Capítulo III Alternativas de solución
3.2. De acuerdo a los problemas específicos
fits the threat (vss 19f). The etiology is only loosely connected to the ^
main story which can stand on its own as an example of Yahweh*s gracious provision in the desert. We would argue that the early traditions under- lying this pericope had the form of the type
previously described and stylized as Setting/Complaint/Appea]/Wor<3/Deed (R). This would apply to both the "appointment of the elders" as well as the
"supply of meat in the wilderness" theme. The addition of the judgment |
motif probably occurred after the two traditions had been combined and placed in the post Sinai traditions.
In the other two traditions, whose J content can be identified without too much difficulty, the judgment theme is integral to both and provides the climax in each case. Their differences, however, set them apart. In Numbers l4 there are two threats and one actual judgment. First
there is the absolute condemnation of the whole people (14.11-12) which is | modified after Moses’ intercession (13-14) to the 40 year desert wandering
(20-25). Secondly, there is the defeat of the Israelite foray into
Canaan without Yahweh*s presence in the form of the Covenant Box (14. |
39-45). In chapter 16 on the other hand the judgment is absolute and
complete on the rebels and their families (16.31-33), The structures also are different. While in chapter 14 a dialogue takes place between Yahweh | and Moses which brings about the modification of the threatened judgment,
in chapter 16 the response of Moses to Dathan and Ablram’s complaint is
an appeal to Yahweh to ignore their offering and a prayer unique among those of the desert wandering. Besides this one story deals with a national rebellion while the other relates to a clan conspiracy. In fact other
than the opening complaint and the theme of judgment there is little to relate the two stories.
Closer to the Numbers 14 story is the "Golden Calf" episode in Exodus 32.^^^ Of particular significance are the common motifs of total destruction which is modified by Moses’ intercession and of the promise of a future
judgment. In spite of the complex nature of the Golden Calf tradition
we believe it is sufficiently close to Numbers 14 for us to postulate that | their incorporation into the J history tied the Sinai and post Sinai narr
at Ives together and provided the impetus to the movement to reinterpret ii
the "Deliverance from Danger" narratives of the post-Sinai period as | 'murmuring-judgment’ stories.
It is to the prayers contained in these narratives that we must now turn.
Fxowg 77. ^
p/LQ HTn ay7 m m na a 8 R(L) ?]7pDi uyn ly b 8
a What can I do for this people? b Before long they will stone meI
The dispute with Moses at Bepliidim arose out of the failure of the people to find water t h e r e . T h e people’s demand for water to
10
)
drink is interpreted both as a dispute with Moses ( ’ Thy nb) and a test of Yahweh (mn'-m pDl'îl no ) The people rebel (
against Moses accusing him of bringing them into the desert to slay them (vs 3). Fearing for his life Moses appeals ( )^^^ to Yahweh for help. Yahweh’s response is positive. He instructs Moses what steps he must take in order to provide water for the satisfaction of the people’s need (vss 5-6). In so doing a theophany of Yahweh takes place which
together with the water from the rock prove that Yahweh is in the midst # of his people (see on 7*7)•
The literary critical data for determining the sources are indecisive.
We accept Martin Moth’s suggestion that the primary source for the pericope and this prayer is J.
The prayer consists of a question and a statement. The question is
ainbiguous and therefore difficult to translate. We have taken it to have
but the other meaning of Lament which inheres in the question may also be present ("What am I to do with this people?"). The Reason
for the cry to Yahweh occurs in line b and is itself full of urgency. | Being threatened with stoning would be enough to make anyone
cry out to God but it should be noted that Moses does not petition
for deliverance from the enraged mob but for a way in which he himself |
can satisfy their need for water and so remove the cause of strife. | This raises the important question of why the people wanted to stone
him. In the various law codes stoning is decreed for a number of
crimes*, offering children to Molech (Lev 20.2); blasphemy (Lev 24. 14, 16, 23); working on the Sabbath day (Nu 15»35f*); incitement
to serve other gods (Dt 13.10); the worship of other gods (Dt 17.5) | disobedience towards parents (Dt 21.21); fornication by a girl before
marriage (Dt 22.21); fornication by a manwdh a betrothed virgin (Dt 22.24); violation of a sanctuary (Ex 19.13); mediums and wizards
(Lev 20.27); breaking a ban (Jos 7,25); the owner of a proven dangerous beast which gores another man to death (Ex 21,29). Appar ently in ancient Israel stoning was the normal means of executing capital punishment.
On three occasions it is used to describe the actions of the people #io are incensed at the behaviour of a leader or official
(Ex 17.4; Nu 14,10; and I Kg 12.18). All three appear to be the result
4
of mob rule. The officials involved are either lynched or threatened with lynching. Only Yahweh’s intervention in the cases of Moses and of Joshua and Caleb brought deliverance. It would appear that in ancient Israel if an appointed leader did not fulfil his appointed role to
■ 'h:.'
133.
wishes he could be summarily stoned.
In the pericope of >water from the rock at Horeb the prayer’s function is to introduce Yahweh’s instructions which led to the theophany on the rock and the satisfaction of the people’s thirst.
On the phrase HTH Qyn see above, p.95,n.83. In the story as a whole the phrase ( nîn) Dyn plays an important role. By appearing
consistently throughout in each of the main sections it helps
to tie the whole story together. It should be noted, however, that
it does not appear in the final section which contains the
etiology of Meribah/Massa, Instead of "the people" the more formal "sons of Israel" oc c ur s , T h i s may indicate that the etiology is secondary. As to the nuance of nin oy7 in Moses’ prayer it should not be assumed that it carries a negative one sinply because later
17)
appearances of the phrase have this connotation. We would argue that until the "Golden Calf" incident (Exod 32) nin ayn is quite neutral and frequently positive when applied to the Israelites.
18)
xjqI iTiyV nyin nn7
iQ^ ?7y HTH aySHj he/ri h7
R c W R iiTiT ayn 7o
m
?33Nninxn »3
’33x uk
173’n UN inxn xe” luxo ip?na innu
, 23) 22)
I’nax? nyaw] wh nm%n ?y
m n
ayn 737nn7
’7 t’xrs n73N3i 1WÀ
137mîï
1ÜN7
?7y 133? ’3 a fo c d e f g 10 24 13 13 33 14 177/7
L HTH
ayn 73 nx nxw7 ’7i7 ’3ix 73ix x7
h 17R 733 ’3 i 6
25)
Ain m ’3Ain ?7
nE^ynx n33 oxi
j 14 p2’nyia nxix 7xi i’3’ya in ’nx%n*&x
k 17 a Why have you done evil to your servant?fo And have I not found favour in your sight that you 4
load tlie burden of all this pecple on me?
c Did I conceive all this people?
d Or did I give them foirth that you should say to me,
e "Carry them at your breast as a nurse carries a baby
to the land I swore to give their fathers"?
f Where do I get the meat frcxn to give to all this people
g for they weep over me and say, "Give us flesh and let us eat!"?
h I can on ny own no longer carry all this people
i for (they) are too heavy for me.
j And if like this you deal with me I insist you slay me!
k If I have found favour in your sight then let me not look on
ny evil.
This complaint, which is one of the longest prose lamentations
4
in the Hebrew Bible, arises out of the people’s weeping (vs 4, of, 10a)
over the monotony of their desert diet (vs 6). They long for the
delicacies of Egypt (vss 4-5) having been egged on by the rowdy elements among them (vs 4). Yahweh is angry with his people and Moses’ prayer is made directly in response - though we are not told what form Yahweh’s anger took (vs lOba). In Moses’ eyes the divine displeasure is evil
27)
and he says so. ^
The complaint is directed against Yahweh. It is built up of a series of Laments which climax In two dramatic Petitions, The Laments are
tas. î
J
4 In number - five questions and one negative statement. The questions
begin with the familiar double question of disputationii,.nn7;..ni37 and they are linked to the final Petition by the repetition of
and in ’n(K)Xb. These words form a chiastic inalusio to the 4
j whole prayer. The phrase ntn Oyn 73 (lines b, o, f and h) occurs in
each of the four natural groupings of the Laments; lines a-b; c-e; f-g; h“i. Each of these sections has a Reason for lamentation. The first is the burden of the people which Yahweh has given Moses expressed in an infinitive clause introduced by 7. The others are all signalled
by the particle ’3 (lines d, g and i). The first two Reasons are Yahweh’s activity in giving Moses the task of leading the people to Canaan. The second two Reasons are the people's activity in demanding more than
Moses can give. The catena of lamentation is caught up in the phrase
I
’7 nay JIX H33 which forms the protasis of the conditional Petition inline j. The lamenting Question of line f (LQ^) may also be understood as Petition since it picks up the motif which initiates the conflict
(the people's craving for meat) and requests information how to meet that need?^^A similar semi-rhetorical question is to be found at Exodus 17.4
(q.r.)* It is also to be noted that the form of the people's demand w quoted in line g is exactly the same as that found in Exodus 17.2a
where it is understood as initiating a dispute (3’1) and a test (NOb).^^) The prayer has clear verbal connections with its context;
4n33 : VB8 4, 10, 13, 18, 20. &-63N : vss 4, 14, l8(2x)^3a)
ay : vss 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17,
18
. în spite of this G,B. Gray can write, "The verses in question (Ilf., l4f.) fall excellently into place after Exodus 33*1-3' They appear to have been transferred here by the editor who united the stories of the quails and the l e a d e r s " .Noth on the other hand divides the prayer4
Rl)
between two ancient narratives. The first and more basic narrative which contains the first half of the prayer he assigns to J (vss 4-13,
18-24a, 31-34) and the second half of the prayer comes from a secondary
tradition also from J (14-17, 24b-30). However our belief is that the / overall structural unity of the prayer makes this division of the prayer
unlikely. Whatever the traditio-historical development of the traditions - may have been it is next to impossible to disentangle them from the
existing narrative. That there are two traditions behind the narrative
cannot be gainsaid but when it comes to identifying them in this prayer we dispute the feasibility of the operation. In fact it may belong to either .tradition. By removing lines f and g it fits quite happily
into the elders tradition but if lines h and i are removed the quails ? tradition readily accomodates it. We would suggest that the prayer
may have come into existence as a means of securing the unity of the narrative created out of the two traditions.
In tone the prayer is very much akin to that of Exodus 5.22-23.
In fact the opening questions of both prayers are precisely the same in form. But the prayer's length and its inclusion of Petitions set it off from the Exodus lamentation. Nevertheless this cottplalnt is, like the Exodus prayer^ extraordinarily audacious not only in its boldness of speech but also in its theological conception of God as a Mother.
In the double question a grammatical construction frequent 24)
in Ugaritic literature as well as the Old Testament,’^ Moses Implicitly
charges Yahweh with neglect of his responsibility of caring for the
children he has conceived, bom and nurtured. Why should Yahweh be
angry with his people when he himself has brought them into the situation
which has caused them to cry out for meat, Moses cannot be held responsible for Yahweh*s actions. Nor can he bear any longer the
25)
\37.
then Yahweh had better kill him so that he may no longer experience ' % this evil,
Finally and in addition to Wiat has been said above about the
structure of the prayer the way in which the prayer organizes the main theiæs into pairs catches one’s attention:
a) Lines a-b: Moses accuses Yahweh- JXJ)/7 Iiyin
1’3’ya in x7 b) Lines c-e: Moses denies responsibility- ...’îi’in ?3jNn
’33N OK
c) Lines f-i: Moses cannot do the work- ...7^3 ’7 I’KO
.,,nNa7 ’737 ’33K 731K X7
f
d) Lines j-k: Mb ses' prayer for release- ’7 nay ilK 033 OKI $Ain K3 ’3Ain
1’3’yi
in
’ilKYO OH ’nyii iiHiK 7K1 Some observations are in order. First,the subjects of the four sections are arranged in a chiastic order: YOU - 1 : 1 - YOU. Secondly, there is a subject-object chiasmus in section a) andwith the protasets of section d). Thirdly, section d)’s coordination is also a chiasmus for how else can one explain the strange use of
the waw copula and the apposition between the two lines j and k. j
% The prayer functions as a lead into the choice of the seventy j
elders tradition from the craving for meat tradition and therefore '-j
fulfils a crucial role in the narrative. More than any other element
of the narrative it Integrates the two traditions into a. whole and the 0*7 )
R laipa