The Mysterious Literary Life and Death of Korah

Ibn Ezra (b. 1089 Spain, d. 1164 England) on Num. 16:1 identifies all the participants in the rebellion with the displaced firstborn and associates this episode with Num. 8:5-22, when the Levites were elevated to the role of carrying the Tabernacle. The chieftains, as the privileged firstborn, once played the role of priests before the Sin of the Golden Calf. They suspect Moses of promoting the Levites as members of his own tribe. Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth are also descendants of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, displaced from his privileged place by Joseph (as a result of his relations with Bilhah, see Gen. 35:22 and 49:4, and esp. 1 Chr. 5:1).

The position of the Levites here is shared by the Book of Deuteronomy (the “D” source), which does not speak of sons of Aaron as priests and other Levites as their servants, but of levitical-priests (ha-kohanim ha-levi’im). From the perspective of D, and for the historical books, Joshua through Kings (known at the Deuterononmistic History, DtrH), the Levite tribe as a whole is the tribe of priests. Hence, from the perspective of D and DtrH, Korah’s rebellion is fully justified.

On, son of Peleth is mentioned only once, in Num. 16:1, and never appears again in connection to Dathan and Abiram or the Korah rebellion. Perhaps on ben Peleth is a scribal error and the verse should be read “Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben,” following the genealogy in Num. 26:5, 8. For more on this, see TABS Editors, “Where did On Disappear to?” TheTorah (2014).

Technically, Israel Knohl attributes the bulk of these passages (16:2-7a, 18, and 17:6-28) to the Holiness School (HS), not to the Priestly Torah, The Sanctuary of Silence(Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1995), 73-85. See also David Frankel, The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School (Leiden: Brill 2002), 203-255; Jacob Milgrom, “Korah’s Rebellion: A Study in Redaction,” in The JPS Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1990), 414-423; Joel Baden, “A Narrative Pattern and its Role in Source Criticism,” Hebrew Scriptures 49 (2008), 41-54 [52-54]; and Tzemah Yoreh’s division on his website: www.biblecriticism.com/numbers_16_j_p_h.doc.

See Adele Berlin, “Joining Rebellions: Dathan and Abiram Merge with Korah, Leader of the Levites,” TheTorah (2013).

See TABS Editors, “How Did Korach Die?” TheTorah (2014).

These censers (fire pans) bear the incense offering and are carried by the kohen, morning and evening, from the outer to the inner precinct before the Ark of the covenant [’aron he-‘edut]; no “strange incense [qetoret zarah](Exod. 30:9) is admissible. It is unclear whether the adjective, zarah, refers to the content of the incense, the bearer of it, or the intentions behind the offering. In relation to Lev. 10:1, Num. 3:4, Num. 26:61, the incense offering of Nadab and Abihu is called “strange fire [’esh zara]”; after this trial, God informs the priestly class that no “strange man [’ish zar]” may offer incense (Num. 17:5).

On the resonance with the language of spies, see the use of the verb ‘lh in Num. 13:17 (x2), 21, 22, 30 (x2), 31 (x2); the image of “flowing with milk and honey” (13:27, 32, 14:8), and the image of their corpses falling [npl], by divine decree, in the Wilderness (14:19, echoing v. 3).

God orders Moses to address the rebels at “mishkan korah, datan ve-aviram” (Num. 16:24, 27a). Is this a reference to their domestic tents or the Tent of Meeting (ohel mo ‘ed,also called mishkan, the locus of the fire pan test vv. 18-19)? Israel Knohl argues that both “Korah” and “mishkan…” indicates an interpolation by a later editorial hand, in an attempt to harmonize the two strands of the narrative. The locus of contention is otherwise identified, unambiguously, asDathan and Abiram’s tents [’ohaleihem](vv. 26, 27b) (See Knohl,Sanctuary of Silence, p.78).

As in vv. 23-24, and 27a, the presence of Korah is an interpolation here.

We have not seen this verb, br’, since Gen. 1:1-2:4 (attributed to the Priestly author, P).

The verb, ni’atzu, meaning “to spurn or contemn” also resonates with the narrative of the spies (Num. 14:11, 23).

Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” (III:i).

Precisely the same sequence appears in the scene when Nadab and Abihu offer “strange fire” (Lev. 9:23-10:1) – the Presence of YHWH appears, the people fall on their faces, and a fire breaks outward from the Tent of Meeting. See Rashbam’s loc. cit., in which he argues that Nadab and Abihu were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, when fire from Heaven was meant to ignite the altar in the inner sanctum at the consecration of the Tabernacle.