at la 0000989839

8122019 At La 0000989839

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullat-la-0000989839 125

JBL1184 (1999) 601-624

REFLECTING ON MOSES

THE REDACTION OF NUMBERS 11

BENJAMIN D SOMMERNorthwestern University Evanston IL 60208-4050

The reception of literary works is usually accompanied by an uneasinessabout their reduction to meaning Reading itself becomes the project weread to understand what is involved in reading as a form of life rather than toresolve what is read into glossy ideas As in collage or conceptual art meanings (Rilkes gedeutete Welt) are part of the medium of art part of itsmateacuteriel

mdashGeoffrey Hartman1

κτπη rrn m r t o i m 983085pam rn 983085panmdashBen Bag983085Bag m Abot 525

Numbers 11498308535 represents an unusual sort of composite narrat iveThe

two texts it encompasses tell stories that are as far as plot goes entirely unre-

lated One describes Moses and YHWH S anger with th e people who com-

plained that their diet lacked variety The other r eco unt s th e overflowing of

Moses spirit onto t he elders The tensions in Num bers 11 surpass those found

in most red act ed texts in the Pentateuch which typically contain multiple ver-

sions of a single story differing mainly in plot details Fo r example it is clearthat both th e Ρ and J texts in Genesis 69830859 tell the same story even though they

differ regarding various specific issues (eg Ρ claims that Noah took two of

each animal onto t he ark while J maintains that two of some animals but seven

of others went on board) Occasionally two distinct bu t similar stories are com-

b in ed the narratives describing Korans rebellion and the mutiny led by

An earlier draft of this paper was presented to the Pentateuch section at the 1995 meeting ofthe Society of Biblical Literature I benefited from the discussion there especially from challeng-

ing observations from David Carr and Erhard Blum Marc Brettler commented incisively on anearlier draft of this essay

1Geoffrey Hartman Criacuteticism in the Wilderness The Study of Literature Today (New

8122019 At La 0000989839


602 Journal of Biblical Literature

Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 1698308517 were originally separate but they share

enough that they were easily combined into one story notwithstanding discrep-

ancies that remain In Numbers 11 however the incongruity is far greater the

components of the chapter diverge not regarding a storys particulars but

regarding what story is being told altogether Such a degree of incongruitydemands attention

By bringing together two disparate stories the redactor of Numbers 11

compels readers to contemplate several related motifs (in particular images of

Moses and of divinely sent ΓΠΊ) but bars them from achieving interpretative

closure Thus a study of redactional technique in this chapter broadens our

understanding of th e activity of the figures who formed the biblical texts as we

know them It suggests that pentateuchal editors at times structured narratives

to follow a logic of theme rather than one concerned with linear plot and that

narrative coherence (as opposed to thematic juxtaposition) was not always a

goal of ancient editors2 This finding has important implications for the practice

of redaction criticism and for its connections with other forms of analysis

Attention to the redactional technique of this chapter generates a literary read-

ing that is open983085ended precisely because it is sensitive to diachronic layers in

th e text Further the sort of literary analysis (in both senses) I attempt here

engenders greater understanding of postbiblical commentary Classical com-

mentators on this chapter are eisegetical not in the sense that they impose their

views on the ancient text but in the sense that they read the Moses of one pen983085

2 This redactional practice it should be noted is not unique to Numbers 11 we find it in

Exodus 3298308534 as well A kindred analysis ofthat text must await further study

Analogous techniques have been studied by Robert Alter and Edward Greenstein who

argue that different versions of a given story have been combined in such a way that each one

retains some identity The finished text they show is deliberately and productively uneven See

Alters discussion of what he terms composite artistry in The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York

Basic Books 1981) 13198308554 and Greensteins article An Equivocal Reading of the Sale of Joseph

in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed Κ R R Gros Louis 2 vols Nashville Abing-

don 1974 1982) 211498308525 30698308510 Note especially Greensteins statement regarding Genesis 37If the text that we accept as the final product contains discernible discrepancies between one verse

and another we do not presume that the redactor had attempted to remove them but failed

Rather we allow that the redactor may have been well aware of the inconsistencies and desired to

leave them in the text (p 117) The problem Alter and Greenstein confront (to wit Why have

inconsistent versions of a story been combined) is all the greater in Numbers 11 where the two

stories are not merely inconsistent but entirely unrelated in terms of plot and as we shall see

opposing in terms of theme

A similar situation is described by Tzvi Abusch in his study of the neo983085Assyrian version of the

Gilgamesh Epic Ishtars Proposal and Gilgameshs Refusal An Interpretation of The Gilgamesh

Epic Tablet 6 Unes 198308579 HR 26 (1986) 14398308587 Abusch shows that even though the presence of

the epics final tablet is incoherent in terms of plot (Why is Enkidu described as alive so long after hisdeath) the addition of the tablet contributes to the discourse on the neo983085Assyrian versions main

concern (the place of the god Gilgamesh in the divine hierarchy) Thus in that first millennium text

8122019 At La 0000989839


Sommer The Redaction of Numbers 11 603

tateuchal source into the other Traditional interpreters continue the exegetical

work of the redactor since the insertion of one story into the other changes the

meaning of both so that redaction results in inner983085biblical exegesis Conse-

quently the work of the redactor and that of classical commentators are mutu-

ally enlighteningMore can be said about the impossibility of interpretive closure in this text

as it relates to both recent narratology and classical commentary but first it will

be necessary to proceed with a source983085critical analysis and close reading of the

text

I Sources in Numbers 11498308535

Num 11498308535 is readily divided into the following narrative sections

I Vv 49830856 The people complain about th e lack of meat in the

desert there is only manna to eat

II Vv 79830859 The manna is described

III V 10 Moses and God hear the complaint both are displeased

IV Vv 1198308515 Moses complains to God about the difficulty of leading

such a people and the impossibility of finding enough

meat for them He asserts that he would rather die than

continue in such a job

V Vv 1698308517 God tells Moses to gather together seventy elders who

will receive some of Moses spirit (ΠΓί) of prophecy

VI Vv 1898308524a God tells Moses that he will give the people meat for a

month until they are sick of it Moses asks God if he will

really find enough meat to satisfy six hundred thousand

people in a desert God asks if anything could be too dif-

ficult for God Moses passes this information on to the

people

VII Vv 24b98308525 Moses gathers the seventy elders outside the camparound the tent God descends on the tent and puts part

of Moses spirit (im) on the seventy who break into

prophesying and then stop

VIII Vv 2698308530 Eldad and Medad who remained in the camp also break

into prophesying A lad informs Moses and Joshua bids

Moses to stop them Moses tells Joshua not to be jealous

on his behalf and expresses a wish that all the Israelites

could become prophets

IX Vv 3198308535 A wind (im) from the sea brings quail which the peoplegather with ease and in abundance While they eat a

8122019 At La 0000989839



These sections often fail to link up with each other Gods promise to give

his spirit to the seventy elders (V) responds only vaguely to Moses complaint

that he cannot feed the people (IV) The prophesying of the seventy (VII983085VIII)

has no relation to the plague brought on by quails which follows it (IX)3 Each

aspect of the storymdashprophecy and plaguemdashcould be a story of its own Indeedthe story concerning a plague brought on by quails that the people had yearned

for does appear by itself without reference to the story about prophecy and

elders in Ps 781798308530 and more briefly in Ps 1061498308515

On grounds of plot alone then we can divide Num 11498308535 into two

strands which were identified by scholars such as S R Driver J Carpenter

and G Harford983085Battersby and G B Gray a century ago4 In sections I II III

IV VI and IX (w 498308515 1898308524a 3198308535) the people complain that they lack

meat provoking Moses aggrieved speech to God and his demand for death

before duty God sends the people so much of what they crave that many ofthem die We might term this story Moses the people and plague or simply

the A narrative5 Sections V VII and VIII (w 1698308517 24b98308530) constitute

another story in which God tells Moses to gather seventy elders so that Moses

will share his prophetic spirit with them outside the camp Not only do the

elders outside the camp prophesy but Eldad and Medad in the camp do so as

well to Joshuas dismay and Moses apparent delight We might term this story

Moses the elders and prophecy or the Β narrative That two Psalms con-

tain versions of the story of Moses the people and plague without any refer983085

3 Martin Noth notes that the prophesying of the seventy is very strange in its present con-

text Moses is supposed to be relieved of his burden (verses 1498308517) How this goal is achieved by

putting the 70 elders in a state of ecstasy is difficult to understand moreover nothing is said on this

subject (Numbers [OTL London SCM 1968] 89) See also Jacob Licht A Commentary on the

Book of Numbers (in Hebrew 3 vols Jerusalem Magnes 198598308595) 21727 Harold Fisch makes a

similar observation in Eldad and Medad are Prophesying in the CampmdashStructuralist Analysis of

Numbers XI in Studies in Bible and Exegesis vol 2 (in Hebrew presented to Yehuda Elitzur ed

Uriel Simon Ramat Gan Bar Ilan University Press 1986) 484 See J Carpenter and G Harford983085Battersby The Hexateuch according to the

Revised Ver- sion (London Longmans Green 1900) 22019830853 S R Driver An Introduction to the Literature of

the Old Testament (Edinburgh Τ amp Τ Clark 1913) 62 G Β Gray A Critical and Exegetical Com-

mentary on Numbers (ICC 4 Edinburgh Τ amp Τ Clark 1912) 10198308525 Carpenter and Harford (Hexateuch 2202) and Gray (Numbers 102 cf 1079830858) attribute

w 10b98308512 to the same hand that created the plague story but suggest that they were added to the A

narrative secondarily from some other context They argue that Moses anger in these verses is

inappropriately directed against YHWH rather than the people (see esp Carpenter and Harford

2201 n 10b) However we should not be surprised to find that Moses anger is directed both at the

people who torment him and at the God who had the temerity to put him in charge of them

Indeed the idea that an angry man lashes out in several directions is quite understandable and in

this case even justifiable Moses speech in w 10b98308515 contains no discontinuities or gaps that sug-gest the need for a source983085critical division Carpenter and Harford also speculate that v 14 may

have been added by a redactor though again it should be noted that Moses comment here fits its

8122019 At La 0000989839



enee to the story of Moses the elders and prophecy provides empirical sup-

port for this source983085critical analysis (It is unlikely that the narrative in Psalm 78

is based on the pentateuchal text Jacob Milgrom points out that in Ps 7827

the quail fall within the camp itself while in Num 1131 they fall outside the

camp6

The variation suggests that the Psalm and Numbers depend on an oldertradition but not on each other

7)

The A narrative contains vocabulary items and narrative elements typical

of J texts (eg 1Π mœb and 2 mm1 see Gen 68 1813 4434 and Exod3312-13)8 Many details of the Β story (eg the location of the 178 outside the

camp the role of Joshua) link it with texts typically denoted by the siglum E9

To be sure some recent critics have rejected the classical Documentary

Hypothesis and its notions of discrete documents spanning the Torah Further

even among adherents to the classical theory the notion that E represents a

coherent document distinct from J (as opposed to a senes of supplements for

example) has attracted disfavor10

Therefore it is crucial to note that the source983085

6 See Jacob Milgrom Numbers (Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 4 Philadel-

phia Jewish Publication Society 1989) 927 Similarly the descriptions of the seven plagues against the Egyptians m Psalms 78 and 105

do not denve from the pentateuchal sources the Psalms and the pentateuchal sources are indepen-dently utilizing older traditions See the detailed analysis in Samuel Loewenstamm The Tradition

of the Exodus tn its Development (in Hebrew Jerusalem Magnes 1968) 3398308542 esp 34 η 33a8 See Gray Numbers 107 For further examples of the texts affinities with other J texts see

the margins of Carpenter and Harford Hexateuch 2 2019830853 See also e g J Sturdy Numbers

(Cambridge Commentary New English Bible 4 Cambridge Cambndge University Press 1976)

859 The location of the 7ΠΚ outside the camp (v 27) corresponds to Es earlier description in

Exod 33 798308511 of the bills placement In both J and P however the tent was located within the

camp (see the comments of Gray Numbers 115) The figure called TOQ mtOumlD p] ρ JJUuml7P accompanies Moses outside the tent here (Num 11 28) Since he is not one of the elders his presencewould seem odd here had we not been told in a previous E text (Exod 33 11) that a figure calledΙΓΠϋΩ |13 p ΙίΕΤίΓΓ serves Moses outside the tent Joshua is called a VTWUgrave of Moses only m Eversesmdashviz m the two mentioned above and in Exod 24 13 The institution of seventy elders is

known from the E passage in Exodus 18 The description of Gods descent in a cloud (p) matchesdescriptions elsewhere m E such as Exod 33 10 See further the discussion in Carpenter and Harford Hexateuch and Gray Numbers

10 See especially Rolf Rendtorff The Problem of the Process of Transmission m the Penta teuch ( JSOTSup 89 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1990) Erhard Blum Studien zur Kompo sition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189 Berlin de Gruyter 1990) R Ν Whybray The Making of the

Pentateuch A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1987) For

a discussion of attacks on the classical Documentary Hypothesis with a comprehensive review of lit-

erature see Ernest Nicholson The Pentateuch tn the Twentieth Century The Legacy of Julius

Wellhausen (Oxford Clarendon 1998) 4798308553 95983085195 (Nicholson presents a vigorous defense of

the classical hypothesis 22298308548 ) See also the brief but nuanced review of the debate m AlexanderRofeacute Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch (Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press1999) 88-129 On various theories regarding the nature of E in recent and older scholarship see

8122019 At La 0000989839



critical distinction I have drawn between two strands in Numbers 11 stands on

its own Whether the A and Β narratives here belong to larger documents run-

ning through the Pentateuch (or Tetrateuch or Hexateuch) has little bearing on

my source983085critical analysis Although comparisons of A and Β to other texts

identified as belonging to J and E respectively may prove illuminating my find-ings do not depend on those comparisons

More recent scholars have proposed alternative divisions of Num 11498308535

that are extremely unlikely indeed comparison of their work with that of turn983085

of983085the983085century scholars provides a fine example of the devolution of source crit-

icism from the careful well983085supported findings of the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries to the unfortunate hypercriticism that has marked much

source983085critical work in the past seven or so decades Martin Noth sees our text

as a J story concerning complaint and plague to which several elaborations have

been added to wit the last two verses of Moses complaint and God s order togather seventy elders (w 1498308517) the story of the gathering of the elders

(w 24b98308525 30) and the story of Eldad and Medad (w 2698308529)11

He views

w 1498308515 as belonging to the same fragment or elaboration as w 1698308517 these

verses are distinct from the older story which is interrupted after v 13 and

resumes at v 18 Thus for Noth God s command to gather elders should clearly

respond to Moses complaint regarding the burden of leadership since they

stem from a single hand But the elders whom Moses gathers were functioning

as political leaders before this event According to v 16 these men already

served as the nation s elders and officials Thus the point of gathering them is

not to introduce them to the burden of leadership for the first time as Noth s

assertion implies Rather it is to allow those who already share Moses political

burden to experience prophecy12

In light of the elders preacuteexistent status as

leaders Noths suggestion that w 14-17 are a single elaboration rather than

part of two originally independent stories loses force an elaboration ought to

make sense but w 16-17 fail to follow on what comes before them Granted

w 14 and 17b share two vocabulary items (the root KEgrave3 and the word 12b)9 but

this similarity need not indicate that they stem from the same hand The redac

tor may have used a coincidental parallel in the vocabulary of A in v 14 and Β in

v 17 to connect the stories or the redactor may have inserted either v 17b or v

14 (or both) in order to create a verbal link between these otherwise unrelated

tales Further v 14 (I cannot bear this burden alone) follows quite readily

1 1 See Noth Numbers 8398308591 (where he does not distinguish the provenance of w 24b98308525

30 from that of w 2698308529) and his History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs NJ Pren-

tice Hall 1972) 12898308529 (where he does so distinguish and where he suggests [p 128 n 360] that J

brought together his own narrative with the additions in w 1498308517 and w 24b98308530)1 2

Our Β text in w 1698308517 may presume that we know these men to be leaders on the basis of

Exod 181298308527 which like B is widely attributed to E (see Carpenter and Harford Hexateuch

8122019 At La 0000989839



from v 13 (Where can I find enough meat for this whole nation) v 16 on

the other hand introduces a new issue (the prophesying of the seventy elders

whose connection with Moses complaint is never fully clarified) The location

of the source983085critical divide then is most likely at the end of v 15

Noth s theory is weaker than that of the older scholars because he dividesth e story into an original J story which has some lacunae and fragments added

to it none of which quite works on its own as a narrative and none of which

makes this chapter work clearly either The earlier critics on the other hand

find two complete stories each of which can be taken as a coherent whole13

One of these stories (A) also appears in Psalm 78 which is not dependent on

the Pentateuch (as we saw above) The other story (B) reads especially well

alongside the narratives that precede and follow the passage under considera-

tion (as we shall see below) Noths theory is possible but the theory that

assigns all verses to stories that work on their own is more likely

David Jobling though not primarily concerned with diachronic or source983085

critical issues also divides Numbers 11 into a quail story and an elders story

that match Noths source983085critical division Whereas I attribute w 1498308515 to A

and w 1698308517 to B Jobling sees all of w 1498308517 as belonging to the elders story

This elders story according to Jobling is problematic the narrative takes sev-

eral baffling turns and reaches at the surface level no satisfactory conclusion

The elders do not share Moses leadership They share his spirit of prophecy

1 3 Blum denies that what I call A works as a fully self983085contained story pointing out that v 18

presupposes that God is already talking which we know only from Bs comment in v 16 (Komposi-

tion 83 η 169) But this observation hardly overturns the sense that A works on its own when the

redactor combined A and B the original A introduction to Gods statement in v 18 was no longernecessary and may have been left out

Several critics see Β as a series of glosses or elaborations added to the quail story rather thanas an originally independent narrative (Blum Komposition 8298308583 and see additional references

there Noth History of Pentateuchal Traditions 129 n 64 who furthermore views w 2698308529 as an

addition to w 2498308525 Aaron Schart Mose und Israel im Konflikt Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche

Studie zu den Wuumlstenerzaumlhlungen [OBO 98 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1990] 162-66214-16) Against this approach one can simply read w 16-1724b-30 to see how well they work asa story with an abstract (w 16-17) complicating action (v 26) resolution (v 29) and coda (v 30on the basic structure of an integrated narrative see Adele Berlin Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [Sheffield Almond Press 1983] 101-10) Moreover reading these verses alongwith 111-3 and chap 12 further demonstrates that the Β story works as part of a larger whole inde-pendent of the A story on the connection between Β and the texts immediately before it and after

it see my comments in the next section

Incidentally Scharts division of the chapter into a J layer and a D layer is nearly identical with my delineation of A and Β stories respectively except in two respects His D layer also

includes w llaszlig-12 and w 14-15 and he describes this D layer as a gloss to the J layer rather than

as an originally independent narrative However he gives no clear reason for removing w llaszlig-12and w 14-15 from what I call the A narrative where they fit quite well It is precisely because he

i th t th D l th t th D l h d fi it t f ti i d

8122019 At La 0000989839



but this cannot be an empowerment for leadership since neither in this

passage nor in the larger narrative do we hear anything of their sharing Moses

office14 But this baffling aspect of the elders narrative results only from

Jobling s odd division Once we recognize that Moses statement in w 11-15 is

a unified whole stemming from a single source and that a second source beginsat v 16 this baffling aspect of the elders story disappears

H Seebass divides the text into four sources an old J story about the sev

enty elders a story about the plague of the quail a revolt story and a postexilic

addition on the prophecy of Eldad and Medad15 In addition the description of

manna may come from a separate document It is difficult to argue against See-

basss atomizing division precisely because it is impossible to argue for it Are

w 16aa and 16b from one source and v 16aszlig from another as he argues Do

w 18aa on the one hand and 18aszlig-b on the other stem from different docu

ments Perhaps but there is no evidencemdashof plot language or stylemdashthat

could prove such divisions It is of course possible as Seebass would have us

believe that an incomplete story of the people s craving for food and a narrative

snippet in which God responds to a craving by sending quail were joined by a

redactor but given that the request and its ironic fulfillment work together as a

coherent story here as well as in Psalms 78 and 106 and given further that they

in no way contradict each other one wonders why a critic would suggest tearing

them asunder16

The advantage of the older analysis I have embraced rests in its eleganceand simplicity It yields two sources and two complete stories Seebasss division

of the text into a hodgepodge of four or five fragments none of which functions

independently is admittedly a possible one that cannot be disproved But

against an analysis that finds coherence it seems unlikely The source-critical

division I adopt renders many oddities in the text understandable since the

narrative disjunctions in Num 114-35 are present only in the redacted text

each of the two strands we identify is free of the sudden shifts of topic and non

sequiturs found in the text as a whole (and in the sources as identified by Noth

14 David Jobling The Sense of Biblical Narrative Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testa ment (JSOTSup 7 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1978) 31 Jobling attempts in a very thorough and original fashion to read Numbers 11-12 as a unity while acknowledging the compositenature of the chapter However he does not attempt to utilize the source-critical divisions to any

great degree he approaches w 11-12 as a whole not as a redacted text and thus our projects differ For convincing critiques of Joblings stimulating essay see Blum Komposition 79 η 151 and

Fisch Eldad 47 Like Jobling Fisch provides a suggestive attempt to read the story as a unitydefined by a set of binary oppositions (some of which as so often in structuralist analyses are gen-

erated more by the search for polarities than by the text itself) he too suspends consideration of the

diachronic dimension implied by his analysis1 5

H Seebass Num XI XII und die Hypothese des Yahwisten VT 28 (1978) 21498308523 esp

219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839



and Seebass) What remains is the question Why has a text centering on com-

plaints regarding food and leadership been combined with a text concerned

with prophecy In order to understand why these stories were brought

together and how their union affects the reader it will be helpful to look at the

images each presents of the character Moses

II The Characterization of Moses

The Β story Moses the elders and prophecy portrays Moses in an

entirely positive manner This becomes clear as we note how the story works

with the texts immediately before and after it both of which also contain ele-

ments typical of E1 7

In 1119830853 which we might term Moses the people and

prophecy the people complained (we are not told about what) God scorched

them with a fire and the people cried to Moses Moses filling a classicalprophetic role interceded for the people and God acquiesced to Moses

prayer by stopping the fire In chap 12 which we might call Moses his sib-

lings and prophecy Aaron and Miriam complain against Moses emphasizing

their own status as prophets God appears to the three siblings to tell them that

Moses is set apart from other prophets God then inflicts Miriam with leprosy

After Moses prays on her behalf she is healed

These three texts in chaps 1198308512 form a unit concerned with Moses rela-

tion to the prophetic office its roles and its subsequent history The first part of

this unit 1119830853 underscores the patience of Moses his concern for the unwor-thy nation and his effectiveness as a prophetic intercessor Moses is quick to

respond to his people s cry by praying for them and God is quick to respond to

Moses prayer by forgiving the people The third story which appears in chap

12 extols Moses as well God himself sets Moses apart by announcing that from

prophet to prophet there is none like this prophet (1269830859) As in the first part

of this unit God immediately answers a prayer that comes from Moses lips

The story also stresses Moses beneficence although Miriam and Aaron

impugn his authority Moses promptly heeds Aarons plea that he pray for

Miriam The text further depicts his humility he did not himself take any action

to penalize or even respond to the talk against him After all the text reminds

us in 123 The man Moses was very humble (V3I)mdashmore so than any other

person on the face of the earth

The second part of this triad our story of Moses the elders and

prophecy emphasizes these same characteristics In 1117 God takes some of

1 7 See eg Gray Numbers 9898308510012098308523 Noth assigns the original story on which chap

12 is based to J but he does so merely on the basis of the presence there of the tetragrammatonmdashacriterion that is meaningless after Exodus 3 (History of Pentateuchal Traditions 127 n 359) In any

t N th th t th ld t d th f N b 12 l l t d (

8122019 At La 0000989839



Moses spirit (im) and gives it to the seventy elders but this does not reduce

Moses prophetic powermdashMoses simply has ΓΓΠ to spare Rabbinic commenta-

tors compare the transfer of Moses ΓΠΊ to the use of one candle in lighting

another (the first candle does not lose any of its flame) and they compare it to

the act of teaching (the teachers knowledge is not diminished as a result of thepupils gain)

18 At the same time v 17 takes pains to make clear that the first

candle is brighter than the other seventy that this teacher is greater than all the

pupils combined God accords honor to Moses there and stresses his superior-

ity to the elders by speaking directly to him but not to them I shall descend

and speak with you and I shall take some of the spirit that is upon you and put

it on them 19

Further this story shows Moses to be a humble prophet unaffected by his

unique status and happy to share his spirit with others In ν 29 Joshua objects

to the prophesying of Eldad and Medad in the camp whereupon Mosesresponds Are you jealous on my behalf Would that all YHWH s nation were

prophets indeed that YHWH would put his spirit on them Commentators

ancient medieval and modern celebrate Moses selflessness here as well as his

devotion to his people According to Midr Tehillim 146 Moses statement

expresses his hope for the whole nations salvation (ie his comment represents

a hope for a boon for Israel) which will be fulfilled in the world to come2 0

Nachmanides understands Moses exclamation in 1129 as an example of his

humility (ΤΓ13ΓΤ0Ι) implicitly linking this verse with 12321

Verse 29 is explicitly

linked with Num 123 as an example of Moses great humility (ϊΤΟΙΠ) in Midr

Hag to Numbers 123 and in Midr Leqah Τον to 112922

Similarly John Calvin

maintains that v 29 evinces the gentleness and humility of Moses whom no

ambition nor consideration of his personal dignity prevents from willingly

admitting the very lowliest into companionship with himself23

By stressing his

humility these texts read this verse along with the last story of the triad found in

1 8 See e g Sifre Bemidbar sect93 on ν 17 (Siphre DBe Bab [ed H S Horovitz Leipzig Gus-

tav Fock 1917] 94) and Rashi on ν 17 Modern commentators similarly stress that the transfer of

Moses spirit to the elders did not dilute Moses own prophetic ability See Gray Numbers 111

Licht Numbers 2 18 so also Alan Cooper and Bernard Goldstein At the Entrance to the Tent

More Culuumlc Resonances m Biblical Narrative JBL 116 (1997) 204-519 This point is made by Milgrom Numbers 87 Rashi ad loc and Sifre ad loc (ed Horovitz

94) Cf Exod 19 19 which makes the same point20 In the edition edited by Salomon Buber (Vilna Romm 1891) 114 m Midr egraveoher Tob

(repr Jerusalem 1968) 3821 See his comment on 11 28 ( Π Ώΰ 2 ]ΓΓ Ώ ΙΠΒΓΤ ΊΓπίΓΤΰΐη ΠΕΟΊ) Similar comments

appear in Pirqe R El and Zohar (see the citations m M M Kasher Torah Shelemah [m Hebrew

48 vols Jerusalem Beit Torah Shelemah 192798308595] 38 2049830857)2 2

See Midr Hag (ed S Fisch 2 vols London Chmnuch 1957) 1 281 Midr Leqah Τον(ed Aaron Padva Vilna Romm 1921) 205

2 3 John Calvin Commentaries on the FourLast Books of Moses (4 vols Edinburgh Calvin

8122019 At La 0000989839



Numbers 1198308512 Modern commentators follow a like path Gray is typical

when he says Moses has more at heart the good of the community as a whole

than his own personal honour or continued pre983085eminence this fine trait in

Moses character as conceived in early Israel stands out clearly Similar trib-

utes are found in the commentaries of Sturdy Milgrom (who specifically con-nects this verse with the assertion of Moses humility in 123) and Levine as

well as in studies by a political scientist (Aaron Wildavsky) and a theologian

(Abraham Joshua Heschel)24

The three stories concerning Moses prophetic status in Numbers 1198308512

then portray Moses with great enthusiasm They depict him as good983085hearted to

the complaining people he leads and even to those who rival him endowed

with prophetic spirit greater than that of any other human unusually adept in

all aspects of prophetic office and humble in spite of it all Further he is dis-

posed to share his spirit with others though God ordains that he remainunique

25

The Moses of our A story Moses the people and plague differs consid-

erably When the people complain that they want meat he doesnt pray for

them instead he erupts into a long and angry outburst asking God why he has

placed such a horrid burden on his servant (w 1198308515) Am I responsible for

this people Moses demands Should I have to care for it as if I were its nursing

father26

Moses exclaims that if God treats him thus he would rather be killed

2 4 Gray Numbers 115 Sturdy Numbers 86 Milgrom Numbers 91 Baruch Levine Num-

bers 198308520 (AB 4A New York Doubleday 1993) 6398308564 341 See also Aaron Wildavsky The Nurs-

ing Father Moses as Political Leader (University AL University of Alabama Press 1984) 73143

15098308551167180 A J Heschel God in Search of Man (New York Farrar Straus amp Giroux 1955)

22798308528 On the positive evaluation of Moses in Numbers 1198308512 generally see also Blum Komposi-

tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5

Of course this positive characterization of Moses is not the only function of the original Βstory Just as one can analyze this story as part of the pro983085Mosaic triad in Numbers 1198308512 (to whichΒ belonged prior to its combination with A) so too Β may have had a context prior to its redaction

into this pro983085Mosaic triad Β is clearly related to several other texts that address the issue of Moses

status in relation to that of the elders such as Exodus 18 33798308511 and 2419830852998308511 (On this issuesee Levine Numbers 33898308543) One may argue for example that our Β text and Exod 2419830852998308511

are parallel accounts from a collection of related narratives each of which presents theories regard-ing how the seventy elders acquired their status as uumltT2iquest8 Similarly one may suggest that Exodus18 and Β together recount the development of the institution of the elders

What emerges from these considerations is that Β has many different Sitze im Text and hence

many different functions (1) Β can be viewed as part of an old grouping of traditions or of an older

narrative document (sometimes called E) In this setting it is especially concerned with issues of

leadership and with the etiology of the elders and prophecy (as Levine points out) (2) It can be

viewed as part of the pro983085Mosaic triad in an older version of Numbers 1198308512 that does not yet con-

tain the A story Here it is especially concerned with extolling Moses (as I point out above) (3) It

can be viewed as part of the redacted text of Numbers 1198308512 found in the current Torah Its func-tion in this third983085level setting is the concern of this article

8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27

This diatribe contrasts starkly with his activities in our Β narrative

While Bs Moses speaks rarely preferring to say little and do much As rambles

in his verbose complaint He is not humble but petulant not beneficent but bit-

ter Instead of concern for his people he displays contempt for them and for his

unwanted role as their parent (The characterization of the prophet here recallsExod 4198308516 in which Moses attempted to shirk the command that he lead the

people out of Egypt significantly that passage like our A text is attributed to J

In the E version ofthat story Moses one remark Who am I that I should go to

Pharaoh and free the Israelites from Egypt [Exod 311] seems more humble

than obstinate but in J Moses continues to raise objections to serving when

Gods intent is already manifestly clear) The A story stresses Moses self983085

centeredness by repeating emphatic first983085person pronouns ΎΓΊΗ Ό3ΚΠ (v 12)

H31 Ό3Κ tollTN

1 (v 14) Moses declaration (v 15) Let me not experience my

misfortune (TUTQ)28

also focuses attention on his self983085pity29

Moses indigna983085

York Macmillan 1992) 267 η 15 Cooper and Goldstein (At the Entrance 204 n 14) point out

the important contrast between Moses words and the proud boast of Kilamuwa and Azitiwadathat they are like father and mother to their people ΚΑΙ 2410 26AL3 Moses comment here is

the antithesis of the attitude expected of a Northwest Semitic leader2 7

One might compare this statement with Exod 3232 There too Moses asks to die but he

expresses a death wish to deter God from destroying Israel In Num 1115 on the other hand he

wants to die not because he loves the people but because he is sick and tired of them (Significantly

Exod 3232 like our Β narrative and the other stories of the pro983085Mosaic triad in Numbers 1198308512 is

normally attributed to E see Carpenter and Harford Hexateuch 132 Driver ILOT 38) SimilarlyMilgrom contrasts Moses outburst in Num 1111 (TOQ983085K

4 nubi JOSh ΠΠΠ HD

4 Tiacute laquo TOD ΤΟΙΠ

JTS2 1Π) with Moses words in Exod 522 (TiiumlIumlTD ητ Huumlb ητπ uumlub ΠΓΰΠη Hub ΤΓΚ ΤΟΠ) Moses

selfless concern with his people has apparendy evaporated (Numbers 85) It is revealing that pre-cisely the phrasing Moses had used earlier to complain on behalf of the people now appears as

Moses complains on his own behalf the comparison underscores Moses concern with himself inNum 1111

2 8 According to midrashic texts and the Masorah Magna the wording Tima in the MT is a

tiqqucircn sofegraverigravem apparently for a text that originally read pITO (your evil deed) or DTiiro (theirmisfortune) See Sifre sect84 (ed Horovitz 82) Mek DeumlSicircracirc sect6 (Mechilta DRabbi Ismael CumYanis Lectionibus et Adnotationibus [ed H Horovitz and C Rabin Jerusalem Wahrman 1970

(1931)] 135) and Christian Ginsburg Introduction to the Massoretico-Crigravetical Edition (New YorkKtav 1966 [1896]) 353 However the suggestion that a tiqqucircn sofegraverigravem is found here is unlikely Itreceives no support in the versions Granted Tg Neof and Frg Tg reflect a reading of DTUTI (iethe peoples suffering) This translation is understandable as a midrashic interpretation (see n 47below) but it most likely does not reflect the original behind a tiqqucircn sofegraverigravem since tiqqucircnecirc

socircfeumlricircm generally ascribe inappropriate action or anthropomorphism directly to God Rashi on Job322 (as cited in A Berliner Raschi- Der Kommentar des Salomo Β Isak uumlber den Pentateuch [2ded Frankfurt Kaufmann 1905] 300 contra Rashi on our verse) suggests that the text originallyread ]run (ie the evil You will do) which at least allows for an understandable case of tiqqucircn

socircfeumlricircm However Milgrom (Numbers 86) points out that if the text allows ΠΙΠΠ (v 11) to remain

then ^Πϋ983085ρ would not be so

difficult and hence Τ ψ ρ

must be

original In fact he notes it is

essential for it makes the entire passage an outpouring of Moses self983085pity climaxed by this remark

Since God is the author of his wretchedness He might as well finish off the jobmdashand take his life

8122019 At La 0000989839



tion appears all the more surprising when we notice that this story unlike other

complaint or murmuring texts in the Pentateuch does not depict a rebellion

against Moses Rather than addressing their complaint to him the people wept

in private and they did so not as a unified (and hence threatening) group but

each family at the entrance to its own tent (v 10) Moses tirade in w 1198308515 isnot motivated by worry over his own safety or frustration regarding a rebellion

and is less excusable than an accusation against the people would have been in

say Exodus 14 Numbers 16 or Numbers 2030

The last sections of this story also prove embarrassing to Moses He doubts

that God can supply enough meat for the nation (v 22) Gods response further

lowers Moses in the readers sight In anger or in jest God mocks Moses lack of

trust that he will find meat for six hundred thousand (v 23) Then God brings

quail in an action that turns out to be spitefully ironic the people are stricken

by plague just as they begin to enjoy the meat for which they yearned (v 33)Because the plague follows Moses complaint the reader senses that God sent

it not only to punish the people but to mollify Moses31

This reading is strength-

ened by the phrasing of Gods retort in v 23 Now you will see whether My

word is fulfilled for you (ΐΊρΤί) or not The odd accusative in the word ppVT

demonstrates that God afflicts the nation at least in part in order to demon-

strate his might to his prophet32

Alternative readings of w 2198308523 are possible but they too force the

reader to see Moses as an anti983085prophet Moses statement may express his frus-

tration with the nation rather than his doubt regarding God Thus v 22 may

not mean I doubt you can bring enough meat God but The people will

never be satisfied You could bring all the meat in the world and it wont seem

like enough for them3 3

This reading sheds a different light on Gods response

more conspicuous when we consider the structure shared by Num 11198308513 and Numbers 12 (along

with Num 2159830859 another E text) Olivier Artus points out that these stories describing the peo-

ples grievances include six fixed elements see his Etudes sur le livre des Nombres Reacutecit Histoireet Loi en Nb 131-2013 (OBO 157 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1997) 37-38 The A nar

rative also deals with the peoples grievance but of the elements identified by Artus those that contribute to Moses stature (eg intercession) are notably absent or overturned in our A narrativeElements that do not enhance Moses stature (eg topographic conclusion) are nevertheless present

30 So George Coats Rebellion in the Wilderness The Murmuring Motif in the WildernessTraditions of the Old Testament (Nashville Abingdon 1968) 101 Schart Mose und Israel 160 Onthe other hand Moses claims in 1113 that the people did complain to him direcdy but this may bean exaggeration on his part

31 Milgrom comments From Gods response (v 23) to Moses faltering faith (w 21-22) itwould almost seem that the quail are brought to Israel in order to prove Gods power to Moses

(Numbers 88) Cf Jobling Sense of Biblical Narrative 3032 The emphasis on Moses desire to see a miracle is even stronger in the Samaritan versionwhich reads nton ΠΠΚ rather than MTs ΓΙΚΊΓί ΠΓΊ1 (see Licht Numbers ad loc)

8122019 At La 0000989839



v 23 means not Yes I can gather any amount of meat Moses but rather

Oh I can satisfy them They want meat Ill give them so much meat theyll

wish they never asked for it According to this reading Moses does exactly the

opposite of what a prophetic intercessor should do he criticizes Israel before

God and hence encourages God to punish them (The motif of Moses asinformer or snitch is aggravated when we recall that the people did not speak

directly to Moses and that v 10 as George Coats points out gives the impres

sion that Moses just happened to overhear the statement of their complaint 34

Thus Moses grievance appears to bring the nations discontent to the attention

of a God who might otherwise have ignored it) A third possibility equally inju

rious to Moses reputation as a leader is suggested by Marc Brettler Moses

complaint could be taken as a wish that the people would be less populous thus

less burdensome His complaint allows an alternative solution rather than a

new administrative system a drastic reduction of population so that they can behandled more easily35 The wording of v 22 is deceptively and I think deliber

ately vague The verse encourages not one but three readings all of which

redound to Moses disfavor Each possibility may influence the reader and the

ambiguity fosters a stronger denunciation of Moses than a unequivocal text

would have done36

III The Effects of Redaction in Numbers 11

and Interpretive TraditionExamination of the two documents found in Num 114-34 shows that they

present opposing images of Moses37 We may well ask then For what reasons

34 Coats Rebellion 10135 Marc Brettler The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London Routledge 1995) 6936 Cf Meir Sternbergs insight regarding the role of ambiguity in 2 Samuel 11 where mutu

ally exclusive systems of gap filling work together to lower the readers estimation of David (The

Poetics of Biblical Narrative [Bloomington Indiana University Press 1985] 186-229)

Schart proposes a completely different understanding of Moses dialogue with God (Moseund Israel 161-65 215) according to which Moses in v 10 is displeased not with the people but

with Gods anger at them His speech in w 11-15 according to Schart is a defense of the people

whose desires Moses himself champions But Moses speech lacks any clear statement of sympathy

with the people whom he characterizes on the contrary as a burden Schart suggests (p 165) that

Moses disavowal of the role of wet nurse in v 12 implies that God is the real mother of the people

and hence presents an implicit prophetic intercession This reading is ingenious but the alleged

intercession is so subtle in comparison with genuine cases of Mosaic prayer on the nations behalf

that we must conclude that it is nonexistent37 On the differing portrayals of Moses in J and E generally see Gerhard von Rad Old Testa-

ment Theology (2 vols Edinburgh Oliver amp Boyd 1965) 1291-94 Von Rad notes that in J Moses

role is more limited than it is in E He does not point out the specifically negative portrayal ofMoses that emerges from Numbers 11 and some other J texts Regarding this particular issue at

least Harold Bloom has a legitimate insight P is wary of Moses E exalts him while J handles the

8122019 At La 0000989839



did a redactor bring together two texts that not only tell completely unrelated

stories but reflect such different viewpoints38 The oddity of this redaction can

be gauged from two comments found in Jacob Milgrom s recent commentary

on Numbers Discussing v 29 Milgrom states Moses selflessness reaches its

apogee in this passage and thereby merits the accolade awarded him NowMoses was a very humble man more so than any other man on earth (123) A

few verses earlier Milgrom described Moses as wholly lacking the selfless con

cern for his people he had displayed earlier in his life Milgrom thus describes

Moses as reaching the apogee of selflessness and lacking it altogether in this

chapter39

Redaction yields a unit whose elements are at odds with one

another40

[New York Grove Weidenfeld 1990] 241 see further pp 242^50) Scholars have rarely attendedto negative attitudes toward Moses in the Pentateuch (an exception is Trent Butler who does not

deal with J texts primarily [An Anti-Moses TraditionSOT 12 (1979) 8-15]) Rather most schol

ars (following in the footsteps of E) describe the characterization of Moses as a type of heroic saga

or as hagiography (eg George Coats Moses Heroic Man Man of God [JSOTSup 57 Sheffield

Sheffield Academic Press 1988) if they do not compose works that themselves display affinities

with these genres (eg Elias Auerbach Moses [Detroit Wayne State University Press 1975]) The

caustic attitudes toward Moses warrant further study They may reflect biblical literatures skepti

cism toward (but not repudiation of) leadership a skepticism seen most prominendy in the stories

about David in the books of Samuel On the connection between Moses and David see Bloom

who regards Moses as an uncanny step on the way to David (p 242) even though in personality

and character he could scarcely be further from the David of 2 Samuel (p 244)381 deliberately phrase the question in terms of the redactors intentions The redactor who

combined these disparate texts was I presume neither suffering from aphasia nor blindly pasting

together random scraps in a darkened room I do not see any cause to resist the assertion that the

redactor combined texts in a surprising way for some reasons and that we can attempt to recon

struct these reasons by evaluating the results he or she produced Incidentally the extent to which

synchronically oriented literary critics repudiate interest in authorial intentionality has been exag

gerated see John Barton Reading the Old Testament Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia

Westminster 1984) 149-51 Further Barton argues persuasively that even for synchronically ori

ented readers a wholesale retreat from consideration of intent is neither as plausible nor as desir

able as many structuralists and post-structuralists propose (see pp 167-70 and 188-87) What

theorists since the New Criticism rightly object to is the attempt to use biographical or historical

evidence to determine the meanings of a text but divining the intent of an author by analyzing the

text itself is hardly illegitimate for a literary reader39 Milgrom Numbers 91 85 respectively Levine also pays attention to the question Why

are the themes of governance and complaints regarding food found together (Numbers 327-28

337) His answer is not convincing (governance is in fact not the issue in the elders story at all since

they were judges before the event recorded in it) but he identifies the question that needs to be

raised40 Martin Buber is one of few commentators to acknowledge the tension The story of the

descent of the Spirit upon the Elders lies before us in a singular fusion with the story of the gift of

the quails It has not merely been grafted on to this tale which was clearly originally connected withthat of the manna but has actually grown into union with it in such a way however that the sepa

rate branchings of both can still be distinguished (Moses The Revelation and the Covenant [New

8122019 At La 0000989839



As a result it becomes possiblemdashindeed necessarymdashto read one story in

light of the other Before readers of the redacted text arrive at Gods command

that seventy elders gather (in B w 1698308517) they already know (from A) that

Moses and God are incensed Consequently they are likely to view the com-

mand to bring elders together as somehow denoting the onset of punishmentThe way that the two texts have been combined enhances this reading of w

1698308517 because the command there to assemble elders appears in tandem with

Gods description (in A w 1998308520) of the plague he intends to send Those who

read the Β narrative by itself on the other hand would not have regarded the

gathering of elders as having any ominous significance For them w 1698308517

simply present God s decision to spread His spirit among a nation privileged to

contain many prophets and to be led by a man who has spirit to spare

Moses exclamation in v 29b (Would that all YHWHs nation were

prophets ) is similarly turned on its head once that Β verse follows As por-trayal of Moses Moses wants to share his unique status in the redacted story

not because he is a democrat at heart but because he hates the people and

would rather die than continue to bear responsibility for them Against this

background his statement carries a new meaning The redacted story s Moses

does not say I wish that all the people could enjoy the spiritual gifts I enjoy

but instead I wish all of these revolting people had to suffer this burden41

This is hardly the Moses upon whom commentators on v 29 heaped accolades

The elders acquisition of Moses spirit also takes on new meaning in the

redacted story Whereas for Β that event betokens the strength of Mosesprophetic ability the reader of the redacted text can understand it quite differ-

ently Because Moses disbelieved God in w 2198308522 and because he failed to ful-

fill his prophetic role as intercessor God punishes Moses by taking away some

of his spirit which he then gives to the elders The reader of the redacted story

may not be inclined to compare the transfer of spirit to the transfer of fire from

one candle to another (in which the fire from the first candle remains undimin-

ished) That reader may view the spirits movement as a zero983085sum transaction if

the elders gained then Moses lost Indeed Milgrom argues for precisely this

reading

4 1 Of the commentators I have read only Buber begins to recognize that Moses in the con-

text of th e chapter as a whole sees prophecy as less than a blessing The narrator does not wish this

superiority [of Moses over the elders] to be understood as something desired by Moses himself

who was Very humble but as the fate with which he has been charged by God and which oppresses

him The narrator extracts these words [Moses exclamation in v 29] with great wisdom For

when the whole people have become nebiim in direct contact with God it would no longer be nec-

essary for somebody to be charged by God with the function of bearing them on his bosom like an

infant (Moses 16698308567) My position differs from Bubers for two reasons First Buber reads only

the unified texts and is not interested in reading the sources individually prior to seeing how they

work together Second (and resulting from the first and also from his hesitancy to see a petulant and

8122019 At La 0000989839



It is Moses failure to stand in the breach (cf Ezek 2230 Ps 10623) thatexplains why the story of the elders is interwoven with the story of the quailto provide punishment for Moses Evidently the fusion of these two sto-ries is an attempt to demonstrate that Moses was punished by the diminution

of his spiritual powers (the story of the elders) for failing to intercede on

Israels behalf when it craved meat (the story of the quail) and for failing to believe that God could provide it

42

A similar reading is found in Calvins commentary43

We find then a

debate among interpreters regarding the word TfoWRi in v 16 According to the

midrashim quoted above (Midr Tehillim Leqah Του) the word conveys exten-

sion but not diminution of Moses power For Calvin and Milgrom on the other

hand it betokens a loss of prophetic spirit (indeed Calvin understands Tl^^KI

here as separate) Both opinions are right in the original Β story Moses can

give spirit away without losing it but when we read Β in light of A in ourredacted text we sense that Moses is punished through the weakening of his

prophetic gift

The insertion of Β verses into the larger A story has changed the meaning

of the Β verses redaction has accomplished a sort of inner983085biblical exegesis

Before coming to B the audience has already read much of As depiction of

Moses in which the angry prophet deserves punishment (w 1198308515 and

1898308524a) Consequently verses from Β that extol Moses (w 24b98308530) take on a

negative significance A subverts B

Yet A does not overpower B To read Β verses in the context of A one mustread them against their own grain The first part of Moses statement in v 29

Are you jealous on my behalf does not yield as easily to an adverse interpre-

tation as the second Moses does renounce jealousy here The notion that

Moses has spirit to spare may occur even to the reader of the redacted text The

redaction then forces the reader to see doubly the reader may focus on the Β

verses with their positive portrayal or the reader may integrate those verses

into the negative view found in A In either case something will seem amiss so

that the reader can or must contemplate the other possibility Even if a reader

concentrates on Bs Moses As Moses lingers so that the reader is compelled toreevaluate On the other hand B s Moses will seep through As And yet another

possibility exists one can read Num 11498308535 as part of chaps 1198308512 as a whole

In that case one looks at A material in the context of the triad of stories that

praise Moses as prophet par excellence To do so one must assimilate many A

verses to Β verses ignoring their narrow context in favor of a broader one We

are left with several ways to evaluate Moses as he appears in this redacted story

Crucial verses exhibit a bivalence of meaning how we interpret them depends

on the context in which we choose to read them

Milgrom Numbers 377

Calvin Commentaries Α2Ατ 25

8122019 At La 0000989839



A similar bivalence affects the word ΓΠΊ which appears with different

meanings and values in the A and Β texts In A God uses a rm (in the sense of

wind) to bring the quails for which the people had yearned (v 31) The ΙΤΠ

which seemed to be a harbinger of good turns out to cause disaster This word

seems at first to betoken Gods mercy in A but is in fact a figure of anger andirony consequently it signifies the peoples distance from God In B God gives

some of Moses ΓΠΊ to the elders when it descends on them they break into

prophesying Here ΓΤΠ represents the working of a divine force on certain indi-

viduals It gives them status as prophets and enhances their political role as

judges44

Hence it expresses Gods closeness to the people In the redacted ver-

sion however Moses views that divine force as a torment rather than as a bless-

ing How one perceives rm depends on which context the reader privileges45

The tension between A and Β lives on in the interpretive traditions this

chapter engenders Some commentators read A in light of the pro983085Mosaic triad

that includes B while others attempt to assimilate Β into A The former ten-

dency is prominent in midrashim on v 15 (If this is how you treat me then kill

me now so that I neednt experience my misfortune) Sifre (followed by Rashi)

and Midr Leqah Τον 46

transform As fed983085up Moses into the ideal prophetic

intercessor seen in Num 1119830853 and 1213 They alter Moses complaint in v 15

into a statement he makes on the peoples behalf Kill me lest I witness the

suffering you will bring on this people whom I love rather than Kill me

since Im sick of having to lead these people whom I detest According to this

4 4 Both the prophetic and the political senses of ITTI as (divinely originating) spirit are rele-

vant here though the prophetic predominates as the repeated root W22 (w 2598308527 29) indicates

(On the political tenor of the phrasing ΓΤΠ Π13 in 112598308526 see Levine Numbers 34098308542) Once Β

is combined with A with its emphasis on Moses role as leader the political function of ΓΠΊ comes

into greater prominence On these two senses of ΓΠΊ see eg R Albertz and C Westermannrm Theohgisches Handwoumlrterbuch zum Alten Testament (ed E Jenni and C Westennann 2vols Munich Kaiser 1979) 2743-46

45 Further the various views of ΓΤΠ remain connected as Buber points out In thus fusing

the stories of the quails and the elders the purpose was to make the reader feel that both the work-

ing [of rm] in Nature [as wind] and the working in the soul of human beings are the one work fromon high and are indeed in the last resort the identical work from on high (Moses 16498308565) Cf

Milgrom Numbers on v 31 Similarly one can note that ΓΠΊ is associated with two opposingmodes of leadership throughout the story see Fisch Eldad 51 Schart points out that the inclu-sion of the material concerning the elders alongside the quail story effects a dialectic between flesh

(Τ8Π) and spirit (ΓΤΠ) in the final text (Mose und Israel 165) According to Schart the former is viv-

ified only by the latter and the peoples sin is their lust exclusively for the former This craving for

flesh is put into stark focus as a result of the combination of the quail story with a narrative in whichMoses expresses a desire that the whole people receive spirit

4 6 Sifre sect91 (ed Horovitz 9198308592) Rashi on Num 1115 Leqah Τον on 1115 (ed Padva 202)

See also Midr Tehillim 908 (ed Buber 390 Midr Soher Tob 133) Midr Hag to 1115 (ed

Fisch 26098308561) and especially Mek Bo sect1 (ed Horovitz983085Rabin 4) which explicitly brings up Exod

8122019 At La 0000989839



reading Moses uses the word TUTQ (my misfortune) not to describe his displeasure at having to lead the Israelites but to signify the anguish he will endureif he must watch them suffer47 This reading also renders the damnable deathwish of the A Moses into the extreme altruism seen in Exod 3232 where

Moses announced that if God insisted on destroying Israel then he would haveto kill Moses as well (Greater love hath no prophet) These readings contextu-alize the A verse within a larger (Elohistic) discourse favorable to Moses Onthe other hand some commentators on v 15 see God as angry with Moses andMoses as completely frustrated see Midr Tehillim 233

48 This midrash highlights the narrower context and thus remains faithful to As portrayal of Moses

A debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon (found in Tosefta Sifre

and elsewhere) also reproduces the tension between A and B49 The twomidrashists proffer very different readings of Num 1122 Akiva understandsthat in 1122 Moses doubts that anyone including God could bring enoughfood to satisfy the nation (Who could supply them sufficiently [Dicircf pSOD Ό]

he paraphrases) The only question for Akiva was whether Moses faithlessness

here or at the waters of Meribah in Numbers 20 was worse (Akiva concludes

that Moses was punished in Numbers 20 but not Numbers 11 because in Num

2010 he expressed his doubt in public) By stipulating that 1122 must be read

in this straightforward manner (lUQCDQD as Rashi on 1122 says while paraphras-

ing Tosefta)50

Akiva emphasizes the verses most narrow context in the A narra-

tive He does not attempt to relate this verse to the very different picture ofMoses in say 1129 or 123

Shimon recoils from this possibility God forbid [you should think] that it

occurred to that righteous manmdashof whom scripture says He is trustedfaithful

throughout My house (Num 127)mdashto say God could not satisfy us Rather

according to Shimon the gist of Moses remark in 1122 is that Gods plan

would ultimately demean Gods glory to feed the people and kill them immedi983085

4 7 This midrash stands behind the reading of Tg Neof and Frg Tg iexclΩΰΐ ρπΠΒΠΠ ΌΠΚ VOuml(For the texts see respectively Alejandro Diez Macho ed Neophyti I [5 vols Madrid ConsejoSuperior de Investigaciones Cientiacuteficas 1974] 4105 Michael Klein The Fragment-Targums of the

Pentateuch [2 vols AnBib 76 Rome Biblical Institute Press 1980] 1193)48 Ed Buber 199 Midr Sober Tob 67-6849 See t Sot 67 (ed Saul Lieberman [New York Jewish Theological Seminary 1973]

186-87) Sifre sect95 (ed Horovitz 94r-95 and cf Sifre Zuta 3 p 272) The debate is also quoted inRashi on 1122 and in Midr Hag on 1121 (ed Fisch 168-69) A midrash resembling Akivas interpretation is recorded without attribution in Num Rab 196 (which refers to Moses lack of Π30laquo

[faith] in Num 1122 and 2010) Subsequent quotations are from Tosefta5 0 That is according to its verbal content without the addition of extratextual details (in con-

trast to Shimons reading which adds contextually sensible extratextual details) On the term UQCDDin Rashis commentary see Sarah Kamin Rashi s Exegetical Categonzation in Respect to the Dis-

tinction between Peshat and Derash (in Hebrew Jerusalem Magnes 1986) 12098308521 131 η 61

8122019 At La 0000989839



ately afterwards would appear as senseless as supplying provender for a donkey

only to cut off its head God s reputation would not be well served by this course

of action (Unfortunately for the nation God is not swayed by this reasoning)

Shimons exegesis reads against the grain of 1122 itself for he understands the

verse as containing only the first half of Moses argument to God the rest of which was left unsaid and had to be recreated in the midrash he reads the

verse as if it said Should sufficient food be found for them only for you to kill

them But this eisegesis of an A verse accords well with the Β narrative and the

larger context of Numbers 1198308512 for it asserts that Moses was in fact attempt-

ing to save the people Shimon does not construct the second half of Moses

statement out of thin air He fashions it from an intertext (viz the surrounding

Β material) thus executing a classic midrashic hermeneutic he adds a narrative

element that is required in order to harmonize the verse with a larger context51

Shimons supplementation of the verse seems fanciful only in relation to theoriginal A text in light of the redaction of A into the Β triad it seems inevitable

This same tension and a different attempt at resolution can be found in

Calvins commentary on Numbers 11 Discussing w 1098308513 and 22 Calvin

emphasizes the excessive nature of Moses displeasure with the nation his

ungratefulness in response to divine election and his grossly sinful request for

death5 2

Here Calvin (like Akiva) faithfully describes As Moses Yet by the end

of the story Calvin returns to the characterization found in Β and in 123 for he

deeply admires the humility and magnanimity Moses displays in 112953

This

move from A to Β is mediated by his reading of w 1698308524 He adapts the Β nar-

rative in w 1698308517 to the A narrative so that these verses describe a punish-

ment meted out against Moses the prophets spirit is diminished as some of it is

removed from him and bequeathed to the elders Having been chastised

Moses profited (Calvin explains) by divine rebuke for [in v 24] he actively sets

about what he was commanded Doubt had given him a check so that he

stopped in the middle of his course whereas he now testifies by the prompti-

tude of his obedience that his distrust is overcome54

In other words Calvin

suggests that Moses repented This narrative embellishmentmdashfor the text

nowhere reports Moses penitencemdashis creative in the classic midrashic sense

Calvin weaves a new element into the story from its context Since Calvin

acknowledges that Moses is clearly selfish in some parts of the story and selfless

in others he senses a gap that must be filled by creating an additional bit of

plot It is significant that Shimon and Calvin use precisely the same interpretive

5 1 On the use of intertexts in midrash to create new narratives see Daniel Boyariacuten Intertex-

tuality and the Meaning of Midrash (Bloomington Indiana University Press 1990) 22-5652

Calvin Commentaries 422-23 and see also his remark concerning Moses doubts in w21-22 (431)53 Ibid 436

8122019 At La 0000989839



stratagem to come to dissimilar conclusions Both employ creative contextual

historiography55

in the formers case to emphasize Bs Moses while erasing As

and in the latter s to show how As Moses becomes Bs

Classical commentators on Numbers 11 do not simply read verses from

one source while ignoring the othermdashthat is they do not merely dismemberth e text or feign a conviction that the text is not an integrated whole Rather

they read Β as though it were A or A as though it were B In so doing they

become unknowingly students (and captives) of a complex form of inner983085

biblical exegesis for they endeavor to show not simply what A means or what Β

intends but what A means as part of Β or vice versa Thus they help us recog-

nize how redaction functions as a form of exegesis and how redaction encour-

ages certain reading practices

The redactor ensures that all serious attempts to read this chapter present

a debate between A and B Any interpretation of Numbers 11 must be an argu-

ment against (and hence a reminder of) the opposite interpretation since evi-

dence for that opposite is always so close at hand This debate takes place

explicitly in Tosefta as Shimon contests with Akiva It occurs implicitly as Midr

Tehillim Calvin and Sifre add details to the chapter or link it with distant

verses in order to respond to countervailing evidence from the chapter itself

The classical commentators then illuminate the activity of the redactors pre-

cisely because they reenact it The intricate reworking misreading and inser-

tion that typify the traditional interpretations of Numbers 11 merely continuethe redactors efforts for as we have seen the redactors insertion deliberately

fosters a cycle of competing misreadings By presenting the debate fyetween

th e two sources while also reading one into the other the classical commenta-

tors highlight the composite nature of the text even as they attempt to annul it

Thus however whimsical the commentators seem they stand very close to the

dynamics of the biblical text5 6

1 attend to these ancient and medieval readings

not to evoke their awareness of the narrative tensions noted by source critics (a

trait that needs no demonstration) Rather I hope to show that the traditional

commentators at least in this case remain within the world of the text and per-

petuate its tropes They deepen our understanding of the redactors work

because they help the modern reader to understand how and why the redacted

text presents us with a tense unity that constantly falls back on itself

5 51 borrow a term here from Isaac Heinemann (see his Darke Ha983085

3 Aggadah [in Hebrew 3d

ed Jerusalem Magnes 1970] esp 2198308526) and add to it under the influence of Boyariacuten Intertextu- ality

56 My analysis here arrives at a conclusion found in Joblings essay later commentary which

seems so far from the superficial logic of Numbers 11 in fact reflects its deep structures and itsmost persistent concerns (see Jobling Sense of Biblical Narrative 57) A kindred discussion of rabbi i i d d h i i l d hi li i i h J h i d i N b 11 i

8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion

Two readings present themselves in Numbers 11 and interpretive closure

is not allowed by the redacted text This document proves an exemplary case of

literary indeterminacy or ambiguity two mutually exclusive but coherent sys-

tems of reading are presented not only in A and Β but in Β read as part of A

and in A read as part of B The reader can understand the text as forming either

of two systems but some element of the text will seem out of place As a result

the reader will be forced either to suppress part of the text or to reevaluate

upon reevaluating the reader will attend to the other system only to be dis-

turbed by other elements that have now been cast into tension The text con-

founds any attempt to achieve closure in precisely the fashion described by

some literary critics interested in ambiguity and indeterminacy For example

Shlomith Rimmon983085Kenan describes ambiguity asthe conjunction of exclusive disjuncts ormdashin less technical languagemdashthe

co983085existence of mutually exclusive readings By providing incompatible

yet equally tenable possibilities ambiguity renders choice impossible and

frustrates the readers expectations of a univocal definitive meaning57

Similarly Geoffrey Hartman maintains that indeterminacy goes beyond a tex-

tual puzzle that can be solved through close reading

Indeterminacy does not merely delay the determination of meaning that is

suspend premature judgment and allow greater thoughtfulness The delay isnot heuristic alone a device to slow the act of reading till we appreciate

its complexity The delay is intrinsic from a certain point of view it isthoughtfulness itself Keatss negative capability a labor that aims not to

overcome the negative or indeterminate but to stay with it as long as is neces-

sary It is the commentary process that matters the taking away modifi-

cation elaboration of previous meanings58

Now to discover ambiguity or indeterminacy 59

in a literary text is hardly a

surprise especially in the current critical climate60

What is noteworthy is the

5 7 Shlomith Rimmon983085Kenan Deconstructive Reflections on Deconstruction In Reply to

Hillis Miller Poetics Today 21b (198098308581) 18598308586 See also her book The Concept of Ambigu-

itymdashThe Example of Henry James (Chicago University of Chicago Press 1977) 898308516 234983085355 8

Hartman Criticism 2705 9

The terms are not always used interchangeably and at times are opposed to each other

see Timothy Bahty Ambiguity and Indeterminacy The Juncture Comparative Literature 38

(1986) 20998308523 In particular it is important to note that ambiguity as used by Rimmon983085Kenan is

not a feature of all literary texts while Hartmans understanding of indeterminacy encompasses a

wider scope But for our purposes the terms as used by Rimmon983085Kenan and Hartman are quitecomparable each suits our text

6 0In much contemporary criticism indeterminacy becomes the essence of all literary texts if

8122019 At La 0000989839



manner of arriving at the conclusion Within biblical studies a tendency has

emerged in the last several decades to regard literary and historical scholarship

as mutually exclusive the literary critic reads while the source critic dismem

bers To revel in the play of meanings or to probe modes of signification is the

project of the former method of analysis a project which the latter does notabet and may even stifle But in the case of Numbers 11 diachronic analysis aids

the critic who wishes to comprehend the unending multiplicity of meaning the

text discloses and the interpretive debates that center around it Many scholars

decry the deadening effects of classical source and redaction criticism which

are seen as opposed to the unifying thrust of both premodern religious com

mentary and (post)modern literary approaches The case of Numbers 11

shows on the contrary that these historicist tools sensitively wielded enliven

our reading61 Further they allow us to understand that it is precisely the inter

play of different historical levels in the text that fosters the postbiblical interpretive traditions Diachronic analysis helps establish that the new narratives

created in midrashic readings grow out of the text more than they are grafted

onto it

The redactor of Numbers 11 has juxtaposed two stories that have nothing

to do with each other in terms of plot yet treat similar themes The text then

follows a logic of theme rather than of plot Even this thematic logic does not

produce a clear or consistent text for the tensions involving leadership proph

ecy spirit beneficence and punishment do notmdashand given the text s repudia

tion of closure cannotmdashfind any resolution Our text in the end probablycannot be termed a narrative if by that we mean setting out a sequence of

events related as causes and effects Rather Numbers 11 is a collage that pre

sents occurrences that may or may not have any temporal connection a sort of

philosophical dialogue in which the interlocutors are not characters uttering

speeches but contexts vying with each other to determine the reading of words

and phrases62

This text refuses to be read in a linear fashion It demands to be

viewed from many angles certain verses insist on being isolated from what sur

rounds them integrated into narrower contexts and harmonized with broader

indeterminacy yields reading practices that reduce all texts to the same formula see Robert Alter

The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age (New York Norton 1996 [1989]) 206-381 use the

term in a far more limited sense to refer to a characteristic of this example of literary art but surely

not of all texts61 Of course not all critics wield them sensitively Noth comments that the story of Eldad and

Medad must be an addition for it does not fit smoothly with the surrounding context (Numbers

90) but begs the question of why a redactor would choose to place this narrative where it is A sim

ilar problem appears in Coats (see Rebellion 98) Cf the critique of Fisch who moves to the other

extreme and ignores the diachronic issues altogether (Eldad 45)62 Cf Etan Levine The Book of Jonah as a Philosophical Book ZAW 96 (1984) 235-45

Interestingly Jonah also is an odd sort of narrative the story simply stops without reaching any con

8122019 At La 0000989839



ones The text invites rereading and rumination so that averse can emerge now

in one setting now in another carrying a particular meaning here and its oppo

site there Like a set of mirrors it encourages the reader to notice how ele

ments of the text reflect on each other Even more it resembles a kaleidoscope

It is full of divergent views so that the reader need only turn it and turn it to seethat all of them are in it

8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use

As an ATLAS user you may print download or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by US and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s) express written permission Any use decompiling

reproduction or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s) The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner who also may own the copyright in each article However

for certain articles the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the articlePlease contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement For information regarding thecopyright holder(s) please refer to the copyright information in the journal if available

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s)

About ATLAS

The ATLA Serials (ATLASreg) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association

8122019 At La 0000989839



Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 1698308517 were originally separate but they share

enough that they were easily combined into one story notwithstanding discrep-

ancies that remain In Numbers 11 however the incongruity is far greater the

components of the chapter diverge not regarding a storys particulars but

regarding what story is being told altogether Such a degree of incongruitydemands attention

By bringing together two disparate stories the redactor of Numbers 11

compels readers to contemplate several related motifs (in particular images of

Moses and of divinely sent ΓΠΊ) but bars them from achieving interpretative

closure Thus a study of redactional technique in this chapter broadens our

understanding of th e activity of the figures who formed the biblical texts as we

know them It suggests that pentateuchal editors at times structured narratives

to follow a logic of theme rather than one concerned with linear plot and that

narrative coherence (as opposed to thematic juxtaposition) was not always a

goal of ancient editors2 This finding has important implications for the practice

of redaction criticism and for its connections with other forms of analysis

Attention to the redactional technique of this chapter generates a literary read-

ing that is open983085ended precisely because it is sensitive to diachronic layers in

th e text Further the sort of literary analysis (in both senses) I attempt here

engenders greater understanding of postbiblical commentary Classical com-

mentators on this chapter are eisegetical not in the sense that they impose their

views on the ancient text but in the sense that they read the Moses of one pen983085

2 This redactional practice it should be noted is not unique to Numbers 11 we find it in

Exodus 3298308534 as well A kindred analysis ofthat text must await further study

Analogous techniques have been studied by Robert Alter and Edward Greenstein who

argue that different versions of a given story have been combined in such a way that each one

retains some identity The finished text they show is deliberately and productively uneven See

Alters discussion of what he terms composite artistry in The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York

Basic Books 1981) 13198308554 and Greensteins article An Equivocal Reading of the Sale of Joseph

in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (ed Κ R R Gros Louis 2 vols Nashville Abing-

don 1974 1982) 211498308525 30698308510 Note especially Greensteins statement regarding Genesis 37If the text that we accept as the final product contains discernible discrepancies between one verse

and another we do not presume that the redactor had attempted to remove them but failed

Rather we allow that the redactor may have been well aware of the inconsistencies and desired to

leave them in the text (p 117) The problem Alter and Greenstein confront (to wit Why have

inconsistent versions of a story been combined) is all the greater in Numbers 11 where the two

stories are not merely inconsistent but entirely unrelated in terms of plot and as we shall see

opposing in terms of theme

A similar situation is described by Tzvi Abusch in his study of the neo983085Assyrian version of the

Gilgamesh Epic Ishtars Proposal and Gilgameshs Refusal An Interpretation of The Gilgamesh

Epic Tablet 6 Unes 198308579 HR 26 (1986) 14398308587 Abusch shows that even though the presence of

the epics final tablet is incoherent in terms of plot (Why is Enkidu described as alive so long after hisdeath) the addition of the tablet contributes to the discourse on the neo983085Assyrian versions main

concern (the place of the god Gilgamesh in the divine hierarchy) Thus in that first millennium text

8122019 At La 0000989839










text


















people










8122019 At La 0000989839










































8122019 At La 0000989839







camp6


7)


























8122019 At La 0000989839

















He views



























8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839










text


















people










8122019 At La 0000989839










































8122019 At La 0000989839







camp6


7)


























8122019 At La 0000989839

















He views



























8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839










































8122019 At La 0000989839







camp6


7)


























8122019 At La 0000989839

















He views



























8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839







camp6


7)


























8122019 At La 0000989839

















He views



























8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839

















He views



























8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839






















them asunder16















219 20

8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839








































8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839













it on them 19


















By stressing his













8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839
















25






father26







tion 7998308580 and 194983085962 5












8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839



(1115)27












H31 Ό3Κ tollTN


misfortune (TUTQ)28


Moses indigna983085





















must be




8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839




































8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839



















would have done36


















8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839











chapter39


another40































8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839































reading











8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839






42


We find then a







prophetic gift























Milgrom Numbers 377


8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839











judges44






























8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839













ing Tosefta)50














8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839




















death5 2




This



















8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839




historiography55






































8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839



TV Conclusion






































8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839

















onto it











and phrases62













8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839








8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





8122019 At La 0000989839


^ s

Copyright and Use














About ATLAS





at la 0000989839

Documents