« PreviousContinue »
the camp. While the flesh was yet between their 33 teeth,* ere it was chewed, the anger of Yahweh was kindled against the people, and Yahweh smote the people with a very great plague. And the name 34 of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah : because there they buried the people that lusted. 35From Ki- 35 broth-hattaavah the people journeyed unto Hazeroth; and they abode at Hazeroth.
(E) And Miriam and Aaron 'spake against Moses be- 12 (Rp) cause of 8the Cushite woman whom he had married : for (E) he had married a Cushite woman. * And they said, Hath Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses ? Shath he not spoken also with us ? And Yahweh heard it. Now the man 3 Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. And Yahweh spake suddenly unto 4 Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, 5Come out ye three unto the tent of meeting. And they three came out. 6And Yahweh came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at 5 the door of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam : and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words : 6 if there be a "prophet among you, I Yahweh will make
33Vv. 1, 10.
2Ex. 18:5. 31 Sam. 2 : 27-30. Ex. 11: 3. 5 Ex. 33 : 7ff. Ex. 33 : 7-11 ; ch. 11. 16ff., 24ff. Gen. 20 : 7; Ex. 15: 20 ; ch. 11 : 17, 26-29; Dt. 34 : 10.
* Not in contradiction with vv. 19f. In the preceding verse the preparation of quantities of the flesh by drying and curing in the sun is described. The plague came “ while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was consumed,” i. e. before the stock was exhausted.
† The explanatory clause vs. ib is omitted by Vulg. and is obviously only a fruitless redactional attempt to supply lost information. According to J Zipporah is a Midianite. If the harmonistic interpolations of Rje in Ex. iii. I; xviii. 1. be removed (see notes in loc.) there is nothing in E to prevent the supposition that the daughter of Jethro (nameless in E) is here referred to. The fact that the story of Jethro's visit, bringing Moses' wife and sons (Ex. xviii.), must in the original order have almost immediately preceded Nu. xii., corroborates this idea, and there is absolutely no ground for supposing an otherwise unheard-of marriage of Moses. The reference in vs. 2 is perhaps to the material missing before Ex. ii. 1. ; see note in loc.
myself known unto him in a 8vision, I will speak with him in 7 a dream. My servant Moses is not so ; he is faithful in all 8 mine house : with him will I speak ’mouth to mouth, even
manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the form of Yah
weh shall he behold : wherefore then were ye not afraid to 9 'speak against my servant, against Moses ?11 And the anger
of Yahweh was kindled against them ; and he departed. 10 And the cloud removed from over the Tent ; and, behold
Miriam was 12leprous, as (white as] snow: and Aaron looked 11 upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said
unto Moses, Oh 18my lord, lay not, I pray thee, 14 sin upon
us, for that we have done foolishly, and for that we have 12 sinned. Let her not, I pray, be as one dead, of whom the
flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's 13 womb. And Moses cried unto Yahweh, saying, Heal her, O 14 God, *I beseech thee. And Yahweh said unto Moses, If her
father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed
seven days ? let her be shut up lówithout the camp seven 15 days, and after that she shall be brought in again. And
Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days : and the
people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again. 16 (J) And afterward the people journeyed from Haze
(Rp) roth, and 16pitched in the wilderness of Paran.
10Vs. i and refs. 1111:1, 10.
12Dt. 24 : Gen. 15:1; 46 : 2. 'Ex. 33: 11; Dt. 34 : 10. 9; cf., Ex. 4:6.
13 Ex. 32 : 22.
14Gen. 20: 9; Ex. 32 : 21, 31 ; ch. 14 : 40, etc. ; cf. 22:34. 15 Ex. 33:7
16 Ct. 10:11.
* Probably we should read al-na “not so,” for El-na, “ O God.”
† Vv. 6–8 are poetic in form, but contain the doctrinal axiom which seems to lie at the basis of all accounts of theophanies in E. Vv. 3 and 10 contain each a single expression characteristic of J, and Dillmann concludes that there must therefore be an admixture in the story of some J material. But there is no sign of duplication, and the section as a whole can be assigned to none but E.
| Kadesh, and not “the wilderness of Paran” is the scene of the following event in JE (xiii. 26). But P locates it as here ; cf. x. 12; xiii. 3, 26. The phrases here may be from P after x. 12, or a harmonistic alteration from “ Kadesh ” by R.
2. Chh. xii-xiv. THE STORY OF THE SPIES.
Moses sends one representative of each tribe to explore the land of Canaan and its defences, including Joshua and Caleb ; xiii. 1–20. They bring back a discouraging report ; xiii. 21–33. The people rebel, exciting Yahweh's anger; xiv. 1-10. Moses intercedes and secures for them a mitigation of punishment; vv. 11-25. Yahweh addresses Moses and Aaron with reproaches against the people, and condemns all save Caleb and Joshua to die in the wilderness. The ten other spies are smitten at once ; v. 26–38. The people are penitent, and resolve to invade the land, but meet disaster at Hormah ; vv. 39-45.
In chh. xiii., xiv. we find the usual conglomeration, the composite character of the material being perhaps somewhat more apparent than usual. Thus, as to geographical conception, in the element agreeing with Nu. x. 12; xii. 16 (P2), which appears in vs. 3 and part of 26a, the point of departure and of return is “ the wilderness of Paran.” The twelve spies in this story experience no more opposition, difficulty or danger in exploring the land than if they were transported invisibly through the air, without susceptibility to the needs and limitations of ordinary men. Accordingly they inspect the entire country from its extreme southern to its extreme northern boundary “ from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, to the entering in of Hamath,” in a tour of 40 days' duration. Consistently the question of what the present inhabitants may have to say as to the occupation of their land by Israel does not seem so much as to present itself to the author's mind. The ten unworthy spies report on their return that the land costs more to cultivate than it is worth (vs. 32a ; cf. Lev. xxvi. 38; Ez. xxxvi. 13); only Joshua and Caleb indignantly protest before the people “ saying, The land, which we passed through to spy it out, is an exceeding good land.” The ten men are slain, “ because they made the congregation to murmur, by bringing up an evil report against the land,” xiv. 36.
On the other hand we have a second element which represents that the spies went up but a little way into the Negeb (“the South,” vs. 22) and came to Hebron. The point of departure and return is “ Kadesh (vs. 26 cf. Nu. xxxii. 8; Dt. I. 19; Jos. xiv. 6). The object of investigation is partly the quality of the land, but largely, if not principally, the character of the inhabitants and the strength of their defences. The report of the spies is not in the least unfavorable to the land. Quite the contrary. They acknowledge that, “ It floweth with milk and honey;” they bring with them a great cluster of grapes to witness to its extraordinary fertility. The discouragement of the people is caused simply by their report of the great strength of the inhabitants and their defences. With this representation Dt. i. 19-46 agrees to the extent of flat contradiction of the other ; cf. Dt. i. 25 with Num. xiii. 32. A still more remarkable contrast in the representation of these same elements appears in the personnel of the expedition. In that whose scene is Kadesh and the region of Eshcol and Hebron (southern Judah) Joshua does not appear as one of the spies. To quote from Prof. Driver's analysis (Introd. to 0. T. p. 58) “ Caleb alone stills the people and is exempted in consequence from the sentence of exclusion from Palestine (xiii. 30 ; xiv. 24); in P (the · Zin to Rehob'element] Joshua as well as Caleb is among the spies; both are named as pacifying the people, and are exempted accordingly from the sentence of exclusion (xiv. 6, 30, 38; cf. xxvi. 65, P). This last difference is remarkable, and will meet us again ; had the whole narrative been by a single writer, who thought of Joshua as acting in concert with Caleb, it is difficult not to think that Joshua would have been mentioned beside Caleb—not, possibly, in xiii. 30, but—in xiv. 24, when the exemption from the sentence of exclusion from Palestine is first promised.” In the subsequent narrative of J (Jos. xiv. 6-15; XV. 1419=Jud. i. 20, 10-15) Hebron becomes the portion of Caleb, because his brethren that went up with him when Moses sent them to spy out the land discouraged the people, but he wholly followed Yahweh. Caleb in fact had received at the time (cf. Jos. xiv. 9 with Num. xiv. 24) the promise that “ the land whereon his foot had trodden,” Hebron and “the cities great and fenced," " where were the Anakim, Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai,” should be his. The passage in Joshua has been worked over by Rd, but the original sense unmistakably corroborates the representation of that element in Num. xiii. f. where Caleb alone opposes the report of the men that went up with him.
The combination of these divergent representations has been effected with skill ; but it was unavoidable that traces should remain of incongruity, disagreement and duplication. Thus it is plain that xiii. 22 is parallel to vs. 21, vs. 32 to vv. 27-31, and xiv. 26–34 in general to xiv. II 22-25, not to mention smaller redundancies and parallels. No amount of redactional skill could preserve vv. 8 and 16b and avoid their appearing most incomprehensibly strange after we have heard of “ Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister” repeatedly, and never of Hoshea ; (but cf. Dt. xxxii. 44 (Rd). The explanation is very simple when we realize that this is in reality the first appearance of Joshua in P. The description of the country, vv. 27-29 corresponds naturally with the directions
given in vv. 176-19, but when the exploration is made to extend to a distance of 400 miles, it is strange that the report should relate exclusively to what could be discovered in the first 40. Moreover in vs. 25f. the journey of the spies is certainly described from south northwards. The combined text therefore makes it appear that the spies came to Eshcol, in the south of Judah, cut down there, according to directions, vs. 20, an immense cluster of grapes which they bore on a staff between two, besides other fruit, and then carried all this with them a journey of some 800 miles through a hostile country!
The redaction has left a further little awkwardness in that Caleb stills the people before Moses ” already in xiii. 30, whereas the people have not given, so far as the present text shows, the first sign of discontent or made any objection whatever until xiv. iff.
We scarcely need point out further evidence of the need of analysis ; it remains to indicate how by disentanglement of the interwoven strands all these difficulties may be removed.
All critics are practically agreed, ist in general as to the portions assignable to P, and 2nd as to the presence of both J and E in the element remaining after removal of P. The phraseology and view-point of the latter are easily recognizable, in the list of names, including both Caleb and Joshua (cf. xxvi. 65); the change of Joshua's name ; *the wilderness of Paran" as the starting point (x. 12 ; xii. 16b); “ Moses and Aaron ” and “the whole congregation of the children of Israel the actors; "the glory of Yahweh appearing in the Tent of Meeting ; and a great number of characteristic expressions, of which only one need be mentioned, tur for “spy out,” occurring eleven times, and used only by P (and Rp in x. 33). These make it easy to extricate the narrative of P which appears complete in xiii. 1-17a, 21, 25, (cf. xiv. 34), 26a (except “ Kadesh ") 32a ; xiv. 1a, 2b, 5-7, 10, 26–30 (Dill. vs. 30=J, but cf. Ex. vi. 8) 34-38.
The separation of E from J is far more difficult. From Dt. 1. 19-46 we are able to reconstruct the narrative of JE (no trace of P's narrative appears in Deuteronomy) and to supply certain features now missing. Thus it appears that instead of the list of names, JE contained a statement similar to Jos iii. 12; iv. 2, 4 (E), that Moses took a man from each tribe, and that the suggestion of a reconnaissance emanated from the people. The writer of Deut. i. 19ff. seems also to have had mainly before him an account of a reconnaissance to Eshcol, in which the produce of the country was a main consideration. In curious contradiction with the element of P, Dt. i. 25 not only imputes no blame whatever to the spies (no specific reason appears in the whole chapter for the special