Source: http://thetorah.com/korahs-poetic-rebellion-and-gods-flowery-response/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:24:36+00:00

Document:
A new analysis of compositional layers suggests that God responds to Korah’s rebellion with patience and beauty—until someone changed the ending.
The famous story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram’s rebellion is confusing to read; the editors of TheTorah.com list twenty-one questions that studying the texts elicits. The Classical Documentary Hypothesis resolves many of these issues, suggesting that the Torah text is “unreadable” because it combines two stories (usually attributed to two documents called the Yahwist [J] source and the Priestly [P] source).
As opposed to the redacted (combined J and P) version of the rebellion and punishment found in Numbers 16–17, the isolated Priestly version (included in the appendix) of the story is coherent and readable. In this narrative, Korah leads a group of Levites and two hundred and fifty elders to challenge Moses’s appointment of Aaron as high priest. After rebuking Korah, Moses tells the chieftains and Korah to show up with firepans filled with incense and light them; Aaron will do the same and God will choose. Korah’s band does this, and God burns them up. Aaron’s son Eleazar is then told to gather the pans, smelt them down, and use them as plating for the altar.
The people then come to complain about the death of the elders, and God brings a plague against them. Aaron stands in the midst of the plague with an incense pan to protect the Israelites, and the plague stops. God then has a representative from each tribe bring his staff and write his name on it, and God will show which tribe he chooses by making the staff flower. Aaron’s staff flowers. The people panic, saying they are all going to die, and God calms them by saying that the Levites will be in charge of the Tabernacle; the people will be safe from God’s wrath.
Why are the assembled men angry at Moses? Is it because Moses exalts himself over them in 16:3 or because Moses denies them the priesthood in 16:10?
How many days does this story span, and what does the text mean by “tomorrow”? Moses tells Korah and his rebels to be present before YHWH “tomorrow” (16:16), but the first narrative note that tomorrow has arrived comes only after Korah and the rebels have died, just before the other Israelites complain (17:6).
How many people die in God’s various punishments? Verse 16:35 puts the total dead at two hundred and fifty, but if Korah dies along with the chosen men of the assembly, the number of dead should be two hundred and fifty-one.
Furthermore, why is the writing style so repetitive in places?
וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו.
Why does the text convey similar information so many different ways?
Most importantly, why does the story contain two scenes where God indicates whom he chooses? Moses tells Korah, “By morning, YHWH will make known who is his; the one who is holy may approach him; the one whom he chooses, he may approach him” (16:5). Then, God incinerates the insurgents, showing God’s choice of Moses and Aaron. Why then is there a need for the trial of the twelve staffs, where God shows his choice of Aaron’s tribe by causing Aaron’s staff to sprout flowers?
Similarly, in the episode of the staffs, God says that “the man whom I choose, his staff shall sprout; thus I will rid myself of the grumblings of the Israelites” (17:20). But God has already dispatched the grumblers by sending a plague!
If separating between J and P makes the story of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram more readable by separating between the Korah story and the Datan and Abiram story, might identifying multiple authors in P itself produce answers to any of our questions? Indeed, scholars have identified strata inside the Priestly source by noting changes in vocabulary and ideology; positing multiple layers of Priestly composition can explain internal contradictions inside the Priestly source. For example, Israel Knohl breaks down Numbers 16 into an original Priestly text and a supplementary layer written by authors called the Holiness School (see “Korah, Datan and Abiram: Documentary and Redactional Approach,” TheTorah.com).
The most widely accepted stratum inside P is called the Holiness Legislation, found in Leviticus 17–26. These chapters are priestly, but they have a different vocabulary and theology from the most other Priestly passages. Knohl argues that in Numbers 16–17, the original Priestly source, which he calls the Priestly Torah (PT), told the story of a rebellion against Moses by two hundred and fifty men, led by an unknown leader. A later group of author/editors, members of the Holiness School (HS), combined PT with a similar non-Priestly rebellion story and recast the story as a Levite rebellion.
However, I propose a different method for separating between layers in P based on stylistic criteria.
And our tongues, with joy.
The psalmist tells us the single idea—we will be happy—using two complementary images (laughing and joyfully singing or shouting). These two images parallel each other.
When distinguishing between compositional strata in P (and the Torah in general), I consider compositional style to be a significant criterion. As already noted above, parts of P are highly repetitive. The author seems to say the same thing multiple times. However, other parts of P show little or no repetition or restatement. The repetitive writing is, in my view, a form of poetic writing—parallelism—and I propose that different authors wrote the poetic and prosaic parts of P.
זֹאת עֲשׂוּ קְחוּ לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ וּתְנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וְשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי יְהוָה מָחָר.
Do this: take for yourselves firepans, Korah and all his company, and tomorrow put fire in them, and lay incense on them before YHWH.
The action is progressive, a list of things to do in a certain order. The clauses are not repetitive, therefore, but rather each clause advances the action. These verses are prose with no parallelism. Such verses belong to what I call “Prosaic-P.” What is the relationship between these two versions of P?
In my book The Poetic Priestly Source, I propose that P underwent several stages of development. In its first stage, priestly authors composed a poetic version of Israelite history, covering creation to Moses’s death. These authors likely lived in Babylon, and they utilized the poetic and parallelistic compositional style of Mesopotamian myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh.
In a second stage of textual development, later priestly authors found the poetic version to be incomplete, imprecise, and sometimes ideologically unsound. This second group of authors altered Poetic-P, inserting new plot points, clarifying confusing details, enhancing vague language, and “fixing” theological problems in the text. This process explains the inconsistencies in the Priestly text of the Korah story well.
In the original poetic version of the story, Korah and gathered leaders of the community protest against Moses and Aaron. They complain that the prophet and priest have elevated themselves inappropriately above the rest of the community; “all Israelites are holy,” the rebels claim. Moses says that by the following morning, God will make known whom he chooses to be holiest.
YHWH commands Moses to bring a staff representing each of the twelve tribes into the Tabernacle, where they remain overnight. In the morning, Moses retrieves the staffs and finds that Aaron’s has sprouted blossoms; God has made his choice known. The people who witness the miracle react with fear, and they continue to complain. However, no one has died or even been injured.
Ancient authors apparently had two categories of objections to the original storyline in Poetic-P. First, parts of the story are imprecise. Who is Korah? Are the rebels Israelites or specifically Levites? Why do the Israelites recoil in fear at the flowering staff? Why does God wish to rid himself of the Israelites “grumbling” when the text does not label the insurrectionists’ protests as “grumbling” to begin with?
Second, the ideology is objectionable. Can the hoi polloi really accuse God’s chosen prophet of high crimes and escape unscathed? Is there truly no penalty for questioning the authority of the high priest?
In the first case, the authors of Prosaic-P add clarifying details that fill gaps left in Poetic-P’s plot. In the second, the later prosaic authors add a series of dire consequences for the Israelites’ impudence and impertinence. Both types of supplementation likely occurred in multiple stages, perhaps spanning multiple generations.
According to this reconstruction, God’s response to Korah and the rebels in the older text was gentle and even beautiful. They complained that Moses and Aaron were acting as if they were chosen specially by God, and God responds by manifesting that choice visually with flower blossoms. The original story was not one of death—by fire, plague, or anything else. Rather, the Israelites needed a sign, and God gave them an elegant one.
Later Torah authors and editors found this story to be ideologically dangerous; a person should not be able to insult God’s chosen prophet and high priest and suffer no consequences. The prosaic authors therefore add incineration and, later, infection as ramifications for questioning authority. A conciliatory God becomes a fire-and-brimstone God.
We see a similar trend in the creation story. The Garden of Eden story (Gen. 2:4b—3:24)—a J text—ends with YHWH cursing humanity with hard work and pain. In contrast, the Six Days of Creation story (Gen. 1:1—2:4a)—mostly Poetic-P—ends with God blessing humanity (1:28). I believe that the authors of the Six Days story are familiar with the Garden of Eden story, and they disapprove of seeing humanity as cursed. They therefore present an alternative story where humans rule the earth and receive God’s blessing.
In the Korah story, Poetic-P’s authors were familiar with the non-P (J) version of the story, where God punishes rebellion by opening a hole in the earth into which insurgents fall and perish. Poetic-P presents an alternate version that shows God treating insurrection as a teachable moment, not as a time to kill.
In the following breakdown, the original poetic version of the Priestly Korah story appears in black. The prosaic additions appear in blue. I indent Poetic-P to highlight its parallelism.
The prosaic authors make two types of insertions: small glosses slipped into poetic sentences, and large self-contained passages. Imagine editing a work document forwarded to you by a colleague. You might sometimes clarify a single phrase, other times add entire new paragraphs.
and YHWH is in their midst.
The prosaic authors add a patronymic for Korah, introducing him more fully. Poetic-P identifies Korah as a Levite in 16:8, and this gloss clarifies his lineage. Such supplementation happens frequently, where Poetic-P identifies a character simply (Noah is just “Noah” in Gen. 6:9), and Prosaic-P adds ancestry (Gen. 5:28-32).
The exact complaint is unclear in the poetic text; what does it mean to “exalt” oneself above YHWH’s assembly? Later prosaic authors address this ambiguity.
the one whom he chooses, he may approach him.
The small addition of Moses becoming crestfallen clarifies the seriousness of Moses’s reaction.
In this addition, Prosaic-P adds a new ritual that will demonstrate whom God chooses. As opposed to the ritual of the flowering staff, the firepan ordeal will be dangerous. This addition raises the stakes of the story significantly.
and to stand before the community and serve them?
10 Even though he allows you to approach him, and all your fellow Levites with you, you seek also the priesthood?!
11 Indeed, you and all your company have banded together against YHWH.
The prosaic insertion clarifies the insurrections’ objection: they are not satisfied to be Levites, but rather they also desire to become priests.
and he said to YHWH, “Pay no attention to their offering.
Moses simply protests his general innocence in Poetic-P; this does not, however, address the charge of Moses “exalting” himself. When Prosaic-P adds the firepan ritual, it also updates Moses’s dialogue.
—you and they and Aaron—tomorrow.
17 Each one of you take his firepan and put incense on it, and each one of you bring his censer before YHWH, two hundred fifty firepans; you and Aaron also, each his firepan.” 18 Each man took his firepan, and put fire on them and laid incense on them, and stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting, as did Moses and Aaron. 19 Then Korah assembled the whole community against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And YHWH’s Presence appeared to the whole community.
23 YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 24aγ “Say to the congregation: Withdraw from Korah’s dwelling.” 27a So they withdrew from Korah’s dwelling. 35 A fire went forth from YHWH and consumed the two hundred and fifty men offering the incense.
Poetic-P tells us that we will know whom God chooses tomorrow, but without any narrative note that a day passes; the firepan ritual of Prosaic-P makes clear God’s choice. The rebels die, and it seems as though the situation should be resolved.
17:1 YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to Eleazar son of Aaron the priest that he may remove the firepans from out of the blaze and scatter the fire [ashes] far away, for they are holy. 3 The firepans of those who sinned at the cost of their lives, make them into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they have been offered before YHWH; they have become sacred. They shall be a sign to the Israelites. 4 Eleazar the priest took the copper firepans that the burned men had offered, and he hammered them as a covering for the altar 5 as a reminder for the Israelites that no outsider—one not of Aaron’s seed—shall approach to offer incense before YHWH, so as not to be like Korah and his company, just as YHWH had told him by Moses’s hand.
This passage, which has long been considered an addition to the original Priestly document, answers the question of what becomes of the firepans made holy through their contact with the divine.
6 On the next day, the whole congregation of the Israelites grumbled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, “You have killed YHWH’s people.” 7 When the company assembled against Moses and Aaron, they turned toward the tent of meeting; the cloud covered it, and YHWH’s Presence appeared.
8 Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting. 9 YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Withdraw from this congregation, so that I may consume them in an instant.” They fell on their faces. 11 Moses said to Aaron, “Take your firepan, put on it fire from the altar, lay [on it] incense, and take it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them. For wrath has gone out from YHWH: the plague has begun.” 12 So Aaron took it as Moses had said, and he ran into the middle of the assembly, for indeed, the plague had begun among the people. He put on the incense and made atonement for the people. 13 He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was contained. 14 Those who died by the plague were fourteen thousand seven hundred, apart from those who died in the Korah matter. 15 Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting; the plague was contained.
This long insertion fills a major gap in Poetic-P, namely that God wishes to “rid from myself the grumblings (תְּלֻנּוֹת) of the Israelites” (17:20), even though Korah and his men do not specifically “grumble”; instead, they only “rise up” (וַיָּקֻמוּ). The plague both adds the required grumbling to the narrative and reinforces the consequences of complaining against God and God’s representatives.
from their ancestral houses, twelve staffs.
indeed, one staff for each head of their ancestral houses.
the place where I meet with you.
which they continually grumble against you.
After a long insertion (or series of insertions), we return to the original Poetic-P story of God making known whom he chooses. The only prosaic addition is a point of clarification, that the staff sprouting will signify the choice. While this point might seem obvious, Prosaic-P makes a habit of clarifying any point that might cause confusion.
21 Moses spoke to the Israelites, and all their leaders gave him a staff, one staff for each leader, from their ancestral houses, twelve staffs; Aaron’s staff was among their staffs. 22 Moses laid down the staffs before YHWH in the tent of the covenant.
Here, Prosaic-P narrates Moses following through on God’s commandments, another common type of addition in the prosaic stratum. The poetic layer assumes that the audience will understand that Moses followed God’s instructions, while the prosaic layer clarifies that this is indeed so.
Moses went into the tent of the covenant.
24 Then Moses brought out all the staffs from before YHWH to all the Israelites. They looked, and each man took his staff.
26 Moses did so; just as YHWH commanded him, so he did.
all of us are lost!
28 Everyone who approaches YHWH’s tabernacle will die.
The ending of Poetic-P is confusing, as nothing God has done in the poetic text should cause the Israelites to fear approaching the Tabernacle. In Poetic-P, this confusion is part of the point of the story. The Israelites are like tired, irritable children who grumble and groan even when their complaints make little sense. (Similarly, no amount of food or water that God provides stops the Israelites from whining about their hunger and thirst.) The authors of Prosaic-P found this incongruous ending intolerable, and so they changed it.
The earlier prosaic insertions add death as a consequence for grumbling, reinforced by a gloss at the end of v. 25. Verses 24 and 26 add explicit narration to the poetic base.
The proposed stratification addresses our earlier questions (listed briefly above and in detail in the appendix, “Priestly Korah Story Annotated with Questions“) in three main ways. First, it explains contradictory elements by showing that they originate in different textual layers. For example, Moses and Aaron are both at the tent of meeting in Prosaic-P’s inserted text (17:15), but only Moses is there in Poetic-P (17:16). Or, it provides a reason for the switch from second person (Poetic-P, 16:4-5) to third person (Prosaic-P, 16:6). The problem of the confusing “tomorrow”s disappears, as the poetic stratum contains only one (as the staff sprouts overnight). The story only became a multi-day event with the insertion of the prose additions.
The total number is therefore still only two hundred and fifty, not two hundred and fifty-one. When Prosaic-P authors add the patronymic information for Korah (son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi), they break the parallel structure and introduce confusion over the number of people present.
Third, this stratification shows how almost any text is ambiguous, and that early authors tried to redress these ambiguities. (Later rabbinic interpreters embark on a similar process, but instead of inserting clarifying text into the Torah itself, they create parallel commentaries to be read in conjunction with the ambiguous text.) The poetic stratum tells us that the Israelites “grumble” (17:20) but does not show them doing so explicitly. The prosaic authors therefore introduce a story where the Israelites grumble explicitly (and die in a plague for doing so). Moses calls Korah and his band “Levites” in 16:8, yet Poetic-P had not previously identified them as such. The prosaic additions clarify this detail. The Israelites fear for their lives after seeing the staff, but God has given them no cause for alarm. The Israelites’ histrionics seem more logical when the story involves death and destruction.
Here is the entirety of the Priestly story of Korah’s rebellion and its aftermath. The English translation is sometimes awkward in order to highlight parallelism.
Korah recruits “leaders of the community,” “chosen men of the assembly,” and “men of repute.” Why does our narrator use such repetitive language?
Keep in mind that the assembled men (called “Israelites”) are angry at Moses because, they claim, “you exalt yourself above” other Israelites (v. 3).
What does Korah “take” in 16:1?
Once again, the language in v. 5 is repetitive.
If Moses is already speaking to Korah in vv. 6-7, why does v. 8 below again say, “Then Moses said to Korah”?
Verse 9 is, once again, repetitive in its description of what God has apportioned for the Levites.
The reason for the people’s anger has changed from Moses exalting himself above other Israelites (v. 3) to Moses denying the priesthood to some Levites (v. 10).
The insurrectionists have changed from Israelites (v. 2aβ) to specifically Levites (vv. 8, 10).
The rebels drop out of the story somewhat awkwardly; Moses speaks to “Korah and all his community” in v. 6, but only to Korah in v. 8.
What has Aaron done to anger the rebels?
Why does Moses bring up donkeys? Why does he defend himself against a crime no one has accused him of committing?
16 Moses said to Korah, “You and all your company, be present before YHWH—you and they and Aaron—tomorrow. 17 Each one of you take his firepan and put incense on it, and each one of you bring his censer before YHWH, two hundred fifty firepans; you and Aaron also, each his firepan.” 18 Each man took his firepan, and put fire on them and laid incense on them, and stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting, as did Moses and Aaron. 19 Then Korah assembled the whole community against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And YHWH’s Presence appeared to the whole community.
Moses tells Korah and his rebels to be present before YHWH “tomorrow” (v. 16), but the narrator does not tell us that tomorrow comes before the rebels bring their firepans and God’s fire consumes them (beginning in v. 18). Did a night pass?
Why does YHWH speak to Moses and Aaron in v. 20, but only to Moses in v. 23?
Is the number accurate in v. 35? If Korah and two hundred and fifty men approach God, should not two hundred and fifty-one people die?
Which “congregation” does Moses address in v. 24aγ? It cannot be the two hundred and fifty men, as they have died.
Verse 6 tells us that a new day begins. Is this the “tomorrow” for which the rebels were supposed to wait in 16:16? If so, then Korah and the rebels have already died before “tomorrow” comes. Notice that the text will have another “tomorrow” in 17:23, after the overnight staff ritual.
YHWH twice orders Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from those about to die (16:21 and 17:10). The command is logical in ch. 16, as God’s fire might accidentally consume innocent bystanders. However, why does YHWH issue the same order in ch. 17? A plague has already begun, so did God intend to send both a plague and then a consuming fire? Does Aaron’s incense do more than contain the spread of the plague?
The narrator tells us that Aaron and Moses stand together at the entrance to the tent after the plague (v. 15), yet God speaks only to Moses about an issue concerning Aaron as if Aaron were not there in the verses below.
16 YHWH spoke to Moses, saying, 17 “Say to the Israelites: Take from them a staff, a staff from the ancestral house of all of their leaders, from their ancestral houses, twelve staffs. Write each man’s name on his staff, 18 and write Aaron’s name on the staff of Levi, indeed, one staff for each head of their ancestral houses. 19 Place them in the tent of meeting before the covenant, the place where I meet with you. 20 The man whom I choose, his staff shall sprout; thus I will rid from myself the grumblings of the Israelites, which they continually grumble against you.
Concerning the twelve staffs, God says that “the man whom I choose, his staff shall sprout; thus I will rid myself of the grumblings of the Israelites” (17:20). However, these are two separate issues. The fire that consumed Korah and the rebels has already demonstrated whom God chooses; the plague already decimated the grumblers. However, the “grumbling” (17:6) is about the death of Korah and the rebels, not about who should exercise power. That objection is only found in 16:3.
23 On the morrow, Moses went into the tent of the covenant. Indeed, Aaron’s staff for the house of Levi had sprouted; it had sprouted a flower, produced blossoms, and borne ripe almonds! 24 Then Moses brought out all the staffs from before YHWH to all the Israelites. They looked, and each man took his staff.
25 And YHWH said to Moses, “Return Aaron’s staff before the covenant, to be guarded as a sign to rebels, to put an end to their grumbling against me, that they will not die.” 26 Moses did so; just as YHWH commanded him, so he did.
Why is the staff episode unsuccessful? God predicts that with Aaron’s flowering staff, he will “rid myself from the grumblings of the Israelites” (v. 20). However, immediately following the miracle, the Israelites grumble more (vv. 27-28).
Dr. Jason Gaines received his PhD in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis University. He currently teaches Hebrew Bible, Judaism, and religious studies at Fairfield University in Connecticut and Smith College in Massachusetts. He has also served on the faculty of the Rabbinical School of Hebrew College, College of the Holy Cross, and Mount Holyoke College.
 For the purpose of the current essay, I will accept this consensus and refer the reader to the breakdown of the two stories in “Korah, Datan, and Abiram: Case Study Part 2: Documentary Hypothesis,” TheTorah.com (2014). For another recent breakdown of the sources, see Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 149–68.
 I attribute Num. 16:1a, 2aβ-11, 15-24, 27a, 35—17:28 to P; see Jason M. H. Gaines, The Poetic Priestly Source (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 431–36.
 The narrator does not tell us that tomorrow comes before the rebels bring their firepans and God’s fire consumes them (16:17-35). Another “tomorrow” occurs in 17:23 after the overnight staff ritual.
 All translations from Hebrew are my own.
 See the section on “P’s Strata” in Gaines, Poetic Priestly Source, 276–82; see Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 1–2; or Jan Joosten, People & Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 5­­–7, 93–192.
 Parallelism can express itself in many ways relating to a line’s meaning, grammar, word choice, or sound. For more information, take my “Crash Course in Parallelism” in my “Poetic Laws,” TheTorah.com (2017).
 Holiness authors may have written some of the prosaic insertions; I will only here differentiate between the poetic stratum and prosaic insertions even though the insertions themselves are multilayered.
 I admit fully that this stratification is a work in progress; as proof, I have in several cases changed my mind since publishing my book (compare to Gaines, Poetic Priestly Source, 431–36). I seek to propose a possible solution, not to offer the final word.
 Having characters’ countenance fall, or bowing with their faces to the ground, is a relatively common supplementation in Prosaic-P (see, for example, Gen. 17:3 or Num. 20:6).
 See a discussion of past scholarship in Joel Baden, “Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17,” in Torah and the Book of Numbers, ed. Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, and Aaron Schart, FAT II/62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 233–37.
 In this verse and the previous, I have removed a redactional or scribal insertion of Dathan and Abiram.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.