Another textual indication that Numbers 13-14 now contains what once was two independent versions of the spy story are the duplicate and contradictory accounts of who steps forward to encourage the Israelites to have faith in Yahweh, and conversely whose lives out of all 600,000 men, or as the case may be 647,550 (#116 & #218), Yahweh spares!
Thus, in response to the people’s lack of faith in their ability and perhaps willingness to defeat the giants of the land, it is Caleb and Caleb alone who comes forward to quiet the people and encourage them: “Let’s go up and we’ll take possession of it” (Num 13:30-31).
Likewise, Numbers 14:20-25 relates how Yahweh vows to destroy all 600,000 of the men standing there because of their lack of faith and conversely to spare only Caleb and his seed.
“And my servant Caleb, because a different spirit was with him, and he went after me completely, I’ll bring him to the land where he went and his seed will possess it.” (14:24)
Yet contrary to these passages, where only Caleb of Judah is mentioned, other passages now woven into Numbers 13-14 speak of, in a duplicate rendition of the same storyline, Caleb and Joshua being spared.
For example, Numbers 14:1-3 [P] is a duplicate telling of how, this time, all the congregation refused to have faith. In other words, it tells again of the people’s unwillingness to fight first narrated in Num 13:31 [J].
Likewise, Numbers 14:6-9 [P] is a duplicate account of Numbers 13:30 [J], except now it is Caleb and Joshua who together encourage the people to have faith and fight. As a side note, when the author of Deuteronomy has Moses renarrate this event (Deut 1:22-40), he has Moses claim that it was him, not Caleb, who encouraged the children of Israel to have faith. We will look at this contradiction and others in this pericope later on.
Likewise, Numbers 14:26-35 [P] is a duplicate account of Numbers 14:11-25 [J], where in the first account Yahweh vows to wipe them all out save Caleb alone, and in the second rendition Yahweh again vows to wipe them all out except now only Caleb and Joshua.
From these textual duplicates, differing vocabulary and expressions, and thematic emphases, it would not be difficult to restore the original Yahwist and Priestly versions, some of which I did already in #235-236. Indeed many of my colleagues have done just this as well. For instance, consult Richard Friedman’s The Bible with Sources Revealed, p. 262-265.
At this point we might speculate why the Priestly writer added Joshua to Caleb. It might be reasoned that unlike the southern Judaic scribe who wrote the Yahwist text, or recorded its traditions, and was thus only, or primarily, interested in the fate of Judah, the later Priestly writer was more interested in a unified Israel. Thus in his retelling of the spy story, it is both Caleb from the south and Joshua from the northern tribe of Ephraim who are spared by Yahweh.
Finally, there are many other differences between the Yahwist version of Yahweh expressing his wrath, indignation and desire to wipe out all 600,000 men, and Moses placating that wrath in Numbers 14:11-25, and its Priestly duplicate in Numbers 14:26-38. One difference, however, which I added as one of our contradictions here, is that in the Priestly version, although Yahweh vows to kill off all 647,550 men, he immediately kills the other 10 chieftains by plague (14:37-38).
It’s understandable why J would have the faithful spy be a Judahite, but why Caleb? Notice that Caleb is said to be the “son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite” (Numbers 32:12, Joshua 14:6, 14). Who are the Kenizzites? In Genesis 15 Abraham is promised that his descendants will inherit Canaan. In listing Canaan’s pre-Israelite inhabitants, Yahweh includes the Kenizzites (v:19). Another clue is found in Genesis 36:
We can also note this connection between Caleb and a relative named Kenaz:
Whether Caleb was a Canaanite or an Edomite, it appears that at some point his clan was absorbed into the tribe of Judah, and the good-spy story is an etiological tale to explain their presence. It’s interesting to note, too, that the name Caleb literally means “dog.” Although “dog” has negative connotations, as The Anchor Bible Dictionary points out, it also means “faithful servant.” Was the J author being clever by giving the faithful spy a name that denotes faithfulness?
John, that’s a very cool breakdown of Caleb’s ancestry. One of the things that I’ve always found interesting is the inclusion of non-Israelites in the important lineages of the bible. In the lineage of Jesus Christ, several women are mentioned, and all of them, except his mother Mary, are not of Israeli descent.
I think it highlights the inclusiveness of the religion(s) and I like it.
Contrary to what many people think, Caleb and Joshua are not the only members of the wilderness generation to enter the Promised Land. Two others are mentioned by name as living in Canaan after the 40 (or 38) years of wandering: Eleazar (Joshua 14:1, 17:4, 19:51, 21:1, 24:33 et al.) and Phinehas (Joshua 22:30-33; Judges 20:28). Some contradictions in their own right are whether the Israelites wandered for 40 or 38 years, and how Eleazar, who had to be at least in his mid-60s when he entered Canaan (the minimum age for priesthood plus the wandering period) could still be alive during the latter period of the judges! So much for the 120-year age limit (Genesis 6:3). This ties in nicely with contradiction #12. But back to the issue at hand, how were Eleazar and Phinehas able to get in? Because they are Levites (specifically Aaronids), and the Priestly author made sure to exempt those who weren’t counted in the census from exclusion from Canaan. Compare the different wording regarding who was excluded:
Now, compare this to Numbers 14:26-30:
In my last comment, I should have said, “…how Phinehas, who had to be at least in his mid-60s when he entered Canaan (the minimum age for priesthood plus the wandering period) could still be alive during the latter period of the judges!” I was referring to Judges 20:28, but I inadvertently typed “Eleazar.” One thing I’ll add is that some early interpreters were apparently troubled by Phinehas’s extraordinarily long life, as evidenced by the difference between the MT and LXX “translations” of Joshua 24:33.
Oddly, the LXX doesn’t alter Judges 20:28:
I’m confused about your assertion that Eleazar and Phineas were among the older generation of wilderness wanderers? what in the passages that you cite indicates that either of them were not among the youngsters who did not die in the 40 years of wandering?
@Heidi W,
thanks John. I did catch the “Eleazar son of Aaron” in the Joshua 24 passage and wondered if that was the pivotal point. The details that one skims over in “studying the bible” …which I have done for 30 years without seeing these things…or, if seeing them, setting aside any questions.
It’s a shame that questioning is so frowned upon. I literally received a frown from a Bible study leader, just this past Friday when I brought up my current journey with biblical discrepancies. “What is *one* discrepancy that you’ve discovered, hmmm?” and I could see the “I know I can answer that, if you want, because we bible literalists have all the answers” come into his expression. We didn’t go there, and I don’t think I will.
How unprepared Christians are to delve into this legitimate pursuit of knowledge. How ready with “all the answers” we are, when these legitimate questions do arise.
thanks for the exchange. This is all proving to be most interesting and enlightening.
Alright, so question that probably has only speculative answers available:
We see the story is obviously contradictory in that Caleb is said to be the only one able to pass into the promised land out of his generation, however we’re then given Joshua as another recipient in very close literary vicinity. Not only is this contradiction there, but also we see that in the description of the spies, Joshua is not listed, thus making his inclusion as a spy later on an inconsistency. The question is this: if the error in the narrative is so explicit and closely linked (thus making it more obvious), why wouldn’t a redactor have merged the stories rather than doubling?
Looking forward to your opinions!
@ Justin You wrote, “…we see that in the description of the spies, Joshua is not listed…” However, the P author lists Joshua in vv: 8, 16, making the merging with J’s narrative smoother. It might be helpful to look at the two-column breakdown that Steven provides for contradiction #235. This format shows how the traditions were combined. If you have access to it, read Friedman’s The Bible with Sources Revealed, which color-codes the entire Torah according to the sources.
Here is the footnote from page 262:
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/spies-moses-or-moses-aaron-and-congregation/