Jephthah’s Wandering Biblical Message to the King of Ammon

R. Chaim Paltiel notes this in his commentary (Num 21:13):

…כתיב התם הלא את אשר יורישך כמוש אלהיך אותו תירש, והלא לא היה כמוש רק אלוה של מואב כדכתיב הכא אוי לך מואב אבדת עם כמוש, ולעמון היה שמו מלכום דכתיב ואת מלכום שקוץ בני עמון.

וצ”ל דשני גבולי ארץ ישראל היו למואב ומואב כבש מעמון אלהיהם וארצו שוב כבש סיחון

ולקח עוד מבני עמון מארנון עד היבוק, כמו שנאמר ביהושע (יג כד כה) ויתן משה למטה גד וגו’ יעזר וכל ערי הגלעד וחצי ארץ בני עמון עד ערוער, והיא הארץ אשר היה מלך בני עמון תובע ליפתח, כמו שאמר (שופטים יא יג) כי לקח ישראל את ארצי מארנון ועד היבק (ומן המדבר) ועד הירדן:

הודיע לו שיש לו טענה על הארץ שהיתה למואב בימי קדם טרם שכבשה סיחון ורוצה שישובו הערים אל בעליהם הראשונים (וכפי הנראה היה מלך בני עמון מושל אז גם על ארץ מואב), וטען בעד מואב שלקחו ארצו,

בני עמון היו כנראה בעלי בריתם של אחיהם בני מואב, ואולי נחשבו אז בני מואב ובני עמון לעם אחד, ולכן אמר מלך עמון את ארצי בהתכונו לארץ בני מואב.

וכיון שעמון ומואב עמים-אחים היו (בר יט:ל-לח) כמו ישראל ויהודה בתקופה יותר מאחרת – פעלו על פי רב יחד ולא הפרו ברית אחים (עי’ למשל לעיל ג:יב-יג; דברי הימים ב כ:א) לפיכך תובע מלך עמון את עלבון שני העמים.

This is stated explicitly in the Stele put up by king Mesha and discovered in 1868 by Frederick Augustus Klein.

See my “War at Yahatz: The Torah Versus the Mesha Stele,” TheTorah.com (2015).

Editor’s note: See discussion in Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “When Did Fire Go Forth from Heshbon?” TheTorah.com (2017).

For why this is likely the E source, see my “Ironing Out Israel’s Itinerary through the Transjordan,” TheTorah.com (2016).

The E narrative in Numbers is longer than that of Judges, utilizes a more standardized itinerary formulation (‘From there they set out and encamped at […]’) and includes narrative information which does not appear in either of the other two versions, such as:

1. The death of Miriam (Num 20:1b);
2. The confrontation with the king of Edom (Num 20:14–21);
3. The account of the bronze serpent (Num 21:5–9);
4. The quote from the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14–15).

The author of Deuteronomy, following his typical pattern, recasts the story as Moses’ first person recollection. The editor of the Numbers story, i.e., the compiler of the Torah, spliced the E story together with the J and P stories, but to make it work, he cut some pieces out. The editor of Judges included a truncated form of E, including the broad outline but leaving out some tangents. Thus, Sumner’s observation, “they are at more than one literary remove from each other.” See W.A. Sumner, “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og according to the Deuteronomist,” VT 18 (1968), pp. 216–228 [223].

For example,

1. A stop at the Zered stream: Mentioned in Numbers and Deuteronomy but not in Judges.
2. A journey on the Arabah road and the Kedemoth wilderness: Deuteronomy adds the two itinerary items, but do not appear in either Numbers or Judges.
3. Travel by Yam Suf after leaving Kadesh: Is described in Deuteronomy and Numbers but not in Judges.

See discussion in David Glatt-Gilad, “Deuteronomy: The First Torah,” TheTorah.com(2015); Itamar Kislev, “Understanding Deuteronomy on Its Own Terms,” TheTorah.com(2015).

For more on this point, see Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 225-226.

Many documentary scholars believe that this arrival notice is in fact, E, but then they must assume that the arrival notice in P was deleted; in other words, E and P both need an arrival notice in Kadesh, but we are one short. See, e.g., David Frankel, “The Grain and Pomegranates of Mei Merivah.” TheTorah.com (2015). Frankel, who sees Kadesh here as a short version of Kadesh-barnea, argues that the arrival at Kadesh(-barnea) was already noted in P (Num 13:26aβ) I, however, believe that Kadesh-barnea and Kadesh are two different places, see my TABS essays, “Solving the Problem of Kadesh in the Wilderness of Paran,” and “Locating Beer Lahai Roi.”

Documentary scholars generally assign the death of Miriam notice to E. See discussion in my, “When and Where the Israelites Dwelt in Sukkot” TheTorah.com (2016).

See, e.g.,

Num 27:14

כַּאֲשֶׁר מְרִיתֶם פִּי בְּמִדְבַּר צִן בִּמְרִיבַת הָעֵדָה לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי בַמַּיִם לְעֵינֵיהֶםהֵם מֵי מְרִיבַת קָדֵשׁ מִדְבַּר צִן.

For, in the wilderness of Zin, when the community was contentious, you disobeyed My command to uphold My sanctity in their sight by means of the water.” Those are the Waters of Meribat-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin.

Num 33:36

וַיִּסְעוּ מֵעֶצְיוֹן גָּבֶר וַיַּחֲנוּ בְמִדְבַּר צִן הִוא קָדֵשׁ.

They set out from Ezion-geber and encamped in the wilderness of Zin, that is, Kadesh.

Deut 32:51

עַל אֲשֶׁר מְעַלְתֶּם בִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמֵי מְרִיבַת קָדֵשׁ מִדְבַּר צִן עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדַּשְׁתֶּם אוֹתִי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

For you both broke faith with Me among the Israelite people, at the waters of Meribat-kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, by failing to uphold My sanctity among the Israelite people.

The exceptions are Num 34:3 and Josh 15:1. (These two verses reference the western limit of the wilderness of Zin as marking the eastern border of Israel/Judah; thus, there would be no point in mentioning Kadesh in these verses since Kadesh is in the middle of the wilderness of Zin, close to its eastern limit.)

Why did the compiler choose the P text over the E text in this case? The compiler generally stuck with the text he was already using. Moreover, the compiler generally chose a more detailed over a less detailed source. Both criteria would favor P over E here.

The beginning of the verse, “when they went up from Egypt,” is the editor’s redaction incorporating the quote into Jephthah’s message.

See James Karl Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 14; Ted T. Stewart, Solving the Exodus Mystery, vol. 1: Discovery of the True Pharaohs of Joseph, Moses, and the Exodus (Lubbock, Tex.: Biblemart, 2003), 4-5; Allen Rosengren, “Why Is There a Documentary Hypothesis, and What Does It Do to You If You Use It? A Response to David Clines,” n.p. Online: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=566.

For more on this, see Zev Farber’s TABS essay, “The Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme).”

The snubbing by Moab is out of place geographically and narratively in Judges. In contrast, in Numbers they only appear on the Moabite border in the next chapter, after travelling through a number of stations. The same is true in Deuteronomy. Perhaps it is a later gloss?

Editor’s note: Another possibility is that both the reference to Edom and Moab are secondary elements in the Jephthah speech narrative, and that originally the verse simply read: “And they went on to Kadesh and Israel dwelt in Kadesh (ויבאו קדשה, וישב ישראל בקדש).” This may even have been the full version of the original E opening cut by the compiler. ZIF

See my TABS essay, “Why Deuteronomy Has an Account of the Death of Aaron in the Wrong Place.”

[25] Here is a picture of what the compiler did (the blue is P, the green E, the black redaction):

כא:4 וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהֹר הָהָר [שו’ יא:18 וַיֵּלֶךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר] דֶּרֶךְ יַם סוּף [שו’ יא:18 וַיָּסָב]/לִסְבֹב אֶת אֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם

On the paragogic nun, see Jacob Hoftijzer, The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985); Stephen A. Kaufman, “Paragogic Nun in Biblical Hebrew,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 95-99.