SOURCE CRITICISM OF NUMBERS 16-17

This extended passage provides a good test case for what is called Source-Critical Analysis, a standard tool of liberal commentators. Their basic starting assumption is that the Pentateuch was compiled by editors over a period of years beginning with four different sources, which can be easily identified by their characteristic vocabulary and theological concerns. Also, each of these sources can be confidently assigned at least relative dates for their original composition.

This methodology sounds good in theory, although there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to back it up, but runs into problems when carried out in practice. Let's start by looking at the verses within Numbers 16-17 assigned to the various sources, as described by three different scholars (not all of whom necessarily subscribe to the divisions they are describing). For your information, JE is supposed to be the earliest source, followed by a priestly source P, and finally by P(s) supplementing P.

Ashley:         JE = 16:12-15, 25, 26b-34

                     P = 16:3-7, 18-24, 26a [perhaps 27a], 35, 17:1-13

                     P(s) = 16:8-11, 16-17

Levine:        JE = 16:1-2 [rewritten by P), 12-15, 25-34 [with P insertions]

                    P = 16:3-11, 16-24, 35, 17:1-13

Wenham:    JE = 16:1b, 2a, 12-15, 25, 26b, 27b-32a, 33-34

                   P = 16:1a, 2b, 3-7, 18-24, 26a, 27a, 35, 17:1-13

                   P(s) = 16:1a, 7b-11, 16-17, 32b, 36-40

As you can see, three different parsings of these two chapters utilizing the same methodology have led to three completely different results, other than agreement on P as the single source behind Numbers 17. That alone should cast huge doubts on the value of this sort of approach to the biblical text.

For example, it flies in the face of Levine's comment: “The lines of textual demarcation between JE and P in Numbers 16-17 are quite distinct, despite their linkage.”

But there are even more problems with source analysis, well summarized by Wenham in his commentary on Numbers.

    1. “To justify their analysis, source critics are forced to postulate that the sources have been modified by an editor. For example, it is held that 16:24,27 have been altered from an original 'dwelling (i.e. tabernacle) of the LORD' into the present dwelling of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, because these names occur in a P-context. Similarly, verse 32b is said to be an editorial...addition because it is found in a JE context yet mentions Korah.”

    2. Another major flaw in their reasoning “is that the supposedly earlier sources assume what is mentioned only in the later accounts.” He cites several instances to demonstrate that point and concludes: “For these reasons it seems simplest to regard Numbers 16-17 as a unit. If it is based on more than one source, they are different from JE, P, or P(s).”
From my own personal background, I can recognize above two well known errors that even we scientists fall into on occasion. The first goes by the rather homely phrase “dry-labbing.” That describes someone who starts out thinking he knows what the answer to a scientific problem ought to be. So when the data do not confirm that assumption, he or she merely alters the data itself so that it fits the theory. The second principle is that of Occam's Razor, which in brief says that when more than one theory fits the observed data, you should go with the simplest explanation every time. Thus, more conservative commentators appear to have no problem at all with considering Numbers 16-17 as a unity:

“Several scholars have suggested on the basis of these differences in vocabulary [i.e. 'ground' in vv. 30-31 and 'earth' in 32-34] that two sources are conflated here. Surely literary variety explains the differences, and good Semitic repetition of thought...explains the similarities sufficiently well without positing a conglomeration of sources.” (Wenham)

Ashley talks about theories which “assume that modern scholars know more about how the story should be told than the author/editor who put the text together.” And elsewhere he writes, “This view of the origin of the text, although common, seems artificial and based on the cleverness of the interpreter rather than on the text itself. The literary complexities of this text, including a certain roughness in transitions between sections, may be explained by literary or stylistic reasons or so-called tensions such as repetitions, rather than seeking refuge in putative documents not one of which can be proved to have existed.”

Stubbs: “The three main scenes in these chapters form a coherent narrative about the rebellion against the priestly leadership of Israel. They provide insight into the nature of priestly leadership, showcasing both sins to be avoided and positive models. These chapters can guide Christians singled out for similar leadership within the people of God and can also inform the people of God as a priestly community how they should engage the surrounding world.”

If Numbers 16-17 is indeed a coherent unity rather than a haphazard combination of different sources, then that fact should be evidenced in the present form of these chapters. In that regard, Wenham states, “The stories not only have the same theme, they have similar structures. Most striking is the fact that each of these tests of Aaron's call takes two days.” Another indication of unity is the appearance of the key word “congregation” ('eda) exactly 14 times throughout.

In my earlier analysis of the symmetrical form of the Book of Numbers (see the post titled “The Book of Numbers: Introduction to the Literary Structure”), I identified 11:1-25:18 as the second major section in the book. In turn, it can be further broken down into another symmetrical organization as shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: The Structure of Section II (Numbers 11-25)

A. God's Wrath (ch.11)

B. Rebellions Against God's Leadership (chs.12-14)

C. Various Laws (ch.15)

D. Rebellion Against Levitical Authority (16:1-35)

E. God's Wrath (16:36-50)

D'. Restoration of Levitical Authority (17:1-13)

C'. Various Laws (chs.18-19)

B'. Result of Rebellion Against God's Leadership (20:1-21:3)

A'. God's Wrath (21:4-25:18)

At the center of this section is the story of the Korahite rebellion in Numbers 16-17, divided into three separate but related units according to the scheme of Ashley. Wenham notes the same obvious divisions and points out that all three units (II D-E-D') contain the same components, with a reversal of order in D'. The negative situation of ch. 16 culminating in the death of thousands is given a positive slant in the subsequent chapter with the budding of Aaron's rod. And although Aaron dies, Israel is given a new priest in Eleazer.

Wemham also points out that the text in D' above “is quite simple and is in effect a symbolic re-enactment of the Korah scene [i.e. Section D].”

Many further examples of the unity of Units D, E, and D' above can be cited which cut across putative source lines in Chapters 16-17. Let's begin by considering the first rebellion: Unit D (Numbers 16:1-35). It can be diagrammed as shown in Figure 2 below:

                                Figure 2: The Structure of Section IID (Numbers 16:1-35)

        1. Combined Rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (vv. 1-2)

                2. Address to Korah (vv. 3-11)

                        3. Dathan and Abiram (vv. 12-14)

                2'. Address to Korah (vv. 15-19)

        1'. Combined Fate of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (vv. 20-35)

In regard to these rebels, Wenham notes, “But as they started out united in opposing Moses and Aaron [unit 1 above], they die together as the earth opens its mouth and swallows them all up (24-33) [unit 1'].” He and others also recognize the parallel nature of vv. 5-7 (unit 2) with vv. 16-17 (unit 2').

Within that structure, IID2 can also be seen to be symmetrically arranged:

                        Figure 3: The Structure of Section IID2 (Numbers 16:3-11)

    1. Moses and Aaron are confronted (v. 3a)

        2. They are accused of elevating themselves (vv. 3b-4)

            3. In the morning, God will show who is holy and can approach Him (v. 5)

                4. The test explained (vv. 6-7a)

            3'. Tomorrow God will show who is holy and can approach Him (v. 7b)

        2'. The Levites are accused of elevating themselves (vv. 7c-10)

    1'. Moses and Aaron were confronted (v. 11)

In support of this organization, both 2 and 2' contain the following: the phrase “You have gone too far,” accusations of people trying to elevate themselves above others, and two occurrences each of “allow(ed) to approach Him.”

                                Figure 4: The Structure of IID3 (Numbers 16:12-14)

    1. “We will not come” (v. 12)

            2. “You have brought us out of a land of milk and honey” (v. 13a)

                    3. “Must you lord it over us?” (v. 13b)

            2'. “You have not brought us to a land of milk and honey” (v. 14a)

                   3'. “Are you trying to deceive us?” (v. 14b)

    1'. “We will not come" (v. 14c)

                            Figure 5: The Structure of IID2' (Numbers 16:15-19)

                1. Moses speaks to God (v. 15)

                                2. Moses outlines test for Korahites (vv. 16-17)

                                2'. Korahites obey Moses (vv. 18-19a)

                1'. God appears to the congregation (v. 19b)

                                Figure 6: Structure of IID1' (Numbers 16:20-34)

1. Intercession on behalf of congregation (vv. 20-27)

        a. God announces that they will be consumed (vv. 20-21)

                b. Moses and Aaron intercede (v. 22)

        a'. God says they should separate themselves from the grumblers (vv. 22-23)

                b'. Moses and Aaron tell the people and they obey (vv. 25-27)

                            2. God carries out the judgment as Moses predicted (vv. 28-33)

1'. Congregation flees because they do not believe in the intercession (v. 34)

There is an interesting word play present in this unit, as shown below:

        The ground will open up and swallow them along with their belongings, etc. (v. 30)

                    The ground split open (v. 31)

        The earth opened up and swallowed them along with their belongings, etc. (vv. 32-33)

                    The earth will swallow us (v. 34)

                                Figure 7: Structure of IIE (Numbers 16:35-50)

Although many scholars include v. 35 with the previous unit, the symmetrical organization below seems to argue that it belongs here instead, especially because the emphasis on “fire” in this section.

        1. number of people killed by God's judgment fire (v. 35)

                2. censers turned into coverings for the altar (vv. 36-40)

                        3. God's judgment plague (vv. 41-44)

                2'. Aaron's censer used for atonement of people (vv. 45-48)

        1'. number of people killed by God's judgment plague (vv. 49-50)

Helping to unify this literary unit is the presence of three different Hebrew words based on the root verb “to cover” (tsippui in vv. 38-39; kasah in v. 42; kaphar in vv. 46-47).

Regarding the use of the censers of those who were killed, Carson says, “The censers are to be hammered into sheets presumable as an extra covering for the bronze altar. They had been used to overthrow Aaron's office and now are to strengthen it.”

                                        Figure 8: Structure of IID' (Numbers 17)

1. “Gather all the staffs” (vv. 1-3)

        2. “Place them before the covenant and the chosen staff will sprout” (vv. 4-5a)

                3. “This will stop the people from complaining” (v. 5b)

1'. All the staffs are gathered (v. 6)

        2'. They are placed before the covenant and Aaron's staff sprouts (cc. 7-8)

1''. The staffs are returned (v. 9)

        2''. Aaron's chosen staff is placed before the covenant (v. 10a)

                3'. “It will be a warning to the people to stop complaining” (vv. 10b-11)

Unfortunately, the chapter does not end here but continues with verse 12 which states that the people did not stop their grumbling, but went around feeling that God was going to kill them any minute. There are several ways in which we can interpret this sad conclusion:

    1. It proves that the lessons in the previous tests and reminders left in the tabernacle have had their due effect and will prevent any similar rebellions from occurring, until they crop up again concerning other issues.

    2. It acts as transitional verse between chapter 17 and the following chapter in which details of the Aaronic priesthood are better defined and explained to the people.

    3. Verse 12 is to be looked upon as a sort of bracketing verse concluding all of Numbers 16-17. At the start, there is a full-scale rebellion against the duly appointed religious leadership of the Israelites. But at the end of the three tests, only minor grumbling is present. As Whitelaw and Winterbotham put it: “These are the last wailings of the great storm which had raged against Moses and Aaron...which was now sobbing itself out in the petulant despair of defeated and disheartened men.., fearful to offend, yet not loving to obey.”