The Place of Numbers 13–14* and Numbers 20:2–12* in the Priestly Narrative (Pg)

Among scholars who adhere to an originally independent or once separate Priestly narrative (Pg) there is an emerging debate as to whether Numbers 13–14* and 20:2–12*¹ are to be included in Pg. Traditionally these texts have been incorporated as part of Pg.² Recently, however, this has been questioned, with several scholars advocating that Pg concludes in the Sinai material, either in Exodus³ or in Leviticus.⁴ Moreover, this latter position, which excludes Num 13–14*; 20:2–12* from Pg is interrelated with the view that the establishment of the sanctuary and/or its cult within the Sinai material is the climax of Pg, where Pg’s overall purpose is to be found, and therefore forms its conclusion.⁵ This is an understandable development since there is a tendency among those scholars who incorporate Num 13–14*; 20:2–12* into Pg but see the primary concern of Pg to reside in the setting up of the cultic community at Sinai to have little success in accounting adequately for Num 13–14*; 20:2–12* within the theological horizon of Pg as a whole.⁶

In this article, therefore, I will address the issue of whether Num 13–14* and 20:2–12* are to be seen as part of Pg. I will seek to show that these texts form an integral part of Pg. This will be argued primarily on the grounds of the correspondences and interplay of motifs and themes between these texts and Pg texts preceding them; and, since conceptions regarding which texts belong to Pg are intimately connected with the attempt to make sense of Pg as a whole, I will argue that these texts interact with preceding Pg texts in such a way that they can be seen to play an integral role within Pg’s theological horizon.

In the following discussion, this criterion of thematic correspondence with other Pg texts within Pg’s theological horizon, from which a rationale for their inclusion as an integral part of it can be surmised, will take precedence over the primarily linguistic arguments used by those who seek to exclude these texts, especially 20:2–12*, from Pg.⁷ Some caution needs to be exercised in giving too much weight to linguistic arguments per se, especially if they are divorced from other source-critical criteria such as repetition, doublets and discrepancies, and coherence with other identified Pg texts.⁸ Moreover, since those scholars who exclude Num 13–14*; 20:2–12* from Pg tend to attribute these texts to post-P or later redactional level(s), if these texts can be shown to make sense in relation to and within the theological horizon of the preceding Pg texts leading up to and including Sinai, then this speaks against their attribution to later hand(s).

There has been some success in accounting for Num 13–14* and 20:2–12* within the theological horizon of Pg as a whole.⁹ One argument concerns the trajectory of the promise regarding the possession of the land of Canaan in Pg. This promise is a component of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen 17:8 (see also Gen 28:4; 35:12; 48:4), which, after the fulfillment of the promise of descendants in Exod 1:7 (see Gen 17:1–6), is taken up more strongly in Exod 6:4, 8 and carried forward in terms of the movement toward the promised land from the exodus onward. This promise does not find its realization at Sinai, but the motif of the land is central to Num 13–14*; 20:2–12*, which explains why the exodus generation, including Moses and Aaron, did not enter the land in fulfillment of the promise.¹⁰ Another line of argument, proposed by Norbert Lohfink, is that Num 13–14*; 20:2–12* parallels the flood. God’s cosmic destruction of all flesh because of their violence corrupting the earth (ארץ)—except for Noah, who is blameless (Genesis 6–7*)—is paralleled by the divine judgment on the...