Numbers 12: Of Priests, Prophets, or “None of the Above”

David C. Hymes

1.0 Introduction

Numbers 12 has baffled the exegete by piling up multiple difficulties. Of what

significance is the reference to Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman? Is the

problem that she is black? For that matter, who are these “Cushites”? Are they the

same as the Midianites in Num 10.29? Is this Cushite wife not the same person as

the Zipporah who is mentioned in Exod 2.21? Is the main problem that Miriam

and Aaron criticized Moses about his wife or is it that they were attempting to

extend their oracular authority? Why is Miriam punished for speaking out against

Moses, when Aaron had also joined her in this act? Do the three characters

represent specific vocational offices in ancient Israel? Does the story intend to

reveal something about the nature of early Israelite society? About the history of

priesthood? About a prophetic hierarchy?

Martin Noth summarized the exegete’s frustration best when he wrote, “. . . in

itself it is so broken and disunified that its original content and meaning can no

longer be determined with certainty.”1

In this article I would like to propose that the pericope is not as “broken or

disunified” as it has been seen in the past and that it may very well be that a

presumed “disunity” itself has caused the hermeneutical conundrum. Although an

“original” content or meaning may be beyond the exegete’s grasp, the redacted

end-product has less seams and more woof and weave.

1 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson, (Chico,California: Scholars, Press, 1981), pp. 126-127. Note also Rita J. Burns, Has the Lord IndeedSpoken only Through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam , SBL Dissertation Series84, (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 77 who writes, “. . . the present text of Num 12.1-15is hopelessly conflated . . . .”

2.0 Numbers 12 and the larger editorial structure of the book of Numbers

The structure of the book of Numbers holds the first clue as to what the redacted

text reveals about Numbers 12. Dennis Olsen has recently made advances in the

understanding of the structure of Numbers. He has argued that the census lists in

chapters 1 and 26 function as the unifying framework to the book as a whole.

These two lists divide the wilderness wanderings into two generations: the first

generation that “ends in failure and death in the wilderness,” (Numbers 1-25) and

the second generation who have an open-ended future “poised on the edge of the

promised land” (Numbers 26-36). Olsen therefore postulates that the “overarching

framework of the two census lists in Numbers provides the unifying theme for the

book in its present form: ‘the death of the old and the birth of the new.’”2 For

Olsen, this structure and theme is the handiwork of the Priestly writer or editor.3

Olsen supports his findings by first, pointing out that the two fascicles of the

book of Numbers have formal indicators that include, “the chronological and

geographical indicators, the symmetry of the two census lists and their strategic

locations within the narrative, the parallels between the two halves of the book, and

the cohesiveness within each half of the book.”4 These formal indicators establish

a solid foundation for Olsen’s contentions, however, the issue of “parallels between

the two halves” is more intriguing to the exegete. Olsen posits that the legal text of

chapter 5 which follows the Levitical census is paralleled by the first daughters of

Zelophehad text in Numbers 27 in a similar context. The “vows” of Numbers 6

have their counterpart in the concerns about “vows” in chapter 30. The Levites are

provided for in both halves at Num 18.21-32 and Numbers 35. The texts that deal

with offerings in chapters 7 and 15 are mirrored in the offerings designated for the

appointed feast and holy days in chapters 28 and 29. The Passover in Numbers 9 is

given its parallel in Num 28.16-25. The list of spies in Numbers 13 are

2 Dennis T. Olsen, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book ofNumbers and the Pentateuch, Brown Judaic Studies 71, (Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985), p.83.3 Ibid., p. 98ff.4 Ibid., p. 89.

2

recapitulated in Numbers 34, while the all important chapters 13-14 are specifically

cited in Num 32.6-15. Although the first generation rebelled (Num 14.1-4) and did

not wage battle under the command of Moses and the Ark, in Numbers 31 the

second generation avenge themselves on the Midianites (N.B. Num 25.17-18).

All these parallels imply an exegetical tool beyond the immediate context of a

pericope; as it were, a second attempt at the same problem, except this time the

results are positive. I would posit that another parallel may be that Numbers 11-12

finds a positive outcome in Num 27.12-23, where Joshua is appointed to succeed

Moses as a “military leader.”5 Strangely, however the depiction in Deuteronomy

31.14-15, 23 would have been a closer parallel. John Van Seters has noticed this

and writes,

The installation of Joshua in 31.14-15, 23 is of an entirely different order than theadmonitory speeches of DtrH and involves a special ceremony of divinecommissioning () at the tent of meeting. This is very similar to the commissioningof the seventy elders in Num. 11.16-17, 24-25, and it corresponds as well to thedescription of the tent of meeting, with the pillar of cloud at the door of the tent, inEx. 33.7-11. One can hardly doubt that it belongs to the same source, J. At the sametime the words of the deity in Deut. 31.23 repeat the standard Dtr injunction as foundin v. 7, which makes the later words of the deity to Joshua in Josh. 1.1ff. redundant. Itis thus quite clear that Deut. 31.14-15, 23 is a post-Dtr addition by the Yahwist. Thelanguage of installation has some similarity to that of David giving a charge () toSolomon when he was about to die (1 Kings 2.1-4). The literary patter is that of DtrH,but modified by J in its combination with his tent – of –meeting motif.6

Van Seters’ observation causes us to ask, why the so-called P version of Num

27.12-23 is used rather than the Yahwist’s version. In other words, why did the

redactor choose Num 27.12-23 rather than a form of Deut 31.14-15, 23? Could it

be that the issues of Numbers 11-12 are viewed from a military metaphor

perspective?

Olsen’s second support for his structural theory is what he calls “thematic or

content indicators.” Using Num 14.29b, 26.63-65, and 32.6-15, he argues that in

crucial passages the unifying theme of the book, “the death of the old and the birth

of the new” is played out. When Numbers 11-12 is seen as a unit bound by the

5 Philip J. Budd argues that both the phrases aby rXaw . . . acy rXa, “who shall go out . . . and comein,” and the shepherding imagery point toward a military background. Philip J. Budd, Numbers,Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 5, (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), p. 306.6 John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, (Louisville,Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 451-452.

3

theme “leadership,” then the references to the deaths of the first generation leaders

fit into Olsen’s schema. Olsen writes,

one motif which is central to the section dealing with the first generation is the deathof its leadership and the concern for the succession into a new generation. The deathof Miriam (20.1), the threat of death to Moses and Aaron (20.12), the death of Aaronand the succession of the priesthood to Eleazar (20.22ff.), and the further successionof the priesthood to Phinehas (25.10ff.) all reflect a consciousness of one generationpassing away and a new generation arising. The deaths which occurred after thevarious rebellions in this first generation can all be subsumed under this one idea.7

This would imply that for Numbers 11-12, there is something in the narrative flow

that has established a negative judgment on not only Miriam and Aaron, but also

Moses.

Baruch A. Levine provides another helpful contextual hint, in that he delimits

the text as 10.29-12.16.8 Here, although nominally setting out for the wilderness of

Paran in 10.12, it is not reached until 12.16. Moses commands the military styled

march that is initiated by the Song of the Ark in 10.35-36. The rebellion at

“Taberah” in 11.1-3, the manna and quail narrative in 11.4-10, 13, 18-23, 31-35, the

elders that prophecy in 11.11-12, 14-17, 24-30 and chapter 12 all follow on the

heels of the marching orders. The first sign of battle, however is not till Num

13.1ff. where the spies are sent out. This would mean that the bivouac is not

complete at 12.16. Adding to Levine’s delimitation, I would argue that the

conclusion of chapter 14, where both Moses and the ark of the covenant remain

immobilized in the camp is the pericope’s larger context. The pursuit by the

Amalekites and Canaanites as far as Harmah is the ultimate termination (Num

14.44-45). The mention of the ark and Moses then functions to enclose the unit.

This would imply that the complaints of Miriam and Aaron against Moses in Num

12.1-2 may be the backdrop or a stage on the way to understanding the rebellion of

chapters 13-14.

One further structural component comes from Jacob Milgrom. Although I do

7 Olsen, ibid., p. 93. N.B. Olsen is careful to note that both “reworking and editing of earliermaterial” along with later supplementation may have occurred. This could cause the neglect of thetheme in some contexts.8 see Baruch A. Levine, The Anchor Bible: Numbers 1-20, A New Translation with Introduction andCommentary, Volume 4A, (New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 311-343.

4

not want to focus to much attention on his overarching schema which goes beyond

Olsen’s study of Numbers and includes all of the Hexateuch, with the center in the

“Theophany” at Sinai in Exodus 329, I must outline it. With this schema, Milgrom

is able to contrast and explain the differences between the murmuring narratives in

Exodus and Numbers. He writes,

But their main difference lies in the one fact that holds the key to their publication:Only Numbers records that God punished Israel (Lev. R. 1:10). Indeed, thisdistinction holds true for the other wilderness narratives as well. In Exodus, God doesnot punish Israel for its murmuring; in Numbers, he does so consistently. There can beonly one explanation for this state of affairs. The Exodus incidents are pre-Sinai;those of Numbers are post-Sinai. Before Israel accepted the covenant it was notresponsible for its violation; indeed, it could claim ignorance of its stipulations.However, all the incidents of Numbers takes place after Israel has left Sinai – where itswore allegiance to the covenant and was warned of the divine sanctions for itsinfringement. Thus it can be postulated that for a number of wilderness narratives twotraditions were reported, the one involving punishment, and the other, not. Theredactor then, with Mount Sinai as his great divide, dutifully recorded both, as eitherpre- or post- Sinai.10

Milgrom assists our investigation into Numbers 12 by offering a symmetrically

balanced structure to 11.1-3, 12.1-15 and 11.4-24. He proposes that 11.1-3 and

12.1-15 are parallel panels following the structure:

Complaint 1: Taberah (11.1-3) Complaint 2: Hazeroth (12.1-15)a. people complain (v. 1a) a. Miriam and Aaron complainb. God hears, fumes, punishes (v. 1b) b. God hears, fumes, punishes (vv. 2b, 4-5, 9-10)c. People appeal to Moses (v. 2a) c. Aaron appeals to Moses (vv. 11-12)d. Moses intercedes (v. 2ba) d. Moses intercedes (v. 13)e. Appeal answered (v. 2bb) e. Appeal answered (v. 14)f. March delayed (see v. 3) f. March delayed (v. 15)11

Milgrom then places Num 11.4-34 between these parallel panels. This structuring

places emphasis on the “introverted symmetry” that has been constructed from this

composite material:

A. People’s complaint: meant (vv. 4-10a)B. Moses’ complaint: assistance (vv. 10b-15)

X. God’s reply to both complaints (vv. 16-23)a. God’s reply (vv. 16-20): ostensibly positive

x. Moses’ reaction (vv. 21-22): faithlessa. God’s reply (v. 23): restrained

9 Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, (Philadelphia: The Jewish PublicationSociety, 1990), pp. xvi ff.10 Ibid., also note the full discussion on pp. 376-380.11 Ibid., p. xxvii.

5

B. God diminishes Moses by authorizing the elders (vv. 24-30)A. God punishes people by supplying meat (vv. 31-24)12

Central to Milgrom’s structure and interpretation is that, he believes that, “. . . I will

take some of the spirit that is on you and put it on them. . . .” (Num 11.17b) implies

a “diminishing” of the divine spirit from Moses.13 This means that Moses’

complaint in Num 11.10b-15 results in a judgment: “. . . Moses was punished by

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

intercede on Israel’s behalf when it craved meat (the story of the quail) and for

failing to believe that God could provide it.”14 However one may view the taking

of “some of the spirit” that was on Moses, the context of Numbers 12 implies that

Moses has been vindicated in the long run.

To sum up the larger structural dynamics of the book of Numbers in relation to

Numbers 12, it needs to be noted that the text is the first stage of a failed military

campaign that extends from Num 10.29 to finally Num 14.45. The generally

positive military preparation from the first census list till the departure from Sinai

makes the complaints in 11.1-3, 11.4-34, 12.1-15 and 14.1-4 stand out. The “death

of the old” finds its cause in these pericopes and the “birth of the new” must

rework these episodes into positive events. Milgrom’s insight into the structure of

chapter 11-12 unifies the originally isolated pericopes and clusters them around the

theme of leadership in preparation for the battle.

3.0 Numbers 12.6-8, an Interpretative Center

The study of early poetry of Israel, which has been recovered from narratives

has increasingly been used to re-interpret Israel’s history. Numbers 12.6-8 is no

exception to this process. David Noel Freedman found it to be an important

12 Ibid., xxiv.13 Ibid., 87. Wonsuk Ma has argued that Num 27.20 is a close parallel to Num 11.17 and does notdemand a diminishing. Wonsuk Ma, The Spirit (x:Wr) of God in the Book of Isaiah and ItsEschatological Significance, (Ph.D. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1996), pp. 87-88.14 Ibid., p. 377.

6

corrective to the harmonistic subordination of the poetry to the prose in the late

1970’s.15 This corrective has produced a different procedure in exegeting the text.

As Freedman pointed out, both the poem and the prose should “be dealt with

independently of the other and analyzed, interpreted and evaluated in terms of its

own content and structure.”16

In an attempt to follow this procedure, I will first investigate the poem and then

see how it fits into the narrative framework. The reason for beginning with the

poem is the possible antiquity of the verse in respect to the prose which has been

argued persuasively by W. F. Albright.17

3.1 Translation and Structure

A. Please18 Hear my words!B. If there should be a prophet of yours, of Yahweh,19

C. In a vision, I will make myself known to him,D. In a dream, I will speak to him.

E. Not so my servant Moses,E. In all my house, he is most faithful.

D. Mouth to Mouth, I speak to him,C. In clarity20 and not in riddles,

15 David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns,1980), p. 167. Originally, “Early Israelite Poetry and Historical Reconstructions,” SymposiaCelebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of OrientalResearch (1900-1975), ed. Frank Moore Cross, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: American Schools ofOriental Research, 1979).16 Ibid., 167-68.17 William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of TwoContrasting Faiths, reprinted, (Winona Lake, Indian: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 2-3, 42-3. See alsothe collection of essays by Richard Elliot Friedman, ed., The Poet and the Historian: Essays inLiterary and Historical Biblical Criticism, Harvard Semitic Studies 26, (Chico, California: ScholarsPress, 1983).18 Timothy Wilt, “A Sociolinguistic Analysis of ,” VT, 46, (1996), pp. 237-255, has argued thatthe particle “is indeed a politeness marker” that should be translated by the English “please.”However, in the case of in Numbers a difference is noted. He writes, “all the Numbersspeech situations, that is being used by a divine or political superior that normally would not use in addressing his subjects, seems to be used sarcastically. . . .” pp. 254-255.19 This line which reads hw"hy> ~k,a]ybin> hy<h.yI-~ai, literally “if your prophet was Yahweh,” is obviouslycorrupted. Although Freedman (op. cite., p. 237), has attempted to understand it as a brokenconstruct chain without amending the text, Ehrlich through Levine (ibid., pp. 329-331) has beenfollowed. Here then the “suffixed noun ” is viewed as “an anticipatory genitive.”20 I have followed F. M. Cross’ emendation of harmw to harmb, with the support of 4QNuma,4QNumb, G and Syr. in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion

7

B. But he looks on the form of Yahweh.A. Why were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

The analysis of the poetic structure has been exhaustively covered by Albright,21

Freedman,22 Cross23 and Kselman,24 each fine tuning specific components in

alignment with their view of early Israelite poetics. However, as Rita Burns

indicates “a recovery of the original poetic structure of this piece is not possible, as

suggested by these conflicting analyses.”25

The overall picture however is clear. The poem is an example of an

introversion, with its center poetically and thematically in lines E and E. The

question of where the poem begins and ends is another more complex issue. A and

A function as links used to tie the poem into the narrative framework. The poem

uses the phrase b . . . rbd in a positive sense of “to speaking to,” but in A we have

b . . . rbd used as in Num 12.1, “to speak against”. Also the tone of both A and A

is sarcastic, and thereby matches what would be expected as Yahweh’s response to

Miriam and Aaron. The delimitation of the poem, i.e., whether A and A were part

of the original poem is directly related to how one interprets the poem itself.

I would argue that the poem, contrary to most scholarly investigations, did not

have a life of its own, separate from the present narrative framework. This is

supported by the fact that (1) Moses is obviously the center of the poem. This

means that no matter what original setting is hypothesized, the characterization of

Moses in the tradition dominates the presentation. The narrative flow from 10.29

to 14.45 would naturally support such a poem in its context. (2) The introversion

in the poem is parallel to the introversion seen in Milgrom’s outline of Num 11.4-

34 as described above. Moses “faithlessness” of Num 11.21-22 is countered by his

special status as Yahweh’s faithful servant. (3) The textually problematic “B” line

contains the noun, aybn which has already appeared in 11.29. Also the verbal form

of Israel, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 204.21 Albright, ibid., pp. 42-43.22 Freedman, ibid., pp. 236-238.23 Cross, ibid., pp. 203-204.24 J. S. Kselman, “A Note on Numbers XII 6-8,” VT, 26, (1976), pp. 500-505.25 Burns, ibid., p. 53.

8

appears in 11.25, 26, 27. It would seem that these passages form a context for

understanding “a prophet of yours, of Yahweh.” It is the registered elders, Eldad

and Medad along with a unlimited potential in the ~[-lk of Num 11.29 that are

being indicated. The presumption that Aaron and Miriam are the prophets involved

is a misunderstanding. Rita Burns has convincingly argued otherwise concerning

Miriam:

Regarding the biblical portrait of Miriam as prophetess, I conclude that, althoughMiriam figures prominently in Num 12.2-9 as an oracular figure, her role there is notspecifically a prophetic one. Neither is her activity which is described in Exod 15.20-21 specifically prophetic. When it is said, then, that Miriam was called a prophetess, itmust at the same time be admitted that the title is probably anachronistic and hencedoes not shed much light at all on the portrait of Miriam in the scriptures.26

(4) It would seem to me that even the phrase: ytyb-lkb is in response to the ~[-lk

of Num 11.29. All this would argue that the poem did not have a separate

existence.

3.2 Analysis of Numbers 12.6-8

Yahweh’s statement that Moses was his servant and that he was the most faithful

one in Yahweh’s house makes the poem speak of Moses’ unique authority.

Kselman cites Akkadian parallels to Moses’ loyal servanthood. He writes,

First, a century before Moses, Canaanite vassals writing to Pharaoh could speak ofthemselves as loyal servants () of the suzerain. Second, a prayer inscribed ona Kassite seal describes the owner as a loyal servant () of the godLugalbanda.27

This means that Moses is the loyal servant of the “divine suzerain Yahweh.”

However, the term servant may well be attested more frequently as a title for a

king. Antti Laato writes, “Another common title for the king in the Akkadian

inscriptions is (), “servant.” It is often connected with the name of the god:

“the servant of N.N.” or with a suffix which refers to the divinity.”28 Moreover, the

26 Ibid., p. 79.27 Kselman, ibid., p. 503.28 Antti Laato, The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic MessianicProgramme in Isaiah 40-55, Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 35, (Stockholm, Sweden:Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992), p. 54.

9

Ugaritic epic, Kirta utilizes the same epithet:

Who will bear a child for Kirta,A lad for the Servant of El. (Column III, 48-49)

Kirta awakes – it’s a dream!The Servant of El – a vision! (Column III, 50-51)29

The Kirta parallel is even more interesting because Kirta desires to have an heir

and therefore needs to have a “new” wife. The Numbers pericope begins with a

controversy over Moses’ Cushite wife. However, the issue of an heir is not

mentioned explicitly and therefore lacks any parallel. Also Kirta receives his

communication from El via the medium of dreams and visions. It is tempting to

wonder if a polemic is behind the use of “servant” combined with the revelatory

agencies of dreams and visions to say nothing of cryptic riddles.

In spite of the use of “servant” as a royal epithet, it is probably more prudent to

be cautious as to its applications to Moses in the pericope. Donald B. Redford has

focused more on the phrase “in all my house, he is most faithful” and questions its

meaning. He writes,

He-who-is-over-the-house” (i.e., the palace), if derived from a literal rendering of anEgyptian original, poses a conundrum, for the - was a much less importantofficer, and “vizier” with whom the title is often compared enjoyed an infinitelybroader purview as head of the entire civil service.30

This argument would return to Kselman’s contention that Moses is seen as a “loyal

servant.”

Overall the poem accentuates the “means” of divine revelation as the point of

differentiation between others and Moses. The phrases: “my words,” “in a vision,”

“I will make myself known to him,” “in a dream,” “I will speak to him,” mouth to

mouth,” “in clarity,” “not in riddles”, “he looks on the form of Yahweh,” all focus

on modes of divine self-revelation. The awkward phrase hP,-la, hP, exaggerates the

issue by offering an unusual alternative to the phrase ~ynIP'-la, ~ynIP' in Exod 33.11.

There the text add an explanatory “as one speaks to a friend,” making the point that

29 Translation by Edward L. Greenstein in Simon B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBLWritings from the Ancient World Series, Volume 9, (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997), p. 18.30 Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1992), p. 371.

10

Moses has an unique intimacy with God. Here also the issue is that Moses has this

type of “deep” understanding that is not known by the prophets. The “form of

Yahweh” (hwhy tnmt) that Moses sees is usually contrasted with other terms so that

Exod 33.20 is no longer problematic.31 Yet, Moses’ relationship with Yahweh is

such that his leadership is given priority.

The means of revelation also connects with the crucial subject of prophets in

general. Line B which I have translated, “If there should be a prophet of yours, of

Yahweh” is most interesting. It is generally contextually presumed that the

prophets mentioned are Miriam and Aaron. However, I would argue that that

Miriam and Aaron are instead represented by the second person, masculine plural

suffix, i.e. “of yours.” In this case Miriam and Aaron are viewed as Israelite

leaders who rely on their own community of prophets. In this way, Miriam and

Aaron’s use of their own prophetic advisers are contrasted with the direct and

deeper level of revelation that is imparted to Moses.

4.0 Numbers 12.1-5, 9-16, the Narrative Framework

4.1 Translation of the Narrative Framework

Miriam and Aaron spoke32 out against Moses on account of the Cushite womanwhom he had married, “he married a Cushite!”33 And they said, “Has Yahwehreally spoken only to Moses? Has he not also spoken to us.” Thus Yahweh heardit.

31 George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, The InternationalCritical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark LTD., 1903), p. 126; Milgrom, ibid., p. 96.32 rBed;T.w: is a feminine singular verb which is governing a dual subject, the first being a female whilethe second is male. Although some have argued that this means that “Aaron” was redacted into thetext, the present syntax is not impossible. R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd Ed.,(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), pp. 41-2, writes, “Compound subjects usually take theverb in the singular when the latter precedes, and in the plural when it follows.” The examples ofJudg 5.1 and Gen 33.7 confirm the present text. See also Gesenius, Kautzch, Cowley, Gesenius’Hebrew Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910), ¶146g and Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, AGrammar of Biblical Hebrew, (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), ¶150q.33 I have taken the yKi as recitativum and the clause as a direct speech of Miriam and Aaron. SeeJoüon and Muraoka, ibid., ¶157c.

11

Now the man, Moses was exceedingly unassuming,34 more than any humanbeing on the surface of the earth.

Suddenly, Yahweh spoke to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, “The three of you, goout to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went out. Then Yahwehdescended in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent. Yahweh, thencalled out to Aaron and Miriam. So the two of them came out. . . .

Now the anger of Yahweh burned against them and he departed. The clouddeparted from the tent, and Miriam was immediately covered with snow likescales.35 When Aaron turned to Miriam, she was stricken with scales. Aaron saidto Moses, “On my account, my lord, please do not account this sin on us, for wehave acted foolishly and thereby sinned. Do not let her become like one who isdead, one whom the flesh is half consumed when it comes out if its mother’swomb.”

So Moses cried out to Yahweh, saying, “O God, please heal her!”But Yahweh said to Moses, “Even if her father had spit in her face, would she

not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut out of the camp for seven days, andthen afterwards let he be brought back in.”

So Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days and the people did not traveluntil Miriam was brought back in.

Afterwards the people journeyed from Hazeroth, and they encamped in thewilderness of Paran.

4.2 Sources or Layers in the Narrative

The prose of this chapter has caused much frustration in several areas. The most

dominant is that of source criticism. Martin Noth writes,

Chapter 12, which is in itself very broken, is one of the most hopeless cases ofPentateuchal analysis and therefore I shall not even attempt source analysis. Since thedivine name hwhy occurs throughout, it might be basic J material with all kind ofproliferations, alterations, and, in this case, losses too.36

34 I have followed Levine, ibid., 314, 329 in translating wn"[' as “unassuming” rather than “meek.”Cleon Rodgers suggestion to take use “miserable” is to belabored in “Moses: meek or miserable?”JETS, 29, (1986), p. 263.35 The Hebrew t[;d'c' has been problematic for translators. It is no longer possible to translate it as“leprosy” and therefore some sort of “scabby,” “scaly” skin irritation is involved. See the followingstudies: R. Caplice, “An Apotropaion Against Fungus, JNES, 33, (1974), pp. 345-49; E. V. Hulse,“The Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy” and the use of Alternative Medical Terms in Modern Translationsof the Bible,” PEQ, 107 (1975), pp. 87-105; J. V. Kinner-Wilson, “Leprosy in AncientMesopotamia,” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archeologie orientale, 60 (1966), pp. 47-58; S. Meier,“House Fungus: Mesopotamia and Israel,” RB, 96 (1989), pp. 184-92; J. J. Pilch, “Biblical Leprosyand Body Symbolism,” BTB, 11 (1981), pp. 108-13; J. Wilkinson, “Leprosy and Leviticus: TheProblem of Description and Identification,” SJT, 30 (1977), pp. 153-69; J. Wilkinson, “Leprosy andLeviticus: A Problem of Semantics and Translation,” SJT, 31 (1978), pp. 153-66.36 Noth, ibid., p. 32.

12

Noth’s division is vv. 1, 10-15 as the basic substance. In his commentary he uses

the Cushite issue as the primary element:

The reproach regarding the Cushite marriage, a reproach that is suspicious yetscarcely fundamentally significant, must be regarded from the point of view of thehistory of tradition, as the primary one; and it is at least probable that it formed thepoint of contact for a later presentation of the unique ‘prophetic” significance ofMoses.37

Later the unique role of Moses was further expressed by the insertion of vv. 2-9.

George W. Coats refines Noth’s position by dividing the J source into vv. 1, 10,

12-16 the tradition of the Cushite wife and vv. 2 (3), 4-9, 11 which reflect the

tradition of Moses’ peculiar relationship with Yahweh.38 Coats’ division of Aaron’s

petition is based on the fact that v. 11b presupposes that both Aaron and Miriam are

guilty, while in v. 12 only Miriam is punished. This suggestion is supported by the

use of two negative jussives, one in v. 11b and one in v. 12. Coats does however,

allow for the possibility that the two forms of Aaron’s intercession could be from

one tradition. The end result is that the Cushite wife tradition is a family saga,

where as the other represents a possible conflict in the priesthood.

Recently, John Van Seters has argued for the J source. His argument is based,

first of all on his view that Numbers 12 is a story of the “murmuring motif” which

the Yahwist had specifically created.39 Second, the prophetic authority issue is one

that deals with Ezekiel and Jeremiah and thereby placing the J material in the exilic

period.40 Third, Seters downplays the layering of the text in lieu of a strong

Yahwist narrative.

Other scholars however, have argued that the final composition of Numbers 12

was in the hands of the Elohists. Marsha White for example supports her claim by

pointing to the words , , , and .41 She also

37 Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 93.38 George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditionof the Old Testament, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968), p. 262.39 Seters, ibid., p. 235.40 John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975),p. 310.41 Marsha White, “The Elohistic depiction of Aaron: a study in the Levite-Zadokite Controversy,” inStudies in the Pentateuch, ed. J. Emerton, p. 157.

13

posits two distinct traditio-historical levels. She writes,

The story that the Elohist received was that of Miriam’s opposition to Moses. Becauseit posed two wilderness figures as rivals, the Elohist was able to use it as the vehiclefor another attack on the Zadokite priesthood.42

Robert R. Wilson bases his contention that Numbers 12 involves the Elohist

because it contains what he has identified as the Ephraimite understanding of

prophets in the premonarchical period of Israel. He writes, “. . . the chapter reflects

some of the Elohist’s characteristic views of prophecy, so it is likely that

Ephraimite writers were involved somewhere in the process of the chapter’s

creation.”43 Wilson follows that standard argumentation that Aaron has been added

secondarily to the story based on the verb in Num 12.1 and the fact that Miriam

alone is punished for questioning Moses’ authority in Num 12.9-10, 14-15.44 However, beginning with the source critical question, it is difficult to assign

Num 12.1-15 to either J or E with confidence based on either a lexical or thematic

basis. R. N. Whybray’s often quoted dictum is important here:

With regard to written sources, the rejection of the Documentary Hypothesis simplyincreases the range of possibilities. The Pentateuch may have incorporated alreadyexisting works in their entirety without alteration, or alternatively, earlier works mayhave been excerpted, adapted, expanded, summarized, or simply used as source-material in much the same manner as modern historians (and ancient ones) have usedthem. Indeed, all these methods may have been employed in different parts of thework. These written materials may have been long or short, few or numerous: theonly thing which may be regarded as certain is that they were not comprehensivedocuments like J, E and P combined into a single narrative by a series of redactors.45

It would seem more exegetically fruitful to deal with the so-called “old Tent of

Meeting” tradition as a thematic cluster that might assist the exegete in his or her

analysis of the pericope. Mettinger has argued that this “old pre-monarchical

tradition of the Tent of Meeting () is primarily represented by three

texts: Exod 33.7-11 . . . . Num 11.14-17, 24-30 . . . . Num 12 . . . .”46 He notes that

42 Ibid.43 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, (Philadelphia: Fortress, Press, 1980),p. 155.44 Ibid.45 R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOT Supplement Series53, (Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1987), p. 236.46 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and KabodTheologies, Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 18, (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1982), p.81.

14

Deut 31.14-15; Josh 18.1; 19.51; 1 Sam 2.22; 2 Sam 6.17; 1 Kgs 8.4 may not

belong to this old Tent tradition. On the other hand, Menahem Haran, adds Deut

31.14-15 into his analysis of the what he calls the “non-priestly image of the tent of

.”47 Mettinger summarizes the distinctive characteristics of this old Tent of

Meeting tradition as follows:

It is located outside of the camp. Its function is non-cultic. Neither sacrifice norpriests are named, nor is the Ark; rather, this Tent functions in connection withoracular consultations. A theophany takes place at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting;here the divinity descends (), and the murky cloud () is the vehicle ofcommunication. The theophany is concluded when the cloud “removed [] fromover the Tent.” God is not constantly present in the Tent; rather, the idea represented isa sort of rendezvous-theology.48

It may also be helpful to note that this old Tent of Meeting tradition may have

had Canaanite precursors. Both Richard J. Clifford49 and E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.50

have argued that the Israelite Tent of Meeting are paralleled in the heavenly tent of

El. However, both do not limit themselves to the 3 or 4 texts indicated above, but

include the so-called priestly tabernacle and other texts that both Mettinger and

Haran differentiated. If we are to limit ourselves to specific parallels with the old

Tent of Meeting tradition we have: (1) “Yahweh appears at the opening () of

the Tent. This parallels ’s address to when the god stands within his tent-

shine to address the goddess (CTA 3.V.33-35).”51 (2) “The mode of revelation, in

the “pillar of cloud,” is similar to the theophany on Sinai, which contains . . . a

mixing of the traditions of the and theophanies.”52 (3) “It is also clear that

the Tent served as an oracle tent. It served as the religious and political center for

Israel.”53

47 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical CultPhenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Originally Oxford: Clarendon Press,1978, reprint, with corrections, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1985), p. 262.48 Mettinger, ibid., p. 81-82.49 Richard J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,” CBQ, 33 (1971), pp. 221-227.50 E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods, Harvard Semitic Monographs 24, (Chico,California: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 168-175.51 Ibid., p. 17152 Ibid.53 Ibid., It is important to note that Mullen sees the ark as in the tent. This has been persuasivelyargued against by Haran, ibid., pp. 260-275.

15

When we combined these different characterizations, we have a thematic

trajectory that emphasize specific social or spiritual sphere. Haran sees in these

texts a theophanic ideology that is as it were, “in miniature of course, the basic

features of the divine revelation on Mount Sinai.”54

The theophany at Sinai also takes place outside the camp. In preparation for it, Mosesbrings the people ‘out of the camp to meet God’ (Exod 19.17), and some distancefrom the camp (cf. ibid. 32.19). The people ‘present themselves’, , at thefoot of the mountain (ibid. 19.17). Yahweh descends upon the mountain in a pillar ofcloud and from out of this pillar he speaks (ibid. 19.9; cf. Ps 99.7). Whenever Mosesgoes up to the mountain he is closely followed by his attendant, Joshua (Exod 24.13;32.17), and yet Joshua does not hear the divine word with him. In the ecstatic afflatusof the seventy elders we may find a parallel to that other occasion when, according toJ’s variation of this theme, seventy elders were vouchsafed a glimpse of the God ofIsrael upon Mount Sinai (ibid. 24.9-11).55

Haran goes on to see parallel theophanic features in Moses’ cleft of the rock story

in Exod 33.21-23 and even in Elijah’s Mount Horeb flight (1 Kgs 19.9-14).

Although, Haran understands these as deriving ultimately from the social and

spiritual sphere of prophecy in ancient Israelite life, I would argue that the social

sphere is better seen as political.

My contention is that, although the Num 11.14-17, 24-30 pericope includes the

strong notion of prophecy and Num 12.6 specifically mentions prophets, neither

Exod 33.7-11 nor Deut 31.14-15 highlight this arena. Instead, the texts deal with

political realities. In Exod 33.7, 8, and 10 the pericope emphasizes that there were

observers (hwhy vqbm-lk, ~[-lk, ~[h-lk 2x), while in Exod 33.11, Joshua would

not leave the tent sight. These “public” acts affirmed Moses unique leadership role.

The pericope being written in a “frequentative” format sets the stage to understand

“what customarily happened at the tent of meeting.”56 In Num 11.14-17, 24-30, it

is not the prophesying, but the initiation of the designated elders that necessitated

the congregating at the tent of meeting. The prophesying is described as an one

time act (wpsy alw wabntyw) and therefore secondary to receiving a portion of the

54 Haran, ibid., 267.55 Ibid., pp. 267-268.56 Thomas W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology ofExaltation, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), p. 144.

16

xwr. The very fact that Eldad and Medad can prophesy within the camp implies

that the tent of meeting is not necessarily a prophetic loci. Moses’ response to

Joshua, “Are you jealous for my sake” (yl hta anqmh) highlights the political

nature of their actions. While the enigmatic phrase, “Would that all of Yahweh’s

people were prophets, and that Yahweh would put his spirit on them!” detaches

prophesying from the tent. I would agree with Philip J. Budd observation that “in

both components - the elders and the activity of Eldad and Medad – there is

evidently a concern that possession of the spirit should play its part in the

professional institutions, represented by the elders, and in the charisma of men

freely raised by God to declare word.”57 However, his conjecture that “for the

Yahwist a leadership which has no place for the prophetic insights is doomed to be

misled,”58 goes too far. Wonsuk Ma answers this contention, “One can say the

manifestation is purely symbolic rather than functional, since they are not to be

prophets.”59

As a tent of meeting pericope, Deut 31.14-15 can also be categorized as

involved in the political rather than the prophetic sphere. Here the purpose of the

meeting at the tent is to commission Joshua as the new leader.

Returning to Numbers 12, the contention that Miriam and Aaron bring up deals

with Moses’ being the one whom Yahweh speaks through. The issue is not

prophetic authorization, since neither Miriam nor Aaron should be considered

prophets per say.60 The issue is Moses’ unique leadership role which in its present

literary context was meant to highlight that it was superior to the 70 elders, Miriam

and Aaron. Even the justification for the punishment of Miriam places Moses in

the role of father verses Miriam as child (Num 12.14).

Therefore the Old Tent of Meeting tradition allows for Numbers 12 to be

analyzed in such a way that the presumed theologies of J, E or JE do not over-

57 Budd, ibid., pp. 126-27. 58 ibid., p. 130.59 Ma, ibid., p. 89.60 Note once again the work of Rita J. Burns’ as indicated in note 23.

17

shadow the exegesis. Instead, thematically parallel text assist in its interpretation.61

The issue concerning layers or secondary material in the narrative is also

problematic. Most studies begin with the problem of vv. 1 and 2. In 12.1, the point

of contention is that Moses has married a Cushite. In spite of parallel grammatical

structures indicating that the feminine singular form of the verb rBed;T.w: is not

necessarily indicative of a secondary addition of “Aaron” to the subject, many

scholars argue in this manner. The problem is compounded by the fact that v. 2

presents a seemingly different contention. This time it is Moses’ monopoly in

being Yahweh’s spokesperson. However, since most studies equivocate over the

significance of Moses’ marriage to the Cushite, it can not be substantiated that the

contentions are really different. The Ugaritic epics, Kirta and Aqhat, both deal with

family issues, i.e. marriage and/or progeny in light of political succession. Is it not

possible that the same is being contested in the case of Moses? Also, although it is

true that Israelite kingship borrowed little from Egyptian ideology as Redford

indicates, “. . . whatever Mesopotamian influence may be evident in the nature of

Hebrew kingship, the Egyptian contribution was minimal. The Levantine form of

monarchy developed largely autochthonously,”62 is it not possible that we see here

an attempt to guard against any Egyptian influence. For example Linda S.

Schearing has indicates that

The 18th Dynasty (ca. 1570–1320 B.C.E.) represents a high point in the history ofEgyptian queens. Queen Hatshepsut (wife of Thutmose II and stepmother ofThutmose III) assumed control upon her husband’s death and undertook severalbuilding projects (e.g., the mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri; additions to the Templeat Karnak, etc.). Two other queens, Tiy (wife of Amenophis III) and Nefertiti (wife ofAkhenaten), are given unusual prominence in both statuary and inscriptionalremains.63

This historical remembrance may have been behind the contesting of a Cushite

wife.

Once it is seen that the contentions depicted in vv. 1 and 2 are not necessarily

61 The Achilles heel to this methodology is that the selection of supposed thematically parallel textsmay be viewed as another case of circular logic.62 Redford, ibid., p. 369.63 Linda S. Schearing, “Queen,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. Freedman, David Noel, (NewYork: Doubleday) CD-Rom Edition 1997, 1992.

18

different, the layer or secondary material theory loses its credibility. The text then

can be seen as a single unit, with thematic parallels governing its interpretation.

5.0 Two Commonly Proposed Themes

In spite of major differences in dealing with the sources behind Numbers 12, the

interpretations and historical reconstructions have clustered around two major

subject matters. First of all is the contention that the text reveals something about

the history of propheticism and a conflict involving either prophetic style or

hierarchy. Second, it has been argued that the text deals with another historical

conflict. This time between an Aaronic and Mushite priesthood. I will deal with

these two views and pro-offer an alternative.

5.1 Of Prophets

Martin Noth, who viewed the prophetic note in Numbers 12 as being a

secondary response to the depiction of the spirit-endowed elders in Num 11.4-35

argues for an reflective tradition that retrojected an ecstatic prophetic phenomenon

into the Pentateuchal tradition.64 Numbers 12 then, “portrays Moses as a prophet,

or more correctly, as more than a prophet.”65

A similar approach is taken by Robert R. Wilson. He has argued that the

Elohistic layers of the Pentateuch contains at least the Elohist’s understanding of

prophets in the premonarchical period. Commenting on Num 11.26-30 he writes:

The story thus indicates that the Elohistic groups that originally created the storyviewed possession positively and assigned it an important role in authenticatingIsraelite leaders. This in turn suggests that possession and the prophetic behavior thatresulted from it played a role within the central social structure of the Ephraimitegroups.66

When he moves on to treat Numbers 12, he indicates that “the narrative was

64 Noth, op. cite., pp. 129-130.65 Ibid., 129. Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, (New York:Harper & Row, Publishers, 1978), pp. 180-181 argues in the same manner.66 Wilson, ibid., p. 154.

19

originally concerned with a dispute over prophetic authority.”67 After excising

Aaron as secondary, Wilson can claim that Miriam and like prophets are those

being treated in the poetic verse. The issue that the text originally dealt with was

how to deal with conflicting claims of prophetic authority. The poem and narrative

gives the conclusion that when there is a conflict it is Moses’ word that is to be

accepted. Wilson concludes by postulating that

the story lying behind Numbers 12 thus seems to be the earliest statement of a view ofprophecy that is developed in greater detail by later Ephraimite sources. There is ahierarchy of prophets, at the top of which stands the Mosaic prophet, who hears theword of God directly and whose word is always accurate. In addition to speaking thetrue of God, this prophet also functions as intercessor for the people.68

Finally, Naomi G. Cohen has recently studied the phrase b . . . rbd and

concludes that “the formula B. rBedI refers to the content of an ‘enthusiastic’

prophetic experience – i.e. that this is a terminus technicus for a specific type of the

first stage of prophetic experience.”69 She argues that Numbers 12.1-8 depicts

Aaron and Miriam as prophesying in an passive, recipient mode in which they are

“possessed by God.” Moses on the other hand was “an active partner in a dialogue

situation.”70

All three are representatives of the interpretative view that Numbers 12 deals

originally or primarily with the prophetic phenomenon. Crucial for this view is

that prophecy as presented in Num 11.26-30 must have been ecstatic or a

possession-trance type in nature and that the Mosaic was not. However, evidence

for such ecstatic or possession-trance type of prophecy is not evident in the

activities of the elders in chapter 11 nor is it depicted in the Num 12.6-8 poem.

Furthermore, the very existence of such prophecy is being questioned today. David

L. Petersen for example has traced the ecstasy interpretation in Duhm, Gunkel,

Hölscher, Lindblom, Heschel, and Wilson.71 Relying on S. Parker’s study,72 he

67 Ibid., p. 155.68 Ibid., 156.69 Naomi G. Cohen, “yb . . . rbd: An Enthusiastic Prophetic Formula,” ZAW 99 (1987), p. 220.70 Ibid., p. 222.71 David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets, JSOT Supplement Series 17, (Sheffield:Sheffield University Press, 1981), pp. 25-30.72 S. Parker, “Possession Trance and Prophecy in Pre-Exilic Israel,” VT 28 (1978), pp. 271-285.

20

concludes:

The situation with ecstasy is therefore this. Anthropological study of trance andpossession behavior allowed us to describe ecstatic behavior in ways much moreprecise than was possible in earlier studies (Hölscher, Lindblom, Heschel), volumeswhich have strongly conditioned the discussion of Israelite prophecy today. This newclarity enables us to ask: is trance or possession behavior a hallmark or even aprominent feature of Israelite prophecy? There is strong warrant for answering thisquestion in the negative.73

Beyond the issue of the lack of ecstatic or possession-trance in Israelite

prophecy is that prophecy seems to be a secondary byproduct of leadership

confirmation in Num 11.26-30. Whereas in Numbers 12, Aaron and Miriam who

contest Moses’ sole leadership authority, are not being presented as prophets, but as

having prophets that will prophecy on their behalf. This is the problem in

democratizing prophecy to include hwhy ~[-lk.

5.2 Of Priests

George W. Coats concludes his appendix on Numbers 12 by querying, “does this

text represent another example of the conflict in the priesthood? Is it possible that

the supra-prophetic, supra-Aaronic Moses is seen here as the representative for the

Levitical position in that conflict?”74 For Coats the priesthood conflict is one

which shows another side of the Levites verses Aaronic priesthood that is

represented in Num 16-17.

Frank Moore Cross includes Numbers 12 in an essay strengthening

Wellhausen’s thesis concerning priesthood. Cross summarizes Wellhausen’s three-

fold historical development in the following sentence:

There was (1) an early age when there was not fixed, hereditary priesthood, (2) theage of the kings when a Levitic priesthood began to emerge dominant in Jerusalem,and (3) the postexilic theocracy in which the Aaronids ruled supreme, and Levites ingeneral became hierodules.75

Numbers 12, then provides Cross with further support. He argues:

The two themes in Numbers 12 appear to be (1) Moses’ superiority to the house of

73 Ibid., p. 30.74 Coats, ibid., pp. 263-264.75 Cross, ibid., p. 195.

21

Aaron as mediator of the divine command, and (2) the affirmation of the legitimacy ofthe Mushite priesthood despite its “mixed” blood.76

Although the validity of Wellhausen’s thesis is not disproved by the rejection of

a conflict in the priesthood in the Numbers 12 pericope, the text itself does not

seem to promote such an understanding. First of all, the idea that the mention of

Aaron automatically means that we are dealing with the priesthood is weak if the

mention of Miriam as representing “prophet” is denied. Second, it is confusing as

to when such an addition to the text would have been made and then left to stand in

the tradition. Third, the mention of “prophets of yours” in Num 12.6 does not seem

to support the view of Aaron as representing the Aaronid priesthood. He seems to

be just another member in the Israelite community that was vying for Moses’

unique political authority. Fourth, although some have seen Aaron’s glance at

Miriam’s skin condition as attesting to his priesthood,77 or the fact that he was not

stricken with the skin condition to safeguard his priestly status,78 I would argue that

this is probably reading too much into the narrative. Fifth, if the Tent of Meeting

tradition is utilized in the exegesis, I would argue that Miriam and Aaron were

expecting a commission of some sort to bolster their claim of equal revelatory

authority. The ironic “whiteness” of Miriam was only the external sign of

Yahweh’s rejection of Aaron and Miriam’s claim. The mandatory seven day

expulsion from the camp is a parallel irony, since the Tent was also “outside” of the

camp.

6.0 Moses, A Man like None Other

If neither a prophetic nor priestly interpretation is appropriate for Numbers 12,

what is left? Another alternative is that Moses somehow represents a Davidic

kingship. This could be supported by the use of “servant” in Num 12.7. However,

76 Ibid., 204.77 Milgrom, ibid., 97.78 Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Numbers: Journeying with God, International TheologicalCommentary, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), p. 83, gives thisas a second possibility to explain why Miriam was punished and Aaron was not.

22

as indicated above, the parallel phrase “in all my house, he is most faithful,”

weakens this view. A more subdued version of “kingship” may be to view the text

as indicating Moses as a heroic, ideal leader.

George W. Coats has recently argued that the pericope “represents another in the

collection of traditions about opposition to Moses’ leadership.”79 Moses is a heroic

figure. Coats concludes his study:

The Moses traditions do not derive from a single office within one institution ofIsrael’s society. They derive from the folk. They therefore employ a wide diversity ofimages that depict a diversity of facets from the complex figure of Moses. Thedescription of that complex as heroic allows for the diversity, yet emphasizes that ineach facet Moses appears as a leader for the people. He identifies with their woes. heexperiences their crisis. And with the help of God, he acts to resolve their problems.But he is also the man of God who represents God’s imperatives to the people. In fact,he is in the first order the one who gives those imperatives a voice. He is the lawgiver.In the dialect between those two poles, he emerges as an authentic creature, the onewho is intimate with God and people, the one who in his intimacy facilitates intimacyof his people with each other and with God. But he is at the same time a tragic model.His people reject him, despite his intercession for them before God, in spite of hissacrifice for them all along the way. In the heroic tradition, he maintained hisintimacy with God and people despite the tragedy. And in that integrity, he calls hispeople to follow his pattern. Moses, the hero, the authentic man, the suffering servantof the Lord, combines two natures to display the image of the human being availablefor us all.”80

Numbers 12 and its position in the old Tent of Meeting tradition epitomizes this

imagery. After having expressed his humble leadership model, whereby the

prophetic gifting is seen as ideally democratized (Num 11.29), Moses is described

as “unassuming” (Num 12.3). The division of his leadership spirit with the 70

elders (Num 11.25) and now tragically opposed by Miriam and Aaron, Moses

maintains his integrity in silence. Interceding on behalf of the people (Num 11.2,

11-15) and Miriam (Num 12.13), Moses is the leader for the people. His strength is

that he has been graced with an unique intimacy with Yahweh (Exod 33.11; Num

12.7) that is the basis for his leadership. It is only when at the Tent of Meeting

once again (Deut 31.14-15) he will relinquish his unique role.

In the context of Num 10.29 through 14.25, chapter 12 then confirms Moses’

unique leadership that the people of Num 14.1-4 and 14.39-45 should have heeded.

79 George W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God, JSOT Supplement Series 57, (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 127.80 Ibid., p. 213.

23

If the failure of the people in Num 14 is the turning point in the structure of the

book of Numbers, chapter 12 functions to undergird the culpability of the people.

In Num 14 it is will not be seven days, but a whole generation.

7.0 Conclusion

When Numbers 12 is viewed first of all, from perspective of the final redaction

of the book of Numbers it plays a unique role in setting the stage for the epicenter,

Numbers 13-14. The Old Tent of Meeting tradition, further assists the exegete in

seeing that the pericope deals with a political, leadership theme in which Moses is

the unique paradigmatic hero of Israel. He should have been listened to in chapters

13-14 and ultimately as lawgiver, the same challenge is left unsaid in a wider arena.

Does Numbers 12 then deal with priest or prophets? No, only the challenge of a

unique hero-leader, the “servant” of Yahweh.

24