1 Milgrom writes, "It was also entitled va-yedabber after the first word (see Rashi on Exod. 38:26), as is the case with the other Torah books. The present Hebrew Title Bemidbar (the fifth word of the opening verse) seems more apt since it actually encompasses all the events described in the book that took place 'in the wilderness'" (Leviticus, xi).

2 Leviticus, xi.

3 La Sor et al write, "No effort will be made to press these date formulas, for Numbers makes no theological significance of them other than a general reference to the 'forty years' in the wilderness (cf. 14:33f.). However, it is highly unlikely that they were mere fictions of postexilic editors. It is not unreasonable to suppose that in addition to the written log of the stages of the journeyings (33:2) Moses also kept a record of the dates--at least those preserved in the account" (OTS, 163, n. 1).

4 SOT, 133.

5 La Sor et al,

6 After marshalling supporting evidence for an early Numbers Wenham writes, "This evidence lends weight to the book's own testimony that the traditions on which it is based originated in the Mosaic period. How much expansion, revision and rewriting they underwent in the centuries before they reached their final form, possibly in the early days of the monarchy, is hard to determine by critical methods. It is perhaps fairer to give the tradition the benefit of the doubt, than to assume everything must be late unless there is evidence to the contrary. But precise dating of the material is largely irrelevant to exegesis, for it is the final form of the text that has canonical authority for the church ..." (Numbers, 24-25).

Likewise, Hill and Walton write, "The book itself contains only one reference to Moses as an author of the material, and that is specifically limited to the itinerary of the Israelites in their desert trek from Egypt to Moab (Num. 33:2). Elsewhere the text implies that priests were also recording and preserving the divine instruction and regulations, especially those pertinent to their duties associated with the tabernacle (cf. 5:23).

As with Leviticus, the introductory formula 'and the Lord said to Moses' pervades every chapter of the book. Until more solid evidence surfaces to the contrary, it may be assumed by analogy to the book of Exodus that the bulk of the text in Numbers is the literary product of Moses, stemming from the fifteenth or thirteenth century B. C. (depending on the date of the Hebrew Exodus).
However, the references to Moses in the third person in the narrative (e.g., Num 12:3; 15:22-23) and the sporadic editorial insertions designed to inform a later audience (e.g., 13:11, 22; 27:14; 31:53) suggest that the book took its final form sometime after the death of Moses. It seems correct to assume that the substantial portions of the history and legislation of Numbers originated with Moses during the thirty-eight years of desert wandering that the book recounts (cf. Num. 33:38; Deut. 1:3). Whether he transcribed the words of Yahweh himself or dictated them to a scribe is unclear. But Numbers and the rest of the Pentateuch were cast in the form of a unified, five-volume book sometime between the days of Joshua and the elders of Israel (Josh. 24:31) and the era of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 3:19-21) [Survey of the Old Testament, 130-31).

7 This following is adapted form Hill and Walton, SOT, 136.

8 This chart is adapted from the charts by Walton and Hill, SOT, 137; and La Sor et al, OTS, 167; Wenham, Numbers, 60.

9 For fuller discussions of this difficult matter see Wenham, Numbers, 60-66; Budd, Numbers, 6-9.

10 See also Wenham, Numbers, 59. This still seems like the best solution to this writer, even though it is not without difficulties.

11 See Milgrom, Numbers, who himself concludes that "At present, then, there is no choice but to assume that the number 600,000 was meant to be understood literally" (p. 339; cf also pp. 336-38.

12 Hill and Walton, SOT, 137. They offer no real solution to this difficulty, but unfortunately affirm that one's presuppositions determine one's conclusion, "Yet it must be emphasized that none of the interpretive options for the Numbers census figures is without problems or inconsistencies. Generally speaking, one's view of Scripture determines a person's stance on the biblical numbers, with one end of the spectrum inclined toward literalness, and the other end skeptical about their historicity and reliability, and between them a moderate view of openness toward alternative readings" (ibid.).

13 Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 25-39. An example of his discussion of an anthropologically-based approach to ritual symbolism is as follows: "First, this approach seeks to understand the whole ritual system and not just parts of it, or more precisely to understand the parts in the light of the whole. This may be illustrated by Douglas' approach to the food laws. Earlier commentators picked on certain elements in the food laws as suggestive of a particular interpretation. For instance, sheep were clean because they reminded man of his divine shepherd, while serpents were unclean because they recalled the agent of the fall. But multitudes of animals in the list found no easy explanation of this type, for example, camels, eagles, grasshoppers, etc. Douglas drew attention to that feature of the list in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 that the biblical writers seem to concentrate on, namely the means of locomotion of the animals, how many feet and what type of feet they have. From surveying the lists as a whole she deduced that the animal world mirrors the human world. Just as there are three principal divisions among men, Gentiles, Jews, and priests, so there are three classes of animals: unclean, that may not be eaten; clean, i.e. edible; and sacrificial beasts. Her theory of correspondence between the human and the animal kingdoms is confirmed by other texts scattered throughout the Pentateuch.

Secondly, Soleer has independently arrived at a similar analysis of the food laws to that of Douglas. Indeed his study represents an advance on her work, showing that the correspondences between animals and men run even deeper than earlier realized. The birds listed as unclean are unclean, because they are birds of prey, i.e. eat flesh with blood in it, a mortal sin under Old Testament law (Lv. 17:10-14). It is the herbivorous land animals that are clean, and according to Genesis 9:3 (cf. 1:29f.) man too was vegetarian until after the flood. It is also worth noting that Carmichael, using more traditional methods of exegesis, has arrived at similar conclusions. He argues that in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 22:110 the ox, the best of the sacrificial and clean animals, symbolizes Israel, while the ass, an unclean beast, pictures Canaan. This convergence of interpretation, based on several different methods of study, suggests that the symbolic dimensions of biblical thought are at last being understood.

Thirdly, this interpretation is corroborated in the earliest commentaries on these laws. For example, the second-century BC Letter of Aristeas sees the behaviour of clean animals as models for human conduct. Acts 10 links the preaching of Peter to the Gentiles with eating unclean animals. In other words, as soon as men of all nations could belong to the people of God, those food laws which had symbolized Israel's election of and served to separate her from the nations became irrelevant too" (ibid., 33- 34).

14 For a good discussion of the literary structure of particular units in Numbers see Migrom, Leviticus, xii-xxxi.

15 Martin North, Leviticus, 2.

16 Wenham, 14-18.

17 "The clearest example of this is to be found in chapter 15, where the demand to offer grain, oil, and wine along with animal sacrifice is an implicit pledge that one day Israel will enter Canaan despite the events described in the previous chapters 13--14. The six laws about the land (22:50 to the end) similarly remind the reader that the promise is on the verge of fulfillment" (Numbers, 15).

18 Wenham, Numbers, 16. In addition see Milgrom for a literary structure of the Hexateuch (Numbers, xiii-xxxi).

19 These are adapted from Wenham, Numbers, 16-17.

20 The success of Israel in fulfilling her role as God's mediatorial agent to exercise God's rule on earth does not rest on her but on the One who chose her into that position. There is a certain irony in God's permissive will in that He allows evil to draw people closer to Him. Although sin appears to be allowed to interfere with what God is doing, it does not ultimately triumph. The question is not whether man can obey but whether man will obey (with the strength of the Lord). As Johnson writes, "Numbers continues to reveal YHWH in His Presence among the people who permits Israel's disobedience to delay entrance into the land promised yet in the discipline of His permissive will prepared the next generation to enter the land in obedience administered under the responsibility demanded by law" ("Synopsis of Numbers" [unpublished class notes in 371 Seminar in the Pentateuch, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1989], 1).

21 Although some of the didactic sections are parallel with Leviticus (e.g., the prescription concerning the seasonal feasts in 28; 29; cf. Lev 1--7; 23), much is unique to Numbers. Some of these prescriptions strongly anticipate the settlement of the Promised Land and thus affirm that Israel will enter and posses the land (the test of an unfaithful wife (5:11-31), supplementary offerings (15:1-21), tassels on one's garment (15:37-41), water of purification (19:1ff).

22 Budd writes, "One of his [the author's] chief concerns is to establish principles of attitude and behavior which are a precondition of possession and enjoyment of the land" (Numbers, xvii).

23 Maryono writes, "Moses also wanted Israel to learn from history. Together with describing in detail the great things God has done to and for them he also listed carefully various commands of God to govern their whole life. Their position as covenantal people obligates them to subject the whole area of their life under the control of God: worship, social, family, and individual. They are also to know that the land they will posses is a covenantal land. The Lord dwells in it, therefore, they are called to guard the purity of the land. Obedience to His commands will assure the possibility of enjoying the blessing in the land. Then Moses warns the people ... [that] grave consequences shall [occur if] they fail to obey God. Their covenantal position does not exclude them from the possibility of receiving server judgment" (Petrus Maryono, "The Synopsis of Numbers" [paper submitted for course 371 Seminar in the Pentateuch, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1989], 8).