Moses is Too Old (E)

A straightforward explanation for why Moses dies before Israel has entered the land is provided at the end of Deuteronomy, which says simply that Moses was too old to lead the people in the battles they would face:[1]

In this passage, which scholars attribute to the Elohistic source (E) and see as part of E’s ending of the Torah,[3] Moses is not being punished; it is merely time for a new, younger leader.

You are viewing: Why Didn’t Moses Enter The Promised Land

Moses Punished For the Spies Incident (D)

A different explanation appears in Moses’ opening speech in Deuteronomy. He recounts how the Israelites sent spies to explore the land that YHWH was giving to them, but when the spies returned, the people refused to enter the land for fear of the Amorites who lived there:

YHWH’s anger over this incident leads to the punishment of both the Israelites and Moses:

בִּגְלַלְכֶם

Because of you

That Moses is punished for the people’s wrongdoing, rather than because of Moses’ own failure, is a recurring theme in the Deuteronomic source (D). Moses describes how he pleaded with YHWH for a reprieve and was rebuffed:

לְמַעַנְכֶם

on your account

He subsequently accepts that he will die without entering the promised land:

עַל דִּבְרֵיכֶם

on your account

Moses and Aaron Punished for Strifewater (P)

Read more : Why Is Georgia Called The Peach State

Another set of passages provides a third answer, and specifically includes Aaron in the ban. When the Israelites quarrel with Moses and Aaron at מֵי מְרִיבָה (me meribah), “Strifewater,” YHWH instructs Moses and Aaron to gather the people and speak to the rock so that they can witness Him providing water for them. Moses and Aaron instead strike the rock, and they are punished for that infraction:[4]

This explanation, attributed by scholars to the Priestly source (P), appears again at two key points in the narrative. YHWH reminds Moses and Aaron of the incident when Aaron dies:

He also reminds Moses just before Moses’ own death, when he is standing within sight of the promised land:

Another version of this scene, also attributed to P, appears at the end of Deuteronomy. YHWH commands Moses to ascend the heights of Abarim to Mount Nebo so that he can view the land, and He then declares:

Comparing the Explanations

In sum, E simply attributes the fact that Moses never entered the land to his age. D and P, on the other hand, both treat the ban as a punishment, with several features in common:

Reason – In both sources, the ban is punishment due to wrongdoing.

Description – Both sources refer to disloyalty and disobedience.

Disloyalty: In P, YHWH describes the wrongdoing as “you did not show loyalty to me” (לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי: Num 20:12). In D, Moses describes it as “you are not showing loyalty to your God YHWH” (אֵינְכֶם מַאֲמִינִם בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם: Deut 1:32).

Disobedience: D defines the wrongdoing as מרה אֶת פִּי יְ־הוָה, “disobeying YHWH’s command” (Deut 1:26; 9:23), while P has מרה אֶת פִּי, “disobeying My command” (Num 20:24; מרה פִּי in Num 27:17).[6]

Location Name – Both sources place the wrongdoing in a location with the element “Kadesh” in its name: Kadesh Barnea in D (Deut 1:19; 9:23) and Strifewater at Kadesh in P (Num 27:14; Deut 32:51; and see Num 20:1, 13, 14).[7]

Despite these similarities, however, the two explanations are substantially different:

Nature of the wrongdoing – In D, the misdeed is the Israelites’ refusal to enter the promised land during the spies’ incident, while in P, it is Moses’ and Aaron’s violation in the production of water at Strifewater.

Who is punished – In D, YHWH punishes all the people, including Moses (but Aaron is not mentioned), while P describes a punishment of Moses and Aaron only.

Read more : Why Did Artists Of The Renaissance Rely On Mathematical Formulas

YHWH’s reaction – Whereas D emphasizes that YHWH was angry (using three different words for “anger”), none of the P passages say such a thing. This difference fits the Priestly source’s overall tendency not to attribute emotions to God.

Samaritan Pentateuch: A Blended Narrative

To smooth over the difference between the Priestly and Deuteronomic explanations for Moses’ ban from the promised land, the Samaritan Pentateuch inserts, with slight changes, one of the relevant Deuteronomic passages (Deut 3:23-28) at the end of the Priestly explanation (Num 20:13):[8]

As in the Masoretic Text, the narrative then turns to an account of Moses contacting the king of Edom to ask permission for the Israelites to cross his territory:[9]

The same combination of Numbers 20:13 with material from Deuteronomy 3:23-28 is found in 4QNumb, a Jewish scroll of the book of Numbers from the Herodian era, demonstrating that this harmonization existed already in the Second Temple period.[10]

Psalm 106: Harmonizing D and P

We also see harmonization of the Priestly and Deuteronomic explanations in the biblical text that we are familiar with:

The setting of “Strifewater” is certainly taken from P (Num 20:13, 24; 27:14; Deut 32:51). The wording וַיַּקְצִיפוּ, “they provoked wrath,” however, is absent there and instead recalls D, which says that YHWH “became wrathful” (וַיִּקְצֹף: Deut 1:34).

That “Moses suffered (וַיֵּרַע) on their account” could mean the Israelites’ quarreling was unpleasant for Moses, as in the Priestly backstory (Num 20:2-6, 10). This would reflect a straightforward interpretation of the qal verb וַיֵּרַע (as it is pointed in the Masoretic Text) with the preposition ל, which means “it was upsetting for.”[11] Alternatively, Moses’ suffering could refer to his being punished by YHWH on the Israelites’ account,[12] as stated in all three D passages. This interpretation works better, however, if the verb is vocalized as hifil וַיָּרַע, which means “to harm,”[13] as reflected in the Peshitta’s translation.[14]

The next verse also carries double meanings that fit both the Deuteronomic and Priestly explanations:

Who “rebelled” (הִמְרוּ) against whose spirit? The description could apply either to the people rebelling against YHWH,[15] as in D (Deut 1:26; 9:23; cf. 1:43; 9:7; 31:27),[16] or to them rebelling against Moses,[17] as in P (Num 20:10). It might even describe Moses and Aaron rebelling against YHWH,[18] as in P (Num 20:24; 27:14).[19]

Finally, the phrase וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו, “he issued with his lips,” is unclear. The expression could mean to utter a vow (see Lev 5:4; Num 30:7, 9), thus referring to YHWH vowing that Moses will not enter the land,[20] as in D (Deut 4:21; cf. 1:34; 2:14). It could also mean to speak impulsively (see Prov 12:18), in which case the phrase would refer to Moses calling the Israelites rebels,[21] as in P (Num 20:10).

Thus, the two-verse passage in Psalm 106 contains a series of three ambiguous statements, each of which can be interpreted to match either the Deuteronomic or the Priestly explanation of Moses’ ban from the promised land. It is hard to see these ambiguities as anything other than an intentional effort to incorporate two conflicting traditions in one text. I call this “harmonistic ambiguity.”[22]

Preserving Multiple Traditions

The Torah offers three different answers to the question of why Moses did not enter the promised land. E’s explanation is brief and inconspicuous. The other two, D’s and P’s, are more elaborate and conflict with each other more noticeably. The conflict between these latter two answers troubled some biblical authors and scribes, who produced two attempts that we know of to harmonize them. The first—preserved in the Jewish Second Temple scroll 4QNumb and in the Samaritan Pentateuch—combines the two answers by placing them side by side.

The second, in Psalm 106:32-33, presents a new text, which, by means of carefully crafted ambiguities, incorporates both answers in the same words. These attempts show how remarkable it is that the Bible could include many different points of view in the first place and how fortunate we are for this richness.

Source: https://t-tees.com
Category: WHY