Literary Art and Psychological Insight in the Korah Episode

The Korah story (Numbers 16) serves as a prime example of source criticism, with scholars arguing that the tale merges two disparate rebellions together. Although the opening verse links Korah together with Dathan and Abiram, the subsequent account includes two groups expressing diverse complaints, addressed separately by Moses, and ultimately suffering different fates (burning or being swallowed up by the earth). Source critics identify two disparate rebellion stories: in one, Dathan and Abiram reject Moses and his efforts to lead the people to Canaan; in the other, two hundred and fifty men challenge Aaron’s right to the priesthood. Though different scholars divide the story in various ways, a consensus views the former story as coming from J and the latter as coming from P. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, P consistently attempts to establish Aaron’s exclusive hold on the priesthood.

This essay will note three shortcomings of this approach. First, evidence for the position is not as overwhelming as usually presented. Secondly, a methodology which enables neutralizing all contrary evidence by attributing problematic verses to later redactors or other authors facilitates easy promulgation of wild theories. Finally, and most importantly, an obsessive focus on authorship and uncovering divergent strands blinds readers to the beauty and insight of biblical narrative. Obviously, a brief essay noting some weaknesses in source criticism does not serve as a broad refutation of this method and, in future publications, I hope to extend the points outlined here to a much wider canvas. For the time being, the argument concentrates on the more modest range of one biblical tale.

The website www.thetorah.com, dedicated towards making academic biblical scholarship more accessible to the broader public, includes several essays on the Korah rebellion. The website editors wrote one essay entitled “Korach and the Documentary Hypothesis,” another entitled “Difficulties with the Text of the Korach Story,” and a third dedicated to the redaction theory of David Frankel. Additional essays by Israel Knohl, Ely Levine, Adele Berlin, and David Frankel also discuss how a redactor wove together various threads.

Multiple Authorship

To support the scholarly consensus, the essay called “Difficulties with the Text of the Korach Story” lists twenty-one difficulties with the text in Numbers as we have it. With such a large amount of problems, it sounds as if the corroborating evidence for splitting the story into multiple accounts proves immense. Yet a closer look at the list shifts perspective. Some of the problems have nothing to do with the number of authors, others are not truly problematic to begin with, and a third category depends upon a lack of appreciation for the complexity of biblical narrative.

For examples of the first category, the editors ask why Moses specifically mentions taking a donkey when he declares that he did not abuse his leadership position, and they also ask what happened to On, who appears in the first verse and then totally disappears from the account. These are worthy questions, but dividing the text into two does nothing to address them. In terms of the second category, the editors ask why Moses gives two different speeches to Korah and his band, one in verses 5-7 and another in verses 8-11. However, the Va-yomer Va-yomer (“and he said”, “and he said”) phenomenon, in which the same character speaks twice in immediate succession, is quite standard in the Bible. Meir Shiloach lists a hundred examples of this technique and divides the examples into six categories with varying explanations.¹ It may mean that the speaker waited for a response after the first speech but received only silence. Alternatively, the theme and tone of the two speeches may be quite distinct. In our chapter, the first speech sets up the test of the incense while the second speech criticizes the Levites for not being satisfied with their privileged position.

Two illustrations of our third category point to a much broader problem with much of classic source criticism. One question presents a conflict between the rebels saying in verse 3 that the entire congregation is holy and Moses accusing them in verse nine of wanting the priesthood. Was the complaint resting on egalitarian grounds or a claim of individuals desiring leadership positions? Another question proclaims the difficulty of integrating complaints against Moses with complaints against Aaron. We will delay response to these questions until the final section, which contends that these difficulties fail to comprehend the subtlety of biblical narrative.

Moving from defense to offense, certain literary features point towards a more unified text. The tale twice has one character turning an opponent’s words against him. The rebels say rav lakhem (you take too much upon you) to Moses and Aaron (verse 3); Moses retorts rav lakhem bnei Levi (you take too much upon you, sons of Levi, verse 7). Moses says to the rebels ha-meat mekem (is it a small thing to you, verse 9); Dathan and Abiram say to Moses ha-meat (is it a small thing, verse 13). According to the critics, the first “ha-meat” is from a P verse while the second is from a J verse, so unless a very clever redactor extended his hand, the two verses should not be playing off each other.

Deuteronomy 11:6 and Psalms 106:17 both mention only Dathan and Abiram as those swallowed up by the earth and do not refer to Korah. Critics contend this indicates that the Dathan and Abiram account was once fully independent of the other rebellion story. They have here a decent argument, but alternative explanations exist. Deuteronomy chapter 11 emphasizes the wonders of God, and the Bible considers the earth opening up a greater or more significant miracle than fire consuming those that brought the incense offering. Note how Numbers 16 gives much more prominence to the earth opening (verses 28-34). If Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up in the ground whereas Korah was consumed by fire, then an account emphasizing the earth opening will invariably focus on Dathan and Abiram.² Alternatively, Dathan and Abiram address Moses with the utmost hostility, and the Bible highlights them as the most evil members of the opposition even if Korah led the rebellion.

To be clear, some textual difficulties remain. The Bible originally describes the men who accompany Korah as chieftains and men of renown (verse 2), whereas Moses later refers to them as Levites (verses 7-10). This essay does not claim to have answered every question or dismantled every difficulty, but merely notes how source criticism may not be the optimum solution to the challenges.

Pitfalls of Source Criticism

Before proceeding to the third and most significant part of this essay, let us look at potential pitfalls of source-critical methodology. Dr. Rabbi David Frankel, a professor at the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies, suggests that the original version of the Dathan and Abiram rebellion took place in the land of Israel; they complain that Moses brought them to a land of fields and vineyards (verse 14) rather than a land of milk and honey. Of course, this reading explicitly contradicts their complaining that Moses brought them to die in the desert (verse 13). Frankel parries this problem by suggesting that those words were added by the redactor. He also has to posit that an alternative tradition had Moses successfully bringing the people into Israel, or at least successfully bringing the two and a half tribes to their locations in Transjordan.³ Once scholars can so easily neutralize contrary evidence and generate alternative traditions, almost anything can be said.

Let us investigate Frankel’s reading of a key verse. “Moreover you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards” (Numbers 16:14). This standard translation carries the lo, “you have not,” from the first clause over to the second clause, since no word for “nor” appears in the Hebrew original. Frankel argues that we should not carry over the “you have not” and read the second clause as an affirmative statement declaring “you have given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards,” namely the land of Israel. According to his reading, this is a complaint since fields and vineyards require arduous work, unlike lands flowing with milk and honey. Frankel claims that carrying over the negative appears only in biblical poetry and cannot work here. First of all, this overstates the divide between biblical prose and poetry; many prose sections contain poetic elements. Second, the phenomenon may exist in narrative sections as well.⁴

Frankel cites I Samuel 12:8 to support his position. Samuel tells the populace: When Jacob came to Egypt, your ancestors cried to God and God sent Moses and Aaron and they took your ancestors out of Egypt and they settled them in this place. Granted that the literal reading states that Moses and Aaron settled the people in Canaan, it seems simpler to offer a less literal reading (i.e. they enabled the Israelites to enter) than to generate an alternative tradition that contradicts all other biblical sources about our protagonists.⁵

The Bible’s Art and Wisdom

The biggest flaw in the critical methodology may not be in what it offers but in what it does not relate to. Spending so much effort trying to disentangle authorial strands makes it difficult to appreciate the power of the product we have in front of us. Let us explore some of the psychological insight and literary sensitivity of the Korah narrative, items ignored by many academic Bible scholars.

It is fairly common for a rebellion to incorporate different factions, each with divergent complaints and goals. Often, success reveals the fissures within the rebellious movement. The French revolutionary forces included the Jacobins, the Girondins, and the Montagnards, who, not surprisingly, started fighting with each other as the revolution progressed. If so, we should consider it quite reasonable that the Dathan and Abiram faction found temporary common cause with the two-hundred-and-fifty-men faction; malcontents tend to discover each other. Furthermore, Moses employs an intelligent “divide and conquer” strategy in addressing each group independently. Perhaps one faction will realize the lack of authentic unity among the rebels and retreat from the uprising.

Isaac Reggio points out how one rebellious move leads to another. Korah and his fellow Levites were upset that Aaron usurped them in receiving the priesthood. They struggled to deal with the fact that Moses was simply acting in accordance with the divine command in appointing Aaron. Therefore, pursuing their goals mandated challenging Moses’ leadership as well, and they naturally gravitated to the cause of Dathan and Abiram.⁶ Indeed, sin leads to sin, and one corrupt move brings on another.

The timing of the rebellion also fits with human society as we know it. As Nahmanides explains, rebels understand to avoid fermenting dissent when things are going well. Only when a community struggles do they pounce and take advantage of widespread negative feelings in that society. The glorious moment after the exodus from Egypt was clearly not the time for a full-scale rebellion. Following the crushing news that the sin of the spies would prevent this generation from entering the Promised Land, a degree of despair must have pervaded the communal atmosphere. Now was the time to rebel.⁷

What was their rebellious cause? Rebels naturally tend to downplay any personal ambitions while presenting themselves as idealistically motivated by communal interests. Not surprisingly, the populist and egalitarian claim that the whole community is holy (verse 3) becomes the public rallying cry. At the same time, Moses sees through the artifice and correctly accuses Korah’s band of desiring the priesthood (verse 9). Thus, no tension exists between these two verses. Appreciation of the sophistication of biblical narrative helps us understand how different rebel factions could band together, and why a publicly presented argument may not reflect the inner reality driving the uprising.

Another one of the twenty-one questions notes that Moses set up the test of the fire pans for the next day (verses 7, 16), but the actual endeavor seems to happen immediately (verse 35). Perhaps the biblical text assumes the reader will insert a day passing without explicitly noting it. Conversely, Shadal explains that the people could not wait, and they brought their offering a day before the plan called for.⁸ This haste reflects either their all-consuming jealousy regarding Aaron’s privileges or their eagerness to undergo a grand religious experience of service in the tabernacle. Either way, the discrepancy stems from literary art and not from disparate authorship.

In addition to social and psychological insight, the Korah episode also contains clever literary expression. We have already noted the double usage of rav lakhem and ha-meat. There also may be phrases with multiple levels of resonance. Moses says to the rebels rav lakhem, usually translated as “you take too much upon you.” Abravanel notes an alternative interpretation in which the word “rav” stems from “merivah” or quarrel.⁹ Instead of seeing it as an alternative, we can say that the phrase carries both implications. Moses, or the Torah narrator, hints at their contentious nature even as he criticizes them for trying to overstep their bounds. A similar dual possibility occurs when Dathan and Abiram declare lo naaleh, “we will not go up.” In the simplest reading, they refuse to go up to Moses’ location for a dialogue. Abravanel notes how aliyah, going up, often refers to going to the Land of Israel. Dathan and Abiram both refuse to enter into conversation with Moses and reject the entire project of traveling to Canaan.¹⁰

In his famous essay on Leitwort, Martin Buber uses the Korah episode as an example of the key-word technique. He notes the dominance of the root edah, “the community,” which he counts as appearing five times regarding Korah’s group and ten times in reference to the entire Israelite camp. Furthermore, the chapter includes the words keriei moed, noadim and ohel moed (verses 2, 11, and 18), all based on the same root. The word noadim, used for “gather together,” is quite rare and was not the obvious choice, so it may point to a conscious decision to emphasize that root. Buber explains that this technique sets up the conflict of identifying the true edah, or community, meriting a meeting with God. Korah’s community makes a failed attempt to usurp the community of God.¹¹

The Korah episode offers insight into the dynamics of rebellion and utilizes sophisticated literary art to convey its ideas. The many Korah articles on thetorah.com fail to register any of this, with the exception of Rachel Adelman’s essay. I believe it is not an accident that Adelman’s PhD is in Literature and not in Bible. The two contemporary writers most sensitive to the literary art of the Bible, Robert Alter and Meir Sternberg, both came to biblical interpretation from the world of Literature. As long as academic Bible scholars devote the bulk of their time to speculating about multiple authors, they will miss out on most of what makes the Bible worth reading.