Second verse, same as the first. Interwoven with lines that keep us situated in the narrative are some nice traditional poetic and prophetic images - somewhat further down the poetic road than the last poem, not as far as we’ll get soon.
References to Balaam’s divinely ordained mission, and restrictions; to the Exodus, and less explicitly to the ancestral promises - these all keep one foot planted in the broader story, in a way that actually very few independent poems, especially older ones, do.
But the imagery - particularly the horns of the wild ox (or unicorn for all you KJV fans out there), the lion that rises to feed on its prey - these are standard poetic animal images that we find in older biblical poetry, like Gen 49 (which…is also brought to us by J).
This combination of narrative reference and poetic imagery is a good reminder that biblical authors were good at this: they knew how to use language, to put it to work for them, they knew how to combine older traditions and tropes with new framings. Like…writers!
We’re so often told that this material all comes from an oral culture, oral traditions, oral oral oral - and while that may be true, what we’re actually reading is, you know…written. And should be appreciated as written material, with written style.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a pretty good question (that I missed when it was first posted) and I’ll take a minute to explain. The Pentateuch, like the rest of the Bible, is the product of many many different redactional and editorial moments, many of which probably we’ll never accurately identify.
Some occurred within the sources - like the H expansion of P. Some occurred after the sources were combined - like the insertion of the laws in Exodus 34. Some were very small, some were very large. Some were local, some were global. And one was global and huge: compilation.
When I talk about the compiler or compilation, I’m talking exclusively about the process of combining the four independent sources into one new whole. I’m not talking about any other redactional or editorial activity. Just what needed to be done to interweave the sources.
Short but sweet, and deeply interwoven with its narrative framework. One may well wonder whether some of the poetry in the Balaam story is of independent origin, but not this one.
Not only are there all the references to the story - I mean “Balak has called me…curse Jacob for me…I see them from the mountains…” All pretty much narrative. But there’s also a lovely J theme in here that might not be immediately apparent.
“A people who dwells apart,” Balaam calls Israel. Obviously Israel’s distinctiveness from other nations is assumed by all the biblical authors. But J makes a real thing out of it.
One of the most severe types of impurity in the priestly system, but also one that demonstrates - along with impurity from childbirth and sex - that becoming impure isn’t just not bad, it’s also sometimes required.
Here we also see that impurity is transmitted not just by contact, but even through the air, at least in this severe case: just being in a tent with a corpse makes you impure for seven days, same as if you touch a corpse directly.
Procedurally it’s again similar to other severe priestly impurities, with a multi-stage process - elsewhere on the seventh and eighth days, here on the third and seventh. Point is, as a part of the impurity system this is all recognizable.
Truly one of the weirdest obsessions of the millennialist movement, but it’s also true that, as with some other stuff in P, there’s no particularly good explanation for why this is a thing. Why a red heifer? Why a heifer at all? Who knows.
Ritually, it’s no so different from the one for cleansing the person with skin disease back at the beginning of Lev 14. Same basic ingredients: blood, hyssop, cedar, crimson. Same idea: mix it all and you get a mixture that cleans not the sanctuary but the actual person.
Though we haven’t even gotten in this section to what this mixture cleanses a person from, we know from its very existence and makeup that it’s gotta be something serious. This is high-level impurity we’re dealing with here.
Essentially a single continuous speech from Moses, entirely ignoring Dathan and Abiram, no surprise there, and focusing on Korah and his band of 250 Israelites. And Moses poses a challenge that should be all too familiar.
You think all Israelites are the same when it comes to matters of holiness? Why don't you come by the sanctuary with some coals and incense and try offering it? I don't remember what happended the last time someone tried offering incense just for funsies, do you?
At this point, we the readers should know pretty much exactly what's going to happen here. (We also know for sure that we're in P, if somehow we didn't realize it already.)
Why can’t an indebted Israelite be treated like a slave? Because he’s already enslaved - not to another Israelite, or any other human, but to YHWH. A slave can’t have two masters, and YHWH has made his claim.
The basis of YHWH’s claim is simple: I took them out of Egypt, so they’re mine. They were slaves to Pharaoh, but YHWH redeemed them - in the technical sense of the word: he effectively purchased them, just with force rather than with money.
The logic here is clear: what makes Israel un-enslaveable is their having been redeemed from Egypt by YHWH. Everyone who didn’t go through that experience - everyone who isn’t Israel - isn’t subject to the same prohibition on being enslaved. (As will be clear momentarily.)