Moses Dies at the Age of 120 — Was It Premature?

See Loewenstamm’s survey of the rabbinic literature that points out and deals with the tragedy of Moses’ death: Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Death of Moses,” in From Babylon to Canaan (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 136–166 [145–148]. For modern engagements, see, George W. Coats, “Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death Reports,” CBQ 39 (1977): 34–44 (40); Thomas W. Mann, “Theological Reflections on the Denial of Moses,” JBL 98 (1979), 481–494 (481); Susan Ackerman, “Moses’s death,” Myth and Scripture: Contemporary Perspectives on Religion, Language, and Imagination (ed: Dexter E. Callender; Resources for Biblical Studies 78; Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 103–117 [105, 107].

Numerous post-biblical commentaries argue that Moses did not actually die, indicating by that the writers’ difficulty in accepting the normal end assigned to the great figure, e.g.: b.Sotah 13b; Sifre Deuteronomy 32.52 [Ha’azinu]; Josephus, Antiquities 4:8, 48; Mat. 17:3–8 [cf. Mark 9:4–8; Luke 9:30–36]). Editor’s note: See also the discussion in, Eric Grossman, “Moshe Rabbeinu Never Died: The Hidden Ending,”TheTorah.com (2015).

And thus traditional (and modern) commentators have debated for two millennia exactly what they did wrong. See the diverse rabbinic interpretations of the story in Jacob Milgrom, “Magic, Monotheism, and the sin of Moses,” The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (eds. Herbert B. Huffmon et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 251–265 [251, 257–258, 264]. For further recent suggestions see: Mann, “Theological Reflections,” 483; Moshe Margaliot, “The Transgression of Moses and Aaron – Num. 20.1–13,” JQR 74 (1983): 196–228, here 228; Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” 21; Łukasz Niesiołowski-Spanò, “The Broken Structure of the Moses Story: Or, Moses and the Jerusalem Temple,” SJOT 23 (2009): 23–37 (26).

The ending of Deuteronomy, which is the ending of the Pentateuch as a whole, contains pieces from multiple Pentateuchal sources, many of which independently record Moses’ death. Thus, Deut 32:51, which does mention the sin of Moses and Aaron at Mei Meribah, is considered part of P and not D.

Broadly, these chapters are part of the D source, but more specifically, they are a (later) Deuteronomistic addition to the D source. Following Martin Noth, scholars have noted the strong connection between the book of Deuteronomy and the historical books, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, which he called the Deuteronomistic History. Moreover, he argued that chapters 1–3(4) in Deuteronomy are not part of the core book (4:44–30:20) made up of a block of laws (chs. 12–27), framed by a motivational introduction (4:44-11:32) and a blessings-and-curses conclusion (chs. 28–30). See Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 12–17; Andrew D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 41–42; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 13. Instead, chs. 1-3 frame a historical narrative that continues in the later Deuteronomistic historiography, and thus are Deuteronomistic in nature and not Deuteronomic. This same Deuteronomistic quality is also apparent in Deut 4:1–40, an even later passage, which contains a prediction of Israel’s future repentance and return to the land. It is within this historiographical unit that we find Moses’ autobiographical statements regarding the assurance that he is not to enter the land.

The notion that Moses is suffering because of the people’s fault led scholars to define the Deuteronomic narrative as an expression of the belief in God’s vertical retribution, in which the penalty is extended to people other than the sinner. See: Andrew D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC; London 1981), 147; Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTS 15 1981 [German Original: 1957]), 33, 114; Mann, “Theological Reflections,” 494. These scholars argue that this is evidence that Deuteronomy’s explanation for Moses’ death predates the innovative doctrine of individual retribution reflected in the Priestly narrative about Moses. (The Priestly agenda finds a marked reflection in Ezekiel’s prophecy that denounces the common view of collective/vertical retribution (Ezek 3:17–21, 14:12–23, 18:2–24, 33:7–20.) For more on this, see Zev Farber, “Punishing Children for the Sins of Their Parents,”TheTorah.com [2015].) Nevertheless, the Deuteronomic explanation for Moses’ death in the Transjordan does not really fit the classic scheme of God’s indirect retribution, since this is generally about later generations being punished for the sins of their parents (cf. Exod 20:5; Deut. 5:9; Jer 18:21; Job 27:14), whereas here, the leader’s fate is affected by the fate of his contemporary generation.

J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Leicester 2002), 55, 92, 95, 98. See similarly: Samuel R. Driver, Deuteronomy, 3^rd ed., International Critical Commentary (London: Bloomsbury-T&T Clark, 2000; orig., 1901), 27, 60; Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy (OTL; London 1966), 45; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 191, 207; Dennis T. Olson, Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading (Minneapolis; 1994), 97, 150; Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Nashville 2001), 55.

The NRSV translates two of the statements identically (“The Lord was angry with me on your account”, 1:37, 3:26), and uses closely similar language for the third occurrence (“The Lord was angry with me because of you”, 4:21).

Cf. Exod 8:8; Num 17:14; Deut 22:24.

The sole exception is the ambiguous use of the term in 1 Kings 10.6 (cf. 2 Chron 9:5), דבריך, which can refer to King Solomon’s wise words (cf. 1 Kings 10:7–8), as well as to his great achievements and wealth (cf. vv. 4b–5).

And see elsewhere the relatively accurate translation of על דבר with a possessive suffix referring to actual utterances: Gen 37:8; 2 Sam 3:8; 2 Kings 22:13; Isa 66:2; Jer 1:12; 6:19 and more.

The only words mentioned in the chapter are God’s commandments (דבר, דברים, Deut 4:2, 9–10, 12–13, 15, 30, 36), referring to laws and statutes declared by him (דִּבֶּר, vv. 15, 33) at Horeb.

In contrast to the story in the book of Numbers that attributes to the spies explicit words of criticism (Num. 13:28, 31–33, 32:9), the Deuteronomist makes no mention of the information that led to the people’s opposition. The wrongdoing of the spies is however implied in the reference to Caleb’s destiny (Deut 1:36), in contrast to the death sentence imposed on the others.

Nevertheless, some scholars still look for a sin committed by Moses in this specific context. McKenzie suggests understanding the divine anger with Moses as a reaction to the initiative of sending out the spies (v. 23), that supposedly reveals Moses’ doubts regarding God’s capacity and leads to the people’s sin. John McKenzie, “The Historical Prologue of Deuteronomy,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem 1965), 95–101, here 97. Similarly, Rofé attributes the divine anger to the impudence of Moses’ decision to send spies to the land without consulting God. Alexander Rofé, Introduction to the Literature of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem 2006 [Hebrew]), 30. But these suggestions go beyond what is suggested in the text. At no point in God’s speech or in the narrator’s comments do we hear that the sending of the spies was wrong or forbidden. Rather, the account indicates that God’s anger is evoked by the people’s negative response to the journey (v. 34). In Lohfink’s words regarding this account: “Moses’ behaviour is blameless” (Norbert Lohfink, “Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6–3,29,” Bib 41 [1960], 105–134 [113]).

While the recounting in Deut 1 does not record the scene of God’s threat of destruction (cf. Num 14:11–24), the terminology of Moses’ speech in Deut 1:29–33 is an indication of the author’s familiarity with this scene (compare Deut 1:32 with Num 14:11 and Deut 1:33 with Num 14:13–14).

In fact, the role of Moses here contrast sharply with his (in)activity in the spy account in Numbers 13–14, where he does not offer a response to the people’s complaints (compare Deut 1:29–33 with Num. 13:30, 14:7–9). Cf. other incidents that describe Moses’ direct reactions to the people’s rebellions: Exod 32:19–29; Num 16:4–12, 16).

To this compiling work we can likewise attribute the remark about the “little ones” in v. 39a₁ (וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה) which is missing from the LXX.

The verb is only attested eight more times in the Bible, and only in poetry (Psa 78:21, 59, 62; 89:39; Prov 14:16, 20:2, 26:17).

Likewise, the passage concerned with the decision about Moses begins with the expression “at that time” (בעת ההִוא, 3:23) which is a typical expression for recalling past events in this context (Deut 2:34; 3:4, 8, 12, 18, 21). Loewenstamm argues that the expression indicates an extension in the text (Samuel E. Loewenstamm, “The Formula Baʿet Hahi’ in the introductory speeches in Deuteronomy”, From Babylon to Canaan [Jerusalem 1992], 42–53). But the multiple occurrences of the the expression in the sequence (six times!) more likely indicate the consolidation of the passages rather than their patches.

See, for example, Gen 18:24; Deut 30:6; 1 Kings 8.41; Jer 14:7 (and also where the term has the pronominal suffix as in למענכם: Isa 43:14, 48:11; Ezek 36:22, 32; Job 18:4).

Anthony Phillips, Deuteronomy (CBC; Cambridge 1973), 19. A hint to this concept is also found in von Rad, Deuteronomy, 210. Apart from the description of the suffering servant of Isaiah this interpretation must have been inspired by the belief in Jesus as destined to bear the people’s sins (Rom 4:25; 1 Cor 15:3; Col 2:13–14; 1 Pet 2:24). This idea was indeed my initial assumption in approaching this investigation. But as the research proceeded, the conclusions changed. My considerations, however, were different from the considerations of those who pointed out that Moses could not function as a substitute that bears the people’s punishment, since the people were still punished.

Editor’s note: For a related approach, see Jill Katz, “Moses: A Betwixt and Between Leader,” TheTorah.com(2013).

The point is particularly important when we realize that the people Moses is addressing are the very same who left Egypt and wandered in the wilderness with him, but a demonstration of this point will have to wait for a further article.

Cf. the premature dismissal of Elijah in the midst of his prophetic activity (1 Kings 19:15–18) detached from the end of his life (2 Kings 2:11).