Page images

favor shown in vv. 36-38 to Caleb and Joshua) but simply says they declared the land to be a good land” (ct. xiii. 32). From Dt. i. alone we should not guess that the spies had done anything but their duty. This agrees very well with a part of the JE element of ch. xiii. especially vv. 20, 23f., 26b, 32b, 33 ; but it scarcely harmonizes with v. 3of., although this series of passages in which Caleb is set in sharp contrast with the other spies is obviously employed by him. This slight indication of a double point of view in the Deuteronomist is fully corroborated when we look at his source. The duplications of vv. 175–20 are unmistakable, and it also appears that vv. 22 and 23 are not consecutive, but parallel. Taking up the strand in which Caleb is contrasted with the other spies, we find that in xiv. 24 Caleb receives the promise of the land on which his foot had trodden. This of course does not mean “ the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob at the entering in of Hamath' (vs. 21, P); but neither does it include Eshcol and its vicintiy. Jos. xiv. 12–14 gives us an unimpeachable interpretation of its meaning : " Now therefore give me this mountain whereof Yahweh spake in that day (i. e. Num. xiv. 24); for thou heardest in that day how the Anakim were there and cities great and fenced (Debir is mentioned in the story of Caleb's conquest) ; . . . . Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, unto this’day ; because that he wholly followed Yahweh the God of Israel ” (cf. Num. xiv. 24). The sequel to this allotment of Hebron to Caleb appears in Jos. xv. 1419 (= Jud. i. 10-15) and the whole together is the sequel to J's story of the spies, which now appears almost in the light of a story of Caleb and the conquest of Hebron from the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Tolmai (cf. Jud. 1. 10). It includes in ch. xiii. at least v. 22, 28, 3of.

To E accordingly must be assigned that element of the story whose scene is Eshcol, and in which “the fruit of the land " figures so prominently. This is in agreement with the version of Deuteronomy, which, for reasons to be hereafter explained, admittedly favors the version of E. Vv. 206, 23f. and parts of vv. 26 and 27 of ch. xiii. are thus assignable to E ; and to this the linguistic marks will be found to agree (see refs.). The separation of the double strand of vv. 17b-20 is facilitated by a comparison of Dt. i. 24f., and a scrutiny of the subsequent relation of how the orders here given were carried out (see refs.). The narrative of J seems to reach a full stop with vv. 30f., and accordingly the resumption of the report of the spies in vv. 32f. is belated. From this it appears that the description of the giants in 32b, 33 is not really a continuation of vv. 22. 28, but rather parallel ; and the identification of the Nephilim with the beni-Anak is not original with the source, but belongs to the harmonistic redaction (see note in loc.). The manifestly legendary tone of vs. 33 is also less surprising in E than in J; moreover in the sequel of J (Jos. xiv. 6-15; xv. 13-19; Jud. i. 10-15) it does not appear that the Anakim were giants, nor is there any mention of Nephilim. Vv. 32b, 33 may accordingly be added with confidence to the E element of ch. xiii. Only vs. 29 remains doubtful. Here, in spite of the urgent reasoning of Meyer, Budde and others, the indications of E seem predominant. The argument on this intricate and important question is too involved and technical for these pages and the reader is referred to the authorities mentioned. For answer to Meyer and Budde cf. Dillmann, Nu. Dt. and Jos. p. 73, to whose linguistic argument I would add a comparison of the last clause of the verse with Ex. ii. 5. Further considerations are the agreement of vs. 29ac with xiv. 25, 43, 45 (E according to both Budde and Meyer ; cf. Jos. v. 1; xi. 3, and discussion of these passages in Bud. Urg: pp. 345ff.), and the fact that the spies' report in J seems, here and in the sequel, exclusively occupied with Hebron and the beni Anak, reaching a conclusion in vs. 28; whereas that of E takes in a wider reach, v. 32b, 33 presupposing the mention of other peoples besides the Nephilim. After vs. 28 we expect to hear of the murmuring of the people. It is much more appropriate after vs. 28 than after vs. 29, which contains purely general information not at all terrifying, and Caleb's stilling the people, vs. 30, shows that originally it must have stood at this point. Of course, however, when the 2d and 3d version of the spies' report (vv. 32a, 325, 33) were inserted, the description of the people's murmuring had to be postponed. This account of the murmuring is easily discoverable by means of the references in xiv. 31 and Dt. i. 39 (but cf. LXX.) combined with both P and E in xiv. iff. The J element here is 2aa (cf. Ex. xv. 24), 3b (vs. 31), 4 (?). Vs. ib must be from E, unless we suppose two rebellions in J; for according to J (xiji. 30) the murmuring takes place while Caleb and his companions and the people are still in the presence of Moses, not during the night. The linguistic features of vv. 8f. and the effort to overcome the people's fear of the Anakim instead of to counteract the evil report of the other spies, as in vs. 7, mark these verses also as J's. In Dt. i. 29 Moses claims to have made this speech himself. If the words are Moses' we must insert them and the fragments in vv. 2-4 before xiii. 30. If Caleb's (P, vs. 6) they belong between xiii. 30 and 31. Vs. 3a must be assigned to E (cf. vs. 43), vs. 4 is from E or J; as a parallel of 3c, probably the former; the rest of xiv. 1-10 is unmistakably from P. (With vs. 2 cf. vs. 28 and xx. 3, and see refs.). We have thus the story of J of the spies and their report practically complete ; and the insertion of the fragments in xiv. Iff. in their necessary position gives one more indication that we are right in assigning vs. 29 to E, since no room is left it in J.

In xiv. 11-38 after the removal of the priestly element (see above, p. 179) we have nothing save a complete and consistent narrative of Moses' intercession for the people, which, in its characteristic argumentation with Yahweh; its phraseology (see refs.) ; its explicit and remarkable reference to, and quotation of, Ex. xxxiv. 6f. (J) and of Num. X. 33f. (in vs. 14); from the subsequent reference made to it in Jos. xiv. 14; and from the view-point evinced by the author (Caleb alone resists the discouraging report of the other spies) can only be J's. To this statement only one exception is to be made. Vs. 25 is certainly from E. The detour around Edom and Moab is a conception peculiar to this source, and the expressions, “ by the way to the Red Sea ” etc., are no less unmistakable (see refs.); moreover this “ command” is referred to in vs. 41 (E). It should be observed that Yahweh's utterance to Moses in vv. 2024 is not complete ; for if we stop with vs. 24 the impression conveyed is that Israel is entirely disinherited in favor of Caleb; which cannot be the author's intention. He must have gone on to say that the subsequent generation should inherit the land after the present has expiated its unbelief in the wilderness. We know in act from Am. ii. 10; V. 25, that the 40 years' wandering was an integral element of the oldest tradition. In other words vv. 31-33 which largely duplicate their context (cf. vs. 32 with vs. 29) are not to be classed with vv. 26–38 as a late passage in imitation of the style of both J and P (so Well. Kuen.) ; but form properly the immediate sequel to vs. 24, their context being from P, who here as in Ex. xvi. is dependent on J, to some extent even verbally. By adding vv. 31-33 to vs. 24 we obtain still further confirmation of our judgment of vs. 25, which finds no room in J. We are again in agreement with critics generally in attributing vv. 39

In xxi. 1-3 and Jud. i. 17, one of which is from J, if not both, we have a subsequent story of the naming of this place “ Hormah” from the fact of its “destruction ” by Israel ; the former name having been Zephath. But besides this incompatibility with J, we have in 39b, 40a and b, 41, 43 and 44 phrases characteristic of E (see refs.). In vv. 43 and 45 it is easy to see the connection with vs. 25 and xiii. 29.

On the whole, chh. xiiif. yield with tolerable ease and certainty to analysis, and the results are of subsequent importance. We find, however, that the JE element here has been removed from a later position to accommodate it to P. In xiii. 26ab (J or E; cf. Jos. xiv. 6, J) the people are already settled at Kadesh, though the narrative in xx. 1--13

45 to E.

necessarily pertains to the first arrival there. If the transfer of chh. xiii f. be made, we find the E element connecting directly with xx. 14ff., where the command of xiv. 25 is carried out (cf. also xxi. 4, E) and E's story of Hormah, xiv. 39-45, brought into the same relative position as J's, xxi. 1-3, while in J the disaster of xxi., iff. follows suitably after Yahweh's language in ch. xiv. Finally the hyperbole in xiv. 22 is more natural and less exaggerated if the “provocations ” of chh. xvi. and xx. I-13 have preceded, than when they come after.

(P) And Yahweh spake unto Moses, saying, "Send thou 13-2 men, that they may 8spy out the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel : of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a "prince among them. And Moses sent them 3 from the wilderness of Paran according to the commandment of Yahweh : all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel. And these were their names : of the itribe of Reuben, 4 Shammua the son of Zaccur. Of the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat 5 the son of Hori. Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephun- 6 neh. Of the tribe of Issachar, Igal the son of Joseph. Of the 7-8 tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea the son of Nun. Of the tribe of Ben- 9 jamin, Palti the son of Raphu. Of the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel 10 the son of Sodi. Of the tribe of Joseph, [namely,] of the tribe of II Manasseh, Gaddi the son of Susi. Of the tribe of Dan, Ammiel 12. the son of Gemalli. Of the tribe of Asher, Sethur the son of 13 Michael. Of the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi the son of Vophsi. 14 Of the tribe of Gad, Geuel the son of Machi. These are the 15-16 names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Voses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua. And Moses sent 17 (J) them to spy out the land of Canaan,—[. ] *and said

53: 24,

*Cf. Dt. 1 : 19-46; Jos, 14:6-15. 2Ct. Dt. 1:21. 3Vv. 16, 17, 22, 25, 32, etc.; ct. 21 : 32 ; Dt. 1:24 ; Jos. 2:1, 22, 25 ; Jud. 18:2, 14, 17, etc. 41 : 16, 47 ; 26: 55 ; 33: 54 etc. 30, 35 ; 16: 2.

610 : 12 ; 4:37. Vs. 2 and refs, vv. 4-15. 8Ct. Jos. 14:6, 14 ; Jud. 1:13 ; Gen. 15:19 ; 36:11; cf. 34 : 19 ; 32:11; 1 Chron. 2 : 9-55. 'Cf. Ex. 17: 9ff ; 24: 13, etc.

* The personnel of the expedition according to J can be determined only by the sequel. The only exception to the disheartening report of vs. 31 is of a hitherto unknown“ Caleb,” vs. 30 ; it is probable accordingly that we should supply before vs. 17b some brief account of Moses' appointing Caleb and (eleven?) others to reconnoitre. Caleb's companions may have been named;

18 unto them, Get you up this way by the South, and

(E) go up llinto the mountains : and see the land, what it is ; (J) and the people that dwelleth therein, [ 1 whether

(E) they be strong or weak, whether they be 18few or 19 (J) many; and what the land is that they dwell in, whe

ther it be good or bad ; and what cities they bo that

they dwell in, whether in camps, or in strong holds; 20 (E) and what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether

there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage,

and bring of the 15fruit of the land. Now the time was the 21 (P) time of the firstripe grapes. So they went up, and 16 spied

out the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, to the entering 22 (J) in of Hamath. And they went up by the South, and

came unto Hebron; and "Ahiman, Sheshai, and Tal

mai, the children of Anak, were there. (Now Hebron 23 (E) was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) And

they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one 18 cluster of grapes, and they bare

it upon a staff between two ; [they brought] also of the 24 pomegranates, and of the figs. 19That place was called the

valley of Eshcol, because of the cluster which the children of 25 (P) Israel cut down from thence. And they returned from spy26 ing out the land at the end of 20 forty days. And they went and

came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the (E) children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran [ ] to

(Rp) Kadesh ; and brought back word unto them, and unto al 27 (J) the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And

they told him, and said, 21We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with

(E) milk and honey ; [...] and this is the fruit of it. 28 (J) 23How beit the people that dwell in the land are

strong, and the cities are fenced, [and] very great :

12Vv. 28, 31.

13 Vs. 29.

14Vv. 22, 10Cf. vs. 22 ; ct. 29. 11 Vs. 29 ; 14 : 40, 45 Dt. 1 : 24.

16Vs. 2 and refs. 17 Jud. 1 : 10.

18Gen. 40 : 10. 28 ; Dt. 1 : 28 ; Jos. 14, 12. 15Vv. 23f, 26. 19 Cf. Gen. 14:13, 24. 2014 : 34. 21 Vs. 19. 22 Ex. 3 : 8 and refs. 23Vs. 18 ; Dt. 1.28; Jos. 14:12.

more probably were not. Joshua of course could not have been of their number. For the displacement of JE in chh. xiiif., see above (Analysis p. 182).

« PreviousContinue »