Essentially a single continuous speech from Moses, entirely ignoring Dathan and Abiram, no surprise there, and focusing on Korah and his band of 250 Israelites. And Moses poses a challenge that should be all too familiar.
You think all Israelites are the same when it comes to matters of holiness? Why don't you come by the sanctuary with some coals and incense and try offering it? I don't remember what happended the last time someone tried offering incense just for funsies, do you?
At this point, we the readers should know pretty much exactly what's going to happen here. (We also know for sure that we're in P, if somehow we didn't realize it already.)
The last line of Moses's speech lays out the main P argument: the priests didn't set the rules that they should be holier than the rest of Israel, Yahweh did. So don't complain to us! (A convenient line of reasoning, to be sure...)
But in the middle of the speech, something slightly weird happens. Korah's initial complaint is really on behalf of the 250 laypeople: why does Aaron alone get to be holy? And Moses's challenge agrees: all y'all bring incense, and Yahweh will choose the holy ones.
Why, then, does Moses start railing against the Levites specifically? It's not a band of 250 Levites, after all. What's more, the particular interest in the Levites that Moses shows here, in 16:7b-10, won't come up again in the story.
It's as if someone shifted the story from being about whether laypeople can be holy to whether Levites can be priests. Which is somewhat reasonable, if it's read as an attempt to soften the story a little. After all, Levites being priests is a smaller step than Israel being holy.
It's also maybe the case that this is the sort of change that might be made in service of a position that all Israel actually could be holy, or should at least strive for it - the position of, say, an H layer.
P, in this reading, had a story condemning the idea that all Israel could be holy. H, which at least gestures toward Israel's holiness aspirationally, changed it to a story about non-Aaronid Levites desiring the priesthood, which both P and H agree is a no-go.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why can’t an indebted Israelite be treated like a slave? Because he’s already enslaved - not to another Israelite, or any other human, but to YHWH. A slave can’t have two masters, and YHWH has made his claim.
The basis of YHWH’s claim is simple: I took them out of Egypt, so they’re mine. They were slaves to Pharaoh, but YHWH redeemed them - in the technical sense of the word: he effectively purchased them, just with force rather than with money.
The logic here is clear: what makes Israel un-enslaveable is their having been redeemed from Egypt by YHWH. Everyone who didn’t go through that experience - everyone who isn’t Israel - isn’t subject to the same prohibition on being enslaved. (As will be clear momentarily.)
The Bible, like every text, can’t communicate without a reader. And every reader reads from their own context. So you can’t say “the Bible means X” - you can only say “I read the Bible as meaning X.” And preferably understand why - the context of your reading.
As all texts need to be interpreted to be read, so too every reading is therefore interpretation. Modern readers interpret for their own world and context. So too Luther. So too Jesus. So too the very first readers of the text in antiquity. None of these is the “right” reading.
“How the original Israelite audience would have understood it” isn’t the “correct” interpretation of the text. It’s just the oldest. Privileging it over the 2000 years of interpretation that followed is a very particular modern intellectual stance that should be interrogated.
Worried about how you're going to manage to eat enough in the sabbatical year, when you can't sow or harvest? Don't you fear: YHWH will make the sixth year miraculously abundant! Three years' worth in one! Well, that's reassuring.
It's utopian, obviously. But that's actually a pretty big deal, and sort of wild, when you think about it. Here's what is presented to us as law - don't sow or harvest in the seventh year - but which can't ever have actually been practiced, or even imagined to be practiced.
We might think of this through a somewhat skeptical lens as H writing from a time when none of these good things happened, and Israel was in some trouble, and that could be blamed, in fact, on Israel not having followed these laws, which were given so long ago.
Every fifty years, we get the jubilee: not just a year of rest like the sabbatical (though that too), but a year of restoration: everyone returns to their lands and to their people. What a nice biblical idea! Except it isn’t (biblical).
The big announcement of the fiftieth year is the restoration, or dror (דרור). This word comes to Hebrew, and the Bible, from the Akkadian andurarum, which is the same basic concept, just at the whim of the king rather than set on the calendar.
Always good to have the reminder that so much of what is known as biblical law is in fact just borrowed ancient Near Eastern practice. (You may think that these are God’s laws, but if they are, God nicked them from Mesopotamia.)
Six years you can plant and harvest as usual; in the seventh year, though, none of that - you can eat only what the land produces on its own, without your intervention.
That ought to work out just fine.
There’s an obvious utopian quality to this law - as it will essentially go on to explain a few verses later. It might have once been workable on a field-by-field level, but not nationally, which is what is clearly proposed here. This is the sabbath writ large.
Having moved through all the realms of the sacred, we’re now come to the biggest and last: the land itself. The sabbath is about sacred time; the sabbatical is about sacred land (in time). It’s also fundamentally about property, as will become increasingly clear.
Sorcery (and why Jews wear beards and don’t get tattoos)
The thing about sorcery in the Bible is that it isn’t forbidden because it’s inherently evil. It isn’t forbidden because it’s “magic” (however defined). It’s forbidden because it works.
Sorcery (or divination, or augury, or whatever in this concept cluster) is problematic because it usurps YHWH’s power - and, particularly, the authority of the priests as the sole access to YHWH, and especially to oracular knowledge. Knowledge is power, don’t you know.
Sorcery is thus very much like child sacrifice - prohibited because of its efficaciousness, because it overrides or usurps divine authority, because it reveals alternative modes of manipulating power and knowledge. Such things are, as always, a threat to the powers that be.