Lo, we perish, we are lost, all of us are lost. All those who come near, come near, to the tabernacle of YHWH will die. Will there be an end to our perishing?” (Num 17:27–28). “Perish” or ‫ גוע‬in the Hebrew is noteworthy because it is a rare word, appearing in the Torah only in Genesis and in Numbers.1 In fact, in Numbers the word appears only in these two verses and in chapter 20. In Num 20:3, the people again cry out, this time asking for death: “If only we perished as our brothers perished before YHWH.”2 These verses, 17:27–28 and 20:3, create a frame that encloses chapters 18–20 and influence the particular perspective I shall take in the present analysis. By highlighting the voice of the people, the frame emphasizes their concerns and anxieties over deaths that might result from the proximity to the tabernacle (c. 17) or that express a more generalized cry of despair over their fate (c. 20). The cries of the people should come as no surprise considering the growing number of deaths that the people have encountered on their journey through the wilderness. In taking the cries of the children of Israel seriously, I consider them as the intended audience of the legislation, ritual and narrative of chapters 18–20, chapters that are strategically placed to forge a nuanced and powerful response to their concerns. 1 In contrast, “lost” or ‫ אבד‬appears more frequently in Torah, especially in the book of Deuteronomy. But in Numbers “lost,” like “perish,” appears infrequently, in only 4 verses. However, nowhere in Numbers does the word create a frame at either end of a sequence of chapters. In Num 16:33 “lost” refers to Dathan and Abiram and their families. Perhaps its use in 17:27 is meant to allude to the prior chapter, suggesting an ongoing trauma imposed on the children of Israel who witnessed those earlier deaths. “Lost” is used twice more in Numbers 21 in a selfcontained early poem of Heshbon that seems to have no meaningful connection to its uses in chapters 16 and 17. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, translations are mine.



“Lo we perish”

249

In this essay I will identify details found in each of the chapters 18–20 that illustrate their differences from one another. These include distinct language; topics that do not appear to cohere; and different genres (priestly legislation, ritual instruction, death reports, and a non-priestly narrative of the journey). For instance, each chapter contains words that appear only in that particular chapter – gift ‫ תרומה‬and tithe ‫ מעשר‬in c. 18, impurity ‫ טמא‬in c. 19, and community ‫עדה‬ in c. 20.3 Each chapter raises a different topic – compensation for Aaron and his sons as well as for the Levites (c. 18), the killing of the red heifer (c. 19), and the deaths of Miriam and Aaron as well as the punishment of Moses (c. 20). The distinctiveness of each of these chapters is a given and will form, each in turn, the content of my close reading. But I will also identify what nonetheless allows, or even demands, that these chapters be read together as a purposefully redacted whole, framed explicitly at either end by the people’s lament in 17:27–28 and 20:3. To read the chapters as a whole, I rely on such evidence as shared language (in contradistinction to the unique language cited above); the role of Aaron in each episode; and most importantly, the theme of death that emerges out of the particular situation faced by the entire people at that moment in the wilderness journey.4 The end of an entire generation and of its leaders has arrived. Death stalks chapters 18–20, each of which contain a response to its presence within the camp and among the entire people Israel. If that was not enough, the people must face an additional fear – the unintended consequences of having God dwell in the tabernacle in their midst, the priestly goal par excellence, which has lead to dangers of contamination, encroachment and death. Encroachment is not only a problem for the Israelites, but for those who have to protect them against such a danger – the Priests and the Levites.5 A final, shared consequence 3 ‫ עדה‬requires a slight clarification. While it appears throughout the book of Numbers, and appears at least 8 times in chapter 20, it is conspicuous for its absence in c. 18. ‫ עדה‬does appear once in19:9 but in construct form. In c. 20 it never appears in that form. While the other cited words do appear elsewhere in Numbers they do not appear in the other two chapters under consideration! ‫ מעשר‬is the one word that only appears in Num 18. 4 As suggested by H. Van Dyke Parunak: “…two contiguous units of text are perceived to belong to a larger whole because they are pervaded by similar vocabulary or other linguistic elements.” H. Van Dyke Parunak: “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” JBL 102/4 (1983), 535–548 [526]. 5 In a subtle, careful analysis of Numbers 16:1–20:13 Thomas W. Mann sets out to do a reading very similar to the present attempt. Of course his selection is wider, beginning with Korah’s struggle not only over power but also over the status and privileges of holiness. In so doing, Mann emphasizes the way in which holiness and death are used to link the chapters thematically. I omit Korah’s rebellion and most of chapter 17. I begin instead with an emphasis on the frame provided by the repetitive use of “perish” as a key device for anchoring the chapters in between. That frame provides a different slant on the material. My reading moves the elite – Korah and the Levites, the sons of Aaron and Moses – into the background, even if only momentarily, in order to foreground the people. In so doing I seek to understand what happens



250

Adriane Leveen

of the inescapable presence of death which links these chapters together, though admittedly in a more subtle way, is the period of great uncertainty and ambiguity thus introduced, a liminal moment shared by the living and the almost dead before the new generation can enter the land. In response to such an extended period of uncertainty and waiting, each of our chapters engages in the creation of borders of one sort or another that impose order and control. In establishing such borders, the biblical writers hope to strengthen the distance between the living and the dead. In sum, paying attention to the frame and weaving it together with the content of the chapters it encloses leads to a richer understanding of the interconnections and strategies of the whole, a whole which has in common the attempt to keep death at bay.6

1. Reading the frame: Numbers 17:27–28 and 20:3 The formulaic address uttered in 17:27–28 differs from the far more common address in Numbers spoken by God to Moses or in rare moments, by God to Aaron. God’s address opens several chapters in Numbers or introduces a new divine instruction within a chapter.7 In the present example, Num 17:27a, the people’s address to Moses rather than that of God is noteworthy, drawing our attention to the novelty: “And the children of Israel said to Moses, saying…” What follows is their carefully structured cry: when one moves from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy in order to read these materials through the lens of the people’s experience. Leaving out Korah foregrounds the terror and despair of the people who observed his rebellion unfold. As a result I focus more on death than holiness and produce a reading that complements, but does not contradict, that of Mann. For details of his argument see Thomas W. Mann, “Holiness and Death in the Redaction of Numbers 16:1–20:13” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, eds. Marks, John, Good, Robert (Guilford, Conneticut: Four Quarters, 1987), 181–190. 6 Other scholars have interpreted the connection between chapters 16 and 17 with chapter 18 in similar fashion. See in particular Rolf P. Knierim and George W. Coats, Numbers (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005) and David L. Stubbs, Numbers (London: SCM Press, 2009). My reading differs from theirs in a more explicit emphasis on how Numbers 18–20 are woven together, a reading that emerges directly out of my earlier work, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). For instance, I will carefully read the different units that make up chapter 18, especially 18:1–7, by paying precise attention to how they are edited together. I also read c. 18 as a fairly direct attempt to put the issues raised by Korah to rest. I will pay attention to the sudden interest in compensation for the priests, the pervasiveness of death throughout the chapter, and the lurking presence of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. I also emphasize the way in which this legislation is meant to endure as an “eternal law.” I will focus not only on the ways in which death haunts the people but also the ways in which priestly strategies to keep death at bay in response to their cries motivate the different types of borders that can be identified in each of the chapters of interest. 7 For the number of times God addresses Moses and Aaron, and under what circumstances, see Appendix B of my work, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers (2008), 185–186.





“Lo we perish”

251

Lo, we perish. We are lost, all of us are lost. All those who come near, come near to the tabernacle of YHWH will die. Will there be an end to our perishing? (Num 17:27–28).

The people’s cries are direct and to the point. The structure is elegant in its simplicity and conciseness. The poem forms an inclusio.8 “Perish” opens and ends the communication. Note how the middle phrases, by means of the repetition of “lost” and “come near” make the argument which expresses both the people’s fear and its cause. Coming near to God’s tabernacle leads to death. Jacob Milgrom argues that this fear is the logical culmination of the deaths of Korah’s followers at the tabernacle during the rebellion of Korah as well as the toll taken by the plague that follows. “The Israelites begin to dread the Tabernacle and will not come near it.”9 Yet if God’s tabernacle remains in their midst, how can they avoid its perils, including the threat of death? Chapters 18–20 can be read as a series of responses to that fundamental problem now identified so urgently by the children of Israel in their address to Moses. The way in which the present verses and each of the chapters under analysis end emphasize the concern with death’s pervasiveness and the effectiveness of that topic in weaving the chapters together. We have seen that c. 17 ends with “to perish” ‫לגוע‬.10 The word for “death” ‫ מות‬is also found in 17:28. The last word of Num 18, in verse 32 is ‫“ תמותו‬you shall die.” Num 19 breaks the pattern, perhaps due to its emphasis on the purities and impurities created by death which are resolved via ritual. In fact, that preoccupation concludes the chapter: “and the one who touches him shall remain impure until evening” (Num 19:22b). But in chapter 20 we return to death’s reappearance in the concluding verse: “And all the community saw that Aaron had perished (‫ )אהרון גוע‬and they cried for Aaron 30 days, all the house of Israel” (Num 20:29). Thus the pattern of endings that refer to death or its consequences in chapters 17–20 are confirmed. Of course, as I pointed out above, “perish” is also significant in Num 20:3 “If only we perished as our brothers perished before YHWH.” When I turn to chapter 20 I will consider 20:3 as the frame for 17:27–28 but rely on the final 8 As pointed out by Stephen K. Sherwood, C.M.F. in his commentary, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 168. 9 On this point, as in other of my comments, I find that Jacob Milgrom has anticipated me. For instance he argues “To allay their fright, they are given the assurance that henceforth priests and Levites alone will bear the responsibility for encroachment.” Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 145. My essay will illustrate how that assurance is given. I find that my interpretations of the broader connections between chapters emphasize different aspects of the narrative than Milgrom but usually complement, or are aided by, his proposals. 10 In a study of biblical endings, Isaac Gottlieb points out that the theme of death often concludes a unit. Isaac Gottlieb, ‘Sof Davar: Biblical Endings,’ Prooftexts 11.3 (1991), 213– 224 [214].



252

Adriane Leveen

use of “perish” ‫ גוע‬in 20:29 as justification for analyzing the entire chapter. Death stalks the people and their leaders, pervades the events unfolding within the camp, and influences the legislation and ritual thus instituted at this particular point on the journey. We are now ready to identify the various biblical strategies that respond to its presence.

2. Numbers 18: Priests and Levites The chapter is divided in the following way: Unit

1–7

Unit X Unit

8–19 20 21–32

Focus on the Priests and the Levites, their separate duties, and repeated warnings about encroachment of the tabernacle. Focus on the Priests (12 verses) God’s description of Aaron as God’s portion and inheritance Focus on the Levites (12 verses)

Note that God’s direct address to Aaron alone occurs in v. 1, v. 8 and v. 20. The three large units share two words: “bringing close” ‫( קרב‬2–4, 7, 9, 15, and 22) and “giving/ allotted” ‫( נתן‬6–7, 8, 11–12, 19, 24, 26, 28, 29). As we shall see, “bringing close” creates dangers for both Levites and Aaron and his sons. “Giving” emphasizes their compensations for those dangers. Units one and two have in common the words “holy” ‫( קדש‬1, 3, 5, 8–10, and 19) and “guard or observe” ‫( שמר‬3–5, 7, 8). Units two and three are linked by the word “gift” ‫ תרומה‬which is found in verses 8, 11, 19 (focus on Aaron and his sons) and verses 24, 26, 27, 28, and 29 (focus on Levites). Units one and three also have “penalty” or “iniquity” ‫( עון‬1 and 23) and “service” ‫( עבדה‬6–7, 23, 31) in common. Unit two uniquely uses “redeem” ‫ פדה‬in various forms while unit three uniquely uses “inheritance” ‫( נחלה‬21, 23, 24, 26) and “tithe” ‫( מעשר‬21, 24, 26, 28).11 In sum, there are words that link all three of the separate units of the chapter together into a larger whole. But there are also words that link two units together: 1 and 2, 1 and 3, and 2 and 3. Finally, there are words that are unique to unit 2 and 3. This word study supports my reading as I describe each separate unit within Numbers 18 on its own terms followed by a brief description of the whole as it has been woven together. Verses 1–7 are quite significant because they contain in concise form a resolution of the dangerous rivalry and conflict that broke out into the open between Aaron and the Levites in the rebellion of Korah in chapter 16. They are also the most immediate response to the cries of the children of Israel at the end of Num 17. Thus I will devote the majority of my comments on chapter 18 to its first 7 verses. The background of Num 18:1–7 is rather complex and includes 11 Verse 20 stands alone in the structure due to God’s declaration to Aaron of his special status, but the verse does share “inheritance” ‫ נחלה‬with the verses that follow.





“Lo we perish”

253

not only Korah’s rebellion, but the earlier arrangements in Numbers 3–4 and 8 concerning the status of the Levites vis-à-vis both Aaron and his sons as well as the Israelites. But Numbers 3–4 and 8 can only be understood in light of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu in Leviticus 10! I have argued elsewhere that the sudden and almost inexplicable deaths of Nadav and Avihu triggered a fear of encroachment not only by an outsider (‫ )זר‬in the camp but even within the priestly circle itself.12 Thus the danger came from two sides. The Levites were appointed to serve as intermediaries, protecting the surviving sons of Aaron and the Israelites in general from a repeat of the tragic event of Leviticus 10. Yet the singling out of the Levites in the early chapters of Numbers, meant to resolve the threat of encroachment, ended up creating severe tensions over status, including questions of holiness, between Levites and Aaron and his sons. As intermediaries the Levites were most at risk since any sort of encroachment would lead to their deaths as the responsible party who failed to prevent another breach at the entry to the tabernacle. Thus, even while subordinate to the sons of Aaron, the Levites bore the greatest risks. Seen in that light, Korah’s rebellious cry, “all the community is holy,” and his challenge to the authority of Aaron and Moses were almost inevitable. Nonetheless, the response to Korah’s challenge in Num 16–17 diminished the role of the Levites, making clear that Aaron was in charge. But its conclusion did not clear up the question of the role of intermediary, the figure responsible for protecting the Israelites against encroachment. Furthermore, the rebellion’s outcome, as we have seen, did not comfort or appease the children of Israel. If in the past Nadav and Avihu had been killed, and now, in the present, a number of Levites, who were appointed guards of the tabernacle, were also killed, then who indeed was going to protect the Israelites and thus prevent their being killed off as well? Thus both the revised status of the Levites, as well as the continuing fear and even panic of the children of Israel were left unresolved and provide the immediate context for a reading of Num 18:1–7. Numbers 18:1–7 has to be read slowly, with careful attention to the precise language being used, which is quite dense. The verses interact with one another in an intricate series of repetitive words and phrases that together form a tightly woven structure. That structure is a chiasm: A, B, C, X, C, B, A. Both its content and its form do the significant work of responding to the unfinished 12

For a detailed discussion of the establishment of the Levites as a distinct unity separate from Aaron and his sons, along with the ensuing complications, see Adriane Leveen, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, particularly pp. 114–136. See also the reading of Claudia Camp on the Levites and on the zar. She has described the zar as a quintessential liminal figure, the “outsider to the chosen priestly lineage, but the line between inside and outside proves unstable, and the circle of insiders tends to shrink.” Claudia Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 192. Jonathan Magonet also analyzes the role of the Levites in Numbers at length in his essay “The Korah Rebellion” JSOT 24 (1982), 3–25.



254

Adriane Leveen

business of the status of the Levites as well as the fears of the people. The content of the chiasm revises the past arrangements between Levites and Aaron by highlighting the role of Aaron and his sons as protectors against encroachment as well as the Levites.13 The form of the chiasm literally highlights the emphasis on Aaron in verses 1 and 7. These opening and closing verses, focusing on Aaron and his sons, surround and protect the Levites and Israelites metaphorically as a protective wall around its community. The verses in between raise and seemingly resolve the source of encroachment. But somewhat surprisingly, the X of the structure, by its placement, draws attention to a further dilemma. As we shall see, the X (v. 4) appears to include the Levites in the category of Israelites as outsiders who might endanger Aaron and his sons.14 In what follows, I have provided a paraphrase of the main subject of each verse as well as the important words and phrases that create and confirm the chiastic structure in English and in Hebrew. Verse 1 opens with God’s address to Aaron and his sons: (1) A (2) B (3) C

(4) X

You and your sons Bear the penalty of the sanctuary and your priesthood. The Levites … shall come close and will be attached to Aaron, serving you and your sons in front of the Tent of Testimony. They (the Levites) will keep Aaron’s charge and the charge of the tent But shall not come near to the holy objects and the altar

(6) B

‫כהנתכם‬ ‫לוי … הקרב‬

‫שמרו משמרתך‬ ‫ומשמרת כל האהל‬ ‫ המזבח‬/ ‫כלי הקדש‬ ‫לא יקרבו‬

Lest they die, them and you. They shall be attached to you (addressed to Aaron) Keeping the charge of the tent of appointment

(5) C

‫אתה ובניך‬

But the outsider shall not come close to you. You shall keep the charge of the Holy Shrine and the charge of the Altar So there shall not be wrath on the children of Israel. I have given you the Levites from the midst of the Children of Israel Given to you from YHWH to do the service of the Tent of Appointment

‫ושמרו את משמרת‬ ‫אהל מועד‬ ‫וזר לא יקרב אליכם‬ ‫משמרת הקדש ואת‬ ‫משמרת המזבח‬ ‫קצף‬ ‫הלווים‬ ‫]מתנה נתנים לעבד‬ […‫את עבדת‬

13 Note Milgrom’s simple, direct explanation: “Thus the custody of the Tabernacle was neatly divided between the two sacral orders: priests on the inside, Levites on the outside, and both at the entrance.” Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, 147. 14 Milgrom reaches the same conclusion: “the Levites are now an added source for encroachment and priestly blame …”, Numbers, 146.





“Lo we perish” (7) A

You and your Sons Shall be in charge of your priesthood, all things concerning the altar and inside the curtain and you are to do service, serving-tasks of special grant I give your priesthood. But the outsider who comes near shall die.15

255 ‫אתה ובניך‬ ‫כהנתכם‬ ‫ועבדתם עבדת מתנה‬

Num 18:1a opens with a direct address from God to Aaron a mere two verses after the children of Israel address Moses in 17:27. “And YHWH said to Aaron: You and your sons and the house of your father.” I would suggest that the proximity allows one to see God’s address to Aaron as a response to the cries of the people. But v. 1 includes not only Aaron and his sons, but also the house of his father which emphasizes the priestly genealogical line over time, originating in the past and continuing into the future. These instructions are meant to last. God immediately sets up Aaron’s task and responsibility: “bear the penalty of the Sanctuary, you and your sons with you and bear the penalty of your priesthood.”16 By spelling this task out so directly in the very first verse of Num 18, Aaron’s role, and that of his sons, is emphasized as the key to the rest of chapter 18. In fact “Aaron and his sons” are referred to 4 times in these first 7 verses, asserting their dominant role. Immediately after the opening command, the reader is told in verse 2 that the tribe of Levi shall be brought close ‫ הקרב‬to Aaron and “be attached” ‫ וילוו‬to him (in a pun on the tribal name of Levi) to serve him and his sons before the Tent of the Testimony. The content and order of the two verses are significant. It is clear that Aaron bears primary responsibility for what goes on in the sacred precincts. Verse 1 unequivocally states that he and his sons are in charge. By immediately following that declaration with the introduction of the Levites and a description of their roles, the second verse mimics and reinforces the desired priestly hierarchy. The Levites follow the priests and are subordinate to them. One notes that this special hierarchical relationship between the Levites and Aaron and his sons is articulated again in verse 6. 15 Some of the phrases in this unit are difficult to make sense of in English. I have borrowed “charge” from Everett Fox’s translation as well as his rather awkward but functional translation in verse 7: “you are to do service; serving-tasks of special grant.” Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 746–747. Verses 6 and 7 contain words that justify their placement within the structure of the chiasm. But they also include two other phrases that link them just to one another, hence the brackets. As I shall point out, v. 7 is also linked to v. 8 in a transition between units. 16 I accept Milgrom’s suggestion of ‘penalty’ with his explication: “[it] can mean either the act (sin) or its consequence (penalty)” Numbers, 146, n. 1. Since these verses seem occupied with responsibility, blame, and the consequences of encroachment, ‘penalty’ seems to best capture the nuance contained in that concern.



256

Adriane Leveen

God describes the responsibilities of the Levites in 18:3a, to “keep Aaron’s charge and the charge of the tent.” Does that mean then that the Levites will retain their dangerous responsibilities to protect the Israelites from encroachment after all? Yes and no. A restriction of their sphere in the second half of the verse is created with a single word. “But” ‫ אך‬clarifies the allotment of responsibility, prohibiting the Levites from coming close (repeating the verb of v. 2: ‫ )לא יקרבו‬to the holy utensils or the altar, “lest they die, them and you” (Num 18:3b). In other words, the “coming close” of the Levites in v. 2 does not translate into their coming too close, made clear by the prohibition in v. 3b. We are told that only Aaron and his sons can have contact with the shrine and the altar. Thus Aaron is in ultimate charge in a reiteration of a much earlier division of the tasks (see Num 4:1–20) that is now, in light of the crisis of Korah and the deaths of so many, even more urgent. This arrangement is motivated by the threat of death that hangs over both the Levites and Aaron and his sons if they don’t observe their distinct and separate duties. Verse 4 functions at first glance to sum up and conclude this arrangement. The Levites remain attached to Aaron and will keep the charge of the tent of meeting. But this rather matter of fact statement is interrupted in the middle of the verse with a sudden warning: “the outsider ‫ זר‬shall not come near ‫ לא יקרב‬to you” (i.e., Aaron and his sons, italics mine). The careful, even tedious series of instructions and orders appear to be leading up to this warning, reminding everyone involved that what is really at stake is the proper guarding of boundaries. Levites and Priests have to worry about what goes on within the tent, thus instituting an internal division between them. But the outsider is always lurking just outside the tent, ready to wreak havoc at any moment. Verse 4 emphasizes that the target of the outsider appears to be Aaron and his sons. Perhaps more surprisingly, the threatening outsider now includes the Levites, the subject of the first part of verse 4! Levites can stand guard at the entrance of the tabernacle but may not come too close to Aaron and his sons in the inner chamber. The use of “close” ‫ קרב‬in verses 2–4 neatly captures the targeting of the Levites. The Levites are brought close in v. 2. But in verse 3 they are told that they cannot come too close and are prohibited from handling the holy utensils or the altar, thus creating a boundary between Levite and Priest. Now in verse 4, in spite of a reiteration of the Levitical attachment to Aaron and his sons, a further boundary between Levites and Aaron and his sons has been erected and strengthened. Verse 5 reiterates that Aaron shall keep the charge of the holy Shrine as well as that of the altar. Verse 5 is linked to verse 3 by the term “the charge of…” A form of “charge” ‫ שמר‬is used 9 times in these 7 verses, emphasizing the importance of sorting out the priestly and Levitical responsibilities as well as defining distinct duties and zones for each group as clearly as possible. In fact it appears to be a matter of life and death. Verses 3 and 5 are also linked by “holy”





“Lo we perish”

257

and “altar.” Together verses 3 and 5, both in the position of C in the chiasm, carefully distinguish between the tasks of the Levites and those of Aaron and his sons, asserting that only Aaron and his sons can have direct contact with the holiest objects in the Tent. But these instructions are followed by another warning. This time Aaron’s tasks, caring for the shrine and the altar, will protect the children of Israel from a destructive wrath (presumably from God). Only now, in verse 5, is the worry of the people directly addressed. The wrath ‫ קצף‬Aaron is to protect them against alludes to the plague that killed so many Israelites in Num 17:11.17 It is made quite clear that the Israelites will be protected against this source of death not by Levites but by Aaron and his sons. The unit continues in v. 6 with a repetition from v. 2 of the description of the role of the Levites who are being given to Aaron in dedication to YHWH to serve at the tent of meeting. Two new words are added in this verse that are then repeated in verse 7, linking these two verses closely together while laying the groundwork to link v. 7 with v. 8. “Service” ‫ עבדה‬and different forms of the root “give” or “grant” ‫ נתן‬are used. The A of the chiasm from v. 1 repeats in v. 7 when Aaron and his sons are again told of their priestly responsibilities. Thus do the opening and closing verses of this unit (1–2 and 6–7) form their own frame, within which the tasks and responsibilities of Aaron and his sons and those of the Levites are sorted out. Protection against encroachment has been firmly established on behalf of the people while simultaneously reinforcing the rule of Aaron and his sons over the Levites. But it is the last three words of v. 7 that are most significant to the meaning and function of the entire unit. They echo the warning concerning the outsider from verse 4 but this time stated in a positive statement: “the outsider who comes near shall die” (Num 18:7). If one reads verses 4 and 7 together, a more subtle realization emerges. Death, or its threat, cannot be avoided. The tasks so carefully and precisely laid out in this unit in an attempt to restore boundaries and order are clearly performed in the shadow of repeated warnings of death that may be caused either by a mistake of the Levites, by the encroachment of the outsider who now includes the Levites or by a third cause, divine wrath. In following God’s direct instructions, Aaron and his sons have done their best.18 17 Thomas Mann, Holiness and Death, points out that “wrath” appears not only in our passage and in 17:11 but also in 1:53 (p. 185, n. 29). However, he doesn’t develop the significance of its appearance in the first passage. In Num 1:53 it is quite clear that the Levites surround and guard the tabernacle so that the “wrath” will not harm the children of Israel. But in 17:11 and in our verse in 18:5 it is Aaron, not the Levites, who prevents the wrath from striking the children of Israel. A peculiar status is being fought over in these passages. Who gets to protect the Israelites and thereby put their own lives at risk? 18 The phrase “and the outsider who encroaches shall be put to death,” like “wrath” also first appears as a warning in Num 1. In 1:51 the phrase is directed to the Levites. But the next three warnings against the outsider are directed to Aaron and his sons (3:10, 3:38, and the present verse, 18:7).



258

Adriane Leveen

They have responded to the cries of the people by providing the clearest means of protection the priestly class can offer them: hierarchical arrangements, clear assignments of responsibilities endorsed by God, and even protection against God’s wrath. Yet, while reassuring and mollifying the people, Aaron and his sons come to recognize that encroachment – of Levites no less – may also kill the priestly protectors themselves. If so, then no one is ultimately safe. A new unit begins in 18:8 clearly marked by the introduction of a different topic. Yet the new unit is woven together with what precedes it. First, v. 8 opens as did v. 1, with another direct address of God to Aaron (though the verbs differ – ‘say’ in v. 1 versus ‘speak’ in v. 8). Verse 8 also shares with the preceding verse (7) “giving” and “taking charge.” The commonality in language links the two verses. The service demanded of Aaron by God in verse 7 will be generously compensated in verse 8. Finally, both units have in common the mention of the root “holy” ‫( קדש‬1, 3, 5/ 8, 9, 10, and 19). After all, it is the direct handling of holy objects that distinguishes Aaron and his sons from Levites and Israelites. The new unit, which focuses almost exclusively on Aaron and his sons, concludes in 18:19. The frame of this unit (18:8 and 18:19) is created by the presence of particular words shared in common: “sacred gifts,” “giving,” “an eternal law,” and “the children of Israel.” In particular, the topic of sacred gifts given to Aaron and his sons is referred to both in v. 8 and in v. 19. Those who give gifts are the children of Israel, a detail held in common. I will return to this point when I consider how the chapter as a whole responds to the collective cries of the people. Verses 9–14 develop the types of gifts that can be given to Aaron and his sons or given to Aaron, his sons and his daughters. Verse 11 requires a comment as it is the only other verse in this unit that shares with the frame of v. 8 and v. 19 the words “children of Israel” and “an eternal law.” Verse 11 adds elevation offerings to the list of gifts for the priests. The elevation offering “refers to those gifts brought to the sanctuary and dedicated by an elevation ritual…”19 The link between 8, 11, and 19 suggests that the reference to “the children of Israel” triggers or leads to the assertion that the particular instructions should be considered an “eternal law.” These priestly laws are given the stamp of God’s authority throughout the generations and the children of Israel are to be made fully aware of that fact. Verses 11 and 19 are also linked by the reference to “daughters” in the household of Aaron. The addition of the daughters might further motivate the assertion that the arrangements for compensation, arrangements that clearly legitimate the inclusion of the daughters, be given the force of an eternally binding rule on behalf of the priestly class. Verses 15–16 introduce language that is unique to the unit of 18:8–19: “the first born of the womb” ‫ פטר רחם‬and “shall surely be redeemed” ‫ פדה תפדה‬in 19



Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, p. 151, n. 11.



“Lo we perish”

259

reference to the first born of human beings and of impure animals (unsuitable for sacrifice, hence not given to the priests). This particular topic fits into the general concerns of the unit that include what can be sacrificed, what may be eaten, or what must not be eaten or even accepted by Aaron and his sons. But the rule of redemption of the first born also triggers a much larger issue of concern not only in Numbers but also in Leviticus – returning us again to the story of Nadav and Avihu. Remember that in Egypt the Pharaoh intended to kill all first born Israelite sons. Subsequently, God killed off the first-born Egyptians in the 10th plague while sparing the first born Israelites. That plague led to the Exodus and the liberation of the Israelites. How then could Nadav and Avihu, saved from the threats present in Egypt, be killed off in the wilderness? The system set up in Num 3–4 responds to that highly problematic event (and explicitly refers to Nadav and Avihu in 3:1–4) by establishing the Levites as the figures who will protect the other sons of Aaron and their descendants as well as the Israelites as a whole from the threat of encroachment with its lethal results. Yet the children of Israel must remember that the first born, saved by God, will still belong to God: And I, behold, take the Levites from among the children of Israel in place of all the first-born, the first of the womb from the children of Israel, the Levites shall be mine. For every first-born is mine from the day that I struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt and consecrated to me all the first-born in Israel from human to beast to be mine, I, YHWH (Num 3:12–13).

In Num 18 God’s instructions from Num 3 are being applied by means of the redemption of the first born. The redemption of the first born from death fits well in the underlying and ongoing strategies of the priestly texts to keep death at a distance. But the allusion to the important role of the Levites in the earlier chapters in Numbers is also remarkable considering the bold attempt in Num 18 to revise and even diminish the proper role of the Levites who, after all, God claims for God’s very self! Num 18:15 doesn’t even connect the redemption of the first born with the Levites. Numbers 18:9–19 explicitly side with Aaron, making clear that he and his sons will be richly compensated, especially now that they are to protect the children of Israel against encroachment in addition to the Levites, as spelled out in 18:1–7. In fact, to highlight the uniqueness of God’s relationship to Aaron and his sons, and hence diminish that of the Levites (as established in 3:13), at the end of the present unit, 18:19, Aaron is told that the divine grant of gifts to Aaron and his sons is not only a law for all time, but a binding “covenant of salt.” The covenant of salt is given not only to Aaron but also to his descendants (“seed” here instead of “sons” suggests all generations that will follow).20 20 Salt is used as a preservative. Hence it is a symbolically apt substance for a covenant meant to be permanently preserved. For further details see Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, 154.



260

Adriane Leveen

In light of this discussion, the placement of the following verse, 18:20, which stands out from the surrounding units, makes sense. We have seen earlier in Numbers that God considers the Levites a divine possession. We have seen the tensions that have followed in consequence of that singling out, which culminate in Korah’s rebellion. Those tensions are now being rectified in chapter 18 as Aaron and his sons take on the role of protector on behalf of the children of Israel in addition to the Levites. Verse 20 makes God’s lasting commitment to Aaron even more pronounced: “And YHWH said to Aaron: In the land you will not have a territorial share nor will you have a portion in their midst; I am your portion and your share in the midst of the children of Israel.” Note that this is the final direct address in chapter 18 to Aaron alone by God. It should now be abundantly clear that Aaron and his sons are the dominant leaders of the Israelites. Not only have they clearly dominated the Levites but they have also diminished the Levitical status by dividing up the role of protector against encroachment into different zones. Furthermore, only Aaron can protect the Israelites against the divine wrath. Accordingly, Aaron and his descendants are handsomely compensated in verses 8–19 and given an ultimate endorsement by God in Num 18:19b–20. Our next unit, Num 18:21–32, moves on to the Levites and concludes chapter 18. This unit has words in common with both previous units. For instance, “service,” particularly at the tent of meeting, occurs in v. 4 and v. 21, both referring exclusively to the Levites.21 The other word shared between unit 1 and 3 but not unit 2 is “iniquity” ‫עון‬. In 18:1 Aaron and his sons are to bear their own iniquities. In 18:23 the Levites shall do so. “Gifts” ‫ תרומה‬link unit 2 and 3 but does not appear in unit 1. That makes sense since unit 1 sets up the service that requires the compensation laid out in units 2 and 3. “Territorial portion” ‫ נחלה‬appears frequently in this section and only once outside it, in 18:20, the verse that stands alone. Levites share in common with Aaron and his sons the lack of a territorial share in the land. Finally, “tithe” ‫ מעשר‬is unique to this last section devoted to the Levites and is the main topic of the section. Just as we saw in the prior sections, very precise words are used to link the different pieces of chapter 18 together. The overarching theme of death, its causes and possible prevention, makes an appearance in this unit as well. Let me briefly highlight a few details of Num 18:21–32 that communicate a topic of particular concern to the Levites while at the same time furthering both the Levitical role vis-à-vis the children of Israel and the submission of the Levites to Aaron and his sons. This final unit of chapter 18 is structured somewhat differently than the two preceding units. Verses 21–24 state the broad topic of the unit – the giving of tithes to the Levites for their service in the tent of meeting. But it also associates that service, rather intriguingly, with a familiar theme 21 The “tent of meeting” ‫ אהל מועד‬is so named in verses 4 and 6 and in verses 21, 22, 23, and 31. Each reference is connected to the service of the Levites at the tent of meeting.





“Lo we perish”

261

of the chapter: death due to encroachment of the tabernacle. Verse 22 announces: “And the children of Israel shall no longer come close to the tent of meeting and thus bear guilt and die.” The service of the Levites allows the children of Israel to keep their distance. Hence the children of Israel compensate the Levites with tithes. The rest of the unit is divided from these first four verses by v. 25 in which God addresses Moses instead of Aaron. The verses that follow go into the details of tithing. The Levites must give a tenth of their tithes to God via Aaron. In fact, they are to give the best part of their tithes (announced in v. 29 and repeated in v. 30). In this way, Aaron and his sons retain their advantages over the Levites (as the recipients of the Levitical offerings). These verses describe the tithes (new grain/some sort of liquid from the vat), allow the Levites to eat the non-consecrated food anywhere, and release the Levites from any penalty for consuming the tithes. The language of the opening verse of this unit, Num 18:21 and the second to last verse of the chapter, Num 18:31, can be read as providing a frame around the content of the unit. Both verses proclaim the giving of the tithes to the Levites in “exchange for” ‫ חלף‬their service. The word ‫ חלף‬appears only in these two verses of the unit. Verse 18:31 is quite explicit that the tithes are the reward to the Levites for their service. This seems to be an appropriate and even satisfying ending to the section. And yet the chapter does not end here. Instead, it concludes with one final, rather familiar warning. The Levites are told that they must not profane the sacred donations of the children of Israel lest they, the Levites, die! There is no escaping the possibility of death. Let me now briefly sum up what this close reading of chapter 18 has produced. I have highlighted the way in which various words link the different sections one to another while two words link all three units together. These two words, “coming close” and “giving,” are the very essence of the chapter’s concerns as it responds to the cries of the Israelites in 17:27–28. Coming close to the tabernacle, whether it be the Levites or the Israelites, brings serious danger, and even death, into the camp. Therefore coming close must be precisely regulated and monitored, so much so, that Aaron and his sons are reminded in a very clear and pronounced fashion of their responsibilities in guarding against “outsiders.” In instructing Aaron so directly, God reinforces and strengthens the hierarchical arrangements between Levites and Aaron in favor of Aaron. In the rest of chapter 18, Aaron and his sons as well as the Levites are rewarded by the children of Israel, whose panic in the face of the deaths of so many on the journey as well as the events in front of the tabernacle, triggered the crisis in the first place. The giving of gifts to the priests and tithes to the Levites by the Israelites, while obviously serving the interests of the priestly group, might also comfort the Israelites who at least have an action that they can now take to more directly ward off death. In light of the threat of Divine wrath, perhaps the people understand their gifts and tithes to be a means of



262

Adriane Leveen

warding off God’s wrath or of appeasing God’s anger. Certainly the priests are attempting to devise strategies to control death but as the last words of chapter 18, “lest you die,” remind us, the threat remains while success is far from assured. The theme of death carries over into the next chapter, Numbers 19. Yet a clear disjuncture exists between these two chapters. Numbers 18 has very tight and repetitious language as it sorts out various responsibilities and legislates compensation for Priests and Levites. The Levites are not even mentioned in chapter 19. While Aaron is the main figure of chapter 18, he is mentioned only once in chapter 19, in the very opening of the chapter whereas his son Eleazar plays a significant role. Chapter 18 legislates while chapter 19 describes a procedure for producing a ritual substance. Chapter 18 is addressed to Aaron (and once to Moses) while chapter 19 directly addresses the children of Israel as its regulations create a substance and procedure meant to be used by anyone who comes in contact with the dead. Yet chapters 18 and 19 are logically linked to one another as well. They share the following significant words in common: “sin” ‫ חטא‬, “purity” ‫טהר‬, “charge of…” ‫ משמרת‬and several references to instructions that bind the children of Israel for all time, either as a ‫ חק עולם‬in Num 18:8, 11, 19 or ‫ חקת עולם‬in Num 18:23, 19:10, and 21.22 Both chapters highlight the role of the priest in protecting against death. As suggested by Mann, perhaps that is why chapter 19 is in its present position: Since the priests emerge in chaps. 16–18 as the ‘inner circle’ who prevent the congregation from encroaching on the realm of the holy and thus from inviting death, what better place to insert legislation in which the priests are the manufacturers of a substance which counteracts the effects of contact with the dead?23

Note that in contrast to Mann, my reference point has been the cries of the people in 17:27–28. In light of their cries, chapter 19 appears to tackle the topic head on and in a more inclusive, comprehensive way than chapter 18. Death can be caused by encroachment, the sword, or naturally. The outcome and evidence of death – corpses, bones and graves – are littered within the camp and in the open. Both chapters have in common an identification of figures who might defile the tabernacle. In Num 18 it is the outsider, ‫זר‬, who threatens to defile the tabernacle while in Num 19, it is the person who does not complete the process of purification after contact with the dead. An attention to borders, perhaps due to the lurking threat of such a figure, also continues. Remember that in chapter 18 the priestly hierarchy sets up boundaries between groups and 22 The phrase appears in Num 18:23 with the added term: ‫לדרתיכם‬. For an analysis of the differences between these phrases as the means of identifying early priestly materials from the later priestly Holiness School, see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 46–54. 23 Thomas Mann, Holiness and Death, 185.





“Lo we perish”

263

establishes zones within the tent as well as at its threshold, the most dangerous site mentioned. Chapter 19 pays close attention to borders as well, this time between inside and outside the camp.

3. Numbers 19: The Impurities of Death The target of God’s address as well as the figure called upon to implement God’s commands changes in Num 19, indicating that an important shift has occurred at this stage in the wilderness journey. A new generation is taking charge of the wilderness camp and the children of Israel, replacing the generation condemned to die in the wilderness, including Aaron. At the same time future, unnamed generations are also acknowledged. Num 19:1 addresses Moses and Aaron. But it is Eleazar the priest, son of Aaron, who is directed to implement the regulations concerning the ritual. He is mentioned by name in verses 3 and 4. In verses 6 and 7 Eleazar is replaced by an unnamed priest who does what needs to be done. This chapter is preparing the community for changes in leadership. (But no matter which priest takes over, he is guaranteed compensation, as ensured just prior to these verses in chapter 18.) The passage of time immediately reminds the community of death’s inevitability. At first it is not clear what is going on in chapter 19. A new regulation is being commanded and described to the children of Israel. They are told to bring a red, unblemished heifer to Aaron’s son Eleazar. He takes it outside the camp to slaughter it and sprinkles its blood in the direction of the tent of meeting 7 times. The heifer’s skin, flesh, blood and dung are burned together along with cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson stuff.24 The priest (no longer referred to as Eleazar) washes his garments and his body. Only then can he re-enter the camp but he remains impure until evening. Other individuals involved in the burning of the heifer or in gathering up the ashes that result also go through a similar procedure. The one who gathers the ashes leaves them outside the camp, kept in a “pure place” ‫ מקום טהור‬until they can be mixed with “water of lustration” ‫מי נדה‬.25 The resultant mixture will be used for cleansing. 24 “Crimson stuff” is used in Exod 36:8, 35, 37 and Exod 39:1–2 as part of the sacraments of the high priest, thus indirectly linking this chapter with the figure of Aaron, so important to Numbers 18. See my commentary on Numbers 19 for further details on the substances used in the burning of the red heifer and the mixture of the watery substance. Adriane Leveen, “Central Commentary on Chukat” in The Torah, A Woman’s Commentary, eds. Tamara Eskenazi and Andrea Weiss (New York: URJ Press, 2008), 915–930 [918]. 25 “Water of lustration” ‫ מי נדה‬is mentioned in Num 19:9, 13, 20, and 21. As pointed out by Milgrom, ‫ נדה‬originally referred to the menstrual blood which was discharged or eliminated from a woman’s body. In many cases ‫ נדה‬came to refer to the menstruant herself, “for she too was ‘discharged’ and ‘excluded’ from her society not by being kept at arm’s length from others but, in many communities, by being banished to and quarantined in separate quarters.” Jacob



264

Adriane Leveen

Strikingly, everything that has happened up until this point in the narrative occurs outside the camp. It is equally striking that the ashes will be mixed to create an “anti-contaminant,” ‫ חטאת הוא‬but at this stage (19:9) we don’t know the source of the contamination!26 We do know that this process is important as it is called an “eternal law.” That last point is addressed directly to the children of Israel. The collective is referred to in these 10 verses 3 times, including 19:2, once as “the community of the children of Israel” (v. 9) and once as part of a pair with “the stranger in their midst” (v. 10). These references are important for my argument as they suggest that chapter 19 can be read even more so than chapter 18 as a direct and strategic response to the fears of the children of Israel in 17:27–28 that they will all perish. Confirmation of that supposition follows immediately when the source of contamination is introduced in 19:11. The source is a corpse. The verse opens “the one who touches a corpse, the body of a person…” Attention then focuses on the ways in which the children of Israel interact with the realm of death. This chapter attempts to keep death at bay or at least to aggressively respond to its presence. The people are given very concrete instructions for how to respond if exposed to a corpse that include the length of time that one will be impure, the procedure for cleansing oneself, the importance of doing the procedure, the reason why, and the penalty if one does not. All who touch a corpse, the body of a person who has died, and does not cleanse himself, the tabernacle of YHWH shall be impure and that soul shall be cut off from Israel. Since the water of lustration was not dashed upon him, he will remain impure; his impurity is still on him. (Num 19:13)

Thus does chapter 19 return us to the dread of the tabernacle expressed by the people in 17:27–28. They worry over the consequences they might have to bear due to its presence, especially the threat of defiling it. In fact, a figure is identified in v. 13 who could defile the tabernacle much like the outsider ‫ זר‬from chapter 18. Apparently this figure is a cause of great anxiety since 19:20 repeats the threat introduced by such a figure due to his failure to be purified by the water of lustration in an echo of the wording found in v. 13. Having come in contact with the dead but failing to cleanse himself with the water of lustration, he remains in the category of someone “in between,” a liminal figure whose refusal to go through the purifying process proves so disturbing that a harsh Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, Anchor Bible 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 745. I suggest that “discharged” or “being set apart” captures the meaning of the term ‫ נדה‬in the present chapter. The waters are to remain outside the camp, set apart (19:9). Yet through purification the waters restore the individual to her/his proper place within the camp. However, if the waters are not used, the individual defiles the tabernacle and must be cut off from the people (19:13, 20). For a fuller treatment of the term in the Hebrew Bible, see Adriane Leveen, “Central Commentary on Chukat,” 919–920. 26 For an elaboration on the meaning of the phrase see Milgrom, Numbers, p. 160, n. 9.





“Lo we perish”

265

deterrent must be established. He or she will be cut off from the people. But this category of Israelite is an exception. In general, thanks to Numbers 19, the people now have a clear method for protecting themselves against the impurities of death that may risk contaminating the tabernacle as well as themselves – the watery substance created in the first part of the chapter. As if to make the efficacy of the watery substance exceedingly clear, the chapter goes on to provide a very detailed description of how purification from the contaminating power of death will be handled. First, the sources of contamination are identified. Anyone who enters a tent in which a person dies, or is already in that tent, will be impure for seven days. Any object in the tent will also be contaminated. Another site is immediately paired with the inside of the tent – outside in the field! Death or its remains can be found anywhere. Verse 19:16 explains that “anyone who comes, in the open field, upon a person killed by the sword, or who dies naturally, or a bone of a human, or a grave will be impure for seven days.” The comprehensiveness of 19:14–16 is impressive. Inside the camp or out, within a small intimate domestic space, or in a wide open space, one can encounter death and become impure. The remainder of chapter 19 describes how the cleansing substance will be produced and used. Ashes, fresh water and hyssop shall be mixed together.27 The resulting substance is sprinkled on the tent, the people and the vessels within the tent, or on the figure who touched one of the following: bones, a person killed by the sword or someone dead of natural causes, or who came across a grave (19:18). This repetition of the causes of contamination on such a striking list adds to the sense that death haunts the camp and the people. It is instructive to compare the spatial references in this chapter to what precedes it in chapter 18. That chapter focuses almost exclusively on the tent of meeting or tabernacle with its carefully divided inner spaces and zones. The entrance to the tent is as far as the concerns of the chapter reach. Chapter 19 refers to thousands of individual tents, those of the children of Israel. The spatial reach of chapter 19 is as far as the eye can see and a body can walk. But if one combines the two chapters spatially, then the tabernacle, all of the camp, and outside the camp are covered. A combination of the two chapters also covers the possible sources of death that concern the priests as well as the people. These include encroachment of the tabernacle, death by the sword, and natural deaths. Protections against death are also covered – by the priestly guards (who are well compensated) and by a watery substance. Finally, one chapter is preoccupied with the leaders, the next with the entire people. Taken together, both groups are carefully considered. Taken together, the two chapters provide a 27

Hyssop was used by the children of Israel in Exodus 12:22 to dip into blood that they then smeared on their doorposts to mark their dwellings so that God would pass over them. Thus hyssop is already associated with a procedure that staves off death; see Adriane Leveen, “Central Commentary on Chukat,” 918.



266

Adriane Leveen

fairly comprehensive inventory of spaces, causes and remedies involving death. In sum, chapters 18 and 19 offer a thorough response to the cries of the children of Israel with which we began. We shall see if it will be sufficient. On the level of language chapter 18 and 19 appear more closely connected to each other than either with Numbers 20. Chapter 18 and 20 do share the root ‫ קדש‬in common which argues for an interaction around issues of holiness.28 Aaron, the high priest whose actions involve the handling of sacred furnishings and who moves between sacred zones, is the main figure addressed in Num 18, makes only a fleeting appearance in Num 19, and dies in Num 20 after being charged by God for failing “to sanctify” ‫ להקדישני‬God. But Num 19 and Num 20 are also connected to one another by a root, ‫קבר‬, that appears in 19:16, 18 as a noun, “grave” and in 20:1 in verbal form as “buried.” “Water” ‫ מים‬is even more significant for its use in 19:7–9, 13, and 17–21 as part of the watery substance that cleanses the contaminated person and in 20:2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 24 as the object of the people’s desires since they are temporarily without it. The lack of water in chapter 20 leads to the deaths of Aaron in that chapter and later of Moses. Of course Num 20 is particularly important because of the return of “perish” ‫ גוע‬twice in verse 3 and again in verse 29.

4. Numbers 20: Dying in the Wilderness After the priestly strategy to keep death at bay in chapters 18 and 19, chapter 20 opens with Miriam’s death. The verse is shocking in its abruptness: “And the children of Israel came in a body to the wilderness of Zin in the first month and the people dwelled in Kadesh and Miriam died there and she was buried there.” Note the three words used to describe the people of Israel (in italics). Such an emphasis on the collective in the same verse in which Miriam dies hints at a deep connection between Miriam and the people. The location of her death is Kadesh (containing the root for ‘holy’). “There” is used twice in verse 1, drawing attention to the specific site where Miriam dies. The precise report of her burial signals that she is properly treated upon her death, especially since burials are rarely recorded in Numbers. Miriam is accorded the honor befitting an important leader of the people. I would argue, based on the sequence of 28

That argument is made by Mann whose essay begins with Korah and concludes with 20:13. His interpretation is relevant to the present argument. “The challenge of the rebels to Moses and Aaron (‘everyone is holy – why do you exalt yourselves?’) at first leads to the death of the rebels and to the exaltation of the leaders (along with their party, the priests). But in the end, the controversies lead to the humiliation of Moses and Aaron, and to a divine verdict of death outside the land of promise, a verdict which is seen as necessary because the holy ones (16:5, 7) failed to sanctify the Holy One (20:12–13).” Thomas Mann, “Holiness and Death in the Redaction of Numbers 16:1–20:13,” 190.





“Lo we perish”

267

events as well as the repetitive mention of the collective in verse 1, that the people’s next steps in verse 2 are an immediate response to Miriam’s death, even if the reason offered by the narrator is the lack of water.29 The people gather together against Moses and Aaron in protest. We have now arrived at Num 20:3, the verse that returns us to the opening frame of 17:27–28 by means of “perish.” “And the people argued with Moses and they said, saying: if only we had perished when our brothers perished before YHWH” (Num 20:3). The people have not been mollified by the attempts to deal with death through regulation or ritual as painstakingly developed in chapters 18 and 19. In fact they acknowledge its lingering presence by mentioning those already dead and apparently resigning themselves to a similar fate. The death of someone as important as Miriam seems to unhinge the collective calm and create a chain reaction. Miriam is of the generation liberated from Egypt but condemned to die in the wilderness. If Miriam cannot escape that sentence, then surely no one of her generation will be spared. And in fact, Moses and Aaron are also condemned mere verses later. Thus no one (except Joshua and Caleb) of that generation will escape. It is that realization that forces another anguished cry out of the mouths of the Israelites. Thus is the frame around chapters 18 and 19 completed. In spite of the best attempts of the priestly leaders, death will not be kept at bay. Verse 20:3 is an appropriate place to conclude the present reading as this recognition sinks into the minds of the people and perhaps even their leaders. I continue with a brief reading of the remainder of chapter 20 in order to complete the story of Aaron, the figure who hovers over each of the chapters in turn. I justify brief comments on the rest of Num 20 due to the use of the same verb, “perish” in the frame and in the description of Aaron’s death, with which the chapter closes. If I consider Aaron’s fate, then I must also account for the intrusion of Num 20:14–21 between his indictment and his death. The immediate aftermath of the cries of the people in verse 3 spells out their recognition of their fates: “Why have you brought this assembly of YHWH to this wilderness to die there, us and our beasts?” (Num 20:4). The people revert to their earlier complaints, especially their regret at leaving Egypt. In response Moses and Aaron turn to God at the “tent of meeting”‫ אהל מועד‬who instructs them on how to bring forth water from a rock. Slightly altering God’s plans, Moses and Aaron incur God’s wrath and are told that they too shall die. This episode alludes to Num 19 in several ways. The use of the particular name for the tent ‫ אהל מועד‬hearkens back to 19:4 as does the mention of water and of death.30 While these are common words, their use together in these few 29

That too could be over determined considering Miriam’s connection with water after having placed her brother in the Nile and her victorious song at the Sea. 30 “Water” is used on its own (not in construct) in 19:7, 8, 18, and 19. It is also used on its own in 20:2, 5, 8 and 10, and 19. It is used in construct form in 20:17 “the water of the well.”



268

Adriane Leveen

verses warrant the linkage to Num 19. “Water of lustration” (19:9, 13, 20, 21) and “living water” (19:17) purify the contaminant and allowed him/her to return to the camp of living. Such water is now replaced, in chapter 20, after the bitter cries of the people, Moses’ frustration, and God’s punishment, with “water of contention” (Num 20:13 and 24), a reminder that the argument of Num 20 over water leads to death. In fact, the deaths of the remaining members of the wilderness generation and their leaders continue until Numbers 26, the second census of the Israelites. The census somberly concludes: Among these was not one from those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest who counted the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai. Since God has said of them ‘they shall surely die in the wilderness and not one of them will remain except for Caleb, son of Jephunneh and Joshua, son of Nun.’ (Num 26:64–65)

Two topics remain in Numbers 20: an intrusion of non-priestly material – negotiations between Moses and the King of Edom – and Aaron’s actual death. Moses’ unsuccessful negotiation with the King of Edom (Num 20:14–21) is clearly out of place, especially because immediately after the episode’s conclusion, the chapter returns to the matter of Aaron’s death. There are two ways to account for the placement of the negotiations with Edom in Numbers 20, neither of which contradict the other. One is thematic. How does the negotiation pick up on the events that precede and follow it? Secondly, 20:14–21 functions as a ‘hinge’ for subsequent material that lies outside the bounds of this essay. Thematically, in his negotiation with the King of Edom Moses recounts in miniature the events of the people Israel, including their descent into Egypt, their lives and suffering in Egypt, their liberation and their journey until the present moment’s request to pass through Edom on their way to the Promised Land. The past is the subject of this recounting, used to justify a present necessity and explain the future course of the Israelites. Let me mention in passing that this episode introduces the idea of borders yet again into the analysis but in a concrete, literal way. The king’s refusal strikes another harsh blow against Moses who has just been told by God that Moses himself will not cross over into the land. It suddenly appears as if the entire journey will be halted. The passage also functions as a hinge, described by Parunak as “a transitional unit of text, independent to some degree from the larger units on either side, which has affinities with each of them … the two larger units are joined together, not directly, but because each is joined to the hinge.”31 Num 20:14– 21 is the hinge that connects the narration of the deaths of the generation and its leaders as well as the focus on priestly concerns (beginning in Num 11) to Perhaps a sound play (captured in the hebrew) on living water ‫ מים חיים‬in 19:17 is used in 20:11 for many waters ‫מים רבים‬. 31 H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” 540–541.





“Lo we perish”

269

the continuation of the journey that is begun unsuccessfully by Moses in Num 20 but will soon proceed more smoothly in the chapters to come. In light of this dark moment – the failure of Moses’ negotiations with the King of Edom – the narration of another challenge for Moses, that of the fate of his brother and chief ally, Aaron, logically follows. I have discussed Aaron’s last moments elsewhere.32 Of relevance to the present argument is the emphasis in the episode on yet another border, this time delineating a clear boundary between Aaron’s death on the top of the mountain and the location of the people, separated from him at a safe distance down below. Accompanied by Moses and his son Eleazar, Aaron ascends Mount Hor in the sight of the people. Poignantly, Moses strips Aaron of his priestly garments and puts them on Eleazar. This action symbolically transfers priestly leadership to the next generation. But Eleazar has certainly played an important role already in Num 19 (and in Num 17) perhaps in preparation for taking on the primary priestly role. Num 20:28 not only describes this transition but also announces that Aaron “died there” (“there” echoes its use in Miriam’s death, signifying that a particular spot in the wilderness is being named, distinguishing the leaders from the deaths of countless unnamed Israelites who simply die along the way). Moses and Eleazar descend and rejoin the living at the bottom of the mountain. Remarkably, considering the attention my reading has given to the people, the final verse, Numbers 20:29 highlights the people’s response: “And all the community saw that Aaron had perished ‫ גוע‬and they cried for him 30 days, all the house of Israel.” That last use of the key word from the frame, instead of the more common “died” used in the prior verse (28), suggests that the people prefer to express their understanding of death as “perish.” “Perish” connects the final cry of the people for Aaron directly to the frame that has motivated my reading of the whole.

5. Reading Numbers 17:27–20:29 We are now in a position to weave the chapters together. Throughout I have referred to shared language between them. Now I want to turn to the result – a sustained reflection on the presence of death in the wilderness camp, its possible causes, and especially attempts to manage its presence in response to the panicked cries of the children of Israel. That response is given shape by three topics that chapters 18–20 hold in common: the role of Aaron in each; the way in which death intrudes upon the tabernacle, the camp and even the fields that surround the camp; and the crafting of boundaries of all sorts whose ultimate goal is to keep the presence and pervasiveness of death contained. 32



Adriane Leveen, Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, 151.

270

Adriane Leveen

Aaron appears in each chapter but his presence and role diminish over time. Consequently, a palpable shift to the new generation unfolds in parallel. In Num 18, a chapter extremely important to the livelihood of both priests and Levites, the prominent role of Aaron as the one who implements God’s instructions is highlighted. Since considerable compensation for the priests and Levites is demanded of the people, it must unequivocally be illustrated that the idea originates with God and is implemented by none other than the high priest Aaron. Furthermore, Aaron is the figure best positioned to tackle the dread of the tabernacle expressed by the people in Num 17. After all, he is in charge of that tabernacle. Yet by Num 19, Aaron’s role is clearly constricted. His son and then a nameless priest take over the task of purifying those who come in contact with the dead and/or their remains. That move is exceedingly important, of course, as it makes clear that the priesthood and its role in the life of the people does not depend on any one figure but will survive over time. Num 20 confirms that Aaron’s time has passed with his death. Eleazar is now in charge. Thus the diminishing role of Aaron provides a connecting thread between chapters while nonetheless ensuring the continuation of the priestly leadership. While “perish” ‫ גוע‬creates the frame that justifies my focus on chapters 18– 20, “death” ‫ מות‬is the more prevalent word in these chapters. The word is another thread in weaving together the tapestry thus produced. “Death” appears either verbally or as a noun in 17:28; 18:3, 7, 22 and 32; 19:11, 13 (2x), 14, 16, 18; and 20:1, 4, 26 and 28.33 The numbers tell the story: “death” appears four times in chapter 18, six times in chapter 19 and four times in chapter 20. Death continually intrudes upon events. In Num 18, references to death repeatedly appear as a consequence of encroachment in the midst of a dense series of regulations seemingly about other matters. Death is a threat feared not only by the people, but as it turns out, the Levites and even Aaron and his sons. In Num 19, death intrudes on the daily life of the camp – found in individual tents and even in the utensils of daily life. One can’t walk in the field without stumbling over evidence of its presence. The deaths of two of the leaders in Num 20 bracket the wish of the people that they join their dead brothers. In other words, death is the one experience shared among the different groups in the camp – priests, Levites and the people as a whole. The people’s cries in Num 17 and Num 20 highlight the inevitability of death as the condemnation of the generation sinks in and its deaths accumulate. No priestly regulation, guarding, ritual, or substance can change that fact. As a result, these chapters struggle with the strange reality facing the people and their leaders at this particular juncture in the journey. An entire generation is about to die. Meanwhile, the next generation must carry on but can only do so in limbo. Thus has a period of uncertainty between the living and the dead 33 In Num 19:11, 13, 16, and 18 the word translates as ‘dead one’ or ‘corpse’ and is spelled ‫ מת‬in the Hebrew.





“Lo we perish”

271

been created – a liminal state betwixt and between – as both generations wander together in the wilderness. In response to such indeterminacy, careful attention is paid in each chapter to the creation and demarcation of spatial zones and borders both metaphorical and actual in an attempt to contain the tragedy and allow the journey to continue. Along the way, all those who remain of the older generation shall end their days so that their children can arrive by journey’s end at the borders of the Promised Land. Num 18 reminds the people of the priestly hierarchies already in place but strengthened in a renewed determination to protect the people against encroachment – caused by a literal violation of the boundary imposed by the presence of the tabernacle. Chapter 19 contains something of a contradiction because it begins with a clear demarcation between inside and out, concretely separating the camp from the wilderness that surrounds it. The killing and burning of the red heifer occurs outside the camp while its mixture is made and stored there. Yet death knows no boundaries, haunting the tents of the camp as well as the fields that surround it. In the end, it is the figure who remains contaminated, refusing the water of lustration, who comes to represent the dangers of a liminal state as he moves among the living. His threatening presence can only be resolved by entirely cutting him off. Num 20 appears at first glance to reinforce the borders between the living and the dead as it opens with the death and burial of Miriam in contrast to the Israelites who will continue on without her. However that boundary seems especially porous as the people respond to her death with a wish for their own followed by the death of Aaron. Perhaps that porousness offers a further explanation for the negotiation over actual borders that awkwardly appears in the middle of Num 20. The new generation ever more urgently needs to get away from a wilderness that has become a graveyard of the dead. To do so, they must literally move across borders in order to reach the Promised Land, the land of the living, and leave behind their own liminal states. The present reading of Numbers 17:27–20:29 illustrates the benefit in treating each obviously distinct chapter on its own terms, paying attention to its unique language, genre and concerns. Yet such a reading recognizes the ways in which these distinct chapters poignantly come together as a whole. Thanks to careful and skilled editing, taken as a whole chapters 17:27–20:29 produce a richly layered reflection on the reality of death, the impossibilities of keeping it at bay, and the sobering attempts of an entire people to resign themselves to that fact. Bibliography Camp, Claudia: Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible, Gender, culture, theory 9; Journal for the study of the Old Testament Supplement series 320, Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press 2000.



272

Adriane Leveen

Fox, Everett: The Five Books of Moses, The Schocken Bible vol. 1, New York: Schocken Books 1995. Gottlieb, Isaac: “Sof Davar: Biblical Endings,” Prooftexts 11.3 (1991), 213–224. Knierim, Rolf P., Coats, George W.: Numbers, The Forms of the Old Testament Literature vol. IV, Michigan: Eerdmans 2005. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence, Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995. Leveen, Adriane: Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008. –: “Central Commentary on Chukat,” in: The Torah, A Woman’s Commentary, ed. by Tamara Eskenazi, Andrea Weiss, New York: URJ Press 2008, 915–930. Magonet, Jonathan: “The Korah Rebellion,” JSOT 24 (1982), 3–25. Mann, Thomas W.: “Holiness and Death in the Redaction of Numbers 16:1–20:13” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East, eds. John Marks, Robert Good, Guilford, CT: Four Quarters Publishing Company 1987, 181–190. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society 1990. –: Leviticus 1–16, Anchor Bible 3, New York: Doubleday 1991. Parunak, H. Van Dyke: “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” JBL 102/4 (1983), 535–548. Sherwood, Stephen K.: Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Berit Olam, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press 2002. Stubbs, David L.: Numbers, London: SCM Press 2009.



Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P Herbert Specht

1. Einleitung: Zur Literarkritik von P Sich einfach auf die Größe „Priesterschrift“ (P) zu beziehen, ist in der heutigen Forschungssituation, die durch viele disparate Thesen gekennzeichnet ist, wenig sinnvoll. So will ich zuerst Rechenschaft ablegen über die Implikationen meiner Sicht auf P. Bei der Arbeit mit P hat es sich für mich bewährt, P als einen eigenen Erzählfaden anzusehen, oder genauer gesagt, P ist in meinen Augen ein eigenes Buch mit einer spezifischen Intention. Diese Intention ist nur zu ermitteln und zu begreifen, wenn man ausschließlich dem P-Erzählduktus folgt und die anderen Erzähltraditionen ausblendet. Ich habe das vor Jahren in einem Aufsatz zur P-Abrahamerzählung1 dargelegt und darin Rolf Rendtorff ausdrücklich widersprochen, einem der Vorreiter der Forschergruppe, die P eher als Ergänzungs- und Bearbeitungsschicht verstehen wollen. Bei der P-Abraham- und PJakoberzählung sowie beim Beginn der P-Exoduserzählung bin ich mir sicher: P bildet einen eigenen Erzählfaden mit einer völlig anderen Intention als die anderen Darstellungen, die mit P zum Pentateuch verbunden wurden. Im Buch Numeri ist das Problem insofern komplizierter, als erstens die Intentionen der Nicht-P-Texte weniger profiliert herausgearbeitet sind und weil zweitens der P-Erzählstil nicht mehr so eindeutig-„penetrant“ ist und drittens die Bezüge innerhalb von P vielfältiger sind. Sind in der Genesis die Bezugnahmen von P noch leicht überschaubar, so kann sich P in Num schon auf sehr viele Texte beziehen. Das macht die Aufgabe schwieriger. Doch nach wie vor gilt, dass P die einzelnen Texte konsequent aufeinander zu komponiert und dass man wie in den Gen-P-Texten aus den Bezugnahmen die Problemanzeigen eruieren und dann auch die theologische Intention der P-Texte herausarbeiten kann. Neben anderen Arbeiten sind es vor allem die Peter Weimars,2 Ludwig Schmidts3 und 1 H. Specht, Von Gott enttäuscht – Die priesterschriftliche Abrahamgeschichte, EvTh 47 (1987), 395–411. 2 P. Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift; idem: Art. Priesterschrift, WiBiLex 2010, sowie eine Vielzahl von weiteren Arbeiten. 3 L. Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993.

274

Herbert Specht

Christian Frevels,4 die neue Argumente zur Untermauerung der früheren Thesen von Theodor Nöldeke über Julius Wellhausen bis zu Karl Elliger5 beigesteuert haben: P ist als eigene Quelle, zur Verdeutlichung sei gesagt, als ursprünglich eigenständiges Buch zu betrachten. Die Aufgabe des Exegeten, mit Hilfe der Literarkritik den P-Erzählfaden aus dem Pentateuch herauszupräparieren, kann mit einer Feinjustierung auf den Gegenstand P nur gewinnen – ich würde sogar eine P-spezifische Literarkritik fordern. So sollte man in der Fragestellung und bei den literarkritischen Entscheidungen besonders sensibel sein für die auch andernorts erhebbaren Eigenheiten von P. Insbesondere ist 1) der besondere Erzählstil von P zu beachten; z.B. die Bedeutung von bewusst gesetzten Wiederholungen. Was man bei anderen Autoren mit Recht als Dublette einschätzt, ist bei P bewusst gesetzt, vgl. z.B. Gen 1,27. 2) P ist ein unglaublich „durchkomponiertes“ Werk, insofern sind Bezugnahmen stilistischer Art, inhaltlich-konzeptioneller Art und auch in Bezug auf geografische und chronologische Angaben hoch bedeutsam. Und in diesem Geflecht haben auch leichte Variationen hohes Gewicht; variiert die Wortwahl, erwartet P vom Leser hohe Aufmerksamkeit: Was bedeuten die Änderungen?6 Auf das Verhältnis „Auftrag Gottes – Erfüllung (durch die beauftragten Menschen)“ ist dabei besonders zu achten – und wenn die Erfüllung abweicht, kann und muss diese Änderung erklärt werden. P erwartet von seinen Lesern, dass sie genau mitdenken, mitrechnen, auf seine Kompositionsmerkmale achten. Nur dann können und werden sie sein Anliegen verstehen. P hat dabei auf die vor ihm geschriebenen Texte des Prototetrateuch zurückgegriffen; diese Texte sind sein Material. Aber P hat dieses Material so geformt, ja geradezu geknetet und seinen Anliegen unterworfen, dass man P keinesfalls von den voraus liegenden „bekannten“ Erzählungen her deuten darf, sondern streng im Kontext der P-Erzählung interpretieren muss. Ein Buch – zumal in der dramatischen Zeit der Entstehung der Priesterschrift – kann natürlich vielerlei Absichten verfolgen, und P ist komplex angelegt: Das vordringliche Anliegen ist, dass Israel YHWH als seinen Gott erkennt, aber wenn die Gotteserkenntnis konkret wird, ist sie kaum ohne die Gabe des Landes zu denken und die dankbare Annahme dieser Gabe durch das Volk bzw. die 4 C. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priester-grundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. – Es kann hier nicht die Forschung aufgearbeitet werden; viele weitere Namen wären zu nennen. 5 Karl Elligers Aufsatz ist so grundlegend, dass von ihm jede Diskussion zu P ausgehen sollte: K. Elliger, Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung, ZThK 49 (1952), 121–143. 6 O.H. Steck, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, FRLANT 115, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 21981, hat das mustergültig vorgeführt. Als Beispiel sei die Behandlung von Gen 1,6–8 angeführt: Die „Differenz in der Formulierung […darf nicht als…] Ausdruck von Spannungen, die als überlieferungsgeschichtliche oder gar literarkritische Indizien“ gewertet werden, sondern ist „sachlich begreifbar als von P intendiert(er)…“ (S. 82).

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

275

Gemeinde. P lässt sich m.E. als eine theologische Streitschrift verstehen, die die in Babylon sitzenden Israeliten nachdrücklich zur Rückkehr ins Land auffordert. Man könnte sie in heutigen Kategorien gesprochen „zionistisch“ nennen; aber explizit kommt der „Zion“ nicht vor, umso entschiedener das Land, in welches das Volk zurückkehren soll, das sich in der („ägyptisch“-) babylonischen Gefangenschaft eingerichtet hat und den Weg durch die Wüste in das von Gott gegebene Land7 scheut. Die Intention von P passt sehr gut in die frühpersische Zeit: Die vormals exilierten Judäer haben bereits die Möglichkeit, nach Juda/Jerusalem zurückzukehren; doch die Mehrheit verspürt wenig Lust dazu. Der Grund für die abwartende bis ablehnende Haltung lässt sich aus Num 13–14*P erschließen: Von den zur Begutachtung Ausgesandten wird die „theoretische“ Güte des Landes festgestellt (Num 14,7), doch P weiß auch um den faktisch schlechten Zustand des Landes, das „seine Bewohner frisst“ (Num 14,32b).8 So ist die Sehnsucht nach den Fleischtöpfen Ägyptens durchsichtig auf ein zunehmend angenehmes Leben in Babylon, das viele nicht eintauschen wollen gegen die Mühen des Wiederaufbaus im immer noch am Boden liegenden Juda. Vermutlich ist der Tempel 515 v.Chr. noch nicht gebaut; ich stimme Frevels Datierung für die Entstehung von P zu: „zwischen 530 und 520 v.Chr.“9 Ob P in Jerusalem oder in Babylon geschrieben wurde, ist schwer zu entscheiden; für das Verständnis von P hängt auch nicht viel davon ab. Entscheidend ist, dass das priesterschriftliche Anliegen an die in Babylon Zurückgebliebenen adressiert ist. Weil der Autor mit höherer Autorität argumentieren kann, wenn er selbst schon in Jerusalem lebt, erscheint es mir am wahrscheinlichsten, dass der Autor von P relativ früh die Möglichkeit der Rückkehr nach Jerusalem genutzt hat und nun in Gestalt seines Buches den in Babylon Zurückgebliebenen einen nachdrücklichen Appell zur Heimkehr sendet. Nicht zurückzukehren ist in seinen Augen Rebellion gegen Gott selbst, der als seine wichtigste Heilsgabe Jakob/Israel das Land „gegeben hat“. Faktisch braucht P aber zur Verbreitung seines Buches in Babylon Mitstreiter, seien es Schüler oder Freunde, die sich seinem Anliegen verpflichtet wissen. War P ein eigenes Buch, muss es von einem Redaktor mit dem bereits bestehenden (in meiner Sicht:) älteren Prototetrateuch/Protopentateuch zusammengearbeitet worden sein, sonst hätten wir den vorliegenden zusammenge7 Das hat T. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1995, 307, zur P-Jakobsgeschichte herausgearbeitet, insbesondere zu Gen 35,12a. 8 Zu vgl. ist auch Gen 13,6 „nicht ertrug das Land, dass sie beieinander blieben“. Sehr instruktiv zur desolaten Situation des Landes in der nachexilischen Zeit: H.J. Stipp, The Concept of the Empty Land in Jeremiah 37–43, in: The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, hg. von E. Ben Zvi/C. Levin, BZAW 404, Berlin: de Gruyter 2010, 103–154. 9 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 383.

276

Herbert Specht

setzten Endtext nicht. Ich will hier ausdrücklich betonen, dass eine solche Zusammenfügung bzw. Redaktionsarbeit etwas völlig Ungewöhnliches ist. Denn der Prototetrateuch ist ansonsten ausschließlich durch Erweiterungen gewachsen, so wie auch die Prophetenbücher oder andere altorientalische Literaturwerke gewachsen sind, also nicht durch das Zusammenfügen verschiedener ursprünglich selbständiger Bücher. Ein Beispiel: Da die E zugeschriebenen Texte mindestens in den Abrahamerzählungen, also Gen 20–22*, eindeutig die JTexte kennen und Überarbeitungen bzw. Neuinterpretationen der bereits bestehenden Texte darstellen, die sogar die anderen Texte „einholen“ wollen, muss man folgern: „E“ ist ein Ergänzer. Darum braucht und gibt es keinen Redaktor JE und also auch keinen „Jehowisten“. Der Blick aufs Neue Testament zeigt, dass man ohne weiteres vier Evangelien nebeneinander hat akzeptieren können. Im Alten Testament steht das dtr. Geschichtswerk neben den beiden Chronikbüchern (vgl. auch 1. Makkabäer neben 2. Makkabäer). Insofern hätten auch Prototetrateuch und P in zwei Büchern nebeneinander existieren können. Neben dem „Prototetrateuch“ von Genesis bis Numeri ist das Deuteronomium als eigenes Buch gut erkennbar. Der Einbau des ursprünglich eigenständigen Buches „P“ in Genesis–Numeri und, was den Mosetod betrifft, sogar noch in das Deuteronomium, ist also ein einmaliger Vorgang, der alles andere als selbstverständlich ist und darum dringend einer Erklärung bedarf. Diese Deutung kann hier nicht geleistet werden, aber das Problem soll wenigstens benannt werden. Soviel als Vorrede zu meiner Gesamtsicht von P, die sich auch bei der Beschäftigung mit Num 20,1–13* bewährt hat.

2. Numeri 20,12 im Kontext von 20,1–13*P, oder: Handelt der Text überhaupt von einer Verfehlung Moses und Aarons? Zu Numeri 20 hat zuletzt Christian Frevel eine eindringliche Exegese mit einer ausführlichen Forschungsgeschichte vorgestellt.10 Auf letztere kann ich darum hier verzichten. Frevel macht klar: Fast alles entscheidet sich daran, ob Num 20,12 der Priesterschrift zu- oder abgesprochen wird. Gehört V. 12 nicht zu P, kann man nicht mehr von einer Verfehlung Moses und Aarons auf Ebene der Priesterschrift reden, sondern muss die Deutung ihres Handelns als „Verfehlung“ einer Bearbeitungsschicht zuweisen. In der Tat kann man Zweifel haben, ob V. 12 zu P gehört. Frevel hat sogar „Zehn Gründe gegen die Zugehörigkeit von V. 12 zum Grundtext“11 angeführt. Thomas Pola betont ebenfalls: „V. 12 10 11

Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 306–336. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 328–330.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

277

kann nicht zu Pg gehören.“12 Es braucht also gewichtige Argumente, wenn V. 12 trotzdem der Priesterschrift zugeschrieben werden soll. Das erste Indiz, das darauf hindeutet, dass Mose aufgrund einer Verfehlung nicht ins Land gelangt ist, hat Frevel selbst benannt. Selbst wenn man in Dtn 32,48–52; 34,1–813 den direkten Bezug auf Num 20,12, also V. 51 literarkritisch ausscheidet (wie es Frevel tut), bleibt in 34,7 im Umkreis der Angabe der Lebensjahre des Moses betont, dass für Mose „keinerlei Altersminderung zu erkennen ist“ und Mose „gewissermaßen einen widernatürlichen natürlichen Tod“ stirbt14. Gerade im Vergleich zur Schilderung von Abrahams Tod in Gen 25,7, wo P nicht oft genug betonen kann, dass er gelebt hat und dann lebenssatt verschied, fällt der Unterschied ins Auge. Nun kann man natürlich sagen, wenn einer wie Mose „einen widernatürlichen natürlichen Tod“ stirbt, muss das nicht in einem Schuldzusammenhang stehen. Geht man aber den Vorstellungen von Sterben und Tod im Kontext von P nach, so ergibt sich: In Num 14,26–35*P ist der Tod – „sie sollen dort sterben!“ – eindeutig Strafe für das verfehlte, sich gegen Gottes heilvolle Gabe rebellierende Tun der „Kundschafter“ bzw. des Volks. Im Buch der Toledot Adams in Gen 5 ist „und er starb“ ebenfalls nicht einfach die Feststellung des natürlichen Endes. Vor der Flut konnte sich P sogar ein anderes Lebens-Ende vorstellen, die Entrückung. Wer wie Henoch „mit Gott wandelte“, wurde entrückt, und das geschieht bewusst vor den Augen aller vor der Sintflut lebenden Menschen: Schon alle, die vor der Flut geboren werden, sind bereits am Leben, und noch keiner ist gestorben, als Henoch entrückt wird. Jeden sollte das zu einem Leben „mit Gott“ bewegen. Nicht sterben zu müssen und stattdessen „entrückt“ zu werden, hätte nach P ein starker Anreiz zu einem „Leben mit Gott“ sein müssen. Allerdings folgen die Menschen dem Vorbild Henochs nicht. Im Gegenteil, die von den Menschen ausgehende Gewalttat nimmt zu, und der Tod, am Ende universal in der Sintflut, trifft die Geschöpfe, die ihre Bestimmung verfehlt haben. Wie Alfred Jepsen15 wahrscheinlich gemacht hat, ist in Gen 5 der Chronologie des Samaritanus der Vorzug zu 12

Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 97. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, hat sich sehr ausführlich mit dem Vorschlag von L. Perlitt, Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium, ZAW 100 Suppl (1988), 65–87, auseinandergesetzt. Perlitt spricht Dtn 32,48–52; 34,1–8* mit Vehemenz aber wenig überzeugenden Argumenten der Priesterschrift ab. Ich stimme Perlitt nicht zu, sondern halte die sorgfältige Argumentation Frevels für weit fundierter und tragfähig. Jedenfalls: Wenn man P beurteilen will, muss man sich zuerst in P hineindenken oder es wenigstens versuchen. Perlitt geht vom Deuteronomium aus. Das kann man einmal tun. Doch bedarf es dann wieder der P-Gegenprobe. – Generell will ich auch sagen: Scharfe Rhetorik hat noch nie sachlicher Argumentation gut getan. Jedenfalls kann ich nur davor warnen, Perlitts Beitrag als neuen „Ausgangspunkt“ der Sicht auf P zu nehmen (gegen E. Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2007, 179). 14 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 339. 15 A. Jepsen, Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex, ZAW 47 (1929), 251–255. 13

278

Herbert Specht

geben. Das bedeutet dann, dass das in 5,20.27.31 knapp berichtete Ende Metuschelachs, Jereds und Lamechs ins Jahr der Sintflut datiert wird!16 Der aufmerksame Leser muss folgern, dass diese im Strafgericht der Sintflut untergegangen sind, weil sie zu „allem Fleisch“ gehört haben, das „die Erde mit Gewalttat“ überzogen hat und darum verderbt wurde (Gen 6,12–13). Noah alleine ist eine Ausnahme. Er „wandelte mit Gott“ und wird darum in der Arche gerettet. Zurück zu Dtn 32. Mose stirbt im hohen Alter von 120 Jahren, aber es wird betont, dass er noch frisch, also voller Tatkraft, ist und damit – anders als der lebenssatte Abraham in Gen 25 – noch mitten im Leben steht. Im Kontext von P muss dieser vorzeitige Tod Moses erklärt werden. Frevel tut dies dann auch. „Mose gehört zu der Kundschaftergeneration, und er muß wie die gesamte Generation vor der Landesgrenze sterben (Dtn. 32,52).“17 Diese Erklärung reicht jedoch nicht hin, denn dieser Generation wird in Num 14,(26).27.35 Murren und Rebellion vorgeworfen, und deshalb ist auch deren Sterben in der Wüste Strafe, ein unnötiger „widernatürlicher“ Tod. Jedoch, und das ist entscheidend: Mose hat nicht gemurrt und sich nicht gegen Jahwe empört. Es wäre mehr als inkonsequent und unfair, müssten Moses und Aaron eine solch schwere Schuld tragen, die sie nicht begangen haben. Für P wäre die kollektive Mithaftung eines Unschuldigen geradezu unerträglich. Die Gottesrede in Num 14,26ff.*P ergeht an Mose und Aaron, damit sie die Gerichtsbotschaft weitergeben. Aber es ist undenkbar, dass sie diese Ankündigung auch auf sich selbst beziehen sollen, wo doch auch Josua und Kaleb ausdrücklich ausgenommen sind von dieser Strafmaßnahme. Darum leuchtet mir die Begründung Frevels nicht ein, dass Mose weil zur Kundschaftergeneration gehörend außerhalb des Landes sterben muss. Nur diejenigen, die gemurrt haben, sollen sterben. Das also mein erstes Indiz: Der vorzeitige Tod des Mose wäre ohne Begründung im Kontext von P unverständlich, und es ist daher erneut zu prüfen, ob Dtn 32,51 und also Num 20,12 nicht doch unverzichtbare Bestandteile der Pg sind.18 16

Auch nach dem Samaritanus sind diese drei sehr alt geworden. Aber was für ein Sarkasmus bei P: alt – und offensichtlich böse! Und man darf auch nicht übersehen: Es sind nicht namenlose anonyme Menschen, die Gewalttat verübten und in der Flut untergegangen sind. Die verantwortlichen „Familienväter“ sind alle bekannt. 17 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 339. 18 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 336, schiebt den Schuld-Strafe-Zusammenhang einer späteren redaktionellen Hand zu, die diesen „in die Erzählung vom Wasserwunder einbringen wollte.“ Natürlich können alle möglichen Autoren in einem „Schuld-Strafe-Zusammenhang“ denken. Aber in herausragender Weise denkt P in solchen Zusammenhängen, z.B. Gewalttat – Sintflut; in Num 13–14*P: Gerücht – Strafe. Und andererseits: Nirgendwo sonst erzählt P nur eine Wundergeschichte („Wasserwunder“), wie sie Frevel rekonstruiert. Und wenn Mose und Aaron an dieser Stelle als Führungspersönlichkeiten bestätigt werden müssten, müsste es irgendwelche (Rück-)Verweise geben, die ich nicht erkennen kann. Nach Num 14,10 wird keiner

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

279

Ein zweites Indiz: Num 20,6 wird von den meisten Auslegern zu Pg gerechnet, so auch von Frevel19. Was aber bedeutet es bei Pg, dass die Herrlichkeit YHWHs dem Mose und Aaron erscheint? Ursula Struppe fasst es so zusammen: „Das Erscheinen seiner Herrlichkeit ist die Form seiner (sc. YHWHs) rettend-richtenden Anwesenheit mit und unter seiner Gemeinde.“20 Damit ist etwas Wichtiges gesagt, aber m.E. nicht alles. Denn es kann ja kaum ein Zweifel bestehen: Für P ist YHWH ständig präsent. Und um etwa zu Mose oder Aaron zu sprechen, muss YHWH nicht in seiner Herrlichkeit erscheinen. Wenn der sonst unsichtbar Da-Seiende in seiner Herrlichkeit erscheint, hat YHWH offenbar Gründe, seinem Da-Sein höchsten Nachdruck zu verleihen. Erscheint YHWHs Herrlichkeit, wird der Mensch mit der Übermacht Gottes konfrontiert. Mindestens in diesem Moment und für diesen Moment werden diejenigen, denen YHWHs Herrlichkeit erscheint, gewahr, dass er Gott ist, oder mindestens sollte es so sein. In Ex 16,10 ist – dem Duktus der ganzen P-Erzählung gemäß – mit dem Erscheinen der Herrlichkeit YHWHs die rettende Gegenwart Gottes betont, wobei auch eindeutig klargemacht wird, dass Israel nicht umhin kommt, den Weg durch die Wüste zu gehen: „sie wandten sich zur Wüste hin, da, siehe, erschien die Herrlichkeit YHWHs in der Wolke“. In Num 14,10 erscheint die Herrlichkeit YHWHs allen Israeliten, die auf der Stelle die Gefahr der nach-drücklichen Präsenz-Heiligkeit YHWHs erkennen und darum sofort aufhören mit ihrem Vorhaben der Steinigung. Wenn YHWHs Herrlichkeit erscheint, spüren Menschen, dass sie von ihren eigenen Plänen ablassen und sich YHWHs Willen beugen müssen. Wenn in 20,6 YHWHs Herrlichkeit den beiden Führern Mose und Aaron erscheint, dann ruft sich YHWH ihnen nachdrücklich ins Gedächtnis. Fast könnte man von 14,10 aus sagen, er ruft sie zurück von den gerade eingeschlagenen Wegen, ruft sie insofern „zur Umkehr“, als dass sie sich wieder bewusst werden sollten, was der Auftrag YHWHs an sie ist und dass dieser Auftrag ihr Leben unbedingt bestimmen soll.21 mehr einen Stein heben; eine stärkere Bestätigung als das Erscheinen der Herrlichkeit YHWHs zugunsten Moses und Aarons ist ja kaum denkbar. Das Volk murrt zwar weiter, aber wird es nicht bei der nächsten Schwierigkeit wieder murren? Es ist überhaupt kein Akt einer Bestätigung denkbar, durch den YHWH dem Volk das Murren ein für alle Mal austreiben könnte. Es bleibt nur ein Weg für YHWH (und ebenso Mose und Aaron): einen Umgang mit einem stets aufs Neue murrenden Volk zu finden. 19 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 324. 20 U. Struppe, Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH, ÖBS 9, Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988, 214. 21 Ob die bloßen Amts-Autoritäten gegenüber kritische P hier sagen will, dass Menschen, die mit Gott „Umgang haben“ oder mit Gott allzu vertraut sind, sich besonders schwer tun, den für sie bestimmten Anruf Gottes zu hören? – B.A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, AncB 4, New York et al.: Doubleday 1993, 484, meint, dass „the legitimacy of Moses (and Aaron) is established by the appearance of the kabod“. Aber dann müsste YHWH in seinem kabod dem Volk erscheinen, wie es etwa in Num 14,10 geschieht.

280

Herbert Specht

Ich sehe daher schon in Num 20,6 ein Indiz dafür, dass P die beiden auf bedenklichen Wegen sieht. Nur durch eine Änderung ihres Verhaltens und also ein genaues Hinhören auf das, was YHWH konkret in diesem Augenblick und darüber hinaus ganz grundsätzlich seit ihrer Indienstnahme will, könnten sie ihrer Berufung gerecht werden. Doch leider geht die Erscheinung der Herrlichkeit YHWHs gerade bei den mit YHWH so vertrauten Führern ins Leere. 20,6 enthält also implizit eine Warnung an Mose und Aaron vor einer möglichen Verfehlung und bereitet bereits auf 20,12 vor. Ein drittes Indiz. Num 20,7–8(*) gibt YHWH Mose einen Auftrag, und zwar soll er – klammern wir den Stab einmal aus – die Gemeinde versammeln und „ihr sollt vor ihren Augen zu dem Felsen reden, dass er sein Wasser gebe, und du sollst für sie aus dem Felsen Wasser herausgehen lassen und die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh tränken.“ Bei P darf man die Schilderung der Ausführung des Auftrags erwarten, und in V. 9 wird die Ausführung des Befehls zum Holen des Stabes und in 10 die Ausführung des Auftrags geschildert, das Volk zu versammeln vor dem Felsen. Sodann „redet Mose“; allerdings redet er zum Volk, „zu ihnen“, nicht zum Felsen. Und dann schlägt er an den Felsen. Aaron Schart hat Recht: „Mose soll reden, nicht schlagen.“22 Dabei muss doch klar sein: Wenn bei P der Auftrag Jahwes nicht exakt ausgeführt wird, entstehen zwangsläufig Probleme. In Num 13–14*P sollen die „Kundschafter“ das Land begutachten, ein klar begrenzter Auftrag. Es war dagegen nicht Bestandteil ihres Auftrags, eine Stellungnahme abzugeben, ob und wie das Land eingenommen werden kann. Indem sie ihre von Angst geleitete Einschätzung auf dem Wege des Gerüchts verbreiten, weichen sie von ihrem Auftrag ab und stiften widergöttlichen Aufruhr. Schon dies Beispiel zeigt: Eine eigenmächtig veränderte Ausführung des Auftrags Jahwes zieht katastrophale Folgen nach sich. Wie man statt der anderen „Kundschafter“ dem Auftrag Gottes gemäß reden kann, zeigen Josua und Kaleb in Num 13–14*P in den Versen 6–10*. In Num 20,1–13* fehlt leider die Rede, die YHWH erwartet. Das nun unterscheidet diese Stelle von anderen. Was Mose dem Felsen sagen soll, wird ihm nicht vorgesagt. Hier erwartet YHWH offenbar eine von Mose selbständig formulierte Rede.23 Wie müsste eine solche Rede aussehen? Wenn man probeweise V. 12 doch mit einbezieht, dann müsste diese Rede zuerst Jahwe in den 22 A. Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990, 117. 23 Viele Ausleger meinen, P schreite von göttlicher Setzung zur nächsten göttlichen Setzung und so könne es nicht auf menschliche Aktionen ankommen. Aber zeichnet P deshalb den Menschen als Ebenbild Gottes? – Zwar benennt P Lebensgrundlagen, die sich der Mensch nicht selbst schaffen kann: Die Welt ist Gottes Gabe, das Leben, der Bund Gottes mit Noah trotz menschlicher Sünde, der Bund Gottes mit Abraham, die Gabe des Landes, der Auszug aus Ägypten, die Gabe des Kultes und auf dem Weg Gottes Hilfe. Aber dann kommt es ebenso auf

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

281

Augen der Israeliten „heiligen“, also als Gott erweisen. Aber kann das YHWH von Mose nicht ohnehin erwarten, selbst wenn man V. 12 nicht kennt? Wie sollte Mose auch den Auftrag bei seiner Berufung vergessen können? Nach Ex 6,2–8 soll Israel YHWH erkennen: „Ich will euch zu meinem Volk annehmen. Ich will euer Gott sein, und ihr sollt erkennen, dass ich YHWH bin, der euch von den Lasten der Ägypter befreit.“ (V. 7) Ex 6,9 stellt jedoch fest, dass die Erkenntnis zunächst ausbleibt: „Mose richtete dies den Israeliten aus. Doch sie hörten nicht auf Mose wegen Kleinmut und wegen der harten Fron.“ Aber YHWH lässt sich nicht entmutigen – dann müssen die Israeliten eben über einen Umweg YHWH kennen lernen: Über den Umweg des Gerichts an den Ägyptern, die in ihrem Untergang „erfahren, dass ich YHWH bin, wenn ich meine Hand ausstrecke und die Israeliten aus ihrer Mitte herausführe.“ In der indirekten Erfahrung über die in ihrem Untergang YHWHs Gottheit erkennenden Ägypter sollen die Israeliten ihrerseits etwas von YHWHs Gottheit erkennen.24 Von diesem Modell her, dass die angestrebte Erkenntnis YHWHs nicht im ersten Anlauf gelingt, es vielmehr eines Umwegs über die Gotteserkenntnis der Ägypter bedarf, muss man auch einen Sinn in diesem merkwürdigen Umstand suchen, dass Mose nach YHWHs Willen nicht zu den Israeliten, sondern zum Felsen reden soll. Dabei kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass YHWH indirekt die Israeliten erreichen will. Aber warum ist in Num 20 ein Umweg vonnöten? Dazu ist die Problemstellung der Erzählung zu eruieren. Der Erzähler steuert rasch auf Beschreibung des Problems zu: Kein Wasser. Darauf erfolgt sofort die Zusammenrottung der Gemeinde gegen Mose und Aaron (V. 2–4.5), Murren, übermäßiges Lamentieren, Todeswunsch, bösartiger Vorwurf. Ist die Deutung übertrieben, wenn man sagt: Mose und Aaron verschlägt es nach diesen Vorwürfen die Sprache? Jedenfalls antworten sie der Gemeinde nicht mehr, vielmehr gehen sie zum Offenbarungszelt und werfen sich vor ihrem Gott nieder. Dieser erscheint in seiner Herrlichkeit, aber nur ihnen, Moses und Aaron (nicht dem Volk). Wie aber ist sein nachdrückliches Da-Sein für sie den Menschen an: Was er macht aus den Gaben Gottes? Macht er mit Gewalttat das Leben auf der sehr guten Erde unerträglich? Nimmt er die Gabe des Landes und das Heil in den von Gott gegebenen Bundesschlüssen und im Kult dankbar an und ist er bereit, sich Gott zu öffnen, ihn zu erkennen? Macht er sich auf den Weg aus Ägypten heraus, ist er bereit, „mit Gott“ ins Land aufzubrechen usw.? – Wer in P nur auf Gottes Handeln schaut, verkennt, dass Gott immer wieder neu gezwungen ist, auf verfehlte Akte der Menschen zu reagieren, und Gott sei Dank tut er es und schafft auch da, wo die Menschen Gottes Gaben verachtet haben, neue Wege. – Von Mose bzw. den Führern erwartet YHWH selbständiges Agieren, das der von Gott geschaffenen Beziehung und also ihrem Auftrag entspricht. 24 Ist dieser „Umweg“ nicht transparent auf die Situation der „Israeliten“/Judäer in Babylon? Könnte Israel nicht den Untergang der Neubabylonier indirekt als Sieg YHWHs deuten, als Bestätigung der Ankündigung Deuterojesajas? Könnte/sollte Israel im Untergang der Neubabylonier und der Rückkehrmöglichkeit indirekt YHWHs Wirken ihm zugute erkennen?

282

Herbert Specht

zu deuten? Von der Gemeinde sind sie nicht mehr wirklich bedroht, selbst wenn diese murrt. Keiner würde nach Num 13–14* wagen, einen Stein gegen sie aufzuheben. Wo lauern für Mose und Aaron Gefahren? Sind es ihre Aggressionen gegen das Volk, das die ihrerseits mit einem hohen Aggressionspotential versehene Murr-Rede der Gemeinde in ihnen ausgelöst hat? Könnte YHWH ihnen durch die Erscheinung seiner Herrlichkeit vermitteln wollen: Eure Emotionen gegen die Gemeinde bringen euch in höchste Gefahr, das Euch aufgetragene Amt zu verfehlen, nämlich dem Volk zu vermitteln, dass „ich YHWH ihr Gott bin“! Die „Herrlichkeit YHWHs“ warnt nachdrücklich: verrennt euch nicht! Zwar sind angesichts des Murrens aggressive Emotionen gegen die Gemeinde verständlich (V. 10: Ihr Widerspenstigen!), und klar sind die Vorwürfe in V. 3– 4(.5) ungeheuerlich und nicht zu entschuldigen, aber offenbar hält YHWH an dieser Gemeinde fest. Denn in der YHWH-Rede hört Mose: „Versammle die Gemeinde.“ In V. 1, 2, 6, 8a, 8b 10, 11 ist jeweils von der Gemeinde ‫ עדה‬die Rede. Darf man so deuten: Der Text insgesamt und pointiert YHWH in seiner Rede an Mose und Aaron hält daran fest: Diese Leute, die in ihrer Not aufgebracht bösartige Vorwürfe äußern und dabei jedes Maß vermissen lassen, die bleiben trotzdem Gemeinde. Gemeinde, die allerdings die Hilfe ihres Gottes braucht und die in den Worten der von Gott berufenen Führer darauf angewiesen ist, dass ihnen neben dem lebensnotwendigen Wasser auch das lebensnotwendige Wort zur Erkenntnis ihres Gottes gegeben wird. Auf diesem Hintergrund muss nun auch der Auftrag an Mose gedeutet werden: Er soll „die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh tränken“ 8bβ, und in 11bβ wird dann berichtet, dass eben die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh getrunken haben, oder soll man jetzt eher sagen, „gesoffen“ haben. Wenn denn die Gemeinde irgendetwas verstanden hätte von dem, was da geschehen ist, hätte sie dann nicht wenigstens in dankbaren Jubel ausbrechen müssen? – Nein, diese Gemeinde hat gar nichts verstanden. Sie hat viel Wasser, und das gönnt der Leser ihr, aber sie hat kein Wort, das auf den Geber des Wassers hindeutet, und so ist ihre Wasseraufnahme nicht als „trinken“ zu deuten, vielmehr „säuft“ sie wie das Vieh. Ihr ist von ihren Führern die Deutung vorenthalten worden. Denn die Führer sind wütend über die Widerspenstigen. Die beiden Führer sind nicht gewillt, sich weiter vergeblich um sie zu bemühen und sie zur Einsicht zu bringen. Frevel hat sehr gut beobachtet: Es gibt enge Parallelen im Aufbau von Ex 16*, Num 13–14* und Num 20,1–13*, und eine besonders enge Beziehung zwischen Ex 16*, der Gabe von Manna in der Wüste, und Num 20,1–13*, der Gabe von Wasser in der Wüste.25 Aber eben wenn man vergleicht, erkennt man: In Ex 16* setzen Mose und Aaron alles daran, dass das Volk erkennt, wer ihm das Manna gibt. Und: In Ex 16*P folgen auf V. 1–3 (mit heftigem Murren und Todeswunsch) die Verse 6–7: Hier sprechen, und zwar aus eigenem Antrieb, 25

Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 324. Vgl. auch den vorauslaufenden sorgfältigen Vergleich zwischen Ex 16*P und Num 13–14*P durch Schart, Mose und Israel, 137–148.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

283

ohne Auftrag YHWHs aber in völliger Übereinstimmung mit dem Willen YHWHs, Mose und Aaron zu ganz Israel Worte des Vertrauens und vor allem Worte der Deutung: Die Gaben zur Speisung sind Geschenke der Herrlichkeit YHWHs und in der Speisung werden sie „erkennen“ und „sehen“. Erst dann spricht YHWH und bestätigt die Worte Moses und Aarons in V. 12, und auch da zielt alles darauf, dass sie erkennen, dass „ich, YHWH, euer Gott bin“. In Num 20,11 haben Mose und Aaron diese Chance vertan; sie sind ihrem Auftrag nicht gerecht geworden. Doch zurück zum Motiv der Rede zum Felsen. Erkennt YHWH, dass in der aufgeheizten Stimmung Moses und Aaron kaum in der Lage sein werden, im direkten Gegenüber zur „Gemeinde“ YHWHs rettendes Handeln glaubwürdig zu verkünden? Gebietet YHWH deshalb Moses und Aaron zu dem Felsen zu reden, damit sie dem Felsen die Geschichte YHWHs mit seinem Volk, seine Heilserweise für sein Volk erzählen und ihn dann im Namen YHWHs um die Gabe seines Wassers bitten könnten? Könnten sie im „Umweg“ der Rede an den Felsen auf YHWH und sein Heil fokussieren und so indirekt das Volk erreichen?26 So passt sich der Befehl, zum Felsen zu reden, dem Duktus der Erzählung kohärent ein.27 Damit habe ich drei Indizien zusammengetragen, die zeigen: Es braut sich etwas zusammen in dieser Erzählung. Mose und Aaron sind dabei, ihren Auftrag zu vergessen und damit YHWH selbst. V. 12 ist alles andere als ein gelehrter Zusatz aus dem Nichts, sondern zwar erzählerisch subtil, aber doch gut vorbereitet.

3. Literarkritik von Num 20,1–13* 3.1. Num 20,1 Num 20,1a: Da kamen die Israeliten, die ganze Gemeinde, in die Wüste Zin im ersten Monat, und das Volk ließ sich nieder in Kadesch.

26 Ich halte P für einen unglaublich wandlungsfähigen tiefschürfenden Autor, dem sehr viele Erzähltechniken zur Verfügung stehen, auch den der Rede über einen Umweg. Nicht auszuschließen ist, dass er im Zusammenhang der altorientalischen Sintfluterzählungen das AtraHasis-Epos kennengelernt hat. In Atra-Hasis III Kol I Z. 20–21 spricht Enki weil eidlich gebunden nicht zu Atra-Hasis selbst, sondern ebenfalls nur indirekt über einen Umweg: „Wand, höre mir zu, Schilfwand, achte auf alle meine Worte.“ 27 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 323–324, streicht literarkritisch „und redet zum Felsen vor ihren Augen“. Nun gut, die „ursprüngliche“ Erzählung würde dadurch flüssiger. Aber ist es wahrscheinlich, dass ein Redaktor in etwas flüssig Erzähltes plötzlich schwer verständliche Umwege einbaut? Meist gleichen Redaktoren aus, bringen verschiedene Erzählungen und auseinanderstrebende Konzepte zusammen, oftmals mühsam, aber dass sie eine geniale Idee einbringen, erscheint mir eher unwahrscheinlich.

284

Herbert Specht

In der Forschung wird 20,1aα (ohne: im ersten Monat) meist zu P gerechnet, 20,1bβ meist als Dublette gesehen und entweder einer anderen Quellenschrift (J, E) oder der nachpriesterschriftlichen Redaktion zugewiesen. Zunächst einmal: Wenn man nicht sofort hier mit Macht literarkritisch abtrennen will, etwa weil man dringend noch einen J- oder E-Faden für das eigene Pentateuchmodell braucht28, ruft aus dem Text nichts nach Literarkritik. Im Gegenteil: Stilistisch liegt hier eine herrliche Inclusio vor: a (1aα) – b (im ersten Monat) – a’ (1aβ). „Israeliten“, „die ganze Gemeinde“, und „das Volk“ 29 bräuchte man nicht unbedingt in einem Satz, aber das ist P-Stil mit der für ihn spezifischen Häufung, und die Häufung lässt sich auch hier sachlich (s.u.) begründen. V. 1aβ (a’) führt V. 1aα (a) inhaltlich ganz klar weiter, stellt also keine unmotivierte Doppelung dar. In V. 1aα ist vom „Ankommen“ die Rede, in V. 1aβ vom „Sich-Niederlassen“. Das ist nicht dasselbe. Und, noch wichtiger, beide Verben sind auch sonst eng aufeinander bezogen. Das zeigt sich in der vorpriesterschriftlichen (m. E. vorjahwistischen) Abraham-Lot-Erzählung in Gen 13,18: Abraham „kam an und ließ sich nieder“; wichtiger aber sind die P-Belege: Gen 11,31b „und sie kamen nach Charan ‫ ויבאו‬und ließen sich dort nieder“, und dann, weil beides zusammengehört, in der P-Abrahamerzählung bereits etwas „aufgesprengt“, Gen 12,5bβ „sie kamen in das Land Kanaan“, und weil man nicht wie erwartet sagen kann „und sie ließen sich nieder“, wird der Satz in 13,6 fortgeführt: „Nicht ertrug das Land, dass sie sich miteinander niederließen, denn ihre Habe war groß, und so konnten sie sich nicht miteinander niederlassen“. Damit wird die Trennung begründet und in 13,12 konstatiert, dass Abram „sich niedergelassen hatte im Lande Kanaan und Lot sich niedergelassen hatte in den Städten ...“. Die beiden Verben gehören also zusammen. Zwar ist auffällig, dass in der Wüstenerzählung beide Verben sonst nicht zusammen vorkommen, immer nur „sie kamen an“ ‫ויבאו‬. Aber das ist erklärbar: In der Wüste ist Israel per definitionem „auf dem Weg“, und so wird es an einzelnen Stationen wohl „ankommen“, sich aber normalerweise nicht „niederlassen“.30

28 Bei allem Respekt: B. Baentsch, Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri, HkAT I/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903, 565–568, sucht dringend nach einem E-Erzählfaden, und wer sucht, findet – mindestens oft. 29 „Volk“ ‫ עם‬ist trotz einiger Infragestellungen bei P durchaus zu finden, und zwar an prägnanten Stellen wie in „Ex 6,7 und Lev 9,22–27“, so Schart, Mose und Israel, 112. Weitere sichere P-Belege: Gen 17,16; 23,7.11 bezogen auf ein anderes Volk; man kann den Stil nicht mögen, sprachstatistisch kann man „Volk“ P nicht absprechen. – In Num 20,1–13 folgt „Volk“ gleich wieder in V. 3: Das Volk haderte mit Mose. Es wäre P wohl doch hart angekommen, hier „die Gemeinde“ zum Subjekt zu machen. 30 Im Buch Josua geht es dann um „einnehmen“ und „sich niederlassen“.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

285

Für 20,1 genügt die Einsicht: die beiden Verben „ankommen“ und „sich niederlassen“ sind für die Autoren des AT und insbesondere für P oftmals aufeinander bezogen belegt und gehören zusammen.31 Sie hier auseinanderzureißen, benötigte eine gewichtige Begründung. Die beiden Sätze kann man jedenfalls nicht als Dubletten bezeichnen! Dafür sprechen nun auch die geographischen Angaben. Frevel hat recht, wenn er schreibt: „Die Wüste Zin, in Num 20,1; 27,14; 33,36; Dtn 32,51 mit Kadesch geradezu identifiziert, erstreckt sich von der Oase Kadesch nördlich bis zur Skorpionensteige, höchstens jedoch bis an das Südende des Toten Meeres. Näher kann man kaum noch an die Kulturlandgrenze herankommen, ohne selbst schon im Lande zu sein ...“.32 Vielleicht ist die Zuspitzung etwas übertrieben, „mit Kadesch geradezu identifiziert“, aber jedenfalls ist Kadesch ein Ort in der Wüste Zin. Wenn es also in 20,1aα heißt, „sie kamen an in der Wüste Zin“, so legt es sich doch nahe – da die Wüste Zin sich ja über ein größeres Gebiet erstreckt –, dass sich das Volk an einem bestimmten Ort „niedergelassen“ hat. Auch hier gibt es keinen Widerspruch, vielmehr ist die zweite geografische Angabe 20,1aβ die in jeder Hinsicht logische Fortführung des ersten Satzes und bestimmt den Ort des Niederlassens näher. Zur Beurteilung der erzählerischen Kohärenz spielt auch die Frage eine Rolle, ob sich denn das Volk an diesem Ort „niederlassen“ sollte. Dazu ist die theologische Beurteilung des Verhaltens des Volkes auf Ebene des P-Textes zu klären. Aus den oben genannten Belegen Gen 13,18; 13,12; 11,31b ist durchaus zu schließen, dass der Erzähler sagen will: Das Volk beabsichtigt, sich auf Dauer niederzulassen. Solch ein Vorhaben ist aus Sicht von P eine schwere Fehlentscheidung: Noch ist man nicht im Land. Man darf sich also noch nicht niederlassen! Aber P ist genauso wenig einverstanden mit dem Entschluss Terachs, sich nach der Ankunft in Charan niederzulassen und provoziert den Leser: Hat er nicht sein Ziel aus den Augen verloren? Er wollte doch explizit ins Land Kanaan! P missbilligt als Theologe diesen Entschluss aufs schärfste – aber als Erzähler kann er von ihm missbilligte Fehlentscheidungen darstellen, um Problemstellungen anzuzeigen bzw. einen Erzähl-„plot“ aufzubauen. So wird sich zeigen, dass V. 5 nur im Zusammenhang mit 1aβ verständlich ist, aber dann auch einen sehr spezifischen und zwar P-spezifischen Sinn hat. Vor der weiteren Interpretation dieser „Itinerarnotizen“ soll ein Blick auf den Zentralteil der Inclusio, die Zeitangabe, geworfen werden. Sie wird ebenfalls meist P abgesprochen. 31

Frevels Aussage, Mit Blick auf das Land, 308, „Zudem erwartet man nach ‫ ויבאו‬in 1aα nicht unbedingt ‫ וישב‬in 1aβ.“ ist also zu korrigieren. 32 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 76 Anm. 30. Ähnlich noch ebd. S. 308 „müssten sich nicht widersprechen“. – Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, weshalb Frevel später eine so strikte Opposition zwischen der Wüste Zin und Kadesch konstruiert und auf der sicher geglaubten literarkritischen Ausscheidung von V. 1aβ so viele Folgehypothesen aufbaut.

286

Herbert Specht

Der Zentralteil der Inclusio, die Zeitangabe „im ersten Monat“ (20,1aβ) wird ebenfalls P meist abgesprochen. Als Argument wird vorgebracht, dass die Angabe des Jahres seit dem Auszug fehle. 33 Dabei: käme es nicht auch und gerade auf das Jahr an? Doch. Ludwig Schmidt hat herausgefunden: „Vermutlich ist das letzte Jahr der Wüstenwanderung gemeint.“34 Ich stimme dieser Deutung zu. Geht man davon aus, dass nichts weggefallen ist – und vermutlich stimmt diese Voraussetzung, dann muss man fragen: Wem ist solch eine unvollständige Angabe, die zum Rechnen zwingt, eher zuzuschreiben, einem späteren Redaktor oder P selbst? Wenn ein Redaktor sich genötigt fühlte, „im ersten Monat“ einzufügen und die entscheidende Information des Jahres „vergisst“, dann kann er diese „Präzisierung“ gleich lassen. Und was ist mit P? P liebt es, solche Rechenaufgaben einzubauen. Man muss nur wieder Gen 5 auslegen, oder die Jahreszahlen in der Abrahamgeschichte und so fort. P geht zwar ein Risiko ein: Dass nicht alle nachrechnen. Dass viele Leser gar nicht mitkriegen, wer alles in der Sintflut ersäuft, dass die Leser nicht merken, wer als erster nach der Flut gestorben ist oder in welchem Jahr nach der Flut Abram in Kanaan angekommen ist (365) usf. All das ist nicht nebensächlich, all das hat P genau bedacht. Er hätte klarer darauf hinweisen können. Aber er tut es nicht. Denn P will als Autor seine Leser zwingen, sich in seinen Texten und Zahlenangaben genau umzutun. Der unvollständige Hinweis „im ersten Monat“ setzt ein Signal; der irritierte Leser muss geradezu im Kontext forschen; aber wenn er herausgefunden hat, „der Autor kann nur meinen: Im ersten Monat im vierzigsten Jahr,“ dann hat er sich durch eigene Arbeit tief in den Text hineinbegeben. Und das will P erreichen. Folglich kommt der Leser auch nicht umhin, über diese Angabe nachzudenken. Für mich steht darum fest: „im ersten Monat“ stammt von P; Da auch sprachlich nichts gegen eine Zugehörigkeit zu P spricht, vgl. die Parallelen in Ex 40,17, Num 10,11 (2. Monat) und abgewandelt in Ex 12,1, gehört die Zeitangabe „im ersten Monat“ zu P. Sachlich hat es auch diese Notiz in sich. Wagen wir hier eine erste Interpretation. Wie immer bei P ist nichts zufällig. Was also steckt hinter der dürren Zeitangabe? Zunächst kann man schließen: Der Wüstenaufenthalt geht seinem Ende zu. Bald folgt der Einzug ins Land. Verständlicherweise kann man diesen Einzug fast nicht mehr erwarten. Man sollte allerdings genau lesen: Nirgends ist davon 33 Das stellt auch L. Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri. Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 91, fest: „Für den ersten Monat wird das Jahr nicht angegeben.“ 34 Ebd. So auch Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 240. Fast alle Ausleger, die sich mit der Frage beschäftigen, sind zum selben Ergebnis gekommen, vgl. z.B. auch J. Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society 5750/1990, 127, oder schon G.B. Gray, A critical and exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1903, 257.259.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

287

die Rede, dass YHWH den Befehl zum Aufbruch gegeben hat. Geht die Ungeduld vom Volk aus, oder von Mose und Aaron? Sollte sie vom Volk ausgegangen sein, so haben Mose und Aaron mindestens nicht widersprochen. So oder so bringt P hier noch ein ironisches Element herein: Die Führer können es kaum mehr erwarten, ins Land zu gelangen, und am Ende kommen sie aufgrund ihrer Verfehlung gar nicht mehr ins Land hinein. Jedenfalls: Die beiden Führer sind verantwortlich für den Aufbruch, so sieht es ganz richtig das Volk, und das Volk macht darum in V. 3–5 nicht YHWH Vorhaltungen, sondern den Führern: „Warum habt ihr ...?“ Man kann auch fragen, und zwar wieder ganz klar im Kontext von P, ob es denn klug war, „im ersten Monat“ aufzubrechen. Reinhard Achenbach35 hat darauf hingewiesen: Im ersten Monat ist nach Ex 12*P das Passah zu feiern, im ersten Monat ist nach Ex 40,17, erneut P!, das Heiligtum eingeweiht worden. Mose und Aaron bringen sich selbst und die Gemeinde in die Bredouille: eigentlich sollte man Zeit haben für das Passahfest und vielleicht auch für das Gedenken an die Gabe des Heiligtums. In Num 10,11f.*P36 bricht Israel sinnvoller Weise erst im 2. Monat (am 20. Tag desselben) auf; wieder ist dort die Literarkritik umstritten. Selbst wenn 11b.12b erst später ergänzt wären, bleibt die eben getroffene Aussage richtig. Wenn 11b.12b priesterschriftlich wären (wofür gute Gründe sprechen), dann könnten Mose und Aaron eigentlich wissen, in welchem Monat Gott selbst andernorts das Signal zum Aufbruch gegeben hat. Wären sie im zweiten Monat aufgebrochen, hätten die Führer und hätte die Gemeinde für Passah, Freude über das Heiligtum, und die Arbeit des Aufbruchs und Weiterzugs genügend Zeit gehabt – und auch so wäre der „Umzug“ anstrengend genug gewesen.37 Im ersten Monat aber musste alles zu einer einzigen Überforderung werden. Wie dem auch sei, die Israeliten sind „angekommen“ in der Wüste Zin, die in Num 13–14*P, konkret Num 13,21, Ausgangspunkt der Erkundung des Landes war. Dort lässt sich das Volk nieder. Kann es etwas anderes heißen als dass das Volk sagt: Hier bleiben wir. Das Volk könnte argumentieren: Die Wüste Zin gehört schon zum Land, siehe 13,21. Ein Körnchen Wahrheit könnte für diese Entscheidung ins Feld geführt werden. Auf diesem Hintergrund kann man erneut nachdenken über den Wechsel der Bezeichnung Israels von Num 20,1aα zu V. 1aβ: Die Israeliten als ganze Gemeinde „kamen an“. Das Volk aber „lässt sich nieder“. Soll man hier schließen: 35 R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, 310, deutet auf der Endtextebene bzw. auf der Ebene nachpriesterschriftlicher Redaktion. Aber seine Beobachtungen machen auch im P-Kontext Sinn. 36 Sicher P: Num 10,11a.12a*, so Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 145. 37 Nach Ex 16,1 ist Israel ebenfalls erst im 2. Monat aufgebrochen und am 15. Tag in der Wüste Zin angekommen.

288

Herbert Specht

Mose und Aaron (und das Zelt der Begegnung) sind integraler Bestandteil der Gemeinde. P differenziert deshalb und bezeichnet hier mit „das Volk“ Israel ohne Mose und Aaron. Dann könnte der Leser weiter bedenken: Mose und Aaron haben gar nicht mitbekommen, was das Volk für sich beschlossen hat: „Hier bleiben wir! Das Ziel ist erreicht.“ Die Vorwürfe des Volkes treffen Mose auch deshalb völlig unvorbereitet, weil es an Kadesch völlig andere Erwartungen hat als Mose. Die Literarkritik bleibt zugegebenermaßen diffizil. 1aβ wird in 3a und 5 fortgeführt; man kreist mehr oder weniger um denselben Gedanken. Zunächst zu 5: V. 5 ist nur zu verstehen aus einer Enttäuschung heraus, die das Volk sich selbst zuzuschreiben hat. Denn es war eine Selbst-Täuschung, dass es die Option „hier lassen wir uns nieder“ überhaupt gibt. Kadesch ist für vieles gut, aber klar: Es ist kein Ort zum Säen, für Feigenbäume, Weinstöcke, oder Granatapfelbäume. Das kann und soll er nach P auch nicht sein! „Böser, elender Ort“ ist Kadesch nur, wenn man den Ort mit völlig falschen Erwartungen überfrachtet. Für P – und vermutlich für Mose und Aaron – ist klar, dass auch Kadesch nur eine Station auf dem Weg ins Land ist. Das Ziel ist noch nicht erreicht. Man kann „ankommen“, aber nicht „sich niederlassen“. Noch einmal sei an die P-Erzählung von Terach erinnert. Charan in Gen 11,31 kann nur ein Zwischenhalt sein, aber auch Terach hat sein Ziel aus den Augen verloren (Land Kanaan) und sich fälschlicherweise dort „niedergelassen“. Ähnlich hier. Und aus der Fehlentscheidung resultiert ein Problem, das sich zuspitzen wird. Mit diesen Überlegungen sind wir tief in der theologischen und narrativen Logik von P. Damit ist klar: V. 1aβ und 5 gehören zu P. In V. 3a ist wie in 1aβ „das Volk“ ‫ עם‬Subjekt. Im strikten Gegenüber zu Mose und Aaron kann kaum „die Gemeinde“ Subjekt sein. Angesichts des Wassermangels versammeln „sie“ sich gegen Mose und Aaron. Sie suchen keinen Weg, das Problem zu lösen, sondern sofort „streiten sie gegen“ Mose. In diesem Moment sind sie aus Sicht des Erzählers nur noch „Volk“ und nicht als Gemeinde anzusprechen, zu der Mose (und Aaron) dazugehören müssten. Also: Die Verwendung von Volk ‫ עם‬ist erneut logisch, um nicht zu sagen: geboten. In V. 3a ist die literarkritische Thesenbildung insofern kompliziert, als sich in Ex 17,7 z.T. wörtlich übereinstimmende Phrasen finden. Wie hier die Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse zu bewerten sind, kann ich derzeit nicht abschließend sagen. Aaron Schart38 hat Ex 17,1–7 und Num 20 sorgfältig verglichen und vertritt die These, Num 20 sei von Ex 17 abhängig. Mein Eindruck ist aber eher, dass Ex 17,1–7 von Num 20,1–13* abhängig ist und Num 20* auf einer späten Redaktionsebene „entschärfen“ soll. Das aber müsste in einer gesonderten Untersuchung aufgewiesen werden. Auch wenn man 3a für den Moment noch ausklammert: 1aβ und 5 lassen sich viel besser in einem P-Zusammenhang verstehen als im Zusammenhang 38

Schart, Mose und Israel, 108–111

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

289

einer wie auch immer gearteten nachpriesterlichen Redaktion, die dann überraschenderweise die Anliegen von P so gut (oder noch besser) verstanden hätte wie der doch sehr eigenwillige Autor sich selbst. Fassen wir zusammen: Die „Notizen“ in 1a bergen schon jede Menge Konfliktstoff. Der Weiterzug in der Wüste geschieht zu einem fragwürdigen Zeitpunkt, und die Erwartungen des Volks an den Ort sind unrealistisch. Sich hier niederzulassen, ist hochproblematisch. Die Lage spitzt sich weiter zu: Num 20,1b: Dort starb Miriam, und dort wurde sie begraben.

V. 1b gilt den meisten Exegeten als nichtpriesterschriftlich. Manches Mal wird der Satz J zugeschrieben – und dann ist er einfach eine Notiz. Etwas mehr Sinn macht es, wenn man wie Ludwig Schmidt39 diese beiden Sätze der nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuchredaktion zuschreibt. Er erkennt, dass sich so eine Steigerung ergibt: „Zunächst starb Miriam in Kadesch, dann Aaron auf dem Berg Hor (20,22ff.) und schließlich Mose auf dem Berg Nebo (Dtn 34)“40. Num 39

Schmidt, Numeri, 89 und 91. Schmidt, Numeri, 91. – M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1948, 200, hatte V. 1b P zugewiesen, allerdings interessierte er sich an dieser Stelle nicht für P, sondern für „Grabtraditionen“. In seinem Kommentar (Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966) z.St. hat er diese P-Zuschreibung nicht wiederholt. Dafür hat er nun in V. 1 J eine Grabtradition der Miriam in Kadesch gefunden. Eine tragfähige Begründung liefert Noth nicht. Die Erwägung, dass J, den er in 1aβ findet, dann auch etwas aus Kadesch berichten muss, ist ein Zirkelschluss. Noths Vorliebe für Grabtraditionen (siehe die Mose-Grabtradition) mag aus der Begegnung mit Heiligengräbern im Heiligen Land stammen. Vielleicht spielt auch das zweimalige „dort“ in 1b für ihn eine Rolle, weil man den Eindruck haben könnte, dass „dort“ ihr Grab sei, werde besonders betont. Für „dort“ gibt es aber eine andere und bessere Erklärung, s.u. – Beschreitet man einmal den umgekehrten Weg und fragt, wo denn J oder „alte Quellen“ vom Tod der Erzählgestalten berichten, so fällt auf: In Gen 2–4 wird viel erzählt, aber nirgends von Tod und Begräbnis der Erzählfiguren. In Gen 11,1–9: Keine Rede vom Sterben. Die vorjahwistische Abraham-Lot-Erzählung führt Abraham und Lot in zwei Wegen zu ihrem geographischen Zielpunkt, aber auch da ist keine Rede vom (gleichmachenden) Tod und soll auch nicht sein. Nirgends in der Bibel wird Lots Tod berichtet. Von Sara und Abraham ist der Tod nur in P berichtet. Vor P kennt man Königsgräber, gewiss. Aber erst seit P sind Gräber der Erzeltern ein Thema. – Noch ein kurzer Gang in die Tiefe der Texte. Gen 13,18 und 18,1–15 verweisen indirekt mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit auf ein Heiligtum in Hebron. Absalom bezieht sich in 2 Sam 15,7–9 auf die Besonderheit dieses YHWH-Heiligtums, an dem er sein Gelübde einlösen will. Für David ist dieses Vorhaben absolut nachvollziehbar, weckt bei ihm keinerlei Verdacht, sondern dürfte im Gegenteil Davids Wohlgefallen finden: „Geh in Frieden!“ Hebron hat also als Heiligtum mit besonderer Dignität zu gelten. Wenn es zu jener Zeit schon ein heiliges Abrahamgrab gegeben hätte, dann hätte Absalom hier gewiss Abraham zusätzlich in seine Argumentation eingebracht. Doch eine Abrahamgrabtradition zu dieser Zeit anzunehmen, ist ziemlich abwegig. Aber nach P brauchte man die Gräber. Einmal waren es die eindrucksvollen Geschichten über die identitätsstiftenden Erzählfiguren, die einen Ort der Kommemoration erforderten. Das heißt: P griff nicht auf Grabtraditionen zurück, sondern erzeugte ob bewusst oder unbewusst (eher unbewusst!) die Sehnsucht nach Gräbern und entließ sozusagen aus sich heraus „Grabtraditionen“. 40

290

Herbert Specht

20,22ff. rechnet er allerdings weit überwiegend inklusive der Notiz von Aarons Tod zu P.41 Dtn 34,1*.7–9 weist er – nach ausführlicher Diskussion mit L. Perlitts gegenteiliger These – ebenfalls P zu.42 Darum: wenn man schon eine Steigerung erkennt, und in Num 20,22ff. und in Dtn 34 an den entscheidenden Aussagen nicht die Pentateuchredaktion am Werke sieht, sondern P selbst: Warum sollte der Tod Miriams nicht auch von P selbst beschrieben worden sein? P setzt sich seit Gen 5 mit dem Thema Tod auseinander. Vergleicht man etwa Gen 23 mit Num 20,1b, dann erkennt man auf den ersten Blick, dass die Schilderung des Todes Saras viele parallele Formulierungen aufweist. In Gen 23 ist zwar noch der Erwerb des Grabes ein großes Thema – aber am Ende geht es darum, dass Abraham seine Tote begraben kann (Gen 23,19 ‫ ;קבר‬dasselbe Verb wie in Num 20,1). Die Abfolge sterben und begraben (wie bei P zu erwarten mit exakt denselben Worten) wird weiter von Abraham (Gen 25,8f.) erzählt, ebenso von Isaak (Gen 35,29). Bei Jakobs Tod in Ägypten wird das Begräbnis zu einem eigenen (für P kritisch zu bedenkenden!) Thema, das hier nicht weiter ausgeführt werden kann – aber natürlich sind Sterben und Begraben-Werden auch hier aufeinander bezogen; im anderen Kontext wieder leicht abgewandelt bei Josef. Wie immer bei P: Die Worte sind dieselben, aber die theologischen Konnotationen der Geschehnisse variieren im Kontext z.T. erheblich. Das zeigt: Gegen die Zuweisung der Notiz vom Tod und Begraben-Werden Miriams spricht höchstens, dass von Miriam bei P bisher explizit nicht die Rede war. Da P und seine Leser aber das Erzähl-Material kennen, wird kein Leser verwirrt sein, wenn er hier von Miriam liest und sie selbstverständlich als Schwester Moses und Aarons identifizieren. Weiter müsste einmal gründlich untersucht werden, ob nicht die Liste in Num 26 inklusive der Leviten im Grundbestand zu P gehört. Auch wenn die Forschung über die Autoren im zweiten Teil des Numeribuches und ihre Intentionen noch nicht sehr weit gediehen ist, kann man doch so viel sagen: Die Existenz einer „alten“ Liste ist sehr unwahrscheinlich. Ansonsten wüsste ich keinen Autor im Pentateuch, der an einer solchen Liste ein Interesse haben könnte außer P, und m.E. hat P sogar ein gesteigertes Interesse an solch einer Liste. In dieser Liste ist Miriam wie auch in der übrigen Tradition als Schwester Moses und Aarons belegt (Num 26,59). Zurück zu Num 20,1b. An der Formulierung fällt das zweimalige „dort“ ‫שׁם‬ auf. Was soll die damit verbundene Betonung? P will den Leser auf den Zusammenhang aufmerksam machen. „Dort ‫ שׁם‬sollen sie sterben!“, heißt es in Zum anderen waren nach der Kultzentralisation die Gräber in Hebron, Sichem und anderswo in gewisser Weise Ersatz für die weggefallenen Tempel; wenn man so will: Statt der früheren Kultorte gab es im Land neue Heiligtümer, die Gräber der Erzeltern (hervorgehoben!) oder auch einzelner Propheten. 41 Schmidt, Numeri, 97–100. 42 Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 241–251.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

291

Num 14,35P. Betont wird diese Formulierung hier aufgegriffen, so dass jeder Leser folgern muss: das in Num 14,35 angekündigte Sterben der Gemeinde hat nun die Schwester der beiden Führungsgestalten erreicht. Miriam, so setzt es Num 13–14* voraus, hat wie alle übrigen gegen YHWH rebelliert. Dass sie „dort“ (in der Wüste) stirbt, ist ein klares Signal an die Gemeinde sowie an Moses und Aaron: Gott steht zu seinem Wort. Vor dem Einzug muss die „alte Generation“ derer, die in Num 13–14*P gemurrt haben, sterben. Insofern verstärkt sich der Eindruck, dass Mose und Aaron wirklich voreilig waren, „im ersten Monat“ aufzubrechen. Hätten sie nicht wissen müssen, dass vor dem Tod Miriams das Volk noch gar nicht „bereit“ für den Einzug ins Land ist! Wie könnte Gott Miriam „vergessen“? Vor Miriams Tod fehlen schlicht die Voraussetzungen für den Aufbruch hinein ins Land. – P unterstreicht auch hier wieder: YHWH lässt seinen Worten Taten folgen.43 Achenbach bedenkt ferner in „Assoziationsketten“ die Zusatzbelastungen, die Mose und Aaron aufgrund des Begräbnisses ihrer Schwester haben: Wer kann beim Begräbnis dabei sein, wer kann am Passah teilnehmen oder nicht, und was ist mit dem Dienst am Heiligtum? Der Text gibt darauf keine Antworten, aber vielleicht genügt es zu sagen: Die Überforderungen, die mit dem „Ankommen“ und „Sich-Niederlassen“ in der Wüste, dem Passahfest und der Erinnerung an die Heiligtumsweihe gegeben sind – alles zur selben Zeit, wo doch jedes einzelne genug Aufmerksamkeit fordern würde – diese Überforderungen werden durch den Tod und das Begräbnis Miriams ins fast Unermessliche erhöht. Fast könnte man Mitleid mit Mose und Aaron bekommen: Viel zu viele Probleme auf einmal. Trotzdem: Werden Mose und Aaron durch den Tod Miriams nicht erneut daran erinnert, dass keiner um den heiligen Gott herum kommt? Richtig verstanden ist der Tod Miriams zugleich ein erstes, nicht zu übersehendes Alarmzeichen an die beiden Brüder, „gottbewußt“ zu handeln, bevor dann zweitens und noch nachdrücklicher die „Herrlichkeit YHWHs“ Mose und Aaron in V. 6 erscheint. 3.2. Die Notlage (Num 20,2a) Nachdem sich in V. 1 die Probleme fast unmerklich gesteigert haben, folgt in V. 2 eine letzte Zuspitzung durch ein existenzbedrohendes Problem. Die Gemeinde hatte aber kein Wasser.

43

Achenbach, Vollendung, 310, stellt in seiner Interpretation auf der Endtextebene fest, dass der Tod Miriams „ein großes Unglück über Israel anzeigt.“ Auf der Ebene von P mag der Tod zwar „berühren“, aber er ist nichts anderes als die – angekündigte – Folge ihres Verhaltens in Num 13–14*P und insofern mindestens kein überraschendes „Unglück“.

292

Herbert Specht

Dieser Versteil wird von fast allen Exegeten P zugeschrieben. Nun, P begibt sich als Erzähler oft in die Perspektive seiner Figuren. Insofern mag die Aussage „kein Wasser“ etwas zugespitzt sein.44 Hätten Mose und Aaron sonst das Volk hierher geführt, an einen Ort gänzlich ohne Wasser und hätte das Volk sich dort „niedergelassen“? Aber natürlich ist zu wenig Wasser – am Ende wird „viel Wasser“ in 20,11 zu haben sein – ein ernsthaftes Problem, und für den, der von dem „zu wenig Wasser“ keines mehr bekommt, ist am Ende dann doch „kein Wasser“ mehr da. Wenn man sich mit P in die Lage der Führungsgestalten hineindenkt, erkennt man: Es ist alles andere als leicht, für eine so große Gemeinde „und ihr Vieh“(!) einen Ort mit ausreichend Wasser zu finden. Und wenn man dann auch noch wie in V. 5 „säen, Feigenbäume, Weinstöcke und Granatapfelbäume“ pflanzen will, dann ist auch das Wasser einer starken Oase rasch verbraucht. 3.3. Das Murren der Gemeinde (Num 20,2b–5) Die Situation wird dadurch verschärft, dass das Volk wieder in das alte Handlungsmuster verfällt: Gegen die Führer rebellieren/hadern/streiten. Die Gemeinde könnte ja auch kommen und sagen: „Wir haben kein (zu wenig) Wasser“, dann könnte man gemeinsam auf Abhilfe sinnen. Aber: Sie versammelten sich gegen Mose und Aaron. (V. 2b)

Sachlich wird dieses Sich-Versammeln in V. 3a fortgeführt: Und das Volk stritt gegen Mose und sie sagten:

Die sachliche Parallelität der beiden Sätze wird oft als unmotivierte Dublette aufgefasst und als Indiz dafür genommen, dass V. 3a einer anderen Schicht zugehört. Hinzu kommt, dass sich die Gruppe erst gegen Mose und Aaron „versammelt“ und dann das „Volk“ allein mit Mose streitet. Dies ist jedoch nicht so abwegig wie oft angenommen. Denn aus der Perspektive des Volkes ist Mose der Führer auf dem Weg und Aaron als Priester zuständig für das Heiligtum. In YHWHs Perspektive sind beide dafür da, ihn als Gott erkennbar zu machen. Da V. 3a eine Parallele in Ex 17,7 hat, könnte hier eine andere Hand am Werk sein, jedenfalls wenn Ex 17,7 älter ist (was mir allerdings zweifelhaft erscheint). Stichhaltige Argumente für eine positive Zuweisung des kurzen

44 Ein Vergleich aus der Alltagswelt: Haben Menschen oder Gruppen für ihre Ansprüche zu wenig Geld, neigen sie gerne zu der Aussage, sie hätten „kein Geld“. Und wenn es um das Durchsetzen eigener Ansprüche im Konfliktfall geht, wird stets zugespitzt formuliert.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

293

Sätzchens zu P kann ich nicht erkennen.45 Doch dass P nach dem „sich versammeln gegen“ dann auch noch spezifischer „stritt/haderte“ nachschiebt, entspricht dem auch sonst zu beobachtenden P-Stil. Entscheidend sind die Vorwürfe in V. 3b–4: 3b Wären wir doch umgekommen, als unsere Brüder vor YHWH umgekommen sind! 4 Warum habt ihr die Versammlung YHWHs in diese Wüste da gebracht, damit wir dort sterben, wir und unser Vieh?

Versetzen wir uns wieder – P angemessen – möglichst genau in die Erzählsituation. Wer spricht hier? Man kann zwar nicht mit Sicherheit sagen, dass Miriam die letzte aus der Auszugsgeneration ist, die aufgrund der Rebellion in Num 13–14* in der Wüste sterben muss, aber vermutlich soll man das annehmen. So weist auch Milgrom46 darauf hin, dass sich die Sprecher, die sich auf „unsere Brüder“ beziehen, damit nicht mit der Auszugsgeneration und auch nicht mit der Murrgeneration von Num 13–14 identifizieren können, sonst hätten sie „unsere Väter“ sagen müssen. Daher ist zu folgern: Es spricht hier die Generation der Söhne, also diejenigen, die in Num 13–14* nicht aktiv beteiligt waren. Die vorige Generation ist gestorben, und wenn Mose und Aaron gehofft haben sollten, dass mit ihr die „alten“ Gedanken und Verhaltensmuster weggestorben sind, so müssen sie erkennen: In der neuen Generation gibt es das gleiche Handlungsmuster mit vergleichbaren Anwürfen. Stilistisch sind V. 3bβ.4 als Inclusio komponiert: 3bβ kann mit dem zweimaligen „umkommen“ als Formelement a gelten, die vorwurfsvolle Frage 4a als b, und 4b mit dem variierten Stichwort „sterben“ als a´, wobei es in diesem Vers mit „wir und unser Vieh“ dann noch ein überschießendes Element gibt, das besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient. Das Volk beginnt sofort auf höchster Aggressionsstufe: „Wären wir doch umgekommen!“47 Zwar ist die Rede vordergründig aggressiv gegen die Redner selbst, also autoaggressiv. Doch sie gehen damit Mose an; das, was vordergründig aussehen soll, als zögen sie in ihrer Verzweiflung den Suizid vor oder ein tödliches Gottesurteil, gilt darum in Wahrheit dem, der sie in diese Situation geführt hat: Mose (und Aaron: „ihr“) trifft verbal die volle Wucht ihrer Aggression. Weiter ist zu V. 3b zu fragen, worauf man sich genau bezieht „als unsere Brüder vor YHWH umgekommen sind“. Noch einmal: Die Sprecher beziehen sich nicht auf die Auszugsgeneration und auch nicht auf die Murrgeneration von Num 13–14. Sie beziehen sich also auf Num 17,6–15 zurück! Dort sind sie nur durch das beherzte Eingreifen Moses und Aarons gerettet worden! Wagt 45

Umgekehrt jedoch: Da nach der vorliegenden Analyse J in Num 20,1–13 an keiner einzigen Stelle am Werk ist, kann 3a auch nicht J sein. Also: Es spricht alles gegen eine Zuweisung zu J. – Im Umkehrschluss kommt eigentlich nur P in Frage. 46 Milgrom, Numbers, 128. 47 Eine sehr hohe Aggressionsstufe ist stets dort gegeben, wo es um den Tod geht: Todeswunsch gegen andere oder Todeswunsch gegen sich selbst.

294

Herbert Specht

man hier zu sagen: Hättet Ihr uns doch nicht vor dem Zorn YHWHs gerettet!? Das steigert die Ungeheuerlichkeit. 48 Zugestanden, die Sprechenden fühlen sich in einer Notsituation; der Ausleger sollte sich aber nicht zu sehr mit dem notleidenden Volk identifizieren und hier „elementare kreatürliche Schreie“ wahrnehmen.49 Es ist vor allem wilde Polemik, die sich hier Bahn bricht. Unerträglich der Vorwurf, als ob Mose und Aaron „die Versammlung Jahwes“ in der Absicht in die Wüste gebracht hätten, damit sie da sterben – wo doch Mose und Aaron gerade in 17,6–15 alles getan haben, um das Volk am Leben zu erhalten! Und auch das wird deutlich: An der Logik hapert es den wütenden Anklägern auch. Zuerst wollten sie am liebsten umgekommen sein, als „unsere Brüder vor YHWH umgekommen sind“ – in diesem Satz sehen sie YHWHs Handeln in komplett negativer Perspektive, der „ihre Brüder“ „umgebracht hat“! Aber in der Frage, „warum habt ihr die Versammlung YHWHs in diese Wüste geführt?“ qualifizieren sie sich selbst als „Versammlung“, die durch die Verbindung mit YHWH eine besondere Würde hat und als solche herausgehoben ist. Darum: „ihr“ – wenn ihr die durch YHWH verliehene Würde dieser Versammlung erkennen würdet, hättet ihr sie nie in die Wüste führen können! So seid ihr die Übeltäter, wenn die Versammlung YHWHs dort sterben wird, „wir und unser Vieh!“ „Dort sterben“ erinnert an „dort starb Miriam“ 1bβ (und wieder Num 14,35). Was bedeutet das? Beziehen die Sprecher hier angstvoll ein Geschehen auf sich, das sich aufklären ließe? Dass Miriam „dort“ sterben musste, weil sie zur Murrgeneration gehörte, aber dies „Sterben dort“ mitnichten ihre Bestimmung ist? So wie die Sintflut ein für alle Mal vorbei ist, so soll auch diese Generation nicht in der Wüste sterben, sondern im Land leben! Ein Mose mit Distanz hätte Grund, über die sich hier äußernden Missverständnisse aufzuklären und der Gemeinde die neue Situation ein zweites Mal zu verdeutlichen. Weiter muss das Augenmerk dem Schluss von 4bβ gelten: „wir und unser Vieh“. Schon formal sticht dieser Ausdruck hervor. Sollte da der Leser nicht gleich einhaken? Die scheinen ja eine Menge Vieh zu haben! Oder soll man mit H. Holzinger50 V. 4bβ P absprechen, denn „dass die Israeliten mit Herden ziehen“ sei doch „für die Geschichte der Bildung des Kultusvolkes nebensächlich“.51 Doch P ist kein blutleerer Theoretiker. Auch von Abraham Gen 12,5; 13,6 und Jakob sowie Esau in 36,6–7 sowie in Gen 46,6f. P wird die große Habe inklusive der Herden berichtet. Dort ist das zweifelsohne als ein Resultat 48 Es ist mir bewusst, dass viele Forscher Num 17,6–15* nicht unbedingt zu P zählen. Doch vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 73f., und auch E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1990, 267–270. 49 R.P. Knierim/G.W. Coats, Numbers, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans 2005, 227, bemerken richtig: „The accusation does not call for water as the context would seem to demand. Rather, it attacks Moses and Aaron for their work as leaders of the congregation.“ 50 H. Holzinger, Numeri, KHC IV, Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr 1903, 82. 51 Ebd.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

295

des Segens Gottes zu verstehen. Sollte das hier nicht auch so gesehen werden? Beim Auszug hatten die Israeliten noch keine Herden. In Ex 16 wären sie verhungert ohne Manna und Wachteln. „Vieh“ in Ex 16 – eindeutig Fehlanzeige. Aber jetzt: Herden, und vielleicht muss man an Herden inklusive von Lasttieren in 20,4 denken, wenigstens an Esel. In Gen 45,17 – sind mit dem hier verwendeten Wort ‫ בעיר‬Lasttiere gemeint, wohl Esel. So soll der Leser folgern: Mag das Leben auch nicht einfach gewesen sein in der Wüste, so hat dennoch die Segenszusage YHWHs an Jakob/Israel weitergewirkt. Darum bedarf es dringend einer Analyse von Num 26,1–65* mit der Frage, ob nicht weite Teile P zugehören. In dieser Liste wird nämlich gezeigt, wie groß das Volk in der Wüste geworden ist – trotz des Todes einer ganzen Generation! Es ist ein genuines Anliegen von P, dem Leser vor Augen zu führen: YHWHs Segen wirkt weiter. Aber auch unabhängig von dieser Liste: Der Verweis auf „unser Vieh“52 (in V. 4 an betont letzter Stelle des Satzes) zeigt an: Es ist unerträglich, dass diese Menschen ihr Leben nur aus der Perspektive „Sterben“ wahrnehmen, als ob YHWH nicht Leben gegeben hätte, Leben und Segen. Wertvolle Tiere haben sie. Müssten sie nicht erkennen, wem sie ihre Habe verdanken? Wem anders als dem Segen ihres Gottes? Darum: Hätte das Volk offene Augen für Gottes Wirken, dann müsste es völlig anders reagieren. Eben noch (im ersten Monat) haben sie Passah gefeiert; sie müssen von der vorigen Generation doch auch die Rettungsgeschichte gehört haben, sie haben sie selbst ihren Kindern erzählt, und sie sind darüber hinaus mit Vieh gesegnet worden! Aufgrund dieser Vorgeschichte könnte und müsste das Volk voller Vertrauen eine Lösung für das Problem suchen und Gott um Hilfe bitten! Stattdessen kennt es nur Vorwürfe gegen Mose, und zwar auf der höchsten Aggressionsstufe. Ohne Vorwarnung, explosionsartig. P erzeugt mit voller Absicht diese erzählerische Konfrontation. Wer wie etwa Martin Noth (und manch andere) hier nur die „übliche(n) Klage und Anklage des Volkes“53 wahr nimmt, verkennt P. Gewiss wurden ähnliche Vorwürfe schon früher laut (Ex 16,3P, Num 14,3P). Aber über Wiederholungen darf man bei P nie weil „üblich“ hinweg lesen, vielmehr will P damit Nachdruck und also höchste Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen. Um der Ungeheuerlichkeit der Anklage gewahr zu werden, sind Erkenntnisse moderner Konflikt- und Aggressionsforschung hilfreich. So beschreibt etwa Friedrich Glasl Konflikte und Konfliktstufen zwischen Menschen bzw. Gruppen phänomenologisch. Mögen letzte Feinheiten auch kulturell bedingt und also unterschiedlich sein, seine Einsichten gelten empirisch nachprüfbar 52 Dass hier nicht überinterpretiert ist, zeigt Gen 13,6P: Hier wird ebenfalls eine negative Perspektive eingenommen: „Das Land ertrug es nicht, dass sie sich miteinander niederließen,“ Aber P weiß auch warum: „denn ihre Habe war so groß geworden“. Den Segen in Gestalt der großen Habe oder hier des Viehs blendet man leicht aus. 53 Noth, Numeri, 128.

296

Herbert Specht

mit leichten Abwandlungen in so unterschiedlichen Kulturräumen wie dem deutschen, südosteuropäischen, philippinischen, afrikanischen und arabischen (in all diesen Ländern hat Glasl seine Methoden der Konfliktdeeskalation angewandt und zugleich die von ihm beschriebenen Konfliktstufen vorgefunden); sie sind also allgemeinmenschlich und überzeitlich und insofern auch auf Texte anzuwenden, in denen Konflikte dargestellt werden. Glasl hat die Eskalationsstufen bei Konflikten durchdacht und auf einer Skala von 1–9 dargestellt.54 Normalerweise schaukeln sich die Eskalationsstufen in Konflikten nach und nach hoch. Aber in Num 20,3–4(5) ist man aus dem Stand auf Glasls Eskalationsstufe 5. Glasl hatte natürlich nicht Num 20,3–5 vor Augen. Umso frappierender, wenn man ihn im Zusammenhang liest: „Die Schwelle zu Stufe 5 ist sehr dramatisch. Sie wird dann überschritten, wenn eine Konfliktpartei meint, dass sie endlich die wahren, destruktiven Absichten des Feindes durchschaue und dass ihr damit die Schuppen von den Augen fallen:“55 Das soll hier statt an Glasls Beispiel an Num 20 durchgespielt werden: es ist nicht so, dass Mose nicht führen könne, vielmehr hat er uns absichtlich in diese Situation geführt, damit wir zugrunde gehen! Damit ist der Glaube an die „moralische Qualität des Gegners ... verlorengegangen. ... Im Gegner werden nur noch die gefährlichen und moralisch verwerflichen Schattenseiten gesehen. ... Dass auch diese Person oder Gruppe Lichtseiten hat, dass sie Ideale und ein höheres Selbst haben könnte, wird nicht mehr gesehen“56, also etwa dass Mose und Aaron durch ihren Einsatz das Volk in Num 17 gerettet haben. Das Volk aber behauptet, „die wahren verwerflichen Absichten des Feindes zu durchschauen“57. Mose (und Aaron) werden demaskiert, sie stehen dem Volk als seine wahren Feinde gegenüber, die in Wahrheit nichts wollen als deren Tod dort in der Wüste! Keinerlei menschliche Qualitäten werden mehr zugestanden, und natürlich auch keine mitleidsvolle Empathie angesichts des Todes der Schwester. Vielmehr wird die totale Konfrontation ausgelebt, es gibt keine Gemeinsamkeiten mehr und also auch keinen Weg mehr in die Zukunft, vielmehr ist man bereit, den eigenen Untergang in Kauf zu nehmen und damit auch den Gegner (Mose) bzw. das ganze Projekt Auszug mit auszulöschen58. Kaum gebremste zornige Leidenschaft des Volkes. Fast ein Wunder, dass diese Leute nicht wie in Num 14,10 zum Mittel der Steinigung greifen. Schrecken sie vor der Tat (noch) zurück? Glasl betont: wenn Eskalationsstufe 5 erreicht ist, sind es nur noch kleine Schritte hin zu den nächsten Eskalationsstufen 6–9. Und je mehr man Glasls 54

F. Glasl, Selbsthilfe in Konflikten. Konzepte – Übungen – Praktische Methoden, Stuttgart/Bern: Verlag Freies Geistesleben/Haupt Verlag, 4. bearb. Aufl. 2004. 55 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 105. 56 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 105. 57 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 105. 58 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 114–115.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

297

Beschreibung bedenkt, umso besser versteht man den Text, etwa V. 4: „Das Selbstbild erhöht sich“ 59 – jetzt versteht man, warum diese Krakeeler sich selbst als „Versammlung YHWHs“ bezeichnen! Die „angreifenden Personen erleben es als ‚heilige Pflicht’, allen anderen ... zu beweisen, wie verwerflich der Gegner ist,“60 und wenn das Volk sich als „Versammlung YHWHs“ bezeichnet, dann stoßen sie mit dieser Selbsterhöhung Moses und Aaron gar aus der Versammlung YHWHs aus! Wie können Mose und Aaron darauf reagieren? Mose und Aaron müssen von dieser urplötzlichen Zuspitzung, und zwar einer Zuspitzung, die von vornherein jedes Maß verloren hat, „sprunghaft radikal und brutal geworden“61 ist und sofort die allerhöchsten Aggressionspotentiale auffährt, völlig überrascht gewesen sein. Und natürlich können sich Mose und Aaron nach ihrem ganzen Einsatz für die Gemeinde insgesamt und insbesondere in Num 17,11ff. „in dem verteufelten Bild nicht erkennen, sondern finde(t)n sich total verkannt und ungerecht“62 beschuldigt. Werden sie auch tun, was Glasl oft beobachtet hat: Die „ausgestoßene Partei ... sinnt ... mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auf einen Gegenangriff, der seinerseits zu einem Gesichtsverlust der anderen Partei führen soll. ... Die Suche nach der verlorenen Ehre kann mit großer Leidenschaft geführt werden und sich zur Besessenheit auswachsen.“63 Wir werden darauf zurückkommen müssen. V. 5 ist oben schon kurz bedacht worden. Es ist offenkundig: Der Text flacht etwas ab gegenüber der Heftigkeit in V. 4. Sind daraus aber literarkritische Schlüsse zu ziehen? Ich meine nein. Jetzt werden die Argumente nachgeschoben, und in ihnen zeigt sich, dass man weniger aus existentiell-kreatürlicher Verzweiflung nach Wasser schreit, sondern weil der Ort nicht das hergibt, was man sich von ihm versprochen hatte, was aber weder Mose noch YHWH diesem Ort zugeschrieben haben. Denn dieser Ort ist nicht das Land, in welches das Volk gebracht werden soll und das YHWH ihnen gegeben hat (20,12). Man sollte noch einmal über die hier geäußerten Ansprüche nachdenken: So viel Wasser, dass ein großes Volk mit seinem Vieh leben kann und wo man dann auch noch die ganze Wüste zum Grünen bringen will, durch Säen, die Pflanzung von Feigenbäumen, Weinstöcken und Granatapfelbäumen, – so viel Wasser kann die beste Oase nicht hergeben. Nicht nur in heutigen Oasenstädten ist Wassermanagement unerlässlich. Der Reichtum an Wasser in Oasenstädten ist

59

Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 105. Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 106. 61 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 104. 62 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 106. 63 Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 106. 60

298

Herbert Specht

das eine, aber dieser Reichtum ist seit jeher und bis heute begrenzt.64 Die Versammlung erwartet von Kadesch Qualitäten, die nur das Land bieten kann. Und weil diese Erwartungen enttäuscht werden, rebellieren sie gegen Mose mit aggressiver Leidenschaft. 3.4. Die Reaktion Moses und Aarons (Num 20,6a) V. 6. Da bewegten sich Mose und Aaron weg von der Versammlung hin zum Eingang des Zeltes der Begegnung, und sie fielen auf ihr Angesicht nieder.

V. 6 wird in der Forschung fast einheitlich P zugeschrieben, und in der Tat kann man sich an dieser Stelle sehr sicher sein: Wortwahl, Stil, Konzept, alles ist typisch für P. Im Gegensatz zu Ex 16,6–7 antworten Moses und Aaron nicht auf die Vorwürfe. Es kommt auch kein Wort des Vertrauens auf Hilfe und Zukunft, kein Wort der Klarstellung über ihre Lippen. Man muss nun zu ihren Gunsten sagen: Die Vorwürfe haben sie sozusagen „kalt“ erwischt, sprachlos gemacht und wohl auch zu sehr getroffen. Was bewegt sie, zum Zelt der Begegnung zu gehen? Suchen sie den Trost ihres Gottes? Hoffen sie an diesem Ort auf den Schutz Gottes, seine gnädige Gegenwart? All das mag mit herein spielen. Im „Niederfallen auf ihr Angesicht“ (vgl. Num 14,5) könnte auch ihre „Bestürzung“65 und ihre Verzweiflung herauskommen. War denn ihr bisheriges Bemühen vergeblich? Und: Wie soll es mit diesem Volk weitergehen? Wird auch diese Generation zu weiteren vierzig Jahren Wüste verurteilt? Ist dann nicht zu befürchten, dass es zu einer Endlosschleife in der Wüste kommt? All diese Aspekte mögen hereinspielen. Entscheidend erscheint mir nach der Reflexion des Konflikts im Duktus Friedrich Glasls, dass Mose und Aaron den mächtigsten Verbündeten zu Hilfe holen, den es gibt. Wollen sie mit dessen Hilfe zum Gegenangriff ausholen? Wen würde es wundern, wenn ihr Interesse alleine darauf zielte, ihre vom Volk bestrittene Legitimation zu beweisen? Das Verhalten Moses in V. 10 deutet genau darauf. „Können wir wohl“ ist nicht Hybris, sondern zielt auf ihre Legitimation. Mose setzt voraus, dass Gott das Wasser aus dem Felsen fließen lässt, aber es geschieht durch ihn. Mose also geht es um die Wiederherstellung seiner Legitimation. Das kann jeder Leser nachvollziehen. Aber was will YHWH? 3.5. Die Reaktion YHWHs (Num 20,6b–8) 6b. Und es erschien ihnen die Herrlichkeit YHWHs. 7. Da redete YHWH zu Mose: 8. Nimm den Stab und versammle die Gemeinde, du und dein Bruder Aaron, und redet zum Felsen vor

64

Ein Beispiel: Über das Wassermanagement der Oase Tozeur in Tunesien gibt es viele leicht zugängliche Berichte. Und stets ist der Ausgangspunkt jeglicher Überlegung die Begrenztheit des Reichtums an Wasser. 65 So Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 325–326.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

299

ihren Augen, so dass er sein Wasser gibt, und lass66 für sie Wasser hervorgehen aus dem Felsen und tränke67 die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh.

Zu V. 6 sei auf die Ausführungen bei Indiz 2 (s.o) hingewiesen. Entscheidend ist: die „Herrlichkeit YHWHs“ erscheint nicht dem Volk, sondern Mose und Aaron. Ihnen wird durch YHWHs Kabod eingeschärft, „Gott-bewusst“ zu leben. Gott-bewusst muss hier zuerst heißen, dass sie ihrem Auftrag treu sind und bleiben, nämlich das Volk zur Erkenntnis Jahwes zu führen. Kann aber ein Mittler via Gegenangriff das Volk zur Erkenntnis YHWHs führen? Das ist ausgeschlossen. Darum tun sie gut daran, genau auf YHWH zu hören. Wie aber könnte ein Weg aussehen, der aus der dem Auftrag zuwiderlaufenden weil die Erkenntnis YHWHs gerade verhindernden Konfrontation heraus führt? In den V. 7–8 zeigt YHWH den Ausweg, nämlich eine Rede über einen Umweg. Bei V. 7–8 steht erneut die literarkritische Einheitlichkeit in Frage. Es fällt auf, dass YHWH in V. 7 nur zu Mose spricht, in der Ausführung des Auftrags in V. 8 jedoch auch Aaron einschließt. Dabei wird in V. 8 nur in der Mitte des Satzes der Plural „redet“ gebraucht, ansonsten stehen die ersten beiden sowie die letzten beiden Verben in V. 8 jeweils im Singular. Stilistisch ist der Vers wieder kunstvoll konzentrisch aufgebaut, in der Mitte betont „du und dein Bruder Aaron“ sowie „redet zum Felsen vor ihren Augen“, in den Außengliedern a und a´ jeweils der Singular. Wir haben hier eine abgewandelte Inclusio vor uns, jedenfalls bezogen auf Singular- und Pluralformen, aber auch mit einer Steigerung in 8b. Der Wechsel von Singular und Plural ist auffällig und wurde schon von der Septuaginta nicht mehr verstanden. Die Aufteilung auf zwei Quellen, eine Singular- und eine Pluralversion, hat wenig befriedigende Ergebnisse gebracht. Wenn man sich in den Autor hineinversetzt, erscheint das Problem aber lösbar. Der Befehl, den Stab zu nehmen, ergeht allein an Mose. Dies ist nachvollziehbar. Wie sollten auch beide zusammen den Stab tragen? Schwieriger ist vorstellbar, dass beide zusammen zum Felsen reden sollen. P würde sich wohl wünschen, dass Mose redet und die entscheidenden Worte sagt. Andererseits betont P, dass beide Führergestalten hier auftreten und dass sie gemeinsam die Verantwortung übernehmen, die ihnen zuvor schon übertragen wurde. P dürfte den Berufungsbericht in Erinnerung rufen wollen: Ist Mose einmal zur Rede unfähig, dann soll Aaron reden, Ex 7,1–2P! Es hat also seinen guten Grund, dass die beiden und der Plural „redet!“ betont im Mittelpunkt der Inclusio stehen. Dass dann Mose alleine das Wasser hervorbringen soll (V. 8b), ist in der Tat schwierig zu erklären, zumal Mose in V. 10b davon spricht, dass sie beide das Wasser hervorbringen können. Bedenkt man den Sinn der Inclusio, dann scheint hier P über den Stab als Zeichen zu reflektieren. Derjenige, der den Stab 66 Die Septuaginta hat den Plural „lasst“; dies ist eine Angleichung an 8a, so H. Seebass, Numeri. 2. Teilband Numeri 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4,2, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 2003, 269. 67 Die Septuaginta liest erneut Plural.

300

Herbert Specht

in der Hand hat, soll die Gemeinde mit Wasser tränken. Der Stab als Zeichen weist aber über den, der das Wasser aus dem Felsen kommen lässt, hinaus auf den tiefer liegenden Zusammenhang. Der aufmerksame Leser stolpert in Gedanken durch den Wechsel Singular-Plural-Singular und wird gerade so von P gezwungen, jeden noch so kleinen Aspekt zu bedenken. So erscheint mir der Wechsel Singular-Plural nachvollziehbar und gerade so wieder für die Zuweisung zu P zu sprechen. Kommt man von der in 20,6a erkennbaren Fragestellung Moses her, seinem Wunsch nach der Wiederherstellung seiner Legitimation durch den ihn beauftragenden Gott, so muss man irritiert feststellen: YHWH geht in seiner Rede an Mose nicht direkt auf die Frage nach der Legitimierung Moses und Aarons ein. Dabei steht für YHWH die Legitimation Moses und Aarons überhaupt nicht in Frage. Vielmehr werden sie bzw. Mose beauftragt, mit dem Stab in der Hand „Wasser für sie aus dem Felsen“ fließen zu lassen und „der Gemeinde und ihrem Vieh zu trinken“ zu geben. Wenn sie so den Auftrag YHWHs erfüllen, wird die Gemeinde nicht umhin kommen, auch ihre Legitimation anzuerkennen. Die Legitimierung Moses und Aarons erfolgt aber als Nebeneffekt, und sie kann nur als Nebeneffekt erreicht werden. Die Hauptintention der von Gott Beauftragten kann nur sein, YHWH zu verherrlichen. Dagegen sehen die verständlicherweise aufgebrachten Führer den Kampf um die Wiederherstellung ihrer Legitimation als Hauptziel, und also den Kampf um die Erringung eines Sieges über das rebellierende Volk. Das aber kann nicht gelingen. Folgen sie YHWHs Auftrag, so ermöglichen sie im Wunder die Anerkenntnis YHWHs als des Gottes „für sie“ (‫להם‬, vgl. Gen 17,7 „für dich“ ‫)לך‬, und in der Erkenntnis YHWHs fällt dann die Rebellion gegen Mose und Aaron in Nichts zusammen. Daher: Die Intention ihres Redens und Handelns sollte darauf abzielen, dass das Volk YHWH erkennt, und dann ist die Frage nach ihrer Legitimation im Nebeneffekt beantwortet. So können Mose und Aaron ihre Autorität wieder zurückgewinnen, aber eben nur als Nebeneffekt. Doch Mose und Aaron zielen direkt auf die ihnen vom Volk abgesprochene Legitimation; ihre Intention zielt direkt auf das Wiedererringen ihrer Autorität. Und auf diesem Weg kann es keine Erkenntnis YHWHs geben. Erreicht werden könnte nur ein das Volk demütigender Sieg. Warum Mose zum Felsen reden soll, ist oben (drittes Indiz) schon bedacht worden. Nach der intensiveren Exegese von V. 3–5 ist noch deutlicher, dass dieser Umweg von YHWH als wunderbar pädagogisch-fürsorgliche Maßnahme zur Deeskalation gemeint ist. Man stelle sich vor, Gott sagte in dieser aufgeheizten Situation zu Mose „Rede zu den Israeliten.“ Solange es nur um den Sieg im Konflikt geht, könnte eine solche Rede nur höchst konfrontativ werden. Wer sollte der Gefahr, auf den groben Klotz nun einen noch gröberen Keil draufzusetzen, widerstehen können? Erneut ist ein Blick auf Friedrich

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

301

Glasl hilfreich. Er hat überzeugend herausgearbeitet, dass Selbsthilfe in Konflikten ab Eskalationsstufe 5 nicht mehr möglich ist68, sondern nur noch mit professioneller Hilfe von Externen denkbar ist. Doch gibt es hier niemand anderen als Mose und Aaron, der reden könnte. Darum ist in dieser Situation die Rede zum Felsen, aber trotzdem „vor ihren Augen“, ein Ausweg. Die Rede ergeht an eine unbeteiligte Partei, aber der eigentliche Adressat steht dabei, sieht zu und vielleicht hört er sogar etwas. Könnten Mose und Aaron nicht dem Felsen (ohne Wut und Aggression!) erzählen von Gottes Heilstaten für das Volk? Vom Bund Gottes mit den Erzvätern (Ex 6,3–4), vom Seufzen Israels über den Frondienst (Ex 6,5), von Gottes Verheißung der Herausführung und Erlösung (Ex 6,6), vom Gott, der dieses Volk „als sein Volk annehmen will“ (Ex 6,7) und der es „in das Land bringen wird“ (Ex 6,8)? Mose könnte dem Felsen die ganze Heilsgeschichte ausbreiten, alles was ihm nach seinen Erfahrungen mit seinem Gott besonders am Herzen liegt, und am Ende könnte er ihn bitten, „für sie Wasser hervorzubringen (‫“)תאצוהו‬, so wie auch der dürre Stab Aarons in Num 17,23 Sprossen „hervorgebracht“ (‫)צאיו‬ hat, und vielleicht begreift das Volk über den Umweg der Rede zum Felsen doch etwas von der dem Felsen zu Herzen gehenden Rede, der daraufhin sein Wasser gibt. Der Stab Aarons, den Mose „vor Jahwe weg“, also vom Heiligtum holen soll, will ihm so das entscheidende Stichwort seiner Rede liefern, „bringe hervor“, und die ganze Erzählung Num 17,16–2669 erinnert Mose nun auch daran, dass dieser Stab ein Zeichen ‫ אות‬ist: die Söhne der Widerspenstigkeit sollen „nicht sterben“! Christian Frevel hat richtig gesehen: Gott „bestraft die ganze Menschheit einmal und nie wieder (Gen 9,11.15) und nur eine einzige Generation Israels und keinen Menschen mehr (Num 14,29).“ 70 Könnte man nach Num 14,31 noch irgendwelche Zweifel haben an dieser Zusage, spätestens am Zeichen in Num 17,25 kann man erkennen, dass auch ein murrendes Volk YHWH nicht von seinem Heilsplan abbringen wird. So verbindet das „Zeichen“ diesen Text mit Gen 9,12.13.17, dem Ende der Sintflut und dem eben bedachten „einmal Strafe und nie wieder“!71 So oft Murren in P vorher belegt ist: Widerspenstigkeit (‫ )מרי‬ist in 17,25 das erste Mal in P (sogar im gesamten Tetrateuch) belegt. Es ist zu vermuten, dass das nicht zufällig ist, sondern dass P dieses Wort aufgespart hat bis jetzt, als Steigerung der Rebellion gegen YHWH. Zugleich aber hat P der Aufgipfelung der Rebellion des Volkes in der „Widerspenstigkeit“ die Spitze genommen, indem sofort betont wird, dass sie 68

Glasl, Selbsthilfe, 166ff., „Auf der Eskalationsstufe 4 sind nun die Grenzen der Selbsthilfe ... erreicht“, 166. 69 Schmidt, Numeri, 62ff., rechnet diese Erzählung zu P, ich meine mit guten Gründen. 70 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 383. 71 Natürlich ist ein „Zeichen“ ‫ אות‬auch sonst für P überaus wichtig, etwa in Gen 17,11 das Zeichen der Beschneidung, u.ö.

302

Herbert Specht

nicht sterben (17,25) sollen, und das kann ja nur heißen, dass sie leben sollen. So entscheidend wichtig ist das P, dass er hier vom Zeichen redet, einem Zeichen für die Widerspenstigen. Darf man folgern: Wenn den Widerspenstigen der Stab als Zeichen gezeigt wird, dann soll es ihnen als Zeichen für das Leben gezeigt werden. So wie das Zeichen des Regenbogens der Menschheit nach der Flut verbürgt, dass „nie wieder alles Fleisch vom Wasser der Sintflut ausgerottet werden soll“ und „nie wieder eine Sintflut kommen soll, um die Erde zu verderben“ (Gen 9,11), so soll das Zeichen des Knospen und Mandeln hervorbringenden Stabes Aarons die potentiell Widerspenstigen vom Murren abbringen und sie vergewissern, dass sie „nicht sterben werden“.72 Nimmt Mose den Stab in die Hand, dann kann ihm dieser Stab eigentlich schon das untrügliche Zeichen dafür sein, dass YHWH nicht mit Zorn, sondern mit seiner Hilfe reagieren wird. Der Stab liegt dafür als Zeichen im Heiligtum, dass YHWH das Murren beenden wird, und zwar nicht durch Tod, sondern ... durch seine immerwährende Anstrengung, selbst ein Gott der Widerspenstigen zu sein, die „nicht sterben sollen“. Von daher wird auch klar, welch Ungeheuerlichkeit Mose begeht, mit dem Stab zu schlagen. Eine kurze Anmerkung zum Stab Aarons in den Händen Moses. Gelegentlich hat man gefragt: Wieso soll Mose den Stab holen, der doch Aarons Stab ist? Stellt man die Frage auf dieser Ebene, ist nachvollziehbar, dass man auf diese Ungereimtheit mit literarkritischen Operationen reagiert hat. Vergleicht man jedoch mit 17,16–26, so zeigt sich: Es ist zwar Aarons Stab, an dem das Wunder der Bestätigung erfolgt, aber Mose soll ihn zur Aufbewahrung in das Zelt bringen, und in V. 26 wird die Ausführung des Befehls YHWHs in typisch priesterschriftlichem Stil geschildert: „Mose tat, wie YHWH es ihm befohlen hatte, so tat er.“ Das heißt: P schildert auch an anderer Stelle, dass Mose den Stab Aarons holen oder bringen soll und also in Händen haben kann. Darum ist Moses Tun in V. 9 nicht ungewöhnlich im Kontext von P. Darum ist eine literarkritische Scheidung eindeutig abzulehnen.

72 Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, 273, deutet den Stab in Num 20 zwar zu Recht von 17,25 her „als Zeichen für die Widerspenstigen“, aber verkennt, wofür das Zeichen steht: Dafür, dass sie „nicht sterben“ sollen! Insofern gibt Blum m.E. Mose vorschnell Recht, wenn jener das Volk mit „Ihr Widerspenstigen“ „anherrscht!“ Nein, Mose sollte den Stab in seiner Zeichenbedeutung „auch Widerspenstige sollen nicht sterben“ verstehen und ihn so auch in seiner Rede dem Volk präsentieren und also als heilvolles Zeichen deuten. – Wenn der Stab grundlegendes Zeichen ist dafür, dass bei P der Zorn Gottes beendet ist und das Volk nach den 40 Jahren Wüstenwanderung leben und „nicht sterben“ soll, dann ist auch Blums Deutung auf S. 275 problematisch: „Ihr (sc. Moses und Aarons) Zorn tritt an die Stelle des zu erwartenden Gotteszornes“; wenn Gott aber im Zeichen verheißt, dass sie „nicht sterben“ sollen, dann hält Gott auch einen verständlichen Zorn zurück: d.h. es ist kein Gotteszorn zu erwarten. Ist das richtig, dürfen Mose und Aaron keinesfalls „ihrem Zorn“ freien Lauf lassen.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

303

Zusammenfassend kann man sagen, dass die Beschreibung der Reaktion YHWHs im Kontext von P einheitlich erscheint und im P-Kontext sprachlich und theologisch bestens verankert ist. 3.6. Die Ausführung des Befehls YHWHS (Num 20,9–11a) 9. Da nahm Mose den Stab vor YHWH weg, wie er ihm befohlen hatte.

Der Satz „Wie YHWH ihm befohlen hatte“ ist parallel formuliert zu 17,26 und verklammert auf diese Weise das Thema Stab mit Num 17,16–26, kommt aber auch sonst bei P vor, z.B. Ex 7,6. Milgrom registriert sehr fein, dass die Formel „wie YHWH ihm befohlen hatte“, mitten im Vollzug der Befehlsausführung steht und interpretiert: „This statement would have been expected before or after the account of the fulfillment of the command but not in the middle. Its ‘misplacement’ is deliberate; up to this point Moses executes God’s command; thereafter he deviates from it“ 73 – und zwar insbesondere in der folgenden Rede: 10. Und Mose und Aaron versammelten die Versammlung vor dem Felsen und er sagte zu ihnen: Hört doch, Widerspenstige! Können wir wohl aus diesem Felsen für euch Wasser hervorgehen lassen?

Wieder irritiert der unmotivierte Wechsel von Plural und Singular. Andererseits wird deutlich, dass beide Führergestalten ihre Verantwortung für das Versammeln übernommen haben, beide gemeinsam vorne stehen und zusammen agieren. Dass zunächst nur einer redet, muss nicht weiter irritieren. Sie müssen ja nicht „im Chor“ sprechen. Aber dass Mose hier doch direkt zum Volk und nicht zum Felsen spricht, muss den Leser alarmieren! Mose gerät sofort in Konfrontation zur Versammlung und herrscht sie an: „Widerspenstige!“ Es ist zum Verzweifeln: Mose hat das falsche Stichwort aus Num 17,16–26 aufgenommen! Wo doch YHWH ihm den idealen Weg zur Rede zum Felsen aufgetragen hat! Zwar sollen Mose und Aaron schon „Wasser aus diesem Felsen hervorkommen“ lassen. Aber damit diese Versammlung erkennt, wer hier gibt und dass hier „Leben und nicht Tod“ geschenkt wird, bedarf es einer anderen Rede! Und wenn es auch „sophisticated“ anmutet: Da steht doch noch ein anderer vorne und trägt Verantwortung! Müsste Aaron dem Mose nicht ins Wort fallen, weil genau an dieser Stelle „Mose im Reden ungeschickt ist“ (Ex 6,30). Es ist schon erstaunlich: Nirgends bisher in P hatte man wirklich den Eindruck, dass Mose nicht weiß, was zu sagen wäre. Gelegentlich gibt er Aaron Aufträge. Aber die sind klar formuliert. Mose soll unfähig oder ungeschickt zum Reden sein? Nirgends – außer hier. Ist in Ex 6,30 der Bogen zu Num 20,11 gespannt? Gleich nachdem Mose gesagt hat „Widerspenstige“, hätte Aaron eingreifen können 73

Milgrom, Numbers, 128.

304

Herbert Specht

und sollen: „Mose, halt ein, lass mich reden!“ Und Aaron hätte zum Felsen reden können, von der Zuneigung YHWHs zu Mose und seinem Volk, von der Zeichenbotschaft, die sein Stab verkörpert, und Aaron hätte noch die aggressive Anrede Moses „überschreiben/übersprechen“ können. Ist Aaron überrascht und darum unfähig, oder übt er nur feige Solidarität mit einem anderen Verantwortlichen? P schreibt Aaron Verantwortung für das Volk zu, und deshalb müsste er hier das Wort ergreifen, wenn Mose aufgrund seiner überschäumenden Aggression „im Reden ungeschickt“ ist. Dass das Volk YHWH erkennt, muss unbedingte Priorität vor falsch verstandener Solidarität haben, und darum hätte Aaron reden müssen! Vielleicht hätte er es auch besser können, es ist ja sein Stab, der Wasser hervorgehen lassen soll. So aber redet Mose und beschimpft die Gemeinde mit „Widerspenstige!“ Wann immer der Begriff „Widerspenstige!“ (‫ )המורים‬bzw. „Widerspenstigkeit“ (‫)מורי‬74 verwendet wird, sind heftigste Aggressionen im Spiel. In einem der „ältesten Belege“75 in Dtn 21,18.20 wird verfügt, dass ein „widerspenstiger“ Sohn nach erfolglosen Züchtigungsversuchen von seinen Eltern zu den Ältesten geführt wird und gesteinigt wird, damit „das Böse ausgerottet wird aus deiner Mitte!“ Man kommt an dieser Stelle kaum um theologisch gebotene Sachkritik herum, doch kann das nicht hier nicht thematisiert werden. Entscheidend sind die semantischen Konnotationen. „Widerspenstige“ ‫ המורים‬haben den Tod verdient, vielleicht sollte man daher schärfer übersetzen: „Ihr todeswürdigen Widerspenstigen!“, oder gar „Gottverdammte Widerspenstige!“ Der genannte Artikel von Schwienhorst erspart mir, die Vorkommen in aller Breite zu untersuchen. Nur auf wenige Dinge sei hingewiesen: In Prophetenbüchern wird das Gericht (und zwar stets der Tod!) oft mit der „Widerspenstigkeit“ begründet. So kündet Hosea das Gericht in 14,1 an: „Samaria wird büßen, dass es widerspenstig war gegen seinen Gott! Durch das Schwert werden sie fallen ....!“ In Jer 4,5ff. wird der Untergang des Volkes angekündigt, und zentraler Bestandteil der Unheilsbegründung, hervorgehoben durch „Spruch des Herrn“: „denn sie waren widerspenstig gegen mich“; ähnlich in Jer 5,23. Bei Ezechiel ist Israel „Haus der Widerspenstigkeit“, so in Ez 2,5f.; 3,9.26f.; 12,2f.9.25; 17,12; 24,3. In Ez 5,6 wird wegen widerspenstigen Verhaltens gegenüber den Rechtssätzen YHWHs unsagbares Gericht angesagt, „was ich noch nie getan habe und was ich niemals wieder tun werde“ (Ez 5,9). Schließlich ist auf Ez 20,8.13.21 hinzuweisen: auch hier ist der Hauptvorwurf, dass Israel „widerspenstig war gegen mich“. Zum einen zeigen diese Belege erneut die Heftigkeit der Konnotationen beim Gebrauch dieses Wortes. Da sich P jedoch auch sonst auf Ezechiel bezieht

74 75

Vgl. L. Schwienhorst, Art. ‫מרה‬, ThWAT V, 1984, 6–11. Schwienhorst, ‫מרה‬, 7.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

305

und insbesondere auf Ez 20, wie Thomas Pola76 sehr nachdrücklich herausgearbeitet hat, könnte P hier auch auf das ezechielisch verhandelte Thema „Widerspenstig-sein“ oder mindestens auf die Wirkungsgeschichte Ezechiels antworten. Dabei muss man sehen: die Antwort von P fällt völlig anders aus, und zwar mit guten theologischen Gründen. Zwar mag man argumentieren, in der Zeit des Gerichts kann auch die Anerkenntnis der eigenen „Widerspenstigkeit“ heilsam sein. Ezechiel jedenfalls weiß, warum die Schrecken über das Volk gekommen sind. Aber wenn es dann darum geht, dass das Volk erkennt, dass „ich YHWH bin“, dann verbaut das weitere Beharren auf der Widerspenstigkeit jeden Erkenntnisschritt auf YHWH zu. Dann bleibt nichts als – abgrundtiefe Angst. Eine Gotteserkenntnis, die zum Vertrauen in diesen Gott anleiten will, ist mit dem Dauervorwurf „Widerspenstige!“ unmöglich. P weiß das und wehrt sich implizit gegen eine problematische Verkündigung. Ob P auch mit dem Deuteronomium ins Gericht geht, indem es eine Gegengeschichte zu Dtn 1,34–46 schreibt? Vermutlich doch nicht. Eher antwortet Dtn 1,34–46 in der Rede des Mose auf die nicht verstandene P-Erzählung. Dabei würde sich P die in Dtn 1,37 gelieferte Interpretation von Num 20,1–13 mit Nachdruck verbitten: „Euretwegen wurde YHWH auch über mich zornig!“ P würde sagen: Keinesfalls! Die Gründe dafür, dass Mose nicht ins Land kommen kann, liegen allein in seinem Handeln! – Der Vergleich mit Dtn 1 zeigt auch: Die deuteronomische Rede von ‫ מרה‬Hif´il in Dtn 1,26.43; 9,7.23.24; 31,27 erscheint im Verhältnis zu P als wenig reflektiert. Umgekehrt gilt auch: Aus dem deuteronomischen Gegenüber erkennt man erst, auf welch hoher theologischer Reflexionsebene P denkt und schreibt, und vielleicht auch, wie viel Herzblut in diesen Versen steckt. Eine Frage beschäftigt die Ausleger hier immer wieder: Rechnen Mose und Aaron (natürlich auf der Ebene der Erzählung!) gar nicht damit, dass aus dem Felsen Wasser kommen wird? Ist das der „Unglaube“, der ihnen vorgeworfen wird? Aber wenn sie daran den geringsten Zweifel gehabt hätten, dann hätten sie die Gemeinde doch nicht vor dem Felsen versammeln dürfen und sich vorne hin stellen! Käme kein Wasser aus dem Felsen, dann wäre es nach dieser Rede verständlich, wenn die beiden wirklich gesteinigt würden! Doch nichts deutet darauf hin, dass Mose sich nicht voll und ganz auf der Seite YHWHS stehen sieht oder präziser auf dessen Seite stehen will. Und weil er das Volk nur aus der Perspektive der „Widerspenstigkeit“ sieht, streitet er ebenso konsequent und einseitig gegen das Volk. Aus YHWHs Perspektive auf P-Ebene müsste Mose aber auf Seiten YHWHs stehen, um dem Volk YHWH nahezubringen. Darum darf er sich nicht in eine Gegnerschaft zum Volk bringen. Würde Mose nicht auf YHWH vertrauen, wäre seine Rede vor dem Felsen nichts als Prahlerei. In solch einer Situation müsste sich das bitter rächen. Doch Moses und Aarons Problem ist nicht, dass sie kein Vertrauen in Gottes Macht 76

Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, insbesondere 147–208 und 358–359.

306

Herbert Specht

hätten. Ihr Problem ist, dass dieses Volk mit seiner Rebellion und ihren Aggressionen solch starke Gegenaggressionen ausgelöst hat, dass sie keine Brücken mehr zu YHWH bauen können, sondern insofern mit „Gewalt“ antworten, als jedenfalls Mose sie als „gottverdammte Widerspenstige“ anherrscht und auch in seiner Frage nicht auf YHWH verweist. Mose und Aaron kämpfen um die Wiederherstellung ihrer Legitimität; ihr Auftrag aber ist, das Volk zur Erkenntnis YHWHs zu führen.77 11. Da erhob Mose seine Hand und schlug den Felsen mit seinem Stab zwei Mal, und es kam heraus viel Wasser. Da tranken/soffen die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh.

Der Stab, ursprünglich dafür vorgesehen, dass sich Mose an ihn erinnert als Zeichen des Neuanfangs nach der Zeit des als Gericht zu verstehenden Wüstenaufenthaltes, an das Hervorbringen der Sprossen und dann auch das durch ihn zu bewirkende Hervorbringen des Wassers aufgrund einer Rede, die YHWH in den Mittelpunkt stellt und an all das erinnert, was YHWH mit diesem Zeichen (Num 17,25) gegeben hat, wird nun zum Schlag-Werkzeug. In der Anrede an das Volk „Widerspenstige“ und im „Schlagen“ kommt unverkennbar die höchst aggressive Energie Moses zu tage. Wie gesagt, nach V. 3–5 mag sie verständlich sein, aber sie widerspricht gänzlich YHWHs Auftrag. Und: Diese aggressive Energie macht es ganz unmöglich, dass das Volk YHWH erkennen kann. Es kann nicht erkennen, dass es nach den 40 Jahren einen Neuanfang gibt, es kann nicht erkennen, dass Leben und nicht Sterben das neue Thema ist, es kann nicht erkennen, dass das Hineinkommen ins Land ein Geschenk ist, ja es kann nicht einmal erkennen, dass das viel fließende Wasser „gnadenhafte Zuwendung“78 ist. Die Gemeinde säuft – wie das Vieh, das auch nichts versteht. Aber die Gemeinde soll doch sein „mein, YHWHs Volk“. Versucht man noch einmal in Glasls Konflikteskalationsstufen zu denken, dann macht es Mose wie viele andere, die auf derselben aggressiven Ebene von Stufe 5 und höher gegen Angreifer reagieren: Er zeigt seine Machtinstrumente – der Stab verkommt nun zu einem Schlagwerkzeug, und, ja, Mose begibt sich in eine Art Machtrausch oder gar in die „Allmachtsposition“: „Können wir wohl aus diesem Felsen Wasser hervorkommen lassen?“ Mose nimmt Gott als seinen Verbündeten in Anspruch, die maximale Macht. An dieser Macht hat er Anteil, und gerade im Konflikt spielt er diese Macht aus gegen die Widerspenstigen, macht sie damit nieder und stopft ihnen den Mund.79 Aber so kann er 77 Levine, Numbers, 490, erwartet als Rede an den Felsen eher ein machtvolles Wort, den Befehl „Open, Sesame“. Aber nichts im Text deutet auf solch ein Machtwort hin. YHWH hat mit dem Auftrag „Rede zum Felsen“ anderes im Sinn. 78 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 347. 79 Die Überlegungen dieses Abschnitts wurden im Gespräch mit einer Schülerin Friedrich Glasls, Christine Kuhn, entwickelt. In Konflikten in Betrieben: wenn der Abteilungsleiter den Chef als seinen Verbündeten weiß, besteht die große Gefahr ab Stufe 5, dass er in einen Allmachtswahn gerät und die gegnerische Seite seine Machtfülle spüren lässt, sie mundtot und

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

307

unmöglich erreichen, dass dies Volk YHWH erkennt und seine Situation versteht. Warum also können Mose und Aaron nicht mehr das Volk ins Land führen? Zum einen stehen zwischen Mose und Aaron auf der einen und dem Volk auf der anderen Seite die Aggressionen Moses, die aus den vielen Rebellionen des Volkes herrühren und vor allem aus der letzten. Mose und Aaron beherrschen ihre Aggressionen nicht mehr, und selbst wenn YHWH ihnen fürsorglich einen Umweg aufzeigt: diesen Umweg gehen sie nicht. Man könnte auch sagen: Dieses Volk ist zunehmend nicht mehr „ihr Volk“; diese Leute sind nur noch „Widerspenstige“. Aber je mehr dies Volk nicht mehr „ihr Volk“ ist, umso weniger finden sie noch einen Weg, diesem Volk nahezubringen, dass es YHWHs Volk ist. Das hat dann auch zum zweiten mit dem oben erörterten Kampf um die Wiederherstellung ihrer Legitimation zu tun. Sie nehmen nicht wahr, dass ihre Autorität nur Nebeneffekt ihres Auftrags ist und auch nur so sein kann. Und wenn ihre Intention nicht mehr darauf abzielt, das Volk zur Erkenntnis YHWHs zu führen, dann verfehlen sie mit ihrem Auftrag ihr Amt als Führer des Volkes und verlieren ihre einzig wahre Legitimation, diejenige durch ihren Gott. Die Belege zu Ezechiel und dem Deuteronomium sind schon bedacht worden. Auch in ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte wird es genug „geistliche Führer“ gegeben haben, die „Widerspenstige!“ rufen, auf Konfrontation gehen, Menschen verurteilen statt sie auf den Weg zu Gott mitzunehmen. P hat hier erneut ein grundlegendes Thema bedacht, transparent auf seine Zeit und weit darüber hinaus. Es gab und gibt immer wieder „Geistliche“, die aus ihrer Beziehung zu Gott oder zum Absoluten einen hohen Autoritätsanspruch ableiten, aber aus vielen frustrierenden Erfahrungen im Umgang mit Menschen große Mühen mit ihrem Aggressionspotential haben. Es ist gut, hier nicht zu schnell auf andere zu zeigen. P tut alles, damit der Leser merkt, wie schwer es für Mose und Aaron ist, geduldig zu sein. Aaron Schart80 hat durchaus recht mit seinem Verweis auf

nieder macht, aber so keineswegs den Konflikt einer Lösung zuführt, sondern weiter eskalieren lässt. – Erneut: Bei P empfiehlt es sich, die in der Erzählung dargestellte Problemstellung in den Blick zu nehmen und vor diesem Hintergrund nach der von ihm anvisierten Lösung zu suchen. – Philip J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5, Waco, Texas: Word Books 1984, 218, sieht, dass die Rede in V. 10 hochproblematisch ist. Man könne sie so verstehen, als ob „they had the power to provide the water.“ Es geht in diese Richtung, aber würde man Mose und Aaron eine von Gott losgelöste Hybris unterstellen, würde man sie missverstehen. In einem solchen Fall hätte P kaum das Wasserwunder darstellen können. Vielmehr sehen sich Mose und Aaron in einer „Allmachtsposition“ aufgrund des Wissens um den Verbündeten, also eine abgeleitete „Allmachtsstellung“ im Konflikt. Mose kann sich so auf der Seite YHWHs wähnen, aber eben: Er kann keine Brücke mehr zwischen Volk und YHWH bauen. Und natürlich: Er hat nicht mehr auf YHWHs Worte gehört. 80 Schart, Mose und Israel, 120.

308

Herbert Specht

die etwas abschätzige Konnotation in ‫הקהל הזה‬, wobei ich allerdings seine Wertung nicht teilen kann, dass die Gemeinde von Jahwe nicht als solche „anerkannt“ wird. Aber höchst anstrengend ist sie, diese Gemeinde, provoziert Mose und Aaron aufs höchste. Doch YHWH öffnet im Umweg der Anrede an den Felsen einen Weg für Mose und Aaron, aggressionsfrei zu sprechen, „vor ihren Augen“ und diesem Volk doch noch die Augen zu öffnen. 3.7. Zur Gattung der Erzählung Nach Frevels literarkritischer Rekonstruktion handelt es sich bei dem Text um eine Wasserwunder-Erzählung81, die mit V. 11 endet. Frevel fragt selbst, ob „die Grunderzählung mit V. 11 geendet haben“ kann82. Seine Antwort: „Die Darstellung läuft auf V. 11 zu, und in der Wasserspende kommt die Erzählung zu einem guten Ende.“83 Diesem Satz kann ich nicht zustimmen, und zwar aus gattungskritischen Gründen. Eine Wundererzählung muss mit der Anerkenntnis des Wunders enden; dies kann durch expliziten Dank, Jubel, Staunen, einer Prostration der Zeugen u.dgl. geschehen. Das ergibt nicht nur der Vergleich mit jedweder Wundererzählung, sei es im Alten oder Neuen Testament oder im Alten Orient, es ist auch in der Sachlogik eines Wunders begründet. Die bloße Feststellung des Erzählers, dass die Gemeinde und ihr Vieh „trank“ bzw. soff, ist zu wenig. Es fehlt also dringend ein Abschluss. Das Wunder ist nicht zu seinem Ziel, der Anerkenntnis durch die Adressaten, gelangt. Warum? Weil das Volk keinen Grund genannt bekommen hat, warum es denn seinem Gott zujubeln sollte, und weil die beim Wunder aktiv tätigen Personen statt Gottes klar benannten Auftrag konsequent zu erfüllen, das Volk als „Widerspenstige“ niedergemacht haben statt sie im Wunder über sich selbst hinaus zu führen, sie zu „transzendieren“ und zu öffnen für ihren Gott. Wäre alles nach dem Plan YHWHs verlaufen, hätte die Erzählung zu einer Wasserwundererzählung werden können. So aber ist sie zu einer Erzählung der Verfehlung seiner Führer geworden; darum muss die Erzählung fortgeführt werden. 3.8. Das Urteil YHWHs über Mose und Aaron (Num 20,12) 12. YHWH sagte zu Mose und Aaron: Weil ihr nicht an mich geglaubt habt, um mich als heilig zu erweisen vor den Augen der Israeliten, darum werdet ihr diese Versammlung nicht in das Land bringen, das ich ihnen gegeben habe.

Der kritischste Punkt in diesem Vers ist das Wort ‫„ האמנתם‬ihr habt nicht geglaubt“. Denn dieses Lexem ist tatsächlich sonst bei P nicht belegt. Ein Blick auf Gen 15,6 könnte zum Urteil verleiten: Hier ist ein Spätling am Werk; in

81

Sehr übersichtlich dargestellt in: Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 323–324. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 327. 83 Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land, 327. 82

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

309

Gen 15,6 könnte der Ausgangspunkt für die nachpriesterliche Redaktionsarbeit zu finden sein, die dann auch in Ex 19,9; Num 14,11 aufgenommen wird. Ich halte eine andere Lösung für wahrscheinlicher: Dass P hier Jes 7,9 zitiert. Sachlich ist Num 20,12 jedenfalls viel enger mit Jes 7,9 verbunden als mit den anderen Stellen des Pentateuch, oder präziser formuliert, Num 20,12 ist eine geradezu erstaunlich stimmige Auslegung von Jes 7,9b. Ihr habt nicht geglaubt – also bleibt ihr nicht die Führer, die das Volk ins Land bringen werden. Um die Parallelen im Einzelnen zu nennen: 1) Jesaja redet in einem YHWH-Wort (7,7a) den König an, Num 20 redet YHWH zu den Führern. 2) YHWH nimmt in Jes 7 die unbedingte Heilszusage in Jes 7,7–9a nicht zurück; auch für den, der nicht glaubt, werden YHWHs heilvolle Vorhersagen eintreffen – nur wird der Nichtglaubende an dem von YHWH intendierten Heil keine Freude haben. Ahas wird nicht „bleiben“, auch wenn der Angriff der beiden „Brandstummel“ zum Scheitern verurteilt ist. In Num 20,12 hält YHWH an der Heilsgabe des Einzugs ins Land fest, Wasser hat er ohnehin geschenkt, aber Mose und Aaron werden nicht hineinkommen. Die Priesterschrift zitiert auch sonst zentrale Prophetenworte. In der Sintfluterzählung hat P Amos 8,284 zitiert und kennt mindestens die „Grundaussage“ von Ez 785. Thomas Pola hat in seiner Arbeit intensiv Ez 20 und P verglichen und kommt zum Ergebnis, dass Ez 20 „einen Einfluss ... auf die Herausbildung von primären und sekundären priesterlichen Materialien gehabt hat“.86 Zusammenfassend kann man sagen: Wenn P auch sonst ‫ אמן‬Hif‘il (glauben) nicht verwendet, so hat P das Lexem anscheinend an dieser Stelle pointiert verwendet, als bewusste Anspielung auf Jes 7,9b. „Um mich als heilig zu erweisen“ (‫ להקדישׁני‬Hif‘il Inf. mit Suff.) ist zwar im Hif‘il ebenfalls kein typisch priesterschriftliches Wort, denn es kommt nur hier vor und in dem mit diesem Beleg zusammenhängenden Text Num 27,14. Doch kennt P Worte vom selben Stamm, so ‫( מקדשׁ‬Ex 25,8), ‫ קדשׁ‬Kal (Ex 29,21 und vermutlich öfter), verwendet ‫ קדשׁ‬Piel z.B. in Gen 2,3 und mehrfach in Ex 29. „Heiligtum, heiligen“ sind in verschiedener Hinsicht nicht nur P vertraute Begriffe, sondern mehr noch wichtiger Bestandteil seiner Weltdeutung. Anzunehmen, P könne ‫ קדשׁ‬im Hif‘il nicht verwenden, wäre also vermessen. Im Hif‘il ist ‫ קדשׁ‬belegt in Jes 8,13 und Jes 29,23. Die Beziehungen zu diesen Texten sind jedoch nicht allzu eng. Umso enger sind die Beziehungen zu den Nif‘al-Belegen in Ezechiel. Wenn Gott sich selbst als heilig erweist, muss das natürlich im Nif‘al (reflexiv) ausgesagt werden. Hier sei einfach Ez 20,41 angeführt: „... ich 84

Vgl. R. Smend, „Das Ende ist gekommen“. Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift, in: Die Botschaft und die Boten, hg. von J. Jeremias/L. Perlitt, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1981, 67– 72. 85 Smend, Ende, 70. 86 Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 207. Vgl. auch oben die Erwägungen zu „widerspenstig sein“.

310

Herbert Specht

werde euch annehmen, wenn ich euch herausführe ...., und ich werde mich an euch als heilig erweisen vor den Augen der Völker.“ Wieder: Die Zitierweise von P ist nie plump, aber was Thomas Pola zum Verhältnis von Ez 20 zu P aufgewiesen hat, bestätigt sich auch an dieser Stelle. P hat Ez 20 gekannt und sich produktiv mit Ez 20 auseinandergesetzt. Die anderen Bestandteile des Verses sind unzweifelhaft P-Sprache. Für 12b ist das ganz evident. Dass „diese Versammlung“ in „das Land“ gebracht werden soll, „das ich ihnen gegeben habe“, ist von Sprache und Anliegen her unzweifelhaft P. Stammte der Vers von einem Redaktor, hätte dieser P bis in seine Tiefen hinein verstanden haben müssen. V. 12 bestätigt die bisherige Auslegung.87 Mose und Aaron sind nach den vielen Murr- und Streiterzählungen voller Zorn und Aggression gegen ihr Volk. Sie haben sich nicht mehr an die Vorgaben YHWHs hinsichtlich einer Rede über einen Umweg gehalten, sie haben das von YHWH mit dem Stab gegebene Zeichen nicht ernst genommen und insofern sich nicht mehr in YHWH festgemacht. In ihrem Kampf um ihre eigene Autorität verfehlen sie ihren Auftrag, YHWH zu verherrlichen indem sie das Volk zur Erkenntnis YHWHs führen. Es gelingt ihnen nicht mehr, YHWH als heilig zu erweisen, als eines Gottes, der sein Volk annimmt und ihm Leben gibt – und in der Not sogar Wasser für Mensch und Vieh. So verlieren sie ihre Legitimation vor YHWH. Diese Führer könnten bestenfalls das Volk in irgendein Land bringen, sie können dem Volk aber nicht mehr vermitteln, dass sie in ein Land kommen, „das ich ihnen gegeben habe.“ Indirekt bedeutet das, dass Mose und Aaron außerhalb des Landes sterben werden. Aber sagen will es P an dieser Stelle nicht: „Darum müsst ihr sterben.“ Es geht P hier nicht um betonten Schuld-Strafe-Zusammenhang. Aber Mose und Aaron können nicht mehr ausführen, was ihnen aufgetragen ist. Kann man deshalb P sogar etwas Trauer und Wehmut abspüren? Fast scheint es, als ob YHWH in V. 12 mit „dieser Versammlung da“ ‫הקהל הזה‬, in dem der leicht abwertende Klang kaum zu überhören ist, noch einmal mitseufzt mit Mose: Es ist ein anstrengendes Volk, diese Versammlung da, die Gott sich sowie dem Mose und Aaron aufgeladen hat. So ist den Erzählungen vom Sterben Aarons und Moses jegliche Schärfe genommen; fast vermitteln sie eine von Kummer durchsetzte Atmosphäre der Begleitung auf dem letzten Weg. Mose soll darum das Land wenigstens noch sehen dürfen. Doch weil Mose und Aaron nicht mehr bewirken können, was ihnen aufgetragen ist, können sie nicht mehr führen und müssen außerhalb des Landes sterben.88 Weil nach P alles darauf ankommt, 87 Spannend zu lesen sind die von Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 50: Magic, Monotheism and the Sin of Moses, 381–389, aufgelisteten Lösungsangebote aus der jüdischen Tradition. Er ordnet sie in zehn Kategorien, worin denn die Sünde bestehen könnte. Das zeigt, wie umstritten die Frage nach der Sünde Moses und Aarons seit jeher ist. 88 Je länger man über P und seine Darstellung von Mose und Aaron nachdenkt, umso kühner erscheinen diese Texte. Ein an seinem Auftrag scheiternder Mose ist alles andere als ein Glaubensheld. Hätten wir nur P, hätte keiner auf die Idee kommen können, die YHWH-Religion mit

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

311

dass YHWH geheiligt wird, darum bedarf es anderer Führer. Implizit warnt P dadurch alle „geistlichen Führer“, nicht aus Enttäuschungserfahrungen heraus aggressiv und ausschließlich konfrontativ auf die ihnen anvertrauten Menschen zuzugehen.89 Sonst würden auch sie ihre Aufgabe verfehlen, zur Gotteserkenntnis beizutragen. P hätte vermutlich nichts dagegen, wenn man einem anderen Apostel des Glaubens folgt, der seinerseits viel von Texten der Priesterschrift gelernt90 hat: Paulus. Er zeigt „einen Weg, der weit besser ist“, um mit Menschen umzugehen und sie zur Erkenntnis Gottes zu führen: den Weg der Liebe (1. Kor12,31–13). So weit sind Mose und Aaron nicht. Aber vielleicht ist genau das ihr Problem: dass sie das Volk nicht mehr lieben können. Doch nur wenn Menschen durch ihre Rebellion gegen Gott hindurch geliebt werden, können diese sich einem Gott öffnen, der für sie – Gott ist.

4. Schluss Num 20,1–13 hat sich als eine in sich kohärente Erzählung erwiesen. Am ehesten könnte in V. 3a eine Glosse in den Text gerutscht sein. Die Erzählung passt sehr genau an ihren jetzigen Ort im Kontext einer ursprünglich isoliert zu lesenden Priesterschrift. Theologisch besticht sie durch ihre überzeugende Dichte und Tiefe.

dem Begriff „mosaischer Glauben“ zu belegen. Es ist Zeit, dass man gewahr wird, mit welcher Freiheit, teils auch mit welcher Frechheit oder soll man sagen mit welchem Risiko P Theologie betreibt. In den so oft geschmähten „penetranten“ Bezugnahmen zeigt sich ein großartig wacher Geist. – Für den Redaktor, der den Prototetrateuch, P und Deuteronomium in einen fortlaufenden Zusammenhang bringen musste, ist die Mose-Darstellung von P hochproblematisch. Denn wenn man einmal Num 20,1–13 verstanden hat, dann ist Mose eigentlich schon vor dem Deuteronomium „verbrannt“. Wieso soll man einem noch zuhören, der in seinem Amt gescheitert ist? Kann ein Redaktor P „relativieren“? Kann es sein, dass Ex 17,1–7 zuallererst ein Gegengewicht zu Num 20 bilden soll? 89 Num 20,13 dürfte ebenfalls zu P gehören. Um diesen Vers aber mit guten Gründen P zuweisen zu können, müsste man weiter ausholen. Das kann in diesem Rahmen nicht mehr geschehen. 90 In Röm 9–11 hat Paulus Ex 6–7 zwar nicht zitiert, aber sachlich hat er denselben „Umweg“ wie in Ex 6–7*P angenommen. Israel, das in seiner Mehrzahl nicht „hört“ bzw. die Gerechtigkeit Gottes in Christus nicht annimmt, soll sich durch den Weg des Paulus zu den Völkern reizen lassen, es soll eifersüchtig werden und vielleicht doch zur Erkenntnis Christi kommen. In Ex 6–7 wird die Herrlichkeit Gottes an den Ägyptern im Gericht offenbar, in Röm 9– 11 kommt aber das Heil zu den Völkern in der Hoffnung, dass Israel auch das für sich selbst bestimmte Heil erkennt.

312

Herbert Specht

Bibliographie Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Baentsch, Bruno: Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri, HKAT I/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1903. Binns, L. Elliott: The Book of Numbers, London: Matthew & Co. 1927. Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter 1990. Budd, Philip J: Numbers, WBC 5, Waco, Texas: Word Books 1984. Coats, George W.: Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament, Nashville Tenn./New York: Abingdon Press 1968. Dillmann, August: Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, Leipzig: S. Hirzel 1886. Elliger, Karl: Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung, ZThK 49 (1952), 121–143; = idem: Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, München: Kaiser 1966, 174–198. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. Glasl, Friedrich: Selbsthilfe in Konflikten. Konzepte – Übungen – Praktische Methoden, Stuttgart/Bern: Verlag Freies Geistesleben/Haupt Verlag, 4. bearb. Aufl. 2004. Gray, George Buchanan: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC, Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1903 (=1976). Holzinger, Heinrich: Numeri, KHC IV, Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1903. Jepsen, Alfred: Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex, ZAW 47 (1929), 251–255. Knierim, Ralf P./Coats, George W.: Numbers, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans 2005. Levin, Christoph: Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1993. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 1–20, AncB 4, New York et al.: Doubleday 1993. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia/New York: Jewish Publication Society 5750/1990. Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966. –: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1948. Otto, Eckart: Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2007. Perlitt, Lothar: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium, ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988), 65–87; = idem: Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen: Mohr 1994, 123–143. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1995. Schart, Aaron: Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Freiburg (Schweiz): Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri. Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7/2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004. –: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993. Schwienhorst, Ludger: Art. ‫ מרה‬marah, ThWAT V, 1984, 6–11. Seebass, Horst: Numeri. 2. Teilband Numeri 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4,2, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 2003. Smend, Rudolf: „Das Ende ist gekommen“. Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift, in: Die Botschaft und die Boten, FS Hans Walter Wolff, hg. von Jörg Jeremias/Lothar Perlitt, Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1981, 67–72.

Die Verfehlung Moses und Aarons in Num 20,1–13*P

313

Specht, Herbert: Von Gott enttäuscht – Die priesterschriftliche Abrahamgeschichte, EvTh 47 (1987), 395–411. Steck, Odil Hannes: Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift, FRLANT 115, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 21981. Stipp, Hermann Josef: The Concept of the Empty Land in Jeremiah 37–43, in: The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, hg. von Ehud Ben Zvi/Christoph Levin, BZAW 404, Berlin: de Gruyter 2010, 103–154. Struppe, Ursula: Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu kebôd YHWH, ÖBS 9, Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk 1988. Weimar, Peter: Atk. Priesterschrift, in: WiBiLex 2010, www.wibilex.de/stichwort/ Priesterschrift/ (Zugriffsdatum: 15.8.2013). –: Studien zur Priesterschrift, FAT 56, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.* Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri Ludwig Schmidt

1. Das Problem In Dtn 1–3 berichtet Mose meist über Ereignisse, von denen in Num 13ff. erzählt wird. In der Forschung ist umstritten, welche literarische Beziehung zwischen dem Bericht des Mose und diesen Erzählungen besteht. Dafür werden drei Modelle vertreten. Nach dem einen ist Dtn 1–3 von den Parallelen in Numeri abhängig, in dem zweiten wird die Abhängigkeit umgekehrt bestimmt und in dem dritten werden die Gemeinsamkeiten darauf zurückgeführt, dass Dtn 1–3 und die Parallelen in Numeri auf Überlieferungen zurückgehen, die zunächst für Dtn 1–3 benutzt und erst später in Numeri aufgenommen wurden. So war z.B. nach dem ersten Modell die Sihon-Erzählung in Num 21,21ff.* die Vorlage für Dtn 2,24ff.* Der Sieg über Og in Num 21,33–35 sei allerdings später aus Dtn 3,1–3 hinzugefügt worden.1 Nach dem zweiten ist dagegen auch der Sieg über Sihon von Dtn 2,24ff.* abhängig2 und nach dem dritten gehen beide Texte auf eine Überlieferung zurück. Literarisch sei aber

1

So u.a. U. Köppel, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen. Die Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen Num 21,21–35 und Dtn 2,26–3,3, EHS.T 122, Bern u.a.: Peter Lang 1979, 35ff.; H. Seebass, Numeri 2. Numeri 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 2003, 351f.; L. Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri. Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 112; L. Perlitt, Deuteronomium 1,1–4,40, BK.AT 5/1–4, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1990ff., 191ff.; T. Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8,1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 54ff. Nach R. Heckl, Moses Vermächtnis. Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1–3, AzBG 9, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2004, 417ff., ist auch Dtn 3,1ff. von Num 21,33ff. abhängig. 2 Vgl. z.B. M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist. Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke, AThANT 67, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 1981, 308–313; J. van Seters, John: The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, CBET 10, Kampen: Kok Pharaos 1994, 393ff.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

315

Num 21,21ff.* jünger als Dtn 2,24ff.*3 Die drei Modelle haben für die Entstehung von Numeri erhebliche Konsequenzen. Während dieses Buch nach dem ersten vordeuteronomistische Texte enthält, von denen Dtn 1–3 literarisch abhängig ist, ist nach dem zweiten und dritten das Buch Numeri durchgehend jünger als Dtn 1ff. Dabei wird gelegentlich die Auffassung vertreten, dass bereits ältere Texte in Numeri von einer Redaktion stammen, die Genesis– Leviticus mit dem Deuteronomium verbinden wollte.4 Deshalb soll im Folgenden als Test für die verschiedenen Modelle nochmals untersucht werden, welches literarische Verhältnis zwischen den Abschnitten über Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff. und Dtn 2,24ff. besteht. Dazu wird zunächst Dtn 2,24ff. (2.) und dann Num 21,21ff. analysiert (3.) Anschließend werden die Folgerungen, die sich aus den Analysen für die umstrittene Entstehung des Buches Numeri ergeben, dargestellt (4.). Zum Schluss sollen die Ergebnisse zusammengefasst werden (5.).

2. Dtn 2,24–3,11 In Dtn 2,24ff. berichtet Mose von der Eroberung des Ostjordanlands. Der Abschnitt beginnt in 2,24aα (bis „Arnon“) mit dem Befehl JHWHs im Plural, den Arnon zu überschreiten. Allerdings fehlt hier eine Redeeinleitung. Sie steht in V. 17, wonach JHWH zu Mose redete. V. 24aα folgte ursprünglich auf V. 17. Da sich die Israeliten in V. 24aα noch südlich des Arnon aufhielten, kommen die Anweisungen für das Verhalten zu den Ammonitern in V. 18f. zu früh. Außerdem wird Israel hier im Singular angeredet. Die antiquarischen Notizen in V. 20–23 sind keine JHWH-Rede und somit ebenfalls sekundär. Die Fortsetzung von V. 24aα* war ursprünglich V. 26. Dieser Zusammenhang 3 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin: de Gruyter 1990, 176ff., weist Num 21,21ff.* seiner deuteronomistischen Komposition KD zu, die später dem deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk in Dtn 1ff. vorangestellt worden sei. Nach E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr 2000, 129ff.; idem: Deuteronomiumsstudien I. Die Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 1–3, ZAR 14 (2008), 86–236, 181ff., und R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, 358ff., gab es eine Edom-Sihon-Überlieferung, die zumindest die Vorlage für Dtn 2,24ff.* gewesen sei, und die später von einer Hexateuch-Redaktion für Num 20,14ff. und 21,21ff.* benutzt wurde. 4 So z.B. T. Römer, Entstehungsphasen des „deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes“, in: Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, hg. von Markus Witte et al., BZAW 365, Berlin: de Gruyter 2006, 45–70, 49ff.; R. Albertz, Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie. Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24. Teil I, ZAW 123 (2011), 171–183; Teil II, ebd., 336–347.

316

Ludwig Schmidt

wird von V. 24aβ.b.25 unterbrochen. Hier werden die Israeliten mit der Anrede im Singular aufgefordert, sich auf einen Kampf mit Sihon einzulassen. Das lässt sich nicht damit vereinbaren, dass Mose nach V. 26ff. Sihon durch Boten dazu aufforderte, einen friedlichen Durchzug zuzulassen. Auch V. 31 spricht dagegen, dass V. 24aβ.b.25 ganz oder teilweise zum Grundbestand gehören. V. 24aβ ist V. 31 sehr ähnlich. Dort sind aber die Zusage JHWHs und seine Aufforderung, mit der Inbesitznahme des Landes zu beginnen, sinnvoll, da Sihon zuvor den friedlichen Durchzug abgelehnt hatte. V. 31 ist somit älter als V. 24aβ.b.5 Dass diese Aussagen sekundär sind, geht auch aus der Verstockungsaussage in V. 30b hervor, in der Israel ebenfalls im Singular angeredet wird. Hier wird mit „um ihn in deine Hand zu geben“ das „Siehe, ich gebe in deine Hand“ aus V. 24aβ aufgegriffen und begründet, warum Sihon auf die Botschaft des Mose nicht positiv reagierte: Er war dazu nicht imstande, weil JHWH bereits zuvor den Untergang Sihons beschlossen hatte. V. 24aβ.b.25 und V. 30b wurden somit von demselben Bearbeiter ergänzt. Er wollte mit V. 24aβ.b.25 deutlich machen, dass mit dem Überschreiten des Arnons die Eroberung des Ostjordanlands begann. Auf V. 24aα folgte somit ursprünglich V. 26.6 Verschiedentlich wird allerdings bestritten, dass V. 26–29 zum Grundbestand gehören. Das wird u.a. damit begründet, dass die Botschaft in der 1. Pers. Sing. formuliert ist, obwohl die Israeliten gemeint seien.7 Nach Veijola können V. 26ff. ursprünglich „unmöglich“ die Fortsetzung von V. 24aα gewesen sein, weil die erneute Vorstellung von Sihon als „der König von Heschbon“ in V. 30a nach V. 26 unnötig sei und das Angebot, Nahrung und Wasser für Geld zu kaufen (V. 28), den Abschnitt 2,4–6.8a über Edom voraussetze, der sekundär sei.8 Dann hätte der Grundbestand gelautet: „Steht auf, brecht auf und überschreitet den Bach Arnon (V. 24aα). Aber nicht wollte Sihon, der König von Heschbon, uns bei sich durchziehen lassen“ (V. 30a). Aber hier besteht zwischen V. 24aα und V. 30a eine Lücke, denn es versteht sich nicht von selbst, dass die Israeliten nach der Überquerung des Arnon 5

Das gilt auch für V. 25, da hier V. 24aβ.b vorausgesetzt wird. V. 24aβ.b.25 wird meist für sekundär gehalten, vgl. z.B. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 199; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 65f. Das hat Heckl, Vermächtnis, 269ff., bestritten. Die Botschaft des Mose in V. 26ff. enthalte die Forderung, das Land Sihons zu durchziehen, und eröffne damit den Krieg gegen ihn. Dann ist es aber ein Rätsel, warum in der Botschaft betont wird, dass durch den Durchzug keinerlei Schaden entstehen wird. Das wird auch von Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 182, und Achenbach, Vollendung, 358, nicht berücksichtigt. Für Otto gehören V. 24aβ* (ohne: „und sein Land, beginne, nimm in Besitz“).b, für Achenbach V. 24aβ* (ebenfalls ohne: „beginne, nimm in Besitz“) zum Grundbestand. V. 31 sei dagegen sekundär. 7 Vgl. z.B. S. Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139, Berlin: de Gruyter 1975, 80. 8 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 62. 6

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

317

durch das Gebiet Sihons ziehen wollten. Deshalb muss diese Absicht vor V. 30a erwähnt worden sein. Nach V. 26 waren sie damals in der Wüste Kedemot und noch nicht im Land Sihons. Diese Auffassung wird bei der Verweigerung des Durchzugs in V. 30a vorausgesetzt. Für den Grundbestand kann somit auf die Botschaft des Mose nicht verzichtet werden. Sie ist in der 1. Pers. Sing. formuliert, weil Mose als Führer der Israeliten stellvertretend für sie redete. Auch die Wiederholung des Titels Sihons in V. 30a ist kein Gegenargument. In Dtn 3,1.3 wird Og zweimal als „der König des Baschan“ bezeichnet, obwohl beide Verse von demselben Verfasser stammen.9 In V. 26 und V. 30a wird für Sihon als Adressaten der Botschaft und für seine negative Reaktion jeweils bewusst auch sein Titel erwähnt. Da die Botschaft die Voraussetzung für V. 30a ist, kann mit dem Abschnitt über Edom in 2,4ff.*, dessen Herkunft hier offen gelassen werden muss, V. 26ff. nicht dem Grundbestand abgesprochen werden. In die ursprüngliche Botschaft wurde allerdings V. 29a erst später eingefügt. Dieser Hinweis auf das Tun der Söhne Esaus und der Moabiter bezieht sich über V. 28b hinweg auf das Angebot in V. 28a, Nahrung und Wasser zu kaufen. Er kommt somit zu spät. Außerdem ist V. 29bα („bis ich den Jordan überschreite“) die Fortsetzung von V. 28b („nur durchziehen möchte ich mit meinen Füßen“). V. 29a ist also sekundär.10 Das gilt vielleicht auch für V. 29bβ, wo im Unterschied zu der sonstigen Botschaft die 1. Pers. Pl. gebraucht wird. Hier könnte der Plural freilich dadurch bedingt sein, dass das Missverständnis ausgeschlossen werden sollte, dass Mose für sich selbst damit rechnete, in das Westjordanland zu kommen.11 Gegen V. 29bβ wird auch eingewandt, dass danach lediglich das Westjordanland den Israeliten zugesagt worden war.12 Aber bereits die Bitte, durch das Land Sihons ziehen zu dürfen, setzt voraus, dass das Ostjordanland nicht zu dem verheißenen Land gehörte. Diese Auffassung wird z.B. auch in Dtn 1,35; 3,25ff. oder Jos 1,6 vertreten. In der Sache stimmt somit V. 29bβ mit der sonstigen Botschaft des Mose überein. Allerdings könnte V. 29bβ auch später nachgetragen worden sein, um deutlich zu machen, dass das Land westlich des Jordans das Ziel der Israeliten ist.13 Das ergibt sich aber bereits aus V. 29bα. Deshalb soll hier die Zuweisung von V. 29bβ offen gelassen werden. Nachdem Sihon den Durchzug der Israeliten abgelehnt hatte (V. 30a), kündigte JHWH in V. 31 Mose an, dass er angefangen habe, Sihon und sein Land 9 Nach Veijola, Deuteronomium, 70, beruht bei Og die Wiederholung des Titels in V. 3 „wahrscheinlich auf dem prägenden Einfluss der älteren Überlieferung (Jos 12,4)“. Der Verfasser hätte aber trotzdem nach V. 1 auf den Titel verzichten können. 10 So u.a. Veijola, Deuteronomium, 63f. 11 Vgl. Heckl, Vermächtnis, 266. 12 So z.B. M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer 21957, 35 Anm. 2. 13 So z.B. Veijola, Deuteronomium, 64.

318

Ludwig Schmidt

„vor dir“ dahinzugeben, und er befahl: „Fange an, das Land in Besitz zu nehmen“. Hier fällt die Anrede im Singular auf, da Mose in V. 33a berichtet: „Da gab ihn JHWH, unser Gott, vor uns dahin“. Wegen der singularischen Anrede wird deshalb V. 31 verschiedentlich für sekundär gehalten.14 Das ist aber m.E. wegen V. 34f. unwahrscheinlich. Nach V. 34 wurden in jeder Stadt Männer, Frauen und Kinder ohne Ausnahme gebannt. Das entspricht den Vorschriften über den Bann in Dtn 20,16f. Sie gelten dort aber nur für die Städte in dem Land, das JHWH Israel als Erbbesitz geben wird.15 Nun wurde oben bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass das Gebiet Sihons nicht zu dem verheißenen Land gehörte. Dass trotzdem an seinen Städten der Bann vollzogen wurde, spricht dafür, dass JHWH in V. 31 angeordnet hatte, dieses Land in Besitz zu nehmen. So wie Mose stellvertretend für die Israeliten von Sihon den Durchzug erbat, wandte sich JHWH in V. 31 an ihn stellvertretend für die Israeliten.16 Der Bericht über die Besiegung Sihons endete ursprünglich mit V. 35. Die Angabe über den Umfang des eroberten Gebiets in V. 36 greift 3,8.10a vor, wo die Grenzen des von Sihon und Og eingenommenen Landes beschrieben werden. Sie weicht für die Südgrenze zudem von 3,12 ab. Dagegen stimmt sie darin nahezu wörtlich mit der Beschreibung der Südgrenze Rubens in Jos 13,16 überein. Sie wurde somit in Dtn 2,36 von dort übernommen.17 Dafür spricht auch, dass der Begriff ‫ – קריה‬abgesehen von Ortsnamen – im Pentateuch sonst nur noch in Num 21,28; Dtn 3,4aβ belegt ist. Wie im Folgenden gezeigt werden wird, ist auch Dtn 3,4aβ sekundär. Der Bericht über den Kampf gegen Og, den König des Baschan, in 3,1ff. entspricht weitgehend dem Abschnitt über Sihon in Dtn 2,31–35. Allerdings weicht er in Einzelheiten von dieser Darstellung ab. So heißt es z.B. in 3,3a: „Da gab JHWH, unser Gott, in unsere Hand auch Og, den König des Baschan, und sein ganzes Volk.“ Dagegen wird in 2,33a über Sihon berichtet: „Da gab ihn JHWH, unser Gott, vor uns dahin“. Da die beiden Schilderungen auch sonst nicht völlig übereinstimmen, wird verschiedentlich die Auffassung vertreten, dass schon die älteste Fassung von 3,1ff. eine spätere Nachbildung von 2,31ff. ist.18 Nun geht es aber bereits in dem Abschnitt über Sihon um den Landbesitz Israels im Ostjordanland, zu dem auch der Baschan gehörte. Das spricht dafür, dass schon im Grundbestand von Dtn 1–3 auch von seiner Er14

So z.B. Noth, Studien, 35 Anm. 2; Mittmann, Deuteronomium, 80. In V. 35 griff der Verfasser die Bestimmungen für ferne Städte in Dtn 20,14 auf, zu denen es in Dtn 20,16f. keine Parallele gibt. Er war der Meinung, dass diese Anordnungen über den Umgang mit Vieh und Plündergut auch für die Orte gelten, die Israel als Erbbesitz zufielen. 16 Zum Grundbestand rechnen V. 31 u.a. auch Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 218; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 59; Heckl, Vermächtnis, 291f. 17 Vgl. Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 224ff. Dagegen weisen u.a. Noth, Studien, 36; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 60f., V. 36 dem Grundbestand zu. 18 Mittmann, Deuteronomium, 82; Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 230f. 15

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

319

oberung berichtet wurde. Außerdem wird im Folgenden noch zu zeigen sein, dass im Grundbestand Sihon als „der König von Heschbon“ bezeichnet wurde, weil mit Og ein weiterer König der Amoriter im Ostjordanland besiegt wurde. Die Eroberung der Gebiete von Sihon und Og wurden somit von demselben Verfasser berichtet.19 Auch 3,1ff. ist literarisch nicht einheitlich. So ist z.B. V. 2 sekundär. Das ergibt sich freilich nicht daraus, dass Mose hier im Singular angeredet wird,20 denn das entspricht 2,31. Aber in 3,2 wird Sihon als „der König der Amoriter, der in Heschbon wohnte“ bezeichnet. So wird Sihon sonst nur in jüngeren Texten genannt.21 Dagegen war sein Titel nach 3,6 wie in 2,26.30a „der König von Heschbon“. Außerdem entspricht die Abfolge 3,1b.3 der Darstellung in 2,32f. Daran wird deutlich, dass die Eroberung des Baschan im Grundbestand weitgehend parallel zu dem Sieg über Sihon berichtet wurde. Auch 3,4aα.6.7 stimmen im Wesentlichen mit 2,34f. überein. Dort folgt auf „und wir eroberten alle seine Städte“ (2,34aα) die Bannung jeder Stadt und der Raub von Vieh und Plündergut (2,34aβ.b.35). Schon das macht es wahrscheinlich, dass die Angaben über die Städte in 3,4aβ.γ.b.5, die den Zusammenhang zwischen der Eroberung der Städte (V. 4aα) und ihrer Bannung (V. 6) unterbrechen, erst später eingefügt wurden. Dafür spricht aber vor allem, dass in V. 4aγ der Plural „von ihnen“ gebraucht wird. Wegen „seine (Ogs) Städte“ in V. 4aα müsste es hier eigentlich „von ihm“ heißen.22 Veijola hält auch den Hinweis auf Sihon in V. 6 für sekundär. Hier gehöre lediglich „und wir bannten“ aus V. 6aα und V. 6b* (ab „jede Stadt“) zum Grundbestand. Ein Zusatz, der auf dieselbe Hand wie V. 2 zurückgehe, sei „an ihnen, wie wir mit Sihon, dem König von Heschbon, verfahren waren, vollstreckend den Bann“. Das begründet Veijola damit, dass „vollstreckend den Bann“ eine sekundäre Wiederaufnahme von „wir bannten“ in V. 6aα* sei. Der Einschub beginne mit „an ihnen“ in V. 6aα, da dort ein maskulines Suffix für das feminine Substantiv Städte gebraucht werde.23 Aber auch in Jos 11,12 steht bei „ihre Könige“ ein maskulines Suffix, das sich auf „Städte“ bezieht. Außerdem 19

So mit unterschiedlichen Rekonstruktionen des Grundbestandes in 3,1ff. z.B. auch Noth, Studien, 35f.; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 68ff.; Heckl, Vermächtnis, 293ff.; Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 191ff. 20 Gegen Noth, Studien, 36 Anm. 1; Mittmann, Deuteronomium, 81. 21 Dtn 1,4; 4,46; Jos 12,2, vgl. auch „der König der Amoriter, der in Heschbon König war“ in Jos 13,10.21. Darauf verweist auch Veijola, Deuteronomium, 70f. Zum Grundbestand rechnen V. 2 dagegen z.B. Köppel, Geschichtswerk, 69; Heckl, Vermächtnis, 294; Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 191f. 22 Vgl. Veijola, Deuteronomium, 71f., der V. 4aβ.γ.b.5 ebenfalls für sekundär hält. Nach Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 192f., ist lediglich V. 4b ein Nachtrag. Zum Grundbestand rechnen Mittmann, Deuteronomium, 82, und Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 223f., außer V. 4a auch noch „60 Städte“ am Anfang von V. 4b. 23 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 71 mit Anm. 339.

320

Ludwig Schmidt

geht aus dem unterschiedlichen Titel Sihons in V. 2 und V. 6 hervor, dass V. 6 nicht teilweise dem Bearbeiter zugewiesen werden kann, der V. 2 einfügte. In V. 6 wird Sihon wie in 2,26.30a als der König von Heschbon bezeichnet. Die Wiederaufnahme in V. 6 stammt somit bereits von dem Verfasser des Grundbestands. Er wollte betonen, dass die Städte Ogs wie die Städte Sihons behandelt wurden und der Baschan somit zu Recht den Israeliten gehörte. Das Ergebnis der ostjordanischen Eroberungen wurde im Grundbestand in 3,8*.10a* beschrieben.24 Nach V. 8a* handelte es sich bei Sihon und Og um die zwei Könige der Amoriter. Hier wurde im Grundbestand von 2,24ff. erstmals erwähnt, dass Sihon und Og Könige der Amoriter waren. Darauf wird im Folgenden noch zurückzukommen sein. Zu dem Grundbestand in Dtn 2,24–3,11 gehören somit: 2,24aα.26–28.29bα (bβ?).30a.31–35; 3,1.3.4aα.6–8a* (ohne „die jenseits des Jordans waren“).b.10a* (ohne „und Edrëi“).

3. Num 21,21–31 Nach den Numeri-Kommentaren von Seebass und mir gehört in der SihonErzählung lediglich Num 21,21–24bα.31 zum Grundbestand, da V. 31 („und Israel wohnte im Land der Amoriter“) an „und es (Israel) nahm sein (Sihons) Land in Besitz vom Arnon…“ in V. 24bα anknüpft.25 Dieser Zusammenhang wird durch V. 25–30 unterbrochen. V. 25bα, wonach Israel in allen Städten der Amoriter wohnte, ist eine Dublette zu V. 31. Außerdem wird hier vorausgesetzt, dass nach V. 25a Israel alle diese Städte einnahm. V. 25a kommt aber nach V. 24a.bα zu spät. Wenn Israel das Land Sihons in Besitz genommen hatte, gehörten ihm natürlich auch die Städte. Allerdings werden V. 24bα und V. 25 unterschiedlich beurteilt. So folgte z.B. nach Veijola ursprünglich V. 25b direkt auf „und sie nahmen sein Land in Besitz“ in V. 24bα.26 Aber dass das Land Sihons vom Arnon bis zum Jabbok in Besitz genommen wurde, gehört zum Grundbestand, da schon in ihm der Umfang des im Ostjordanland 24 Sekundäre Zusätze sind: In V. 8a „die jenseits des Jordans waren“, V. 9, in V. 10a „und Edrei“ und V. 10b. 11, vgl. z.B. Veijola, Deuteronomium, 74ff. 25 Seebass, Numeri 2, 349ff.; Schmidt, Numeri, 112. Seebass, Numeri 2, 346f.356f., rechnet zu ihm auch unter Beibehaltung des MT V. 24bβ, aber hier ist m.E. ‫ עז‬in den Ortsnamen ‫ יעזר‬zu ändern. Dann wurde V. 24bβ erst später zur Vorbereitung von V. 32 ergänzt. 26 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 59 Anm. 277; so schon M. Noth, Nu 21 als Glied der „Hexateuch“-Erzählung, ZAW 58 (1940/41), 161–189 = ders.: Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde Bd. 1, hg. von Hans Walter Wolff, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1971, 75–101, 78f. Dagegen ist nach seinem Numeri-Kommentar in 21,21–31 lediglich V. 24bβ sekundär (vgl. M. Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 41982, 143.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

321

eroberten Gebiets erwähnt worden sein muss. Ohne die Angabe seiner Grenzen würde nicht deutlich, auf welches Territorium Israel durch die Besiegung Sihons Anspruch erheben konnte.27 Die Angabe „bis zu den Ammonitern“ ist dadurch bedingt, dass der Oberlauf des Jabbok im Gebiet der Ammoniter lag. Sie ist also nicht sekundär.28 V. 25b kann nicht zum Grundbestand gehören, da hier V. 25a vorausgesetzt wird, wie oben bereits erwähnt wurde. Die Sihon-Erzählung bestand somit aus Num 21,21–24bα.31. In ihr wurden weder die Städte der Amoriter, noch Heschbon erwähnt. Sihon war nach ihr „der König der Amoriter“. Diese Erzählung ist nicht von Dtn 2,26ff.* abhängig. Das ergibt sich bereits daraus, dass nach Dtn 2,33a JHWH Sihon vor den Israeliten dahingab, während in Num 21,24 Gott nicht erwähnt wird. Es ist äußerst unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Verfasser, dem Dtn 2,26ff. vorlag, darauf verzichtet haben sollte, den Sieg über Sihon ausdrücklich auf JHWH zurückzuführen.29 Allerdings werden für das höhere Alter von Dtn 2,26ff. mehrere Gründe genannt.30 So sei z.B. der Titel Sihons „der König von Heschbon“ älter als „der König der Amoriter“. Dabei wird aber nicht berücksichtigt, dass nach Dtn 3,8a Sihon und Og Könige der Amoriter waren. Wenn auch Og ein König der Amoriter war, konnte Sihon in Dtn 2,26ff.* nicht „der König der Amoriter“ genannt werden. Sein Titel „der König von Heschbon“ geht hier also darauf zurück, dass in Dtn 2f.* mit Sihon und Og zwei Könige der Amoriter besiegt wurden. Außerdem wird angeführt, dass Dtn 2,32 die Vorlage für Num 21,23 (ab „und es versammelte“) gewesen sei, weil dort knapper berichtet wird. Aber es ist ebenso möglich, dass Num 21,23 in Dtn 2,32 vereinfacht wurde. Nach Num 21,23a zog Sihon Israel in die Wüste entgegen. Da Mose nach Dtn 2,26 aus der Wüste Kedemot Boten sandte, musste in 2,32 nicht berichtet werden, dass Sihon Israel in die Wüste entgegen zog. Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass in Num 21,21 die Wüste Kedemot übergangen wurde, wenn Dtn 2,26 vorgegeben war. Das spricht dafür, dass der Verfasser von Dtn 2,26ff.* aus Num 21,23a entnahm, dass Israel damals in der Wüste war und diese Wüste als die Wüste Kedemot identifizierte.31 Für Rose beweist auch die Sendung der Boten durch 27 Eine solche Angabe fehlte im Grundbestand von Dtn 2f. nach dem Sieg über Sihon, weil dort im Anschluss an die Besiegung Ogs beschrieben wurde, welches Gebiet die Israeliten von Sihon und Og erobert hatten (Dtn 3,8*.10a*). 28 Vgl. Noth, Numeri, 143; anders z.B. Köppel, Geschichtswerk, 40. 29 So mit Recht Perlitt, Deuteronomium, 200. 30 Vgl. zum Folgenden Rose, Deuteronomist, 308ff.; Van Seters, Life, 395f. 31 Nach Veijola, Deuteronomium, 59 Anm. 273, ist dagegen in Num 21,23a „und er zog Israel entgegen in die Wüste“ ein Zusatz aufgrund von Dtn 2,26.32. Dieser Satz fehle noch in Ri 11,20. Aber Ri 11,20 weicht auch ansonsten geringfügig von Num 21,23a ab. Hier wird „da kam er nach Jahaz“ durch „und sie lagerten in Jahaz“ ersetzt. Nach Van Seters, Life, 395f., waren allerdings Dtn 2,26ff. und Ri 11,19ff. die Vorlage für Num 21,21ff. Aber in Ri 11,19ff. werden Num 21,21ff. und Dtn 2,26ff. vorausgesetzt. Nach V. 19 war Sihon „der

322

Ludwig Schmidt

Israel nicht, dass Num 21,21ff. älter als Dtn 2,26ff.* ist, da die 1. Pers. Sing. für Israel wenig passend sei und in V. 22 zum Plural gewechselt werde.32 Aber ein Personenwechsel wurde später eher vermieden als neu geschaffen. Er spricht somit dafür, dass Num 21,21ff.* älter als Dtn 2,26ff.* ist. Es ist auch unwahrscheinlich, dass in Num 21,21ff.* Mose durch Israel ersetzt worden sein sollte. Dagegen ist der umgekehrte Vorgang gut denkbar, weil Mose mit der Botensendung als Führer Israels betont wird. Ein Vergleich von Num 21,22aβ und Dtn 2,28a zeigt ebenfalls, dass die Sihon-Erzählung älter ist. In Num 21,22aβ sagen die Israeliten zu, dass sie kein Brunnenwasser trinken werden. Sie konnten sich somit selbst ernähren und waren auch nicht auf das kostbare Wasser aus Brunnen angewiesen. Dagegen wurde in Dtn 2,28a Sihon aufgefordert, Nahrung und Wasser für Geld zu verkaufen. Der Verfasser von Dtn 2,26ff. war also der Auffassung, dass die Israeliten auf dem Weg durch das Land Sihons sich nicht selbst versorgen konnten. Das ist deutlich eine Weiterführung von Num 21,22aβ. Eine umgekehrte Abhängigkeit ist schwerlich möglich. Schließlich wird in Dtn 2,29bα mit „bis ich den Jordan überschreite“ Num 21,22bβ „bis wir dein Gebiet durchzogen haben“ präzisiert. Lediglich die Städte in Num 21,25 gehen auf Dtn 2,34a zurück. Dafür spricht, dass sie in V. 25b mit „in Heschbon und in allen seinen Tochterstädten“ näher bestimmt werden. Der Redaktor, der V. 25–30 in die Sihon-Erzählung einfügte, übernahm die Städte aus Dtn 2,34, weil er den Heschbon-Spruch in V. 27– 30 integrieren wollte. Auf ihn sind V. 25 und V. 26 angelegt.33 Für den Grundbestand der Sihon-Erzählung lässt sich aber an keiner Stelle eine Abhängigkeit von Dtn 2,26ff.* wahrscheinlich machen. Da dort der Sieg über Sihon auf JHWH zurückgeführt wird, war vielmehr Num 21,21–24bα.31 die Vorlage für Dtn 2,26ff.* Das bestätigen die anderen oben erwähnten Abweichungen. Auch Dtn 2,34f. ist eine Interpretation dieser Vorlage. Es wurde bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass in Dtn 2,26ff.* das Gebiet Sihons nicht zu dem verheißenen Land gehört. Mit V. 34f. sollte gezeigt werden, dass Israel es trotzdem zu Recht besaß. Dazu griff der Verfasser auf die Bestimmungen für Städte des Erbbesitzes Israels in Dtn 20,16 zurück. Israel hatte die Städte Sihons erobert und sie nach dieser Vorschrift gebannt. Damit wurde das Territorium Sihons mit dem verheißenen Westjordanland gleichgestellt. In Dtn 2,26ff.* wurde somit der Grundbestand der Sihon-Erzählung in Numeri 21,21ff.* interpretiert und dazu neu gestaltet.

König der Amoriter, der König von Heschbon“ und nach V. 21 gab ihn JHWH in die Hand Israels. In V. 21b.22 wird deutlich Num 21,24bα aufgenommen. In V. 26, wonach Israel u.a. in Heschbon und in seinen Tochterstädten seit 300 Jahren wohnte, wird bereits Num 21,25b vorausgesetzt. Ri 11,19ff. ist somit erheblich jünger als der Grundbestand von Num 21,21ff. 32 Rose, Deuteronomist, 310. 33 Vgl. zu V. 25–30 Schmidt, Numeri, 113f.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

323

Nach dem in 1. erwähnten dritten Modell ist dagegen Num 21,21ff.* literarisch jünger als Dtn 2,26ff.* Das wird meist mit Num 20,14–21 begründet, wonach Israel vergeblich den Durchzug durch Edom erbat. Diese Erzählung ist literarisch nicht einheitlich.34 Nach V. 17 werden die Israeliten auf ihrem Weg durch Edom kein Brunnenwasser trinken, in V. 19 halten sie es aber für möglich, dass sie und ihr Vieh von dem Wasser Edoms trinken. In diesem Fall wollen sie es bezahlen. Zwischen V. 17 und V. 19 besteht somit eine deutliche Spannung. Außerdem wenden sich in V. 19 nicht Boten, sondern die Israeliten an Edom. Nur hier werden in dem Abschnitt „die Israeliten“ erwähnt, während in V. 14 und 21 „Israel“ gebraucht wird. V. 19 wurde somit später ergänzt. Das gilt auch für V. 20, da hier berichtet wird, wie Edom auf die Worte der Israeliten in V. 19 reagierte. Mittmann hält auch V. 18 für sekundär, da V. 21a nach V. 18 überflüssig sei und V. 21b V. 21a voraussetze.35 Aber mit V. 18 soll gezeigt werden, dass Edom mit der Verweigerung des Durchzugs und der Androhung von Gewalt gegen seine Pflichten als Bruder Israels verstieß. V. 18 ist somit der Gegenpol zu V. 14b, wo sich Israel als Bruder Edoms bezeichnet. Deshalb gehört dieser Vers m.E. bereits zum Grundbestand. Ihm sind somit V. 14–18.21 zuzuweisen.36 Dagegen bestand die älteste Fassung nach Seebass aus V. 14.16bα.19*(ohne Redeeinleitung). 21. V. 15.16a seien später eingefügt worden, weil „unsere Väter“ (V. 15) im Kontext von V. 14 eigentlich auf die Väter von Edom und Israel bezogen werden müsse. V. 16bβ sei sekundär, weil hier die spätere Ausdehnung der Edomiter in das südliche Palästina vorausgesetzt werde. V. 19* sei älter als V. 17, da mit „auf der Straße wollen wir hinaufziehen“ nicht ein bloßer Durchzug durch Edom gemeint sein könne. Hier sei vielmehr ein Aufstieg auf das Gebirge Edoms im Blick.37 Aber diese Argumente sind m.E. nicht überzeugend. Nach V. 21 verweigerte Edom den Durchzug durch sein Gebiet und auch nach V. 19b wollte Israel „hindurchziehen“. V. 19 wurde also später zusammen mit V. 20 eingefügt. Mit diesem Zusatz wurde die Kritik an dem Verhalten Edoms gesteigert. Obwohl Israel das von ihm verbrauchte Wasser bezahlen wollte, machte Edom mit seiner Drohung in V. 18 ernst und zog Israel mit viel Kriegsvolk entgegen. Auch V. 15.16a dürfen dem Grundbestand nicht abgesprochen werden. Nachdem in V. 14b „die ganze Mühsal, die 34 Für einheitlich halten sie dagegen z.B. Blum, Studien, 120 Anm. 79; Van Seters, Life, 386ff.; W. Oswald, Die Revision des Edombildes in Num 20,14–21, VT 50 (2000), 218-232, 226; Albertz, Buch, 175ff. 35 S. Mittmann, Num 20,14–21 – eine redaktionelle Kompilation, in: Wort und Geschichte (FS Karl Elliger), hg. von H. Gese/H.P. Rüger, AOAT 18, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon u. Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag 1973, 143–149, 145. 36 So Schmidt, Numeri, 94f. Da der König sonst nicht erwähnt wird, wurde er vielleicht in V. 14 nachgetragen, vgl. Mittmann, Num 20, 144; Schmidt, Numeri, 95. Allerdings sandte auch nach Ri 11,17 Israel Boten zu dem König von Edom. 37 Seebass, Numeri 2, 290ff.

324

Ludwig Schmidt

uns getroffen hat“ erwähnt wurde, ist klar, dass sich „unsere Väter“ in V. 15 nur auf die Väter Israels bezieht. Da die Bitte um Durchzug voraussetzt, dass sich die Israeliten in Kadesch in der Nähe von Edom aufhalten, ist auch V. 16bβ nicht sekundär. Wegen der Verwandtschaft von 20,14ff. mit der Sihon-Erzählung nehmen Achenbach und Otto an, dass es eine vordeuteronomistische Edom-SihonErzählung gab. Sie sei aber erst von einer Hexateuch-Redaktion, von der der Grundbestand in Num 20f. stamme, aufgenommen worden.38 Nach Achenbach gehen in 20,14ff. auf die Bearbeitung der Überlieferung durch diese Redaktion zurück: Mose und Kadesch in V. 14a, V. 14b–16, der Plural „die Israeliten“ statt „Israel“ in V. 19a und V. 20b.39 Bei diesen Zuweisungen geht Achenbach davon aus, dass aufgrund des Abschnitts über Sihon für Num 20,14ff.* zumindest teilweise eine ältere Fassung rekonstruiert werden kann. Aber die Voraussetzung, dass es eine Edom-Sihon-Erzählung gab, lässt sich schon aus zwei Gründen nicht halten. Beide Episoden können nicht direkt aufeinander gefolgt sein, weil sich in ihnen Israel jeweils an verschiedenen Orten aufhält. Auch ohne die Lokalisierung in Kadesch liegt zwischen Edom und dem Land Sihons Moab. Es muss somit nach Num 20,21 von dem weiteren Weg Israels berichtet worden sein, bevor es Boten zu Sihon sandte.40 Gegen eine Edom-Sihon-Erzählung spricht außerdem, dass nicht erkennbar ist, welche Funktion in ihr die Edom-Episode hatte. Mit dem Gegensatz zwischen dem gescheiterten Durchzug durch Edom und dem Sieg über Sihon, der ebenfalls den Durchzug verweigerte, lässt sich nicht begründen, dass beide Abschnitte aufeinander gefolgt sein müssen, weil sie eine unterschiedliche Funktion haben. Mit dem Bericht von dem Sieg über Sihon wird begründet, warum Israel das Land dieses Königs gehörte (21,24bα). Mit der Verweigerung des Durchzugs durch Edom sollte dagegen gezeigt werden, warum Israel Edom umgehen musste (Num 21,4a*). Die Episode enthält keinerlei Hinweise, dass mit ihr ursprünglich ein anderes Ziel verfolgt wurde. Auch aus der unter-

38

Achenbach, Vollendung, 335ff.; Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 158ff. Achenbach, Vollendung, 344. Dort ist „18a (pl.)“ ein Schreibfehler für 19a. Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 159.163f., weist dieser Redaktion V. 14b–16.18f.20b.21b zu. Das ist für V. 21b dadurch bedingt, dass nach Otto in der Überlieferung vermutlich auch Edom von Israel besiegt wurde. Dafür gibt es aber keinerlei Anhaltspunkte. 40 Da nach Ri 11,17 Israel auch Boten zu dem König von Moab sandte, der den Durchzug ebenfalls ablehnte, vermutet Achenbach, Vollendung, 339 Anm. 14, dass die Erzählung ursprünglich „eine Edomiter-, eine Moabiter- und eine Sihon/Amoriter-Episode enthielt“. Aber Ri 11,17 ist von Num 20,14ff.* literarisch abhängig. Das ergibt sich schon daraus, dass auch nach Ri 11,17 die Boten von Kadesch ausgesandt wurden (Ri 11,16.17b). Der Verfasser erwähnte hier zusätzlich die Botensendung zu dem König von Moab, um zu begründen, warum Israel nicht nur Edom sondern auch Moab umging und in die Wüste östlich von Moab kam (11,18). 39

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

325

schiedlichen Funktion beider Abschnitte geht somit hervor, dass sie ursprünglich nicht aufeinander folgten. Es gab somit keine Edom-Sihon-Erzählung. Tatsächlich ist Num 20,14ff.* von dem Grundbestand in 21,21ff.* literarisch abhängig. Dagegen stammen nach Albertz beide Erzählungen von einer Hexateuch-Redaktion, weil sie in der Erzählstruktur sehr ähnlich seien und die Sihon-Erzählung zu einer regelrechten Gegengeschichte zur Edom-Erzählung stilisiert sei.41 Dabei berücksichtigt Albertz aber nicht die Unterschiede. So wollen nach 21,22a die Israeliten nicht in Feld und Weinberg abbiegen, nach 20,17a wollen sie dagegen nicht durch Feld und Weinberg hindurchziehen. Der Verfasser von 20,17 war offenbar der Meinung, dass ein Abbiegen erst erwähnt werden kann, wenn zuvor der Weg angegeben wird, den die Israeliten ziehen wollen. Deshalb ergänzte er in 20,17b seine Vorlage in 21,22b mit der Zusage, dass die Israeliten (von der Königsstraße) nicht nach rechts und links abbiegen werden. In 20,17 wird somit 21,22 abgewandelt. Num 20,21a stimmt weitgehend mit dem Anfang von 21,23 überein. Aber mit der Formulierung „und Edom weigerte sich zu gewähren Israel…“ wird in 20,21a „und nicht gewährte Sihon Israel…“ in 21,23 verschärft. Gegen einen Verfasser spricht aber vor allem, dass nach 20,14 Mose und nach 21,21 Israel Boten sandte. Es ist schwer vorstellbar, dass ein Verfasser, für den in 20,14 Mose als Führer Israels handelte, in 21,21 Mose übergangen haben sollte. Bereits der Grundbestand der Edom-Erzählung in 20,14–18.21 ist also jünger als die ursprüngliche Sihon-Erzählung in Num 21,21–24bα.31. Verschiedentlich wird für Num 20,14ff.* eine nachpriesterliche Entstehung vertreten. Das wird damit begründet, dass hier die priesterlichen Erzählungen in 20,1ff. und 20,22ff. vorausgesetzt würden, nach denen Israel in Kadesch gewesen sei. Außerdem wird darauf verwiesen, dass zwischen der Lokalisierung von Kadesch an der Grenze Edoms in 20,16b und 20,23b*, wonach der Berg Hor an der Grenze des Landes Edom lag, eine literarische Beziehung bestehe.42 Aber Kadesch wird in den priesterlichen Abschnitten von Numeri nie erwähnt. In der priesterlichen Kundschaftergeschichte (Num 13f.*) befinden sich die Israeliten in der Wüste Paran (13,26a*, vgl. 12,16b), und in der priesterlichen Erzählung von dem Wasser aus dem Felsen (Num 20,1aα.2– 12*) sind sie in der Wüste Zin.43 Dagegen waren sie nach der vorpriesterlichen Kundschaftergeschichte damals in Kadesch (13,26a*). Das bestätigt die deuteronomistische Kundschaftergeschichte in Dtn 1,19–45*, die in KadeschBarnea lokalisiert wird. Im Anschluss an sie wird in Dtn 2,1 berichtet, dass „wir“ in die Wüste auf dem Weg zum Schilfmeer aufbrachen und das Gebirge Seïr umzogen. Daraus geht hervor, dass die Aufbruchsnotiz in Num 20,22a („und sie brachen auf von Kadesch“) vorpriesterlich ist und dass auf sie ur41

Albertz, Buch, 177f.342f. Blum, Studien, 121 Anm. 81; Oswald, Revision, 226ff.; Albertz, Buch, 176f. 43 Vgl. zur Analyse von Num 13f. und 20,1ff. z.B. Schmidt, Numeri, 38ff. und 89ff. 42

326

Ludwig Schmidt

sprünglich „auf dem Weg zum Schilfmeer, um das Land Edom zu umgehen“ in 21,4a* folgte.44 Die nachklappende Angabe zum Berg Hor in 20,23b* „an der Grenze des Landes Edom“ wurde später wegen 20,16b ergänzt, weil sich für den Pentateuchredaktor Israel vor 21,4a noch immer an der Grenze zu Edom aufhielt.45 Nun besteht freilich zwischen 14,25b und 20,14ff.* eine massive Spannung. Nach dem Befehl JHWHs in 14,25b „in die Wüste auf dem Weg zum Schilfmeer“ aufzubrechen, konnte nicht der Durchzug durch Edom erbeten werden. 20,14ff.* ist somit älter als 14,25b. Dieser Halbvers wurde erst später von der Pentateuchredaktion aus Dtn 1,40 ergänzt.46 Das wird dadurch bestätigt, dass in dem Ausführungsbericht zu Dtn 1,40 in Dtn 2,1 auf diesen Befehl verwiesen wird, während er in Num 21,4a* nicht erwähnt wird. Dort wird nur berichtet, dass die Israeliten auf dem Weg zum Schilfmeer aufbrachen, um das Land Edom zu umgehen. Sie wählten somit diese Richtung, weil sie Edom umgehen wollten. Das wird mit 20,14ff.* begründet. Wie hier nicht gezeigt werden kann, wurde diese Begründung in der Zeit des Exils von der jehowistischen Redaktion zwischen Num 20,1aβ und 20,22a eingefügt.47 Dabei ist der Grundbestand noch nicht von Dtn 2 abhängig.48 Erst in dem Zusatz V. 19f. wird in V. 19 Dtn 2,28 berücksichtigt. Num 20,14–18.21 ist somit vorpriesterlich und von der ursprünglichen SihonErzählung in 21,21ff.* literarisch abhängig. Auch dieser Abschnitt spricht somit dagegen, dass Num 21,21ff.* literarisch jünger als Dtn 2,26ff.* ist. Dann lässt sich die Auffassung nicht halten, dass die Sihon-Erzählung und Dtn 2,26ff.* auf eine gemeinsame Überlieferung zurückgehen. Die ursprüngliche Sihon-Erzählung war vielmehr die literarische Vorlage für Dtn 2,26ff.*

44 Mit der Aufbruchsnotiz in 21,4a* „und sie brachen auf vom Berg Hor“ wurde die priesterliche Erzählung vom Tod Aarons (20,22b–29*) nach dem Verfahren der Wiederaufnahme in den vorpriesterlichen Zusammenhang eingefügt. 21,1–3 ist jünger, vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 100f. 45 Dagegen wurde nach Albertz, Buch, 176f., 20,23b* von dem Verfasser von 20,14ff. ergänzt, weil in 20,16b.23b* jeweils der Begriff ‫ גבול‬gebraucht werde. Aber es ist m.E. nicht einsichtig, warum es nicht möglich sein soll, dass dieser Begriff in 20,23b* später aus V. 16b übernommen wurde. 46 Vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 41f. Das Verb ‫ פנה‬in 14,25b ist in Dtn 1–3 für die Itinerarangaben charakteristisch, vgl. Dtn 1,7.24.40; 2,1.3.8b; 3,1. 47 Vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 94ff. 48 Dagegen sind Van Seters, Life, 386ff., und Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 163, der Auffassung, dass in Num 20,17bβ („wir werden nicht nach rechts und nach links abbiegen“) Dtn 2,27b („ich werde nicht nach rechts und nach links abweichen“) aufgenommen wird. Aber in Num 20,17bβ wird ein anderes Verb gebraucht (‫ נטה‬statt ‫)סור‬. Die Wendung „nach rechts und nach links abbiegen ist auch in Num 22,26 und Spr 4,27 belegt. Wie oben bereits erwähnt wurde, war der Verfasser der Auffassung, dass zuerst der Weg genannt werden musste, bevor ein Abbiegen erwähnt werden konnte. Als Abbiegen vom Weg bot sich aber „nach rechts und nach links“ an. Num 20,17bβ ist somit nicht von Dtn 2,27b abhängig.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

327

An diese Erzählung wurde später Num 21,33–35 angefügt.49 Diese Verse wurden aus Dtn 3,1–3 übernommen. Der dortige Bericht des Mose wird in V. 33–35a nahezu wörtlich in eine Erzählung umgesetzt. Dabei wird in V. 34 auch der Zusatz Dtn 3,2 berücksichtigt.50 Dagegen wird Dtn 3,3a, wonach JHWH auch Og in die Hand der Israeliten gab, übergangen. Das gilt ebenfalls für Eroberung und Bann der Städte in Dtn 3,4–6. Mit den Auslassungen hat nach Albertz der Hexateuch-Redaktor, dem er auch Num 21,33–35 zuweist, die theologische Dimension gegenüber der Vorlage in Dtn 3,1–7 deutlich reduziert.51 Das war aber entgegen der Auffassung von Albertz nicht die Absicht des Verfassers. Die Auslassungen gehen vielmehr darauf zurück, dass er den Abschnitt über Og teilweise an die Sihon-Erzählung angleichen wollte, die keine Parallelen zu Dtn 3,3a und dem Bann der Städte enthält. Dafür spricht V. 35b: „Und sie nahmen sein Land in Besitz“. Dieser Satz stammt nicht aus Dtn 3,1ff., er entspricht aber „und es (Israel) nahm sein Land in Besitz“ in Num 21,24bα. In Num 21,33–35 wurde somit Dtn 3,1–3 nicht einfach in eine Erzählung umgesetzt, sondern durch die Auslassung von Dtn 3,3a und die Ergänzung von Num 21,35b bewusst an die Sihon-Erzählung angeglichen. Zwischen Num 21,21–35 und Dtn 2,24–3,11* besteht somit ein wechselseitiges Abhängigkeitsverhältnis. Einerseits war die Sihon-Erzählung in Num 21,21–24bα.31 die literarische Vorlage für den Grundbestand von Dtn 2,26ff.* Andererseits wurde Dtn 3,1–3 für Num 21,33–35 benutzt. Auch die Redaktion, die Num 21,25–30 einfügte, griff auf die Eroberung der Städte in Dtn 2,34 zurück, um den ursprünglich selbständigen Heschbon-Spruch (V. 27–30) zu integrieren. Für die Beziehung zwischen Num 21,21ff. und Dtn 2,24ff. ist somit an dem in der Einleitung erwähnten ersten Modell festzuhalten.

4. Folgerungen für die Entstehung des Buches Numeri Aus dem Ergebnis für die Sihon-Erzählung ergeben sich Folgerungen für die Entstehung des Buches Numeri, weil es im weiteren Verlauf dieses Buches zwei Abschnitte gibt, die sich auf diese Erzählung beziehen. Nach Num 22,2 sah Balak, der Sohn Zippors alles, was Israel den Amoritern getan hatte. In diesem Vers wird direkt an die Sihon-Erzählung angeknüpft. 22,2 folgte somit ursprünglich auf 21,31. Albertz weist freilich 22,2 seinem Hexateuch-Redaktor zu, dem er 21,21–35* zuschreibt. Dieser Redaktor habe mit 22,2 eine älte49 V. 32, der den Zusammenhang zwischen V. 31 und V. 33 unterbricht, ist noch jünger, vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 114. 50 Schon aus diesem Grund lässt sich die Auffassung von Heckl, Vermächtnis, 417ff., nicht halten, dass Num 21,33–35 die Vorlage für Dtn 3,1ff. war. 51 Albertz, Buch, 179.

328

Ludwig Schmidt

re Bileam-Komposition in seine Bearbeitung von Numeri aufgenommen und u.a. durch 22,3b erweitert.52 Aber in 22,2 wird der Sieg über Og nicht berücksichtigt. Das ergibt sich schon daraus, dass der Baschan von Moab weit entfernt ist. Deshalb konnte Balak schwerlich sehen, wie Og und sein Volk besiegt wurden. Außerdem wird in 21,33–35 nicht erwähnt, dass Og oder sein Volk Amoriter waren. Num 21,(32)33–35 unterbricht somit den Zusammenhang zwischen 21,31 und 22,2. Gegen die Auffassung von Albertz spricht außerdem, dass 22,2.3a und 22,3b.4* eine klare Dublette sind. Balak wird in V. 2 und in V. 4b eingeführt. Eigentlich müsste bereits in V. 2 erwähnt werden, dass Balak damals „der König für Moab“ (V. 4b) war. V. 3a setzt V. 2 voraus, da nur dann klar ist, dass hier mit dem Volk Israel gemeint ist. In V. 3a und in V. 3b.4a* wird auf unterschiedliche Weise beschrieben, warum sich Moab vor dem Volk fürchtete bzw. Grauen vor den Israeliten empfand. V. 2.3a und V. 3b.4* sind somit zwei Einleitungen, die zunächst nicht miteinander verbunden gewesen sein können. Tatsächlich lässt sich m.E. aufgrund weiterer Dubletten und Spannungen zeigen, dass in Num 22,2–24,25 zwei Bileam-Erzählungen von J und von E enthalten sind, die von der exilischen jehowistischen Redaktion miteinander verbunden und ergänzt wurden. Mit Num 22,2.3a begann die elohistische Bileam-Erzählung.53 Sie folgte somit ursprünglich direkt auf die Sihon-Erzählung. Der zweite Abschnitt, der schon im Grundbestand die Sihon-Erzählung voraussetzt, ist die Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland (Num 32,1–38). Darauf habe ich bereits in früheren Analysen dieser Erzählung hingewiesen. Danach gehören hier zu der ältesten Fassung: Num 32,1.2a.bα* (bis „zu Mose“).4aβ.b.5a*(ohne „zum Besitz“).6.16.17a.20aα.24.33* (nur „da gab ihnen Mose das Land“).34–38*.54 Wegen ihres großen Viehbesitzes, für den das Land Jaser und das Land Gilead besonders geeignet waren, baten die Gaditer und die Rubeniter Mose, dass ihnen dieses Land gegeben werde. Darauf warf ihnen Mose vor, dass sie ihre Brüder im Stich lassen wollen. Die Gaditer und Rubeniter antworteten, dass sie hier lediglich Pferche für ihr Kleinvieh und Orte für ihre Familien bauen wollen. Sie selbst werden sich aber als Kampftruppe vor den Israeliten rüsten, bis sie diese in ihr Gebiet gebracht haben. Darauf forderte sie Mose auf, Städte und Pferche zu bauen und zu tun, was sie zugesagt hatten, und gab ihnen das Land. Es folgt eine Liste der Orte, die die Gaditer und Rubeniter bauten. Das ist eine in sich folgerich52 Albertz, Numeri, 179.343. Die priesterliche Itinerarnotiz in 22,1 habe der Redaktor verwendet, um das Volk in die Gefilde Moabs zurückzuführen. 53 Vgl. zur Begründung L. Schmidt, Bileam: Vom Seher zum Propheten Jahwes. Die literarischen Schichten der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22–24), in: Gott und Mensch im Dialog Bd. I. (FS Otto Kaiser), hg. von M. Witte, BZAW 345/I, Berlin: de Gruyter 2004, 333–351 und die Auflistung der Schichten, ebd., 333 Anm. 2. 54 L. Schmidt, Die Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland in Numeri 32,1–38, ZAW 114 (2002), 497–510; ders., Numeri, 191ff.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

329

tige und geschlossene Erzählung. Sie setzt die Sihon-Erzählung voraus, denn nur aus ihr wird verständlich, warum die Gaditer und Rubeniter dieses Land erbitten und Mose es ihnen geben konnte. Wie in der Sihon-Erzählung wird Gott auch im Grundbestand von 32,1ff.* nicht erwähnt. Dagegen besteht die älteste Schicht nach Achenbach und Otto aus: V. 1.2a. 5*.6.20*–22.25–27.33. Sie weisen auch sie ihrer Hexateuch-Redaktion zu.55 Gegen diese Rekonstruktion spricht aber schon, dass V. 33 überfüllt ist. Hier unterbricht „den Gaditern und den Rubenitern“ bis „und das Königreich Ogs, des Königs des Baschan“ deutlich den Zusammenhang zwischen „und Mose gab ihnen“ und „das Land“. Die Landgabe an Halbmanasse und die Hinweise auf Sihon und Og wurden also in V. 33 später nachgetragen. Es ist ja eigenartig, dass nun auch Halbmanasse Land erhält, obwohl nur Gaditer und Rubeniter um Land gebeten hatten.56 Ursprünglich wurde also in 32,1ff. der Sieg über Og in 21,33–35 nicht vorausgesetzt. Achenbach und Otto haben auch übersehen, dass ihre älteste Fassung eine massive Spannung enthält. Nach V. 20b–22 soll dieses Land den beiden Stämmen als Besitz gehören, wenn sie nach der Eroberung des Westjordanlandes zurückkehren (V. 22b). Nach V. 33* gab ihnen aber Mose bereits jetzt das Land. Damit erfüllte er ihre Bitte in V. 5a*, dass ihnen dieses Land gegeben werde. Die Beziehung zwischen V. 5a* und V. 33 spricht entschieden dagegen, dass im Grundbestand Gaditern und Rubenitern das Land nur vorläufig gegeben wurde, und sie es erst nach ihrer Rückkehr aus dem Westjordanland endgültig erhalten werden.57 Das nimmt allerdings Seebass bei seiner Rekonstruktion des Grundbestands an. Nach ihm kann V. 33 auch ohne den Zusatz von „den Gaditern“ bis „des Baschan“ nicht zu der ältesten Schicht gehören, weil Mose in V. 33b das Land nach den Orten des Landes vergebe, obwohl diese erst in V. 34–38* erbaut werden. Die Grundschicht bestehe aus: V. 1.2a.bα (bis „Mose“).4aβ– 6.16.17a.19b.20a.22b.24.25.34–36a.37.38.58 Seebass weist zwar mit Recht darauf hin, dass in V. 33b bei der Formulierung „hinsichtlich der Städte mit 55

Achenbach, Vollendung, 388; Otto, Deuteronomiumsstudien, 198. Nach Otto gehört V. 6 zu der Erweiterung V. 7–15. Aber V. 6 hebt sich deutlich von V. 7ff. ab, denn in V. 6 wirft Mose den Gaditern und Rubenitern vor, dass sie ihre Brüder im Stich lassen wollen, nach V. 7ff. nehmen sie ihnen dagegen den Mut, in das verheißene Land zu ziehen. 56 Schon daraus, dass Halbmanasse in V. 33 ursprünglich nicht erwähnt wurde, geht hervor, dass der Grundbestand in Num 32 nicht von Dtn 3,12ff.* abhängig ist, wie Van Seters, Life, 439ff., annimmt, vgl. Schmidt, Ansiedlung, 508f. 57 Der Abschnitt V. 20aβ–23 ist literarisch einheitlich und bezieht sich u.a. auf den Zusatz V. 7–15, da nach V. 22 Gaditer und Rubeniter an JHWH und an Israel schuldlos sein werden, wenn sie kampfbereit den Jordan überschreiten und nach der Eroberung des Westjordanlands zurückkehren, vgl. auch V. 23. Hier wird die Kritik des Mose an dem Verhalten der beiden Stämme in V. 7ff. vorausgesetzt. Auf weitere Probleme der Analysen von Achenbach und Otto kann hier nicht eingegangen werden. 58 H. Seebass, Numeri 3. Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007, 334f.

330

Ludwig Schmidt

den Gebieten der Städte des Landes ringsum“ wie in dem Zusatz V. 3 die Existenz der nach V. 34ff.* erst noch gebauten Orte vorausgesetzt werde.59 Aber gerade die Beziehung zwischen der sekundären Aufzählung der Städte in V. 3 und ihrer Erwähnung in V. 33b spricht dafür, dass beide von einem Ergänzer eingefügt wurden, der Num 21,25 vor Augen hatte, wonach die Israeliten die Städte der Amoriter einnahmen und bewohnten. Dadurch wurde aus dem Bau der Städte ihr Wiederaufbau.60 Außerdem dürfte die Formulierung „hinsichtlich der Städte…“ in V. 33b auch unter dem Einfluss von Dtn 3,12 entstanden sein. Danach gab Mose die Hälfte des Gebirges Gilead und seine Städte den Rubenitern und den Gaditern. Dafür spricht, dass in V. 33 bei der Landgabe an Halbmanasse Dtn 3,12.13a vorausgesetzt wird. Wie oben bereits erwähnt wurde, kann jedenfalls für die älteste Schicht wegen V. 5* auf einen Grundbestand in V. 33 nicht verzichtet werden.61 Seebass bestreitet außerdem, dass zwischen dem Grundbestand von 32,1ff. und der Sihon-Erzählung eine Beziehung besteht. Der Friede in diesem Gebiet passe nicht zu 21,21ff.*, da Israel dort das Land militärisch besetze und im Amoriterland bleibe.62 Das ist m.E. nicht einsichtig. Nachdem Israel das Land Sihons in Besitz genommen hatte, war es dort nicht mehr bedroht. Es wurde oben bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass nur aus der Sihon-Erzählung verständlich wird, warum die Gaditer und Rubeniter für sich dieses Land erbitten konnten. Nach V. 4aα handelt es sich um das Land, „das JHWH vor der Gemeinde Israels geschlagen hat“. Hier wird eindeutig auf 21,21ff. Bezug genommen. V. 4aα wurde zwar erst von der Pentateuchredaktion in den Grundbestand eingefügt, aber bereits sie hat erkannt, dass die Bitte der Gaditer und Rubeniter um „dieses Land“ ohne den Sieg über Sihon nicht möglich gewesen wäre. Der Grundbestand in 32,1ff.* stammt somit von dem Verfasser der Sihon-Erzählung in 21,21–24bα.31. Bei ihm handelt es sich m.E. um den Elohisten, da in der Prosa jener Bileam-Erzählung, die mit 22,2.3a eingeleitet wird, ursprünglich durchgehend 59

Das habe ich in Schmidt, Ansiedlung, 504, übersehen. Vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 195 Anm. 153, und 198. 61 Seebass, Numeri 3, 334, begründet mit zwei weiteren Argumenten, dass V. 33 sekundär sei. Falls V. 33* ursprünglich sei, bilde er einen Abschluss, dem nichts mehr folgen dürfe, weil dann die Landgabe das Erzählziel sei. Außerdem sei bei einer Übergabe des Landes durch Mose die Landgabe endgültig. Das widerspreche aber dem (sekundären) Abschnitt V. 28–32, dem V. 33* unterstellt sei. Deshalb solle V. 33* nur vorläufig gelten. Da aber die Gabe des Landes Voraussetzung für den Bau der Städte ist (vgl. V. 16), musste von ihr vor V. 34ff.* berichtet werden. V. 33* schließt also nicht aus, dass V. 34ff.* im Grundbestand enthalten war. Durch V. 28–32 wird zwar in V. 33 das Land nur vorläufig gegeben, aber dieser Abschnitt ist ein sehr später Zusatz, vgl. Schmidt, Ansiedlung, 503f. Ursprünglich folgte V. 33* auf V. 24. 62 Seebass, Numeri 3, 335. Es bestehe vielmehr eine Beziehung zu dem unkriegerischen Durchzug Israels in 21,10–20. Deshalb stamme die Grundschicht in 32,1ff. wie 21,10ff. von J. 60

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

331

Elohim als Gottesbezeichnung gebraucht wurde.63 Jedenfalls folgten diese drei Erzählungen ursprünglich direkt aufeinander, da die Landgabe an Ruben und Gad nun zu weit von der Sihon-Erzählung, auf die sie sich bezieht, entfernt steht. Die drei Erzählungen stammen somit aus einem eigenen literarischen Zusammenhang. Von ihm ist Dtn 2,24–3,13a* literarisch abhängig. Das gilt auch für die Verteilung des Ostjordanlands in Dtn 3,12b.13a. Da der Verfasser von der Sihon-Erzählung literarisch abhängig ist, kannte er auch den Grundbestand von Num 32,1–38*. Er hat von dieser Darstellung freilich nur das Ergebnis berücksichtigt, dass Ruben und Gad ihr Land von Mose erhielten. Das ist vielleicht dadurch bedingt, dass nach Dtn 3,13a Mose auch Halbmanasse eine Hälfte von Gilead und den Baschan gab. In Num 32 wird aber eine Bitte von Halbmanasse um Land nicht erwähnt. Wie schon bei der Ergänzung der Besiegung Sihons durch den Sieg über Og in Dtn 3,1ff.* hatte der Verfasser auch hier das ganze Ostjordanland, das zu Israel gehörte, im Blick. Diese Ausweitung führte dazu, dass später Num 21,33–35 und die Landgabe an Manasse in Num 32,33 redaktionell ergänzt wurden. Freilich wird in Dtn 2,24ff.* die Bileam-Erzählung übergangen. Aber das ist dadurch bedingt, dass Mose nicht wissen konnte, was sich zwischen Balak und Bileam ereignet hatte. In Dtn 1–3 werden also bereits in dem Grundbestand von Dtn 2,24ff. die älteste Fassung der Sihon-Erzählung in Num 21,21ff.* und von Num 32,1–38* vorausgesetzt und auf die Eroberung und Verteilung des ganzen Ostjordanlands ausgeweitet.

5. Zusammenfassung In der Forschung wird gegenwärtig verschiedentlich die Auffassung vertreten, dass der Grundbestand von Dtn 1–3 literarisch älter ist als die Parallelen in Numeri. Aber die Sihon-Erzählung in Num 21,21ff.* ist nicht von Dtn 2,24ff. literarisch abhängig. Beide Darstellungen gehen auch nicht auf eine gemeinsame Überlieferung zurück, vielmehr zeigt ein Vergleich des Grundbestandes in Num 21,21–24bα.31 mit Dtn 2,24aα*.26–28.29bα(bβ).30a.31–35, dass Dtn 2,24ff.* von der Numeri-Parallele literarisch abhängig ist. Dagegen wurde Num 21,33–35 später aus Dtn 3,1–3 übernommen. Von dem Sieg über Og und dem Umfang des von Sihon und Og eroberten Landes wurde zunächst in Dtn 3,1.3.4aα.6–8*.10a* berichtet. Da die Sihon-Erzählung die Vorlage für den vorpriesterlichen Abschnitt Num 20,14–18.21 war, nach dem Edom Israel den Durchzug verweigerte, ist sie sicher vorpriesterlich und wegen der Aufnahme in Dtn 2,24ff.* auch vorexilisch.64 Die Sihon-Erzählung gehörte ur63

Vgl. Schmidt, Numeri, 129. An der Existenz eines deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, das mit Dtn 1–3 begann, ist m.E. festzuhalten. Das kann hier nicht begründet werden. 64

332

Ludwig Schmidt

sprünglich zusammen mit jener Bileam-Erzählung, die mit Num 22,2.3a eingeleitet wird, und dem Grundbestand der Landgabe an die Gaditer und die Rubeniter in Num 32,1–38* zu einem eigenen literarischen Zusammenhang. Aus ihm geht hervor, dass das Buch Numeri nicht im Ganzen eine spätere redaktionelle Bildung ist. Bibliographie Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Albertz, Rainer: Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie. Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24. Teil I, ZAW 123 (2011), 171–183; Teil II, ebd., 336–347. Blum, Erhard: Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin: de Gruyter 1990. Heckl, Raik: Moses Vermächtnis. Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1–3, AzBG 9, Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2004. Köppel, Urs: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen. Die Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen Num 21,21–35 und Dtn 2,26–3,3, EHS.T 122, Bern et al.: Peter Lang 1979. Mittmann, Siegfried: Num 20,14–21 – eine redaktionelle Kompilation, in: Wort und Geschichte (FS Karl Elliger), hg. von Hartmut Gese/Hans Peter Rüger, AOAT 18, Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon u. Bercker/Neukirchener 1973, 143–149. –: Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139, Berlin: de Gruyter 1975. Noth, Martin: Nu 21 als Glied der „Hexateuch“-Erzählung, ZAW 58 (1940/41), 161–189; = idem: Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde Bd. 1, hg. von Hans Walter Wolff, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1971, 75–101. –: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 41982. –: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer 21957. Oswald, Wolfgang: Die Revision des Edombildes in Numeri 20,14–21, VT 50 (2000), 218– 232. Otto, Eckart: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. –: Deuteronomiumsstudien I. Die Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 1–3*, ZAR 14 (2008), 86–236. Perlitt, Lothar: Deuteronomium 1,1–4,40, BK.AT 5/1–4, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1990ff. Römer, Thomas: Entstehungsphasen des „deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes“, in: Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion, in: Tora und Vorderen Propheten, hg. von Markus Witte et al., BZAW 365, Berlin: de Gruyter 2006, 45–70. Rose, Martin: Deuteronomist und Jahwist. Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke, AThANT 67, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag 1981. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri. Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004.

Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*

333

–: Die Ansiedlung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland in Numeri 32,1–38, ZAW 114 (2002), 497–510. –: Bileam: Vom Seher zum Propheten Jahwes. Die literarischen Schichten der BileamPerikope (Num 22–24), in: Gott und Mensch im Dialog Bd. I (FS Otto Kaiser), hg. von Markus Witte, BZAW 345/I, Berlin: de Gruyter 2004, 333–351. Seebass, Horst: Numeri 2. Numeri 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. –: Numeri 3. Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007. Van Seters, John: The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, CBET 10, Kampen: Kok Pharaos 1994. Veijola, Timo: Das fünfte Buch Mose. Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8,1, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch Jonathan Miles Robker Since the Balaam narrative of Numbers 22–24 stands somewhat isolated in its literary context, yet demonstrates minor affinities with other material in the Hebrew Bible, it is a perfect candidate for literary and redaction critical evaluations. First, the narrative of Num 22–24 will be questioned regarding its unity and examined for signs of literary growth. Then the narrative will be considered in the increasingly broad contexts of the book of Numbers, the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Enneateuch. In this undertaking, the focus of this study remains the identification of literary bridges between Num 22–24 and other texts in the Bible; other considerations such as style will be handled elsewhere. The elements contextualizing the Balaam narrative within the larger narrative structures of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and/or Enneateuch will be studied in order to help elucidate the literary development of the Hebrew Bible. It will be demonstrated that the Balaam narrative probably existed as an independent literary unit before its incorporation into a larger contiguous pre-Deuteronomistic narrative that was expanded on at least one more occasion. The development of the Balaam narrative in Numbers generally parallels the development of the Balaam tradition found in other biblical texts.

1. The Literary (Dis)Unity of Num 22–24 Several elements in Num 22–24 suggest that it has undergone textual growth, though these changes indicate that the additions have been undertaken to update the narrative’s connection to the surrounding material. Here, these elements will be considered in the order in which the text of Numbers presents them.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

335

1.2. The Exposition(s): Numbers 22:1–7 Though essentially ubiquitously ascribed to P and thus presumably foreign to the oldest narrative strand(s) in Num 22–24,1 there is no a priori reason to regard Num 22:1 in and of itself as secondary to the narrative. In its current context, it provides the story’s first exposition and appropriately geographically locates Israel for the following tale. Numbers 22:1 in no way explicitly contradicts or causes tension with the rest of Num 22–24, which would demand that 22:1 be understood as a secondary addition. It is worth noting that 22:1 identifies the Israelites as “the sons/children of Israel” (‫ )בני ישׂראל‬and that Moab is a geographical designation only.2 These data distinguish 22:1 from almost the rest of Num 22–24, with the exception of 22:3b, where we also find the ‫בני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬. Other considerations do suggest that Num 22:1 is most likely an addition, but as it does not stand in direct tension with Num 22–24, it will be dealt with below as part of the discussion of the Balaam narrative within the book of Numbers. In Num 22:2 Balak ben Zippor is introduced for the first time. Further, by mentioning the Amorites, this verse places the Balaam narrative in a literary context immediately subsequent to Num 21:21–32*. This can be said with certainty, since for the book of Numbers and even for an earlier edition of Deuteronomy, Og of Bashan was not called an Amorite.3 However, since the text introduces Balak a second time in Num 22:4, Num 22:2 appears to be an addition to the front of the story. One matter suggests that 22:2 probably comes from a different author or redactor than 22:1: the ‫ בני ישׂראל‬in 22:1 are transformed in 22:2 into just Israel (‫)ישׂראל‬. This factor suggests that 22:2 may not come from the same hand as 22:1. Its creation of a redundant introduction of Balak in 22:4 implies that it is secondary to that text as well.

1 It would be unnecessarily tedious to list all of the commentators who regard 22:1 as priestly in some fashion. To the paucity of priestly language in the rest of the pericope, cf. Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984), 271: “The story is not a priestly tradition. The author of Numbers works it into his itinerary, locating the incident in the plains of Moab (22:1), but otherwise the story is entirely free of distinctive priestly features.” This position is generally indicative of the opinio communis. 2 Cf. Erasmus Gaß, Die Moabiter – Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 163–165. 3 Cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43 (HTKAT 8; Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 2012), 467–70. While it is true that a later redaction considered Og an Amorite, as in Deut 3:8, this was not the older understanding. In Numbers the Amorites follow the leadership of Sihon; Og was the king of Bashan and was only identified with the Amorites in the later text of Deut 3:8 and not in the original in Deut 3:1–3. The story of Og disturbs the context and was transposed sometime after the introduction of the Amorites in Num 21:21– 32*; see below.

336

Jonathan Miles Robker

The third verse of Num 22 further complicates the situation in that it contains essentially duplicate information.4 In v. 3a, Moab dreads “the people” (‫ )העם‬due to its size, whereas in v. 3b, Moab is disgusted by the “sons/children of Israel” (‫)בני ישׂראל‬. The nomenclature used for Israel, Moab’s twofold appearance as the subject of each phrase, and the two different verbs imply that these two halfverses may come from different authors or redactors. The usage of ‫בני ישׂראל‬ and the close parallel to Exod 1:12 suggest that 3b is editorial and may also be from the same hand as Num 22:1.5 Verse 3a matches the fear that Moab expresses in v. 4: they worry that this large group of people will devour all that they have. The phobia in 3a also better matches Balak’s message in 22:5. That leaves the possibility that 3a may represent the original opening of this pericope – whether as an independent unit or within a larger narrative context – and that 3b was inserted secondarily.6 The identification of Israel as “the people” in 22:3a fits with the rest of the narrative as well, where they are often identified as “the people” or “this people”.7 The introduction of the elders of Midian in 22:4 has been seen as a problem for generations of scholars. Their sudden appearance and general lack of impact on the narrative imply that their attestation here (and in v. 7) is most likely of a secondary nature. Their presence here may be indicative of a relationship to Num 25:5–18 and, more importantly, 31:8 and 16, which identify Balaam as dealing and dying with them. Their appearance in Num 22:4 only serves as a literary bridge, albeit an admittedly narrow one, to the other texts about the

4 E.g., George B. Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 323 regards this duplication as indicative of having been combined from two sources. To the implausibility of this explanation, see below. 5 It would not be practical to undertake a reconstruction of the redaction history of the book of Exodus for this essay, but some authors have suggested that Exod 1:12b is in some degree redactional. Werner H. Schmidt, Exodus Band I: 1,1–6,30 (BKAT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 14–15 suggests this possibility, but admits that it must remain unclear. His main problem with identifying it with one of the non-P documents of the Documentary Hypothesis is what would follow it. He rejects P as a possibility since 1:12b would introduce or continue the P document here, but it contains no explicit subject. However, two possibilities remain for an attribution to P: 1) if P were redactional and not a source, then it could have simply emended the text to fit the syntactical needs of the situation; or, more probably, 2) G contains the subject οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι and may present the older reading. More recently, Rainer Albertz, Exodus. Band I: 1–18 (ZBK 2; Zürich: TVZ, 2012), 19–21 and 39–41 argued that Exod 1:12 is part of a redactional layer of the oldest exodus narrative (REX). Following his reconstruction, a later editor of Numbers – priestly or otherwise – could have been familiar with this usage and inserted it here. 6 This is contra John Sturdy, Numbers (CBC; Cambridge [Eng.]; London; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 160, who regards the repetition as emphatic, and Budd, Numbers, 265, who follows him. 7 Cf. Num 22:3a, 6, 11–12, 17, 41; and 24:14. Outside of the prophecies, “Israel” can only be found in Num 22:2 and 24:1–2.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

337

Midianites.8 One notes that it is not the elders of Midian who respond to Moab’s complaint, as would be expected if they had originally been part of the narrative; there should have been at least some reaction from the elders of Midian if they were the original recipient of Moab’s grievances. Indeed, Balak – who is introduced in 22:4 for a second time – is the agent who pursues a solution to Moab’s distress. This repeated introduction of a character already familiar to the reader from v. 2 strengthens our reflection that v. 2 is a foreign element later inserted into the story in order to establish a narrative bridge to Num 21.9 Were one to argue the alternative (Balak’s appearance in v. 4 is secondary to that in v. 2), it would be difficult to explain the syntax of v. 5 and the narrative situation of v. 7: without Balak as the subject of v. 4b, the implicit subject of v. 5 would be Moab. The elders of Moab would then have to proffer Moab’s words to Balaam in v. 7. Since there is a series of first-person singular verbs and prepositional suffixes in 22:6, which would be somewhat awkward were Moab the speaker, and since the messengers explicitly report Balak’s missive in 22:7, it seems most unlikely that v. 4b can be regarded as secondary.10 One should also reject Seebass’ reconstruction of the text as having originally read “its [lit. “his”, i.e., Moab’s] elders” for the same reason.11 In the current version of the narrative, Israel arrives, Balak witnesses something bad, Moab is afraid, Moab is disgusted, Moab speaks, and Balak reacts. This overloaded exposition does not have the appearance of being uniform. Presumably only one of Balak’s introductions is original in this context. Since v. 4b plays a significantly more integrated role in the story, it makes more narrative sense to regard Balak’s appearance in v. 4b as original vis-à-vis his appearance in v. 2. Verse 2 is also irrelevant in its context, in that it is not Balak who reacts 8 Presuming a relationship between the addition of the elders of Midian in Num 22 and the text of Num 31 still presents somewhat of a problem in that there are no elders of Midian present in the text of Num 25 or 31. Their irrelevance to the rest of the narrative and the association of Balaam with the Midianites in Num 31 are the best evidence for the later insertion of the elders in Num 22:4 and 7. One should also note the general inconsistency in the nomenclature identifying the Midianite leadership: ‫( זקני מדין‬Num 22:4, 7); ‫( מלכי מדין‬Num 31:8); ‫ראשׁ אמות בית־אב‬ ‫( במדין‬Num 25:15); and ‫( נשׂיא מדין‬Num 25:18; Josh 13:21). 9 This is (somewhat) contrary to Levine, who offers two contradictory explanations of Num 22:2 and 4. To Num 22:2, cf. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000), 143: “This introductory verse is probably editorial, connecting the Balaam Pericope with the Israelite victory over the Amorites of Transjordan, recounted in Numbers 21.” To Num 22:4, cf. Levine, Numbers 21– 36, 145: “The identification of Balak as the king of Moab is a gloss, linking Numbers 22:3–21 to the introductory verse, Numbers 22:2.” When we combine these statements with Levine’s opinion that Num 22–24 is – in general – a literary unit, it must have been a literary unit without an introduction of one of its most important characters. It seems rather more likely that 22:4 is original and 22:2 is a redactional addition. 10 Contra Horst Seebass, Numeri. 3. Teilband: Numeri 22,2–36,13 (BKAT 4; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007), 34. 11 Contra Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 14.

338

Jonathan Miles Robker

of his own initiative to his own perception of Israel’s threatening his people in the current edition. Rather, in v. 5 he reacts to the people of Moab’s fear of starvation. It would not make much sense for the king to wait until his populace complains before reacting to the situation, having himself seen the destruction of another people. These observations imply that v. 2 is secondary to v. 4.12 The reader also encounters three different motivations for the tension between the Moabites and the Israelites in Num 22:2–3. Numbers 22:2 implies that Balak is worried about the military threat that Israel represents; he just witnessed how they militarily destroyed the Amorites. Verse 3a indicates that Moab apparently views Israel as an economic threat or as endangering their livelihood; it is the great number of Israelites that Moab fears (this also generally matches Balak’s concern in v. 6). Finally, Moab’s “disgust” for Israel in v. 3b suggests that the narrative is implying blatant racist xenophobia against Israel. These three reasons for Moab’s disliking Israel could suggest three different hands at work.13 There has been some discussion about duplicate information regarding Balaam’s heritage as recounted in 22:5.14 This case is especially difficult in Numbers when compared with Deuteronomy. On the one hand, it seems that Balaam may have come from Ammon, as can be found in Num 22:5 in @, S, and V (reconstructing the Vorlage of each text as ‫)ארץ בני־עמון‬. On the other hand, it has been argued that he comes from Mesopotamia, as may be implied in Num 22:5 (‫ )פתורה אשׁר על־הנהר‬and is explicit in Deut 23:5 (‫)מפתור ארם נהרים‬.15 Gray, 12 This recounting of events also remains distinct from the war narratives as found in the book of Joshua in that Balak sees what happened to the Amorites, whereas Israel’s enemies in Joshua hear of marvels or of what happened to the other peoples; cf. Josh 2:2; 5:1; 9:1, 3; 10:1; and 11:1. In none of these examples does the reader encounter a king who hears of something and a nation that reacts to this before the king himself undertakes action. Rather, in Joshua, the king alone reacts to the information he has gained. This distinction means that the Balaam narrative in Num 22–24 is form critically distinct from the battle narratives of Joshua. 13 This is contra Ludwig Schmidt (cf., e.g., his contribution in this volume, “Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri”), who divides the text into 2–3a (E) and 3b–4 (J). As he notes, Balak’s introduction in 22:2 should include the datum that Balak was king of Moab, but it does not. This suggests that 22:2 presumes and is therefore later than 4. His suggestion that 3a presupposes verse 2 based on the identification of “the people” (3a) with Israel (2) does not appear overwhelming, since the use of the article suggests that the reader should be able to identify which “people” was intended. Verse 3b also demonstrates a minor affinity to 22:1 and presumably comes from the same author or editor of that verse. Thus, I would divide the text into 1, 3b; 2; 3a and 4. 14 Cf., e.g., Gray, Numbers, 325–27. 15 Additionally, it is noteworthy that Deut 23:5 G does not record ‫ מפתור‬as part of Balaam’s geographical background, suggesting that ‫ מפתור‬in Deut 23:5 may be a recensional harmonization with Num 22:5. This is contra John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SBLSCS 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 366, who simply states “…LXX omits the name of the town…” Cf. Martin Rose, 5. Mose. 12–25: Einführung und Gesetz (ZBK 5; Zürich: TVZ, 1994), 326, who comments that it appears that Deut 23:5 copied ‫ מפתור‬from Num 22:5 and that this was possibly a corrupted form of ‫ ;הפתור‬cf. Num 22:5 in S and V. Additionally,

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

339

e.g., regarded this matter in Num 22:5 as a doublet and thus tried to divide the attestations between J and E.16 It may also have been the case that the reference to Pethor in Num 22:5 was copied from Deut 23:5 in order to make these texts better accord, thus precluding the need to seek recourse to the sources J and E. It is, however, entirely possible that Num 22:5 represents a corrupted text and that the textual development was substantially different than generally postulated. For example, one notes that ‫ מפתור‬was apparently absent in the Vorlage of G of Deut and that S + V understood Num 22:5 not as ‫פתורה‬, but as ‫הפתור‬ (“the seer”). Is it then possible that Num 22:5 originally read ‫הפתור‬, which over the course of transmission became ‫פתורה‬, which was in turn copied into Deut 23:5 in order to make the texts better accord?17 In this regard it should be noted that ‫ מפתור‬is also not represented in G and V at Deut 23:5. At any rate, it seems likely that a text-historical explanation of the circumstances in Num 22:5 would be preferable to postulating two sources behind Num 22–24 based on Balaam’s supposed land of origin. Numbers 22:7 also has some problems in it. It initially raises suspicions for the recurrence of the elders of Midian, who apparently represent a secondary insertion into 22:4 (see above) and thus presumably also here. Beyond that, the elders of Moab appear out of context, as Num 22:5 recounts that Balak sent messengers, without explicating that these messengers were elders. Therefore they may be secondary, but are not necessarily so. If they represent a secondary addition, they were presumably added at the same time as the elders of Midian or somewhat later in order that the appearance of the elders of Midian might not look so out of place. What remains more problematic in 22:7 is the identification of what the messengers have in their hand. The root ‫ קסם‬does not ever refer to an augur’s salary. Nor does it ever refer to the instruments used in augury.18 The Septuagint does not appear to have understood the root in this way either.19 The Vulgate does he postulates that the notice in Deut 23:5 that Balaam comes from Mesopotamia (‫)ארם נהרים‬ could have been formulated from the combination of “Aram” from Num 23:7 and “river” in Num 22:5. Both of these reconstructions seem plausible. 16 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 324–27. 17 Such a text-historical reconstruction would aid in explaining the curious syntax combining both the preposition ‫ אל‬and the locative-‫ה‬: “to Balaam… to Pethor”. Preferable to the reading with the locative would be something more like ‫בפתור‬, i.e., he sent messengers to Balaam “at Pethor”. Also see the discussion about Deut 23:4–6 below. 18 Cf. the discussion and literature in Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 15–16. 19 The lexica generally suggest a kind of payment for the translation of μαντεῖα in Num 22:7; cf. Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and Augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), vol. 2 1079; Johann Lust, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–1996), vol. 2 290; Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Chiefly of the Pentateuch and Twelve Prophets (Louvain; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2002), 356; and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint

340

Jonathan Miles Robker

interpret the root ‫ קסם‬as some kind fiduciary disbursement (divinationis pretium), but this may be reading the New Testament into the Old.20 Rather, both the Greek and Hebrew traditions imply that the elders – or messengers – brought the oracles to Balaam. Could it be that the text is implying that Balak sent the oracles he wanted Balaam to prophesy? The negatively connoted root ‫ קסם‬certainly does not cast Balaam in a positive light,21 and thus appears generally inconsistent with the primary narrative of Numbers 22–24*. One wonders if these factors might be indicative of a secondary provenance for this verse. Is it possible that 22:7 originally only consisted of 22:7b or read something like ‫?וילכו )זקני מואב( ויבאו אל־בלעם וידברו אליו דברי בלק‬ So, at the beginning of Numbers 22–24, one can identify the following secondary elements with some degree of certainty: vv. 1–2, 3b; the elders of Midian in v. 4; and the elders of Midian, possibly the elders of Moab, and the material in their hand in v. 7a. These materials can be placed on at least two redactional levels: vv. 1 and 3b vs. v. 2. It is unclear from the material discussed thus far whether the elders of Midian can safely be assigned to either one of these editorial levels, or whether a third layer might be required. This will be explored further below in the discussion about Num 22–24 within the book of Numbers. 1.3. The Donkey Story: Numbers 22:21–35a The next – and largest – interpolation into the Balaam narrative can be found in Num 22:21–35a. Three factors suggest the secondary nature of this text within the greater Balaam narrative. First, the Wiederaufnahme in v. 35b ( ‫וילך‬ ‫ – )בלעם עם־שׂרי בלק‬without the donkey from v. 21 ( ‫ויקם בלעם בבקר ויחבשׁ את־אתנו וילך‬ ‫ – )עם־שׂרי מואב‬suggests that someone copied v. 35b and added the donkey in anticipation of and as an introduction to that story.22 Further, the tone of the narrative attests a much more negative attitude toward Balaam, in that he is augur in possession of faculties that prove to be less than those of his donkey. This negative attitude generally contrasts with the rest of Num 22–24 in which he appears positively. The major exceptions to this positive image in Numbers 22–24 are at most Num 22:7a with the implication of the divination and the story of the donkey in 22:21–35a; this negative attitude seems to be attested in (Louvain; Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009), 441. However, the only attestation of this meaning that they can provide is Num 22:7, which is thus not evidence, but interpretation. 20 Cf., e.g., 2 Pet 2:15 and Jude 11. 21 For the negative connation of this root, cf., e.g., Deut 18:10, 14; and 2 Kgs 17:17. 22 This position is contrary to Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 75, who regards the donkey in v. 21 as being part of the original narrative. Since the donkey is otherwise irrelevant in the surrounding narrative, but mandatory in the pericope of 21–35a, it seems much more likely that 35b presents the original reading, having been copied and expanded into v. 21. Whether the oldest narrative read ‫ שׂרי מואב‬or ‫ שׂרי בלק‬is unclear. The phrase ‫( שׂרי בלק‬v. 35) seems to be an amalgamation of ‫( שׂרי מואב‬22:14) with ‫( עבדי בלק‬v. 18) and thus is the more difficult and possibly, therefore, older reading. ‫ שׂרי בלק‬is otherwise attested only in Num 22:13.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

341

other biblical texts as well: e.g., Num 31:16 and Josh 13:22.23 The variant attitude toward Balaam suggests that the narrative of the donkey was inserted into the Balaam narrative at a later stage.24 The form of the narrative can be more readily identified as a fable, which is inconsistent with the form of the surrounding narrative. Finally, it is conspicuous that in 22:21–35a God does not appear directly to Balaam, as had been the case in the previous dreams or visions in the narrative thus far, as well as in the visions that follow. All of the sudden a messenger serves as an intermediary between the deity and Balaam; i.e., the donkey story is theologically distinct from the surrounding narrative. For these three reasons (the Wiederaufnahme, Balaam’s negative image, and the distinct theology), it seems probable that 21–35a should be regarded as secondary in its current context. 1.4. Numbers 23:4 When considering 23:4, it is possible that 23:4b ( ‫ויאמר אליו את־שׁבעת המזבחת ערכתי‬ ‫ )ואעל פר ואיל במזבח‬represents an addition. Verse 23:16 does not present a similar account. Syntactically, it is unclear who is speaking, which explains why the G (or its Vorlage) added ‫ בלעם‬/ Βαλααμ and why the editors of BHS suggest appending this half-verse to the end of 23:2. If 23:4b is to be regarded as an addition, the question then becomes why it was added. Is it possibly a negative reflection on Balaam, who demanded that these altars be set up at an inappropriate place? Unfortunately the text offers no explicit denunciation of this act, so it must remain unclear whether it should reflect negatively on Balaam and whether this half-verse is secondary in its context. Since there is no corresponding element in 23:16, I find it entirely plausible, though not mandatory, that someone added 23:4b in order to reflect negatively on Balaam, but this must unfortunately remain a postulation without further supporting evidence. 1.5. Numbers 24:14b–24: The Fourth Oracle Finally, the last text in Num 22–24 that can be regarded as a secondary in its context is the fourth oracle and its narrative embedding in 24:14b–24. This rings especially true since 14b seems to interrupt the context of 14a and 25. Only the material about Amalek, Moab, and Edom even makes any sense in the 23 The negative evaluation of Balaam in Josh 13:22 is implicit through its identification of Balaam as an augur (‫ ;)הקסם‬cf. especially Deut 18:10 and 2 Kgs 17:17. While the Balaam narrative does use this root (22:7 and 23:23), it never explicitly applies it as a negative appellation to Balaam. The negative image of Balaam appears to have become dominant in later traditions, even into the New Testament; cf. 2 Pet 2:15; Jude 11; and Rev 2:14. 24 Sturdy, Numbers, 165 regards it as a once independent folktale that was transformed into being about Balaam and added as a slowing element to the story, “perhaps to bring out a heightened sense of God’s action in the story…” Martin Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri (ATD 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 157 reflected that the story had been an independent story not composed by J, but inserted into J at some point.

342

Jonathan Miles Robker

context of Numbers. Up to this point in the story there has been no mention of the Kenite, Assyria, or Kittim. For these reasons, it is possible to consider at least the last portion as an addition to the original composition of the Balaam narrative. However, as 24:14b–24 seem to demonstrate an affinity with some texts beyond the scope of Num 22–24, we will return to this matter below in the discussion about Num 22–24 in the context of the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch, stating that it is probable that 24:14b–24 were introduced to the current narrative context at a later stage (if 14b–24 can be attributed to a single composer) or at later stages (if the various elements of the oracle [15–20, 21– 22, and 23–24] must be attributed to multiple authors or redactors).25 1.6. The Product of Two Sources? Was the Balaam narrative in Num 22–24 the product of the combination of two or more source texts, as has often been suggested in various permutations of the Documentary Hypothesis? Based on the examination presented here, there is no reason to postulate that two sources – generally called J and E in the nomenclature of the Documentary Hypothesis – were joined together to form the narrative in Num 22–24*. The narrative does not mandate such a division; from this story, it seems that few, if anyone at all, would identify two narrative strands that were combined. Rather, based on the Documentary Hypothesis as developed especially in Genesis, some have attempted to identify sources postulated elsewhere. Any attempts to reconstruct such sources – such as, e.g., Otto Eissfeldt, George Gray, Martin Noth, Ludwig Schmidt, and Horst Seebass – demonstrate the implausibility of such a reconstruction based simply on the incomplete nature of the sources that they reconstruct.26 In none of these models can either of the sources be reconstructed in anything that resembles a legible, cogent narrative. Relying on the names of God is not a satisfactory criterion in general, but in Num 22–24 it is especially inappropriate as the references to God change depending on which textual tradition one follows.27 Additionally, 25

Cf., e.g., Sturdy, Numbers, 180. The most poignant example of this can be found in reconstruction of Otto Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse. Die Erzählung der fünf Bücher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962), 183*–189*. Regardless of whether one reads his reconstructed J or E source, neither of them can be understood completely free of the context of the other. The other reconstructions fare no better; cf. Noth, Numeri, 154–69.; Ludwig Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri Kapitel 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 132–44; and Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 9–14. Gray, Numbers, 308 comments: “It is impossible to recover in detail and with any certainty the original forms of the stories here combined.” This suggests that Num 22–24* should not be separated into two sources. 27 It cannot be the case that, e.g., J was the source primarily used as the basis of the M version, whereas E would have been the source primarily used as the basis of the Vorlage of the Greek version. Nor could the translation have relied on a different source as a base text than its Vorlage had. Such a circumstance would have been the case, if the names of God alone are 26

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

343

it has not been convincingly demonstrated that all of the differences in deific nomenclature in the various traditions can be traced back to a translator.28 Thus, the various versions of the text preclude the necessity of source-critical divisions that deconstruct Num 22–24 into two sources based on the names of God. Neither should the multiple visions and oracles be regarded as evidence for multiple sources behind Num 22–24. Rather, they are stylistic elements used effectively by the author in order to develop the story to its pinnacle. Sturdy offers the following comments: “But this division [of the prophecies into J and E strands] misses an important feature of the narrative, that there is a steadily increasing firmness and confidence in the prophecies of Balaam. It would be quite impossible to reverse them, and put the prophecies of ch. 23 in ch. 24 and those of ch. 24 in ch. 23. Similarly, Balaam’s actual behaviour develops in the story. […] It was, rather, written as a continuous whole…”29

It is more likely that Num 22–24 grew out of one narrative that was expanded by other (sources or) redactional layers, as opposed to having been constructed from two parallel sources that were woven into each other. Rarely would an exegete postulate the sources J and E (or any others) based on Num 22–24 alone. Rather, with the exception of the limited additions noted above, the story reads as a unity and can be understood and interpreted as such.

used as a criterion for the dividing the text into two sources. A good example for the text-critical problem of the deity’s name can be found in Num 23:5. While M reads ‫יהוה‬, G reads ὁ θεός, and @ reads ‫מלאך יהוה‬, which has also been reconstructed in 4QNuma (cf. Eugene Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, Vol. I: Genesis–Kings [Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013], 154). So which reading determines the source behind this verse? M would presumably be from J, G from E, and @ and Q from whatever source was responsible for the insertion of Num 22:21–35a in M. Gray, Numbers, 310 summarizes this nicely: “No conclusive and complete explanation of this usage can be given.” More often than not, it seems that literary-critical decisions determine which version each exegete regards as older, but this is inconsistent with sound exegetical methodology. Cf. also Carr’s discussion of “memory variants” in David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: University Press, 2011), 57–65. The textual evidence, whether one considers M, Q, G, or @, does not provide significant basis for, and even seems to preclude, the separation of the narrative into two originally separate narrative strands. 28 I remain unconvinced by Rösel’s and Schlund’s position that the Septuagint translator used ὁ θεός for the punishing aspect of God, but κύριος for the aspect of God that favors people (cf. Martin Rösel and Christine Schlund, “Arithmoi / Numeri / Das vierte Buch Mose” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis–Makkabäer [ed. Martin Karrer et al.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011], 484). Would this not contradict their position regarding the translation of 22:13? God refuses to curse Israel in 22:13 G, whereas YHWH refuses in M. Their interpretation would imply that G curiously understood YHWH’S refusal to curse Israel in M as a punishment in that he or she translated ‫ יהוה‬as ὁ θεός instead of κύριος. This interpretation is inconsistent with Rösel’s and Schlund’s own understanding of 22:13; cf. Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi”, 482. 29 Sturdy, Numbers, 157.

344

Jonathan Miles Robker

1.7. Summary To summarize the findings thus far: 22:2 seems to be from different author or redactor than 22:1 and 3b and all of these verses appear to be later than 22:3a and 4* (without ‫)אל־זקני מדין‬. The elders of Midian in 22:4 and 7 (and possibly the rest of 7a) were probably secondarily introduced into the present narrative context. The story of Balaam’s donkey in 22:21–35a represents a secondary insertion into the primary story and may have been included to tarnish Balaam’s otherwise positive appearance. Similarly, 23:4b may have been added into the original composition in order to tarnish Balaam’s reputation, though this is more uncertain. Finally, it is likely that the fourth oracle in 24:14b–24 or some portion(s) of it were added at a later stage or stages. Beyond these minor insertions and additions, there is no need to postulate multiple sources behind the Balaam narrative as has been done in various permutations of the Documentary Hypothesis. Having completed the internal investigation of Num 22–24, it is now appropriate to consider what relationship, if any, the oldest Balaam narrative and its secondary additions have to texts within the book of Numbers and more broadly within biblical literature.

2. The Balaam Pericope within Numbers 2.1. Numbers 22:1 in the Context of the Book of Numbers Several verses demonstrate knowledge of, or affinity with texts that precede or follow the Balaam narrative in its current context. Immediately conspicuous is the “itinerary notice” in 22:1, which is generally identified as being related to the priestly material in some fashion. At first glance one notices the identification of the Israelites as “the sons/children of Israel” (‫)בני ישׂראל‬, otherwise only attested in 22:3b in this pericope. An important distinction from the surrounding material is the appreciation of Moab in this verse: Moab appears as geographical term, and not a polity.30 This distinguishes it from the following material in Num 22–24, which regards Moab as a kingdom or an ethnic group under the hegemony of a monarch named Balak. Num 22:1 serves an important narratological function in its current position in that it geographically juxtaposes the Israelites and the Moabites. Such a localization of the Israelites is only necessary if the Israelites were not located in or near Moab in the material that immediately preceded Num 22–24. Such is precisely the case when Num 22–24 follows the story of Og of Bashan in Num 21:33–35. Without this tale, there would be no need for 22:1. Therefore, one should presume that 22:1 is either originally part of the narrative or that it was 30 E.g., Gray, Numbers, 306 mentions that ‫ בערבות מואב‬is a phrase “peculiar to P”. This will be discussed further below.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

345

inserted and composed together with Num 21:33–35. Both Num 21:33–35 and 22:1 interrupt the narrative context of the Israelite conquest of the Amorites in Num 21:21–32* and 22:2. In the current version, the narrator curiously recounts that Balak witnessed the Amorites’ demise following Israel’s excursion to Bashan, suggesting that Num 22:2 may have previously immediately followed 21:21–32*. Considered together, this evidence suggests that one redactional hand was responsible for 21:33–22:1, which interrupts an earlier recounting of Israel’s undertakings in the Transjordan, specifically their destroying the Amorites. This was apparently done to accord this text with Deuteronomy.31 The geographical locus “in the steppes of Moab across the Jordan from Jericho” (‫ )בערבות מואב מעבר לירדן ירחו‬demonstrates affinity with several other verses in the first six books of the Bible. This phrasing in exactly this form occurs only one other time in the Bible: Josh 13:32. The phrase appears seven times in two related forms: ‫( בערבת מואב על ירדן ירחו‬Num 26:3, 63; 33:48, 50; 35:1; 36:13) and ‫( בערבת מואב אשׁר על ירדן ירחו‬Num 31:12). This variance remains too weak to suggest that several authors must have been responsible for this phrasal variation.32 Otherwise, “in the steppes of Moab” (‫ )בערבת מואב‬can only be found in the notice of Moses’ death in Deut 34:1 and 8. These uncommon usages might be indicative of a common provenance for these verses within a common narrative framework. An important question remains regarding Num 22:1: is Num 22:1 from a source called P? The observations here would tend to reject such a hypothesis, since it appears that 22:1 was added into Num 22–24 at the same time as 21:33– 35; i.e., it seems more likely that 22:1 was composed to this end than that it was incorporated from a separate source that fit these narrative circumstances. Beyond that, there is nothing in the verse that would identify it as “priestly”.33 31

“Zu [Num 21,]33–35 fand die Forschung einen seltenen Konsens: Sie sind von Dtn 3,1– 3 hierher übernommen und dabei von der 1. Pers. Moses in die 3. des Erzählers transponiert…” (Horst Seebass, Numeri. 2. Teilband: Numeri 10,11–22,1 [BKAT 4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003], 362). 32 Ignoring the difference between the plene and defective writing as irrelevant, note that the Septuagint may imply a different reading than M in two of the cases: in Num 33:50 and 35:1 the Greek reads ἐπὶ δυσμῶν Μωαβ παρὰ τὸν Ιορδάνην κατὰ Ιεριχω, which matches the Greek of Num 22:1, suggesting that it is at least possible, though by no means certain, that these (and even other instances of this phrase in Numbers) where originally written consistently with Num 22:1 and were either later emended to reflect contemporary usage or were corrupted over the course of transmission. 33 Cf. Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch.” in The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 261 n. 19, where Dozeman cites the literature that regards 22:1 as P. However, there is no language in 22:1 that is reminiscent of P and it even most resembles some of the itinerary notices that Dozeman himself regards as non-P; cf., e.g., Exod 12:37a and 13:20 and Dozeman, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries”, 264.

346

Jonathan Miles Robker

Even if it has some similarities to some itinerary notices that are generally regarded as P, the style evinced by these verses would be easy enough to copy. Nothing in the verse’s content implies priestly theology, ideology, or vernacular. The usage of ‫ בערבת מואב‬does not have anything explicitly priestly about it unless one defines everything post D(tr) (as would be implied for Num 22:1 being copied into the context to accord the assimilation of a D[tr] text) as P.34 I find no reason to regard Num 22:1 as coming from a priestly source; rather it makes the impression of being redactional in its context and thus not part of a source. 2.2. Numbers 22:2 in the Book of Numbers Numbers 22:2 makes an explicit reference to the destruction of the Amorites in Num 21:21–32* and is thus doubtlessly to be identified with this textual stratum. Since it was shown above that 22:2 is redactional, we can presume that the original Balaam narrative was unfamiliar with the Amorites. Verse 22:2 appears to be the first redactional instance of the incorporation of the Balaam narrative into a broader literary context, but this matter must be explored further.35 2.3. Numbers 22–24* in Its Literary Context What text, if any, could have immediately preceded Num 22–24* without the redactional additions in 22:1–2? Only a small number of texts could have potentially fulfilled this capacity, as only limited references to Moab appear in the Torah preceding Num 22. Every legitimate possibility can be found in Num 21:10–20.36 The itinerary notices in Num 21:11 and 13 present the first such 34 Cf. Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZAR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 367: “Für die Priorität des Dtn-Textes spricht die dtr. Formulierung des Orakels (v. 34), das Fehlen einer weiteren Erwähnung Ogs in Num 22,2f. (erwähnt wird nur allgemein der Sieg über ‚die Amoriter‘ i.S. der Sihon-Erzählung), schließlich der Umstand, daß Num 21,35 sich besser als Zusammenfassung von Dtn 3,4ff. verstehen lässt als umgekehrt.” Cf. further Otto, Deuteronomium, 452: “Im Gegensatz zur deuteronomistischen Sihon-Erzählung, die die in Num 21 erhaltene Quelle einer Edom-Sihon-Erzählung als Vorlage nutzte, ist die OgErzählung eine deuteronomistische Neuschöpfung.” 35 This is again contra Schmidt, “Sihon und Og”, who regards 22:2 as the oldest exposition to the Balaam story, which had originally immediately followed 21:21–31*. 36 It is very difficult to decode the literary development of Num 21:10–20. While Eissfeldt, 181* regards the text as primarily coming from E (with some J material in 19–20*), Noth, Numeri, 139 views the whole thing as redactional. Schmidt, Numeri, 106–108 identifies J, E, JE, and the Pentateuch redaction. Seebass, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 338 summarizes the situation thus: “Für den Ort in der Pentateuchtradition bleibt damit einstweilen nur die bekannte Beobachtung, daß [Num 21,]10–20 ganz überwiegend keine Berührung mit P-Diktion haben. Für die Forschung, die nach einem neuen Pentateuchmodell sucht, käme eine redaktionelle Entstehung sehr gelegen. Doch dies läßt sich nicht verifizieren.” All things considered, it seems that

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

347

possibilities. Alternatively, the conclusion of the itinerary in Num 21:20 would seem to provide a better match for the Balaam narrative, in that it also includes Pisgah (cf. Num 23:14) and the ‫( ישׁימן‬cf. Num 23:28). These texts seem the most probable in my opinion, as the song following the conquest of the Amorites seems secondary in its context,37 as does the narrative of the defeat of Og of Bashan.38 If Num 21:11, 13, or 20 cannot be satisfactorily identified as having immediately preceded Num 22:3a before the insertion of 22:2, we must reckon with the likelihood that the Balaam narrative existed independently before its later incorporation into the context presumed by 22:2 or that any preceding narrative context has been lost to the cutting room floor, to put it in cinematic parlance. First, we can consider Num 21:20. The syntax of Num 21:18b–20 is incomplete: there is no verb.39 The position of Ludwig Schmidt, that Num 21:18b really represents the original ending of the song, which has since been confused in the process of copying, seem plausible.40 That means that only 19–20 would originally have been part of any itinerary. Their syntactical dependence indicates that 19–20 was either attached to an element that preceded it or was composed to fit its current location. To what text could 19–20 have originally been attached? The only possibility is 21:18. Otherwise there would be no pendant to ‫ מתנה‬in v. 19, which implies that 19–20 was added to the text at the same time as 18, in turn implying that 22:3a could not have originally followed 21:20. Further evidence for the secondary status of Num 21:19–20 might be found in the names of the locations provided in that itinerary. In Num 21:19–20, Israel goes from Bamoth to Pisgah to overlooking Jeshimon. This matches to a greater or lesser degree Balaam’s itinerary in that he goes from Bamoth-Baal in 22:41, Num 21:10–20 could not have presented the original point of contact to the Balaam narrative; see below. 37 N.b. the virtual Wiederaufnahme in 21:25bα, 31; cf. e.g., Gray, Numbers, 294: “…the song (v. 27–30) may have been derived direct from an ancient collection by the compiler”; Schmidt, Numeri, 110–13; and Seebass, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 346–51. 38 As mentioned above, this insertion is presumably the reason that 22:1 had to be composed. After the inclusion of the Bashan narrative, it became necessary to return the Israelites to the geographical context presumed by the Balaam narrative. From the northern reaches of Israel, the exodus generation had to be returned to the southern region of the Transjordan. 39 Seebass, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 333 incorrectly identifies these phrases as Nominalsätze. This is not strictly grammatically accurate, as the phrases have neither an identifiable subject nor predicate; they are dependent clauses without a verb and can only be understood in context. 40 Cf. Schmidt, Numeri, 109–10. By correcting the text to follow @ based on stylistic reasons, one arrives at the older reading of 21:18 as the final measure of the song. The later confusion about the text also explains the textual variants in Num 21:18–20. In v. 18b the G (or its Vorlage) read ‫באר‬, which appears to be a modification of the text to better match its current context; cf. John W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SBLSCS 46; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998), 349. The M reading ‫ מדבר‬is more problematic, since its referent is unclear. Presumably G was emended at v. 18b to better match its current context following v. 16, implying that the M reading is to be favored against G.

348

Jonathan Miles Robker

to Pisgah in 23:14, and on to (Peor and) Jeshimon in 23:28.41 There are two possible explanations for this circumstance: 1) One author used this as a stylistic device to make the two geographical progressions (somewhat) consistent, or 2) an editor emended or created one of the texts to make it progress like the other. Since there is no explicit reason to assume a priori that the oldest Balaam narrative was part of a larger narrative structure and since the locations are not perfectly consistent, the second option seems more plausible. From the available evidence, it would be impossible to decide which text served as the inspiration for the other this case, but if the Balaam narrative did exist alone, it would make sense that its geographical progression was copied and re-used for Israel’s. That would imply that Num 22–24* served in some capacity as the geographical Vorlage for Num 21:19–20 and is therefore older.42 Having demonstrated that it is improbable that Num 22:3a could originally have followed 21:20, we can turn our attention to the other possibilities in Num 21:11 and 13. Verses 10 and 11a seem to be related to one another; at least there is no particularly evident reason to separate them.43 Their similar appearance to Num 22:1 suggests that they might be from the same layer that added that text to Num 22–24. As Num 22:1 is secondary in its context, any relationship to these verses would also imply that they could not have originally connected to 22:3a. Verse 21:11b explicitly locates Israel to the east of Moab, which would contrast geographically with what appears to be the implied location of Israel in the Balaam narrative; i.e., Israel appears to be to the north of Moab in Num 22–24, though the situation is not entirely clear.44 This contrast would make 21:11b an inappropriate text to precede Num 22:3a. Thus we must focus our considerations on Num 21:13.

41 Is it possible that 23:14 originally did not contain ‫ אל־ראשׁ הפסגה‬and that, instead of ‫ראשׁ‬ ‫הפעור‬, 23:28 originally did? That is, did Balaam originally not visit Peor, but ended his travels at Pisgah? That would explain why only Num 23:14 contains two locations (“the field of Zophim” and “the top of Pisgah”), whereas none of the other standpoints of Balak and Balaam does. In this scenario, Peor would anticipate the narrative in Num 25 and represent a secondary emendation of the text. In either scenario, it is noteworthy that Israel and Balaam share some points on their Moabite geographical progression, which might be indicative of redactional copying. 42 Cf. Noth, Numeri, 140: “…dann folgen (von ‘Bamoth’ an) einige Ortsbestimmungen, die alle auch entweder in den Bileamsgeschichten oder in der Geschichte vom Tode Moses vorkommen (vgl. 4.Mos. 22,41; 23,14.28; 5.Mos. 3,29; 34,6) und wohl aus diesen Stellen entlehnt sind (vgl. vor allem V. 20b mit 23,28bβ).” A similar case might also be made for the border at the Arnon in 21:13, 15 and 22:36. With the addition of the song from 21:16–18 it became necessary to return Israel to Amorite territory. Thus the locations of Beer, Mattanah, and Nahaliel were added as a literary bridge to Bamoth, etc. 43 Indeed, e.g., Gray, Numbers, 279–81 regards 21:10–11a as P. This assignment is based largely on stylistic grounds and references to other texts he assigns to P, including Num 22:1. 44 To this problem, cf. already Gray, Numbers, 337 and 340.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

349

Since it is possible that 13aα also came from the same source as 11b45 – there is at least no conspicuous reason beyond the minor stylistic difference to preclude this – it also seems unlikely that 22:3a could have originally been connected there. More importantly, Num 21:13aα does not explicitly locate Israel in Moab, but only more generally in the desert. Only with the introduction of the Amorites in 13aβb does the reader encounter an explicit reference to Moab. The appearance of Moab here is only to juxtapose the Moabites to the Amorites, clearly in preparation for the Amorite narrative in Num 21:21–32*. Since the Amorites represent a secondary insertion into Num 22, Num 21:13 would be an inappropriate connection to Num 22:3a. As none of the texts in Num 21 provide an adequate narrative nexus to 22:3a, it seems probable that the Balaam narrative existed independently and not as part of a contiguous source document before the incorporation of the Amorites in 22:2. At most, the narrative presumes familiarity with a tradition of Israel wandering in the desert.46 It remains outside of the scope of this study to discuss the literary development of Num 21 beyond any relationship to Num 22–24. Since it has been demonstrated that no relationship between Num 21 and Num 22:3a can be plausibly sustained, it seems most likely that the literary stage that was responsible for combining Num 21 and Num 22–24 added Num 22:2 and some portion of Num 21:1–32* into their contexts. Numbers 22:2 presupposes Num 21:21–32* or else it cannot be satisfactorily understood. Numbers 21:21–32* apparently led directly into Num 22:2–3a and was read together with it before the later insertion of Num 21:33–22:1. Such a reconstruction would also support our thesis of a double redaction at the exposition of Num 22. These considerations should suffice for the task at hand without necessitating a complete reconstruction of the literary development of Num 21. Now that the material preceding the Balaam narrative has been considered, we can turn our attention to the material that follows Num 22–24. Two data in Num 22–24 anticipate material in the rest of the book of Numbers. On the one hand, the references to the elders of Midian should be seen in relation to Num 25:6–18 and Num 31. On the other hand, the mention of “Peor” in 23:28 can be seen as an anticipation of the events of Num 25*. Other than these two brief references, nothing in Num 22–24 reflects on the subsequent narrative in the rest of the book of Numbers. Without Num 22–24, the reader would not even notice that anything was missing between Num 21:20, 32, or even 22:1 and 25:1 or any other narratively subsequent texts. This suggests a high level of 45

Cf. Schmidt, Numeri, 108, who reckons 11b* and 13aα to the same source (J in his reconstruction) and 13aβb as redactional (Jehowist in his reconstruction). Schmidt views 21:11b and 13* as leading directly into 21:21 and regards 21:18b–20 as a later addition. 46 This argumentation does not consider whether there might be stylistic grounds for identifying Num 22–24* as having been part of a larger source to which it can no longer be explicitly connected. Such matters will be dealt with elsewhere. There is, however, no literary bridge connecting the oldest narrative level of Num 22–24* with any preceding text.

350

Jonathan Miles Robker

independence for the Balaam narrative vis-à-vis the rest of the book of Numbers and tends to disavow the Balaam narrative being part of any contiguous source(s) incorporated into Numbers.47 On the other hand, Num 31 must either have been familiar with the Balaam text including the Midianites or the Midianites must have been added into Num 22 at the same time that Num 31 was incorporated into the book. Numbers 31:8 and 16 advance a negative image of Balaam that was developed in the course of the composition of the Pentateuch and Hexateuch (see below). “The priestly author of Numbers extends this process [of vilification] in Num 31:16, implicating Balaam in the seduction and apostasy of Num 25:1–18. As one of the enemies of Israel he is killed (Num 31:8; Josh 13:22).”48 This datum will help us reconstruct the relative chronology of the development of the Balaam tradition in the Hebrew Bible, which should aid in the reconstruction of the development of the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch. The relationship between the redactional verse 22:1 and the addition of the Midianites in 22:4 and 7 can now be better clarified. Numbers 31:12 bears a striking resemblance to Num 22:1 in that they both attest Israel’s camping (√‫חנה‬: ‫ ויחנו‬in 22:1 and ‫ מחנה‬in 31:12) in the aforementioned “steppes of Moab across the Jordan from Jericho”. The camp of 31:12 can only refer to the camping Israelites in Num 22:1. Thus 31:12 presupposes and may be later than 22:1. Since 31:12 can be found in the midst of an Israelite campaign against the Midianites, it can be inferred that 31:12 and the addition of the Midianites in 22:4 and 7 can be traced back to the same redactional hand.49 If 21:33–35 were copied into their current location from their original context in Deut 3 as Seebass and others have suggested,50 this insertion presumably occurred at the same time as the insertion of 22:1, which would have no function in its current context were it not preceded by 21:33–35. This incorporation of D(tr) material in Num 21–22* may well have occurred before the insertion of Num 31 and the 47

At the same time that there is no literary bridge connecting the oldest core of Num 22– 24* to any text before it, there is also no identifiable literary bridge explicitly connecting it to anything that follows it either. Other considerations that could identify this oldest narrative stratum with some literary document must be dealt with elsewhere. 48 Budd, Numbers, 272. 49 For the later dating of Num 31, cf. Schmidt, who identifies 22:1 as P (Schmidt, Numeri, 122), but Num 31 as coming from an editor later than the Pentateuch redactor (Schmidt, Numeri, 148 and 186). Seebass offers a similar position to Schmidt; cf. Seebass, Numeri 10,11– 22,1, 361 and 297: “Num 31 ist ein später Zuwachs zu Num und damit wohl auch zum Pentateuch.” Both of these positions follow Noth, who regarded 22:1b as P (cf. Noth, Numeri, 151), but Num 31 as later: “Es ist nicht, sei es auch als späte Zutat, zur P-Erzählung zu rechnen, sondern stellt einen Nachtrag zum Gesamtpentateuch dar” (Noth, Numeri, 198). And Noth, Numeri, 155: “Die Erwähnung der ‘Ältesten von Midian’ (in V. 4a als Gesprächspartner der Moabiter und in V. 7 als Mitbeteiligte) ist sicher sekundär und beruht auf der späten Vorstellung einer Verbindung Bileams mit den Midianitern (31,8. 16).” 50 Cf. above, Seebass, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 362, and the literature cited there.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

351

elders in Num 22:4 and 7, but the insertion of the elders in 22:4 and 7 could have admittedly occurred at the same time.

3. The Teuchs of Hazard: The Balaam Pericope in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and Enneateuch The Balaam narrative demonstrates limited connections with the rest of the material in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch. Many, if not all, of these connections awaken a sense of redactional undertaking within the Balaam narrative. Three factors demonstrate familiarity with or affinity to materials outside of the book of Numbers, but still within one of the teuchs, be it the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, or the Enneateuch: 1. 2. 3.

Israel’s exodus from Egypt in 22:5, 11; 23:22; 24:8 The mention of Agag in Num 24:7 The visions of the future offered in Num 24:14b–24.

This undertaking must also be reversed, however, meaning that other biblical texts alluding to a Balaam or Balak tradition must be examined for any information that they might offer elucidating their relationship to or unfamiliarity with the story found in Num 22–24. To this end, the following texts – listed in their canonical order – must be considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Deut 23:4–6 (+ Neh 13:1–3) Josh 13:21–22 Josh 24:9–10 Judg 11:25 Mic 6:3–5

Each of these texts appears to be familiar with a Balaam or Balak tradition, though at first glance it is not always clear how they are related. Our survey will begin with the external evidence before considering the evidence internal to Num 22–24. 3.1. The External Evidence: Biblical Balaam Traditions Outside of Numbers Micah 6:3–5 provides no clear evidence about the nature of its presupposed Balaam tradition. It anticipates the following information: An exodus from Egypt, slavery, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, and Balak and Balaam having (presumably) differing opinions. The evidence is weak and difficult to interpret, but

352

Jonathan Miles Robker

it would be consistent with the oldest layer of the narrative in Num 22–24 reconstructed in this study and generally appears favorable toward Balaam.51 At the very least, Mic 6:3–5 does not evaluate Balaam negatively, but apparently presents him as YHWH’s soteriological instrument. Deuteronomy 23:4–6 appears to be unfamiliar with Balaam’s story within an Amorite context. Rather it is familiar with the Ammonites and the Moabites together hiring Balaam;52 that is, it appears that the text conflates the Ammonites and the Moabites. According to Deut 23, Balaam could not curse the Israelites, even though he wanted to. This is inconsistent with the story in Num 22–24* and suggests that author of Deut 23 was attempting to reevaluate the Balaam story from Numbers in a manner that was less favorable toward Balaam. Deuteronomy 23 also differs from Numbers in its identification of Balaam as a Mesopotamian, something that is at best unclear in the Numbers text. At some point, Neh 13:1–2 copied from Deut 23:4–6, which doubtlessly served as the basis of the Nehemiah text. Neh 13:1–2 ‫בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נִקְ ָרא ְבּ ֵספֶר מ ֹשֶׁה בְּאָזְנֵי ָהעָם‬ ‫ְונִמְ צָא כָּתוּב בּוֹ אֲ שֶׁ ר ֹלא־י ָבוֹא עַמֹּנִי וּמ ֹאָבִי‬ ‫בִּקְ הַל הָאֱֹל ִהים עַד־עוֹ ָלם‬ ‫ִכּי ֹלא קִ דְּ מוּ אֶ ת ־ ְבּנֵי י ִשְׂ ָראֵ ל ַבּ ֶלּחֶם וּ ַב ָמּי ִם‬ ‫ַויּ ִשְׂ כּ ֹר ָעלָיו אֶ ת־ ִבּ ְלעָם לְקַ לְלוֹ ַויַּהֲפ ְֹך אֱ ֹל ֵהינוּ‬ ‫הַקְּ ָללָה ִלב ְָר ָכה׃‬

Deut 23:4–6 ‫ֹלא־י ָב ֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי ִבּ ְק ַהל י ְהוָה גַּם דּוֹר‬ ‫ִירי ֹלא־י ָב ֹא ָלהֶם ִבּ ְקהַל י ְה ָוה עַד־עוֹ ָלם ׃‬ ִ ‫ֲעשׂ‬ ‫שׁר ֹלא־ ִקדְּ מוּ אֶתְ כֶם ַבּ ֶלּחֶם וּבַמַּ י ִם‬ ֶ ‫עַל־דְּ בַר ֲא‬ ‫שׂכַר ָעלֶיָך‬ ָ ‫שׁר‬ ֶ ‫בַּדֶּ ֶרְך ְבּ ֵצאתְ כֶם ִמ ִמּצ ְָרי ִם ַו ֲא‬ ‫ֶאת־ ִבּ ְל ָעם בֶּן־ ְבּעוֹר ִמפְּתוֹר א ֲַרם נַה ֲַרי ִם‬ ‫ְל ַק ְל ֶל ךָּ׃‬ ‫ְוֹלא־אָבָה י ְה ָוה אֱֹלהֶיָך ִלשְׁמ ֹ ַע אֶ ל־ ִבּ ְל ָעם‬ ‫ַויַּהֲפְֹך י ְה ָוה ֱאֹל ֶהי ָך לְָּך אֶת־ הַקְּ ָל ָלה ִלב ְָר ָכה כִּי‬ ‫ֲא ֵהבְָך י ְהוָה ֱאֹל ֶהיָך׃‬

The Nehemiah text relies on Deuteronomy and only on Deuteronomy. Since it could have been copied from Deuteronomy at any time after the composition of that book and offers no new interpretative material to the Balaam tradition of Deut 23 it remains irrelevant for the remainder of our discussion of the development of the Balaam tradition. Joshua 13:21–22 and Num 31:8 both indicate that Balaam was killed in a violent clash between Israel and Midian. In Josh 13, this battle with Midian was in the context of a conflict with the Amorites under Sihon. Joshua 13 may be the youngest text considered in this survey, as it implies the fusion of Num 21 51 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 320: “… this [Mic 6:4–5], most naturally interpreted, regards Balaam favourably; as God frustrated the evil purposes of Egypt by means of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, so He frustrated those of Moab by means of Balaam.” 52 The verb should be adjusted into the plural with G.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

353

and 31. Numbers 31:8 anticipates the reference to Balaam in Num 31:16, which appears to imply that Balaam was responsible for Israel’s wanton actions in Num 25 (note in this context that Cozbi is the daughter of Zur, a king or prince of Midian listed in Num 31:8 and Josh 13:22). Balaam’s death only becomes necessary after the introduction of Num 31:16 into the Bible; to that point in the narrative Balaam had done nothing to earn the ire of either the Israelites or the biblical authors. Num 31:8 G καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς Μαδιαν ἀπέκτειναν ἅμα τοῖς τραυματίαις αὐτῶν καὶ τὸν Ευιν καὶ τὸν Σουρ καὶ τὸν Ροκομ καὶ τὸν Ουρ καὶ τὸν Ροβοκ πέντε βασιλεῖς Μαδιαν καὶ τὸν Βαλααμ υἱὸν Βεωρ ἀπέκτειναν ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ σὺν τοῖς τραυματίαις αὐτῶν Num 31:8

‫וְאֶ ת־ ַמ ְלכֵי מִ דְ י ָן ה ְָרגוּ עַ ל־חַ לְ לֵ יהֶ ם ֶאת־ ֱאוִי‬ ‫ְאֶת־רבַע‬ ֶ ‫ְאֶת־רקֶם וְאֶת־צוּר וְאֶת־חוּר ו‬ ֶ ‫ו‬ ‫חֲמֵ שֶׁ ת מַ ְלכֵי מִ דְ י ָן‬ ‫וְאֵ ת ִבּ ְלעָם בֶּן־בְּעוֹר ה ְָרגוּ ֶבּח ֶָרב עַ ל־‬ 53 ‫חַ לְ לֵ יהֶ ם׃‬

Josh 13:21–22 ‫וְכ ֹל ע ֵָרי ַהמִּישׁ ֹר ְוכָל־ ַמ ְמלְכוּת סִיחוֹן ֶמלְֶך‬ ‫שׁבּוֹן ֲאשֶׁ ר ִהכָּה מֹשֶׁה‬ ְ ‫שׁר מָ לְַך ְבּ ֶח‬ ֶ ‫ָהאֱמ ִֹרי ֲא‬ ‫ֶת־רקֶם ְואֶת־‬ ֶ ‫א ֹתוֹ ְואֶת־נְשִׂי ֵאי ִמדְ י ָן ֶאת־ ֱאוִי ְוא‬ ‫שׁבֵי‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֶת־רבַע נְסִיכֵי סִיחוֹן י‬ ֶ ‫צוּר ְואֶת־חוּר ְוא‬ ‫ָאָרץ׃‬ ֶ ‫ה‬ ‫שׂ ָראֵ ל‬ ְ ִ ‫ְו ֶאת־ ִבּ ְלעָם בֶּן־בְּעוֹר הַקּוֹסֵם ה ְָרגוּ ְבנֵי־י‬ ‫ַבּח ֶֶרב אֶל־ ַח ְללֵיהֶם׃‬

It seems probable that Num 31:7–8 was expanded to include the list of Midianite princes and Balaam from Josh 13:21–22. The Wiederaufnahme in Num 31:8 G confirms this (‫)על־חלליהם‬. Balaam was part of this addition in the text to create a stronger tie to Joshua 13 and to prepare his appearance in Num 31:16. This more readily explains the reading in Num 31:8 than regarding Num 31:8 as the earlier text upon which Josh 13:21–22 would have expounded. Thus an older version of Num 31 probably did not include the whole of verse 8, but rather was expanded by a later harmonization that inserted the list of kings in order to better match the text in Joshua. The older form of Num 31:7–9* presumably read something like, ‫ויצבאו על־מדין כאשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה ויהרגו כל־זכר׃ ואת־מלכי‬ ...‫מדין הרגו על־חלליהם׃ וישׁבו בני־ישׂראל את־נשׁי מדין ואת־טפם‬. At some point in the transmission of Joshua, the ‫ אֶל־ ַח ְללֵיהֶם‬was added, as was the subject ‫ ְבנֵי־י ִשְׂ ָראֵל‬, 53 The last two words have been added based on the G of Num. I make this emendation contra Wevers, Notes on Greek Numbers, 508, who regards this as a harmonization within G. However, as he himself points out, the αὐτῶν can only refer to the five kings and not to Balaam, making it indeed a very poor harmonization. The presence of ‫ אֶל־ ַח ְללֵיהֶם‬after the mention of Balaam in Josh 13:22 also favors its being located in the G-Vorlage of Num 31:8. Thus, a harmonization seems less likely than a Wiederaufnahme. My position is the reverse of Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi”, 507, which sees Num 31:8 as having possibly been copied from Josh 13:22.

354

Jonathan Miles Robker

which are both missing in G.54 Joshua 13 presumes the combination of Num 21 (King Sihon of the Amorites); 22–24 (Balaam); and 31 (the Midianites). This suggests that it was familiar with Num 22–24 more or less in its canonical form, potentially even including the mention of the Midianites in Num 22:4 and 7. This implies that it may be the youngest text referencing the Balaam tradition in the Hebrew Bible. Joshua 24:9–10 presents the Balaam tradition in a somewhat different form than that found in Num 22–24. Most significantly, it assumes that Balak undertook military action against Israel, something that is unknown in Num 22–24. The motif of God’s refusing to fulfill Balaam’s desire to curse Israel is known from Deut 23:4–6. In this constellation then, it is possible that Josh 24:9–10 offers a reinterpretation of the Balaam story after its inclusion within a macrocontext that also included the text of Deuteronomy. The new aspect from the text of Josh 24:9–10 is the recounting of a military conflict initiated by Balak against Israel. This should most likely be regarded as a later reinterpretation and expansion of Num 22:6 and 11, which state that Balak wanted to strike Israel and battle against them; however, the remainder of the narrative does not explicate that Balak ever undertook a military campaign against Israel as found in Josh 24:9–10.55 Thus, Josh 24:9–10 is a reinterpretation of Num 22:6 and 11, or it is familiar with another version of the Balaam and Balak story that has been lost, or it knew another ending to the story in Num 22–24* that has since been truncated in favor of the narrative of Num 25* or another text. Rather than postulate a lost text, it seems safest to regard the first option – the reinterpretation and explication of Num 22:6 and 11 – as the most probable.

54 The confusion of ‫( אל‬in Josh) and ‫( על‬in Num) presents no problem, since it is a common feature in biblical Hebrew and could even have come about from a copyist’s error or from a common meaning; cf. Alexander Sperber, A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of the Problems with Suggestions to Their Solutions (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 58–63; Jonathan M. Robker, The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications (BZAW 435; Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), 18 n. 3; and the literature cited there. It is very likely that Josh 13:21–22 G was corrupted at some point in its transmission, as ἐν τῇ ῥοπῇ is nonsensical here. It presumably represents a corrupted form of ἐν (τῇ) ῥομφαίᾳ. What must remain unclear is whether the Greek text (or, less likely, its potentially corrupt Vorlage) included any translation of the Hebrew ‫ אֶל־ ַח ְללֵיהֶם‬found in M. The subject in M appears to be a later recensional gloss. 55 Because of this contrasting information, I have to disagree with the assessment of Rainer Albertz, “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil I),” ZAW 123 (2011) and Rainer Albertz, “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil II),” ZAW 123 (2011) that Num 22–24* was inserted into a larger narrative context, namely the Hexateuch, only at this stage. It seems improbable to me that one author would incorporate the Balaam narrative and at the same time compose a notice in Josh 24 that is inconsistent with the incorporated narrative. Rather, what we find here is a redactional reinterpretation of the Balaam story within the context where a postulated Hexateuch redactor would have found it.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

355

Judges 11 knows of no battle between Balak and Israel but does locate the Balaam narrative in an Amorite narrative context. This means that Judges 11 is presumably unfamiliar with the war tradition behind Josh 24:9–10 and thus attests a form of the biblical narrative older than Josh 24. This evidence would again favor the argumentation of Josh 24:9–10 as a later reinterpretation of Num 22:6 and 11. Further, the text is similar to that of Deut 23:4–6 in that it also conflates the Ammonites and the Moabites; cf. esp. Judg 11:15.56 Thus a relationship between Deut 23:4–6 and Judg 11* may exist. The Balaam traditions can thus be divided into a few families. Some texts presume that Balaam sought to curse Israel, but that this curse was transformed into a blessing: Deut 23:4–6 and Josh 24:9–10. Neither Num 22–24 nor Judg 11 mentions Balaam’s desire to curse Israel. Joshua 24:9–10 presupposes a violent clash between Israel and Moab that is unknown in Num, Deut, and the other traditions, and that directly contradicts Judg 11:25. Four texts explicitly place the Balaam / Balak narrative after the Israelite defeat of the Amorites: Num 22:2; Josh 13:21–22; 24:9–10; and Judg 11:19–25. Both Deut 23:4–6 and Judg 11 conflate the Ammonites and the Moabites. Joshua 24:9–10 mentions the Amorites, recounts a reinterpreted Balaam / Balak narrative, and then reports about the invasion of Cisjordan. Joshua 13:21–22 mentions the Amorites, the Balaam / Balak story, and then the Midianites. Its narrative is the most similar to the present shape of Numbers. Therefore, the development of the relative chronology of the families of the Balaam traditions can be reconstructed through the following logical development:57 1. 2. 3. 4.

Num 22–24* (and Mic 6:3–5) Deut 23:4–6 and Judg 11:25 Josh 24:9–10 Num 31:16 58 and Josh 13:21– 22

Positive image of Balaam Ambivalent image of Balaam; no war with Moab Ambivalent image of Balaam; war with Moab Negative image of Balaam; Moab irrelevant

This development of the Balaam tradition within the Bible can be postulated with some probability due to the various attitudes toward Balaam and the variant historical reconstructions present in each text or family of texts. Balaam was transformed over the course of the tradition from a non-Israelite prophet who did the will of YHWH (Num 22–24* [and Mic 6:3–5?]) to a foreign prophet who wanted to curse Israel, but was not permitted (Deut 23:4–6 and Judg 11:25; these texts also both conflate the Moabites and the Ammonites), and became ultimately a foreigner who encouraged others to lead Israel astray (Num 56 Cf. Charles Fox Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes (2d ed.; London: Rivingtons, 1920), 298–305. 57 This ordering departs to a limited degree from that offered by Gray, Numbers, 320–21, who dates Mic as the oldest, then Deut 23; Josh 24 (= E); and Neh 13, and finally “P” (= Num 31 and Josh 13). 58 The later harmonizing gloss in Num 31:8 would of course have to be later.

356

Jonathan Miles Robker

31:[8,]16 and Josh 13:21–22). At the same time, the biblical story previously only recounted that Balak hired Balaam and resigned disappointedly when Balaam would not curse Israel. In one later reevaluation, he hired Balaam only after he had failed to conquer Israel (Josh 24:9–10). The development of these traditions is relatively straightforward.59 3.2. The Internal Evidence: What Biblical Traditions Does Numbers 22–24 Know? Having considered how other biblical texts regarded the Balaam narrative, we can consider what – if anything – the Balaam narrative knew of other biblical texts. As noted above, only three matters merit consideration: 1) Balak’s familiarity with Israel’s exodus from Egypt; 2) Agag in 24:7; and 3) the anticipated fulfillment of Balaam’s final prophecy or prophecies. These matters will each be considered in its own turn. Numbers 22–24 references the tradition of Israel’s exodus from Egypt four times (22:5, 11; 23:22; 24:8), both in the narrative and in the prophecies. These references, however are of a most general nature and do not mandate any literary affinity with another text. They simply attest the tradition that Israel came out of Egypt; none of the other familiar elements from the biblical story, e.g., Joseph, servitude, Sinai, wandering in the wilderness, etc., are present in Num 22–24. Therefore, any association with other biblical texts is at best a postulation; these comments about the exodus out of Egypt could be informed merely by the tradition of Israel’s travels without necessitating recourse to any written document(s). Agag, the king of the Amalekites, surprisingly appears out of nowhere in the Balaam story.60 The text of Num 24:7 presumes that Israel’s king will be greater than Agag and that his kingdom will expand. The only apparent referent here would be Saul’s conquest of the Amalekites in 1 Sam 15.61 “Except for the very 59 The other, less plausible alternative is to seek a source critical resolution to the problem, as, e.g., Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 65 does. Eissfeldt identifies 4 Balaam narratives in the Hexateuch. A fifth is implied: Num 22–24 is J and E; Josh 24:9 implies a remnant of L, as it is incompatible with J and E as present in Num 22–24; P must have also known a Balaam tradition, in that he appears in Num 31, which Eissfeldt reckons to P without further explanation. Thus, Eissfeldt must reckon with at least four Balaam narratives, J (Num 22–24*), E (Num 22– 24*), P (Num 31), and L (implied in Josh 24). By this logic, he would also be required to have one in D (Deut 23:3–6). That is, Eissfeldt must presume at least five different Balaam traditions in the Hexateuch, which seems unlikely to me. 60 In order to keep this paper within the appropriate confines of space, it will be assumed that the M reading of Agag (‫ )אגג‬is older than the @ + G reading of Gog (Γωγ). The relative insignificance of Agag in the Hebrew Bible suggests that it is the older reading; cf. Wevers, Notes on Greek Numbers, 405. This may not be the only instance where G read Gog where it was not present in the Hebrew Vorlage; cf. Amos 7:1 M vs. G. 61 Gray, Numbers, 314 comments, “If the allusion to Agag in 247 could be relied on, the third poem would belong to the age of Saul; but it cannot.” He is only considering matters of

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

357

late fictional mention of Agag in the Esther Scroll (3:1, 10; 8:3), the Agag of Saul’s time is the only one mentioned in Scripture.”62 Since the only other tradition known about him can be found in 1 Sam 15, it remains plausible that a relationship exists between these texts. In that Saul conquers and destroys the Amalekites, his kingdom – Israel – literally becomes greater than the kingdom of Agag, whom he defeated. Though the book of Samuel does not make it clear that Agag had an especially large kingdom, Israel still became greater than the Amalekites through Saul’s conquest of their land. This link to the Saul tradition would more likely require a textual basis than the reference to the exodus, but I will grant that there is still not enough evidence to unequivocally demand intertextuality. A number of matters suggest that textual relationships exist between Balaam’s final prophetic pronouncements and other biblical texts. Of primary concern is what the objects of these proclamations are. Numbers 24:17–19 anticipates someone conquering Moab, Seth, and Edom.63 Verse 20 presumes the extermination of the Amalekites. Verses 21–22 suggest that the Kenites will be exiled by the Assyrians. While it is somewhat unclear, it seems that Num 24:23–24 imply the destruction of Assyria and Eber (the Hebrews? Cf. G) at the hands of the Greeks.64 We will consider each of these matters in turn. What texts mention the conquest of Moab and/or Edom? The Pentateuch is reticent on the matter of Moab’s conquest; in fact any conquest of Moab in the Torah would directly contradict Deut 2:9 (cf. also the recounting in Judg 11:15– 18). One possibility would be Ehud in Judges 3; cf. especially Judg 3:30. Saul is said to have routed the Moabites (cf. 1 Sam 14:47). The only other person known to have subdued the Moabites in the Hebrew Bible is David; cf. 2 Sam 8:2.65 The reference to the sons of Seth is unclear, as this phrase is unknown elsewhere in the Bible. 66 The findings for Edom generally match those for dating at this point, stating that the text implausibly comes from the period of Saul’s reign. My point here is that the text alludes to a text or tradition about Saul’s reign, regardless of the historical veracity of the biblical image of Saul’s reign. 62 Levine, Numbers, 197. 63 For the sake of brevity, the text-critical issues here will be handled in the future. 64 Verses 23–24 were probably damaged over the course of transmission and updating. 65 The historical veracity of any such claim, as called into question by, e.g., the Mesha Inscription is irrelevant for the present discussion. Only the biblical intertextuality is pertinent to our current considerations. No king after David is regarded as the conqueror of Moab in the Bible. Second Kings 1:1 presumes Israel’s domination of Moab before Ahab’s reign. 66 Levine, Numbers, 202 offers the most probable interpretation: “In the immediate context, Moab and the land of the people of Seth are parallel.” Alternatively – and significantly less likely – one could postulate a corruption of the text from ‫ שאן‬to ‫ ;שת‬cf. Jer 48:45, which reads ‫ שאן‬instead of ‫ שת‬in its version of this prophecy. Such an error would be more likely in the paleo-Hebrew script. The difficulty in this explanations stems from the occurrence of Σηθ in G-Num combined with the absence of verse 48:45 in G-Jer. One could only postulate a common ancestor with no further evidence to support this claim.

358

Jonathan Miles Robker

Moab: there is a Saul tradition in 1 Sam 14:47 and a David tradition in 2 Sam 8:14. Additionally, one could consider Amaziah of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 14:7). It is noteworthy that the conquest of both Moab and Edom is attributed to both Saul and David, while there is also a tradition of someone else defeating either Moab (Ehud) or Edom (Amaziah) without specifically conquering it. There are some precursors and successors to the destruction of the Amalekites in the Hebrew Bible. Exodus 17 recounts how the Israelites defeated the Amalekites, at which time YHWH commanded Moses to record a promise to destroy the Amalekites (Exod 17:14). This promise is taken up again and expanded in Deut 25:19: only after the Israelites have conquered the land are they to destroy the Amalekites. Saul’s defeat of the Amalekites is mentioned in 1 Sam 14:48 and more explicitly narrated in 1 Sam 15, which recounts how Saul (ultimately Samuel, who kills the last Amalekite in the final edition) destroys the Amalekites. Again, the exegete finds competing claims that David defeated the Amalekites (cf. 1 Sam 30:1–19; 2 Sam 1:1–16; and 8:12).67 The Kenites present a similar, though more problematic situation.68 No biblical tradition reports anything like what Num 24:21–22 anticipates; there is no text that suggests that Assyria deported the Kenites.69 On the other hand, one again finds notions of Saul and David having interaction with the Kenites. Saul permits them to abandon the Amalekites before he destroys them (1 Sam 15:6), whereas it is stated that David claimed to have raided them (1 Sam 27:10), but that he sent some of his spoils to their towns (1 Sam 30:26–31).70 Saul claims that the Kenites treated the Israelites well during the exodus, an event that is not otherwise known in the Hebrew Bible. Since both of these characters generally demonstrate kindness toward the Kenites, whereas Num 24:21–22 anticipates their destruction,71 the Numbers tradition may be later. At any rate, the

67 Cf. Gray, Numbers, 375, who suggests three periods from which this oracle could have come: “Judged by itself, the oracle, then, may be a prophecy of ‘Amalek’s destruction while as yet its power was unbroken (i.e. before the time of Saul), or during its decline (from the time of Saul onwards), or a retrospect (? suggested by Ex. 1714) after ‘Amalek’s destruction.” Again, important here is the textual relationships and not the historicity of such claims. 68 It is unclear exactly who the Kenites should be; cf. Levine, Numbers, 237, who regards the Kenites as actually being Edomites. Cf. the discussion and literature in Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 103. 69 Schmidt, Numeri, 144 thus suggests that the Edom oracles in Obad 3–4 and Jer 49:16 were used as the basis of this text. This would permit a late date for the oracle in Num 24:21– 22. 70 1 Sam 27:10 is not text-critically secure. Interestingly, the Septuagint of this verse does not contain the Kenites and thus assumes that David did not claim to have raided them. They are however recipients of his spoils, even in the Septuagint of 1 Sam 30:26–31. 71 Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 103 notes that the mention of the Kenites in Num 24:21–22 is not “feindselig”. That being said, it would be inappropriate to identify the oracle as friendly toward the Kenites.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

359

narrative arc appears to go beyond the bounds of either the Pentateuch or Hexateuch and goes all the way into the reign of either Saul or David. And after the reigns of Saul and David, the Kenites essentially disappear from the biblical narrative. The text-critical situation of 24:23–24 presents numerous problems, but most of them are not insurmountable.72 The first is the issue presented by Og occurring in the Greek text. As this reading presents difficulties in its context, logic dictates that it be regarded as older; it is difficult to image a circumstance where someone would emend the text to include Balaam’s seeing someone whom Israel had killed just a few chapters earlier in another geographical context.73 Rather than change the text as some Greek witnesses have, M deleted the notice altogether.74 The Hebrew text of 24:24 is obviously corrupt, as it is nonsensical.75 Where necessary, the Greek text should be used to reconstruct the Hebrew. As the Hebrew ‫ כתי)י(ם‬generally refers to Cypriots, Greeks, or even Romans, 24:23–24 clearly has an event much later than either the exodus or the reigns of Saul and David in mind.76 Since it remains unclear to exactly what verses 23–24 are pointing however, it is impossible to reconstruct with any certainty what historical circumstances (if any) or what traditions or narrative contexts might have stood behind this text. The most plausible explanation would seem to involve Alexander’s conquest in some way. 77 What seems certain, however, is that these verses come from a later period than other elements in chapter 24; it seems that the end of Num 22–24* was expanded on multiple occasions. The first expansion can be found in the verses 14b–20. The redactor responsible copied the opening of the third oracle and composed a fourth oracle pointing to the later destruction or conquest of Moab, Edom, and the Amalekites. Israel’s first kings fulfill this expectation and thus the narrative arc of which 72

Only relevant text-critical matters will be briefly mentioned here. This explains why some manuscripts record the name as Gog, presumably a secondary corrective; cf. Num 21:33–35 and Rösel and Schlund, “Arithmoi”, 494. 74 Cf. Wevers, Notes on Greek Numbers, 416, who considers recensional activity or parablepsis as possible explanations for the absence in M, etc. 75 The text-critical problems in Num 24:23–24 will not be addressed here, as that would go beyond the scope of the problem at hand. The argumentation will rely only on elements that are text-critically secure. 76 Gray, Numbers, 377: “The present text scarcely appears to be satisfied by circumstances earlier than the Greek period…” 77 Cf. Schmidt, Numeri, 144: “Der Spruch setzt somit die Unterwerfung der Perser durch Alexander d. Gr. voraus. Er dürfte bald nach dessen Tod im Jahr 323 entstanden sein.” Precluding a late reference to the conflict between the Romans and the Seleucids, cf. Schmidt, Numeri, 144 n. 59 and Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet. Zum Verständnis Bileams in der Endgestalt von Num 22–24” in Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels: für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Ingo Kottsieper et al; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1994), 184–85. 73

360

Jonathan Miles Robker

this was apparently a part continues at least into the book of Samuel. Thus it is neither part of any Pentateuch or Hexateuch redaction, nor presumably even part of a Pentateuch or Hexateuch source, for that matter; rather, the text anticipates a story covering at least the beginning of the monarchy in Israel, and should thus be regarded as an early incarnation of the Enneateuch.78 It seems unlikely that 24:21–22 should be included in this first level of redaction. Although both Saul and David are said to interact with the Kenites, the expectation expressed in Num 24:21–22 diverges significantly from these interactions. Thus, it may be from a later hand than the redactor with the context of an early Enneateuch in mind, though the precise circumstances are unclear. It is possible that 24:21–22 have the promise to Abram in Gen 15:18–19 in mind. In this text, the land of the Kenites (among others) is promised to Abram, though it is not said that his acquisition of the land would come about because the inhabitants had been exiled.79 This could place the text in a Hexateuch context, since it anticipates the acquisition of the land and thus suggests that it may be related to the following oracle, though it may also have preceded or succeeded it. The situation remains unclear. The final verses, 23–24, come from a late hand and suggest interaction with the Greeks, who will conquer but then also themselves come to an end. The appearance of Og in an older version of the text could be indicative of 24:23– 24 having been incorporated into Num 22–24 at the same time as 22:1 and 3b, which were added at the same time as 21:33–35. However, the presence of Og in the Greek text, but his absence in the Hebrew text could bear witness to a 78 The extent of any such early Enneateuch would still need to be clarified, but it need not be regarded as especially expansive. This is contra, e.g., Thomas Römer, “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch,” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 25–42. My expectation here is of some kind of text that advances the narrative beyond the bounds of Joshua. The text of Num 22–24* at this reconstructed stage anticipates it being part of a composition larger than a Hexateuch in that it brings up issues that are not addressed in that work. Since these issues are fairly specific and anticipate future events, it is likely in my opinion that a narrative connection to a specific text should be postulated. This should fulfill the requirements of Erhard Blum, “Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 43–71. 79 Cf., e.g, Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis (ATD 2/4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 146: “Die Aufzählung der Völker in V. 19–21 wird als Zusatz beurteilt; in ihm ist alles, was irgend an alten Namen bekannt war, zusammengetragen…” and Claus Westermann, Genesis. Band II: 12–36 (BKAT 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 273. “V. 19–21 wird daher von der Mehrzahl der Ausleger als Zusatz bezeichnet.” Genesis 15:19–21 make the impression of a late addition to the text (it is the longest such list of peoples in the Bible; cf. August Dillmann, Die Genesis [Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892], 252) and could thus evince a late connection with Num 24:21–22.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

361

process of updating of this oracle that cannot be clarified in every detail and for which we may be lacking appropriate evidence.80 At any rate, the current form of the text suggests interaction with the Greeks. It may have been added at the same time as 21–22, but it also could have preceded or succeeded that addition.81 3.3. Summary With these factors in mind, we see a similar development of the end of the Balaam story to that that we found at the beginning. An original story had elements added to it in a few separate waves: 22:2 + 24:14b–20; followed by 24:21–22; and finally 22:1, 3b + 24:23–24, though the exact order of the additions in 21–24 must remain somewhat unclear. The first additions incorporate the Balaam story into a narrative framework covering at least the time in the desert to the time of the early monarchy, whereas the final layer incorporated Num 22–24 into a narrative framework with its denouement at some point in Joshua. This becomes apparent, as Num 21:33–22:1 incorporated an element from Deuteronomy into Numbers and as the tradition of Og occurs several times throughout the book of Joshua (cf. Josh 2:10; 9:10; 12:4; 13:12; 13:30– 31). That would imply that this could be part of a Hexateuch redaction. The position of 24:21–22 cannot be specified with any certainty, but it does not at first glance appear to have to have been a part of either of these re-workings. But at the same time nothing precludes it from having come into the text as part of a Pentateuch redaction affiliated with, e.g., Gen 15:17–21*. However, the interrelatedness of Num 22–24 to other biblical texts does not offer any specific information that must be regarded as indicative of an explicit Pentateuch redaction or as part of a redaction to separate the book of Numbers from either Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

80 Considering the impossibility of demonstrating with certainty every stage in the development of ancient texts, cf. Carr, Formation, 147–148: “Rather than presupposing that we can reconstruct everything or rejecting the enterprise altogether, I urge the pursuit of what might be termed a ‘methodologically modest’ form of transmission history. Such transmission history will recognize that its reconstructions will probably miss many forms of growth – for example, micro-additions of new material – that are difficult to reconstruct (without documentation) in a methodologically controlled way.” We may have such a case in Num 24:23–24. 81 Were the Assyrians in 21–22 the impetus for the addition of 23–24 or were the Assyrians in 23–24 the impetus for the addition of 21–22? Were they all added at the same time? There is no satisfactory way to answer these questions with any certainty. What is clear, is that the whole of 21–24 is later than both 14b–20 and 25.

362

Jonathan Miles Robker

4. Conclusions How is Numbers 22–24 related to the rest of the Bible? The models developed by Kratz82 and in the so-called Münsteraner Pentateuchmodell83 provide the closest parallels to the reconstruction offered here, but with some distinctions. It seems most likely that the Balaam narrative found in Num 22–24* existed as a distinct, independent narrative block that was not part of one of the “documents” of the Pentateuch postulated in the Urkundenhypothese. If it was originally part of a “document”, the elements embedding the story of Balaam in the document have been lost in the process of literary development and cannot be reconstructed.84 Its first embedding in a larger narrative context connected it to the story of the Amorites in Num 21:21–31*. At its incorporation into a non-P narrative, the Balaam narrative’s exposition was expanded to include the notice about Balak’s witnessing the Israelite destruction of the Amorites. It seems most probable that the narrative was also expanded at its denouement, namely to include Balaam’s fourth prophecy, which at this stage in its literary development consisted of only 24:14b–20. The perspective of this narrative stage transcends the boundaries of what we call the Pentateuch and Hexateuch and thus envisions a textual complex ending in Samuel (or even Kings). Therefore, it seems more appropriate to think of this literary stage being conceived as an “Enneateuch”, i.e., the history of Israel from at least the wilderness into the monarchic period. It might be possible to speak of a “document” at this stage of textual development (e.g., Jerusalemer Geschichtswerk, or something similar), though this would still have to be examined in light of further texts in the Bible. At a later date, when the material about Og of Bashan was copied from Deuteronomy, Num 22–24* was expanded to include at least verses 22:1 and 3b, i.e., the material that brings Israel back into Moabite geographical proximity. The final oracle of the fourth prophecy, namely 24:23–24 may have been added as well, but this seems unlikely in its current form, as it references the Greeks and presumably reflects something from the time of Alexander. The penultimate oracle, namely 24:21–22, may have been added at this time though this cannot be stated with any absolute certainty. It is entirely possible that 24:21– 22 was added later or maybe even earlier. The incorporation of Og of Bashan

82 Cf. Rainer G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). 83 The best overview of this position can be found in Erich Zenger and Christian Frevel, “Die Bücher der Tora/des Pentateuch” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8. Auflage (ed. C. Frevel [E. Zenger et al.]; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012), 120–130. 84 It should be reiterated here that this study focuses on literary bridges and not on stylistic or other considerations that could be used as evidence that Num 22–24* was originally part of a narrative source that can be reconstructed from the text of the Hebrew Bible.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

363

Num 21:33–22:1 suggests a narrative arc that could be identified with the Hexateuch, i.e., culminating with Israel’s conquest of the land. The final stage of redactional work in Num 22–24 can be found in the addition of the Midianites (in 22:4 and 7) and the story of Balaam’s donkey (in 22:21–35a). This brought the Balaam story into line with the remainder of the book of Numbers, most specifically with Num 31, which connects Balaam with the Midianites and makes him responsible for the ills that befell Israel. It seems most likely that the final verses of the fourth prophecy were also added at this stage. This rounded off the pericope and the other changes that occurred in its transmission can largely be attributed to scribal errors or recensional activity and updating. Thus, the following schematic development of Num 22–24 can be reconstructed: Primary text Secondary redaction Tertiary redaction Quaternary redaction

22:3a–24:14a* + 25 22:2 + 24:14b–20 22:1, 3b; 24:21–24? 22:4, 7, and 22:21–35a; 24:21–24?

Independent narrative Enneateuch Hexateuch Pentateuch or Numbers?

The oldest narrative proffered a generally positive opinion of Balaam and his blessings of Israel were genuine and realized. This can be seen, e.g., in the correlation of his third prophecy with Saul’s victory over Agag. The incorporation of the story into a larger Enneateuch context, presumably focused on David instead of Saul, generally maintained this positive image. The later redactional re-working tarnished this positive image. Such a negative attitude may be reflected in that Balaam’s fourth prophecy in the final edition must have remained unfulfilled at the time of its composition: the Greeks (or whomever ‫ כתים‬in Num 24:24 should identify) were presumably still in Palestine. The literary development of Num 22–24 can be sketched parallel to the development of the Balaam tradition outside of Num 22–24. These developmental stages demonstrate some affinity with the stages postulated for the internal development of Num 22–24. When the independent narrative was incorporated into a larger narrative whole, the process of reinterpreting Balaam began. He thus moved from being viewed positively to being viewed negatively. The various redactional layers in Num 22–24 reconstructed here can be set roughly parallel to the development of the Balaam tradition in the Hebrew Bible. Num 22:3a–24:14a* + 25 Deut 23:4–6 and Judg 11:25 Josh 24:9–10 Num 31:16 and Josh 13:21–22

Num 22:3a–24:14a* + 25 Num 22:2 + 24:14b–20 Num 22:1 and 3b; 24:21–24*? Num 22:4*, 7*, 21–35a; 24:21–24*?

364

Jonathan Miles Robker

From the examination here, it appears most likely that the Balaam narrative currently found in Num 22–24 originally existed as an independent narrative. Its familiarity with the Saul tradition could imply an origin in the Northern Kingdom sometime before its destruction.85 I have elsewhere argued for Israelite literary productivity during the reign of Jeroboam II.86 The oldest Balaam narrative could easily fit into that setting, as it deals with Israel in an unclear relationship to Moab, matching a situation historically reflected already in the ninth century BCE. A prophet favors the monarchy (the kingdom of presumably Saul will be greater than that of Agag), which matches the ideal of my reconstructed Israel Source in Kings, in which this can be found on several occasions (1 Kgs 11:29–31, 37; 2 Kgs 9:1–6*; 14:25). Additionally, I have argued for a pre-Dtr redactional layer in Num 22–24* consisting of 22:2 and 24:14b–20, texts which embed the narrative’s exposition in an Amorite context and refocus its denouement on the time of Saul and David. This would be consistent with at least the temporal and political setting of the later redactional activities in Kings (and Samuel) for which I have also previously argued (between the eighth and sixth centuries in Judah),87 even if it has not yet been demonstrated that these texts were all incorporated into one textual composition. Following this pre-Dtr redaction there were at least two layers added to the Balaam narrative, incorporating it first within a hexateuchal composition (with Deuteronomistic elements) and then establishing it as a precursor for Num 31 and Balaam’s demise. The redactional additions within Num 22–24 can be broadly contextualized within the development of the tradition around Balaam. Based on this reconstruction, the independent Balaam narrative with a positive outlook on this foreign prophet was transformed into a highly integrated narrative that looked on him with disfavor. This integration and reinterpretation was a work covering centuries and reiterated Balaam’s relevance for different periods in the history of Israel, Judah, Yehud, and probably even Judea. Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Albertz, Rainer: “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil I).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011), 171– 183. 85 It seems most logical to locate the earliest Saul traditions in the Northern Kingdom. Cf., e.g., the commentary Peter Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), esp. the introductory material to Saul and literature cited on pp. 26–27. 86 Cf. Robker, Jehu, 157–164. 87 Cf. Robker, Jehu, 70–82.

The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch

365

–: “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil II).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlich Wissenschaft 123 (2011), 336–347. –: Exodus. Band I: 1–18. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 2,1. Zürich: TVZ, 2012. Blum, Erhard: “Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” Pages 43–71 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Ed. by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid; Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Budd, Philip J.: Numbers. World Biblical Commentary 5. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984. Burney, Charles Fox: The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. 2d ed. London: Rivingtons, 1920. Carr, David M.: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: University Press, 2011. Dillmann, August: Die Genesis. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1892. Dozeman, Thomas B.: “The Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch.” Pages 257–88 in The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Eissfeldt, Otto: Hexateuch-Synopse. Die Erzählung der fünf Bücher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre vier Quellen zerlegt und in deutscher Übersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung und Anmerkungen gegebenen Begründung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1962. Gaß, Erasmus: Die Moabiter – Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Gray, George B.: Numbers. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Kratz, Rainer G.: Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 21–36. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000. Liddell, Henry G. and Robert Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and Augmented throughout by Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951. Lust, Johann, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie: A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–1996. McCarter, Peter Kyle: 1 Samuel. Anchor Bible 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980. Muraoka, Takamitsu: A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Chiefly of the Pentateuch and Twelve Prophets. Louvain; Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2002. –: A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain; Walpole, Mass.: Peeters, 2009. Noth, Martin: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament 8. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder, 2012. Rad, Gerhard von: Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 2/4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Robker, Jonathan Miles: The Jehu Revolution. A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012. Römer, Thomas: “How Many Books (Teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch.” Pages 25–42 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Atlanta: SBL, 2011.

366

Jonathan Miles Robker

Rose, Martin: 5. Mose. 12–25: Einführung und Gesetz. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 5. Zürich: TVZ, 1994. Rösel, Martin and Christine Schlund: “Arithmoi / Numeri / Das vierte Buch Mose.” Pages 431– 522 in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament I: Genesis –Makkabäer. Edited by Martin Karrer et al. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri Kapitel 10,11–36,13. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. –: “Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri”. Pages 314–333 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Edited by Aaron Schart, Thomas Pola, and Christian Frevel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schmidt, Werner H.: Exodus 1,1–6,30. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 2,1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph: “Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet. Zum Verständnis Bileams in der Endgestalt von Num 22–24.” Pages 180–98 in Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels: für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Seebass, Horst: Numeri. 2. Teilband: Numeri 10,11–22,1. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. –: Numeri. 3. Teilband: Numeri 22,2–36,13. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. Sperber, Alexander: A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: A Presentation of the Problems with Suggestions to Their Solutions. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Sturdy, John: Numbers. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge [Eng.]; London; New York; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Ulrich, Eugene, ed.: The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, vol. I: Genesis–Kings. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Westermann, Claus: Genesis. Band II: 12–36. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 1,2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Wevers, John W.: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. –: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 46. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998. Zenger, Erich and Christian Frevel: “Die Bücher der Tora/des Pentateuch.” Pages 67–231 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8. Auflage. Edited by Christian Frevel (Erich Zenger et al.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012.

Numbers 32: The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes and the Final Composition of the Book of Numbers Olivier Artus The text of the Hexateuch deals in different places with the question of the status, the rights and the duties of the two and a half Transjordanian tribes – Ruben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh. We find this narrative theme in chapter 32 of the book of Numbers, but also in the historiographic introduction of Deuteronomy (Deut 3:12–20), and finally in chapter 22 of Joshua, which deals with the practical conditions of worship in Transjordan. Furthermore, it will be recalled that Num 34:13–15 and Josh 13 describe the partitioning of territory between these tribes (both texts belong to the most recent textual layer of Numbers and Joshua). In the Joshua narrative, the description of the territory of the twelve tribes begins with the two and a half Transjordanian tribes, before describing the Cisjordanian territory. The narrative of Numbers 32 is obviously complex. Indeed, the half tribe of Manasseh is only mentioned after v. 33, and the beginning of the narrative mentions only Gad and Ruben. On the other hand, within this half tribe there is a particular interest in the sons of Makir, referred to in vv. 39–40. Elsewhere in the book of Numbers, we find a further reference to the sons of Makir in chapters 27 and 36, in the context of laws concerning the inheritance and property rights of women. These few introductory remarks indicate that a correct interpretation of Num 32 must take into consideration the whole network of texts with which this chapter is linked: – First, we will have to specify the role of Num 32 within the book of Numbers, taken as a compositional whole. – Secondly, we will have to interpret the literary connection between Num 32, Deut 3:12f., Josh 13–14, and finally Josh 22. But the objective of this study is ultimately to bring to light the function of the narrative theme of the ‘two and a half tribes’: not only its literary function, but its socio-historical, ideological and theological functions as well. What is the reality to which this theme and this geographical fiction are pointing? Which

368

Olivier Artus

groups are using this fiction to illustrate their understanding of post-exilic Judaism? We shall try to answer these questions through a literary analysis of Num 32, then by interpreting this chapter within the context of the book of Numbers, and finally by interpreting the connection between Num 32 and the book of Joshua.

1. Fractures within the Narrative of Numbers 32 Towards a Diachronic Hypothesis 1.1. Literary Remarks After the introduction of the narrative (verses 1–2a), verse 2b, mentioning Eleazar and the heads of the community, can be considered as a late insertion, since there is a contradiction between the plural ‫ ויאמרו‬and the singular ‫ ך‬of ‫בעיניך‬, used in v. 5. In the same way, v. 28 could be a late addition, which introduces Eleazar and the heads of the community of Israel into the narrative. Verses 7–15 are not necessary for making sense of the narrative. This parenetic discourse – as R. Achenbach described it1 – presupposes chapters 13 and 14 of Numbers in their final compositional form: v. 9 quotes the toponym Eshkol, which belongs to the earliest textual layer of Num 13, while v. 13 presupposes the punishment narrated in Num 14:28–35, which belongs to the latest layer of the narrative. Verse 12 is quite interesting as it links the expressions Caleb son of Jephunneh, and Joshua son of Nun (found in Num 14:30, and in the opposite order in Num 14:6, 38), and at the same time refers to Caleb as a Kenizzite, just as in Josh 14:6, 14; 15:17; Judges 3:9, 11. The adjective ‫הקנזי‬ could also be linked with Gen 15:18–19. Furthermore, it should be noted that the parenetic discourse of vv. 7–15 uses the rare root ‫( הניא‬hiphil) found in vv. 7 and 9 and also 4 times in chapter 30 (vv. 6, 6, 9, 12). Finally, vv. 7–15 appear to be late, presupposing different traditions about Caleb. This speech is an original composition, written for parenetic purposes, a composition also integrating some post-deuteronomistic material, such as the toponym Kadesh-Barnea in v. 8, which is also used in Deut 1:19; 9:23. We have already remarked upon the break at v. 33 in the last part of the narrative, which for the first time in this chapter refers to the half tribe of Manasseh. Apart from v. 1, the first part of the narrative only mentions the sons of

1 See R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora; Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003, 383ff.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

369

Gad and the sons of Ruben – in that order. According to J. Milgrom,2 v. 1 can be put down to be the number of the occurrences of Gad-Ruben: 7 times in the rest of the narrative. Moreover, v. 33 refers to the narrative of Num 21, describing the victory over Sihon and Og. Finally, vv. 34–38 could be a gloss, inserted at a later date than v. 33. All the toponyms of Num 32:3 are found in Num 32:34–38, which means that Num 32:3 could be a shorter summary of vv. 34–38. 1.2. Diachronic Hypothesis Taken together, these literary remarks suggest a diachronic hypothesis. Reading the commentaries from the first part of 20th century, it is very noticeable that scholars avoided proposing any hypothesis within the framework provided by the documentary hypothesis. Gray does not find traces of the main documents of the Pentateuch within Num 32, and Noth reaches the same conclusion: because of the numerous later additions to the text, it is quite difficult to get at the oldest traditions3. R. Achenbach locates two main textual layers within the narrative: – The first belongs to the Hexateuch redaction in vv. 1–2a, 5, 6, 20–22, 25–27, 33, 40. – Subsequently, a theocratic rereading integrates the character of Eleazar into the narrative, as well as the parenetic discourse of vv. 7–15, and some elements of the speeches in vv. 16–32. Finally, vv. 34–39 and v. 42 are considered as belonging to this late theocratic layer.4 Naturally, no traces of a Pentateuch redaction can be found in Num 32, as the Pentateuch redaction does not deal with the conquest of the land. Several commentaries of the book of Numbers try to find pre-exilic elements in the narrative of Num 32: Milgrom5 considers the narrative to be pre-exilic; and L. Schmidt’s commentary identifies an older narrative layer, the source of which he takes to be DtrH, followed by a Pentateuchal redaction, and finally some later additions6. Levine’s commentary7 considers the vv. 39–42 to be a Yahwist text, even if the final version of the narrative takes its coherence from its late priestly composition.

2 J. Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia-New York: Jewish Publication Society 1989, 266. 3 M. Noth, Numbers, London: SCM Press 1980, 235–236. 4 Achenbach, Vollendung, 369–388. 5 Milgrom, Numbers, introduction. 6 L. Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 194. 7 B.A. Levine, Numbers 21–36, Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday 2000, 496–498.

370

Olivier Artus

Finally, we should mention the conclusions of Fistill’s study:8 for this scholar, vv. 39, 41–42 are ancient and are the source of Deut 3:15. Apart from these verses, most of the text is ascribed to late priestly authors, which refer back to the so-called priestly narrative of Num 13–14. As we can see, the only conclusion that these different commentaries have in common is the idea that the narrative has been subjected to a later rereading, which most scholars believe to have been the work of priestly circles. But this conclusion fails to bring to light the coherence and theological specificity of these late additions. Are these later insertions to be taken simply as the work of different writers trying to improve or correct the narrative, or is the final textual layer in Numbers 32 part of a larger compositional project, which is part of the overall architectural structure of the book of Numbers? 1.3. Delimitation of the Later Layer within the Narrative An obvious preliminary point: verses 2b and 28 introduce a priestly figure into Num 32, the High Priest Eleazar, who plays a major role in the third part of the book. Moreover, these verses mention other characters – the chiefs, or the heads of the community – ‫ – ראשים נשיאים‬who are also mentioned in other parts of the book (the census in Num 1; the story of the spies in Num 13; and finally the sharing out of the land between the tribes in Num 34). Secondly, verses 7–15: as we already noted, there is a narrative continuity between vv. 6 and 16, which means the speech in vv. 7–15 can be interpreted as a later addition. This speech has a theological purpose. The point being made in Num 32:7–15 is the same as in Num 26:64–65 (the second census of the community) and Num 14:26-27: namely, that disobedience to the historical project of the Lord is sinful, and requires punishment. Therefore, vv. 7–15 underline the authority of the Lord over the community of Israel; the speech in vv. 7–15 is theocratic. In the same way, verses 23–24 can be interpreted as an addition to vv. 20–22, with the same function as vv. 7–15: to underline the responsibility of sinners who abandon the project of the Lord. Thirdly: vv. 34–38 provide a list of the settlements of Gad and Ruben, followed by vv. 39 and 41–42, which list the settlements of the half tribe of Manasseh. These verses belong to the final layer of the narrative, whereas v. 40 seems to be older, given that it has a parallel in Num 32:39. Finally: we have already noted that v. 3 was late, and that v. 5 belonged to a different redactional layer than v. 2b. These various remarks lead us to differentiate two main layers in the narrative: – An earlier layer, in Num 32:1–2a, 5–6, 16–22, 25–27, 29–33, 40.

8

U. Fistill, Israel und das Ostjordanland, Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang 2007, 124–129.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

371

– A later layer, in Num 32:2b–3, 7–15, 20–22, 28, 34–39, 41–42, which adds some supplementary material to the earlier one. As we saw earlier, the commentaries do not agree over how to delimit the oldest layer of the text, and some scholars identify several layers within what we have called the ‘earlier layer’. But there is no conclusive evidence allowing us to extend the analysis any further than we have. 1.4. The Specificity of the Two Layers The first layer deals with the dialogue between Moses and the tribes of Gad and Ruben over the attribution of property (‫ )אחזה ;נחלה‬in Transjordan. After v. 33, the half tribe of Manasseh becomes a character within the narrative. Obviously, this first layer is linking different traditions, and the function of v. 33 is to build a bridge between the first part of the narrative (Gad, Ruben) and the verses dedicated to the half tribe of Manasseh.9 The earlier layer presupposes Deut 3:12–20 and deals with the same issues about the solidarity of the tribes in the conquest of the Promised Land under the responsibility of Moses. The later layer deals with two main issues: 1. The exhortation to avoid sinful disobedience to the Lord. 2. The emphasis upon the specific responsibility of the priests. In v. 28, Eleazar is mentioned before Joshua, and this nuance within the narrative highlights the pre-eminence of the priestly characters. The first part of this analysis allowed us to distinguish two layers within the narrative of Numbers 32. Our next step will be to try to bring to light the links between the later redaction of the narrative and the compositional structure of the book of Numbers. Naturally, then, we must examine the question of the overall coherence of the book of Numbers.

2. Numbers 32 and the Compositional Structure of the Book of Numbers The reader of the book of Numbers comes across a large number of breaks or fractures within the text, testifying to the plurality of traditions gathered into what was the last book to be included within the Torah. Nevertheless, literary analysis can also bring to light an overarching structure, providing us with a framework for interpreting these different traditions: the unity of the book and

9

Cf. Levine, Numbers, 477–507.

372

Olivier Artus

its structure are the result of a late post-priestly redaction. I shall simply summarise here the main elements of this structure, which I have already set out in detail elsewhere10. The book can be divided into three parts: 2.1. Numbers Part I (Num 1:1–10:36): the Religious and Military Organisation of the Community The first part of the book of Numbers concludes the Sinai pericope and thus has to be interpreted in the light of the Holiness Code, which it follows in the Sinai pericope. There are three main differences between the book of Numbers and the Holiness Code: 1. In Numbers, the community is no longer responsible for the holiness of the Land. This is contrary to what is stated in the Holiness Code, according to which any member of the community – ‫ גר‬or ‫ – אזרח‬has to follow rules of purity, ethics and worship, allowing the community to achieve and maintain a certain kind of holiness. By contrast, in the book of Numbers holiness requires the mediation of the priests with the help of the Levites (Num 7–8). Moreover, no issues about social ethics can be found in the book of Numbers11. 2. The book of Numbers takes a special interest in the Levites. Num 3 and Num 26 describe a specific census of the Levites, who are subordinate to the priests. And so, the logic of the book of Numbers is a hierarchical logic, particularly in the area of holiness where the hierarchy is priests-Levites-community. 3. The responsibilities of the priests extend beyond worship. The community ruled by the priests has military objectives, as shown by its organisation according to Numbers 2 and 10. This means that the community of the book of Numbers can be defined as a military-religious community ruled by priests, but quite different from the community described by the Priestly tradition in Gen 1–Lev 9P, and from the community of the Holiness Code.

10 See O. Artus, Les dernières rédactions du livre des Nombres et l’unité littéraire du livre, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 129–144; O. Artus, Le problème de l’unité littéraire et de la spécificité théologique du livre des Nombres, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 121–143. 11 There are no occurrences of the vocabulary of justice and poverty in the book of Numbers, unlike in Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus. ‫אביון‬: Exod: 2x; Lev: 0 occurrences; Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 7x. ‫דל‬: Exod: 2x; Lev: 2x; Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 0 occurrences. ‫עני‬: Exod: 1x; Lev: 2x; Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 4x. ‫יתום‬: Exod: 2x; Lev: 0 occurrences; Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 9x. ‫אלמנה‬: Exod: 2x; Lev: 2x; Num: 1x; Deut: 11x. ‫צדק‬: Exod: 0 occurrences; Lev: 5x; Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 6x. ‫צדקה‬: Exod, Lev, Num: 0 occurrences; Deut: 6x.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

373

This reading of the first part of the book of Numbers therefore allows us to highlight a preliminary theological concern, namely the specific responsibility given to the priests in military matters. 2.2. Numbers Part II (Num 11–21) The specific concern of Part II is taken from the narratives recounting the rebellion of all the members of the community, a rebellion against the divine project and against the laws given to Israel. The rebellion of the spies and the heads of the community (Num 13), the rebellion of the whole community (Num 14), the rebellion of the Levites (Num 16), and finally the rebellion of Moses and Aaron themselves (Num 20:1–13). Only two characters remain faithful, Caleb and Joshua, who are related to the two largest tribes in the south and the north: Caleb belongs to Judah, and Joshua to Ephraim. This means that any Israelite, from the north or from the south, can identify himself with these exemplary characters within the narrative. The last part of the book, Num 26:64–65 and the speech in Num 32:7–15, quote the narrative of Num 14 and the paradigmatic example offered by Caleb and Joshua. Two kinds of misdemeanour are described in the second part of the book of Numbers: 1. Misdemeanours related to the historical or military project of the Lord: The spies sent to Canaan bring discredit on the land (Num 13), and the community refuses to conquer Canaan (Num 14). If it is possible to date the final composition of the book to the 4th century, the hypothesis of a polemical meaning of chapter 14 seems to be a promising one: this chapter could be intended to criticise the Jews of the diaspora for remaining outside Canaan. In the same way, in Num 32 the two and a half Transjordanian tribes are being criticised: they are authorised to dwell beyond the Jordan, but this choice is met with hard criticism and suspicion from the leaders of the community. 2. Misdemeanours related to the religious project of the Lord: Korah and his Levite supporters protest against the religious organisation of the community (Num 16). The consequences of all the rebellions are always the same in the second part of Numbers: the rebels are cut away (‫ )כרת‬from the community because of the impurity linked to their sin. A second issue in this second part of the book is the emphasis upon the specific responsibility of the priests in chapters 16 to 18. The priests are the only agents responsible for the holiness of the whole community. The late priestly and hierocratic composition of the book of Numbers is theologically quite different here from the Holiness Code. Indeed, according to Lev 17–26, the whole community is responsible for holiness. The book of Numbers has a thoroughly different, hierarchical understanding of holiness.

374

Olivier Artus

From a diachronic point of view, the second part of the book echoes a debate between two theological issues – and probably two groups within the community: – The theological point of view of Num 15:37–41 echoes the theology of the Holiness Code: according to the text, holiness is linked with obedience to the law, and with the behaviour of the entire community of Israel (Num 15:40). – On the other hand, the hierocratic narratives and laws of Num 16–18 highlight the specific responsibility of Aaron and of the priests in matters of holiness. This could lead us to understand the hierocratic layer of the book of Numbers as a response to the theology of a ‘Holiness School’, if we consider that Num 15:37–41 belongs to this Holiness school.12 2.3. Numbers Part III (Num 22:1–36:13) The main theme of the third part of Numbers is settlement in the land promised by the Lord. Within this part, Num 32 takes into consideration the possibility of another way of belonging to the community of Israel for those living outside the land. The definition of the borders of the land in Num 34:1–12 confirms that the Transjordanian tribes are considered as living outside the land, and so could be understood as representative of the diaspora. This last part of the book of Numbers deals with a very specific issue: the consequences of settlement13 and life among the foreign nations, including the risk of idolatry (Num 25). Even more than Num 1–10 and Num 11–21, Num 22–36 highlights the ‘leadership’ of the priests (Num 27:19), and their specific religious and military responsibility (Num 31). In the first two sections of the book, when Aaron is mentioned together with Moses, he appears in second position, after Moses. In the last part of the book – as we already noted – Eleazar appears first, before Joshua (see for instance Num 27:19–21), illustrating the pre-eminence of the High Priest in Israelite society and community, as understood by the book of Numbers. 2.4. Num 32 in the Context of the Book of Numbers The late redaction of Num 32 introduces two main theological themes into the narratives, which can be also found in the first two parts of the book:

12

According to I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress 1995, 71–101; C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007, 570–571. 13 The vocabulary linked with the idea of inheritance and property is concentrated in the third part of the book: ‫ – נחלה‬Num 18:20, 21, 24, 26; 26:53, 54, 56, 62; 27:7; 32:19, 32; 34:2; 35:2, 8; 36:2, 3 (3x), 4 (4x), 7 (2x), 9 (2x), 12.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

375

1. The introduction of the character of Eleazar is designed to underline the specific responsibility of the priests in the government of the Jewish communities of the diaspora. 2. The parenetic discourses of vv. 7–15 and 23–24 expound a theology of sin and its consequences, which has already been illustrated by the narratives of the Kadesh pericope, particularly the narrative of Num 14. The Kadesh pericope functions as a paradigmatic narrative, aimed at preventing the disobedience of the next generations of the Jews within the Promised Land, as well as in the diaspora. In fact, the new issue with which the narrative of Num 32 is dealing is the structural organisation of Judaism in the diaspora, depicted through the fiction of the Transjordanian tribes. The authority of the priests, and particularly of the High Priest, over the sanctuary, the Levites and the community had already been underlined by Num 16–18. Now Num 32 highlights this authority during the period of diaspora. This theme will carry over into the book of Joshua, in the narratives dealing with the distribution of the territory, in Josh 13–14, as well as in the discussion of the question of the religious organisation of the diaspora communities in Josh 22.

3. Num 32; Josh 13–14; Josh 22: The Relation between the Centre and the Periphery At what stage did the Jerusalem Temple acquire a specific theological and moral authority over the Jewish communities? It was certainly later than we thought some 20 years ago. The archaeological discoveries of Mount Gerizim, together with surrounding places of worship such as the Temple of Elephantine, witness that Judaism in the Persian period had been polycentric for a long time. The final composition of the narratives of Josh 13–14 and Josh 22 can be considered the result of a post-priestly redaction, similar to the final composition of the book of Numbers. These narratives show the interest of post-priestly authors in theological and religious problems linked with a polycentric Judaism, in which Yehud and Jerusalem struggle to assert their centrality. 3.1. The Literary Relationship between the Book of Numbers and the Book of Joshua Most of the commentaries on Joshua consider chapters 13–22 late and quite different from the first part of the book.14 14 Cf. M. Noth, Das Buch Josua, HAT 7, Tübingen: Mohr, 21953, 45–47; E. Cortese, Josua 13-21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, OBO 90, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990, 111; J.C. de Vos, Das

376

Olivier Artus

These late additions integrated into the book of Joshua are influenced by a post-priestly theology. The fractures15 of the narrative bear witness to the existence of several textual layers. For instance, in chapter 13 verses 8–12 and 15–32 obviously belong to two different stages in the development of the text. If the links between Josh 13–22 and the last part of the book of Numbers are evident,16 the authors of Josh 13ff. could nevertheless be different from the authors of Numbers 26–36. R. Albertz calls attention to some nuances in vocabulary: for instance, Josh 22:12, 33 uses the expression ‫ עלה לצבא‬to describe a military campaign. Intending the same reality, Num 31 uses ‫יצא לצבא‬. Another example: the chiefs who share out the land are called ‫ נשיאים‬in the book of Numbers, whereas Joshua uses the expression ‫ראשי אבות‬.17 The comparison that Seebass proposes in his commentary on Numbers leads him to reject the hypothesis of a continuity between Numbers and Josh 13–22: for him, the composition of Numbers could have occured later than the composition of Josh 13ff.18 Meanwhile, literary analysis has to take into consideration several parallelisms linking Numbers and Josh 13ff.: Los Juda: über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15, VTSupp 95, Leiden: Brill 2003, 227–235; R. Albertz, The canonical alignment of the Book of Joshua, in: Juda and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. by Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers/ Rainer Albertz, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 2007, 237–303, here p. 289; H.N. Rösel, The Book of Joshua and the existence of a Hexateuch, in: Homeland and Exile. Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, ed. by Gershon Galil/Mark Geller/Alan Millard, Leiden: Brill 2009, 559– 570, here p. 560. 15 E. Cortese, for instance, identifies ‘foreign bodies’ in Josh 13:1–14; 14:6–15; 15:16–19, (cf. Cortese, Josua, 113 n. 3). 16 Cf. for instance R. Achenbach, Der Pentateuch. Seine theokratischen Bearbeitungen und Josua – 2 Könige, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 225–253. According to Achenbach, the book of Joshua extends and complements the book of Numbers (see for instance the example of Num 34 and Josh 13:2–6a). 17 Cf. Albertz, Canonical Alignment, 293–294. 18 H. Seebass highlights discrepancies between Numbers and Joshua: according to him, the parallelism linking the two books is the result of a ‘very late’ composition of the book of Numbers. For instance, texts mentioning Eleazar before Joshua could be related to this late composition of Numbers, which differs from the texts of the book of Joshua in which the character of Joshua is referred to on his own, as in Josh 13:6b, 7; 14:6–15; 17:14–18; 18:1–10; 22:1–7. The final composition of Numbers is said to be later than the book of Joshua. And so, the book of Joshua itself should not be considered as the narrative continuation of the Tetrateuch, within a Hexateuchal framework, but as an independent literary composition, dealing with the theme of the land, and of its partitioning. See H. Seebass, Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 233–259, here pp. 243–246. See also H. Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

377

1. The organisation of the tribes in Cisjordan and Transjordan according to a scheme of 91/2 to 21/2. 2. The pre-eminence of the character of Eleazar, who took on a central role in the last part of the book of Numbers, especially Num 27:18–22.19 3. The parallelism of geographical toponyms between Num 32:33–42 and Josh 13:15–32. 4. Finally, the partitioning of the land with lots assigned to each tribe (Num 26:55; 33:54; 34:13–15; 36:2–3; Josh 14:2; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1). All these observations lead to the conclusion that Josh 13–22 is a post-priestly composition.20 3.2. The Pre-Eminence of the High Priest in Josh 13–22 There is no occurrence of the name of Eleazar in the first twelve chapters of the book of Joshua. Joshua alone, the successor of Moses according to the perspective of Deut 18:18, leads the conquest of the land.21

19 See C. Nihan, La mort de Moïse (Nb 20,1–13 ; 20,22–29 ; 27,12–23) et l’édition finale du livre des Nombres, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 145–182, here pp. 179ff. 20 Cf. Achenbach, Vollendung, 557–601; Achenbach, Theokratischen Bearbeitungen, 225– 253. 21 The contrast between Deut 18:18 and Deut 34:10 could echo the debate between two different redactions – a Hexateuchal redaction and Pentateucal redaction – during the 5th century. According to the compositional model proposed by E. Otto and R. Achenbach, two redactional stages can be identified during the 5th century, during Persian period: it is argued that a Hexateuchal redaction, Hexred, was designed to unify the Priestly and Deuteronomist works. Deut 18:18 echoes the theology of this Hexateuchal redaction, and the character of Moses is presented as the initiator of a prophetic line, the responsibility of which is to allow Israel to stay faithful to the covenant. A Pentateuchal redaction, Pentred, arguably completed and corrected the Hexateuchal redaction: according to E. Otto, this took place at the end of the 5th century, and would also have integrated the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26) into the Sinai pericope. This redaction opens up a gap between Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua, as the narrative of the death of Moses now concludes the book of Deuteronomy and the whole Torah. According to the Pentateuchal redaction, there is a specific link between the character of Moses, on the one hand, and Yahweh and the Torah on the other (Exod 24:12). Moses acquires a specific and unique authority (see for instance Deut 34:10–12 at the end of the Torah; and Exod 33:11; Num 11:16–30; 12:6–8 which belong to the same redaction). Pentred highlights the specific authority of the Torah: prophecy cannot be understood as the ‘continuation’ of the Torah (it was the topic of Hexred in Deut 18:18), but as commentary upon the Torah (cf. E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000; E. Otto, Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechts und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium, BZAR 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2002; Achenbach, Vollendung; R. Achenbach, Numeri und Deute-

378

Olivier Artus

The second part of Joshua introduces the character of Eleazar. This character is mentioned in Josh 14:1 before Joshua’s name. This means there seems to be a contradiction between Josh 13:7, where apparently Joshua alone is in charge of the partitioning of the land among the 91/2 Cisjordanian tribes, and Josh 14:1, where Eleazar has the primary responsibility for this task. Again in Josh 19:51, Eleazar is named before Joshua in the narrative of the allotment of the Land. Later, according to Josh 21:1, it is again Eleazar who assigns towns to the Levites. Finally, in Josh 22:13, 31–32, Phinehas son of Eleazar conducts the debate about the building of an altar for the Transjordanian tribes. Therefore, in agreement with the book of Numbers, the post-priestly redaction of Josh 13–14 underscores the pre-eminent responsibility of the figure of the High Priest, with Joshua playing a minor role. In Josh 24:33 the narrative of the death and burial of Eleazar is juxtaposed after the parallel narrative related to Joshua. As C. Nihan underlines, this allows the post-priestly compositional structure of Joshua to highlight the specific responsibility of the High Priest in the performance of the Torah.22 In Josh 22, the dialogue between Phinehas and the chiefs of Israel, on the one hand, and the two and a half Transjordanian tribes on the other, deals with the possibility of building an altar in Transjordan. This issue is consistent with the reality of post-exilic Judaism, which, as we have said, was polycentric. A parallelism can be seen between the dialogue of Josh 22 and the dialogue of Num 32. In each case, the Transjordanian tribes come to accept the rules that are imposed upon them, although in reality the two sides reach an agreement: as the Transjordanian tribes are allowed to dwell in Transjordan, so they are allowed to build a place of worship that testifies to the connection between Transjordan and Cisjordan. Nevertheless, two discrepancies can be noticed between the narratives: – First, Josh 22 places much greater emphasis upon the responsibility of the priest Phinehas. – Secondly, Josh 22 almost always refers to the ‘two and a half tribes’, whereas only Gad and Ruben are mentioned in the dialogue of Num 32. This raises the question about the function of the introduction of the character of Eleazar in the narrative of Num 32: the reference to the character of the High Priest and the two and a half tribes in Num 32 could allow the reader to build a link with Josh 22. In this way, these two texts constitute the two parts of a reflection on priestly authority over the Jewish communities of the Diaspora: military and political authority in Num 32, and religious authority in Josh 22.

ronomium, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, ed. by E. Otto/R. Achenbach, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 123– 134; Achenbach, The Pentateuch, 253–285. 22 Nihan, La mort de Moïse, 182.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

379

3.3. The Substitution of the 91/2 / 21/2 Scheme for the ‫ גר‬/ ‫ אזרח‬Scheme: a New Way of Dealing with Diversity in Post-Exilic Judaism 3.3.1. Josh 1:1b–6 and the Definition of New Borders Josh 13:1b–6 seems to add a new element to the definition of the borders described by Num 34:1–12.23 The land expands in the direction of the Philistine territories (v. 3) in the southwest; it covers Canaan, in the borders already described by Num 34; and finally, it expands to the north, to the territory of Sidon and Amurru. The borders of Canaan, as traced in Num 34:1–12, seem also to be somewhat utopian, as the northern border reaches the river Orontes. So the new addition made by Josh 13:2–6 widens the territory still further, probably for theological and political reasons: – Theologically, the borders that are described fit with the promise given to Abraham in Gen 15:18. These borders, drawn up in Num 34 and Josh 13, underline the carrying out of the promise. – Politically, the borders drawn up by Num 34 and Josh 13 coincide with the Persian province of Trans-Euphrates.24 This suggests that the postpriestly composition of Joshua is interested in all expressions of Judaism, in Judea, Samaria and in the diaspora. 3.3.2. Josh 13:8–14, 15–32: the 91/2 / 21/2 scheme The two parts of chapter 13 of Joshua presuppose the narrative of Num 32. After the victory against Sihon and Og, Ruben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh are allowed to dwell in Transjordan, on condition that they will take part in the conquest of the Land. These narratives lead, then, to the definition of two different categories of Israelites: the two and a half Transjordanian tribes, and the nine and a half Cisjordanian tribes. In Josh 13, the defining of the territory of the Transjordanian tribes by Joshua himself is a reminder that these tribes, which symbolize the Jews dwelling in Trans-Euphrates outside Canaan, remain under the authority of the leader of the people. Therefore, the 91/2 / 21/2 scheme illustrates the diversity of Judaism in this late Persian period. We first came across this scheme in Num 32, only at the end of the narrative. It subsequently appears in Josh 13 and Josh 22. The scheme

23

See Achenbach, Theokratischen Bearbeitungen, 238. See R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 589–593; Achenbach, Theokratischen Bearbeitungen, 238–239. The first reference to any independent Syrian governor is to Megabyzos, in year 448, during the reign of Artaxerxes I. The satrapy of Trans-Euphrates was divided into districts: Samaria, Ammon, Idumea, Moab, Yehud and Phoenician city-states. According to R. Achenbach, the mention of Transjordan tribes in Num 32 and Josh 22 is an opportunity for a call to ‘amphictyonical’ solidarity, helping to maintain the unity of the people of Israel within the satrapy. 24

380

Olivier Artus

belongs to the final composition of Numbers, and proposes a new way of describing the diversity of the community, over and against the pervious scheme ‫ גר‬/ ‫אזרח‬, found in Num 15 and Num 19. These two words ‫ גר‬/ ‫ אזרח‬fit with the vocabulary of the Holiness Code (HC), and several authors link them in Num 15 and 19 with a Holiness School (HS).25 As in the HS, the pairing ‫ גר‬/ ‫ אזרח‬in the HC tries to describe the unity of a community reaching beyond the diversity of its origins: people from the Golah, and people from the group who stayed in the land during the exile. The 91/2 / 21/2 scheme appears to be the later one, and deals with another reality of Judaism in the late Persian period: it is no longer a question of the diversity of the origins of the members of the community, but of the present geographical diversity within Judaism. And so, the authority of the priests, underlined in Num 32 as well as in Josh 22, is not only valid for a Samarian or Judean Judaism, symbolised in Num 14 by the characters of Joshua and Caleb.26 This authority remains valid for every geographical situation of Judaism, whether within or outside of the Land.

4. Conclusions Thus, one can conclude the following: 1. The literary analysis of Num 32 allowed us to distinguish two main textual strata, the most recent of which belongs to the post-priestly composition of the text, giving the book of Numbers its overall framework and coherence. This later composition attributes to the priests a new responsibility that is at once military, political and religious. Such a theology is quite different from the Holiness Code theology, which links holiness to the community’s obedience to the rules of the Torah – ‫ גר‬and ‫אזרח‬. 2. We find two main issues in the post-priestly textual layer of Num 32: – An issue about the political authority of the High Priest – An issue about the faithfulness of the community, justified by the example of the events in Kadesh The theme of the two and a half tribes comes only at the end of the narrative of Num 32, but is amplified in Josh 13 and Josh 22. This theme sets up a connection between Num 32 and Josh 13 and 22. The two and a half tribes symbolize diaspora Judaism, on which the priests lay a claim to authority. 3. The 91/2 / 21/2 scheme is later than the ‫ גר‬/ ‫ אזרח‬scheme. It illustrates the geographical diversity of Judaism in this late Persian period, outside the limits of Samaria and Judea. 25 26

See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 71–101; Nihan, Priestly Torah, 559–575. Cf. n. 15.

The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes

381

4. Finally, the book of Numbers deals in different ways with the diversity of Judaism in the late Persian period: – Diversity between Samaria and Yehud, illustrated by the pair Joshua / Caleb. – Diversity between the centre and the periphery illustrated by the 91/2 / 21/2 scheme. – Finally, ethnic diversity, as illustrated by the ‫ גר‬/ ‫ אזרח‬scheme, as well as by the traditions referring to Caleb as a Kenizzite in Num 32:12 and Josh 14:14a, i.e., to a Jew with Edomite roots. Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Numeri und Deuteronomium, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 123–134. Achenbach, Reinhard: Der Pentateuch. Seine theokratischen Bearbeitungen und Josua – 2 Könige, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 225–253. Achenbach, Reinhard: The Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Torah in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., in: Juda and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. by Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers/Rainer Albertz, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 2007, 253– 285. Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora; Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Albertz, Rainer: The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua, in: Juda and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. by Oded Lipschits/Gary N. Knoppers/Rainer Albertz, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 2007, 237–303. Artus, Olivier: Les dernières rédactions du livre des Nombres et l’unité littéraire du livre, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 129–144. Artus, Olivier: Le problème de l’unité littéraire et de la spécificité théologique du livre des Nombres, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 121–143. Cortese, Enzo: Josua 13-21. Ein Priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, OBO 90, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990. De Vos, Jacobus Cornelis: Das Los Juda. Über Entstehung und Ziele der Landbeschreibung in Josua 15, VTSupp 95, Leiden: Brill 2003. Fistill, Ulrich: Israel und das Ostjordanland, Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang 2007, 124–129. Knohl, Israel: The Sanctuary of Silence: the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress 1995. Levine, Baruch A.: Numbers 21–36, Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday 2000. Milgrom, Jacob: Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia-New York: Jewish Publication Society 1989. Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch, FAT II 25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007.

382

Olivier Artus

Nihan, Christophe: La mort de Moïse (Nb 20,1–13; 20,22–29; 27,12–23) et l’édition finale du livre des Nombres, in: Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, ed. by Thomas Römer/Konrad Schmid, BETL 203, Leuven: Peeters 2007, 145– 182. Noth, Martin: Das Buch Josua, HAT 7, Tübingen: Mohr, 21953. Noth, Martin: Numbers, London: SCM Press 1980. Otto, Eckart: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Otto, Eckart: Gottes Recht als Menschenrecht. Rechts- und literaturhistorische Studien zum Deuteronomium, BZAR 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2002. Rösel, Hartmut N.: The Book of Joshua and the Existence of a Hexateuch, in: Homeland and Exile. Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, ed. by Gershon Galil/Mark Geller/Alan Millard, Leiden: Brill 2009, 559–570. Seebass, Horst: Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BETL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 233–259. Seebass, Horst: Numeri 22,2–36,13, BK.AT 4/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2007. Schmidt, Ludwig: Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7,2, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah. The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch Eckart Otto Let me start with some glimpses on writing the commentary on Deuteronomy in the series Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament.1 When some years ago Erich Zenger asked me to take over the commentary on Deuteronomy instead of a commentary on the book of Leviticus in the same commentary-series, I started to prepare the commentary on the book of Deuteronomy with the most ancient core sections of the pre-deuteronomistic book of the late preexilic period in Deut 12–26. The outcome was a monograph published in the series Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.2 When I finished the publication of the analysis of Deut 12–16, its relation to the Covenant Code3 and to texts of the Neo-Assyrian royal ideology,4 especially the loyalty oath of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon, I published the analysis of the deuteronomistic framework of Deuteronomy and its postexilic Fortschreibung as part of the Pentateuch in the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament one year later.5 One of the key-sections in this monograph 1 See E. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43; zweiter Teilband Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, HThKAT, Freiburg et al., 2012. 2 See E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien, BZAW 284, Berlin, 1999. 3 See E. Otto, Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium. Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26, in: Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Festschrift für N. Lohfink, ed. by G. Braulik/W. Groß/S.E. McEvenue, Freiburg et al., 1993, 260–278; idem, The Preexilic Deuteronomy as a Revision of the Covenant Code, in: idem: Kontinuum und Proprium. Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, OBC 8, Wiesbaden, 1996, 112–122; idem, Biblische Rechtsgeschichte als Fortschreibungsgeschichte, BiOr 56 (1999), 5–14; idem, Rechtshermeneutik in der Hebräischen Bibel. Die innerbiblischen Ursprünge halachischer Bibelauslegung, ZAR 5 (1999), 75–98. 4 See already E. Otto, Treueid und Gesetz. Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont des neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts, ZAR 2 (1996), 1–52. 5 See E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30,

384

Eckart Otto

was the paradigmatic analyses of the spy stories in Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19–46 with the result, that a pre-deuteronomistic source of this story was used in the deuteronomistic story in Deuteronomy. Numbers 13–14 was dependent on the deuteronomistic version of this story in Deuteronomy, but the post-deuteronomistic authors of the redactions of Hexateuch and Pentateuch also adopted the source of their source, i.e., the pre-deuteronomistic story that had been used in Deuteronomy.6 Pre-deuteronomistic Spy Narrative

7th Century

6th Century

Deuteronomistic Spy Narrative Deut 1:19–45*

5th Century

Post-deuteronomistic Spy Narrative Deut 1:19–46 Fortschreibung in the Hexateuch

Post-deuteronomistic Spy Narrative Num 13–14 Fortschreibung in the Hexateuch

Deut 9:1–8, 22–44 Fortschreibung in the Pentateuch

Num 13–14 Fortschreibung in the Pentateuch

4th Century

This result was accepted by R. Achenbach in his Habilitationsschrift Die Vollendung der Tora, which was published 2003 in the series Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte.7 Focusing also Tübingen, 2000; idem, Deuteronomium und Pentateuch. Aspekte der gegenwärtigen Debatte, ZAR 6 (2000), 222–284. 6 For more details see E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 12–109; idem, Deuteronomium 1,1–11, 367–407. 7 See R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden, 2003; idem, Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüssel der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

385

on the post-pentateuch redactional parts of a “Theokratische Bearbeitung” IIII in the book of Numbers, R. Achenbach’s study represents the most convincing explanation of the literary history of the book of Numbers at the moment – and, I suppose, for a long time in the future. It especially can demonstrate that there were neither predeuteronomic sources in Numbers8 nor a predeuteronomic Hexateuch.9 The key to the literary history of the book of Numbers is – as shown in the recently published Herder commentary on Deuteronomy – the exilic and post-exilic book of Deuteronomy. This is not the place to repeat all the complex arguments for the literary relationship between the books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in the Herder Commentary, but here I intend only to summarize some aspects of the literary history of both of these books as part of one postexilic Pentateuch. Any explanation of the literary history of the Pentateuch is confronted with the fact that there is no priestly source P in Deuteronomy, as was convincingly proved, e.g., by Lothar Perlitt,10 and this is confirmed by the author of this contribution in his monograph about the deuteronomistic and postexilic frame of Deuteronomy11 and in his Herder Commentary on Deuteronomy. The horizon of the priestly source P ends, according to the greater number of Old Testament scholars, in the Sinai-pericope,12 which is of decisive importance for 8

Pace H. Seebass, Numeri 10, 11–22, 1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2003, and J.S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen, 2009; cf. my review of this monograph in ZAR 15 (2009), 451–455. 9 A direct pre-deuteronomic connection between the book of Numbers and the book of Joshua without Deuteronomy does not and cannot function; pace C. Frevel, Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschichtswerke? Die These Martin Noths zwischen Tetrateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch, in: Martin Noth aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung, ed. by U. Rüterswörden, BThSt 58, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2004, 60–95; idem, Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ed. by H.-J. Stipp, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt/Main, 2011, 13–53. For a literary-historically adequate solution of the correlation of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets see R. Achenbach, Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung, ZAR 11 (2005), 122–154 and E. Otto, Deuteronomy Between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, JHS 9 (2009), 22–27; idem, Deuteronomium 1,1–11, 284–297, for the state of discussion of Deut 1–3. 10 See L. Perlitt, Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988), 65–88; pace C. Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 2000; see my review of this monograph in ThRev 97 (2001), 212–214. 11 See E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 211–233 for the analysis of Deut 34. 12 See T. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1995; C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II 25, Tübingen, 2007; E. Otto, Das Buch Levitikus zwischen Priesterschrift und Pentateuch, in: idem, Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden, 2009, 107– 142.

386

Eckart Otto

the literary history of the book of Numbers. On the other side there is a great number of texts that prove that the Fortschreibung in the book of Deuteronomy presupposed the priestly source and its post-priestly Fortschreibungen (PS) in Genesis-Leviticus, what underlines the postexilic dating of the Fortschreibung in Deuteronomy. I select only some examples of texts out of Deut 1–8 and refer to the Herder Commentary on Deuteronomy for the full evidence, further examples, and arguments in detail: Deut 1:30–3113 is related to Exod 19:4, Deut 2:514 to Gen 36:8–9, Deut 2:30b15 to Exod 7:3, Deut 4:3–416 to Num 25:1–5, Deut 4:16b–1917 to Gen 1:14–27, Deut 5:2218 to Exod 19:9 and Exod 20:1, Deut 5:2619 to Gen 7:15, Deut 6:13 to Lev 19:1220, Deut 7:321 to Esra 9:12, Deut 7:622 to Exod 19:5–6, Deut 7:1223 to Gen 17:7 and Exod 6:4–5, Deut 8:324 to Exod 16:4–5, Lev 18:5 and Ezek 20:11–12. This is only a small selection of examples of texts within Deut 1–8 that presume postexilic texts within the Pentateuch and other parts of the Hebrew Bible.25 For the literary relationship between the book of Numbers and the postexilic Fortschreibung within the book of Deuteronomy it is moreover of importance that the literary relations between the Sihon-Og stories also follow the logic that existed between the spy stories in Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19–46. In Deut 2:24–3:11*, the Deuteronomistic redactors of Deut 1–3* used a preexilic, preDeuteronomistic Edom-Sihon story that was adopted into the postexilic revision of the Deuteronomistic narrative in Num 21:21–35 taking over the source of their source.26 The authors of this post-Deuteronomistic adoption of the 13

See Otto, Deuteronomy 1–11, 380f. 393f. See ibid., 420f. 425f. 15 See ibid., 450f. 459f. 16 See ibid., 533f. 544f. 17 See ibid., 534f. 564–566. 18 See ibid., 675f. 754f. 19 See ibid., 677. 760f. 20 See ibid., 786f. 814f. 21 See ibid., 848f. 862f. 22 See ibid., 850f. 865–867 23 See ibid., 851f. 872f. 24 See ibid., 899f. 908–912 25 There is no doubt that already these few selected examples prove the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deuteronomy; for a summary of the literary history of the book of Deuteronomy see Otto, Deuteronomy 1–11, 231–257 and for a summary of the exegesis E. Otto, Deuteronomium I. Die Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 1–3, ZAR 14 (2008), 86–236; idem, Deuteronomiumstudien III. Die literarische Entstehung und Geschichte des Buches Deuteronomium als Teil der Tora, ZAR 17 (2011), 79–132. 26 The literary technique of adopting the sources of the sources in the post-priestly Fortschreibung of the Pentateuch elucidates the knowledge that the ancient authors of a postexilic Schriftgelehrsamkeit had of the literary history of the sources that they were using. This corresponds to a literary theory of the Pentateuch itself; see E. Otto, Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt, 2007, 98–103. 14

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

387

Deuteronomistic narrative and its pre-Deuteronomistic source were also related to the postexilic Fortschreibung of the Deuteronomistic story in the book of Deuteronomy. In the late Second Temple Period of the 4th–3th centuries both these postexilic narratives were used by the authors of the Jephthah story in Judges 11:12–18.

Pre-Deuteronomistic Edom-Sihon Narrative Num 20–21*

8th–7th Century

6th Century

Deuteronomistic Sihon-Og Narrative Deut 2:24–3:11*

5th Century

Postexilic Sihon-Og Narrative Deut 2:24–3:11

3rd–4th Century

Post-Deuteronomistic Sihon-Og Narrative Num 21:21–35

Jephthah Narrative Judges 11:12–18

Most important for the reconstruction of the literary history of the book of Numbers is the fact that no pre-Deuteronomic literary connection between the pre-Deuteronomistic spy narrative and the Edom-Sihon narrative existed. These pre-Deuteronomistic narratives indicate that they were literarily not connected to each other in one or several pre-Deuteronomistic sources like J and E. The formation of this part of Numbers was derived from the Deuteronomistic frame of Deuteronomy in Deut 1–3.27 The literary history of the postDeuteronomistic book of Numbers started with fragments, which were collected by the authors of the deuteronomistic Moab redaction in Deut 1–3. A source-critical hypothesis has no support in Numbers; only a hypothesis of 27

See Otto, Deuteronomy 1–11, 367–473.

388

Eckart Otto

fragments and post-Deuteronomistic Hexateuch and Pentateuch redactions can be maintained.28 The thesis of a one-way projection of Deuteronomistic narratives into Numbers, as was suggested by J. Van Seters,29 proves to be too simple because the post-Deuteronomistic authors in Numbers used the sources of the Deuteronomistic authors. But it is true that the literary history of Deut 1–3 is the key for the literary history of the book of Numbers. After this summary we can now deal with some more details with the story of the golden calf in Deut 9:1–10:11 and with the link between the frame of Deuteronomy (Deut 1–11) and the legal corpus (Deut 12–26) in Deut 10:12– 11:32 because these sections are of importance for defining the profile of the postexilic Fortschreibung in the frame of Deuteronomy in relation to the Tetrateuch. The Deuteronomistic narrative of the golden calf in Deut 9:9–10:5*30

7th Century

1 Kings 12:26–30

2 Kings 17:21–23

Pre-Deuteronomistic Calf Narrative in Exod 32*

6th Century

Deuteronomistic Calf Narrative Deut 9:9–10:5*

5th Century

Post-Exilic Fortschreibung in the Calf Narrative in Deut 9:1–10:11

Post-Priestly Fortschreibung in the Calf Narrative in Exod 32

28 See Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 1–109.234–273; Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 173–442. 29 See J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers CBET 10, Kampen, 1994, 363–404. 30 See the commentary on this narrative in Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 924–1002.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

389

adopted the fragment of a pre-Deutonomistic, preexilic calf story in Exod 32*,31 that had its sources in 1 Kings 12:26–30 and 2 Kings 17:21–23. The first scene of the Deuteronomistic / exilic story of the Golden Calf was framed by the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deut 9:1–8, 22–29. In Deut 9:22– 24 the authors of the postexilic Fortschreibung combined the post-priestly statements of place in Exod 17:7 and Num 11:3, 34,32 referred to the postpriestly intercession of Moses in Num 14:11b–20 and to Exod 4:1, 5, 8–9. Deuteronomy 9:1–8 is closely linked with Deut 9:22–24 and presupposes Deut 4:39 in the postexilic chapter Deut 433 in Deut 9:3, 6. A deep theological affinity of this frame of postexilic Fortschreibung with the motif of a permanent rebellion of the people against YHWH to the postexilic chapter Ezek 2034 is obvious. Together with Deut 10:6–11, Deut 9:1–8 frames the Deuteronomistic narrative of the golden calf, which the postexilic Fortschreibung expanded with the motif of the ark, which presumed the priestly source and its expansion (PS) in the Sinai-pericope35 and which has decisive functions for the legal hermeneutics of the postexilic Deuteronomy as part of the Pentateuch and which is firmly integrated into this postexilic book of Deuteronomy.36 The aetiology of priest and Levites in Deut 10:6–937 is of interest for defining the literary relation between the books of Leviticus and Numbers and the postexilic Fortschreibung in the book of Deuteronomy.38 An aetiology of the Zadokites in Deut 10:6–7 is followed by that of the Levites in Deut 10:8– 9. The aetiology of the Zadokite priests presumed the postpriestly narrative of Aaron’s death in Num 20:22–29.39 Both these texts are aiming at Eleazar as the ancestor of the Zadokites – so Exod 6:25 and Num 25:10 – and they are

31 See M. Konkel, Sünde und Vergebung. Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, FAT 58, Tübingen, 2008; see also E. Otto, Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb in ihren literarischen Kontexten. Zu einem Buch von Michael Konkel, ZAR 15 (2009), 344–352. 32 For Num 11:3, 34 see Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 203–266.306f. 33 For the chapter Deut 4 see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 508–592; cf. also E. Otto, Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4. Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1–40, in: Das Deuteronomium. Tora für eine neue Generation, ed. by G. Fischer/D. Markl/S. Paganini, BZAR 17, Wiesbaden, 2011, 105–122. 34 For Ezek 20, see K.-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 202, Berlin, 1992, 54–77. 35 For Exod 25:10, 16; 39:35; 40:20, see E. Otto, Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, ThR 62 (1997), 20–27. 36 See Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 949f, 988–990. 37 In Deut 10:6–9 the so called “author of the book” is speaking. For the hermeneutical function of the “author of the book” in Deut 10 see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 995f. 38 For more details see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 950f, 990–996. 39 For the analysis of this narrative see Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 318–334.

390

Eckart Otto

connected to the narrative of the Aaronites in Lev 10:8–1540 with the secondarily added frame in Lev 10:1–7, 16–20, and they are related to the EleazarPinchas genealogy41 in Exod 6:14–27. 42 The verb khn in Deut 10:6b is connected with Eleazar and not with Aaron. The aetiology of the Zadokites is framed by an itinerary, which in Deut 9:1–8 takes up and varies the itinerary in Num 33:31–37.43 This literary horizon underlines that the aetiology of the Zadokites in Deut 10:6–744 was part of the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deuteronomy. The aetiology of the Zadokites is connected with that of the Levites in Deut 10:8–9, who were also to have priestly functions, but different from the aetiology of the Zadokites; the verb khn is not used for the Levites. If we recognize the differences between Zadokite priests and Levites one must ask the question, whether Deut 10:6–9 presupposes Num 18 or vice versa. R. Achenbach45 following J. Wellhausen46 pleads for the latter option reading Deut 10:6–9 synchronically as a literary unit without noting any differences between the Zadokites and Levites. In consequence R. Achenbach dates Num 18 very late as a post-Pentateuch redactional text of a Theokratische Bearbeitung.47 But U. Dahmen was right when he argued for the fact that Num 18 with the differentiation between priests and Levites according to Ezech 44 was presumed in Deut 10:6–9.48 He relates Deut 10:6–9 to a post-priestly redaction RP in the book of Deuteronomy, but the relation of this redaction to the source P in the Tetrateuch remains vague in his formulation. We prefer to speak of a postexilic Fortschreibung in the book of Deuteronomy, which is characterised by the fact, that the Priestly source and its Fortschreibungen (PS)

40 See E. Otto, Das Buch Levitikus zwischen Priesterschrift und Pentateuch, in: idem, Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden, 2009, 107–142. 41 Cf. 1 Chron 5:30, 38. 42 See Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 110–123. 43 For the relation between môser in Deut 10:6 and Deut 11:2 mûsār see already A. Klostermann, Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Neue Folge, Leipzig, 1907, 260f. and Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 991f., 1032, 1048. For Deut 11 and its relation to Num 16, see below. 44 For the complex history of Aaronites and Zadokites that stands behind Deut 10:6–7, see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 992f.; cf. idem, Gab es “historische” und “fiktive” Aaroniden im Alten Testament?, ZAR 7 (2001), 403–414; idem, Die Zadokiden - eine Sekte aus hasmonäischer Zeit? Zu einem Buch von Alice Hunt, ZAR 13 (2007), 271–276. 45 See R. Achenbach, Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium. Überlegungen zur sog. „Levitisierung“ des Priestertums, ZAR 5 (1999), 285–309, 292f. 46 See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin, 61905, 121–162. 47 See Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 141–172. 48 See U. Dahmen, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, BBB 110, Bodenheim, 1996, 21–73; cf also my review of this monograph in E. Otto, Die postdeuteronomistische Levitisierung des Deuteronomiums. Zu einem Buche von Ulrich Dahmen, ZAR 5 (1999), 277–284.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

391

in Gen 1–Lev 1649 were presumed by the authors of this postexilic Fortschreibung in Deuteronomy.50 Deut 10:12–11:32 as a link between the frame of Deuteronomy in Deut 1– 11 and the legal corpus in Deut 12–26 is also of importance here. Except for the recapitulation of the context of the Shema‛ in Deut 6:6–9 by Deut 11:18– 21a* and except for the verses in Deut 11:31–32 as a direct bridge to Deut 12–26 the whole chapters in Deut 10:12–11:17, 21a*, b, 22–30 are part of the postexilic Fortschreibung in the book of Deuteronomy.51 Deut 10:12 takes up verbatim the postexilic addition to the book of Michah in Mich 6:8.52 The formulation of the motif that the earth belongs to YHWH in Deut 10:14 is correlated to its equivalent in Exod 9:2953 and has a postexilic parallel in Psalm 115:16, there also in a degree of comparison “heaven of heavens”. The El-epithet in Deut 10:17 “a great God, a mighty, and a terrible” has only a postexilic parallel in the postexilic text of Neh 9:23. Deut 10:19, the invitation to love the stranger, has its closest parallel in the post-Priestly Holiness Code54 in Lev 19:34.55 The motif in Deut 10:20, to swear in the name of God, is linked to the Holiness Code in Lev 19:12.56 Deut 10:22 presumes Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5, i.e., a priestly context, with the motif of the seventy. We just selected these few examples of these verses in Deut 10, which demonstrate that we are dealing with a postexilic Fortschreibung in these verses.57 The same is true with Deut 11. Again we select only some examples out of this chapter. Deuteronomy 11:2–6 presumes the Priestly source in the Exodus 49 For the different levels of Fortschreibung of the priestly source in Lev 1–16 see Otto, Buch Levitikus, 112–128. 50 The theory of D.E. Skweres, Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, AnBib 79, Rom, 1979, 188–191, that Deut 10:9 relates to a text that was lost, but passed on in Num 18, is unnessesary, if we see that Deut 10:6–9 directly resumes Num 18. 51 For analysis and commentary see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 1003–1072. 52 See R. Kessler Micha, HThKAT, Freiburg et al., 1999, 260. 53 See J.C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen, 2000, 132–152. 54 See E. Otto, Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by H.-J. Fabry/H.-W. Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin, 1999, 126–196; R. Achenbach, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by T. Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven, 2008, 145–176. For the consequences for the reconstruction of the literary history of the Pentateuch see E. Otto, Del Libro de la Alianza a la Ley de Santidad. La reformulaçión del derecho Israelita y la formulaçión del Pentateucho, Est.B 52 (1994), 195–217. 55 See E. Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, ThW 3/2, Stuttgart, 1994, 237– 248; C. Nihan, Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by R. Achenbach/R. Albertz/J. Wöhrle, BZAR 16, Wiesbaden, 2011, 111–134. 56 Cf. also the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deut 6:13; see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 785f., 1043f. 57 For full evidence Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, should be consulted.

392

Eckart Otto

narrative in Exod 1458 with mê jam sûp59 and ḥajil60. The motif of mûsar by the divine strong hand has its closest parallel in Exod 6:6–8, verses that are either part of the Priestly source P61 or of a postpriestly Hexateuch.62 At any rate these verses in Deut 11:2–6 presuppose the priestly layers in the book of Exodus. For our topic, Deut 11:6 is of some importance because here the Dathan and Abiram narrative in Num 16 is in view.63 Deut 11:6a “and what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben” resumes Num 16:1b in a version that did not yet know Pallu,64 a person inserted by the latest redaction in Num 16 that presumed the late genealogical constructions of the Reubenites in Gen 46:8–9; Exod 6:14 and Num 26.65 In Deut 11:6b (“the earth opened her mouth”) the authors combined the terminology of Num 16:30 and Num 16:32, quoted Num 16:32a (“and swallowed them up and their families”) and expanded it by “their tents, and all the substance, that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel”. Here again, as already in Deut 1–3, the literary history of the book of Deuteronomy was interrelated with that of the book of Numbers. Correlating both texts in Num 16 and Deut 11, it is decisive to answer the questions how and when the narrative of Dathan and Abiram were connected with the story of the rebellion of the Korahites. U. Schorn,66 following H.-C. Schmitt,67 interpreted the Dathan-Abiram narrative “als nachträgliche theologische Umgestaltung und Endredaktion der schon vorhandenen priesterlichen Passagen”. R. Achenbach demonstrated that there was neither a pre-Priestly nor a Priestly source in all the book of Numbers. This has consequences for the interpretation of Num 16, turning the traditional analysis of L. Schmidt68 around. For R. Achenbach the Dathan-Abiram 58 See U. Schorn, Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num 16f*/ Deut 11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, ed. by S.L. McKenzie/T. Römer/H.H. Schmid, BZAW 294, Berlin, 2000, 251–268. 59 See Exod 14:21*, 22, 26, 28–29. 60 See Exod 14:4, 9, 17, 28; cf. L. Schmidt, Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin, 1993, 19–34. 61 See C. Berner, Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels, FAT 73, Tübingen, 2010, 158f. 62 See Otto, Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, 9f.; Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 37, 213. 63 For a detailed analysis see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 1029–1033, 1045–1048. Here we can only provide some hints at the literary relations. 64 For the text-critical questions of this verse see Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 118. 65 See Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora, 41. 66 See Schorn, Rubeniten, 260–262. 67 See H.-C. Schmitt, Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel. Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in: Pluralismus und Identität, ed. by J. Mehlhausen, VWGTh 8, Gütersloh, 1995, 259–278, 270. 68 See Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 116–179; cf. my review in Otto, Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, 17f.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

393

story is, and here he could resume the analysis of U. Schorn, the original layer of a Hexateuch redaction69 into which the Pentateuch redaction incorporated the narrative of the rebellion of the 250. The authors of a post-Pentateuch redactional Theokratische Bearbeitung used the story of the rebellion of the Korahites in the Pentateuch redaction to introduce some revisions of the priestly duties. The authors of Deut 11 did not yet know the post-redactional expansions in Num 16. In Deut 11:6 the authors of the postexilic Fortschreibung of Deuteronomy quoted the Dathan-Abiram narrative in Num 16:1b, 30a, 32a verbatim, so that the thesis that Deuteronomy and Numbers handed down two independent narratives is improbable. The independent Fortschreibung of Num 16:32a in Deut 11:6b excludes the thesis that Deut 11:6 is a source for Num 16.70 There is no doubt that there are extensive literary relations between the postexilic Fortschreibung of the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Numbers. In Deut 1–3 the Deuteronomistic authors of the Moab redaction71 used several pre-Deuteronomistic narratives that we can reconstruct because they were preserved in the post-Deuteronomistic receptions of the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy in Numbers. The post-Deuteronomistic and post-priestly authors in Numbers are related to the authors of the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deuteronomy, presenting Moses as the interpreter of the narratives in Numbers.72 Different from this kind of literary relations between the book of Numbers and Deuteronomy 1–3 are those in Deut 5–11 that are not represented by whole narratives. In Deuteronomy 5–11 the literary relations with the Sinai-pericope of the book of Exodus prevail in Deut 5 and Deut 9–10. But there are also several smaller connections with the book of Numbers. Deut 8:15 is interrelated to Num 20:1–13 and Num 21:4b–9; Deut 9:22–24 to Num 11:1–3, 4–23 and Num 27:14; Deut 10:6–8; 11:2 to Num 20:22–29 and Num 69

That the Dathan-Abiram narrative represents the original layer in Num 16 was the traditional source-critical position; see, e.g., G.W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Tradition of the Old Testament, Nashville, 1968, 168; Van Seters, Moses, 1994, 239f. 70 This also Van Seters, Moses, 240, admits, although it does not fit to his global hypothesis that Deuteronomy was the source for Numbers. He solved this problem by the auxiliary hypothesis that Deut 11:6 was a post-deuteronomic addition to the book of Deuteronomy. 71 For the theological profile of the deuteronomistic redactions in the frame of Deuteronomy see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 238–248. 72 For Moses as exegete and interpreter of the Sinai-pericope and also of narratives of Numbers, see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 263–274. For the prooemium of the book of Deuteronomy in Deut 1:1–5 see Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11, 298–328. For Moses as interpreter of Numbers cf. also J. Taschner, Die Moserede im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, FAT 59, Tübingen, 2005, 190–219; see my review of this monograph in E. Otto, Ist das Deuteronomium „nicht mehr und nicht weniger als eine ,Lehrstunde der Geschichtsdidaktik‘“ ? Zu einem Buch von Johannes Taschner, ZAR 18 (2008), 463–474, and the review of D. Markl in RBL 04/2009 (http:// www.bookreviews.org).

394

Eckart Otto

33:31–34; and Deut 11:6 to Num 16. The differences in the relations with Numbers in Deut 1–3 and Deut 5–11 is explained by the different Deuteronomistic redactions in the framework of the book of Deuteronomy. The horeb redaction was responsible for the Deuteronomistic formation of Deut 5–11 using pre-Deuteronomistic narratives that were preserved by the post-priestly Sinai pericope.73 The Deuteronomistic Moab redaction used narratives in Deut 1–3 that found their way into the book of Numbers. In Deut 10:6–7; 11:2 an anti-Aaronite interpretation of the narrative of Aaron’s death in Num 20:22–29* can be observed in Num 20:28, and Deut 10:6 legitimized Eleazar as Aaron’s successor. All this hints at the fact that the authors of the postexilic Fortschreibung in Deut 10–11 were Zadokite priests as representatives of a postexilic Schriftgelehrsamkeit, who were also connected with the postexilic Fortschreibungen in the book of Numbers. Thus, the book of Deuteronomy proves to be the key for the literary history of the book of Numbers. Bibliography Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüssel der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuchs, ZAR 9 (2003), 56–123. Achenbach, Reinhard: Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit in der Sinai-Perikope, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. by Eckart Otto/Reinhard Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2004, 123–134. Achenbach, Reinhard: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz und die sakralen Ordnungen des Numeribuches im Horizont der Pentateuchredaktion, in: The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, ed. by Thomas Römer, BEThL 215, Leuven: Peeters 2008, 145–176. Achenbach, Reinhard: Levitische Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium. Überlegungen zur sog. „Levitisierung“ des Priestertums, ZAR 5 (1999), 285–309.

73 For the exegesis of the postexilic Sinai-pericope, see the different but converging studies by R. Achenbach, Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit in der Sinai-Perikope, in: Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, E. Otto/R. Achenbach, FRLANT 206, Göttingen, 2004, 123–134; T. Römer, Provisorische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18–24, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für E. Otto, ed. by R. Achenbach/M. Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden, 2009, 128–154; K. Schmid, Der Sinai und die Priesterschrift, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto, ed. by R. Achenbach/M. Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden, 2009, 114–127; H.-C. Schmitt, „Das Gesetz neben eingekommen“. Spätdeuteronomistische und nach-priesterliche Redaktionen und ihre vorexilische Vorlage, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto, ed. by R. Achenbach/M. Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden, 2009, 155–170.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

395

Achenbach, Reinhard: Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung, ZAR 11 (2005), 122–154. Achenbach, Reinhard: Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZAR 3, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2003. Baden, Joel S.: J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2009. Berner, Christoph: Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels, FAT 73, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010. Coats, George W: Rebellion in the Wilderness. The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Tradition of the Old Testament, Nashville: Abingdon Press 1968. Dahmen, Ulrich: Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, BBB 110, Bodenheim: Philo 1996, 21–73. Frevel, Christian: Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschichtswerke? Die These Martin Noths zwischen Tetrateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch, in: Martin Noth aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung, ed. by Udo Rüterswörden, BThSt 58, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2004, 60–95. Frevel, Christian: Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, HBS 23, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2000. Frevel, Christian: Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, in: Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ed. by Hermann-Josef Stipp, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt/Main: Lang 2011, 13–53. Gertz, Jan Christian: Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht 2000. Kessler, Rainer: Micha, HThKAT, Freiburg et al.: Herder 1999. Klostermann, August: Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Neue Folge, Leipzig: Deichert 1907. Konkel, Michael: Sünde und Vergebung. Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, FAT 58, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2008. Markl, Dominik: Rev. of Die Moserede im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, by Johannes Taschner, RBL 04/2009 (http:// www.bookreviews.org). Nihan, Christophe: From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II/25, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2007. Nihan, Christophe: Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation, in: The Foreigner and the Law. Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach/Rainer Albertz/Jakob Wöhrle, BZAR 16, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 111–134. Otto, Eckart: Biblische Rechtsgeschichte als Fortschreibungsgeschichte, BiOr 56, Leiden: Peeters 1999, 5–14. Otto, Eckart: Das Buch Levitikus zwischen Priesterschrift und Pentateuch, in: idem: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 107–142. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium I. Die Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 1–3, ZAR 14 (2008), 86–236; = idem: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 284–421. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband Deuteronomium 1,1–4,43; zweiter Teilband Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, HThKAT, Freiburg et al.: Herder 2012. Otto, Eckart: Das Deuteronomium. Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien, BZAW 284, Berlin: de Gruyter 1999.

396

Eckart Otto

Otto, Eckart: Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomium und Pentateuch. Aspekte der gegenwärtigen Debatte, ZAR 6 (2000), 222–284; = idem: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 168–228. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomiumstudien III. Die literarische Entstehung und Geschichte des Buches Deuteronomium als Teil der Tora, ZAR 17 (2011), 79–132. Otto, Eckart: Deuteronomy Between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, JHS 9 (2009), 22–27. Otto, Eckart: Forschungen zur Priesterschrift, ThR 62 (1997), 20–27. Otto, Eckart: Gab es “historische” und “fiktive” Aaroniden im Alten Testament?, ZAR 7 (2001), 403–414. Otto, Eckart: Das Gesetz des Mose, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2007. Otto, Eckart: Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26, in: Levitikus als Buch, ed. by Heinz-Josef Fabry/Hans-Winfried Jüngling, BBB 119, Berlin: Philo 1999, 126–196; = idem: Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Aufsätze, BZAR 9, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 107–142. Otto, Eckart: Del Libro de la Alianza a la Ley de Santidad. La reformulaçión del derecho Israelita y la formulaçión del Pentateucho, Est.B 52 (1994), 195–217. Otto, Eckart: The Pre-exilic Deuteronomy as a Revision of the Covenant Code, in: Kontinuum und Proprium. Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, ed. by Eckart Otto, OBC 8, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1996, 112–122. Otto, Eckart: Rechtshermeneutik in der Hebräischen Bibel. Die innerbiblischen Ursprünge halachischer Bibelauslegung, ZAR 5 (1999), 75–98; = idem: Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte. Gesammelte Studien, BZAR 8, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2008, 464–485. Otto, Eckart: Rev. of J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, by Joel S. Baden, ZAR 15 (2009), 451-455. Otto, Eckart: Rev. of Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift, by Christian Frevel, ThRev 97 (2001), 212–214. Otto, Eckart: Rev. of Sünde und Vergebung. Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, by Martin Konkel, ZAR 15 (2009), 344–352. Otto, Eckart: Rev. of Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, by Ulrich Dahmen, ZAR 5 (1999), 277–284. Otto, Eckart: Rev. of Die Moserede im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, by Johannes Taschner, ZAR 18 (2008), 463–474. Otto, Eckart: Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, ThW 3/2, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1994. Otto, Eckart: Tora für eine neue Generation in Dtn 4. Die hermeneutische Theologie des Numeruswechsels in Deuteronomium 4,1–40, in: Das Deuteronomium. Tora für eine neue Generation, ed. by .Georg Fischer/Dominik Markl/Simone Paganini, BZAR 17, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2011, 105–122. Otto, Eckart: Treueid und Gesetz. Die Ursprünge des Deuteronomiums im Horizont des neuassyrischen Vertragsrechts, ZAR 2 (1996), 1–52. Otto, Eckart: Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium. Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26, in: Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Festschrift für Norbert Lohfink, ed. by Georg Braulik/Walter Groß/Sean E. McEvenue, Freiburg et al.: Herder 1993, 260–278. Otto, Eckart: Die Zadokiden – eine Sekte aus hasmonäischer Zeit? Zu einem Buch von Alice Hunt, ZAR 13 (2007), 271–276.

The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah

397

Perlitt, Lothar: Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?, ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988), 65–88; = idem: Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen: Mohr 1994, 123–143. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich: Ezechielstudien. Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten, BZAW 202, Berlin: de Gruyter 1992, 54–77. Pola, Thomas: Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg, WMANT 70, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 1995. Römer, Thomas: Provisorische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18–24, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach/Martin Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 128–154. Seebass, Horst: Numeri 10,11–22,1, BK.AT 4/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 2003. Schmid, Konrad: Der Sinai und die Priesterschrift, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto, ed. by Reinhard Achenbach/Martin Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 114–127. Schmidt, Ludwig: Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin: de Gruyter 1993. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph: „Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen“. Spätdeuteronomistische und nach-priesterliche Redaktionen und ihre vorexilische Vorlage, in: „Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben“ (Gen 18:19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto, ed. by. Reinhard Achenbach/Martin Arneth, BZAR 13, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 2009, 155-170. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph: Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel. Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch, in:, Pluralismus und Identität, ed. by Joachim Mehlhausen, VWGTh 8, Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher 1995, 259–278. Schorn, Ulrike: Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num 16f*/ Deut 11, in: Rethinking the Foundations. Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, ed. by Steven L. McKenzie/Thomas Römer/Hans Heinrich Schmid, BZAW 294, Berlin: de Gruyter 2000, 251–268. Van Seters, John: The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, CBET 10, Kampen: Pharos 1994. Skweres, Dieter E.: Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, AnBib 79, Rom: Biblical Institute Press 1979. Taschner, Johannes: Die Moserede im Deuteronomium. Eine kanonorientierte Untersuchung, FAT 59, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005, 190–219. Wellhausen, Julius: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, Berlin: de Gruyter 61905.

Index of Sources Genesis 1 1:1–2:3 1:1–11:26 1–Lev 9 1:6–8 1:11–26 1:14–27 2–4 2:2–3 2:3 4:3–5 4:4–5 5 5:20 5:21–24 5:27 5:31 6:9–22 6:12–13 7:15 9 9:11 9:12 9:13 9:15 9:16 9:17 11:1–9 11:17–50:26 11:27–Deut 34:12 11:27–50:26 11:31 11:31b 12:5 12:5bβ 13:6 13:12 13:18 14:20 14:22

67 53–56 87 372 274 102 386 289 227 309 218 210 277, 286, 290 278 44–46 278 278 47–48 278 386 117 301, 302 301 301 301 58 301 289 102 102 87 288 284, 285 294 284 275, 284, 294, 295 285 284, 285, 289 125 218

15:2 15:3–4 15:6 15:17–21 15:18–19 17 17:7 17:7, 17, 19 17:9–14 17:11 17:16 18:1–15 20–22* 21:10 23 23:7 23:11 23:19 25 25:7 25:8f 26:5 29:31–30:24 29:34 31:14 32 34:25 34:30 35:12 35:12a 35:23 35:23–26 35:29 36:6–7 36:8–9 45:17 46:6f 46:8–9 46:8–27 46:11

26 26 308, 309 335 335, 368 50–52, 117 300, 386 58 117 301 284 289 276 26 290 284 284 290 278 277 290 24 149 140 26 218 140 140 59 275 140 149 290 294 386 295 294 392 149 140

400  46:27 48:6 49:3–7 49:5

Index of Sources  392 26 149 140

Exodus 1–40 1:1–18:27 1:2 1:2–4 1:5 1:12 2:1 2:14 3 4:1 4:1–17 4:5 4:8–9 4:14 4:15 4:30 6–7 6:2 6:2–8 6:3–4 6:4–5 6:5 6:6 6:6–8 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:14 6:14 6:14–25 6:14–26 6:14–27 6:16–25 6:17 6:19 6:25 6:29 6:30 7:1–2 7:3 7:6 7:25 9:12 9:29

87 87, 102 140 149 392 335 140 78 67 389 80 389 389 140, 142 80 214 311 214 281 301 386 301 301 392 284, 301, 312 77, 301 281 214 151 392 156–157 161 390 140, 156–157 151 142, 143 390 214 303 299 386 303 229 386 391

12* 12:1 12:1–13 12:1–20 12:20 12:2–6 12:3 12:6 12:14–20 12:14 12:14a 12:14b 12:14–17 12:14–20 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:19a 12:22 12:37 12:38 12:39 12:43 12:43–49 12:47 12:48 12:48–49 12:49 13–14 13–17 13:1 13:2, 12, 15 13:5–10 13:7 13:12, 15b 13:17 13:17–14:31 13:17b 13:18 13:20 14 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:11–12 14:12 14:13 14:13–14 14:14

287 286 114, 115 115 116, 215, 226 115 223 223 114 24, 116 115 115 115 115, 116, 117, 119 115 116, 227 116, 117 24, 116 116, 117 23, 219, 223, 227 116 265 335 212, 219 212 24, 219 117 223 116 16, 23, 219 23, 219 72, 84 84 214 132 116 72 132 75, 77 82 74 82 336 52, 73, 74, 77, 392 224 74 77 70, 74, 77, 82 72, 77 74, 77 78 78

  14:31 15–17 15–18 15:17 15:25b–26 16 16–17 16–Num 17 16* 16:1 16:1–3* 16:1–15* 16:2–3 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:4–5 16:4a 16:6–7 16:6–7* 16:9 16:10 16:11 16:12 16:15 16:26–30 16:28 16:28 16:28 16:47 17 17:1 17:1–7 17:2–3 17:3 17:4–5 17:5, 6 17:7 17:14 18 19 19:1–Lev 26:46 19:1–Num 10:10 19:4 19:5–6 19:6 19:9 19:9 19:22

401 

Index of Sources  82 83 69 26 69 10, 14, 69, 70, 74, 76, 181, 212, 225, 227, 295 83 160 282 287 282 58 74 152 70, 75, 82, 295 74 386 74 298 282 223 223 214 223, 283 106 224 69 77 224 223 14, 69, 75, 77, 79, 80, 84, 288 82, 223 79, 288, 311 75 81, 106 75 80 288, 292, 389 336 27, 69, 84 14 205 87, 102 386 386 217 309 386 147

19:24 20:1 20:2 20:8–11 20:10 20:22–23:33 21:4 21:12–14 22:1–2a 22:8–10 22:20 23:9 23:12 23:19 23:30 24:5 24:12 25–40 25:1 25:8 25:8–9 25:10 25:16 25:22 25:29 27:21 28 28–29 28:41 28:43 29 29:9 29:18 29:21 29:25 29:29 29:33 29:35 29:38–42 29:40 29:40–41 29:41 29:45 29:45–46 29:46 30:9 30:11 30:11–16 30:12–16 30:17 30:20

147 386 229 225 219 111 82 224 206 90 219 219 219, 225 220 26 217 202, 377 32, 148 214 309 119 390 390 91 208 24, 116 146 161 146, 159 24 31, 146, 181, 204, 217, 309 24, 146, 154 204, 215 309 204, 209, 215 146 146 146 208 208 208 204, 215 103 49 7 208 214 142 143 214 204, 215

402  30:22 30:30 31:1 31:7 31:12–17 31:13–17 31:14 31:14–15 32 32:12 32:13 32:26 32:28 33:9 33:11 34:6–7 34:9 34:10 34:11–28 34:21 34:26 35–40 35:1 35:2 35:2–3 35:3 35:4 35:4–40:38 35:20 35:31–40 36:8, 35, 37 37:16 38:21 38:21–31 38:25 39:1–2 39:35 *40 40:1 40:9 40:13–15 40:14–15 40:15 40:17 40:17* 40:20 40:29 40:33 40:34 40:34–38 40:36–38

Index of Sources  214 146, 159 214 214 117, 225, 226 227 124 224 388, 389 188 26 140 140 106 377 188 26 93 93 225 220 161 223 225, 226 224 109, 225, 226 223 143 223 91 263 208 140–143 142–143 90 263 390 21, 56–57, 87, 91, 106, 146, 181 214 91 159 154 146 286 287 390 211 6 7, 204, 212 104 58, 92

Leviticus 1 1–3 1–4 1–5 1–7 1–10 1–16 1:1–2 1:1–9 1:1–13 1:2–16 1:2–3 1:3–4 1:3–9 1:4 1:5 1:10–13 1:22–15 1:13 1:14–17 1:17 2 2:1 2:1–2 2:1–15 2:2 2:4 2:5 2:11 2:12 3:1 3:1–15 3:1–17 3:3 3:6 3:9 3:11 3:14 3:15 3:17 4 4:1 4:1–5:13 4:2 4:3 4:3–21

204, 216 87, 88, 103, 104, 204, 216, 217 215 212 128, 148, 205, 207, 209, 215, 218, 230 32 106, 128, 132, 391 212 217 215–216 209 218 208 216 204 217 216, 217 215 204, 215 216 204, 215 204, 208, 211, 216, 218 221 212 209 218 204, 218 204, 218 221 220, 221 205, 218 216 209 205, 215 205 205, 215 215 215 215 24, 116, 117 215, 226 217, 222 214 209 206, 217 160 217

Index of Sources 

  4:5 4:13 4:13–21 4:13a 4:14 4:16 4:22 4:23 4:27 4:27–28 4:27–31 4:27a 4:28 4:28b 4:31b 4:32–35 4:35 5 5:12 5:14 5:14–26 5:15 5:16 5:18 5:20 5:25 6:1 6:2 6:7 6:9, 19, 20 6:10–11 6:12 6:15 6:17 6:18 7:1 7:2 7:5 7:11 7:16 7:20 7:21 7:25 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:30 7:35 7:35 7:36 7:38 8

160 206, 222, 223 222 223 222 160 206, 217 207 206, 217 223 222, 223 223 207 222 222 223 215 217 215 214 209 206, 217 216 206, 216 214 216 214 23 23 125 215 214 160 214 23 23 214 215 23 205 227 227 215, 227 215, 226 227 214 215 215 124 24 104, 105 142, 146

8–9 8–10 8:1 8:28 8:31 8:31 8:33 8:33 9 9:4 9:5 9:17 9:22–27 9:23 9:26 10 10:1–7 10:6 10:8–11 10:8–15 10:9 10:12 10:12–13 10:13 10:15 10:16–20 11 11–15 11–15 11:1 11:46 12:1 12:7 13:1 13:46 13:59 14:1 14:2 14:32 14:33 14:54 14:57 15:1 15:32 16 16 16:3–27 16:29

403  31, 56–57, 141, 148, 204, 216 87 214 215 215 223 146 146 102, 148 211 223 211 284 103, 144 6, 21 11, 25, 145, 160, 161, 202, 253 218, 390 223 121 390 24 215 218 215 209, 215 390 228 31 32 214 23 214 23 214 215, 226 23 214 23 23 214 23 23 214 23 148 6, 21, 32, 152, 158– 159, 202 217 24, 116, 125, 159, 220

404  16:29–31 16:29–33 16:29–34 16:31 16:32 16:34 17–26

17–27 17–Num 26 17:1 17:4 17:7 17:8 17:9 17:10 17:13 17:14 17:15 18:1 18:3 18:4 18:5 18:26 18:29 18:30 19:1 19:2 19:2 19:3 19:8 19:10 19:12 19:19 19:21 19:22 19:30 19:33 19:34 19:36 19:37 20:1 20:2 20:3 20:5 20:6 20:8 20:18

Index of Sources  159 159–160, 161 159 24, 159, 225 146, 159 24, 159 15–16, 17, 32, 87, 88, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124, 128, 132, 133, 134, 202, 225, 373, 377 104 88 214 227 24, 116 220 227 220, 227 220 227 116, 220 214 24 24 24, 386 24, 220 227 24 214 223 109 225 116, 124, 227 220 386, 392 24 216 216 225 220 23, 220, 392 116 24 214 220 227 227 227 24 227

20:22 20:23 21 21:6 21:10 21:10–12 21:16 21:21 22:1 22:3 22:14 22:14–16 22:15 22:17 22:18 22:21 22:22 22:23 22:25 22:26 22:27 22:29 22:31 22:31–33 22:33 23 23:1 23:2 23:3 23:3.14 23:4–8 23:5 23:5–8 23:6a 23:6b 23:7 23:7; 8b 23:7a 23:8 23:9 23:9–10a 23:9–10 23:9–14 23:9–22 23:10 23:13 23:14 23:15 23:15–22

24 24 161 215 119, 146, 160, 161 158 214 215 214 227 125, 206 206 124 214 205, 220 205 215 205 219 214 215 227 110 109 109 31, 87, 112, 113, 116, 117, 201, 212, 215 214 226 116, 214, 215, 225, 226 215 226 115, 116 115, 116, 117 115 116 117 116 116 215 214 214 227 215 226 213, 220, 226 208, 215 24, 116, 215, 226 225 215

  23:42–43 23:16 23:17 23:18 23:21 23:22 23:23 23:24 23:25 23:26 23:27 23:31 23:32 23:33 23:36 23:37 23:38 23:41 24:1 24:3 24:7 24:8 24:9 24:10–14 24:10–16 24:10–23 24:10–23 24:12 24:13 24:14 24:16 24:22 24:23 25 25:1 25:2 25:4 25:6 25:8 25:10 25:13 25:18 25:18–19 25:23 25:25–28 25:32 25:32–33 25:32–34 25:35 25:46 25:47 26–27

Index of Sources  116 225 215, 226 208, 215, 216 24, 214, 215, 226 220 214 116 215 214 215 24, 214, 215, 226 225 214 215 208, 215 205, 225 24 214 24 215 225 215 225 224 109 25, 29 27 214 223, 224 220, 223, 224 23, 220 109, 224 26, 28, 127 104 225 225 225 225 27 27 24 208 220 27 104 141, 143 127 220 26 220 83

26:2 26:3 26:6 26:15 26:34 26:35 26:43 26:44–45 26:46 27 27:1 27:6 27:9–10 27:16–24 27:20–21 27:21 27:30–33 27:32 27:34 35:3

405  225 24 225 24, 76 225 225 24, 225 229 128 26, 28, 114, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 214 127 127 128 25 127 124, 126, 131 125 128, 205 215

Numbers 1 1–2 1–3 1–4 1–9 1–10 1–18 1:1 1:1–10:10 1:1–36:13 1:1–6:27 1:2 1:4 1:5–15 1:7 1:9 1:13 1:18 1:20–26

83, 96, 149, 258, 370 89, 96, 99 157 10, 32, 90, 139, 150, 213 154 10, 14, 21, 32, 67, 68, 83, 109, 120, 148–149, 218, 374 157 103, 104, 204, 205 89, 102, 106, 372 1, 21, 87 92 223 151 90 151 151 282 223 103

406  1:46 1:48 1:48–53 1:51 1:53 2 2:1 2:3 2:17 3 3–4 3:1 3:1–4 3:1–4:48 3:2 3:2–3 3:2–4 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:5–9 3:5–10 3:5–13 3:6 3:6–10 3:7 3:7–8 3:9 3:9–10 3:10 3:11 3:12–13 3:13 3:14 3:16 3:20 3:24bα 3:28–32 3:31 3:32 3:32

Index of Sources  90 214 90 258 257 90, 149, 372 214 151 106 150, 372 90, 92, 99, 120, 253 146 146–147, 259 91 145, 146, 157 146 145–147 146, 147, 159 145, 146, 147, 157 214 94, 103 102 90, 103 144, 147 120 121, 223 150 154 155 146, 154, 258 214 259 259 214 330 142, 143 320 330 144 142, 143 157

3:33 3:34ff. 3:38 3:40–51 4 4:1 4:1–3 4:1–20 4:4–21 4:5 4:7 4:16 4:17 4:21 4:25b–29 4:28 4:33 5 5–6 5:1 5:1–3 5:1–4 5:5 5:5–8 5:5–10 5:7 5:8 5:8–10 5:9 5:11 5:11–31 5:15–30 5:29 5:30 6 6–10 6:1 6:1–21 6:10–20 6:13 6:17

330 330 258 90 92, 106 214 90 256 90 144 208 157 214 214 93 142, 145 145 30, 90, 129 118, 220 214 32 18, 31, 90, 100 214 18 90, 92, 106 125 90, 147 147 90 214 23, 91, 147 147 23, 91 23 30, 32, 129 280 214 23, 91 147 23 216

  6:19 6:21 6:22 6:22–27 6:23 6:24 7 7–8 7:1 7:10–88 7:12 7:13 7:15 7:17 7:1–88 7:2 7:8 7:19 7:25 7:31 7:37 7:43 7:49 7:55 7:61 7:67 7:73 7:79 7:87 7:89 8 8:1 8:1–4 8:5 8:5–22 8:9 8:9–10 8:14 8:21 8:22

Index of Sources  216 23 214 90 144 99 149, 211, 217, 218 220, 372 91 103 151 211 216 151, 216 10, 91, 92, 98, 100, 106 151 145 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 91, 92, 93, 100 30, 31, 148, 149– 150, 253 214 91 214 91, 92, 120 223 149–150 143, 144, 150 139 139

8:23 8:23–26 8:26 9 9:1 9:1 9:1–14 9:3 9:6–14 9:8 9:9 9:12 9:13 9:13–14 9:14 9:15–23 9:18–23 10 10:1 10:1–10 10:3 10:8 10:9 10:11 10:11f* 10:11–12 10:11–28 10:11–36 10:11–14:45 10:11–25:18 10:11–36:13 10:11b 10:12b 10:14 10:29 10:29 10:29–32 10:29–36 10:33 10:35 11

407  214 91, 92, 100, 106 139 30, 220 92 214 10, 91, 92 24 24, 29 27 214 24 227 16 23, 24, 116, 118, 220 92 99 19, 372 214 90, 92, 101 223 24, 116, 118, 145 7 96, 286 287 10 93 92 101 102 87 287 287 151 69 181 93 13 93 93, 99 14, 67, 69, 77, 78, 83, 91, 269

408  11–14 11–20 11–21 11:1–3 11:3, 4 11:3, 34 11:4–6 11:4, 22, 32 11:4–23 11:4–35 11:5 11:12–14 11:14–17 11:16, 24 11:16–30 11:17–23 11:18 11:18–20 11:24–30 11:26 11:31 12 12:1–10 12:1–15 12:6–8 12:6b–8a 12:16b 13 13–14

13:1–16 13:1–14:45 13:2 13:4–16 13:5–15

Index of Sources  148 82 68, 69, 76, 83, 84, 373, 374 76, 82, 83, 93, 394 77 389 76 76 394 93, 106 106 70 13 76 377 76 77 70, 75, 76, 84 13 106 106 69 13 93 93, 99, 377 91 325 92, 95, 98, 149, 373 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 22, 58, 69, 70, 88, 93, 94, 96, 98, 148, 162, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 213, 224, 228– 229, 281, 282, 291, 293, 275, 278, 280, 287, 291, 314, 325, 384, 386 207, 214 93 149, 224, 228 166 149

13:12 13:16 13:17 13:17b–20 13:20 13:21 13:22 13:22–24 13:23 13:25 13:26 13:26a 13:26–27 13:30 13:32 14 14:1 14:1–10 14:2 14:2–3 14:2–4 14:3 14:3–4 14:4 14:5 14:6 14:6–9 14:7 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:11b–20 14:11–20 14:11–25 14:18 14:24 14:25b 14:26 14:26f.

284 228 228 165 207 228, 287 190 207 206, 209 228 59, 223, 224 168, 325 206, 225 224 164 69, 72, 77, 78, 83, 207, 373, 375, 380 223, 224 77, 78 77, 152, 223, 224 182 76 295 77 72, 77 58, 223, 224, 298 229 77 58, 77, 223, 224, 229, 275 77, 78 223, 224, 278, 279, 296 206, 309 389 185 165, 166 188 229 326 214, 278 370

  14:26ff* 14:26–35* 14:27 14:28–29 14:28–35 14:29 14:30 14:31 14:32b 14:33–34 14:34 14:35 14:36 14:39–45 14:40 14:42 14:43 14:45 15

15–31 15:1 15:1–2 15:1–4 15:1–5 15:1–12 15:1–16 15:1–21 15:1–29 15:1–31 15:2 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:7 15:9 15:10

Index of Sources  278 277 278, 224 77 368 205, 301 224, 368 76, 77, 205, 301 275 9 229 223, 224, 278, 290, 291, 294 223, 224, 229 59, 93, 206 181 183 229 206 10, 14, 16, 30, 68, 109, 110, 113, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218, 219, 224, 226, 380 224 214 227 215–216 214 204, 213–214 207 93, 101, 207 213 94 213, 215, 226 204, 205, 216, 218 207, 218 207, 209 207 207, 209 207 207, 209

15:13–16 15:14 15:14–16 15:15 15:16 15:17–21 15:22 15:22–24aa 15:22–26 15:22–29 15:22–31 15:22–36 15:23 15:24 15:24a 15:24–29 15:25 15:25–29 15:25b 15:26 15:26aβb 15:27 15:27a 15:27b 15:27–28 15:28 15:29 15:30 15:30a 15:30–31 15:31 15:31–32 15:32 15:32–36 15:33 15:35 15:36 15:37–41 15:37–43

409  204, 218 220 206 24, 220 23, 220 204, 214, 220 206, 228 222 204 222 93, 206, 216, 221– 222, 226 224, 228 223 206, 209, 223, 224 223 207, 217 206, 223, 224 147 223 206, 220, 223, 224 223 206, 224 222 222 204, 223 206, 222, 224 23, 204, 206, 220 220, 224, 227 224 204, 227 224, 227 222 94, 226, 225 25, 29, 94, 101, 106, 109, 118, 204, 224, 225, 227 109, 223 223 109, 223 94, 374, 106, 110, 224, 228, 229 94, 101

410  15:39b 15:40 15:40–41 15:41 16

16–17

16–18 16:10 16:1 16:1–17 16:1–20:13 16:1b 16:2 16:3 16:5 16:6–7 16:7 16:7b–11 16:8 16:8–10 16:9 16:10–11 16:12 16:12–13 16:12–15 16:13–14 16:13–15 16:14 16:15 16:16–17 16:18–24 16:19 16:19–22 16:20

Index of Sources  229 16, 109 109 109, 229 78, 106, 120, 138, 140, 149–150, 203, 207, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218–219, 252, 373, 392, 393 10, 14, 19, 21, 21, 25, 32, 98, 155, 205, 206, 213, 225, 248, 253 10, 11, 13, 19, 213, 262, 373, 374, 375 150, 154 151 94, 101 249, 250, 266 225, 392, 393 225 77, 94, 151, 152, 218, 223 151 243 25, 138, 140 243 140 149–150 143, 144, 150 140 78, 210 78, 79 78, 243 78 81 26 210, 211 243 243 223 237 214

16:20–22 16:21 16:22 16:23 16:24 16:25–34 16:26–27 16:27 16:27b–32a 16:30 16:30a 16:32 16:32 16:32a 16:33 16:33abα 16:34 16:35 17

17:1–5 17:1–10 17:1–15 17:2 17:3 17:4 17:5 17:6 17:6–13 17:6–26 17:6–15 17:6–26 17:6–28 17:7–13 17:9 17:11 17:11ff

225 150, 240 223, 240 214 235, 245 78 225 235, 245 211 393 393 151 238, 245, 393 393 248 211 211 238 22, 138, 151–152, 158, 161, 248, 249, 251, 253, 269, 270, 296, 120, 152, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 241, 242 236 94 157, 241 225, 241 145, 157 151, 234, 242, 152, 223, 234, 236, 240 235 233, 234 225, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240, 293, 294 235 236 236 214, 302 257 297

  17:11–12 17:11–13 17:11–15 17:13 17:14 17:14–15 17:15 17:16 17:16–17 17:16–26 17:16–28 17:17–18 17:18 17:20 17:20 17:22–24 17:23 17:25 17:26 17:27 17:27a 17:27–20:29 17:27–28

17:27–29 17:28 18

18:1

Index of Sources  155 94 234, 236 155 240 236 234 214, 234 151 97, 151–152, 234, 235, 236, 240, 241, 301, 302, 303 151–152, 236 151 151, 241 152 241 151 151, 301 301, 302, 306, 241, 302, 303, 234, 248, 255 250 248, 271 121, 122, 233, 236, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 261, 262, 264, 267 269 251, 270 10, 14, 22, 32, 65, 94, 101, 114, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 139, 139, 147, 206, 209, 228, 249, 250, 252, 255, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 266, 267, 270, 271, 390, 391 121, 124, 154, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260

18:1–2 18:1–7 18:1a 18:2 18:2–4 18:3 18:3a 18:3b 18:3–4 18:3–5 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:6–7 18:7 18:8 18:8–10 18:8–19 18:8–32 18:9 18:9bβ 18:9a 18:9bα 18:9–10 18:9–14 18:9–19 18:10 18–20 18:11 18:11–12 18:12 18:14 18:15 18:15–16 18:15–18 18:16

411  257 120, 121, 250, 252, 253, 255, 259 255 255, 256, 257 252, 256 252, 256, 257, 258, 270 256 256 259 252 121, 254, 256, 257, 260 120, 121, 252, 256, 257, 258 255, 256, 257, 260 252, 257 154, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 270 120, 124, 209, 252, 255, 257, 258, 262 252 120, 127, 252, 259, 260 94 209, 252 209 209 209 121 258 121, 259 125, 258 248, 249, 250, 151, 270 147, 252, 258, 262 252 131, 221 127 252, 259 259 132 127

412  18:17–18 18:19 18:19b–20 18:20 18:20–24 18:20–32 18:21 18:21a 18:21b 18:21 18:21–24 18:21–32 18:22 18:22–23 18:23a 18:23b 18:23 18:23–24 18:24 18:25 18:25–32 18:26 18:27 18:28 18:29 18:30 18:31 18:32 19

19:1 19:2 19:3 19:3–4

Index of Sources  127 147, 252, 258, 259, 262 260 26, 121, 122, 130, 252, 260, 374 121, 123 120, 121, 124, 126, 129, 130 121, 374 122 122 26, 122, 252, 260, 261 261 126, 252, 260 121, 122, 252, 260, 261, 270 121 122 122 24, 123, 252, 260, 262 26, 141, 142 122, 252, 374 214, 261 123 26, 123, 252, 374 123, 252 123, 252 123, 252, 261 261 124, 125, 130, 252, 260, 261 123, 251, 270 10, 30, 31, 32, 94, 98, 147, 161, 220, 228, 249, 251, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 380 157, 214, 252, 263 23, 24 145, 263 157

19:4 19:6 19:6–7 19:7 19:7–9 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:13 19:14 19:14–16 19:16 19:17 19:17–20 19:18 19:19 19:20 19:21 19:21 19:21 19:22b 19:23 20

20–21 20–24 20:1 20:1–13

20:1–25:18 20:1aα

145, 263, 268 147, 263 147 147, 263, 268 266 268 249, 264, 268 24, 262, 264 264, 270 116, 264, 265, 266, 268, 270 23, 270 265 265, 266, 270 268 266 265, 266, 268, 270 268 227, 264, 265, 268 264 268 24 251 252 14, 19, 69, 80, 82, 98, 143, 145, 158, 162, 248, 249, 251, 252, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 276, 281, 288, 296, 309, 311 9, 10, 324, 387 12 81, 94, 223, 266, 267, 270, 282, 285, 291 13, 14, 17, 58, 79, 80, 81, 83, 94, 98, 99, 148, 174, 181, 276, 280, 284, 288, 293, 305, 311, 312, 325, 373, 394 101 284, 287, 325

  20:1aβ 20:1a 20:1b 20:2 20:2–4 20:2–12 20:2a 20:2a 20:2b 20:2b–5 20:3 20:3a

20:3–4 20:3b–4 20:3bβ 20:3–4(5) 20:3–5 20:4 20:4a 20:4b 20:4bβ 20:4–5 20:4–9 20:5 20:6 20:6a 20:6b 20:6b–8 20:7 20:7–8 20:8 20:8, 11 20:8a, 8b 20:8aα 20:8b

Index of Sources  284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 294 283, 289 289, 290 82, 266, 267, 268, 282, 291 281 325 80 291 292 292 284 79, 248, 249, 250, 251–252, 252, 266, 267, 288, 292, 293, 311 282 293 293 296 80, 287, 296, 300, 306 77, 80, 267, 270, 293, 295, 297 293 293 294 79, 80, 81 81, 82 80, 81, 266, 268, 281, 282, 285, 288, 292, 293, 297 89, 279, 280, 282, 291, 298, 299, 298, 300 298 298 214, 299 280, 298, 299 266, 268, 299 80 80 282 299

20:8bβ 20:8bβ 20:9 20:9–11a 20:10 20:11 20:11b 20:11b 20:11bβ 20:12

20:12b 20:12–13 20:12.24 20:13 20:14 20:14ff. 20:14–18 20:14–21 20:14b–16 20:16b 20:17 20:17 20:17a 20:17b 20:17bβ 20:18f. 20:19 20:20b 20:21 20:21a 20:21b 20:22ff 20:22 20:22–29 20:22a

413  282 282 280, 303 303 266, 268, 280, 282, 298, 303, 307, 299 266, 268, 282, 283, 292, 303, 306, 308, 79 79 282 79, 276, 277, 278, 280, 280, 281, 282, 282, 283, 297, 308, 309, 310, 312 174 266 196 79, 99, 266, 268, 311, 325 315, 324, 326 325, 326, 331 13, 59, 83, 95, 267, 268, 269, 322–323, 331 324 325, 326 266 268 325 325 326 324 266, 268 324 324, 325, 326 325 324 289, 290, 325 223 13, 81, 148, 390, 394 325

414  20:22b–29 20:23b 20:24 20:25 20:26 20:26 20:27 20:28 20:29 21 21–22 21–36 21:1 21:1–3 21:1–32 21:1–25:5 21:2a 21:3 21:4–9 21:4–20 21:4a 21:4aα 21:4aβ–6 21:4b–9 21:5 21:5a 21:6 21:7–15 21:8a 21:9 21:10a 21:10b 21:10ff. 21:10–20 21:11 21:11ff. 21:11–13 21:13 21:14

Index of Sources  325 325, 326 266, 268 158 158 270 223 158, 159, 270, 394 223, 251, 252, 266, 269, 69, 72, 77, 83, 248, 262, 350, 350, 369 349 68 95, 329 13, 95, 326 348 148 329 330 69, 82, 83, 95 13 324, 325, 326 330 329 394 77, 81, 82, 330 329 329 329 320 320 320 320 330 95, 100, 330 320, 347 324 95 345, 346, 347 323

21:14b 21:14–15 21:14–18 21:15 21:16 21:16–18a 21:16a 21:16bα 21:17 21:17a 21:18 21:18–20 21:18b–20 21:19 21:19–20 21:19b 21:20 21:20a 21:20aβ–23 21:20b–22 21:21 21:21a 21:21b 21:21ff. 21:21–35 21:21–24 21:21–24bα 21:21–31 21:21–32 21:21–35 21:22 21:22aβ 21:22aβ 21:22b 21:22b 21:2–24bα 21:22bβ 21:23 21:23a 21:24

323 95, 100 323 323, 346 329 95 323 323 323 329 323, 345 345 95 323, 345 345 323, 329 323, 345, 348 329 329 329 323 323 323 315, 322, 326, 327, 330, 331, 314 387 95 320, 321, 325, 327, 330, 331 320, 330, 331, 354 13, 336, 347 327 329 322 325 325 329 322 322 321, 325, 329 321–322 321, 329

  21:24bα 21:24bα 21:24bβ 21:25 21:25–30 21:25a 21:25bα 21:25b 21:26 21:27–30 21:27b–30 21:28 21:32 21:33 21:33b 21:33–22:1 21:33–35

21:34 21:34ff. 21:34–36a 21:34–38 21:35b 21:37 21:38 22–24 22–36 22:1

22:1–2 22:1–36:13 22:2

22:2–3 22:2–24:19

Index of Sources  320, 321 324 320 322, 329, 330 95, 320, 322, 327 320, 321 320 321, 322 322 95, 322 100 318, 320, 321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328 95, 320, 326, 328, 348 326, 329 329, 330 348, 354, 356 13, 95, 314, 326, 327, 327, 328, 329, 331, 331, 344, 353, 354 326 329 329 329 327 329 329 32, 67, 152 374 13, 95, 327, 336, 336, 341, 342, 344, 345, 347, 347, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 355 339 374 327, 328, 330, 331, 336, 337, 337, 338, 341, 342, 344, 345, 347, 351, 354, 355, 356 348 13

22:2–24:25 22:3 22:3–24:14 22:3a 22:3b 22:4 22:4b 22:5 22:6 22:7 22:10 22:11 22:11–12 22:13 22:14 22:17 22:18 22:21 22:21–35 22:22–27 22:22–34 22:26 22:35 22:36 22:41 23 23:2 23:4 23:5 23:7 23:7b–10 23:14 23:16 23:22 23:23 23:28

415  95, 99, 328 336, 338, 339, 341, 345, 345, 347, 354, 354, 355 355 328, 330, 331 327, 328 328, 336, 337, 338, 338, 339, 341, 348, 349, 350, 355 328 336, 337, 338, 338, 349, 351 336, 337, 338, 350, 351 335, 337, 338, 338, 340, 341, 348, 349, 350, 355 341, 347 349, 351 336 340 337, 340 336 340 339 339, 340, 341, 355 99 100 326 340 347 336, 346 217 340 340, 341 341 338 100 345, 346 340 349, 351 340 345, 346, 348

416  24:1–2 24:7 24:8 24:9 24:14 24:14–20 24:14–24 24:15–20 24:17–19 24:20 24:20b 24:21–22 24:21–24 24:21b–22 24:23–24 24:23–24 24:25 25

25–32 25:1 25:1–5 25:1–15 25:1–18 25:2 25:3 25:4 25:5 25:5–18 25:6 25:6–9 25:6–18 25:6–27:11 25:7 25:10 25:10–13 25:11 25:12

Index of Sources  337 351 349, 351 13 340 353, 354, 355, 356 340, 341, 349 340 351 351 100 341, 351, 352, 353, 354, 354, 354, 355 355 100 341, 351, 352, 353, 353, 355 100, 351, 352, 353, 355 340, 354, 355 10, 14, 21, 22, 23, 68, 152–156, 158, 161, 350, 351, 374, 13–14 122 153, 348 13–14, 386 100 96, 99 152 152 152 152 335 223 152 10, 14, 17, 348 18 145, 157 153, 214, 390 152, 153–155 145, 153, 155, 157 154–155

25:12–13 25:12–13 25:14–15 25:15 25:16 25:16–19 25:17 25:18 25:19–26:64 25:19–36:13 25:32 25:59 25:59–26:64 26 26–31 26–36 26:1 26:1–65* 26:1–27:23 26:2 26:3 26:9 26:9–11 26:10 26:13 26:29 26:29–34 26:29a 26:30–33 26:30–34 26:33 26:52 26:52–26 26:53 26:54 26:55 26:56 26:57 26:57–58a

153–154 32 152 337 214 152 100 338 92 18 147, 148, 160 96 89, 96 10, 14, 24, 97, 106, 167, 268, 290, 372, 393 10, 14 31–32, 67, 88, 102, 376 145 295 101 223 342 17, 151 237, 239, 244, 245 151 95 29 96 96 107 29 25, 98 214 26, 96, 106 374 374 377 374 142, 143 96

  26:57–62 26:58b–61 26:59 26:60 26:62 26:63 26:64–65 27 27–31 27–36 27:1–11 27:2 27:3 27:4 27:5 27:7 27:8 27:8–11 27:11 27:12–14 27:12–23 27:12–23 27:14 27:18–22 27:19 27:20 27:21 27:22 27:23 28–29 28–30 28:1 28:1–30:1 28:3–8 28:7 28:8 28:9 28:10 28:11–29:37 28:14

Index of Sources  140 96 290 145 374 342 268, 370, 373 14, 19, 23, 24–32, 367 10 18, 228 11, 89, 96, 98, 98, 100, 106, 106 30, 223 25, 242 26, 28 27, 30 27, 28, 374 28 28 24, 28 18 89, 96, 97, 148, 160 96, 97, 148, 160 285, 309, 394 377 223, 374 223 223 223 7 31, 112, 113, 217 201, 215 214 87, 96, 101 208 208 209 209, 225 209, 225 217 209

28:15 28:22 28:24 28:30 28:31 29:5 29:6 29:11 29:16 29:18 29:19 29:21 29:22 29:24 29:25 29:27 29:28 29:29 29:30 29:31 29:33 29:34 29:37 29:38 29:39 30 30–36 30:2–17 30:6 30:12 30:14–16 31 31:1 31:1–54 31:6 31:7–8 31:7–9 31:8 31:12

417  209 155 209 155 209 155 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 96 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 30 213 96 368 368 100 14, 22, 100, 152, 218, 349, 350, 355, 356, 374, 376 214 10, 101 157, 160 350 350 32, 336, 338, 348, 350, 351, 353 344, 349

418  31:16 31:18 31:21 31:22–24 31:50 32

32–35 32:1 32:1ff. 32:1–2a 32:1–38 32:2a 32:2bα 32:2b 32:2b–3 32:3 32:4 32:4aβ 32:5 32:5–6 32:5a 32:6 32:7 32:7–15 32:8 32:8–13 32:9 32:12 32:13 32:14 32:16 32:16–22 32:16–32 32:17a 32:19 32:20–22 32:20aα 32:23–24

Index of Sources  336, 340, 348, 350, 353, 356 17 23, 24 94, 97 155 14, 21, 97, 98, 329, 331, 367, 369, 370, 371, 373, 374, 374– 375, 378–379, 380, 18 368–369 328, 329, 330 368, 369, 370 328, 331 328, 329 328 368 371 370 368 328 368, 369, 370 370 328, 329 328, 329, 369 368 97, 368, 369, 370, 371, 373, 375 167 186–187 368 192, 368, 381 368 368 328 370 369 328 374 329, 369, 370, 371 328 370

32:23–24 32:24 32:25–27 32:25–27 32:25–27 32:28 32:28 32:28 32:29–33 32:32 32:32 32:33 32:33–42 32:34–38 32:34–39 32:39 32:39–40 32:39–42 32:40 32:41–42 32:42 33 33–36 33:1–48 33:3 33:30 33:31–37 33:36 33:38 33:40 33:48 33:50 33:50–56 33:50–35:34 33:51–53 33:54 34 34–36 34:1 34:1–2 34:1–12

375 328 329 369 370 368 370 371 370 374 27 328, 329, 331, 367, 368, 369, 371 377 97, 328, 370 369, 371 370 367 369–370 369, 370 370, 371 369 10, 14 10 97 224 143 390 285 159 17 343 214, 343 97 101 17 377 10, 370 14 214 379 374

  34:1–15 34:2 34:13–15 34:16 34:16–29 35 35:1 35:1–8 35:2 35:8 35:9 35:9–34 35:11 35:15 35:16–34 35:25 35:28 35:29 35:32 35:33–34 35:34 36 36:1 36:1–12 36:2 36:2–3 36:3 36:4 36:5 36:5–7 36:6 36:7 36:8 36:9 36:10 36:12 36:13

Index of Sources  97 374 97, 367, 377 214 97 10, 14, 118, 119, 124, 139, 160, 161, 161 214, 343 97 139, 374 374 214 18, 97, 118 207 118, 207, 220 224 118, 147, 160 147, 158, 160 24, 28, 119, 215, 226 158 16 119 10, 19, 23, 24–32, 367 24, 28, 29 89, 97, 98, 101 28, 374 377 28, 29, 374 28, 374 25, 30, 98 29 29 374 29 374 29 29, 374 30, 89, 98, 101, 344

419 

Deuteronomy 1 1–3 1–8 1–11 1–30 1:1 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:9–45 1:10–17 1:17 1:19 1:19–45 1:19–46 1:19a 1:20 1:20b 1:21 1:22b 1:22bα 1:23b 1:24 1:24–25a 1:24b 1:25 1:25b 1:26 1:26–27(28) 1:26b 1:27 1:28 1:28a 1:29–33 1:30 1:30–31 1:31 1:32 1:33 1:34–35 1:34–46 1:35 1:35b 1:36 1:37

22, 305 9, 18, 69, 81, 314, 318, 326, 331, 386, 388, 393, 394 386 388, 391 102 9 9 319 167, 202 30 326 69 69 27 368 325 166–180, 195–196, 384, 386 171 181 171 170, 192 172 168 176 326 181 172 206 171, 172, 182, 196 305 182 171 70 172–173, 185, 196 170 175 170, 175, 184 386 171 206 176, 229 183 305 169, 170, 317 171 170, 176, 229 173, 176, 305

420  1:39 1:40 1:41 1:41–45 1:41–46 1:43 1:43b 1:46 2 2–3 2:1 2:3 2:4ff. 2:4–6 2:5 2:8a 2:8b 2:9 2:11 2:17 2:18f. 2:20–23 2:21 2:22 2:24ff. 2:24–31 2:24–3:11 2:24–3:13a 2:24aα 2:24aβ 2:24b 2:25b 2:25 2:26 2:26ff. 2:26–28 2:26–29 2:27–30 2:27b 2:28a 2:28b 2:29a 2:29bα 2:29bα(bβ) 2:29bβ 2:30a 2:30b 2:31 2:31–35

Index of Sources  169, 170, 183 175, 185, 326 169 183 206 305 171 177 9 69, 83, 321 317, 325, 326 317, 326 317 316 386 316 326 357 173 315 315 315 173 322 314, 315, 320, 327, 331 320 327, 386, 387 331 315, 316, 329, 331 316 316 322 316 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321–322 321, 322, 326, 327 320, 331 316 327 326 317, 322 317 317 317, 322 320, 331 317 316, 317, 319, 320, 331 316, 386 316, 317–318, 319 318, 320, 331

2:32 2:32f. 2:33a 2:34 2:34f. 2:34a 2:34aα 2:34aβ 2:34ab 2:35 2:36 3 3:1 3:1ff. 3:1–3 3:1–6 3:1–7 3:1b 3:2 3:3 3:3a 3:4–6 3:4aα 3:4aβ 3:4aγ 3:4b 3:5 3:6 3:6–8a 3:6–8 3:6aα 3:6b 3:7 3:8 3:8a 3:10a 3:12 3:12ff. 3:12–20 3:12b 3:13a 3:15 3:25ff. 3:26 4 4:3–4 4:8 4:16b–19 4:21 4:39 4:46 5

321 319 318, 321 322, 327 318, 319, 322 322 319 319 319 318, 319 318 357 317, 320, 326, 331 314, 318, 319, 327 326, 327, 331, 356 95 327 319 319, 327 317, 319, 320, 331 318, 327 327 319, 320, 331 318, 319 319 319 319 319, 320 320 320, 331 319 319 319 318, 320, 321, 356 320, 321 318, 320, 321, 331 318, 330 329 367, 371 331 330, 331 370 317 197 389 386 23 386 197 389 319 394

  5–11 5:12 5:14 5:15 5:22 5:26 6–7 6:2 6:6–9 6:8–9 6:13 7:3 7:4 7:6 7:10 7:12 7:13 8:3 8:11 8:15 9–10 9:1–2 9:1–8 9:1–10:11 9:3, 6 9:7 9:9–10:5 9:22–24 9:23 9:24 9:25–29 9:27 10–11 10–12 10:5 10:6 10:6–7 10:6–8 10:6–9 10:6–11 10:6b 10:7–8 10:8 10:8–9 10:9 10:12 10:12–11:17, 10:12–11:21a 10:12–11:22 10:12–11:32 10:13 10:14

Index of Sources  394 225 225 225 386 386 143 24 391 229 386 386 229 386 211 386 131 386 24 82, 394 183, 197, 394 187–188 384, 389, 390 388, 389 389 305 388, 389 384, 389, 394 188, 305, 368 305 188 76 394 377 143 390, 394 144, 390 394 390, 391 389 390 143 142, 144, 150 141, 143–144, 390 130 391 391 391 391 388, 391 24 391

10:17 10:19 10:20 10:22 11 11:1 11:2 11:2–6 11:6 11:6a 11:6b 11:18–19 11:18–21a 11:31–32 12–16 12–26 13:3 13:5 13:7 14 14:22–25 14:22–29 14:27 14:29 16:11 16:14 16:16 17:9 17:10–12 17:12 17:16 17:18 18:1 18:1–2 18:1–8 18:4 18:5 18:6–7 18:7 18:10 18:14 18:18 19:1–13 19:4 19:4–13 20 20:2 20:14 20:16 20:16f. 21:5

421  391 391 392 392 392, 393 24 390, 394 392 78, 151, 242, 392, 393 392 393 229 391 391 383 111, 383, 388, 391 229 229 229 130, 131, 132, 134 131 123, 129, 130 130 130 219 219 116 148, 156 224 160 73 156 143, 204, 209 122 90 220 144 148 141, 144 356 356 377 118 207 224 32 160 318 322 318 141, 144

422  21:18 21:20 21:15–17 22:12 23:4–6 23:5 24:1–4 24:8 25 25:5–10 25:7 25:19 26:2 26:3 26:9 26:12–15 26:13 28:15 28:45 28:68 30–34 30:10 30:16 31:2 31:9 31:25 31:27 32 32:48 32:48–52 32:51 32:52 33:8–9 33:9 34 34:1 34:1* 34:1–8 34:4 34:7 34:8 34:7–9 34:10 34:10–12

Index of Sources  304 304 26 228 357 356 206 156 316 26 26 357 220 160 81 123, 129 124 24 24 72, 73 102 24 24 197 141, 144 141, 144 305 278 214 277 277, 278, 285 197, 278 141 156 6–7, 13, 290 356 290 277 197 277, 289 7, 357 290 91, 93, 377 82

Joshua 1:6 2:2 2:10 5:1

317 358 359 358

5:12 8:33 9:1 9:3 9:10 9:18 9:19 9:21 10:1 11:12 12:2 12:4 13 13–14 13–21 13–22 13:1–14 13:1b–6 13:2–6 13:6b 13:7 13:8–12 13:10 13:12 13:14 13:15–32 13:16 13:21 13:21–22 13:22 13:22 13:32 13:30–31 13:33 14:1 14:2 14:6 14:6–15a 14:6–15 14:12 14:14

212 156 358 358 360 223 223 223 358 319 319 317, 360 358, 367, 380 367, 375, 377, 378 18 375, 376 376 379 379 376 378 376 319 360 143 376, 377 318 319, 358 353, 359, 361 358 358 358 360 143 378 377 187, 193, 368 189 376 189 193, 368

14:14a 14:38 15:1 15:13–14 15:14 15:14b 15:16–19 15:17 16:1 17:1 17:3–4 17:14–18 18:1 18:1–10 19:51 20:3 20:6 20:9 20 20:1 21:1 22 22:1–7 22:12 22:13 22:14 22:16 22:18 22:20 22:31–32 22:33 24 24:9–10 24:20 24:23 24:33 27:19–22

381 368 377 189 189 189 376 368 377 377 28 376 223 376 378 207 160 207 97, 161 67 378 367, 375, 378–379, 380 376 223, 376 378 151 223 223 223 378 376 13 358, 359, 361 219 219 378 160

Judges 1:10 1:16

423 

Index of Sources 

 

190 93

3:9 3:11 3:15ff. 3:30 4:11 11 11:12–18 11:15 11:15–18 11:16 11:17 11:17b 11:18 11:19 11:19ff. 11:19–25 11:21 11:21b 11:22 11:25 21:13

368 368 218 361 93 9, 361, 364 387 361 361 324 323, 324 324 324 321 321 361 321 321 321 361 223

Ruth 4:10–11

26

1 Samuel 2:17 8:15–17 10 12:3 14:47 14:48 15 15:6 16:7b 27 27:10 30:1–19 30:26–31

218 125 218 210 361 361 361 362 229 218 362 362 362

2 Samuel 1:1–16 8:2 8:12 8:14 15:7–9

363 362 363 362 289

424 

Index of Sources 

1 Kings 8:5 8:28 11:2 11:4–6 11:29–31 11:37 12:26–30 12:31–13 14:8 14:21 21:15–16 23:30 23:34

Ezra 223 210 229 229 363 363 388, 389 311 229 159 25 159 159

2 Kings 1:1 5:17–18 9:1–6 14:7 14:25 17:17 17:21–23 18 19:6 19:22 21:15 25:26

363 212 363 363 97, 363 363 388, 389 83 224 224 76 73

157 390 150 157 156 145 145 159

2 Chronicles 5:5 5:6 23:18 26:1 30:27 36:1

156 223 156 159 156 159

56 157 145 156 25 202

Nehemiah 9:17 9:23 10 10:12–13 10:29 10:31–40 10:35 10:38 10:38–39 10:38b–39 11:20 13:1–2 13:1–3 13:10–14 13:28 13:29

72 391 220 129 150, 156 129 156 220, 221 125 129 156 352, 363 363 129 156 156

Job 42:13–17 42:15

1 Chronicles 5:30–31 5:30, 38 6:33 6:35 9:2 24:2–6 24:3 29:23

6:14–18 7:5 8:2 10:5 10:7–8 24:12

27 27

Psalms 19 106 106:16 106:16–18 106:17 106:17a 106:17b 106:18 106:18a 106:18b 106:24–26 115:16 119

23 197 237 78, 237 237 237 237 237 237 237 190–191 391 23

Proverbs 4:27

326

Qoheleth 1:13 2:3

229 229

Isaiah 7 7:7–9a 7:7a 7:9 7:9b 8:13 29:23 37:6 37:23 42:21 51:9–10 54:10 56:3 56:6 60:10 61:5 62:8

309 309 309 309 309 309 309 224 224 23 53 153 219 219 219 219 219

Jeremiah 2:1b–3 2:3 2:26 2:34 3:1 4:5ff 5:23 7:25–26 33:21 48:45 49:16

91 206 206 206 206 304 304 73, 76 156 363 363

Ezekiel 2:5f 3:9 3:26–27 5:9 6:6 6:14 7 7:2, 6 12:2 12:2–3 12:9

425 

Index of Sources 

 

304 304 304 304 215, 226 215, 226 309 47–48 304 304 304

12:25 17:12 20 20:6 20:8 20:11–12 20:13 20:21 20:23 20:27 20:41 24 24:3 34:25 37:26 37:26–28 40–48 43:19 43:19–25 44 44:9–15 44:11 44:28–30 45 45:17 45:18–24 46:6 46:7 46:11 46:14

304 304 39, 73, 304, 309, 310, 389 229 304 386 304 304 191 224 309 304 304 153 153 49–50 208 156 217 391 138 150 221 217 208 217 217 217 217 24

Hosea 1:2 2:7 2:15 2:16 8:13 9:3 11:5 14:1

229 229 229 91 72 72 72 304

Amos 6:14 7:1 8:2

97 363 47–48, 309

Obadiah 3–4

363

426 

Index of Sources 

Micah 4:2 6:3–5 6:8

23 363, 364 391

Zechariah 3 8:23

41–42 228

Malachi 1:6–2:9 2:4 2:5 2:13

210 155–156 153 210

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 24

23

Baruch 3–4

23

Acts 2:14

364

Romans 9–11

311

2 Peter 2:15

364

Manuscripts from the Judean Desert 4Q365 fragm. 36 4QDeut(h) 4QExod–Lev(f) 4QLev(b) 4QLev(c) 4QLev(d) 4QLev(e) 4QLev(g) 4QLev–Num(a)

24 169 128 128 128 128 128 128 128

11QpaleoLev CD XII,3–6

128 227

Babylonian Talmud Gittin 25b Baba Bathra 117b Baba Bathra 118b Sanhedrin 96b

212 25 25 212

Index of Authors Achenbach, Reinhard 4, 11-12, 24, 29, 31, 67, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 109, 113, 116, 117, 120, 126, 127, 130, 133, 134, 203, 209, 211, 219, 220, 225, 236, 239, 368, 369, 376, 377, 377-378, 379, 287, 291, 315, 316, 324, 329, 346, 385, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394 Addis, William E. 233, 239, 239 Ahuis, Ferdinand 236, 237 Albertz, Rainer 12-14, 18, 73, 93, 116, 220, 236, 315, 323, 324-325, 325, 326, 327, 327-328, 354, 376, Altmann, Peter 120, 130 Ameth, Martin 82, 274 Artus, Olivier 89, 372 Ashlock, Rodney O. 128 Aurelius, Erik 75, 77, 81, 82, 236

Coats, George W. 72, 75, 81, 88, 234, 235, 250, 294 Cocco, Franceso 203 Cortese, Enzo 375-376 Crüsemann, Frank 110

Bacon, Benjamin W. 235 Baden, Joel S. 2-3, 3, 16-17, 22, 112, 243, 385 Baentsch, Bruno 29, 110, 233, 234, 239, 284 Barmash, Pamela 118 Bar-On, Shimon 114, 115 Berner, Christoph 203, 392 Blenkinsopp, Joseph 129 Blum, Erhard 7, 67, 75, 78, 81, 82, 110, 112, 236, 239, 294, 302, 315, 323, 325, 360 Börner-Klein, Dagmar 206 Budd, Philip J. 76, 87, 92, 103, 121, 126, 307, 335, 336, 350 Burney, Charles Fox 355

Fabry, Heinz J. 111 Feucht, Christian 110 Filstill, Ulrich 370 Fishbane, Michael 201, 206, 222, 225 Fistill, Ulrich 84 Fleishman, Joseph 27 Fox, Everett 255 Frankel, David 74 Freedman, David N. 128 Frevel, Christian 7, 18, 69, 79, 88, 103, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 298, 301, 306, 308, 362, 385 Fried, Lisbeth 134 Friedmann, Richard E. 73 Fritz, Volkmar 234, 235, 239

Camp, Claudia 253 Carpenter, J. Estlin 233, 239 Carr, David M. 2-4, 111, 343, 361 Cataldo, Jeremiah W. 134 Chavel, Simeon 25

Gane, Roy E. 213, 223, 226-227 Garcia-Lopez, Felix 104 Gaß, Erasmus 335 Gertz, Jan Christian 20, 67, 74, 79, 80, 114, 115, 116, 391

Dahmen, Ulrich 144, 144, 391 Davis, Eryl W. 88, 94 De Vaulx, Jules 205, 237 Dillmann, August 121, 235, 360 Dohmen, Christoph 210 Douglas, Mary 128, 208, 100, 101 Dozeman, Thomas B. 20, 114, 346 Ehrlich, Arnold B. 239 Eissfeldt, Otto 235, 236, 342 347, 356 Elliger, Karl 9, 111, 127, 274

428

Index of Authors

Gesenius Wilhelm 209 Glasl, Friedrich 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 306, 312 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang 205 Gottlieb, Isaac 251 Graf, Karl H. 111 Gray, George B. 102, 110, 233, 234, 239, 286, 336, 338, 339, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 352, 355, 357, 358, 359, 369 Gressmann, Hugo 236 Groß, Walter 274 Grünwaldt, Klaus 111, 114, 115, 128, 224 Haarmann, Volker 212, 219 Halpern, Baruch 73 Hanson, Richard S. 128 Haran, Menahem 131 Harford-Battersby, G. 233, 239 Hartenstein, Friedhelm 134, 210 Heckl, Raik 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 327 Hobson, Thomas 227 Hoftijzer, Jacob 204 Holzinger, Heinrich 233, 239, 294 Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar 159. Houtman, Cornelis 208 Jacob, Benno 93 Janowski, Bernd 7 Jepsen, Alfred 277 Jeremias, Jörg 73 Jericke, Detlev 9 Jüngling, Hans W. 104, 111 Kaiser, Otto 7 Keel, Othmar 159, 159, 160 Kellermann, Diether 224 Kessler, Rainer 210, 391 Kislev, Itamar 29, 30, 98 Klostermann, August 110, 390 Knierim, Rolf P. 88, 250, 294 Knohl, Israel 14, 16, 17, 18, 18, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 124, 126, 132, 133, 202, 235, 239, 262, 374, 380 Köckert, Matthias 6, 115 Konkel, Michael 388 Köppel, Urs 314, 319, 321 Kratz, Reinhard G. 7, 67, 237, 362 Kuenen, Abraham 29, 110, 233 Kugler, Robert A. 112 Kuhn, Christine 306

Laaf, Peter 115 Leveen, Adriane 31, 99, 253, 263, 264, 265, 269 Levenson, Jon D. 73 Levin, Christoph 67, 74, 114, 274, 279 Levine, Baruch A. 29, 120, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 210, 306, 337, 239, 357, 358, 369, 371 Levinson, Bernard M. 202 Lohfink, Norbert 73, 274 Mann, Thomas W. 249, 250, 257, 262, 266 Marx, Alfred 112 Mathews, Kenneth A. 128 McKenzie, Steven L. 78 Milgrom, Jacob 29, 87, 90, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 111, 112, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 128, 131, 133, 203, 205, 206, 223, 225, 227, 229, 239, 251, 253, 254, 255, 258, 260, 264, 286, 293, 303, 310, 369 Mittmann, Siegfried 316, 318, 319, 323 Möhlenbrink, Kurt 146 Nihan, Christophe 6, 16, 80, 81, 87, 88, 102, 104, 106, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 121, 124, 127, 128, 134, 143, 202, 203, 204, 205, 219, 220, 225, 374, 377, 378, 380, 386 Nöldeke, Theodor 274 Noth, Martin 18, 21, 22, 31, 66, 68, 75, 77, 79, 82, 88, 149, 208, 235, 239, 289, 295, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 341, 342, 347, 348, 350, 351, 369, 375 Olson, Dennis T. 68 Oswald, Wolfgang 323, 325 Otto, Eckart 7, 11, 11, 22, 67, 74, 78, 80, 111, 113, 115, 132, 201, 202, 277, 315, 316, 319, 326, 329, 335, 346, 377-378, 383, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 394 Paganini, Simone 202 Perlitt, Lothar 6, 277, 290, 314, 316, 318, 321, 385 Plaut, Wolfgang G. 103 Pola, Thomas 6, 10, 146, 274, 275, 276, 304, 309, 310, 386

Index of Authors Rad, Gerhard von 360 Reinmuth, Titus 129 Rendtorff, Rolf 112, 204, 205, 273 Römer, Thomas 2, 21-22, 66, 69, 78, 80, 81, 88, 102, 104, 109, 112, 114, 115, 133, 139, 315, 360, 394 Rooke, Deborah 134, 159 Rose, Martin 314, 321, 321-322, 339 Rösel, Hartmut N. 376 Rudolph, Wilhelm 234 Ruprecht, Eberhard 74 Ruwe, Andreas 112 Scharbert, Josef 234, 235 239 Schart, Aaron 77, 274, 280, 282, 284, 288, 307 Schenker, Adrian 206 Schlund, Christine 343 Schmid, Konrad 20, 67 Schmidt, Ludwig 1, 7, 66, 67, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 113, 122, 123, 129, 234, 235, 273, 286, 289, 294, 301, 314, 320, 322, 323, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 369, 338, 342, 246, 347, 349, 350, 358, 359, 392, 393 Schmidt, Werner H. 336 Schmitt, Hans-Chr. 76, 78, 359, 393, 394 Schorn, Ulrike 78, 203, 392, 393 Schwartz, Baruch J. 4-5, 16, 22, 218, 218, 243 Seebass, Horst 10-11, 10, 10, 25, 29, 66, 67, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 89, 92, 102, 106, 112, 113, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 130, 207, 224, 228, 235, 299, 314, 320, 323, 329, 330, 337, 339, 340, 342, 345, 347, 350, 351, 358, 359, 376, 385 Sherwood, Stephen K. 251 Ska, Jean Louis 7, 74 Skweres, Dieter Eduard 391 Smend, Rudolf 235, 236, 309 Stackert, Jeffrey 17, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 132 Steck, Odil H. 274 Stipp, Hermann J. 275 Struppe, Ursula 80, 274, 279 Stubbs, David L. 250 Sturdy, John 336, 341, 342, 343, 344 Swete, Henry 105

429

Utzschneider, Helmut 9 Van Dyke Parunak, H. 249, 268, 269 Van Seters, John 67, 314, 321, 321-322, 323, 326, 329, 388, 393 Vaulx, Jules de 88, 98, 103, 104 Veijola, Timo 314, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 Wagenaar, Jan A. 115, 117 Weimar, Peter 7, 74, 273 Wellhausen, Julius 7, 8, 110, 233, 274, 390 Wenham, Gordon J. 88, 104 Westermann, Claus 360 Wevers, John W. 338, 347, 353, 359 Witte, Markus 20, 67 Wöhrle, Jakob 117, 219 Yee, Gale A. 72 Zahn, Theodor von 105 Zakovitch, Yair 201 Zenger, Erich 6, 69, 274, 362, 383 Zevit, Ziony 131 Zimmerli, Walther 89