Building on previous contradictions (#268, #274), this contradiction is the result of variant views on the skirting of Edom tradition now preserved in Numbers 20-21:
- Numbers 20:14-21 preserves the Yahwist story of the skirting of Edom—how on account of the Edomites refusal to let the Israelites pass through their territory, the Israelites were obliged to travel eastward around Edom.
- Numbers 21:4 is a Redactional insert in imitation of J (?) claiming likewise that the Israelites traveled “around the land of Edom.” However it is erroneously placed here (see #274),
- Numbers 21:10 is from the Priestly tradition of Num 33, and has the Israelites marching directly through Edom!
I reproduce this map from Baruch Levine’s Anchor Bible Series Commentary on Numbers.
The upper dotted line is the itinerary of the Priestly tradition from Numbers 33, which also seems to be reproduced in Num 21:10—that is an itinerary straight into Edom!
The solid line from Kadesh southward to the Red Sea then northward around Edom is the J narrative—or what potentially was the J tradition.
The Deuteronomist’s retelling displays numerous contradictions from J which I will treat later on. The most notable, however, is that contrary to J, D has the Israelites receive water from the Edomites and pass through their territory. Later I will argue that D consciously changes J for specific reasons endemic to his own historical situation.
Since Numbers 21 preserves both contradictory traditions, claiming that the Israelites move around Edom (v. 4) and directly through Edom (v. 10), it is difficult to map out what route the now combined JP text endorses. Nonetheless, like Levine in this map, I too see the skirting around tradition more plausible in the JP text of Numbers, while simply noting verse 10’s discontinuation.
Here I reproduce my own diagram from a previous contradiction—#268. From Mount Hor the Israelites travel northeast into the Negeb OR south toward the Red Sea OR east into Edom?—which displays this well.
The combined JP Narrative of Numbers 20:22-21:35
Aside from the Edom traditions’ contradictory views about what happened, if one endorses the recounting of Numbers 20, then Yahweh is a liar, since he predicted (in D) that Israel would pass through Edom and buy food and water from the Edomites:
However, Numbers 21:4b-9, E’s story of Nehustan/the bronze serpent, is dependent on the J narrative, since the reason for the people’s grumbling is that there was “no food and no water” (21:5), something which would not make sense if they had purchased food and water from Edom. And for what it’s worth, Richard Friedman ascribes 21:4a, 10-11 to R.
More explicitly, Deut 2:29 states that the Israelites did indeed pass through Edom and received food and water from them. I will talk more about D’s contradictory retelling of J’s version of the story when we get to the book of Deuteronomy. But another remarkable difference is that while J presents the Edomites as enemies who march out against Israel and Israel flees, D presents them as non-hostile brothers (Jacob and Esau) and has the Edomites fearful of Israel!
“Numbers 21:4b-9, E’s story of Nehustan/the bronze serpent, is dependent on the J narrative…” That’s an interesting comment. I’m not sure I would use “dependency” to describe the relationship. Next entry I will talk about E’s bronze-serpent story, but it doesn’t seem to be dependent on anything in its immediate context. That said, however, when I look at why a redactor has added a particular story where he did, I look for textual or thematic links, and in this case I think you’re right: J’s mention of no water from the Edomites might have served as a lexical trigger for the redactor to place E’s story about complaining about no water where it is. But again I’m not sure dependency is the best word to describe the relationship. Having no water to drink was a common theme in these stories (e.g., Ex 15:24, 17:2), and here in the present circumstance immediately before E’s story there is the Priestly story of drawing water from the rock (Num 20:8-12) and immediately after the Yahwist story of the well (Num 21:17-18). Also, contextually the “us” of the E’ story in Num 21:4b-9 must be understood as the 1st generation Israelites! So E’s story seems to be forced and misplaced in its present context.
I didn’t mention this verse because it’s attributed to Moses (via messengers), and inerrantists can quibble that Moses wasn’t truthful to King Sihon about what Edom did. Quoting what Yahweh himself predicted gives them no such wiggle-room.
I simply meant that had the D, rather than J, story of the Edom passage been used in Numbers, the rationale for the grumbling that led to the serpents wouldn’t logically follow.
The problem is that we might all started with the wrong map!! The map has quite a few assumptions of where places were (e.g. Kadesh-barean/Mount Hor). If you are interested, I found the following website pretty helpful!
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-kadesh-barnea.htm
God was not lying. the prediction didn’t come true because, Israel didn’t do what God told them to do at the kaddish.
Whether God (however conceived) lies or does not lie is not an issue I take up here on this site, nor frankly care about. Unlike yourself, I don’t have the audacity to make theological claims about God and his nature!
Rather, this site is devoted to talking about textual traditions, and the collection of ancient literature that centuries later became codified as scripture preserves variant traditions about the Edom story. . . and well hundreds and hundreds of other stories now preserved in this collection of texts. Being honest to these variant textual traditions is what this site is designed to do. So the question is: will you choose to be honest to these ancient texts and attempt to understand them on their terms, OR, will you choose to be honest to a subjectively formed interpretive framework forged centuries after these texts were composed which prescribes what you should believe about these texts? Because clearly you’re not listening to the texts and have rather promulgated your own beliefs about the texts as more important than the beliefs represented in the texts by their own authors.
whatever it is, we must look at the scripture objectively.
i didn’t see Israel going through edom in my Bible, maybe you will have to prove to me that am using a wrong Bible.
in numbers 33:36-41 clearly stated that they camped at the boundary of edom, and not in edom.
in numbers 21:4-10 also stated that they went back on the way of the red sea to mount hor. am not a geographer, so i might be wrong, but let us see what the text says.
numbers21:4 “and they journeyed from mount hor, by the way of the red sea, to go AROUND the land of edom…” it didn’t say they went through edom.
having said this, i want to make my point clear here. you might be right in Deuteronomy 2:4, but you should notice that, the scripture said, the descendants of Esau who live in seir and not edom. they actually interacted with the descendants of Esau, but not those in edom, but those in seir. that is what i understand when i read deuteronomy2:4
even the very first verse of Deuteronomy makes it clear that, they want on the way of the red sea, (i said back, because as far as am concern, they crossed the red sea long ago. if they are going on the way of it, it is backwards). they were trying to skirt the the guys at seir, around the mount, and the lord instructed them to meet those guys at seir. i understood that, some of the descendants of esau were at edom and some were at seir. they escaped those at edom, but meet those at seir. if am wrong, i stand to be corrected.
Andy, the post is pretty detailed and I might remind you supports the traditions preserved in the texts themselves. The textual evidence/data is in the post.
Although the story about traveling around Edom is the most familiar, the traditions now preserved in this collection of ancient texts we call the Bible preserves a variant version of this story. As noted in the post’s title, Deuteronomy 2:6-8 and more clearly 2:28-29 tell the story differently. In this version the Israelites pass through Edom. There are also notable other differences in Deuteronomy’s version which I haven’t enumerated yet. Our goal as responsible readers is not to harmonize these differences or retellings away, but to attempt to understand them. Did the author of Deuteronomy know this other version and therefore consciously change it? If so why? Was this common practice in other literature of the ancient world? Etc.
Knowing something about this author, and why he uses Moses as a mouthpiece to promulgate his alternative telling of the story, enables us to answer these questions, which in fact we can! Deuteronomy was written during a time where friendly relationships were sought between the “brotherly” nations of Edom and Israel. Thus this author retells this story differently to promote a particular viewpoint representative of his time period, the 7th century.
Numbers 33 also preserves a variant version of the story and like the Deuteronomistic version presents the Israelites passing through Edom and Moab (posted as #278). There is a map above which clearly indicates these variant routes/traditions (reproduced from Levines’s Anchor Bible commentary on Numbers). In the version preserved in the itinerary in Num 33 the Israelites pass directly through the cities of Edom and Moab (dotted line above). According to the combined traditions now preserved in Num 13-21 they pass around both Edom and lower Moab (solid line). I furthermore noted in a clearly visibly illustration above the discrepancies in the narrative of Numbers 13-21 caused by the redaction of its variant traditions (J and P) or versions of the story. Finally, our conclusions about the nature of the biblical text must be drawn from the textual data, such as the above (and all other contradictions posted here), and not from subjective beliefs traditionally handed down to us by this text’s later interpretive tradition.
if I get you clear, do you mean to say, what we have now is a little different from the original Hebrew/Aramaic text?
No. I have neither said, nor implied, anything of the sort. I’m saying that the biblical traditions/texts themselves bear witness to the fact that many of the Bible’s stories were variously, and often contradictorily, told. These variations were then later written down and collected together. So, as mentioned above: the combined traditions of Num 14-22, the Priestly tradition of Num 33, and the Deuteronomic retelling implied in Deut 2 all told this story variously. It is our responsibility and task I would argue, to properly understand the hows and whys behind each of these authors’ (re)telling of the story the way they did—not to simply impose our beliefs or those of later readers onto these author’s messages and stories.
Doesn’t through and around have the same word in the text in its original Hebrew?