would put his Spirit upon them,” a prayer that closely approaches
the New Testament idea that all Christians are “priests unto
God.” As usual, the J and E elements possess such a vivid
character as to render them familiar to ordinary readers. The
legislative and statistical and especially the ritualistic parts
belonging to P are so detailed and uninteresting that they make
no impression on a reader’s memory, and P’s diffuseness, always
undue, reaches a climax in chap. vii. where the offerings presented
by each tribe at the dedication of the Tabernacle are actually
described in such full detail that six, in themselves extremely
uninteresting, verses are repeated in identical terms no fewer
than twelve times. Compare also the very similar repetitions and
diffuseness in chap. xxix.
Perhaps, however, the most illuminating example of the difference between traditions as recorded in J or E and traditions as given by P is found in the very first passage that occurs after the first long section of P describing the order of march of the several tribes and the position of the ark in the very centre of the host, both when encamped and on the march. Notwithstanding all this, in x. 30 we find Moses entreating Hobab, the son of Reuel his father-in-law, to come along with the Israelites to be “eyes” unto them; and in x. 33 it is stated that the ark went before them to seek out a resting-place for them. Whether we ascribe this whole passage simply to JE or consider, as many scholars do, that the first statement is by J and the second by E, it is clear that these statements directly contradict P’s elaborate scheme, according to which the people march, tribe by tribe, with the ark in the very centre of the square, and guided by the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. There can be equally little doubt that these statements are much more likely to be in accordance with fact than P’s. The latter’s elaborate plans go on the supposition that great masses of men, women and children could be moved about over the desert as easily as pawns on a chess-board; but even the greatest military leader the world has seen would have been unable to preserve such complicated formations amid the difficulties inevitable on a desert march; and the more carefully an intelligent reader has studied the details of P’s plan, the more astonished will he be to read the statement in x. 33 as to the position of the ark, and to learn that Moses, instead of simply following the pillar of cloud, requests Hobab to determine the line of march and select the sites for encampment. No clearer proof could be desired of the utterly uncritical spirit of the age in which the Hexateuch got its present form than that this detailed account should be immediately followed by two short paragraphs in palpable contradiction of the whole plan of camp and march so elaborately worked out in the preceding narrative.
The fact is that Numbers is the result of a long literary process of amalgamation both of traditions and of documents, a process that began in the closing decades of the 9th century B.C. and did not finally end till the 2nd century B.C., the earliest date being that of J, and the latest probably that of the various addenda to Balaam’s prophecies, e.g. xxiii. 10𝑏, xxiv. 9𝑏, xxiv. 18–24. Balaam’s prayer in xxiii. 10𝑏 is not only metrically superfluous, but the personal, individual note in it is quite out of keeping with every other reference in this poem, which is purely national. This addition may therefore have been originally the marginal note of a pious scribe which was afterwards transferred to the text. In xxiv. 24 Kittim is a name originally derived from Kitium, a city of Cyprus. The meaning of “Kittim” was then extended to include the inhabitants of all the islands and coast-lands of the Mediterranean. Hence it might mean not only Macedonia or Greece, but even Italy. In Dan. xi. 30 it is certainly applied to Rome, the Vulgate rendering it “Romam” there just as that version translates it here by “Italia.” Hence Baentsch would refer this oracle to the time of Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes) and even to the embassy of Popillius Laenas in 168 B.C. when that haughty Roman humiliated the Syrian king by drawing a circle round him with his cane, and daring him to step out of it till he had given him an answer.
The book falls naturally into three sections, chronologically arranged: (1) Chaps. i.-x. 10, Israel’s twenty days’ sojourn at Sinai during which a census of the people is taken and various laws are promulgated by Moses. (2) Chaps. x. ii-xxii., incidents that occurred during the march of Israel from Sinai to the plains of Moab. These incidents seem to have been chosen for the purpose of casting light on the religious history and character of the people and showing how later generations explained the origin of various place names. cf. Taberah and Kibrothhattaavah, xi. 3, 34, and modes or objects of worship, cf. the worship of the brazen serpent, xxi. 4-11, which, as we learn from 2 Kings xviii. 4, continued down to the time of Hezekiah. (3) Chaps. xxii. 2-xxxvi., Israel’s sojourn in the plains of Moab, their experiences while there, and the taking of a second census, preliminary to the invasion of Canaan.
Two examples of the very miscellaneous contents of the book will suffice to show the different literary strata of which it is composed.
(A) We shall take first the account given in chap. xvi. of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. There would be originally four independent narratives, J, E, and two very distinct strata of P, which we may call P1 and P2 or P3, i.e. later supplements to P. The narratives of J and E can no longer be distinguished except from slight linguistic data, perceptible only to Hebrew scholars; but the three stages of development are quite apparent even in translations.
1. The first narrative is that of JE, which relates how two Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, rebelled against the civil authority of Moses, and were punished by being buried alive, they and their households. Read together verses 1𝑏, 2𝑎, 12-15 and 25-34, omitting 32𝑏, i.e. “and all the men that appertained unto Korah and all their goods,” a clause due to the Redactor, who put it in to unite the narratives, forgetting that Korah, not being a Reubenite, could not have had his tent with its belongings among the tents of the Reubenites.
2. The second narrative is P1, which tells how Korah, himself a Levite, at the head of 250 Israelites rebelled against the religious authority of Moses and Aaron because of the privileges conferred on the tribe of Levi. Korah and his associates maintained that the other tribes, belonging as they did to a holy people, had as much right as the Levites to approach Yahweh directly, without the mediation of any Levite, and offer sacrifices and even incense to Yahweh Read together verses 1𝑎, 2𝑏-7, 19-24.
3. The third narrative is P2, which relates how Korah at the head of 250 Levites protested against the priestly privileges of Aaron, claiming that all the Levites had as much right to sacrifice and offer incense to Yahweh as Aaron and his sons had. Read together verses 8-11 and 16 and 17. In both P1 and P2 the disputants are summoned. from their tents and ordered to assemble before the Dwelling of Yahweh; and in both cases the same fate overtook the rebels. Fire descended from heaven and consumed Korah and his confederates. It is to be noticed that in both P1 and P2 incense is burned in pans or censers, so that even the author of P2 knew nothing about an altar of incense. Indeed in xvii. 3 and 4 the altar is spoken of in such a way as to imply that there was only one altar, viz. the altar of burnt-offering. xvi. 2 proves that according to the second account the members of Korah’s band, so far from being all Levites, as they are represented to have been in verses 8-11, were probably, with the exception of Korah himself, leading members of the secular tribes. In xxvii. 3 we find a proof, all the more conclusive from being incidental, that Korah’s followers were not all Levites; for, had they been so, it could never have occurred to the daughters of Zilpahad to repudiate the idea that their father, a Manassite, had had a share in Korah’s conspiracy. Of course none of the narratives is found in its entirety, anything common to two or more of them being given only once; and great skill has been shown in weaving them together.
(B) The story of Balaam as we have it in chaps. xxii.-xxiv. is an amalgam of J and E with later additions; but xxxi. 8, 16 proves that Balaam was not unknown to P. According to E, Balak sent certain Moabite princes all the way to Pethor on the Euphrates to ask Balaam to come and curse Israel. But Elohim came to Balaam by night and forbade him to go. So the princes returned disappointed. A second and still more influential embassy having been sent, Elohim again appeared by night, and this time permitted Balaam to go on condition that he said nothing but what Elohim bade him say. The journey being a long one and across a difficult desert, requiring a caravan well equipped with camels, the princes of Moab waited till Balaam was ready to accompany them. When Balaam reached the frontier of Moab Balak was waiting to welcome him, but could not refrain from asking why he had not come with the first embassy. With equal frankness Balaam replied that, though he had come now, he had no power to say anything but what Elohim might put into his mouth. On being taken to Bamoth-Baal he was met by Elohim. Thereupon, instead of cursing the Israelites, Balaam blessed them. Though bitterly disappointed Balak still attempted to effect his purpose and took Balaam to the top of Pisgah, with the result that Israel received a second blessing. Balak, now utterly disheartened, abandoned his project altogether.
According to J, Balaam was among his own people the Bne-Ammon when Balak sent messengers to him with presents such as soothsayers generally received, asking him to come and curse a people that had come up out of Egypt. Balaam protested that, though he were to receive a houseful of silver and gold, he could not go beyond the word of Yahweh, his God. Nevertheless his scruples were somehow overcome; and, without consulting Yahweh, he
