THE COMPOSITION OF NUMBERS 13-14

In Gordon Wenham's commentary on the book of Numbers, he reviews the current source-critical analysis of these two chapters. Without going into all the myriad of details that comprise the field of Source Criticism, let me present a very simplified view that even I can understand. Basically, the supposition is that the books of the Pentateuch began with four different sources of material, almost all dated well after the life of Moses. But some of these may have circulated in an oral form for years before being written down. Then a final editor, at an even later date, collected these variant versions of the events and stitched them together into a rough resemblance of one semi-coherent narrative. However, the critics today believe that they can separate them out into their original strands by looking for obvious stitch marks, internal contradictions, and duplications. These hypothetical sources, none of which has ever been found, are convenience labeled as J (Jehovah), E (Elohim), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomic).

As Wenham and other conservative scholars point out in rebuttal, (1) the internal contradictions when examined carefully tend to disappear; (2) duplications are really the hallmark of OT writings and are to be expected; (3) identifying stitch marks is a highly subjective process; and (4) many of the comments supposedly coming from J and E only make sense in light of what the “later” source P provides.

So what is the current critical thinking regarding Numbers 13-14? Gray is the scholar generally quoted nowadays, and his analysis divides the original sources of the text in the following manner between JE (a combined account compiled earlier by someone using both J and E) and the later Priestly Source.

Chapter 13: 1-17a (P); 17b-20 (JE); 21 (P); 22-24 (JE); 25-26a (P); 26b-31 (JE); 32a (P); 32b-33 (JE).

Chapter 14: 1a (P); 1b (JE); 2 (P); 3-4 (JE); 5-7 (P); 8-9 (JE); 10 (P); 11-25 (JE); 26-39a (P) 39b-45 (JE).

In addition, Gray says that vv. 11-24 are more properly considered as a “secondary expansion of JE, but pre-P.”

Although this framework is generally accepted by many source critics, Vaulx and McEvenue hold that 14:30-33 is another “secondary expansion of JE presupposed by P.”

In addition, Levine explains, “In their present form, Numbers 13 and 14 represent a fusion of materials drawn from JE, from P, and perhaps even from other independent sources. At points, the fabric of the text can be unraveled easily, whereas elsewhere priestly writers have rewritten the text so that one can only guess how JE originally read.” And in contradiction to Gray's analysis, Levine assigns all of 13:25-26 and all of 14:1-7a to P as well as all of 14:39-45 to JE. Concerning 14:11-25, Levine says that “it is uncertain whether it is attributable to JE or to an independent source.”

Ashley cites other scholars who differ from both Gray and Levine in assigning to P the following verses: 13:32-33; 14:1-3; 14:5-10; and 26-38. In addition, Ashley notes that even earlier source critics attempted to separate JE into the original contributions of J and E, to which he comments: “One problem with such an approach is its atomistic view of the text.” Of course, one could say exactly the same regarding the current JE plus P hypothesis itself.

Ashley echoes what even the famous source critic Brevard Childs pointed out early: “Whatever the background of the text, and however it came to be edited together, it was in the end formed into a single story that was meant to be interpreted as a whole.” So the question is, “Does it all hang together as a coherent whole?” If you were to poll a statistically significant number of Bible readers, I think the answer would be an overwhelming “Yes.” Most of us could read straight through these two chapters without even suspecting that it might have been a hodgepodge of contradictory stories cobbled together by some genius of an ancient editor.

And in addition to making perfect sense when read as a logical account presented in chronological order, Numbers 13-14 also shares the hallmark of all biblical passages, namely it is put together as a symmetrical narrative in which almost every small literary unit can also be read profitably against another similar unit in the overall passage looking for purposeful parallels and contrasts. An attempt to carry out such a literary analysis of these two chapters which deal with the unified subject of the spies scoping out the land is shown below:

I. The Spies are Sent Out and Return (Numbers 13:1-29)

    A. God to Moses: list of the spies (13:1-16)

        B. Moses sends the spies out (13:17-20)

        B'. They go out (13:21-24)

A'. Spies to Moses: mixed report (13:25-29)

II. Aftermath of the Spies' Report (Numbers 13:30-14:45)

    A. Caleb: “Let us go up and occupy the land.” (13:30)

        1. The people's response (13:31-14:10a)

            a. Spies' negative report (13:31-33)

                b. Congregation wants to replace present leaders (14:1-4)

            a'. Caleb's positive report (14:5-9)

                b'. Congregation wants to stone present leaders (14:10a)

    1'. Response of God and Moses (14:10b-38)

        a. “How long will this people despise me?” (14:10b-11)

            b. Pestilence as a threatened punishment on the people (14:12)

                c. Moses pleas for mercy (14:13-19)

                c'. God moderates his punishment (14:20-25)

        a'. “How long shall this wicked people complain against me?” (14:26-27)

            b'. Pestilence on unbelieving spies only (14:28-38)

    A'. Repentant People: “We will go up to the land.” (14:39-45)

Some confirmatory evidence for such a complex and elegant organization is provided by specific words and phrases which occur in units parallel to one another (some of which are shown in quotes above):

    The phrase “sent to spy out the land” or a variation appears exactly twelve times in this narrative, and it is used to introduce each of the four sub-sections in Part I.

    The same phrase acts as a pair of bookends for IA, appearing at the start and end of the unit.

    There are references to the fruit of the land at the conclusion of IB and IB'.

    Note the matching phrases found in IIA1a and a':

        (1) the land

            (2) that they had spied out (13:32a)

                (3) the land that we have gone through as spies (13:32b)

            (2') who had spied out

    (1') the land (14:6)

                (3) the land that we went through as spies (14:7)

    Unit II2b' is unified by the following pair of phrases at the beginning and conclusion:

        Caleb son of Jephunneh and

            Joshua son of Nun (14:30)

            Joshua son of Nun and

        Caleb son of Jephunneh (14:38)

    References to “the hill country” open and close Section IIA' (14:40, 45).

    Parts I and II conclude with warning references to “Amelekites and Canaanites,” and contain the phrase “live in the hill country.”

From the above, you can readily see that this is a highly complex but symmetrical composition. Nowadays when I put together a blog post, I may utilize up to twenty or so sources for my raw material and then try to compile them together into a cohesive essay. Thus, I can easily agree with the Source Critics in saying that it is not impossible that earlier sources were utilized by the final author of some of the books in the Bible. After all, Samuel-Kings list a number of the different historical documents that they consulted for that combined book. And Luke begins his Gospel with a discussion of the oral and written sources he has used. But what I am certainly not capable of doing (and I doubt that the final “editors” of the books were either) is stitching them together in such a manner that they can be read with equal profit whether from start to finish or in the symmetrical fashion as shown above. To me, that is a signature of the Holy Spirit superintending the writing.