10959698

8/13/2019 10959698

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/10959698 1/20

Prophecy in Ancient Israel:The Case of the Ecstatic Elders

JOHN R. LEVISON

Seattle Pacific University

Seattle, WA 98119

NOT A FEW dubious interpretations linger on in the halls of scholarship, even

though they raise more problems than they purport to solve. Surely one of these

is the proposition that the prophesying of Israel’s elders in Numbers 11 entailed

‘‘a circumstance of rapturous excitement, ecstatic inspiration and frenzy, into

which one falls fortuitously and perhaps by coercion.’’1 This interpretation may

have survived because it takes cover in the shadow of the literary-critical disjunc-

tion between the prophesying of the elders and the descent of quail, which B. D.

Sommer has recently, though not for the first time, derived from two distinct

literary sources.2 It is time now to bring the seemingly subsidiary question about

the nature of prophesying in Numbers 11 from the shadows into the light, for it

raises questions of its own—salutary and significant questions about the character

of Israelite prophecy.

In Numbers 11, Moses is said to have complained that the people were too

much of a burden for him to carry; God reacted in turn by commanding Moses

to gather seventy of the registered elders at the tent of meeting, where, God

promised, ‘‘I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of thespirit that is on you and put it on them; and they shall bear the burden of the people

along with you so that you will not bear it all by yourself ’’ (Num 11:17).3 In due

course, Moses ‘‘gathered seventy elders of the people, and placed them all around

1 J. Jeremias, ‘‘ℵybInf,’’ in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (ed. E. Jenni and C. Wester-

mann; 3 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997) 2. 704.2 B. D. Sommer, ‘‘Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11,’’ JBL 118 (1999) 601-24.3 Except where I provide modifications in italics, biblical translations are from the NRSV.

503

8/13/2019 10959698


the tent. Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took someof the spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders; and when the spiritrested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do so again’’ (11:25).

The nature of prophecy in this passage is typically defined as a form of ecstatic

prophecy into which the elders fell—not unlike Saul in 1 Samuel 19, who laynaked on the ground throughout the night and whose behavior prompted onlookers

to inquire, ‘‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’’Advocates of this perspective often

acknowledge, however, that it raises severe difficulties for the interpretation of

Numbers 11. Principal among them is the clear failure of uncontrolled prophetic

behavior to provide Moses with the administrative help he requested. As early as

1912, G. B. Gray puzzled that, ‘‘though v. 24b.25a mentions point by point how the

commands and promises of v. 16.17a [God’s promise] were carried out and fulfilled,

no further notice is taken of any assistance rendered to Moses; quite the reverse;

v. 25b gives the actual result of the spirit resting on the elders: and this result was

that the elders received not the power of assisting Moses, but of prophesying.’’4

M. Noth, slightly more than a half century later, wondered similarly how prophetic

ecstasy analogous to Saul’s could provide an apt response to Moses’ plea: ‘‘ . . .

we are dealing with . . . a state of ecstasy from which come ‘prophetic’ words

which are not comprehensible—or not necessarily so. This is very strange in the

present context. Moses is supposed to be ‘relieved of his burden’ (vv. 14-17). How

this goal is achieved by putting the seventy elders into a state of ecstasy is difficult

to imagine.’’5 D. Jobling was no less aware of the disjunction between Moses’

request and the elders’ prophesying: ‘‘the narrative takes several baffling turns,

and reaches, at the surface level, no satisfactory conclusions. . . . The elders do not

share Moses’ leadership. They share his spirit of prophecy, but this cannot be an

empowerment for leadership.’’6 Still more recently, M. Welker asked pointedly,

‘‘How are we to understand this? Those who have been ordained to take some of

the burden from Moses do not take over the affairs of government. They do not

bring the people to order socio-therapeutically or morally. Instead they land in

prophetic rapture. And Moses, to whom anarchic-chaotic traits are otherwise truly

foreign, is happy with the situation!’’7

Is it possible to reach a resolution to this allegedly unnatural movement from

Moses’ request for aid to the elders’ subsequent experience? One of the purposes

of this study is to suggest that it is indeed possible, but only if we recognize that

the sort of prophetic experience envisaged in Numbers 11 is not frenzy and cata-

tonic behavior but a visionary experience within a controlled cultic setting intended

4 G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark,

1903) 111.5 M. Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 89.6 D. Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible (2d ed.;

JSOTSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 36.7 M. Welker, God the Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 81-82.

504 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 65, 2003

8/13/2019 10959698


to support Moses as he leads the Israelites. This interpretation of Numbers 11

entails three adjustments of our current scholarly focus.

First, we must recognize that the experience of Saul in 1 Samuel 10–19 does

not provide the heuristic key to unlock the mysteries of Numbers 11. Pervasive

references in scholarly literature to 1 Samuel 10–19 in relation to Numbers 11 serve

only to obfuscate more promising avenues for explaining the elders’ experience

as portrayed in the biblical narrative.

Second, we must shift our concentration from the verb ℵbn to two other

significant verbs,ljℵand xvn, in Numbers 11. The first of these, ljℵ, will lead by

association to Exodus 24 and will raise the possibility that the elders’ prophesying

was understood by the narrator to consist of a visionary experience. This possi-

bility will lead to other texts that associate prophesying with visions: Num 12:6-8;

23–24; and 1 Kings 22. By tracing these straightforward lines of evidence, we will

be able to arrive at an interpretation of Numbers 11 that is, on the one hand, less

plagued by intractable narrative difficulties and, on the other, more sensitive to the

unusual vocabulary the narrator uses to convey an experience of early Israelite

prophecy.

Third, we must move from a simplistic conception of ecstasy—emphasizing

symptoms such as fainting and catatonic states—to a conception that acknowl-

edges divergent forms and social contexts of ecstasy. Such a suggestion is hardly

novel. R. Wilson contended that ‘‘the anthropological material suggests that any

study of prophetic behavior in Israel must take into account the role of social

groups in creating prophets and in shaping their behavior. . . . Divergent behav-

ioral patterns will imply different social situations and support groups, and thissocial complexity must be taken into account in analyzing biblical prophecy.’’8

The core of Wilson’s contribution lies in his incorporation of the distinction

between peripheral and central forms of ecstasy:

[I]ntermediaries in every society are related to some sort of support group that allows

them to continue to function. Seen from a social perspective, these groups and their

intermediaries are located either on the periphery of society or within the central

social structure. . . . The investigation of the social functions of the Israelite prophets

must also take this distinction into consideration.9

Wilson bases this conclusion on the able and ample work of anthropologists suchas F. Goodman and I. M. Lewis. The latter, in particular, draws an important

distinction along this continuum between peripheral and central forms of ecstasy.

Ecstasy in a socially peripheral context, according to Lewis, typically involves

a relatively unexpected experience that begins with what looks like an illness but,

through communal diagnosis and often with the help of an established medium

8 R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 87.9 Ibid., 87-88.

PROPHECY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL 505

8/13/2019 10959698


(e.g., a shaman), is interpreted as a form of ecstasy that authenticates the ecstatic.10

The effect of this claim is enhancement of status; the person gains authority because

the spirits speak through him or her. In addition, the person is able to challenge

the status quo from the perspective of someone from the margins who emerges

with divine approval.The social context of central possession or ecstasy differs from that of periph-

eral possession or ecstasy. In the former, it is those in power, typically leading

males, who experience a form of ecstasy. Their behavior occurs within a well-

defined social order, including a strict hierarchy of ecstatic figures; and the effect

is to provide divine support for the status quo. The Korekore Shona, for example,

represent ‘‘a clearly defined morality cult in which the spirits that watch over the

conduct of men and control their interests make known their wishes through a

group of chosen agents who are organized in a clearly structured shamanistic

hierarchy. Inspirational possession here is virtually a male monopoly.’’11

This study, then, entails three specific shifts in perspective. The first two of

these shifts—from 1 Samuel 10–19 to more analogous biblical narratives, and

from the verbℵbn to the other significant verbs in Numbers 11, ljℵ and xvn—provide the outline for this study. The third shift, from a simplistic to a more

holistic understanding of ecstasy, in which Lewis’s anthropological distinction

between peripheral and central forms of ecstasy is applied to Israelite prophecy,

will be developed with other matters throughout this study.

I. Analogous Narratives and the Nature of Prophesying

A. Saul and Israel’s Elders

The interpretation of the elders’ prophesying as a fall into frenzy does not

arise from the narrative context of Numbers 11; it turns exclusively upon the

occurrence of the hithpael of the verb ℵbn interpreted as a fall into prophetic

ecstasy. We have noted already, for example, that J. Jeremias interprets this form

of the verb in terms of ‘‘a circumstance of rapturous excitement, ecstatic inspi-

ration and frenzy, into which one falls fortuitously and perhaps by coercion . . .

or in which one is ‘beside oneself ’ for a limited time.’’12 Whence, we might ask,

does this interpretation arise? It arises fundamentally from the narrative of Saul

10 I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession (2d ed.; London/

New York: Routledge, 1989) 59-113, 170-71, esp. 62-64, 90-113.11 Ibid., 124; see further pp. 115-33. For a succinct comparison of peripheral and central cults,

see pp.152-59. For another application of this distinction, see S. L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Posses-

sion, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (New York: Continuum, 1995), esp. 31-38. For other

illuminating discussions of ecstasy from an anthropological perspective, including the phases of an

ecstatic experience, see F. Goodman, How About Demons? Possession and Exorcism in the Modern

World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988) 4, 10-15; idem, Ecstasy, Ritual and Alternate

Reality: Religion in a Pluralistic World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988).12 Jeremias, ‘‘ℵybInf,’’ 704.


8/13/2019 10959698


in 1 Samuel 10–19, in which the hithpael of the verbℵbn occurs no fewer than

nine times. In that narrative, not only did Saul prophesy; he also, at the narrative’s

conclusion, prophesied, stripped off his clothes, lay naked throughout the night

and, by this behavior, prompted the response, ‘‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’’

(1 Sam 19:23-24; see 10:9-13). It is difficult to interpret such actions as anythingbut an ecstatic experience during which Saul was indeed beside himself.

The narrative of Numbers 11 is thin, by comparison, and contains only the

detail that the elders at the tent of meeting, in addition to Eldad and Medad, who

remained in the camp, prophesied—the hithpael of the verbℵbn. To supply what

is lacking in the narrative about the elders, scholars have turned to the narrative

about Saul, with its ample details. G. B. Gray, for example, writes: ‘‘the effect of

the spirit resting on the elders was that they fell into a prophetic frenzy, just as

the messengers of Saul, and ultimately Saul himself, were overpowered by the

spirit and made, even against their will, to prophesy. . . .’’13 G. Montague observes:

‘‘There is no indication of the content of their [the elders’] prophesying, and the sense

is therefore probably that of prophetic ecstasy, as in 1 Sam 10:5ff. and 19:20ff.’’14

Following a discussion of Saul’s experience, M. Welker explores Numbers 11, begin-

ning with the transitional comment, ‘‘This same thing is documented by an account

of the descent of the Spirit who leads to the change in identity not only of an

individual human being, but of a political structure.’’15 E. W. Davies comments

on Num 11:25: ‘‘Once the spirit had been bestowed upon the elders, they were

flung into a state of divine frenzy, similar to that which gripped the guilds of

prophets in the days of Samuel and Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5ff.; 19:20ff.).’’16 B. Levine,

in his masterful treatment of this narrative, follows suit by making essentially the

same case, though with slightly greater finesse:

The verb hitnabbe < ‘‘to experience prophetic ecstasy’’describes what happens physi-

cally and emotionally when the irresistible spirit of God seizes a person. This particu-

lar form of the verb naba < ‘‘to pronounce, utter prophecy’’ is best known from the

biblical stories about Saul (1 Sam 10:5-6; 18:29; 19:23-24). It is also used in con-

nection with mantic court prophets (1 Kgs 22:10) and describes the fits of the cult

prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:29). In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the verb hitnabbe < is used

with reference to false prophets, although in Ezek 37:10 the prophet once says it of

himself.17

The assumption that underlies each of these representative discussions is thatSaul’s experiences provide the closest analogue in the Hebrew Bible to the elders’

13 Gray, Numbers, 113.14 G. Montague, Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994)

15.15 Welker, God the Spirit, 80.16 E. W. Davies, Numbers (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 109.17 B. Levine, Numbers 1 – 20: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 4A;

Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993) 340.


8/13/2019 10959698


experience.18 The primary flaw in this perspective, however, is the unfortunate

way in which scholars tend indiscriminately to connect several portions of narra-

tive—1 Samuel 10, 11, 18, and 19—as if they recounted the same sort of experience.

B. Saul’s Final Experience of Prophesying

It is, in fact, the highly unusual narrative in 1 Samuel 19 alone that provides

the sort of information that may fill in what is lacking in Numbers 11. Here alone,

in Saul’s final episode of prophesying, we discover specific elements of uncon-

trolled ecstasy that may illuminate Numbers 11, where Saul and his messengers

fall prey to a spirit that incapacitates them and causes Saul to lie naked throughout

day and night.

No such detailed description of uncontrollable ecstasy is furnished in the

previous accounts of the spirit’s effect on Saul. In 1 Samuel 10, where the nature

of Saul’s prophetic behavior is understated, one encounters a roving band of prophets who are clearly influenced by musical instruments, while Saul’s experi-

ence is not described in detail.

Nor is the succeeding reference to the spirit, in 1 Sam 11:6-7, relevant: the

spirit comes upon Saul, as it did on Samson before him, and evokes anger and a

dramatic display of power. Saul cuts an ox’s yoke into pieces and distributes it

threateningly among the tribes of Israel. This text, which is reminiscent of the

cycle of narratives about Samson, provides a key ingredient in the transition from

temporary leadership to monarchy, from judges to kings. Its significance for the

18 Scholars who turn to 1 Samuel 10–19 to determine more precisely the nature of prophesying

in Numbers 11 are numerous. J. H. Greenstone ( Numbers [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society

of America, 1948] 115) refers to ‘‘a state of ecstasy (comp. I Sam. 10.10-12; 18.10, et al.).’’ N. H.

Snaith ( Leviticus and Numbers [The Century Bible; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967] 231) describes

the elders’ behavior as ‘‘the frenzy, the ungoverned behaviour erroneously equated with the mad

frenzy of the dancing dervishes, who are a comparatively late development in Islam (cf. Saul, I Sam.

10.11, 19.20 and especially 19.23f.).’’ J. Sturdy ( Numbers [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1976] 86) refers to ‘‘an abnormal state of mind (ecstasy) which could be brought on by wild

dancing or by music. An example is the prophets whom Saul met (I Sam. 10:5).’’P. J. Budd ( Numbers

[WBC 5; Waco, TX: Word, 1984] 128) writes, ‘‘this is ecstatic prophecy, the kind in which men are

seized and overpowered by divine spirit (cf. 1 Sam 10:10-13; 19:20-24).’’ See as well B. Maarsingh,

Numbers: A Practical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 41; J. Scharbert, Numeri (DieNeue Echter Bibel 27; Wurzburg: Echter, 1992) 50; W. H. Bellinger, Leviticus and Numbers (Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson, 2001) 223. R. Wilson (‘‘Early Israelite Prophecy,’’ Int 32 [1978] 3-16, here 12)

shows considerably more restraint: ‘‘They [the elders] exhibited characteristic prophetic behavior,

although the precise nature of that behavior is uncertain.’’ T. R. Ashley (The Book of Numbers

[NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 213-14) succinctly poses the question: ‘‘It is hard to know

exactly what is meant here. . . . In such passages as 1 Sam. 10 and 19 the verb is clearly connected

with behavior that might be called abnormal or, better, ‘ecstatic.’ In other passages the verb just as

clearly indicates speaking Yahweh’s word without any hint of such behavior. Can any choice be made

here, the only passage in the Pentateuch to use the verb? . . . They were under the influence of

Yahweh’s Spirit, which had been upon Moses. More specific than this we cannot be.’’


8/13/2019 10959698


interpretation of Numbers 11, by contrast, is elusive, for the elders are hardly

inspired to undertake dramatic feats of physical strength.

Neither of the early references to the spirit in 1 Samuel 10-11 contains a

sufficient description of prophesying to illuminate the experience of prophesying

in Numbers 11. The first contains sparse detail, while the second reference is not

to prophesying at all. Nor do the next references to the possession of Saul by a

spirit provide a reliable analogue to Numbers 11. On the contrary, these serve to

underscore the difference in character between Saul in 1 Samuel 10–19 and the

elders in Numbers 11. Progressively throughout 1 Samuel 10–19, the portrait

emerges of a disturbed figure whose character is dramatically different from the

elders of Numbers 11. Saul is an unbalanced, idiosyncratic figure who is liable to

the influence not only of the spirit of God but of evil spirits as well. A narrative

crisis occurs precisely when Saul anoints David ‘‘and the spirit of the LORD came

mightily upon David from that day forward’’ and, correspondingly, ‘‘the spirit of

the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him’’

(1 Sam 16:13-14). David would then come to Saul ‘‘whenever the evil spirit from

God came upon’’ the king, and ‘‘Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the

evil spirit would depart from him’’ (1 Sam 16:23).

The penultimate experience of ‘‘prophesying’’ in the narrative of Saul, in

1 Sam 18:10-11, sheds precious little light on Numbers 11. Rather, it further sub-

stantiates the characterization of Saul as increasingly unreliable and, in this way,

widens the gulf between the experiences of Saul in 1 Samuel 10–19 and the elders

in Numbers 11. In 1 Samuel 18, it is not the good spirit of God that causes Saul

to prophesy but an evil spirit. Because Saul feared David (18:12), Saul succumbedto an evil spirit, which caused him to ‘‘prophesy.’’The text in 1 Samuel, according

to which Saul prophesied in a murderous way when an evil spirit rushed upon him,

is an anomalous example of possession by an evil spirit; it is not a text that should

be generalized or regarded as a source of insight into ancient Israelite prophecy.

On the contrary, this portrayal of a possessed Saul undermines the legitimacy of

Saul’s final experience of prophesying in 1 Samuel 19.

It is only in 1 Samuel 19, in fact, that we discover the details that scholars

tend to export to Numbers 11 to depict the alleged fits of frenzy of the elders. The

depiction of Saul’s fall into a catatonic state occurs only here, in the final episode

of his possession by the spirit. Yet by this point in the narrative, Saul ’s characterhas so unraveled—not least as a result of his succumbing to an evil spirit—that

he cannot possibly be an analogue to the elders of Numbers 11. None of the

ambivalence and ambiguity concerning Saul characterizes the principals of Num-

bers 11. The elders had proven to be an orderly, registered, and reliable group

(Num 11:16), and Moses himself, though harried, was altogether balanced. It was,

after all, the spirit that rested upon Moses that God distributed to the elders.

The final narrative in 1 Samuel 19, therefore, provides no clear analogy to

Numbers 11, not least because of the intervening narrative, which separates the


8/13/2019 10959698


originally positive instance of prophesying in 1 Samuel 10 from its negative, more

detailed counterpart in 1 Samuel 19. It is hardly surprising, then, that R. W. Klein

cannot even decide whether the spirit in 1 Samuel 19 is the good spirit of 1 Sam-

uel 10 or the evil spirit of 1 Samuel 18.19 Nor is it at all perplexing that the

question raised about this tortured figure in 1 Samuel 19, ‘‘Is Saul also among the

prophets?’’ should be answered with a fairly emphatic negative by Wilson.20

In light of these observations, the usual suggestion that the narratives about

Saul supply elements that are lacking from the narrative about the elders is

untenable. The strategy itself is useful—to discern in fuller companion narratives

details that are absent from laconic ones. What I am questioning is whether such

a narrative as 1 Samuel 10–19 ought to be employed to provide an element that

is supposed to be lacking in Numbers 11: a fall into rapturous ecstasy. Only

1 Samuel 19 contains the sort of details that could conceivably supply what is

lacking in Numbers 11; yet here the principal figures—Saul and his armies versus

Moses and his elders—are of an entirely different character. The narrative con-

texts and purposes of prophesying—thwarting an abduction of David in 1 Samuel

versus the sharing of Moses’ administrative responsibility with reliable, regis-

tered elders in Numbers 11—have nothing in common. The expectations of those

who receive the spirit are very different: unwilling and unwitting military person-

nel and Saul versus organized elders who willingly gather to participate in what

God had promised Moses. The question about sources of prophesying—both evil

and good spirits in the case of Saul and the unequivocally good spirit that rested

upon Moses, producing a form of prophesying that Moses wished for all

Israelites—

refl

ects divergent underlying concerns, the former for destabilizingSaul’s hegemony and the latter for legitimizing Moses’ authority.21

C. Saul’s Initial Experience of Prophesying

Saul was not, however, so unstable a character from the start. Unlike the descrip-

tion of Saul’s final experience of prophesying in 1 Samuel 19, the narrative of

Saul’s first episode in 1 Samuel 10 does, at first blush, share several features with

Numbers 11; however, it contains precious few specific details of the particular

19 R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 198.20

Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 183.21 Still another reason to exercise caution about viewing the Saul narratives as a prime resource

for the interpretation of Numbers 11 lies in the ambiguity that surrounds the sources of prophesying.

Both evil and good spirits in the narrative of Saul are designated ‘‘spirit of God’’ or ‘‘spirit of

Yahweh.’’Both good and evil spirits are said to ‘‘rush upon’’ Saul. Both are said to depart (dvc) from

Saul. Most notably—and highly disturbing from the perspective of an interpreter of Numbers 11—the

evil spirit inspired Saul to prophesy (ℵbnth): ‘‘The next day an evil spirit from God rushed upon

Saul, and he prophesied within his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he did day by day. Saul

had his spear in his hand; and Saul threw the spear, for he thought, ‘I will pin David to the wall’ ’’

(1 Sam 18:10). For further details, see the discussion in J. R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century

Judaism (AGAJU 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 36-37.


8/13/2019 10959698


behavior that prophesying involved. Nonetheless, both narratives share the expe-

rience of prophesying and the authorization of key figures; and both point, how-

ever laconically, to claims of experiences, possibly ecstatic ones, induced by the

divine spirit.

Nevertheless, the experiences depicted in these narratives—1 Samuel 10 and

Numbers 11—diverge markedly from each other, falling on different ends of the

continuum of ecstatic religion that Lewis, followed by R. Wilson and S. Davies,

identified. In particular, the application of the anthropological distinction between

peripheral and central ecstasy sheds keen light upon the differences between the

experiences in these two passages. In the first place, the social contexts of these

biblical narratives correspond to the divergent social contexts of peripheral and

central forms of ecstasy. Saul was brought under the sway of a roving band of

prophets who were themselves prophesying, a kind of group that was marginal to

the central leadership in early Israel. In 2 Kings 4–5, for example, such a band,under the leadership of Elisha, was destitute, badly housed, and poorly fed. By

contrast, the prophetic figures of Numbers 11 included the elders, that is, officers,

registered Israelites who already functioned as Moses’ associates (Num 11:16,

25, 26).

The impetus for inspiration differs as well in these narratives. Saul was drawn

into a communal prophetic experience that was already taking place under the

influence of harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, instruments used frequently in

many societies to induce ecstatic possession and trance. There are no such corres-

ponding details in Numbers 11, where the elders prophesied once Moses had placed

them around the tent and the Lord was said to come down in the cloud, speak to

Moses, and distribute the spirit. There is no mention of the influence of music or

dance nor of a band of roving ecstatics into whose aura the elders were drawn.

These divergent social contexts explain the varying reactions to the experi-

ences. In 1 Samuel 10, the community validated Saul’s prophetic behavior. The

onlookers asked, ‘‘And who is their father?’’—by which they seem to mean the

head of this band, the prophetic leader of the community, who might authenticate

Saul’s behavior. (Elisha, for example, is addressed as ‘‘father’’ in 2 Kgs 6:21.)

Such communal affirmation, frequently with the help of an authorized leader, is

integral to the claim of ecstasy in a peripheral social context, where the experienceitself, rather than hierarchy or heredity, authenticates a potential intermediary

figure. The narrative of the elders, on the other hand, does not even hint at the

need for communal approval. The issue in Numbers 11 is rather a breach in an

otherwise highly choreographed experience: two of the elders have prophesied in

an inappropriate location, not at the tent of presence but in the camp, and so

Joshua seeks to interdict their performance (Num 11:28).

In both forms of ecstasy, authorization takes place, although the types of

authorization in 1 Samuel 10 and Numbers 11 differ considerably from each other.


8/13/2019 10959698


Saul’s authorization involves a total transformation, a change ‘‘into a different

person,’’marked by identifiable but undisclosed prophetic behavior (1 Sam 10:6).

There is no hint of a corresponding transformation in the elders of Numbers 11;

they are merely authorized to share Moses’ burden. To put this another way,

Saul’s experience of prophesying is integral to his authorization, since it provides

entree to his new role in Israelite society. The elders already exercise authority and

leadership (Num 11:16, 25, 26); their experience of prophesying represents a

particular exercise of that authority during a unique episode in Israel’s sojourn in

the wilderness. They will not prophesy again.

With such authorization, Saul naturally received enhancement of his status;

like the hungan of the bori societies of northwest Africa, Saul was able to ‘‘climb

the social ladder and to acquire a prominent place in the public gaze.’’22 Shortly

after this experience, Saul was declared king amidst communal acclamation,

though some refused to accept Saul’s new status (1 Sam 10:17-24). By contrast,the impact of the experience of prophesying in Numbers 11 is left unexpressed;

the elders’ ongoing role in Israel’s leadership appears not to have been enhanced

in any tangible way by their prophesying.

Accordingly, despite a shared emphasis on the divine spirit, prophesying,

and authorization, 1 Samuel 10 and Numbers 11 represent distinctive social con-

texts and record claims to inspiration that take distinctly different positions along

the continuum of ecstatic behavior. The story of Saul’s prophesying exhibits those

features that social anthropologists have identified with peripheral inspiration: the

need for communal authorization; a noteworthy transformation; and enhancement

of status. The story of the elders, on the other hand, exhibits those features that

are associated with central inspiration: an orderly setting, including an established

hierarchy; support for the status quo, since the elders receive this experience in

order to help Moses to carry the burden of leading the people; and no apparent

enhancement of status, since none is necessary, given the role of the elders.23

It is improbable, therefore, that a phenomenon akin to 1 Samuel 10 was

believed to have transpired in the wilderness, giving the registered elders who had

gathered at the tent of meeting entry to some state akin to Saul’s in 1 Samuel 10

22 Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 96.23 I do not intend to minimize the places at which the biblical narrative does not correspond

precisely to the anthropological categories of peripheral and central inspiration. Typically in peripheral

ecstasy, the experience can often be interpreted initially as sickness; this does not seem to be the case

in 1 Samuel 10, at least not explicitly. Further, peripheral possession frequently arises in contexts of

oppression; again, this does not seem to be the case in 1 Samuel 10, despite the diminished status of

Saul. On the other hand, an element I have not mentioned is that peripheral possession is thought to

occur chiefly during times of transition, and 1 Samuel 10 clearly reflects a difficult transition from

intermittent leaders to an established monarchy (note the alternation of pro- and anti-monarchy narra-

tives in 1 Samuel 8–12).


8/13/2019 10959698


upon their reception of the spirit that had come upon Moses. There is simply no

clear indication of Saul’s form of ecstasy in Numbers 11.

D. Summary

The biblical narratives, rich as they are in detail, leave much to the imagina-tion. Neither 1 Samuel 10 nor Numbers 11 provides much information about the

mechanisms of inspiration. Yet what we can discern suggests that these narratives

represent two ends on the continuum of ecstatic inspiration: differing social con-

texts (peripheral versus central); varying measures of authorization (complete trans-

formation versus temporary equipping); contrasting ritual contexts (itinerants playing

musical instruments versus elders gathered at an authorized cultic center); dis-

similar characters of key figures (an increasingly deranged and possessed Saul

versus registered, official leaders); and a differing impact on the status of the key

figures (Saul acclaimed king shortly thereafter versus the apparently unaltered

status of the elders). What the two narratives share, therefore, is eclipsed by whatdifferentiates them.

Nor does the narrative in 1 Samuel 19 provide a suitable analogue to Num-

bers 11. The final ecstasy, alone among the narratives of Saul in providing details

of inspiration (nudity and a catatonic state), follows upon attacks by an evil spirit

and the jealous rages during which Saul attempted to murder David. The expe-

rience happens, in fact, to prevent Saul and his armies from murdering David! By

unmistakable contrast, the elders under Moses gather voluntarily and receive the

spirit in the designated location and at the designated moment. The only hint of

disorder arises when Eldad and Medad are found to have prophesied in the wrong

location—hardly a hair-raising event in comparison with Saul’s experiences of spirits and nocturnal nudity—and Moses easily calms the situation with generous

equanimity. If 1 Samuel 10–19 fails to provide those details that are lacking from

the narrative of the elders in Numbers 11, where might a resolution to the mystery

of their prophesying be found? A solution lies precisely where one might expect

it: in the particular verbs that the narrator uses to depict the spirit’s presence.

II. Significant Verbs and the Absence of Frenzy

The Hebrew Bible contains stereotypical language to express inspiration by

the spirit of God. Typically, it is said that the spirit ‘‘came upon’’ (xljtv) or

‘‘was upon’’ (yhtv) a figure, who then undertook an extraordinary action orproduced an oracle. This is the case for Saul (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 18:10 [an evil

spirit]; 19:20-23); for Samson, where the verb xlj is used to describe the

powerful advent of the spirit that drove Samson three times to remarkable feats,

for example, tearing a lion apart (Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14); and also for Balaam, who

delivered oracles when the spirit of God ‘‘was upon him’’ (vyli yhtv) (Num

24:2). The vocabulary of Numbers 11 differs from this stereotypical language

with a selection of words that evoke a different coalescence of biblical texts. Two

verbs, in particular, communicate significant and relatively unique aspects of the


8/13/2019 10959698


phenomenon of prophesying. The verb ljℵ is selected to depict the withdrawal

or reserving of the spirit that lay upon Moses; the verb xvn is chosen to convey

the way in which the spirit was distributed to the elders. Both verbs, neither of

which occurs in stereotypical expressions, point away from interpreting prophe-

sying in Numbers 11 as a precipitous plunge into an ecstatic state; they suggestrather that prophesying entailed a more ordered experience that served to assist

Moses as he led Israel.

A. Withdrawal of the Spirit from Moses

a. The Elders of Exodus 24. Many elements of Exodus 16–24 have counter-

parts in Numbers 11. Exodus 16 and Numbers 11, for example, share the elements

of complaint about food (Exod 16:2; Num 11:1), the daily gift of manna (Exod

16:16b-21; Num 11:6-9), and the arrival of quail (Exod 16:13a; Num 11:31-34).

Of greater significance, in terms of context, are the taut affinities that exist

between Exodus 18 and Numbers 11. In both narratives, the problem of Moses’burden is expressed analogously. In Exod 18:18, Jethro observes Moses and says,

‘‘for the task is too heavy for you’’ (rbdh ;mm dbk yk), while in Num 11:14,

Moses says of his people, ‘‘for they are too heavy for me’’ (ynmm dbk yk).

Similarly, in both narratives the solution is expressed in parallel terms: in Exod

16:22, Jethro advises Moses to appoint officers who will bear the burden with him

(;tℵ vℵsnv), and in Num 11:17, God instructs Moses in similar words that the

elders will bear the burden with him (;tℵ vℵsnv). The elders’ experiences in

these related narratives, therefore, have a similar purpose.

Another literary association, now between Exodus 24 and Numbers 11, is

created by the recurrence of the root ljℵ and is entirely in keeping with thecorrespondences between Exodus 16–18 and Numbers 11. In Num 11:16-17, God

promises to ‘‘take some of the spirit that is on’’Moses and bestow it on the elders,

and the verb ljℵ is used to express the withdrawal of the spirit. B. Levine quite

correctly discerns a close verbal association between this text and Exodus 24,

which refers to the seventy elders who ascended Mt. Sinai as ,ylyjℵ, an expres-

sion probably deriving from the same root as ljℵ in Num 11:17, 25:

The key words in this version are lℵrsy ynb ylyjℵ, ‘‘the spirited leaders of the

Israelite people,’’ in Exod 24:11. One called lyjℵ is one who has received the spirit

of the Lord. The corresponding verb, ljℵ, signifies the withdrawal of some of the

spirit invested in Moses and its conferral on the elders, in Num 11:17 and 25. Exod24:11 thus subtly subsumes the elders under the category of charismatic leaders.

Their acceptability as such is confirmed by the fact that they were not harmed when

in God’s presence. What was alluded to in Exod 24:11 is spelled out in Numbers 11.24

Exodus 24 describes how Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel with

him, along with Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, up to Mount Sinai, where ‘‘they saw

24 Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 339. I have substituted Hebrew transcription for Levine’s translitera-

tions.


8/13/2019 10959698


the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire

stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief

men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank ’’

(24:10-11). This narrative presents the seventy elders, depicted as ,ylyjℵ, as

participants in a visionary experience. Both contexts, moreover, have specificallyto do with holy places, Mt. Sinai and the tent of meeting, which are distinguished

by the descent of mysterious clouds. On the basis of such similarities, Levine is

well grounded when he suggests that the laconic references of Exod 24:11 are

clarified by Numbers 11.25 As we have noted, this correspondence between Num-

bers 11 and Exodus 24 is by no means limited to the recurrence of a single verb

stem. The numerous points of contact between Exodus 18 and 24 and Numbers

11 explain how, as early as 1912, G. B. Gray could write that ‘‘the relation of the

foregoing story [Num 11:15-16, 26-27] of the seventy elders to Ex. 18 and 241-11

has been much discussed.’’26

By the same token, Exodus 24 supplies what is implicit in the narrative of

Numbers 11: prophesying consisted principally of a visionary experience within

a controlled central setting, with an established social hierarchy and an appointed

locus of revelation. The elders had been appointed earlier to bear Moses’ burden

with him, had gathered at a locus of revelation, on Mt. Sinai, and had participated

in a communal visionary experience alongside Moses. Once again, the elders would

bear Moses’ burden with him by gathering at another locus of revelation, the tent

of presence, in order to function again as the lℵrsy ynb ylyjℵ, the bearers of

the spirit that had been withdrawn from Moses, by participating in a visionary

experience whose revelation provided Moses with the support he needed for lead-ing the recalcitrant Israelites. Although the narrator does not disclose the contents

of this vision, the association of this account with Exodus 24 suggests that the

elders’ experience of ecstasy in a central social context led them, along with Moses,

into a vision of God not unlike the one at Mt. Sinai and prerequisite to the support

they would now give to Moses. The sheer weight of a communal visionary expe-

rience underscores that Moses was indeed not alone, that the elders would bear

the burden of the people with Moses, that Moses need not undertake the respon-

sibilities of leadership in isolation.

The succeeding narrative in Numbers 12 lends support to this identification

of ecstasy not as uncontrolled frenzy or catatonia but as a controlled, communalvisionary experience. In the following episode, during which Aaron and Miriam

challenge Moses, the divine retort characterizes prophets—in this instance, the

elders who prophesied—as seers of visions: ‘‘When there are prophets among

you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in

dreams’’ (12:6). If the characteristic means of revelation for prophets, according

25 On the relationship between Exod 33:7-11 and Numbers 11, see Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 339.26 Gray, Numbers, 116.


8/13/2019 10959698


to Numbers 12, is visions, and if the elders in the prior episode had just prophe-

sied, it would seem to be a near certainty, from a narrative standpoint, that the

prophesying of the elders entailed the reception of a vision. This inference is

confirmed by the choice of the verb ljℵ in Num 11:17, which evokes the

memory of the elders’ vision in Exodus 24; and the cognate noun strengthens theassociation of prophesying with the reception of a vision in Numbers 11–12.27

That the elders’ visions had to do with shared leadership in Israel is evident,

moreover, in the following clauses of Num 12:6-8. Moses is said not to receive

such indirect communication as visions and dreams because ‘‘he is entrusted with

all my house’’ (12:7). The elders, by contrast, were not entrusted with leadership

over all God’s house; their leadership was derivative of Moses’ authority over the

house of God. The relationship between Moses and prophets in Num 12:6-8

corresponds precisely to the relationship between Moses and the elders in Num

11:16-17; the latter received a portion of Moses’ spirit. They may have received

a prophetic vision, but their authority, like the spirit that rested upon them, wasdependent on Moses.

b. Balaam in Numbers 22 – 24. The association of the spirit with visions

continues in the next appearance of the spirit in the Book of Numbers, in the

context of the third and fourth oracles of Balaam, who can be called a ‘‘seer’’

according to the archaic designation of ‘‘prophets,’’ as explained in 1 Sam 9:9. As

in Numbers 11, the social context is one of a central religion in which a recog-

nizable, authorized medium is expected to receive oracles intended to support the

sponsoring rulers. The irony of the narrative, of course, is that Balaam, prompted

by the spirit that has come upon him, extolls Israel rather than Balak ’s Moabites.

There is irony in the mode of revelation as well. Although Balaam originallyintended to discern a divine word from well-organized ritual sacrifices, instead he

receives a vision only after he has discarded such methods of artificial divination.

Consequently, Balaam’s words describe the vision he has received:

The oracle of Balaam son of Beor,

the oracle of the man whose eye is clear [or closed],

the oracle of one who hears the words of God,

who sees the vision of the Almighty,

who falls down, but with eyes uncovered. . . . (Num 24:3-4)

In two of three references to the divine spirit in Numbers, therefore, the spirit of

God induces a visionary experience in what we have come to recognize as acentral rather than a peripheral religious context.28 In Numbers 11, this mode of

revelation is subtly disclosed by the selection of a verb that is reminiscent of

Exodus 24; in Numbers 23–24, this visionary experience lies at the forefront of

27 For a more detailed discussion of visions and ecstasy in Israelite prophecy, see J. Lindblom,

Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962) 4-5, 122-65.28 Num 27:18 describes the spirit within Joshua without any sense that the spirit has come or

rested upon him.


8/13/2019 10959698


the narrative, though with the irony that Balaam’s message undercuts Balak ’s

military aspirations toward Israel rather than encouraging them.

c. Micaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kings 22. Only slightly farther afield, in 1 Kings

22, lies another narrative displaying a coalescence of the spirit, prophesying, and

a visionary experience, just as we found in Numbers 11. This further specimen,a narrative focused principally upon the prophet Micaiah ben Imlah, includes three

occurrences of the hithpael of the verbℵbn. Once again, the social context is that

of a central ecstatic religion that exists in large measure in the service of the status

quo.According to 1 Kings 22, Micaiah ben Imlah and a group of prophets gathered

by King Ahab of Israel prophesied in the presence of him and Jehoshaphat, the

king of Judah, concerning the joint expedition they were planning against Syria.

Ahab’s prophets, quite predictably, supported the venture; but Micaiah ben Imlah,

reluctantly summoned by Ahab at the behest of Jehoshaphat, after giving perfunc-

tory support at first to the kings’ plan, finally issued the oracle against it that Ahab

had anticipated.Considerable insight into the nature of the prophesying in Numbers 11 can

be drawn from 1 Kings 22. In this narrative, the king accused Micaiah of never

prophesying ‘‘anything favorable about me, but only disaster’’ (1 Kgs 22:8). The

messenger sent to retrieve Micaiah from prison urged him to say something posi-

tive: ‘‘Look, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king;

let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably’’ (1 Kgs 22:13).

These statements are instructive because they demonstrate that the hithpael of the

verbℵbn, though reflexive in form, does not imply a catatonic state of ecstasy akin

to Saul’s. On the contrary, this sort of prophesying offers a concrete message to

those in authority from a well-defined, hierarchically organized community of prophets under a leader—in this case, Zedekiah ben Chenaanah (1 Kgs 22:10).

When this group is said to be ‘‘prophesying’’ (,yℵbntm) before the kings, their

behavior is not specified, though the thrust of their message to the kings who sit

before them is clear: Go to war!

Moreover, the action of their leader, while they continued prophesying, sug-

gests a large measure of physical and mental control, quite different from Saul’s

experience, particularly when the latter is described in detail in 1 Samuel 19.

Zedekiah ben Chenaanah rose up, made a pair of iron horns, and predicted that

the kings would gore the enemy to death. The prophets concurred: ‘‘Go up to

Ramoth-Gilead and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king’’(1 Kgs

22:11-12). This sequence would appear to indicate that prophesying in a central

religious context, whatever else it may have entailed, consisted of comprehensible

actions and words proffered to support a ruler’s intentions.

Another relevant dimension of 1 Kings 22 is its visionary element. The origin

of both of Micaiah ben Imlah’s messages lay in visionary experiences. Both mes-

sages did little more than describe the prophet’s visions in the kings’ presence.

The first vision had to do with scattered sheep (22:17), the second with a scene

in the heavenly council (22:19-23). Thus, the context of prophesying was the kings’


8/13/2019 10959698


attempt to discern the prospect of victory in the war; the medium of revelation was

a vision; the method of communication was a comprehensible message that recalled

the visions; and the effect of Micaiah’s prophesying was to subvert the status quo.

Given his opposition to the king and his status as a prisoner, Micaiah could not

function as a supporter of the status quo. Rather, he delivered subversive oraclesthat reflected his peripheral status.

From the perspective of Numbers 11, all of these elements are important.

Prophesying in 1 Kings 22 contains no sign of raving, no clues to rapturous ecstasy.

The prophets who prophesied before the kings provided a backdrop for their

leader, Zedekiah, who led forth with a symbol of victory, giving direct support for

the kings’ plans under purported divine inspiration. Micaiah ben Imlah related two

visions with equal clarity, providing the kings with an alternative future that

differed radically from the one Zedekiah’s hierarchically organized prophets had

promised them.

d. Summary. In each of these narratives, prophesying is associated withvisions. The use of the verb ljℵ to express the drawing of the spirit from Moses

evokes the narrative in Exodus 24, according to which the seventy elders, ,ylyjℵ,

shared in a vision of God. Moreover, this perspective on Numbers 11 anticipates

the association of prophets with communications of God made through visions and

dreams but not face to face, as God has spoken with Moses (Num 12:6-8). The

association of oracles with visions persists throughout the Book of Numbers;

Balaam described himself as a seer of visions who glimpsed the glory of Israel’s

encampments (e.g., 24:5-6). The narrative concerning Micaiah ben Imlah illumi-

nates the presence of this association in Numbers 11: Micaiah refused to prophesy

‘‘good’’ about the king of Israel—he refused to act according to the strictures of central ecstatic experiences—and delivered the contents of two damning visions

instead. All of these observations lead to the conclusion that the prophesying of

the elders laconically told in Numbers 11 was believed to have consisted of a

vision, the contents of which are no longer entirely accessible to us, which enabled

the elders to stand alongside Moses, to receive revelation in concert with him, and

to bear with him the burden of governing the Israelites.

B. Conferral of the Spirit upon the Elders

If the withdrawal of the spirit from Moses is expressed by the evocative verb

ljℵ, the conferral of the spirit upon the elders is expressed by an equallysignificant verb, xvn. A sense of the connotation of this verb can be gained from

the succession narrative in 2 Kings 2. Elisha had requested a double portion of

Elijah’s spirit. When Elijah ascended, Elisha picked up his mantle and success-

fully parted the Jordan River, as Elijah had, and walked from one side to the other.

The narrative continues: ‘‘When the company of prophets who were at Jericho

saw him at a distance, they declared, ‘The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha’ ’’ (2 Kgs

2:15). In other words, they acknowledged that, in this miracle, the transference

of Elijah’s spirit to Elisha had successfully taken place.


8/13/2019 10959698


The most important instance of this verb occurs in Isa 11:1-9, which depicts

the resting of the spirit upon the shoot that will arise from the root of Jesse. The

effect will presumably be a permanent endowment of the qualities that charac-

terize the ideal king:

The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him,

The spirit of wisdom and understanding,

The spirit of counsel and might,

The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. (Isa 11:2)

The quality of this leadership will be evident in justice for the poor, judgment of

the wicked, righteousness and faithfulness in the land, and, eventually, the restora-

tion of Edenic peace and tranquility in the universal reign of Israel’s ideal leader.

The use of the verb xvn in Num 11:25-26 to express the presence of the spirit

with the elders of Israel reflects a perspective shared by 2 Kings 2; Isaiah 11; and

Numbers 11.All three have to do with charisma in its strongest sense: the transferalof Elijah’s charisma to Elisha, the endowment of the messianic deliverer with a

remarkable charisma of leadership, and the sharing of Moses’ charisma with the

elders. Nowhere in 2 Kings 2 and Isaiah 11 is there a hint of ecstatic fits of frenzy.

Why, then, should we discern such fits of frenzy in Numbers 11, where the

successful transfer of Moses’ authority to the elders is at issue? Why should we

think of rapturous ecstasy when the verb expressing the spirit’s presence is not

xlj or its equivalents but xvn? Interpretation in terms of rapture is heedless of

the verb xvn and wrongly fastened on the hithpael of ℵbn—a verb that, as we have

seen, indicates not only the uncontrolled behavior of ecstatic prophets but also the

visionary experience of what is necessary for carrying the burden of leading Israel.The choice of the verb xvn may have had an additional effect on the construal

of the narrative. The texts concerning Elijah and the messianic ruler clearly imply

that the resting of the spirit on them is a permanent endowment. It may be, in fact,

this construal of the verb ‘‘to rest’’ in terms of a permanent endowment that

prompted the narrator in Num 11:25 to add what strikes many interpreters as the

odd conclusion that the elders did not prophesy again. Their endowment was not

permanent, in other words, despite the use of the verb xvn to convey the spirit’s

presence; their ability to perceive God was transitory, occasioned by Moses’

request for help in carrying his people.

III. Conclusion

This study has exposed several deficiencies in the interpretation of vℵbntyvin terms of prophetic frenzy. The first is the unnecessary narrative dissonance it

creates between the purpose of this prophesying—to alleviate Moses’ burden—

and an apparently ineffective, rapturous excitement. The second is the difficulty

of citing such a tortured figure as Saul and his unwitting armies to exemplify the

prophetic activity of a well-established and orderly group of appointed elders


8/13/2019 10959698


during the Mosaic period. The verb ℵbnth need not be understood identically

in two such different texts, particularly when they reflect two different social

contexts, the one a peripheral social context (Saul in 1 Samuel 10), the other a

central social context (the elders in Numbers 11). The third deficiency of this

interpretation is its failure to take into consideration the use of the verb xvn, ‘‘to

rest,’’ in Num 11:25-26 rather than, say, xlj, ‘‘to rush upon’’ (1 Sam 10:6, 20;

Judg 14:6, 19, etc.).29 The ‘‘resting’’of the spirit suggests a less debilitating mode

of the spirit’s presence.

Far more compelling than the relationship between 1 Samuel 10–19 and Num-

bers 11–12 are the verbal and conceptual relationships between Numbers 11 and

other narratives, which yield the more credible interpretation of the hithpael form

of the verb ℵbn in terms of a communal vision that made possible the elders’

assistance of Moses. The comparative features that confirm this interpretation are

the following: (1) the occurrence of the stem

ljℵin both Exodus 24 and Numbers

11, suggesting that analogous types of vision are involved in both stories; (2) the

association of prophesying and visions in Num 12:6-8; (3) the close association

that exists between spirit, prophecy, vision, and Israel’s future in the narrative

about Balaam in Numbers 22–24; and (4) the illuminating ties between Numbers

11 and 1 Kings 22, a narrative in which the act of prophesying—ℵbnth—consists

of the reception and communication of refractory visions that undercut the kings’

plans for war.

When the phenomenon of prophesying in Numbers 11 is correctly understood

as the communal reception of a vision for the purpose of providing viable leader-

ship alongside that of Moses, the narrative can be read without the artificial literarydisjunction and semantic misjudgments that are created by the interpretation in

terms of ecstatic catatonia and frenzy. A clear relationship is then established between

the promise of the spirit and Moses’ need of help to lead the people; and this, in

turn, respects the communal dimension of the elders’ inspiration, since in Num-

bers 11, as in Exodus 24, Moses experiences God alongside, rather than in isola-

tion from, a close coterie of leaders. This interpretation also takes into consideration

the subsequent reference to prophetic visions in Num 12:6-8, while understanding

the mode of the spirit’s presence—resting upon the elders—in its natural sense

as a peaceable endowment rather than a prophetic seizure similar to Saul’s.

29 It is an indication of the resilience of the interpretation of Numbers 11 as a flight into

prophetic ecstasy that Levine ( Numbers 1 – 20, 340) initiates his otherwise informed discussion by

inadequately defining the verb ‘‘to prophesy’’ in terms of ‘‘what happens physically and emotionally

when the irresistible spirit of God seizes a person.’’Although he distinguishes the conferral of the spirit

(‘‘to rest’’) from the effects of the spirit (‘‘to prophesy’’), he allows his interpretation of the dramatic

effect (to fall into prophetic frenzy) to distort his otherwise judicious definition of conferral as resting.

The elders were presumably seized by the spirit, like the judges and Saul; but the peaceful conferral

of the spirit in their case should reduce the focus of Levine’s interpretation of prophesying on violent

possession or seizure.


8/13/2019 10959698


This interpretation may also explain otherwise puzzling elements of Num-

bers 11. Joshua’s concern on Moses’ behalf with respect to Eldad and Medad, who

prophesied within the camp, becomes more comprehensible if prophesying is not

frenzy but an exercise of leadership within a community. Two unmonitored elders

who claimed to receive a vision were in a position to challenge Moses’ centralleadership. This was no idle threat, since almost immediately, in Numbers 12, such

a challenge to Moses’ leadership arose from Aaron and Miriam. Moreover, this

interpretation explains why the narrator is obliged to say that the elders did not

prophesy again; the resting of the spirit, as in Isaiah 11, suggests a permanent

endowment of authority—an impression which, in this case, has to be promptly

dispelled.

Although the aim of this study has been to arrive at a satisfying interpretation

of a single ancient narrative, it may also reshape our thinking about prophesying

and possession by a spirit in general. It demonstrates the inadequacy of utilizing

a single brush to portray ancient phenomena; indeed, the divergences among narra-tives such as 1 Samuel 10–19 (Saul) and Numbers 11 (the elders) are a salutary

reminder of differences in conception and social context that contemporary social

anthropologists have amply documented.30 Claims of prophetic inspiration cannot

be homogenized; such phenomena took place at the intersection between a myste-

rious realm and concrete social contexts. It is, accordingly, much more likely that

differently occasioned experiences of inspiration should differ substantially from

one another than that they should appear unvaryingly in the same guise.

This study also demonstrates that the cautious use of anthropological studies

of contemporary spirit possession may assist us in discriminating between phenom-

ena of the spirit in ancient narratives and in plotting their portrayals of inspirationalong a continuum of ecstatic experience. For the internal discipline of exegesis,

too, we have been reminded not to overlook simple choices of vocabulary—the

preference in Numbers 11, for example, for certain unusual verbs rather than more

traditional ones.

These seemingly disparate components—including narrative, anthropologi-

cal, and semantic analysis—dovetail in this study with remarkable cogency and

take us a long way toward not only solving the case of the ecstatic elders but also

charting the course for further studies of prophecy and inspiration in antiquity.

30 See V. Eppstein’s study ‘‘Was Saul Also among the Prophets,’’ ZAW 77 (1965) 287-304. Epp-

stein contends that conceptions of ecstasy and prophecy changed considerably throughout Israel’s

history, so much so that even the significance of the question ‘‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’’—so

central to scholarly explanations of Numbers 11 in light of the ecstasy of 1 Samuel 10 and 19 —is open

to question. Eppstein proposes that the question originally meant, Could Saul have been included

among such prophets as Samuel? The biblical narrator of 1 Samuel misconstrued this proverb and

interpreted it to mean, Is Saul among the ecstatics? Whether or not one finds Eppstein’s interpretation

fully convincing, it nevertheless impresses on us the need for resolute caution in cross-referencing

narratives of ancient Israelite history, keeping in mind the vicissitudes and vagaries of the life of the

Israelites.


8/13/2019 10959698


10959698

Documents