Dear friends,

In this newsletter, we will take a closer look at two passages in the story of Exodus. We will try to discover a secondary layer of intent. I admit that the interpretations may be considered somewhat conjectural. Nevertheless, it will prove to be an excellent exercise in learning to read the Hebrew Bible closely. In the first text, we will look at a pun. In the second text, we will look at a first century interpretation that shows how to come to amazing interpretations by a literal reading.

The Waters at Marah
Let’s look at a short fragment from the Exodus story.

Taking this fragment at face value, we see people that did not find water for three days. They journeyed through a desert landscape. Once they found water, they could not drink the water because it was bitter. (This must mean the water was extremely bitter.) It is then perhaps not completely surprising that the people “murmered against Moses.”

Now the text says that the place was named Marah (מָרָה), “because it [the water] was bitter” (כִּי מָרִים הֵם). At face value the connection is clear. Both words are clearly forms of the word מַר “bitter.” However, it is also very appropriate to read the placename differently. Namely, מָרָה can also mean “complain” or “be recalcitrant.” The double meaning of the word is very appropriate, since in the next verse (v. 24), the people “complained against Moses.” It seems to be reasonable to expect that the author of this passage was very well aware of the pun of this placename. And if that is true, we can with our knowledge of Hebrew discover such puns in the text.

The Well
Let’s move on to another story about water during the Exodus. In Numbers 21:16-20, we find a story about a well. For our purposes we will focus on verses 18b-20, in particular the placenames.

If you read our last newsletter, you learned that the Septuagint is extremely important, if not the most important translation. It is therefore important that we consult the Septuagint in this case about the translation. We will not deal with the Greek here, but it is sufficient to note that the Septuagint translated the placenames in the same way as was done in the English translation above: Mat'tanah (Μανθαναιν), Nahal'iel (Νααλιηλ), Bamoth (Βαμωθ).

Now we are not the first people to show interest in the Bible. Among the many commentaries on the Bible is the Book of Biblical Antiquities (LAB – from its Latin title Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum). This book was probably written in Hebrew before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. This commentary has two passages that deal with the Well of Numbers 21.
LAB 10:7 “for forty years he brought forth a well of water to follow them.”

We find two amazing interpretations in this text. Namely, that the well was there for 40 years and that it followed the Israelites. (There are similar interpretations in the Aramaic Targums, the New Testament and rabbinic literature. Unfortunately, we don't have the scope to deal with those here.) Before we understand how the author of this commentary came to his conclusions, we must first look at another addition. We read that the well was “brought forth.” Reading the text literally, one might understand the word מַתָּנָה to mean “bringing forth.” Namely, the meaning of the root of מַתָּנָה is to give. “Bringing forth” is therefore a possible interpretation.

In another section, this commentary says about the well:
LAB 11:15 “And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plain.”

Comparing this commentary to the text from Numbers, we see that the wilderness is plainly mentioned in the Masoretic Text; This is nothing new. However, the height (“went up to the mountain”) and the depth (“went down into the plain/valley”), seem to be absent from the Masoretic text. Yet a close reading, possible even for someone with limited Hebrew vocabulary, shows how our commentator might have come to his conclusion. Namely, the depth (“went down into the plain/valley”) can be read into נַחֲלִיאֵל. The word נַחֲלִיאֵל can be divided into נַחֲלִי (“my valley”) and אֵל (“God”). The height (“went up to the mountain”) can be read into בָּמוֹת. The word בָּמוֹת is the plural form of the word בָּמָה, which can mean “high place.” Supposing our commentator read the Hebrew Bible literally, we can come to the following reconstruction of the text:
18b And from the wilderness a “gift/brought forth”,
19 and from “gift/brought forth” to “my valley is God”, and from “my valley is God” to “heights”,
20 and from “heights” to the valley lying in the region of Moab by the top of Pisgah which looks down upon the desert.

With a certain amount of flexibility, we see that starting with the wilderness there was a gift that is the well. Subsequently, we see a movement from the gift in the wilderness to a valley and from the valley to the heights, which are mountains. This could describe the 40 year Exodus story. The earlier “amazing interpretations”, namely that the well followed the Israelites for 40 years, could simply be a conclusion after reading the words in a literal fashion. In addition, in the overall context of the story, the reading is not at all ludicrous. Namely, it explains the continual provision of water that the Israelites would have needed in the desert type environment they resided in.

In conclusion, the author of the Book of Biblical Antiquities probably read the words מַתָּנָה, נַחֲלִיאֵל, בָּמוֹת literally. The Septuagint translated these words simply as placenames. Since the Septuagint is the most authoritative translation we have, the simple meaning of the text indeed points to placenames. However, a secondary reading as we found in the Book of Biblical Antiquities seems to be a very plausible secondary meaning. Moreover, as the author of the Hebrew Bible seems to be very well aware of wordplays in the text, as we saw in the story about the waters of Marah, it is very possible that the literal reading of the names, was something the author intended the audience to grasp.

Have a great week!

Stefan Bosman
The Biblical Hebrew team

Addendum: Clearing up an ambiguous statement in the last newsletter.
In the last newsletter I said that:
"the Babylonian Talmud records that 72 elders independently translated the Torah without any differences. Whatever truth is stored in this tradition, it is clear that the Torah section of the LXX is of superior quality. The majority of scholars think that the Torah was translated into Greek around the 3rd century BCE and the other books over the next two centuries."
I realized that my statement was somewhat ambiguous. Namely, you might have understood this to mean that the Septuagint translation is superior to the Masoretic text. This is not what I meant. Again, the superiority of the Torah section of the Septuagint does not stand in contrast to the Masoretic text. It rather stands in contrast to the non-Torah portions of the Septuagint. Thus it is the quality of the translation of the Torah that is superior within the whole of the Septuagint.  (This coincides with the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud.)