Moses The Transjordanian Prophet

Moses the Transjordanian Prophet
Author(s): Zev I. Farber

Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 90 (2019), pp. 121-140
Published by: Hebrew Union College Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15650/hebruniocollannu.90.2019.0121
Accessed: 01-11-2022 05:24 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15650/hebruniocollannu.90.2019.0121?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hebrew Union College Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Hebrew Union College Annual
This content downloaded from 178.243.12.25 on Tue, 01 Nov 2022 05:24:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Moses the Transjordanian Prophet
Zev I. Farber
Project TABS – TheTorah.com
The Pentateuch contains more than one explanation for why Moses is
buried in the Transjordan. This demonstrates both that the tradition is
ancient and that later biblical authors had a problem with it. When we
attempt to trace the contours of this ancient tradition, we find a Moses
who was a local leader and holy man among the Reubenites and is cred-
ited with the conquest of their territory. A YHWH temple stood in the
area of his tomb. Over time, as the Cisjordan became the dominant area
for Israel, and the Transjordan lost its legitimacy, attempts to explain
the anomaly that the greatest Israelite leader in history is buried outside
Israel proper needed to be explained. This is the origin of the narrative
concerning Moses’s sin.
Ortsgebundenheit
When analyzing the figure of Moses, and where he fits into Israelite tradition-
history, Martin Noth turns to the burial tradition, which he calls, “the most orig-
inal element of the Mosaic tradition still preserved.” Noth bases this argument
on a principle called Ortsgebundenheit (literally “binding to place”), and goes on
to explain: “in other cases too, a grave tradition usually gives the most reliable
indication of the original provenance of a particular figure of tradition.”1
Noth proposes that originally Moses was a minor local figure, with no part
in any of Israel’s “big themes,” such as wandering in the wilderness or escape
from Egypt. Instead, to quote Douglas Knight’s summary, “because his grave
lay in the traditional path of the ‘Israelites’ on their way into Palestine, he was
worked into the theme, ‘Guidance into Palestine’ by later narrators, and hence
into other themes.”2 Although in my view Noth underestimates the early place
of Moses in Israelite tradition, his argument that Moses’s tradition history orig-
inates in the Transjordan is compelling. A good proof for this comes from the
Priestly story of Moses’s sin in Numbers 20, according to which Moses fails to
1 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B.W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1972), 169–70 (Original German: Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 1st ed.
[Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948]; 3rd ed., 1966.)
2 Douglas A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel, 3rd ed. SBL Studies in Biblical Literature
16 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2006), 116.
121
122 Zev I. Farber
sanctify God at Meribath-kadesh, when he was tasked with the job of getting
water from a rock,3 and is thus punished with death outside the land.
Etiological Tales
Ever since Hermann Gunkel’s work on biblical myths,4 which provided the
foundation for form criticism, scholars have noted the prevalence of etiological
tales in the Bible. Some of these are classic versions of what Rudyard Kipling
called, “Just-So Stories.” This is especially true in the early parts of Genesis.
For example, the implicit question, “Why do men love women?” is answered
in Genesis 2:22–24 with, “because woman was made from man’s missing
rib.” Similarly, “Why does childbirth hurt?” is answered in Genesis 3:16 with
“because the first woman ate from the forbidden fruit,” while “Why don’t snakes
have legs?” is answered in Genesis 3:14 with, “because the snake convinced the
woman to eat from the fruit.”
Other stories seem to be designed to explain local geographical features such
as the saltiness of the Dead Sea region (“it was once beautiful, but the people
were wicked and YHWH smote them with sulfur and brimstone from the sky,”
Gen 19:24), or a particular mineral formation that looked like a woman (“it
once was a woman, but she was punished and turned into a pillar of salt,” Gen
19:26). Etiological stories can also be designed to explain local traditions, cus-
toms, or just about any anomaly that people feel needs explaining. The account
of Moses’s sin can be understood through this prism.
Moses’s Sin(s)
The Priestly story of Moses’s sin in Num 20:1–13 explains why he may not enter
the Promised Land.5 For those reading the Bible historically, this is simply
“how it happened”; this “fact” had been part of Israel’s story for generations and
3 This story is a double of a non-Priestly story about getting water from a rock which appears
in Exodus 17:1–7. That these seem like two versions of the same story was noted already by R.
Joseph Bechor Shor in the 12th century. See the discussion in Jonathan Jacobs, :đĘ ĤďĐ đĤđĥ Ĥđėč
ĥđďĕēĘ ĦđĕėĥĚĐ ěĕč Ĥđĥ Ĥđėč ğĝđĕ ĪĤ (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2017), 230–44
[233–36]; idem, “Moses Strikes the Rock in Exodus and Numbers: One Story or Two?” TheTorah
(2019).
4 Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis, trans. W.H. Carruth (Chicago, IL: Open Court
Publishing, 1901).
5 Num 20:1–13 is a composite text, with a non-Priestly complaint story about the wilderness of
Zin spliced in. Although scholars differ in some details exactly how to reconstruct the two texts,
the storyline about Moses and the rock is almost certainly from P. For a detailed analysis of this
account and its redaction, see David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School: A
Moses the Transjordanian Prophet 123
needed to be included. From a tradition-historical (Überlieferungsgeschichte)
perspective, however, the question persists: Why does Moses not enter the
Promised Land? If Israelite tradition credits Moses with leading the Israelites
out of Egypt, and he is understood to have been the greatest prophet in Israelite
history, why not credit him with the taking of the Promised Land as well?6
The most obvious response would be that the conquest stories were already
associated with other figures, such as Joshua (Josh 6–11), or even Barak (Judg
4–5) and David (2 Sam 5:6–10). This is only a partial answer, however, for two
reasons. First, it is not uncommon for particularly prominent figures to can-
nibalize the traditions of other figures.7 Thus, even if others, such as Joshua,
were associated with the conquest, groups that venerated Moses above others
could have substituted him for them or added him to the story.
Second, the stark ending of Moses dying outside the land because of his sin
would not be the only way to make room for traditions regarding the other
conquering heroes. One could envision a triumphant ending, in which the
elderly man crosses over the Jordan with Joshua and is buried in one of the
holy cities, such as Hebron or Shechem, just as Joseph is at the end of the Book
of Joshua (Josh 24).
Therefore, in keeping with Noth’s observation, I suggest that the Israelite
storytellers had no choice but to have Moses die in the Transjordan, because
that is where his grave was to be found. To clarify, although at least one of the
various sources or redactions that make up Deuteronomy 34 states that no one
knows the location of Moses’s grave, all have Moses dying in the Transjordan,
whether it be on Mount Abarim (Deut 32:49–50), Mount Pisgah (Deut 3:27,
34:1), or the valley opposite Peor (Deut 34:6a).8 In other words, although his
Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill,

2002), 263–323.
6 Samuel Loewenstamm suggests that the etiological motivation for this story was to explain why
Moses dies at all. See his “The Death of Moses,” in From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible
and its Oriental Background, ed. Samuel E. Loewenstamm, trans. Baruch J. Schwartz (Jerusalem:
Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992), 136–66. Nevertheless, in my view, Loewenstamm is
reading the older sources through the prism of Second Temple apocalyptic retellings. Instead, I
would argue that the problem the story is trying to explain is why Moses dies in the Transjordan.
7 For other examples of this phenomenon, which I dub “tradition cannibalism,” see Zev I. Farber,
Images of Joshua in the Bible and their Reception. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentli-
che Wissenschaft 457 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 120; idem, “Jerubaal, Jacob, and the Battle for
Shechem: A Tradition History,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13.12 (2013): 1–26, esp. 23–24.
8 According to David Ben-Gad HaCohen (Dudu Cohen), the view that Moses died on Mount
Abarim, glossed as Nebo, comes from P; the view that he died on Mount Pisgah (also glossed as
Nebo in Deut 34:1), but that no one knows where he is buried, comes from J, and the view that he
died in the valley opposite Peor and is buried there comes from E. D, however, does not record
Moses’s death. See David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “The Unknown Yet Known Place of Moses’ Burial,”
124 Zev I. Farber
exact burial place being known (34:6a) or unknown (34:6b) may have been
a matter of conflict,9 the overall geographic area where he died was not.
Some Israelite storytellers, bothered by the dissonance between the picture
of Moses as the greatest prophet and the fact that he was not buried in the
“real” Promised Land, i.e., the Cisjordan, solved this dissonance by suggesting
that he must have sinned and death outside the Cisjordan was his punishment;
what other reason could prevent the great prophet Moses from entering the
Promised Land?
Using this etiological prism helps alleviate the classic problem that has both-
ered commentators for millennia: What exactly did Moses do to deserve his
punishment?10 Putting aside the various readings of the text which have yielded
a plethora of possible sins, once we understand that the punishment motif is a
byproduct of the need to explain why Moses was buried in the Transjordan, we
can understand that the specific sin is secondary.11 The story simply needed to
end with Moses dying in the Transjordan, since that is where he is buried.
TheTorah (2015). For an alternative source division, which includes a D death scene, see Philip
Yoo, “The Four Moses Death Accounts,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131.3 (2012): 423–41. Yoo’s
article brought about a lively debate in a follow-up volume of the Journal of Biblical Literature,
featuring responses from Serge Frolov, David Carr, and Shawna Dolansky, and a rejoinder by
Philip Yoo. See, Journal of Biblical Literature 133.3 (2014): 648–68. For a different approach
to the composition of Deuteronomy 34, assuming a Dtr base text, see Thomas C. Römer and
Marc Z. Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 119.3 (2000): 401–19.
9 One trend in traditional Jewish and Christian tradition suggests that Moses’s grave was kept secret
to avoid his deification, and people therefore coming to worship him at his burial mound. See
Origen, Selecta in Num., 578b; Midrash Lekah Tov, “Berakhah” 102. A similar trend in modern
scholarship sees this as a polemic against the holy site in Nebo where a YHWH temple once stood,
before it was conquered by Mesha of Moab. See Alexander Rofé, “ČĢđĚ ĦĘČĥđ đčĜ ĥďģĚ ,ĐĥĚ ĦėĤč
ęĕĕđĘĐ”, in ĐĜĥ ęĕĞčĥ đĘ ĦČĘĚč ęĔĥĜđĕĘ ĪČ ĐĚĘĥĘ ęĕĥĎđĚ ěđĚďģĐ ēĤĒĚčđ ČĤģĚč ęĕĤģēĚ, ed. Yitschak
Avishur and Joshua Blau (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein’s Pub. House, 1978), 409–24; reprinted in
Alexander Rofé, ĖĥĚĐ ĕģĤĠđ ěđĥČĤ ģĘē :ęĕĤčď ĤĠĝĘ ČđčĚ (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1988), 234–49
[241]. A wilder hypothesis, variations of which were suggested by a number of scholars, is that
Phineas (or Joshua and Elazar) murdered Moses and hid the body, and the Torah is trying to
cover this up. See, for instance, Ernst Sellin, “Hosea und das Martyrium des Mose,” Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 46 (1928): 26–33. Finally, another theory is that the unknown
burial spot is a toning down of a tradition according to which Moses never died but ascended
to heaven. See Loewenstamm, “The Death of Moses,” 147–63.
10 The literature on this question is too vast to survey here and the question is beyond the scope
of this paper. For a good summary, see excursus 50 in Jacob Milgrom, Numbers. The JPS Torah
Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 1998), 381–89.
11 Loewenstamm suggests that the Priestly story as we have it is a heavily revised version of an
older story wherein the sin at Meribah is the reason the Israelites as a whole are forbidden to
enter the land, and that originally Moses’s sin and punishment was simply part of the overall
story about Israel’s rebellion. See Loewenstamm, “The Death of Moses,” 137–45. In this sense, it
An Alternative Version of Moses’s Sin (D and J)
Support for this contention – that the grave’s location gave rise to the devel-
opment of the narrative – comes from the fact that Deuteronomy records
an entirely different explanation for why Moses dies in the Transjordan. In
Deuteronomy 1:37, Moses states that God became angry at Moses “because
of you [the Israelites]” and that this is why Moses was forbidden to enter the
land. Although Moses does not explain further, in context he is referring to
the outcome of the story of the scouts described earlier in this same pericope
(vv. 20–23). In the version reported in Deuteronomy, the Israelites suggest
sending scouts, and Moses thinks the idea to be a good one and follows their
advice. The mission ends in an Israelite rebellion: the people refuse to enter
the land and conquer it. In context, God is angry with Moses for going along
with the idea.
Thus, whereas the Priestly text explains Moses’s death in the Transjordan
resulting from the sin of the waters of Mei Meribah (whatever exactly that sin
may have been), Deuteronomy explains it as a result of the sin of the scouts. As
Deuteronomy’s source for the scouts story is J, David Ben-Gad HaCohen has
argued that the alternative explanation for Moses’s death in the Transjordan
originates in this source.12
An alternative approach was recently put forward by Gili Kugler, who
argues that the explanation for Moses’s death here is not an integral part of
Deuteronomy 1–4 at all, but constitutes a later supplement.13 The same is true,
she argues, for Deuteronomy 4:21–22, which reflects the same idea that Moses
is being punished for his part in Israel’s sin.
Instead, she argues, the original explanation in Deuteronomy for Moses’s
death was simply that he reached the end of his mission. Moses was 120 years
old, no longer able to lead (Deut 31:2), and it was time for him to pass on and
let the next generation enter the Cisjordan with a new leader. God expresses
would be parallel to what we see in Deuteronomy’s retelling of J’s scouts story, in which Moses
is punished together with Israel.
12 HaCohen also offers a reconstruction of the lost section of the J story, based on his idea that D
preserves the contours of a fuller J account than what survived in Numbers. See David Ben-Gad
HaCohen, “Using the Torah to Fill in the Lacunae of the Numbers Spies Story,” TheTorah (2016).
In this sense (though not in the reconstruction itself), HaCohen’s view overlaps with that of
Joel Baden, who has argued for the likelihood of D having had access both to the E scroll and
the J scroll, as separate but complete documents. See Joel Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the
Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 99–195, and
see especially his discussion of the scouts story on pp. 114–30.
13 See Gili Kugler, “Moses Died and the People Moved on: A Hidden Narrative in Deuteronomy,”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.2 (2018): 191–204.
126 Zev I. Farber
anger at his request to cross over the Jordan in 3:26 because Moses is asking
that God extend his life, which is inappropriate as it goes against the natural
order and God’s plan.
According to this construction, God’s intention was always that Moses
would die in the Transjordan. The explanation based on Moses having sinned
was added by a later editor, who was bothered by Moses not entering the
Cisjordan.
If Kugler is correct, this textual development likely reflects a change in
attitude towards the Transjordan. In the older layer of Deuteronomy, the
Transjordan was part of the Promised Land, and thus the tradition of Moses
dying there did not pose a problem. By the time of the supplementor, the
Transjordan had a secondary status, and thus an explanation was necessary.
This is certainly the case in the Priestly Text, which does not consider the
Transjordan to be Israel proper at all.14
What is important here, for our purposes, is not the existence of contradictory
reasons for Moses’s punishment, but the fact that different Israelite sources
understood that they needed a “sin story.” Why didn’t the later sources, instead
of inventing a sin, simply move Moses’s death scene into the Cisjordan? It is
because of the universal agreement that Moses is buried in the Transjordan.
The Sin of the Spies: Explaining the

Conquest from the Transjordan
The problem of Moses being buried in the Transjordan also seems to be at the
base of the story of the scouts. This is best understood, argues Jacob Wright,
when we look at the larger picture of the wilderness account,15 according to
which the Israelites leave Egypt to enter the land of Israel. The best itinerary
for such a story would be a walk up the coastal road, entering the Cisjordan
14 See Angela Roskop Erisman, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of
Torah. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011),
223–32.
15 See Jacob L. Wright, “The Backstory of the Spy Account,” TheTorah (2015). Wright takes a
supplementary approach and isolates a number of steps in creating the story. The core, he
argues, begins with a less dramatic explanation – the routes from the coast and the south were
too dangerous, since the inhabitants there were powerful. As over time it became religiously
unacceptable to claim that YHWH was not powerful enough to deal with certain enemies, this
practical explanation morphed into a story about sin, shifting the blame from external enemies
to the Israelites themselves. Even so, the core verses about the power of the Philistines on the
coast (Exod 13:17) and the Canaanites and Amalekites in the south (Num 14:25) were never
erased.
in the Gaza region. Exodus (13:17) explains, however, that this did not happen
because God did not want to bring the Israelites face to face with the Philistines
lest they (=the Israelites) panic.
The next best route would be entering through the Negev and the Judean
Hills in the south. But they don’t do this either; instead, they enter through
the Transjordan. This is a very roundabout route. The story of the scouts in
Numbers and Deuteronomy explains this roundabout route by positing that,
originally, the Israelites were going to enter through the south, but they refused
to do so after hearing the scouts’ account. In return for this rebelliousness, God
forces the Israelites to wander through the wilderness until all the adults of that
generation die. During this wandering, the Israelites end up in the Transjordan,
and eventually enter the Cisjordan from this territory.
Thus, the story of the scouts is best understood against the backdrop of a
pre-existing tradition of entry from the Transjordan that Israelite storytellers
needed to explain. Why would recently escaped slaves from Egypt be in the
Transjordan in the first place if they were headed for the Cisjordan? The answer,
at least for P, J, and D, was the sin of the Israelites’ response to the scouts. The
etiological background to the story would go as follows: originally, the Israelites
were going to enter from the south, but, because of their sin, they were forced
to wander through the wilderness. At the end of this wandering, they were in
the Transjordan, and proceeded from there to the Cisjordan.
Conquest from the Transjordan
Because the idea of a conquest coming from the Transjordan is so entrenched

in Israelite historiography, scholars have been prompted to look for historical
explanations of why this is so. For example, Albrecht Alt suggested a peaceful
infiltration model, wherein Israelite tribal elements living in the Transjordan
crossed over into the Cisjordan over time, and eventually dominated the local
Canaanite population.16 Conversely, Frank Moore Cross, who took the idea of
a one-time military invasion as historical (a view generally rejected in contem-
porary scholarship), went so far as to establish the crossing of the Jordan River
as the prototype for the later story of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds.17
Although Alt’s view that the settlers originate in the Transjordan has merit,
and is still accepted by many scholars today, 18 I believe the point can be
16 See Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R.A. Wilson (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1968), 175–221.
17 Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 44.
18 Archaeology has shown that the Cisjordanian highlands were settled in the early Iron I, but the
128 Zev I. Farber
sharpened if we also take an etiological/mnemohistorical approach, and sug-

gest the following development: over time, a number of independent tribal
groups, starting in the Transjordan but afterwards living in the Cisjordan as
well, merged their identities under the umbrella term Israelite.
This was not a one-step process, but likely occurred in multiple stages.19
Because the Cisjordanian groups gained ascendency, with Samaria and
Jerusalem forming the political centers, we can see how the Transjordan was
slowly demoted in biblical texts from ancient Israelite territory, to grudgingly
Israelite territory, to illegitimate territory where some Israelites lived.
We can see some of these middle stages being worked out in Israelite his-
toriography in the story of Reuben and Gad in Numbers 32. This tale, also
etiological in nature, was written to explain why these two tribes live on the
wrong side of the river. The text is clearly composite, containing two narrative
strands.20 The earlier, non-Priestly, strand – identified as E by documentary
question of the origin of the settlers (were they local nomads or settlers from the outside?) and
the nature of the relationship between the settlers of Judah and Samaria remains a matter of
debate in contemporary scholarship. See the discussion in Avraham Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis:
Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (London: Equinox, 2006); Israel Finkelstein
and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and
the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York: Touchstone, 2002); William G. Dever, Who Were the
Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). For a
sharp focus on the debate, see Israel Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, and Brian Schmidt, eds., The
Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Israel. Archaeology and
Biblical Studies 17 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2007), 67–98.
19 As part of this process, there was a need to define the relationship between those Transjordanian
groups who identified as Israelite (Reuben and Gad) and those who did not (Moab and Ammon).
This is probably the origin of the Lot stories. See the discussion in Rachel Havrelock, The River
Jordan: The Mythology of a Dividing Line (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011), ch. 2
[loc. 848–1214]. See also her analysis of how this tension spawned the story of Sihon in “Inventing
the Mythic Amorite Kingdom of Sihon,” TheTorah (2015).
20 The division of this composite text into its Priestly and non-Priestly sources is particularly tricky,
and many different specific configurations have been suggested. See, for example, Samuel E.
Loewenstamm, “The Settlement of Gad and Reuben as Related in Nu. 23:1–38 – Background
and Composition,” in From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and its Oriental Background,
ed., Samuel E. Loewenstamm (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992 [orig. Hebrew
1972]), 109–30; Horst Seebass, “Erwägungen zu Numeri 32:1–38,” Journal of Biblical Literature
118 (1999): 33–48; Ludwig Schmitt “Die Ansiedelung von Ruben und Gad im Ostjordanland in
Numeri 32, 1–38,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114 (2002): 497–510; Baden, J,
E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 141–53; Liane Marquis (Feldman), “The Composition of
Numbers 32: A New Proposal,” Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013): 408–32; Jacob Wright, “Redacting
the Relationship to the Transjordanian Tribes: Kinship versus Commandment,” TheTorah (2015).
See, however, Erisman’s argument that the text is of one piece and is specifically making a claim
for inclusion of the Transjordan as part of the Promised Land: Angela Roskop Erisman, “The
scholars – sees the request to stay in the Transjordan as legitimate, and does
not appear critical of the decision. The later, Priestly text (or layer), on the other
hand, presents Moses rebuking these tribes for making the request to settle in
the Transjordan, which he only grudgingly grants after certain provisios.
Later biblical texts present an even more negative etiology. For example,
Joshua 22 tells a story about the Transjordanians building an altar, which almost
causes a civil war. However one understands the intention of these tribes in their
actions, the subtext is that it should be clear to all that worshipping YHWH on
foreign soil, i.e., the Transjordan, is illegitimate.21
An even more extreme example comes in Ezekiel’s reinvisioning of the tribal
allotments (ch. 47–48), in which the Transjordan does not appear at all; Reuben,
Gad, and half of Manasseh are moved into Cisjordanian plots. As Walther
Zimmerli writes, “[I]t is remarkable that on the eastern boundary, the whole of
the territory east of the Jordan, in which, after all, two and a half Israelite tribes
settled and to which a judge like Jephthah belonged, is dispensed with.”22
In short, we see a trajectory from Transjordan as a natural part of Israel (E),
to grudging acceptance of the territory’s secondary status (P, DR, Josh 22), to a
total rejection of this land as Israel, at least ideally (Ezek). The story of Moses
accepting the Transjordanian settlement as exceptional became necessary
once the idea of Cisjordanian superiority became dominant, in the same way
that Moses’s sin became a necessary part of Israel’s historical retelling once his
burial in the Transjordan became problematic.
Moses: A Transjordanian Holy Man Turned Conqueror
Once we understand that in the earlier sources the Transjordan is simply part
of Israelite territory, we can try to explain why the account of Moses’s death
in the Transjordan is so firmly rooted. As suggested above, the principle of
Ortsgebundenheit implies that the area of a purported burial site is likely the
Settlement of Reuben and Gad: A Rhetorical Case for Transjordan as Part of the Promised
Land,” TheTorah (2019).
21 For some discussion of the ideology in this text and how it seems to have developed, see Philip
Yoo, “Delegitimizing a Witness: Composition and Revision in Joshua 22,” Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures 18 (2018): #8; David Frankel, The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies
of Territory in the Hebrew Bible. Siphrut 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 177–94. A
similarly negative stance can be found in the Chronicler’s description of the Assyrian conquest
of the Transjordan, which uses harsh rhetoric about the behavior of these Transjordanians,
claiming that they remain exiled until even his days (1 Chr 5:24–26).
22 Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, trans. James Martin. Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1983 [orig. 1969]), 531.
130 Zev I. Farber
area of origin for a given figure. If this is the case, then Moses may have begun
as a Transjordanian from the area of the Northern Mishor, in the territory of
Reuben and Gad.23Admittedly, Ortsgebundenheit is an insufficient reason in
itself to recast Moses as a Transjordanian local. Nevertheless, supporting biblical
evidence makes this suggestion particularly attractive:
The etiological protest – The existence of an etiological story explaining the
presence of Israelite tribes in the Transjordan, and more than one for why
Moses is buried there, implies a strong need to explain this “reality.” In other
words, Moses’s burial in the Transjordan, and his total lack of presence on the
Cisjordan, was taken as a given.
The story of the Reubenites: Datan and Abiram – In their rebellion against
Moses, Datan and Abiram complain that Moses did not bring them to a land
of milk and honey, as he had promised, nor did he give them an inheritance of
fields and vineyards (Num 16:14). It seems strange to describe the barren wil-
derness as “not a land of milk and honey,” and even more so to add not “a land
of fields and vineyards.” Noting this problem, David Frankel has suggested that
the narrative has been redacted, and that at its core, it assumes that the Israelites
are already in the land, which is why Datan and Abiram can evaluate it.24
The fact that Datan and Abiram are Reubenites works together with the
concept that the Reubenites always saw the Transjordan as “their land.” An early
story about sinning Reubenites rejecting the Promised Land (the Transjordan)
would support the idea that Moses is an ancient Transjordanian figure. In the
early period when the core of this account was written there would have been
no need for any “explanation” for the Reubenites settling there or for Moses
being buried there; the Transjordan is the Promised Land.
Reuben is the First Born – Reuben is referenced in Genesis as the oldest son
of Jacob/Israel. During most of Israel’s history, the tribe of Reuben was a virtual
non-entity. It seems strange to imagine such an account being composed for
the first time in the eighth century, for example, when the Ammonites entirely
dominated the area. It is more likely that the tradition reflects a memory of
Reubenites being the first or most senior Israelite clan. This would also help
explain the extremely prominent place granted their own local holy man,
Moses.25
23 Which tribe controlled which area varies between texts, and this, in turn, seems to depend
on the period during which a given text was written and the reality at the time of the author.
See discussion in Yigal Levin, “What Were Reuben and Gad’s Territories in the Transjordan?”
TheTorah (2017).
24 See David Frankel, “Datan and Abiram: A Rebellion of Shepherds in the Land of Israel,” TheTorah
(2016).
25 I am not the first to suggest that a connection between Moses and the tribe of Reuben stems
The Merenptah Stele – The oldest reference to Israel as a people comes from
the late thirteenth-century Merenptah stele. The stele does not offer an explicit
geographical location for this tribal group which its inscription claims to be
“no more,” but many scholars believe that the implication, based on the order
of the enemy names listed and the toponyms, is that Israel was a group in the
Transjordan.26
Moses conquest tradition: The Book of YHWH’s Battles – In describing the ter-
ritory of Sihon, king of the Amorites (the purported ruler of the land of Reuben
and Gad before the Israelite conquest under Moses), the Book of Numbers
(21:14) quotes from a lost work called the Book of the YHWH’s Battles.27 The
scribe quoting the work seems to treat it as authoritative. Although the entire
book is not extant, thus making every attempt to describe it speculative, what
is extant records events in the Transjordan.28 This works nicely with the fact
that Moses is described in the Bible – in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua
13 – as the conqueror of the Transjordan.
Nebo, the YHWH Temple, and the Mesha Inscription
In addition to these points, biblical evidence comes together with extra-biblical

evidence in one very suggestive clue, which helps firmly connect Moses with the
Transjordan, and even begins to explain the basis of the early association
The place where Moses dies is twice glossed as Mount Nebo. The Priestly
tradition has him die on Mount Abarim, which is glossed in Deuteronomy
32:49 as Mount Nebo, and the Yahwistic tradition has him die on Mount Pisgah,
which is glossed in Deuteronomy 34:1 also as Mount Nebo. This is the only time
we ever hear of such a mountain, but the Bible also records a city called Nebo,
from the most ancient of Israelite traditions. Frank Moore Cross notes many of the same texts
but takes a different approach to explain the connection; see Cross, From Epic to Canon, 53–70.
26 See, e.g., Nadav Na’aman, “Yenoam,” Tel Aviv 4 (1977): 168–77 [reprinted in: Canaan in the Second
Millennium B.C.E.: Collected Essays, vol. 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 195–203];
Anson F. Rainey, “Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language?” Israel Exploration Journal
57 (2007): 41–64; Israel Knohl, “Pharaoh’s War with the Israelites: The Untold Story,” Azure 41
(2010): 72–95.
27 This is the translation preferred by Ed Greenstein. See his “What Was the Book of Yashar?,”
Maarav 21.1–2 (2014): 25–35.
28 For some speculation on this book, and its place in Transjordanian Israelite and Moabite politics,
see David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “War at Yahatz: The Torah versus the Mesha Stele,” TheTorah
(2015). For a different view of this book, arguing that “YHWH’s Battles” is merely the opening
poem in the book, and not a summary of its contents, see Ed Greenstein, “What Was the Book
of the Wars of the Lord?” TheTorah (2017).
132 Zev I. Farber
which is in the territory of Reuben near Mount Abarim (Num 32:37, 33:47), and
which eventually becomes a Moabite city (Isa 15:2; Jer 48:1).
This same Nebo is mentioned in the Mesha Inscription as a place which
housed a YHWH Temple in the time of Omri and his son:
.ĐčĜ .ĦČ .ĒēČ .ėĘ .ĥĚė .ĕĘ .ĤĚČĕđ And Kemosh said to me: “Go take Nebo from
.ĚēĦĘČđ .ĐĘĘč .ėĘĐČđ | ĘČĤĥĕ .ĘĞ Israel.” And I went at night and fought from the
| ĚĤĐĢĐ .ďĞ .ĦĤēĥĐ .ĞģčĚ .Đč break of dawn until the afternoon, and I took
.ĜĠĘČ .ĦĞčĥ .ĐĘė .ĎĤĐČđ .ĐĒēČđ it and killed everybody, seven thousand men
| ĦĚēĤđ .ĦĤĎđ .ĦĤčĎđ | .ĜĤĎđ .ĜĤčĎ and boys, women and girls, and concubines,
.ēģČđ | ĐĦĚĤēĐ .ĥĚė .ĤĦĥĞĘ .ĕė and I made them cherem to Ashtar-Kemosh.
.ĚĐ .čēĝČđ .ĐđĐĕ .ĕĘ[ė Ħ]Č .ĚĥĚ And I took from there the [ves]sels of Yhwh,
| ĥĚė .ĕĜĠĘ and brought them before Kemosh.
That two unrelated sources assume that Mount Nebo is a place of special import
to Israelites appears significant. If Mount Nebo was a place of YHWH worship,
perhaps this was connected to it being the purported burial spot of YHWH’s
prophet, Moses.
In fact, Alexander Rofé argues that Deuteronomy 33 preserves an origin story
or “sacred history” (ἱερός λόγος) for this very temple.29 The poem opens with
YHWH travelling north from Sinai and Seir, and ending up in Ashdot, likely
a reference to Ashdot HaPisgah (e.g., Deut 3:17), which is described as being
in the area of Reuben (Josh 13:20).
Although Reuben was once the dominant tribe in this area, the poem dates
from a time when Gad had expanded its power at Reuben’s expense, which
is why the first blessing (Let Reuben live and not die . . . ”) expresses the hope
that Reuben will survive, despite its small population (Deut 33:6). The key line
highlighting Gad’s expanded power is in Moses’s blessing of Gad (33:20–21):
ďĎă Ā čĕēü Ĥø Ěÿ Ėăø đĤčă Ā Blessed be He who enlarges Gad!

ě ýėĥĈĀ Čĕčü ĀĘėăø Poised is he like a lion
.ďāģďø ģĀ ğČÿ Ğÿ āđĤ øĒ ğĤÿ ĔĀ øđ To tear off arm and scalp.
āđĘ ĦĕĥČ Ĉü Ĥý ČĤø ĕă ÿ ÿđ He chose for himself the best,
ěăđĠĝĀ ģģāý ēĚø Ħģÿ øĘēþ ęĥĈĀ ĕėăü For there the portion of the chieftain lies,
ęĞĀ ĕĥČ Ĉý ĤĀ ČĦý ĕă ý ÿđ Where the heads of the people come.
Đĥ ĉ Ā ĞĀ Đ ĀđĐ øĕ Ħģÿ ďø Ģü He executed YHWH’s judgments
ĉ ø üĕ ęĞü đĕĔĀ ĠĀ ă ĥĈø Ěăü đ
.ĘČý ĤĀ ĥ And His decisions for Israel.
According to Rofé’s reading, Gad expands in the areas that were once Reuben’s,
29 See Rofé, “ĐĥĚ ĦėĤč.”
perhaps due to Gad’s military might (like Judah in Gen 49, and Israel in Balaam’s
blessings, Gad is compared to a lion). As part of this expansion, Gad chooses
the best portion, namely, the place where the revered chieftain or lawgiver’s
temple is built, likely in the vicinity of where the chieftain is buried. Although
the song dates to a period of Gadite ascendency, the association of Ashdot
haPisgah (and Nebo) with Reuben implies that in an earlier time the YHWH
temple of Moses was located in this tribe’s territory.
Putting the above together, the picture is suggestive. The Transjordan: is the
home of the tribe of the eldest son of Israel (Reuben); is the burial place of the
greatest prophet of Israel; has a YHWH worship site on the mountain upon
which Moses is buried; has a sacred poem associated with it; and even has its
own scroll, focusing on the wars of YHWH in the Transjordan.
Moses and the Exodus: The Development of the Moses Tradition
We can see now that the earliest extant Moses traditions associate him with the
conquest and settlement of the Transjordan.30 It is possible that this association
arose independently of the story of the exodus from Egypt. However, it soon
became an integral part of the story, with Moses as the leader of this exodus.
This also fits with another aspect of the Moses tradition – his association with
the Levites.31
The connection between the Levites and the exodus story is well established.
The Levites are referenced specifically at the opening of the story (Exod 2),
though the purpose here could be just to introduce Moses. More significant is
the predominance of Egyptian names among Levite ancestor figures.32 Moshe
is the name “son of ” but without the usual theophoric element, like Thut-Mose
(Son of Thoth) or Ra-Mose (Son of Ra). The same is true of the name Mushi
30 For a detailed discussion of Moses traditions, see George W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of
God. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Series 57 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1988). For a survey of Moses traditions with an eye towards theology, see Henri Cazelles, “Đĥāþ Ĉ Ě
(Mōšeh)” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 9, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck,
Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 28–31.
31 For a discussion of early associations between Moses and Levites, see Geo Widengren, “What
Do We Know about Moses?,” in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honor of
G.H. Davies, ed. J.I. Durham and J.R. Porter (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1970), 21–47.
32 Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters (San Francisco,
CA: HarperOne, 2017), 31–32; Theophile J. Meek, Hebrew Origins (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1936). James K. Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,” in “Did I Not
Bring Israel Out of Egypt?”: Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus
Narratives, ed. James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2016), 3–36.
134 Zev I. Farber
(Exod 6:19), which is just a variant of Moshe.33 Miryam begins with the Egyptian
word Meri, meaning beloved, with a possible theophoric ending. Merari has
the same opening word, but with a different theophoric element, probably,
beloved of Ra.34 Pinchas, the name of Aaron’s grandson as well as the son of Eli
the Priest of Shiloh, is a version of Pa-Nehesi, which means “the dark one,” the
Egyptian name for Kushites/Nubians.35 Hophni, the other son of Eli the priest,
means tadpole.36 Hur is equivalent to the Egyptian name Horus. Though his
tribe is never mentioned, he appears together with Aaron consistently (Exod
17:10, 12, 24:14).37 Assir (Exod 6:24), one of the sons of Koraḥ, is equivalent to
the Egyptian name Osiris, the god of the dead.38
Aharon is less certain. Many scholars believe it to be Egyptian, but the der-
ivation is debated. Possibilities such as aha-rw, “warrior lion,” aaru, “field of
rushes,” or even “tent-dweller” (from Hebrew ĘĐČ, but with an Egyptianization
of l to an r) have been suggested.39
Why so many Levite and Priestly names are Egyptian is uncertain. Some
have suggested that only this group came from Egypt.40 Another possibility is
that cultic functionaries in the Levant were in fact Egyptian in origin, or took
Egyptian names during the period when Egypt was a dominant presence.
Whatever the reason or reasons, the story of an exodus from Egypt was
closely tied to the Levites, who served as cultic functionaries perhaps in both the
33 See discussion in Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 417–18.
34 Propp is confident about Merari as Egyptian, though ambivalent about Miryam, for which he
suggests alternatives based on Canaanite and Ugaritic roots. See William H.C. Propp, Exodus
1–18. The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010 [orig. 1999]), 276, 546.
Propp is bothered by the final mem, but this could simply be an enclitic mem or a shortened
form of a longer name (Beloved of Amun?), or perhaps related to the Canaanite god of the sea
(Beloved of Yam?). Redford sees no connection to Egyptian for either Miryam or Merari (Egypt,
Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, 419, n. 121). To my mind, it is difficult to accept an ancient
Hebrew name beginning with meri- not being Egyptian.
35 See HALOT, s.v., ĝēĀ øĜĕĠ,ü ă “ . . . Eg. pʾ-nḥśy the black people, Nubians . . . the dark-skinned.”
36 See HALOT, s.v., ĕ üĜĠø ē,Ā “Eg. ḥfn(r) tadpole . . . ,”; Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Religious Influences on the
Early Hebrews,” 22.
37 Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,” 25; Ernst Axel Knauf, “Hur.”
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 3.334. There is also a Judahite ancestor-figure named Hur (Exod 31:2).
38 Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,” 21–22.
39 Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,” 20. Other possibly Egyptian
names are Putiel (a hybrid name, since El is Hebrew), and Pashhur.
40 Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters; idem, “The
Historical Exodus,” TheTorah, (2014). See also Mark Leuchter, “Hosea’s Exodus Mythology and
the Book of the Twelve,” in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer.
Ancient Near Eastern Monographs 14 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016) 31–50.
Transjordan and the Cisjordan.41 These functionaries would have transmitted
the story of the exodus from Egypt as well as an account of its leader, Moses.
Moses and His Transjordanian Siblings
Biblical tradition associates Moses with two other figures, the priestly ancestor-
figure, Aaron, and the prophetess, Miriam. The Book of Micah (6:4) presents
them as a team:
Ƒ Ā Ħŵü Ęü İù Đþ ĕſėüă In fact, I brought you up from the land of Egypt, I

Ħĕƀčăý Ěăü đ ę üĕĤŰ ÿ øĢĚü ġĤþ Čž þ Ěý Ėĕ
ĀĖĕĜþ Ű ĠĀ Ęø ēžĘÿ ĥø Ĉ Čþ Āđ ĀĖĕĦĕ ŭ ü ďü Ġø ă ęĕďŲ ü čĀ İú redeemed you from the house of bondage, And I
ĊęĄ ĀĕĤø Ěăü đ ěāĤƀ Đú Čÿ ĐŲĥāþ Ĉ ĚąĦČþ sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
The Priestly tradition sees these three figures as siblings, though in the earlier,
non-Priestly texts, Moses is clearly an only child.42 Moreover, Miriam and
Aaron, who are already associated with each other in E, probably began as inde-
pendent figures as well. The core of the extant Miriam tradition – it is impossible
to know what may have been lost43 – seems to be around the Song of the Sea,
when she takes tambourines and leads the women in song and dance.44 This
story may be a retrojection of an Israelite tradition in which women ritually
performed this dance,45 reminiscent of the story of girls dancing in Shiloh
(Judg 21), which likely reflects a similar practice.
41 It may be that the Levites did not begin as a tribe in the ethnic sense, but that the name was
originally a technical term for cultic functionaries, perhaps because they accompany God. Note
that the biblical term for someone who joins the Israelites is a ĐđĘĜ (Isa 14:1, 56:3, 6; Esth 9:27),
from the same root as ĕđĘ. For another suggestion of how the Levites became a tribe, see Mark
Leuchter, “Who Were the Levites?” TheTorah (2017). Leuchter argues here that Moses’s identi-
fication as a Levite is a later development. Rofé, in contrast, believes that the Levites originated
as a tribal group in the Transjordan in the area of Reuben and Gad, and that they served in the
YHWH temple in Nebo (Rofé, “ĐĥĚ ĦėĤč,” 243–49).
42 See discussion in Thomas Dozeman, Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 342–43; Jacob L. Wright, “The Birth of Moses: Between Bible and Midrash,”
TheTorah (2014) and Isaac Sassoon, “Moses, Aaron, and Miriam: Were They Siblings?” TheTorah
(2015).
43 For some thoughts on this question, see Tamar Kamionkowski, “Will the Real Miriam Please
Stand Up?” TheTorah (2015).
44 Cross and Freedman argue that this story began with Miriam and then moved to Moses, as it is
hard to accept that the tradition could have been transferred in the other direction, considering
the prominence of Moses. See Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of
Miriam,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955): 237–50.
45 See Hermann Gunkel, Einleitung die Psalmen: die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels, ed.
Joachim Begrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933), 15–16. But see the critical response
in Samuel E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition, trans. Baruch J. Schwartz
136 Zev I. Farber
Aaron likely originates as the ancestor figure of a group of priests, the

Aaronides. Eventually, Aaron becomes identified as the ancestor of all priests,
just as Moses becomes identified as the leader of all Israel.
How did these three figures come to be associated? First, it is worth noting
that all three are Levites, all three have Egyptian names, and all three play a part
in the story of the exodus from Egypt. Most significantly, though, I would argue,
is the fact that all three have burial sites in the Transjordan: Miriam is buried
in Kadesh, which evidence suggests should be identified with Petra, in the
southern Transjordan.46 Aaron, according to the Elohistic tradition, is buried
in Moserah (Deut 10:6), and according to the Priestly tradition, on Mount Hor
(Num 20:22–28). The latter site is generally identified with Jebel Harun, slightly
south of Petra (the Israelites go south upon leaving Kadesh in order to skirt
Edom), while Moserah, though unidentified, would appear to be nearby.47
Moses, as noted above, is buried either in the valley opposite Peor (E), on
Mount Pisgah (J), or on Mount Abarim (P), (the latter two glossed as Mount
Nebo) all of which are in the same basic area of the Transjordan, namely the
northern mishor, in the Reuben and Gad regions.
Geographically, the burial sites of Aaron and Miriam are in close proximity;
it is likely that both of these figures were venerated by the same group. Moses’s
burial site is significantly farther north, though still in the Transjordan. At a
later stage, these two figures entered the orbit of Moses and his traditions, and
this began to shape the story of the exodus.48
The Deaths of the Siblings Compared

The connection between the three is clear from their burial notices, especially
if one removes the larger narrative expansions.49
(Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992), 256–57. For more on the centrality of women
as dancing in celebration in biblical literature, see Carol Meyers, Exodus. New Cambridge Bible
Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 117–19 (and further bibliography
in the notes there).
46 The question of whether Kadesh and Kadesh-barnea are the same place or different places
is debated. I follow here the view of HaCohen. See David Ben-Gad HaCohen’s Kadesh in the
Pentateuchal Narratives. PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2010; “Locating Be’er-Lahai-
Roi,” TheTorah (2014); and “Solving the Problem of Kadesh in the Wilderness of Paran,” TheTorah
(2015).
47 David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “Why Deuteronomy Has an Account of Aaron’s Death in the Wrong
Place,” TheTorah (2015).
48 Clearly, in this merger, Miriam lost the most and Moses came out as the most significant of the
three. A feminist critique would not be out of place here, but the outcome may also have to do
with the relative strength of the Moses groups in comparison with the Aaron and Miriam group.
49 It is possible that this early layer represents a much shorter and more ancient core of narratives
Numbers 20:1 Numbers 20:22–29 Deuteronomy 34:1–8

Đďſ Ā İý ĐąĘ Āƃ ėĀă ĘČý ĤĀ ĥĉ ø ĕąĕĄü ƒ ýĜčø đă Čāčž Āň ÿđ ąĕĄ ýĜ čø đă Č āčƂ Āň ÿđ ĥĈ ďŭ ý ģă Ā Ěü đă İŲ ĝø üň ÿđ Ĥčý ģă Ā üň ÿđ* . . . ĐƂĥāþ Ĉ Ě ęĥĀ Ÿ Ĉ ĦĚĀ ňĀƃ ÿđ
čĥƀþ Ĉ ýň ÿđ ěŖĥČ
Ű Ĉ ĤĄü ĐĀ ĥĈ ďþ āēž čăÿ ěƑ üĢąĤčăÿ ďø Ěü . . . ĤĄĐĀ ĐĀ ĤāĐƀ ĐďŲ Ā İý ĐąĘ Ā ėĀă ĘŷČý ĤĀ ĥĉ ø üĕ Ħĕžčăý ĘăđĚŲ čČŖĚ Ű Ā ġĤþ Čž þ čăø ĕƑø Ďă ÿ čÿ ŖĦāſ Č
ęĕĀŰ Ĥø Ěü ęƑ ĥĀ Ĉ ĦĚſĀ ĦăĀ ÿđ ĥĈ ďŭ ý ģĀ čăø ęŲİĀ ĐĀ . . . ĤŭĐĀ ĐĀ ĥČ Ĉ āĤž čăø ęŲĥĀ Ĉ ěāĤŷ Đú Čÿ ĦĚĀ Ƃ Āň ÿđ ĘƂČý ĤĀ ĥĉ ø üĕ ĕĜý ƃ čø đƓă ėă čüň
ø ÿđ . . . ĤŖİŭ Ġø ă
Ċęĥ Ą Ā Ĉ ĤŲčý ģă Ā Ħăü ÿđ ęŖŰĕ ęĕĥāž ü Ĉ Ęĥø Ĉ ěƑ āĤĐú ČąĦ
ÿ ČĄ þ đă ėſă čüňø ÿđ čČŖĚ
ŲĀ Ħāčƀ ĤĄø İÿ čăø Đ ĥā ŷ þ Ĉ ĚąĦ Čþ
ĊĘĄČý ĤĀ ĥĉ ø üĕ Ħĕƀčăý Ęėā ăŲ . . . ęŖŭĕ ęĕĥāž ü Ĉ Ęĥø Ĉ
The Israelites arrived in Setting out from And Moses died there . . .
a body at the wilder- Kadesh, the Israelites and *was buried50 in
ness of Zin on the first arrived in a body at the valley in the land of
new moon, and the Mount Hor . . . and Moab, near Beth-peor . . .
people stayed at Kadesh. Aaron died there and the Israelites
Miriam died there and on the summit of bewailed Moses in the
was buried there. the mountain . . . All steppes of Moab for
the house of Israel thirty days . . .
bewailed Aaron thirty
days.
In his To Take Place, Jonathan Z. Smith discusses how in many cultures,
especially tribal cultures which do not rely on writing, geography is the way
ancient tales are concretized. The local tribes “recall the ancestral deeds and
experience the ancestor’s continued presence” through the various holy sites
associated with them.51
Applying this idea to Israelite mnemohistory, tribes who identified as Israelite
in the Transjordan, visiting these holy sites and telling stories about the heroes
buried there, could have woven together one overarching narrative that would
include all three figures. In other words, as the story of Israel’s exodus from
Egypt began to take root, whether because of a core of refugees that escaped to
the Transjordan or as a reaction to Egypt’s disappearance as a regional power,
it was only natural to connect these local holy figures with the story.
upon which the Priestly Text was built. For a contemporary defense of this view, see David
Frankel’s Murmuring Stories, which is dedicated to reconstructing pieces of this ancient Priestly
text.
50 The verb was originally in niphal form, Ĥčý ģăĀ ĕă ü ÿđ “he was buried,” as it is in the text describing the
death and burial of Miriam. Once the verb was misread as a qal, this brought along with it the
scribal addition of the accusative “him.” 4QDeut1 reads đĤčģĕđ , in the plural, as does the LXX,
ἔθαψαν, i.e., “they buried him.” This differs from the singular used by Miriam, and may be a
late adjustment to avoid the implication that YHWH buried Moses. This latter idea is a natural
solution to the problem faced by the redactor of who buried Moses: if he went up the mountain
alone and the location of his grave is therefore unknown.
51 Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1987), 12.
138 Zev I. Farber
Moses Conquers the Cisjordan . . . in Spirit
Thus far, we have discussed how a local Transjordanian holy man came to be
connected with the exodus story, and with other local holy people, whose burial
places and, likely, regional centers, were further south. We must still ask: how
does the Moses tradition cross the Jordan?
Here I think we can isolate a few important clues.
In the twelfth century, Israelites began settling the Cisjordanian hill country,
and, by the tenth century, a short-lived kingdom of Israel was established there
(though it extended farther in all directions).52 We have no contemporary
sources from this period to tell us what this group called itself, but, by the next
century, sources tell us that the kingdom of Omri – the first Israelite king of
whom we know from outside sources – is known as Israel.53 Since this is also
a term used by Merenptah, it is likely that it was used by the settlers from the
beginning, and that it was certainly used by the United Monarchy.
Second, the exodus tradition begins to take hold among Cisjordanians (tenth/
ninth c. BCE). It is unclear whether this would have occurred as a consequence
of the adoption of the Israelite identity among the Cisjordanians, or whether
this was a factor in that very process, but with the adoption of the exodus story,
a common mnemohistory was formed.
The adoption of the exodus story and the person of Moses as leader required
the Cisjordanians to merge their own stories into this rubric. One particularly
consequential example of this process was the merger of the stories of Moses
and Joshua. Joshua begins as a local military leader in the Heres region of
Ephraim.54 To create one storyline, Joshua is moved into the wilderness period,
with a backstory of him having been the young protégé of Moses. Thus, although
Moses does not end up as a conqueror of the Cisjordan, he receives a vicarious
connection to this account through his relationship with Joshua.55
52 Some scholars debate whether such a kingdom ever existed, and argue that David and Solomon
simply ruled a small “proto-Judah” in the south. See, for example, Israel Finkelstein and Neil
Asher Silberman, David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the
Western Tradition (New York: Free Press, 2006). Nevertheless, other scholars still see the evi-
dence for a United Monarchy as strong. See, for instance, William G. Dever, Beyond the Texts,
An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2017), 259–382.
53 Specifically, Mesha in the inscription and Shalmaneser III in his account of the battle of Qarqar
(Kurkh Stela). Both texts date to the reign of Omri’s son, Ahab.
54 See Zev I. Farber, “Timnat Heres and the Origins of the Joshua Tradition,” in The Book of Joshua,
ed. Ed Noort. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250. Proceedings of the
Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2010), 301–11.
55 For a different reconstruction of Joshua’s beginnings and how he becomes connected with Moses,
see Alexander Rofé, “ĦĕČĤģĚĐ ĦĤđĝĚĐ ĦđďĘđĦč ěđĜ ěč ĞĥđĐĕ” Tarbiẓ 73.3 (2004): 333–64. Rofé believes
As the exodus gains in importance it becomes central to certain Israelite
practices such as Pesach, where a once apotropaic ritual becomes a reenactment
of God slaying the Egyptian firstborn and saving the Israelite firstborn.56 Over
time, the covenant itself is framed as deriving from the relationship YHWH
forges with Israel as their savior.
On a parallel track, Israelite mnemohistory becomes more robust with the
combination of the exodus story with the wilderness-wandering story. It has
long been noted that these two explanations of Israel’s origin do not necessarily
work together. One claims that God found Israel in the wilderness and brought
them into God’s land, and the other, that God found them as slaves in Egypt,
freed them, and brought them to God’s land.57 The idea that God finds them
in Egypt, brings them to the wilderness where they wander for decades, and
then brings them into the land is cumbersome, and best explained as the result
of combining traditions.
Once these two traditions were combined, Moses became, ipso facto, the
leader in both accounts, thus expanding his reach. This is extremely significant
for the emergence of what becomes Moses’s most significant role in Israelite
religious thinking: as lawgiver. Over time, the entire corpus of Israelite laws is
projected back into the wilderness period and associated with Sinai or Horeb
(depending on the tradition), and, thus, Moses.
Summary: The Emergence of Israel’s Ultimate

Leader from his Transjordanian Roots
The character of Moses went through a number of transformations before

he took his place as the greatest prophet of YHWH and the lawgiver for all
Israelites. Despite the Cisjordan becoming Israel’s main territory, all sources
that Joshua began as a holy man, not a military leader, and that in one tradition it is actually
Joshua, not Moses, who takes Israel out of Egypt.
56 This has been suggested by a number of scholars. See, e.g., Propp, Exodus 1–18, 434–39; Diana
Edelman, “Exodus and Pesah-Massot as Evolving Social Memory,” in Remembering (and
Forgetting) in Judah’s Early Second Temple Period, ed. Christoph Levin and Ehud Ben Zvi.
Forschungen zum Alten Testament 85 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 161–93; Kristine Garroway,
“The Origins of the Biblical Pesach,” TheTorah (2015); Zev I. Farber, “Israelite Festivals: From
Cyclical Time Celebrations to Linear Time Commemorations,” Religions 10.5 [Special Issue:
Archaeology and Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Avraham Faust] (2019): 1–19, esp. 15–16.
57 This idea played an important role in the work of Martin Noth (A History of Pentateuchal
Traditions), who identified various tradition-historical “themes” that were combined to create
the narrative framework of Israelite historiography. For a recent discussion of the distinct nature
of the wilderness theme in contrast to that of the exodus, see David Frankel, “Exodus: Not the
Only Tradition about Israel’s Past,” TheTorah (2015).
140 Zev I. Farber
agree that it was in the Transjordan where Moses met his fate and died. It is
only because of persistent traditions such as this that we have any ability to
reconstruct who Moses may have been before he became the leader of all
Israel, YHWH’s mouthpiece for communicating divine law, and the greatest
prophet of all time, the like of whom “has never and will never come again”
(Deut 34:10).

Moses The Transjordanian Prophet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moses The Transjordanian Prophet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moses the Transjordanian Prophet

Author(s): Zev I. Farber

Retrieval of Ancient Sacerdotal Lore. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill,

An Alternative Version of Moses’s Sin (D and J)

The Sin of the Spies: Explaining the

Conquest from the Transjordan

Because the idea of a conquest coming from the Transjordan is so entrenched

sharpened if we also take an etiological/mnemohistorical approach, and sug-

Moses: A Transjordanian Holy Man Turned Conqueror

Nebo, the YHWH Temple, and the Mesha Inscription

In addition to these points, biblical evidence comes together with extra-biblical

ďĎă Ā čĕēü Ĥø Ěÿ Ėăø đĤčă Ā Blessed be He who enlarges Gad!

29 See Rofé, “ĐĥĚ ĦėĤč.”

Moses and the Exodus: The Development of the Moses Tradition

Moses and His Transjordanian Siblings

Ƒ Ā Ħŵü Ęü İù Đþ ĕſėüă In fact, I brought you up from the land of Egypt, I

Aaron likely originates as the ancestor figure of a group of priests, the

The Deaths of the Siblings Compared

Numbers 20:1 Numbers 20:22–29 Deuteronomy 34:1–8

Moses Conquers the Cisjordan . . . in Spirit

Summary: The Emergence of Israel’s Ultimate

The character of Moses went through a number of transformations before

You might also like