Israel’s Wilderness Camp Modeled on the Persian Military Formation

This article summarizes Jaeyoung Jeon, From the Reed Sea to Kadesh: A Redactional and Socio-Historical Study of the Pentateuchal Wilderness Narrative, FAT 159 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022), 169–191.

The Joseph tribe is divided into two tribes descended from his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, to reach the number 12 without including the Levite tribe. For a discussion of the reason for the exclusion of the Levite tribe here, see Alexander Rofé, “Levites: A Transjordanian Tribe of Priests,” TheTorah (2012). On the origins and development of the idea of Israel as comprised of 12 tribes, see Andrew Tobolowsky, “Did Israel Always Have Twelve Tribes?” TheTorah (2020) and The Sons of Jacob and the Sons of Herakles: The History of the Tribal System and the Organization of Biblical Identity, Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).

Biblical translations follow NJPS with modifications.

Each of these units has a designated leading tribe. The first two outer units—the banners of Judah and Reuben—comprise tribes descended from Leah. In the banner of Reuben, the tribe of Levi (also a Leah tribe) is replaced by Gad. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 340, suggests that this substitution may be due either to Gad's geographic proximity to Reuben (as both settle in Transjordan) or to the fact that Gad is the firstborn of Leah’s servant, Zilpah (Gen 30:9–11).

See Milgrom, Numbers, 340, who adds that Ramses II was “the probable Pharaoh of the Exodus.” Michael M. Homan, “The Divine Warrior in His Tent: A Military Model for Yahweh’s Tabernacle,” Biblical Review 16 (2000): 22–33, 55, compares the encampment of Rameses II with the Priestly Tabernacle compound. See also Homan’s article, “The Tabernacle in its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” TheTorah (2018). For the defensive weakness of this camp, see Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), 108–9.

The terms used in both cases for the encampment, מעגל (1 Sam 26:7) and מעגלה (1 Sam 17:20), derive from the stem ע.ג.ל. (‘-g-l), to be round. Other terms derived from this stem include עָגִיל (‘agiyl), hoop or ring (see, e.g., Num 31:50; Ezek 16:12), and the adjective עָגֹל/עָגוֹל (‘agol), round (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 7:23, 31; 10:19. Milgrom, Numbers, 340, also notes that later Israelite war camps were “arranged in the round,” but maintains that the earlier wilderness camp had a square shape.

See the discussion in Jeon, From the Reed Sea to Kadesh, 188-191.

To be sure, the Priestly source may preserve older materials or traditions derived from monarchic-period sanctuaries. Nevertheless, the composition of the text in its current form—including the passage under discussion—is more reliably situated in the Persian period, roughly between the late sixth and late fourth centuries B.C.E. For a discussion of scholarly opinion on the authorship and dating of Numbers 1-4, see Jaeyoung Jeon, “Introduction: State of Pentateuchal Research,” in Social Groups behind the Pentateuch, ed. Jaeyoung Jeon, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 44 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021), 3–27, and Jeon, From the Reed Sea, 153–166.

See Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court in Ancient Persia 559 to 331 BCE (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), 79-82; also Lindsay Allen, The Persian Empire (London: British Museum Press, 2005), 119.

Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 201.

Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court, 79-82.

Translations of Xenophon are from Xenophon. Cyropaedia, Volume II: Books 5-8. Translated by Walter Miller, Loeb Classical Library 52 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914). The highlighting in bold is added by the author.

As Pierre Briant notes, the king’s tent embodied both topographical and hierarchical realities. See Briant, Histoire, 200.

Xenophon describes Cyrus the Younger overseeing the trial of a traitor from within his tent (Anabasis 1.6.5–11). Xenophon. Anabasis. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson. Revised by John Dillery. Loeb Classical Library 90. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. For diverse political activities of the kings at their royal tents, see Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court, 88.

Further parallels can be drawn between the Persian royal tent and YHWH’s tent. The Persian king’s tent was not only centrally located but also easily recognizable since it was marked by a radiant symbol. The Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus records that above Darius III’s tent “gleamed an image of the sun enclosed in crystal, visible to all” (History of Alexander, 3.3.8).

This shining emblem, likely reflecting sunlight, evokes the imagery of the cloud and fire that rested atop YHWH’s tent:

^{במדבר ט:טו} וּבְיוֹם הָקִים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן כִּסָּה הֶעָנָן אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן לְאֹהֶל הָעֵדֻת וּבָעֶרֶב יִהְיֶה עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמַרְאֵה־אֵשׁ עַד־בֹּקֶר. ^ט:טז כֵּן יִהְיֶה תָמִיד הֶעָנָן יְכַסֶּנּוּ וּמַרְאֵה־אֵשׁ לָיְלָה.

^{Numbers 9:15} On the day that the Tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle, the Tent of the Pact; and in the evening it rested over the Tabernacle in the likeness of fire until morning. ^9:16 It was always so: the cloud covered it, appearing as fire by night.

The divine cloud by day and fire by night signified YHWH’s presence and made the tent visible throughout the Israelite camp.

The description of the placement of the other tribes follows the same pattern:

^{במדבר ב:י} דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה רְאוּבֵן תֵּימָנָה לְצִבְאֹתָם וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן־שְׁדֵיאוּר.

^{Numbers 2:10} The banner of the camp of Reuben to the south, troop by troop. Chieftain of the Reubenites: Elizur son of Shedeur.

^{במדבר ב:יח} דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה אֶפְרַיִם לְצִבְאֹתָם יָמָּה וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי אֶפְרַיִם אֱלִישָׁמָע בֶּן־עַמִּיהוּד.

^{Numbers 2:18} The banner of the camp of Ephraim to the west, troop by troop. Chieftain of the Ephraimites: Elishama son of Ammihud.

^{במדבר ב:כה} דֶּגֶל מַחֲנֵה דָן צָפֹנָה לְצִבְאֹתָם וְנָשִׂיא לִבְנֵי דָן אֲחִיעֶזֶר בֶּן־עַמִּישַׁדָּי.

^{Numbers 2:25} The banner of the camp of Dan to the north, troop by troop. Chieftain of the Danites: Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai.

The degel units are frequently mentioned in the Aramaic Elephantine papyri (A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Ancient Texts and Translations (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 5:2, 3, 9; 6:3, 4, 9, 10; 8:2; 9:2; 13:2, 10; 14:3, etc). For further details, see Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 28–35; Christopher J. Tuplin, “The Military Environment of Achaemenid Egypt,” in Aršāma and His World: The Bodleian Letters in Context, vol. 3 Aršāma’s World, ed. Christopher J. Tuplin and John Ma (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 291–328, esp., 298–300; John Hyland, “The Achaemenid Military System and Its Campaign Logistics,” in Brill’s Companion to War in the Ancient Iranian Empires, ed. John Hyland and Khodadad Rezakhani (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 157–86, esp., 170. Reinhard Achenbach, Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZABR 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 483, also finds a connection between the degel units in Elephantine and those in the biblical wilderness camp.

A.E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Ancient Texts and Translations (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 5:1-4 (p. 11), with some modifications. The rest of the document spells out an agreement between the men regarding the building of an additional structure in the space between their two adjacent houses. Cowley (p. 12) notes that both Ḳoniya and Mahseiah are referred to as Jews in other papyri.

For occurrences of degel in various Aramaic texts, see Tuplin, “The Military Environment,” 298 n. 25. Aramaic Ostraca (12, 18) from Arad V (5^th-4^th century B.C.E.) also mention degel units. See Joseph Naveh, “The Aramaic Ostraca from Tel Arad,” in Arad Inscriptions, ed. Yohanan Aharoni (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), 153–76. Baruch Levine, “The Meaning of Degel and the Elusive History of the Levites,” TheTorah (2014), comes to a similar conclusion based on this evidence, remarking that degel in this context “designates a unit composed of soldiers and their families, a kind of military colony.”

While no Persian source explicitly confirms that the troops guarding the royal camp were organized into degel units, Xenophon notes that all of Cyrus’s officers had “banners” designating their positions (Cyropaedia 8.5.14), suggesting that the Persian royal camp was visibly structured by military units under the banners of high-ranking officials. Greek authors typically describe only the types of troops, rather than unit division like degel, accompanying the royal parade or camp—such as spear bearers (doryphoroi), apple bearers (mēlophoroi), cavalry, and soldiers with heavy shields—or they refer to elite units by nicknames, such as the Immortals (athanatoi).

The text reads as follows:

במדבר ד: טו וְכִלָּה אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו לְכַסֹּת אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֶת כׇּל כְּלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּנְסֹעַ הַמַּחֲנֶה וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יָבֹאוּ בְנֵי קְהָת לָשֵׂאת וְלֹא יִגְּעוּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וָמֵתוּ אֵלֶּה מַשָּׂא בְנֵי קְהָת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

^{Numbers 4:15} When Aaron and his sons have finished covering the sacred objects and all the furnishings of the sacred objects at the breaking of camp, only then shall the Kohathites come and lift them, so that they do not come in contact with the sacred objects and die. These things in the Tent of Meeting shall be the porterage of the Kohathites.

The text reads:

^{במדבר ד:כד} זֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי לַעֲבֹד וּלְמַשָּׂא. ^ד:כה וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת יְרִיעֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד מִכְסֵהוּ וּמִכְסֵה הַתַּחַשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו מִלְמָעְלָה וְאֶת מָסַךְ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. ^ד:כו וְאֵת קַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר וְאֶת מָסַךְ  פֶּתַח  שַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְעַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב וְאֵת מֵיתְרֵיהֶם וְאֶת כׇּל־כְּלֵי עֲבֹדָתָם וְאֵת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה לָהֶם וְעָבָדוּ.

^{Numbers 4:24} These are the duties of the Gershonite clans as to labor and porterage: ^4:25 they shall carry the cloths of the Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting with its covering, the covering of dolphin skin that is on top of it, and the screen for the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; ^4:26 the hangings of the enclosure, the screen at the entrance of the gate of the enclosure that surrounds the Tabernacle, the cords thereof, and the altar, and all their service equipment and all their accessories; and they shall perform the service.

The text reads:

^{במדבר ד:לא} וְזֹאת מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם לְכׇל־עֲבֹדָתָם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד קַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּבְרִיחָיו וְעַמּוּדָיו וַאֲדָנָיו. ^ד:לב וְעַמּוּדֵי הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב וְאַדְנֵיהֶם וִיתֵדֹתָם וּמֵיתְרֵיהֶם לְכׇל־כְּלֵיהֶם וּלְכֹל עֲבֹדָתָם וּבְשֵׁמֹת תִּפְקְדוּ אֶת־כְּלֵי מִשְׁמֶרֶת מַשָּׂאָם.

^{Numbers 4:31} These are their porterage tasks in connection with their various duties for the Tent of Meeting: the planks, the bars, the posts, and the sockets of the Tabernacle; ^4:32 the posts around the enclosure and their sockets, pegs, and cords—all these furnishings and their service: you shall list by name the objects that are their porterage tasks.

Herodotus’s account of Xerxes’s campaign (Histories 7.119) also—though expressed in a polemical tone—highlights the efficiency with which the royal tent was pitched and struck, suggesting that the logistical regulations concerning the royal camp, originally established by Cyrus, remained in force. Commenting on this passage, Llewellyn-Jones observes: “The Persian troops marching with Xerxes had the task of dismantling, transporting, and reassembling the royal tent when they reached a new camp, and we should imagine that the tents of the other royals and nobles were erected by teams of servants at the same time” (Llewellyn-Jones, King and Court, 88).

Translations of (Quintus) Curtius Rufus are from Quintus Curtius. History of Alexander, Volume I: Books 1-5. Translated by J. C. Rolfe, Loeb Classical Library 368 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1946.

Alexander adopted numerous elements of Persian royal and military culture, including the system of royal tent and the marching camp as well as military organization. He even retained Darius III’s royal tent after defeating the Persians at the Battle of Issus. The fire/smoke signal appears in this same context of reforms, suggesting it too derived from Persian precedent.

The Roman sources that describe the Persian royal camp are heavily dependent on Greek sources. Unfortunately, no Persian sources from this period have come down to us; in particular, we lack extensive Persian records that might shed light on matters such as the structure of royal camps. While the reliability of Greek sources on the Persian Empire is questioned at times, the striking similarities between their descriptions of the Persian royal camp and the biblical portrayal of the Israelite wilderness camp suggest that both traditions envisioned the same Persian model.

See e.g., Briant, Histoire, 201–10.

On the rule of Cambyses II and his conquest of Egypt, as well as a discussion of the reigns of each of the Persian Rulers, see Zev Farber, “The 220-Year History of the Achaemenid Persian Empire,” TheTorah (2017).

The following table outlines the chronology of Persian military expeditions to Egypt. In most cases, the Persian king himself led the army, accompanied by his royal military camp. Exceptions include three campaigns that were led by generals—Megabyzus, Artabazus, and Pharnabazus—during the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Artaxerxes II.

The Way of Horus was the major route through northern Sinai, linking the eastern Nile Delta with the coastal road of Palestine. This route served as the main corridor for major Egyptian military campaigns into Palestine and beyond, and it was likewise used by Assyrian and Persian forces during their invasions of Egypt. Because of its strategic military importance, the route was protected by a chain of fortresses.