At the beginning of Vayikra (Leviticus) I wrote about how the sons of Aharon (Aaron) claimed the exclusive rights to the priesthood at a fairly late date. Throughout the monarchial period it appears that the Levites were the preferred priests, and it's only in the very late works, such as Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles) that the Kohanim are explicitly defined as the sons of Aharon. One of the stories this later group wrote is this account of the rebellion of Korach. Korach was a Levite who challenged Aharon's claim of high priesthood. His rejection symbolizes that only Aharon's children have a valid claim to the priesthood. His rebellion was joined to an earlier rebellion narrative by Datan and Aviram who were challenging Moshe's (Moses) leadership role. In this post, I will demonstrate that the rebellion of Korach was added on to a previous rebellion story of Datan and Aviram and was meant to discredit a rival Levite group.
What Can We Learn from the Rest of Tanach
If you've been reading a lot of posts on this blog, you'll probably know that I really like searching through Tanach for clues about how specific people or events are described in other locations. First we'll look for Datan and Aviram. They only appear in two places in Tanach outside of this parsha. First in Devarim, (Deuteronomy), Moshe is recounting various miraculous events to the Israelites that occurred from the Exodus until this point. One of them is (Deut 11:6):
and what He did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben; how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and every living substance that followed them, in the midst of all IsraelThat is all that is said of the matter. The second reference is from Tehillim (Psalms). Psalm 106 is a recounting of various wilderness stories, specifically ones of rebellion. Here's what it has to say on this matter (Ps 106:16-18)
16 They were jealous also of Moses in the camp, and of Aaron the holy one of the LORD.The account in Devarim only mentions a rebellion against Moshe and only specifies Datan and Aviram. In Tehillim, there is specific rebellion against Aharon too, but in both mentions of the rebellion, Korach is absent. Also of interest is that the ordering of Psalm 106 contradicts the Torah, with the golden calf story appearing after this rebellion. But that's off topic so we won't pursue it.
17 The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram.
18 And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.
So, what about Korach? Where else does he appear? There are two types of places where Korach is mentioned in the Tanach. The first place is in genealogical lists. These are not too interesting, they basically all agree that Korach was a descendent of Levi. There's also a Korach who was a descendent of Esav (Esau) but that's probably not the same person, unless it's a much later attempt to smear the name.
The second place Korach is found is slightly more interesting. There are several psalms, 11 in all, that are attributed to the "sons of Korach." These are 42, 44-49, 84, 85, 87, 88. These psalms are pretty much standard psalm fare, but you can read them if you are interested. What these psalms tell us, is that there was a group who claimed descendence from Korach who were powerful enough that the psalms they wrote were recorded for posterity, and eventually included in the biblical canon. In other words, this looks like evidence for a possible rival priestly group to the descendents of Aharon.
The Original Stories
The original story of the rebellion did not mention Korach at all, it was a rebellion against Moshe by Datan and Aviram. As in the story of Joseph and the pit, we'll separate out this story, specifically chapter 16, into its independent strand.
1b Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; 2a and they rose up in face of Moses. 12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; and they said: 'We will not come up; 13 is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us? 14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.' 25 And Moses rose up and went unto Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 And he spoke unto the congregation, saying: 'Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be swept away in all their sins.' 27b and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood at the door of their tents, with their wives, and their sons, and their little ones. 28 And Moses said: 'Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works, and that I have not done them of mine own mind. 29 If these men die the common death of all men, and be visited after the visitation of all men, then the LORD hath not sent Me. 30 But if the LORD make a new thing, and the ground open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down alive into the pit, then ye shall understand that these men have despised the LORD.' 31 And it came to pass, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground did cleave asunder that was under them. 32a And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households. 33 So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit; and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the assembly. 34 And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them; for they said: 'Lest the earth swallow us up.'This is where the story ends. This particular strand continues with the messengers to Edom in Chapter 20. The second story is a subversion of the first one. Datan and Aviram are missing, instead it's a rebellion against Aharon led by Korach. We'll look at this strand now.
1a Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, 2b [and] two hundred and fifty men; they were princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown; 3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?' 4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face. 5 And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him. 6 This do: take you censors, Korah, and all his company; 7 and put fire therein, and put incense upon them before the LORD to-morrow; and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy; ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.' 8 And Moses said unto Korah: 'Hear now, ye sons of Levi: 9 is it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the service of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them; 10 and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood also? 11 Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together against the LORD--; and as to Aaron, what is he that ye murmur against him? 15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.' 16 And Moses said unto Korah: 'Be thou and all thy congregation before the LORD, thou, and they, and Aaron, to-morrow; 17 and take ye every man his fire-pan, and put incense upon them, and bring ye before the LORD every man his fire-pan, two hundred and fifty fire-pans; thou also, and Aaron, each his fire-pan.' 18 And they took every man his fire-pan, and put fire in them, and laid incense thereon, and stood at the door of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron. 19 And Korah assembled all the congregation against them unto the door of the tent of meeting; and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation. 20 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: 21 'Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.' 22 And they fell upon their faces, and said: 'O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation?' 23 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 24 'Speak unto the congregation, saying: Get you up from about the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.' 27a So they got them up from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side, 32b and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. 35 And fire came forth from the LORD, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men that offered the incense.I don't necessarily expect you to read it in full, but perhaps your interest will pique you to. If you did read it, you'll notice that I italicized two references to Datan and Aviram that appear to intrude on the Korach story. They are somewhat out of place here. However, instead of being a problem for the two-story theory, it's actually explained very nicely. These names are absent in the Septuagint version [1]. As I've said in previous posts, the Septuagint was based off a version of the Torah different from the Masoretic text. When we see revisions like this, where names appear where they are out of place, and they are absent in the Septuagint version, we can somewhat safely assume that these were a very late addition to the text, one that only appears in some versions.
Is it just a coincidence that the stories can be split so neatly between two separate narratives? Is it a coincidence that the early stories of the rebellion only mention Datan and Aviram, and describe an earthquake but make no mention of Korach, or a divine fire? Is it just a coincidence that this story so conveniently gives justification for the divine selection of Aharon over what appeared to be a rival priestly group led by the descendents of Korach?
How to Claim Divine Right
This story represents a good example of how to claim exclusive divine right to a particular lofty position. This works for the original story of Dathan and Aviram in which the supporters of Moshe come out on the winning side, possibly over people from Reuven, a tribe the completely fades from importance by the time of the stories in Shoftim. It also works for the story of Korach where the priesthood became the exclusive right of the descendents of Aharon over other Levites.
How do you do it? You invent a story in the distant past in which people challenged the authority of your particular clan and were rebuffed by God himself. You obviously can't do it in the present, because it's impossible to ask God for a current miracle, you must invent a past justification that can't be easily checked. The story of Korach goes a step further, it also indicates that if you worship God and you were not the specific people who God chose, or if you don't worship in the specific way that God wants, then he will kill you. There are other stories that bring the same point home. For example, the first two sons of Aharon are killed by God for offering incense incorrectly (Lev 10:1-7).
Good post!
ReplyDeleteWhat we're looking at in this week's parsha is essentially the Ancient Near East's version of the internet. I'm an Aharonite priest feuding with the Levites, so I grab a quill and post derogatory rumors about my competitors. Tzvi Brettler (How To Read The Bible) said it best: traditional reading of the Torah is like opening the newspaper to the editorial section or comics and reading them like news! Clearly this week's parsha is an editorial (or possibly comics!) and in no way a historical account.
This was very well written. I haven't looked into all of the nitty gritty details of the DH, but the way the Korah episode is unraveled here seems to be a knockout punch regarding the composite nature of the Torah. I especially loved the point that you brought from the Septuagint, thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteTwo things I wondered about, that I was hoping you could clarify. I think you wrote about this before, or at least I've heard it said, that there was a rivalry in ancient Israel between levites descended from Moshe as opposed to those of Aharon. Are the descendants of Korach a third rival group?
Do you have anything to add about the verse that appears later, "the sons of Korah did not die" (ובני קורח לא מתו)? Who wrote that, the redactor?
I actually don't think there is a smoking gun at all, just a lot of little pieces of information that reflect the very human thoughts and failings of the Torah's authors.
DeleteOn that note thanks for pointing out the verses in chapter 26. I neglected to mention them, and I almost definitely should have (I might edit it in later this weekend when I have a moment.) Friedman attributes 26:9b-11 to the redactor and notes that these verses break the narrative of the census. He's right that the verses are a bit out of place, but in my opinion, anytime you have to attribute verses to a redactor, you weaken the DH theory. In many ways, this is why I think DH tends to make too broad of a claim. The actual reality of composition is probably a lot more messy. As for why it specifies that Korach's sons live. That's probably necessary if there was knowledge that Korach's descendents were still alive after that point.
As far as the Korachites being a third group, I'm not sure that I would consider them as such. They were clearly a Levite group, probably one of many who were displaced by the descendents of Aharon. They may have been slightly more powerful than other groups, but we don't really know much about them. If there was any positive information recorded about them, it has since been excised.
@ Kefirah another good post.
ReplyDeleteI think the Book Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman gets into a discussion about intertribal rivalries (North vs South Israel) and the Kohanim vs Leviam rivalry and how it shapes the Torah.
Kefirah discussed the Big Exodus vs the Small Exodus someplace. Maybe these separate traditions may have been part of the North vs South traditions, but gets rolled up into one big mess in the Torah’s final redaction.
This is where you have to be really careful about taking claims made by specific scholars and stating them as fact. Friedman makes very specific claims about the E source, namely that its a group of Shiloh priests who were pissed off at not being asked to officiate at either of the northern kingdom shrines at Dan and Bethel. He bases this entirely on the polemic nature of the golden calf narrative, which he attributes to E (along with many others.) Friedman goes way too far, and the vast majority of other scholars would say this is simplistic and is drawing far too grand conclusions from far to sparse data. I agree with them. If you focus on some other story of E, you might come up with a different idea of who wrote it. E might not even be a coherent narrative altogether. It is the most tenuous of the 4 sources.
DeleteAnyway, the point is, that as I've done research on this topic I've noticed the tendency of a lot of people to overstate claims. It's endemic in biblical studies. It is also completely counter to how physics works, and it's somewhat galling to me how brazenly many people do it.
Cocker, is there a way to contact you or comment on your blog besides hijacking Keffira's comment section?
DeleteI like your post this week and here's my comment: (I hope Kefira doesn't mind)
Great topic Cocker!
It sounds to me like the most encouraging outcome of these studies is that religion does have a positive effect on those members of society with lowest level of social and moral functioning. In that case, thank god for those people having religion!
This probably ties well with Zuckerman's theory that atheists are intrinsically moral while religious people are inherently immoral, and thus need religion to keep them in check. I like this podcast where he says it well
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/phil_zuckerman_those_normal_upstanding_nonbelievers/:
Are there other examples of priestly rivalry manifesting itself in the Tanach?
ReplyDeleteIs there any evidence as to the nature of the dispute between the Aaronites and the Korachites other than this story?Do the psalms attributed to the sons of Korach assist in dating it or is this just evidence of sloppy editing/ limited editorial reach by the Aaronites?
Many thanks.
Avi, I wrote a little about the dispute here: http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/03/whos-kohen.html
DeleteI wouldn't exactly call it "sloppy editing" by the supporters of Aaron. It's more that they weren't responsible for the compilation of the Tanach. And when that did occur, the person (redactor) was much more interested in preserving as complete a document as he possibly could. This meant that a lot of contradictory stuff was preserved side by side. There's a second "redaction" that occurs much later at the time of the Talmud where some of the books are deemed apocryphal and removed. Stuff like Enoch and Jubilees.
A lot of the priestly wars would be highly speculative if it wasn't for Chronicles. The book of Chronicles is a clear rewriting of the History books, mainly Kings but with some stuff earlier. If you look where Chronicles differs from the other histories, you'll find that one of the main differences is that Chronicles repeatedly refers to the descendents of Aaron as being priests, whereas Joshua-Kings never mentions that. Chronicles fashions a pedigree for Zadok and claims he's a descendent of Aaron. That history is missing in Samuel. Likely, if they had their way, the older history would have been forgotten and only their history would have survived. Unfortunately for them, the other history was preserved by some later group, and both made it through the canonization process. This way, it's pretty clear what exactly was going on with the revisions.
As far as when the Korach group was active, I have no clue. There isn't enough information. It's possible that it was just a name that was dredged up as a foil for the Aaron supporters. It's possible that the group was around at the time they were writing.