Ironing Out Israel’s Itinerary Through the Transjordan

The itinerary notes in Numbers 21 is a hodgepodge of styles and directions. Nevertheless, once we isolate each style, we find three separate itinerary lists, each from one of the standard Pentateuchal sources.

The Itinerary List (Numbers 33) and Itinerary Notes (Exodus and Numbers)

Israel’s itinerary during their trip through wilderness appears in two places in the Torah:

The Itinerary Notes– brief itinerary notations appear intermittently in the books of Exodus and Numbers.^[1]
The Itinerary List – a continuous list—almost uniformly formulated—appears in Numbers (33:3–37, 41–49).

These lists differ sharply.^[2]

Little Overlap with Itinerary List

Although in many places, the two itineraries overlap significantly, in their description of the route in the Transjordan from Kadesh to the steppes of Moab, they are quite different and have little overlap. Of the twenty two sites mentioned in the two parallel itineraries of the Israelite journey from Kadesh to the steppes of Moab, only five sites are common to both the itinerary list and the itinerary notes,^[3] while seventeen sites appear only in one description, and not in the other.^[4]

Three Style Variations

The itinerary notes in Numbers 21 are not unified stylistically, and show three main styles (with some variation):

Two-Toponym Long Form

וַיִּסְעוּ מִ_____ וַֽיַּחֲנוּ בְּ_______

They set out from X and encamped at Y

This style uses mentions both a starting point and an encampment point, and utilizes both journeying and encamping verbs. This is the same formula as used uniformly in the itinerary list of Numbers 33.

One-Toponym Long Form

מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַֽיַּחֲנוּ בְּ_______

From there they set out and encamped at Y

This style mentions only one toponym by name, that of the encampment site, using the locution “from there” in place of naming the starting point. Like the previous formula, this style uses both journeying and encamping verbs.

Short Form

וּמִ______ ________
(או: וּמִשָּׁ֖ם ________)

From X, Y
(or: From there Y)

This style uses a concise formulation with no verbs. Notably, this style sometimes references the starting point by name and sometimes just with the locution “from there.”

How are we to understand the appearance of three distinct styles in this passage? As noted by Amitai Baruchi-Unna of Hebrew University, each of these styles has parallels in Assyrian texts.^[5] Nevertheless, Assyrian inscriptions never mix styles. Instead, each scribe chose the style he found suitable, and adhered to it throughout the inscription. The appearance of three different styles in Numbers 21, therefore, implies the involvement of more than one hand in its composition.

Supplementary vs. Documentary Approach

One approach, favored by the Bible scholar, Angela Roskop Erisman, is to argue that a core text has been supplemented, and that the mixture of styles in these notes is a result of two later redactions by different scribes, each of which utilized a different style.^[6]The itinerary list of Numbers 33, in her view, is a secondary compilation, based on the notes in Numbers 20-21 before they were supplemented, with the addition of sites that appear in Joshua and in Deuteronomy, and purposely reconstituted in one dominant style (as opposed to the hodgepodge of styles in the notes).^[7]

Another approach, which I find more persuasive, is to explain the discontinuity as a result not of multiple redactions of a core text but of multiple sources spliced together and compiled into one text. In fact, I believe we can isolate three complete, separate itineraries here, each of which can be connected to one of the core sources in the Documentary Hypothesis: E, J, and P.^[8]

1. The Sihon Account Journey

The war of Sihon is described in extensive detail in three places:

The narrative in Numbers (21:21–30).
Moses’ retelling of it in Deuteronomy (2:24b–36).
Jephthah the Gileadite’s use of it in the “history lesson” he gives the king of the Ammonites (Judg 11:19–22).

These descriptions differ,^[9] but their basic message is the same: the Israelite camp sent a delegation to the Amorite king Sihon to ask permission to pass though his country. Sihon refuses, and gathers his army to war against Israel. The battle is waged at Yahatz; Israel prevails, and takes possession of Sihon’s land.^[10]

The war with Sihon is situated within the context of a journey through the Transjordan, which is mentioned three times:

List in Deuteronomy

List in Judges (Jephthah’s Speech)

List in Numbers 21

1. Kadesh (Deut 1:46),

2. The wilderness journey by way of the Sea of Reeds (Deut 2:1^a),

3. The journey around the hill country of Seir (Deut 2:1b),

4. The journey from the road of the Arabah, away from Elath and Ezion-gaber (Deut 2:8a),

5. Through the wilderness of Moab (Deut 2:8b),

6. Wadi Zered (v. 13),

7. Wadi Arnon (v. 24^a^α),

8. The wilderness of Kedemoth (v. 26a),

9. Yahatz (v. 32).

1. Kadesh,

2. The journey in the wilderness around the land of Edom

3. To the east of Moab,

4. The Arnon,

5. Yahatz (Judg 11:17–20).

1. Kadesh (Num 20:14, 16),

2. The journey by way of the Sea of Reeds around the land of Edom (21:4^a^β),

3. The journey in the wilderness to the east of Moab (21:11^b^β),

4. Wadi Zered (v. 12),

5. Wadi Arnon (v. 13a),

6. Yahatz (v. 23).

These three lists are likely based on a core list, which was expanded, contracted, and/or adjusted over time such that we now have three versions of it. As it appears in Numbers 20-21, this list makes use of the One-Toponym Long-Form style:

מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּנַחַל זָרֶד

From there they set out and encamped at the Zered Stream.

מִשָּׁם נָסָעוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ מֵעֵבֶר אַרְנוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמִּדְבָּר הַיֹּצֵא מִגְּבֻל הָאֱמֹרִי

From there they set out and encamped beyond the Arnon, that is, in the wilderness that extends from the territory of the Amorites.

E and Israel's Conquest of Sihon's Territory

This itinerary is that of the E text, according to which the Israelites leave Kadesh, avoiding Edom and Moab. After crossing Wadi Arnon, they head west, avoiding Ammon, and ending up in the territory of Sihon, king of the Amorites. After refusing them passage, Sihon musters his troops, the Israelites defeat him in battle near Yahatz, and his land becomes the possession of the tribes of Reuben and Gad.^[11]

2. The Itinerary List Journey

The itinerary list in Num 33 offers the following itinerary for the journey in the Transjordan:

Kadesh,
Mount Hor,
Zalmonah,
Punon,
Oboth,
Iye-abarim,
Dibon-gad,
Almon-diblathaim,
The hills of Abarim,
The steppes of Moab (Num 33:37–49).

Only Kadesh is common to this route and to the “Sihon Account Journey.”

Overlap in Itinerary Notes

Four of the stations in the “Itinerary List Journey” appear in the same order also in the Itinerary Notes of Num 20–22:

Kadesh (20:22),
Mount Hor (20:22–27; 21:4),
Oboth (21:10–11),
Iye-abarim (21:11).

Thus, these four stations reflect a conception of a journey similar to that of the Itinerary List in Numbers 33, and make use of the Two-Toponym Long Form, the style used by the Assyrian annals for military campaigns:^[12]

וַיִּסְעוּ מִקָּדֵשׁ וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל הָעֵדָה הֹר הָהָר…
וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהֹר הָהָר… וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּאֹבֹת
וַיִּסְעוּ מֵאֹבֹת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּעִיֵּי הָעֲבָרִים

Setting out from Kadesh, the Israelites arrived in a body at Mount Hor.
Setting out from Mount Hor… they encamped at Obot. Setting out from Obot, they encamped at Iyei HaAbarim.

P's Itinerary List

All the verses in the Torah that use the Two-Toponym Long Form^[13] are Priestly, including the entirety of Num 33^[14] and the section of Num 21 that parallels it.^[15] In P, the Israelites travel from Kadesh to Mount Hor, which is where Aaron dies and is buried. As the Israelites continue, they travel through Moabite territory, past Iye-abarim and north all the way to Mount Abarim, glossed as Mount Nebo, which is where Moses dies.^[16] The version in Numbers 21 is shorter than the one in Numbers 33, omitting many of the stations from the full list.

3. The Pisgah Journey (Num 21:16–19)

An additional route appears in Numbers 21 as a consecutive list of stations, in the concise style, that are not mentioned in Num 33:

Beer,^[17]
Midbar,^[18]
Mattanah,
Nahaliel,
Bamoth,
The valley that is in the country of Moab,
The peak of Pisgah.

The final stop on this journey, “the peak of Pisgah,” appears in the next story of the Torah, where Balak suggests that Balaam can stand and see the Israelite camp in order to curse them.^[19]

The mountain is also mentioned in four other places within the geographical surveys of the Transjordan.^[20]The toponym used in these descriptions, אשדת הפסגה “the slopes of Pisgah”teaches that (ha)-Pisgah is a specific name, and not a generic one.

We learn from these verses that the lofty mountain named “[the] Pisgah”^[21] provided a view of the northern Dead Sea and of the Israelite camp in the steppes of Moab (Num 23:14).^[22]This geographical data places Pisgah northwest of Yahatz, the site of the battle against Sihon,^[23] and effectively bypasses this area without being conscious that there was supposed to be a battle there. Accordingly, this third route belongs to a different source and tradition than that of the Sihon Account Journey.^[24]

The Pisgah Journey itinerary is written in the Short-Form style:

(וּמִמִּדְבָּר) [וּמִבְּאֵר]^[25] מַתָּנָה
וּמִמַּתָּנָה נַחֲלִיאֵל
וּמִנַּחֲלִיאֵל בָּמוֹת
וּמִבָּמוֹת הַגַּיְא אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב רֹאשׁ
הַפִּסְגָּה וְנִשְׁקָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן

And from the (wilderness) [well] to Mattanah,
and from Mattanah to Nahaliel,
and from Nahaliel to Bamoth,
and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the country of Moab, at the peak of Pisgah, overlooking the wasteland.

J's Pisgah Journey

The Pisgah Journey itinerary, which in its current context appears unconnected to any previous event or journey,^[26] actually connects to two different J accounts. Bamoth and the summit of Pisgah are locations where Balak built altars for Balaam (Num 22:41, 23:14). These verses are part of the J version of the Balaam story.^[27] Additionally, according to the J account, this same summit of Pisgah, upon which Balaam stood and blessed the Israelites, is the very place Moses dies and is buried.^[28]

Explaining the Variation in Style

In short, the inconsistent style and itinerary in Numbers 21 is a consequence of the combination of different sources—each with its own internal logic and uniform style—by one redactor/compiler.^[29] He joined the three routes into a single route, which is presented as one itinerary in Numbers 21, but which, as a journey description, lacks geographical logic.

Once we separate out the sources, we have three logical journey routes, each of which comes from one of the three standard Pentateuchal documents found in Numbers (E, J, P), and each of which fits with the narrative framing of that document. Nevertheless, Numbers 21 does not present the full itinerary of any of the sources, only select pieces of each.

While P's full itinerary can be found in Numbers 33, reconstructing the full itinerary of J and E is more difficult. Much of this can be done from snippets of J and E that have been preserved in other parts of the Bible (specifically Deuteronomy and Judges),^[30] but another helpful clue comes from our knowledge of the ancient road system.

Three Itineraries: Three Roads

For the modern reader, unfamiliar with the geography of the Transjordan or its political and demographic reality in the Iron Age, looking at lists of names on an itinerary and attempting to imagine a route may feel random, like an exercise in drawing lines between dots. Nevertheless, the routes in each of these sources are more than just a list of stops for a meandering group of wanderers, but clarify for the reader what road the Israelites are taking.

In modern times, more than one highway traverses Jordan on a south-north axis, and the same was true in ancient times. In fact, the main highways in these periods bear some relationship to each other.^[31]

King’s Highway (P)— A little east of Jordan’s Highway 35 on Jordan’s western side ran the ancient King’s Highway mentioned in the Bible. This road, from Wadi al-Hasa northward, is the road the Israelites take according to P. This same road was also used in Roman times, and long tracks of it are still visible. I have walked the Roman road from Lajun north.

As Roman roads were generally wider than biblical roads, wherever the Romans travelled along the same highway as their predecessors, we have little access to the original. Even so, here and there Roman highways diverge, and we can see the more ancient route.

For the King’s Highway, a 15 km section from the Arnon near the Aroer crossing stretching south to Khirbet el-Balua, is still visible and walkable. As Khirbet el-Balua was an important Moabite city in biblical times, the road took a detour to that city. During the Roman period, however, the site was uninhabited, and so the Roman road skips this detour and heads straight north towards Dibon.^[32]

Wilderness Highway (E)—Further east lies Jordan’s Route 15, known as the Desert Highway. No biblical route is that far east; in ancient times it would have been difficult to obtain water and food along this route, as it is literally in a desert—hence the name—and people didn’t live there. Not too far west of this route lies the biblical Wilderness Highway, which is the route the Israelites take according to E. This route crosses the Wadi as-Saida (the Arnon River’s eastern tributary) slightly east of Khirbet al-Mudayna as-Saliyah.

Here too, most of the biblical highway is covered by a Roman highway, which was eventually secured in the Byzantine period with a row of fortresses still visible today. In 1998, I discovered remains of this road, which can be walked for 15 km, south and north of the eastern part of the Arnon.^[33] In 2000, Chaim Ben David led a group of scholars (myself among them) to explore this road, and we found a small area, under the Serpentines north of the Arnon, where the Roman road diverges slightly, and the biblical road can be identified.

Moabite Central Road (J)—Although not an international highway, the region of Moab itself, north of Wadi el-Hasa and south of the Arnon River, had a third road traversing its territory on the north-south axis.^[34] The road runs east of Wadi an-Nukhayla, the border between Moab proper and the less settled area of eastern Moab known as Ar in E or Hatzerot in J.

The road traverses the Arnon River at Aroer and continues north to Di-Zahab, where it merges with the King's Highway. From Di-zahab north, J follows the same road as P, even if each source chose to mark the road with different toponyms.

Omission rather than Addition

From the preserved text in Numbers 21, it would almost impossible to reconstruct these routes, and even with the remaining snippets in other biblical books, the task is daunting. Nevertheless, knowledge of the biblical period roads gives us the necessary background with which to construct a meaningful itinerary from the jumbled text we have now.

The compiler of the Torah had a difficult task; he needed to combine three separate itineraries containing contradictory elements into one list that would look cohesive.^[35] In doing so, he had to omit sections of each. Despite his efforts, the combined account remains bewildering, especially for anyone who tries to recreate a single itinerary with map in hand.

Map of the Itineraries

View Footnotes

Published 2016-07-12

Exod 12:37, 13:18, 20, 14:2, 15:22–23, 27, 16:1, 17:1, 19:1–2; Num 10:12, 33, 11:35, 12:16, 20:1, 22, 21:4, 10–13, 16,18b–20, 22:1.
Bible scholars differ in their analysis of the literary connection between the itinerary list and the itinerary notes. Martin Noth suggested that the itinerary list is built from stations that appear in the itinerary notes in Exodus and Numbers, which he added to the itinerary of a single specific route. See Martin Noth, “Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai,” PJB 36 (1940), 5–28; idem, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. J.D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 242–243. Other scholars, in contrast, regard the itinerary notes and associated events to be a literary expansion of the itinerary list. See Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 301–321, esp. 308–309; Graham I. Davies, The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament (SOTSMS 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 59–60. For an additional list of scholars who held this view before the 1970s, see idem, “The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” VT 33/1 (1983):1–13, esp. 8 n. 13.
Kadesh, Mt. Hor, Oboth, Iye-abarim, the steppes of Moab (קדש, הר ההר, אבת, עיי העברים, ערבות מואב).
Itinerary Notes
Itinerary List

1. דרך ים סוף
2. אדום/הר שעיר (דברים ב)
3. דרך מדבר מואב/במדבר אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש
4. נחל זרד
5. עבר ארנון
6. באר
7. מדבר
8. מתנה
9. נחליאל
10. במות
11. הגיא

א. צלמונה
ב. פונן
ג. דיבון גד
ד. עלמון דבלתימה
ה. הרי העברים
ו. על הירדן
See Amitai Baruchi-Unna, Genres Meet: Itineraries, Prayers and Divine Messages in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 2009), 55, ll. 4–9; 60, ll. 13–16 [Hebrew].
Angela R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 204–215. The original Priestly route, she maintains, led to the war with Arad (Num 21:1–3) and to the conquest of the Land of Israel from the south (193–203). This route underwent two redactions, the first to incorporate the war with Sihon and the second to incorporate the Balaam narrative. These redactions divert the journey route from the Negev to the heart of the kingdoms of Edom and Moab in the Transjordan (206–208). The third redaction was intended to give the impression that the route passed through the wilderness to the east of Moab (209–214).
This supposition does not explain the sites: Dophkah and Alush (Num 33:12–14), Rithmah, Rimmon-perez, Libnah, Rissah, Kehelath, Mount Shepher, Haradah, Makheloth, Tahath, Terah, Mithkah, and Hashmonah (Num 33:18–30), and Zalmonah (41–42), that appear only in the itinerary list. Nor does it explain why the sites: the wilderness of Paran (Num 10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26), wadi Zered (Num 21:12), the Arnon (v. 13), Beer (v. 16), Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth, “the valley that is in the territory of Moab,” “the peak of Pisgah” (vv. 18–20), and Jahaz (v. 23), that appear in the itinerary notes, are not included in the itinerary list.
This narrative continuity speaks against the viability of the supplementary approach here. For more on using narrative continuity to uncover the contours of the Pentateuch's sources, see, Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Torah – Its Five Books and Four Documents,” in The Literature of the Hebrew Bible: Introductions and Studies (ed. Z. Talshir; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2011), 161–226, esp. 193, 213 (Hebrew) and Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2012). Notably, two verses do not fit any of the above styles (Num 21:4, 11), but are a mixed style. These verses were composed when the compiler combined data from two different lists.
Noting the literary connection between the three descriptions, and the linkage between the delegation to Sihon and that to the king of Edom (Num 20:14–21; Judg 11:17), many scholars sought to isolate directions of influence and the inner chronology between the descriptions. See W. A. Sumner, “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og according to the Deuteronomist,” VT 18 (1968), 216–28; John van Seters, “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination,” JBL 91 (1972): 182–97; John Raymond Bartless, Edom and the Edomites (JSOPSup 77; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 180–81. Nevertheless, their inquiries were generally limited to the historical and literary data, ignoring the list of sites and the geography—an oversight I wish to rectify here.
The close similarity between the three versions of the Sihon narrative shows that they are based on a written document, the original E text, which was altered by various writers, but whose traces can be discerned by a comparison of the three portrayals. The lost opening verse to this account, which records the Israelites’ arrival in Kadesh, can be found in Jephthah’s speech (Judg 11:16b).
See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 144–149. She also takes pains to indicate all the verses that describe the Israelites who left Egypt as an army (150–152).
Bacon identifies “Beer” in Numbers with “Beer-elim” in the Moab Pronouncement (Isa 15:8); see Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus (Hartford, Conn.: The Students Publishing Company, 1894), 160; Jan Jozef Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 262, 436; John D. W. Watts,Isaiah 1–33 (WBC 24; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 231. The attribution of both toponyms to Moab is not baseless. Likewise, the adjectival “elim” meant rulers/chieftains in Moab (Exod 15:15); and it was “chieftains” who dug the well (Num 21:18).
LXX reads “and from the well (kαι ἀπὸ Φρέατος)” instead of “and from the wilderness,” and seems to be the more original in this case.
^{במדבר כג:יג} וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֵ֜לָיו בָּלָ֗ק לך־לְכָה־נָּ֨א אִתִּ֜י אֶל־מָק֤וֹם אַחֵר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּרְאֶ֣נּוּ מִשָּׁ֔ם אֶ֚פֶס קָצֵ֣הוּ תִרְאֶ֔ה וְכֻלּ֖וֹ לֹ֣א תִרְאֶ֑ה וְקָבְנוֹ־לִ֖י מִשָּֽׁם: ^כג:יד וַיִּקָּחֵ֙הוּ֙ שְׂדֵ֣ה צֹפִ֔ים אֶל־רֹ֖אשׁ הַפִּסְגָּ֑ה וַיִּ֙בֶן֙ שִׁבְעָ֣ה מִזְבְּחֹ֔ת וַיַּ֛עַל פָּ֥ר וָאַ֖יִל בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ:
^{Num 23:13} Then Balak said to him, “Come with me to another place from which you can see them – you will see only a portion of them; you will not see all of them – and damn them for me from there.” ^23:14 With that, he took him to Sedeh-zophim, on the summit of Pisgah.
Deut 3:17
וְעַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה יָם הַמֶּלַח תַּחַת אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה מִזְרָחָה.
…down to the sea of the Arabah, the Dead Sea, from the foot of the slopes of Pisgah on the east.
Deut 4:49
וְעַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה תַּחַת אַשְׁדֹּת הַפִּסְגָּה.
…down to the sea of the Arabah from the foot of the slopes of Pisgah on the east.
Josh 12:3
וְעַד יָם הָעֲרָבָה יָם־הַמֶּלַח מִזְרָחָה דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַיְשִׁמוֹת וּמִתֵּימָן תַּחַת אַשְׁדּוֹת הַפִּסְגָּה:
…down to the Sea of the Arabah, that is, the Dead Sea, on the east, by way of Beth-jeshimoth southward, at the foot of the slopes of Pisgah.
Josh 13:20
וּבֵ֥ית פְּע֛וֹר וְאַשְׁדּ֥וֹת הַפִּסְגָּ֖ה וּבֵ֥ית הַיְשִׁמֽוֹת:
Beth-peor, the slopes of Pisgah, and Beth-jeshimoth—
See Eusebius, Φασγα “Pisgah” = E. Klostermann, Eusebius Onomastikon der Biblischen Ortsnamen (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904), 16 ll. 22–24; R. Steven Notley and Zeev Safrai,Eusebius, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture (Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2005), 158.
Haran, as well, formulates this similarly. See Menahem Haran, “The Exodus Routes in the Pentateuchal Sources,” Tarbiz 40 (1971): 113–43, esp. 138 (Hebrew). Scholars generally agree that “the steppes of Moab” is a region northeast of the Dead Sea. See Burton MacDonald, “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures (ASOR 6; Boston: 2000), 87; Ze’ev Meshel, “Defining the Biblical ‘Araba,'” in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (eds. W. S. Crawford et al.; Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and Israel Exploration Society, 2007), 423–35, n. 6. See the extensive bibliographies in both articles. P and E explicitly mention the Israelite encampment in the steppes of Moab (E – Num 22:1; P – Num 26:3, 63; 31:12, and more). However, according to J, that has the Israelites enter Canaan in the vicinity of Jericho, the journey route also passed to the northeast of the Dead Sea, which is the region that is to be identified with P and E’s “steppes of Moab.”
For more on the battle at Yahatz, see my TABS essay, “War at Yahatz: The Torah Versus the Mesha Stela.” The various references to Yahatz place it to the north of the Arnon, and to the east of the settled region, on the border of the wilderness.
[19] See Martin Noth, ‘Num. 21 als Glied der ‘Hexateuch’ – Erzählung’, ZAW 58 (1940), pp. 161–189, esp. p. 178; Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1889), 111.
The LXX reading, which is preferable in this case.
Roskop did not examine this possibility, since she maintains that the Documentary Hypothesis cannot be used for the journey route in Transjordan, because the criterion of the name of God is hardly applicable in those chapters. See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries, 204. But this is a limited and incomplete conceptualization about how the Documentary Hypotheses works. Documentarians do not distinguish between the various documents solely on the basis of differences in divine names; many other factors come into play.
E’s itinerary in Num 20–21 is shorter than the itinerary in the original document. Most of E’s journey in the Araba valley, including Aaron’s death at Moserah was omitted to create the impression that the journey took place on the Jordanian plateau. See my TABS essay,“Why Deuteronomy Has an Account of Aaron’s Death in the Wrong Place,” for details.
[23] See Exod 13:20, 16:1, 17:1, 19:2; Num 10:12, 20:22, 21:11a
[24] Despite, and in opposition to, the proofs that she brought, Roskop states that Num 33 is not Priestly, but rather is a collection of all the itinerary notes, with the addition of sites from the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua that were reformulated in a style imitative of the annals style. See Roskop, Wilderness Itineraries 223–232.
Noth already attributed Kadesh, Mount Hor, Oboth, and Iye-abarim to P. See Noth, “Wallfahrtsweg,” 171; idem, Numbers, 159). Davies argued that Num 33 is an independent source. In order to negate its attribution to P, he asserted, without substantiation, that Mount Hor was copied here from Num 21:4^b, which he ascribes to a non-Priestly tradition. See Graham I. Davies, “Wilderness Itineraries” (see n. 1), 1–8, esp. 8, 11.
For more on the different traditions of where Moses is buried in P, J, and E, see my TABS essay, “The Unknown, Yet Known Place of Moses’ Burial.”
I proposed elsewhere viewing the opening verse of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:1) as a journey route leading from the Edomite plateau to north of the Arnon. The Pisgah itinerary of J is the only route that could be the continuation of this journey. See David Ben-Gad HaCohen,Kadesh in the Pentateuchal Narratives (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2010), 143–145 [Hebrew].
For a reconstruction of the missing first part of J’s itinerary, see my “Where in the Transjordan Did Moses Deliver His Opening Address?” TheTorah (2018). For the reconstruction of some missing parts of E, see my, “Why Deuteronomy Has an Account of the Aaron’s Death in the Wrong Place,” TheTorah (2015); “Jephthah’s Wandering Biblical Message to the King of Ammon,” TheTorah (2017).
Many scholars, like Julius Wellhausen and August Dillmann, divide the Balaam story into two sources. See Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Reimer, 1899), 110–111; August Dillman, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, Josua (KEHAT2; Leipzig, 1886), ad loc. Of all the various criteria for division suggested, in my view, only the geographical argument has withstood criticism. The parallel account, which calls the same mountain Peor, would be from the E source. Since a single author would not have used the same characterization for different peaks, or use different names for the same mountain, we may reasonably assume that the author who used the toponym “the summit of Pisgah” is not the same author who preferred the toponym “the peak of Peor,” after the name of the adjoining settlement: Beth-peor. For a summation of the objection to the method of Wellhausen and his school regarding the Balaam narrative, see Alexander Rofé, The Book of Balaam: Numbers 22.2–24.25: A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion(Jerusalem: Simor, 1979), 13–26 [Hebrew].
I used to think that both roads ascend to Aroer. Yet, Chaim Ben-David pointed out that there is a Roman road ascending towards Dibon which was inhabited in the Iron age. It means that, there is a possibility of a biblical road which is now covered by the Roman road and the modern road. This is the route of P.
See again my TABS essay, “The Unknown, Yet Known Place of Moses’ Burial.”
Another modern road, Route 65, known as the Dead Sea Highway, also had an ancient parallel, but it is not referenced as one of the itineraries in any source.
For more on this see, David Ben-Gad HaCohen, “Waheb in Suphah: The Forgotten Town in the Stream,” (TheTorah 2020).
For a description of this road, see Amos Kloner and Chaim Ben David, “Mesillot on the Arnon: An Iron Age (Pre-Roman) Road in Moab,” BASOR 330 (2003): 65–81. This road, which had originally been photographed by Nelson Glueck, was unknown to scholars until recently, since Glueck marked the place of the road incorrectly. It was luckily rediscovered decades afterward by Kloner and Ben David, who recognized the spot from the picture as they were exploring the wadi. Yet a fourth crossing point is at Lahun, about halfway between Aroer and the Wilderness Highway crossing. This does not have its own road, but was likely used by people heading east from the Central Moabite Road or west from the Wilderness Highway.
As stated above, I do not think that Numbers 20–21 can be explained well with a supplementary approach, which posits that an original list grew in stages, with different scribes utilizing their own styles. Rather, the documentary approach is best here, according to which the chapter contains three separate itineraries spliced together, each written in its own style and which belong to separate narratives.