The Conquest of Sihon's Kingdom: A Literary Examination

Author(s): John van Seters

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Jun., 1972, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Jun., 1972), pp. 182-
197
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263204

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263204?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Biblical Literature

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM:
A LITERARY EXAMINATION

JOHN VAN SETERS

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, TORONTO, CANADA

N recent years the early history of Israel has been discussed and debated
largely within the context of a history-of-traditions methodology which at the
same time takes largely for granted the classical literary analysis of the Penta-
teuch. This method presupposes the ability to get behind the present written
sources to ancient oral traditions which may elucidate Israel's origins.1 However,
such questions of tradition-history cannot be discussed until the literary character
of the text is more fully clarified. The possibility must be considered that the
text is a literary creation or a "redactional" development of earlier literary works,
in which case any discussion of oral tradition would be immensely complicated.
How a critical reconsideration of such literary problems could affect an evalua-
tion of the traditions of Israel's early history may be illustrated by a study of the
narratives relating to the conquest of the kingdoms of Sihon and Og.
The primary accounts of Israel's conquest of these kingdoms are found in
Num 21:21-35 and Deut 2:24-3:11. With respect to the first of these accounts,
there is a problem in identifying the literary source. Noth assigns the oldest part
of it to E rather than J, but his only reason is the use of the term "Amorite."2
He states that J usually uses the term "Canaanite" in the sense of pre-Israelite
inhabitants. However, against this argument is the fact that "Canaanite" or "the
land of Canaan" is never used to refer to Transjordan, and there is also no passage
where the term "Amorite" occurs which can be clearly assigned to E. The source
must remain an open question for the time being.
If we now compare the two versions we may note that the account of the
battle with Og in Num 21:33-35 agrees almost entirely with that in Deut 3:1-3.
Most scholars are of the opinion that Num 21:33-35 is dependent on Deut 3:1-3.
The reason for this view is the fact that in Deuteronomy the accounts of the two
battles with Sihon and Og follow the same pattern and style, whereas in Numbers
there are some notable differences between the two accounts, although the account

1For a recent appraisal of this method, see R. C. Culley, "An Approach to the Prob-
lem of Oral Tradition," VT 13 (1963) 113-25; K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical
Tradition (New York: Scribner, 1969).
2M. Noth, Numbers, A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 162. For
a radically different approach to these accounts, see M. Ottosson, Gilead, Tradition and
History (Lund: Gleerup, 1969) 53ff. Ottosson refers to a P-traditionist as the author of
the Numbers account and considers him as pre-deuteronomistic.

182

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 183

of the battle with Og is written in a style characteristic of deuteronomistic ac-

counts of this type elsewhere.3
This conclusion, however, raises another important question. Does this mean
that Num 21:33-35 is merely an addition to an older account, as Noth suggests,4
or could the whole passage, vss. 21-35, be viewed as the work of one redactor
who made use of Deuteronomy as one of a number of sources for the construction
of these episodes? The answer to this question will become clear from a com-
parison of the two Sihon accounts, which may be set down as follows:

Num 21:21-25 Deut 2:26-37

vs. 21 Then Israel sent messengers to vs.
Si-26 Then I (Moses) sent messengers
hon, king of the Amorites, saying: from the wilderness of Kedemoth to
Sihon, the king of Heshbon, with
words of peace, saying:

vs. 22 "Let me pass through your land;vs. we27 "Let me pass through your land; I
will not turn aside (nitteh) into will go by the [King's]5 Highway.
field or vineyard; we will not drink I will not turn aside ('asur) to the
the water of a well; we will go by right or to the left .. ."
the King's Highway, until we pass
through your territory."

vs. 23a But Sihon would not allow Israel
to pass through his territory.
vs. 30 But Sihon, king of Heshbon, was
unwilling to let us pass by him; for
the Lord your God hardened his
spirit and made his heart obstinate,
that he might give him into your
hand, as at this day.

vs. 31 And the Lord said to me, "Behold

I have begun to give Sihon and his
land over to you; begin to take pos-
session, that you may occupy (ri!
larest) his land."

vs. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he

vs. 23b He gathered all his people together,
and went out against Israel to the and all his people, to battle at Jahaz.
wilderness, and came to Jahaz, and
fought against Israel.
vs. 24 And Israel defeated him with the vs. 33 And the Lord our God gave him
edge of the sword, and took posses- over to us; and we defeated him and
sion of his land from the Arnon to his sons and all his people.
the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammon-
ites; for Jazer was the boundary of
the Ammonites.
vs. 34 And we captured all his cities at
vs. 25 And Israel took all these cities, and
Israel dwelt in all the cities of the that time and utterly destroyed every
Amorites, in Heshbon, and all its city, men, women, and children; we
villages. left none remaining . . .

8Cf. Ottosson (Gilead, 67ff.), who argues for dependence in the other direction.
'Numbers, 162. Noth regards vss. 33-35 as a deuteronomistic addition, vs. 32 as a
pre-deuteronomistic addition, and the rest (vss. 21-31) as a literary unity.
Reading ham-mglk in place of the repeated bad-drek with the parallel text.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

vs. 36 From Aroer, which is on the edge

of the valley of the Arnon, and from
the city that is in the valley, as far
as Gilead there was not a city too
high for us; the Lord our God gave
all into our hands.

vs. 37 Only to the land of the Ammonites,

you did not draw near, that is, to
all the banks of the river Jabbok
and the cities of the hill country,
and wherever the Lord our God for-
bade us.

With respect to the similarities of the two accounts one may observe that
virtually the whole of the Num 21:21-25 text is to be found in Deut 2:26-37,
though the Numbers version is very much shorter.6 The same is true for the
account of the battle with Og in Numbers in which Num 21:35 is a considerable
abbreviation of Deut 3:3-10. Only the messenger speech of Num 21:22 departs
significantly from that of Deut 2:27-29, as well as the reference to Israel's settle-
ment in Num 21:25 which is not found in Deuteronomy. However, for the rest
the two versions are so close in basic content and wording that either one must
depend on the other or both derive from a common literary tradition.7
Nevertheless, the differences are also quite remarkable. In the Numbers
version Moses is not mentioned at all, in contrast to Deuteronomy and even to the
immediate context in Numbers, vss. 32-34. Likewise God is not mentioned, nor
is there any suggestion of divine intervention so characteristic of Deuteronomy.
In the account of the battle with Og, Num 21:34 does include Yahweh's promise
to deliver Og into Israel's hands (cf. Deut 3:2). However, Num 21:35 does not
repeat the mention of divine intervention, as does Deut 3:3, but is closer in
structure to Num 21:24: "They (Israel) slew him . . . and posssesed his land."
Furthermore, the Numbers version of the battle with Sihon goes beyond the con-
quest to Israel's settlement in the region. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, is
careful to explain that the settling in the east did not take place until the west
was won as well (Deut 3:12-22; cf. Num 32).
One possible explanation for the differences is to say that Num 21:21-25
represents an independent tradition of conquest and settlement not fully inte-
grated into the other conquest traditions to the same degree as in Deuteronomy.
Such an argument may account for the differences we have just noted but not for
the strong verbal similarity with Deuteronomy. It also attempts to solve the

There are distinct similarities between the redaction history of these passages and
that of the synoptic gospels, much more so than OT scholars have previously allowed. It
would be useful in all such cases of parallel passages to apply the same basic tests for
priority and dependence that are standard in synoptic criticism.
7The possibility of direct literary dependence ought not to be ruled out a priori as a
viable explanation for this relationship. It is high time, following the suggestion made
by F. V. Winnett, "Re-examining the Foundations," JBL 84 (1965) 1-19, that this possi-
bility be seriously raised once again in pentateuchal criticism.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 185

problem by relegating it to a stage of tradition-transmission over which there is

no historical or literary control.8
There is, however, another option, and that is to bring into the discussion
another account of the conquest of Sihon, viz., that contained in Judg 11:19-26.9
The parallels with Num 21:21-25 may be set down as follows:10
Num 21:21-25 Judg 11:19-26
vs. 21 Then Israel sent messengers to vs.
Si-19a Then Israel sent messengers to Si-
hon, king of the Amorites, saying: hon, king of the Amorites, king of
Heshbon, and Israel said to him.

vs. 22 "Let me pass through your land;vs.

we 19b "Let me pass through your land
will not turn aside into field or to my country."
vineyard; we will not drink the
water of a well; we will go by the
King's Highway, until we pass
through your territory."

vs. 23 But Sihon would not allow Israel to
pass through his territory. He gath-
ered all his people together, and
went out against Israel to the wil-
derness, and came to Jahaz, and
fought against Israel.
vs. 20 But Sihon [refused to allow] Israel
to pass through his territory. Sihon
gathered all his people together, and
encamped at Jahaz, and fought with
Israel.

vs. 24 And Israel defeated him with the
edge of the sword, and took posses-
sion of his land from the Arnon to
the Jabbok, as far as to the Ammon-
ites; for Jazer was the boundary of
the Ammonites.
vs. 21 And the Lord, the God of Israel,
gave Sihon and all his people into
the hand of Israel and they defeated
them. And Israel took possession of
all the land of the Amorites who
inhabited that country.

vs. 22 And they took possession of all the

territory of the Amorites from the
Arnon to the Jabbok and from the
wilderness to the Jordan.

vs. 23 So then the Lord, the God of Israel

dispossessed the Amorites from be-
fore his people Israel . ..
vs. 25 And Israel took all these cities, and vs. 26 While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and
Israel dwelt in all the cities of the its villages and in all the cities that
Amorites, in Heshbon, and all its are on the banks of the Arnon, three
villages. hundred years . . .

sThis is a serious difficulty in the present use of the tradition-history method as

reflected in Koch, Growth of the Biblical Tradition, 37-38, and as applied to the studies
of the present problem by W. A. Sumner, "Israel's Encounter with Edom, Moab, Amnon,
Sihon and Og . . .," VT 18 (1968) 216-28; and J. R. Bartlett, "Sihon and Og, Kings of
the Amorites," VT 20 (1970) 257-77.
9 It is noteworthy that Sumner and Bartlett make very little use of this text.
?Readiing in Judg 11:19b :Cbrh for ncbrh to make it consistent with the suffix of
mquwmy. Also in vs. 20, reading with the versions wym'n syhwn tt for wlP h'myn syhwn
(cf. Num 20:21).

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
186 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The account in Judges is basically deuteronomistic in character.1l This is evi-

dent primarily in the emphasis on divine intervention in which Yahweh gives
the Amorites into Israel's hand, vs. 21, and dispossesses (horis) the Amorites in
favor of Israel, vss. 23-24 (cf. Deut 2:24, 30-31; 3:2-3; 7:1-2). With this em-
phasis on divine intervention the Judges version differs from the Numbers ver-
sion. On the other hand, the Judges version differs from Deuteronomy primarily
in that it is used in the context of a dispute between Israel and Ammon over
territorial claims. So the subject of the conquest story becomes Israel rather than
Moses in order to be consistent with this context. The temporal perspective in
the Judges version is also changed to a time long after the settlement in the
territory involved, vs. 26. Judges also differs in the attitude of Edom and Moab
to Israel, vss. 17-18, from that stated in Deut 2:29 (cf. Deut 23:3-5).
Now it is quite remarkable that on each of the points where Judges departs
from Deuteronomy, Numbers also differs from Deuteronomy in the same way.
Thus, both Judges and Numbers have Israel as the subject of the conquest story
whereas in Deuteronomy it is Moses who sends the messengers and is prominent
throughout. In Judges, however, this change to Israel is consistent with the new
context and intention of the story, while in Numbers such a change represents
a striking inconsistency with its context.12 Similarly the mention of Israel set-
tling in the region is necessary to the argument of the passage in Judges, but in
Numbers it represents a false conclusion since the struggle continued against
two other kingdoms before any conditional and incomplete settlement was agreed
upon (see ch. 32). Deuteronomy carefully avoids any inconsistency in this
matter.

Furthermore the wording of Numbers often agrees very closely with that o
Judges, especially in the battle presentation.13 Note the corresponding successi
of verbs in the two accounts:

Num 21:23-24 Judg 11:20-22

vs. 23b wy'sp vs. 20b wy'sp
wys' wyb' wybnw
wylhm wylhm
vs. 24 wykhw vs. 21 wytn byd
wykwm
wyyrs mn-cd vs. 22 wyyrsw mn-Cd

1 Noth (berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [Tiibingen: Niemeyer,

n. 5) states that Judg 11:12-28 is a separate unit, probably inserted by the
using the pentateuchal traditions. The confusion of Ammon with Moab is b
from the time when "Ammon" was the name of the province neighboring o
of Judah and included the contested area between the Arnon, the Jabbok, an
Cf. also G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC; New York: Scribner, 1901) 283.
'Noth (Numbers, 162-63) remarks on this inconsistency but does not k
account for it. Ottosson (Gilead, 53-55) seems quite unaware of any of th
congruities in this passage.
'Moore (Judges, 283) states: "The historical argument [of Judg 11:1
rived chiefly, and in part verbally, from Nu. 20, 21."

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 187

This manner of presentation of a battle is characteristic of the narrator of the

Judges passage since a very similar sequence occurs again in Judg 11:32-33. In
fact, it is fair to say that it is most characteristic of the deuteronomistic editor's
writing style in his presentation of battle reports. Consequently, if the close ver-
bal correspondence of Numbers to Judges suggests literary dependence, then
Numbers must be dependent upon Judges and not vice versa.
Yet it may be possible to elucidate this relationship even further. Recently
the battle report (Schlachtbericht or Kampfbericht) has been discussed form-
critically.14 W. Richter has outlined the basic elements of the form as consisting
of: (1) verbs of movement (ys', hlk, b'), (2) verbs of military activity ('sp,
hnh, nlhm), (3) verbs indicating the outcome of the battle depending on the
object (city: lkd, lqh; persons: nkh, ngp; often extended to include flight: nws,
rdp), (4) a concluding element indicating the extent of the war (mn + place
name, cd + place name) or a description of the defeat (mgph gdwlh, mkh
gdwlh.) Richter does not clarify the Sitz im Leben of this form. Yet he feels
that the elements which suggest the divine handing over of the enemy (tber-
eignungsformel) and the verbs of settlement (ysb, yrs) are expansions from
another Sitz im Leben, probably the Holy War.
J. G. Ploger's discussion of the Kampfbericht depends more heavily on the
references in Deuteronomy and Joshua. It is therefore easier for him to see the
schema arising out of a Sitz im Leben in the ancient amphictyonic institution of
the Holy War. He even sees it as a form which might thereby have preserved
very ancient historical material from tribes and tribal groups from pre-amphic-
tyonic times.
Such speculative suggestions, however, cannot pass for form-critical analysis
because it lacks any historical or comparative control. To say that the Sitz im
Leben is the "institution of the Holy War" is hardly very precise. It is not a
cultic form used by a priest or other official as a preparation for battle, such as is
suggested in Deut 20:2-9, but a recording convention. Now in a pre-literary
society such "records" or accounts of battles would be handed on by bards or the
like. But does Ploger think that this prose formula is really appropriate to the
songs of the bards? If the Iliad is an example of such a song or songs, then we
are in quite a different world with this form.15
On the other hand there is a corresponding body of material much closer to
hand which has been ignored in this discussion of form. These are the victory

U See W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB

18; Bonn: Hanstein, 1966) 262-64; J. G. Ploger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und
stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium (BBB 26; Bonn: Hanstein, 1967)
16-18.
'1 For a discussion about the forms and the activity of bards and their relationship to
oral tradition, the differences between oral and scribal conventions, and the application of
these principles to the poems of Homer, see A. B. Lord, The Singer of Tales (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard, 1960); and the application of Lord's criteria to OT studies by R. C.
Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms (Toronto: University of Toronto,
1967).

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
188 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

inscriptions of the Assyrian kings so common down to the end of the Assyrian
empire.16 While these accounts are much more elaborate and verbose than the
biblical counterparts, they are not essentially different in form. In describing a
campaign, they usually contain all the basic elements outlined in Richter's form.
Thus, on the reception of some bad news, the king musters his forces at the
command of a deity (or deities) and traverses the land to the battle site. The
battle is engaged but there is no contest; the victory is immediately apparent.
There is a great slaughter on the side of the enemy with cities taken and plun-
dered and its kings captured. Those who take flight are pursued and slain. Ter-
ritory is secured often by settling new rulers or whole new populations subject
to Assyria. The divine element is generally quite prominent in that the king acts
on divine command. He usually receives a confidence-inspiring oracle, either
before he sets out or before the crucial battle, which is then fulfilled exactly as
stated. The decisive cause of victory is the terrifying splendor which the gods
(and secondarily the king) inspire in the enemy which causes them to flee.
Finally, much of the booty taken is dedicated to the deity.
The striking similarity to so many elements in the Kampfberichte in the OT
is surely significant. And this uniformity of style would appear even greater if
it were contrasted with the heroic style in which the contest of battle, the strug-
gle, is the essential element. Consequently one must not look for a Sitz im Leben
of this form in a pre-literary setting. It is clearly a scribal convention of record-
ing military campaigns which was evidently widespread in the Near East, cer-
tainly during the late monarchy and exilic periods when the deuteronomistic
literature was written.17
Furthermore it is possible even to distinguish a certain development in this
convention. The predominant form in the Assyrian annals is the commemorative
inscription in the first person in which the greatness of the king but also the
assistance of the deity are especially celebrated. One can see in this form the
closest parallel to the account in Deuteronomy of the Sihon battle with Moses
speaking in the first person in the role of leader of the people of Israel. Less
frequent in the Assyrian inscriptions but very similar in form are commemo-
rative inscriptions in the third person. They also have the same emphasis on
divine intervention. However, in the Neo-Babylonian period a new form of
account occurs, that of the chronicle.18 This is a brief synopsis of the great deeds
of former kings, very likely based on commemorative inscriptions, but recorded

16 For numerous examples of these, see D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria

and Babylonia (2 vols.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1926-27); ANETr, 275-301.
"Credit should be given to M. Astour for previously drawing attention to this com-
parative Assyrian material in his article, "Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14
and Its Babylonian Sources," Biblical Motifs, Origins and Transformations (ed. A. Alt-
mann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1966) 70-71. His concern there, however, is primarily
with the Kampfbericht in Genesis 14, though he suggests that it is also characteristic of
deuteronomistic style.
See especially ANETa, 301-7; and A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chron-
icles (forthcoming).

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 189

in the third person. In these, however, the element of divine intervention is very
rare and in most accounts entirely lacking, thus giving them an appearance of
greater objectivity in reporting. Nevertheless the Babylonian chronicle is a lit-
erary form created largely by a special redaction of earlier literary material which
is highly subjective and ideological in character. Now it is this chronicle form
to which the Numbers account of the Sihon battle corresponds most closely and
is the result, I believe, of a similar redactional process.
We have still to consider whether Numbers might be dependent only on
Judges for its battle account. Against this is the fact that in a few places Num-
bers appears to combine the phrasing of both Deuteronomy and Judges but in a
rather unsuccessful manner. For instance, Numbers begins in vs. 24b by men-
tioning Israel's capture of territory in very close agreement with Judges but quite
different from Deuteronomy. However in vs. 25 Numbers makes an awkward
shift to "these cities" where cities have not been previously mentioned. Never-
theless this seems to be an allusion to the enumeration of captured cities in the
Deuteronomy version which speaks of Israel taking cities rather than territory.
Likewise in the matter of geography, Numbers appears to be a conflation of
Deuteronomy and Judges. Deuteronomy presupposes a peaceful journey through
Edom and Moab along the north-south King's Highwayl9 so that the request to
continue to use this road in the Sihon message is perfectly consistent. Judges,
following the motif of refusal to trespass, has Israel going through the desert
around Edom and Moab and only then heading inland along the north bank of
the Arnon to encounter Sihon at Jahaz. It makes no mention whatever of the
King's Highway. Numbers, however, makes use of both the desert route and the
mention of the King's Highway and further suggests that Sihon's encounter with
Israel occurred both in the desert and at Jahaz, vs. 23, but Jahaz is most certainly
to be located in the middle of the Mishor plain along the main highway.20 Con-
sequently, we may conclude that the Sihon version of Numbers is a conflation of
sources, not of the old pentateuchal sources J and E, nor of so-called oral tradi-
tions, but of two deuteronomistic versions which are extant in the texts of Deut
2:26-37 and Judg 11:19-26.21
There still remains, however, the problem of a significant difference in the
messenger speech of Num 21:22 from the other two accounts. This suggests an-
other comparison, that of the Sihon stories in Numbers and Deuteronomy with

'Noth (Numbers, 150) interprets the "King's Highway" as any well constructed
road. However, it seems more likely that a specific north-south road of considerable im-
portance is referred to. See A. H. van Zyl, The Moabites (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 60-62.
2 J. Simons (The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament [Lei-
den: Brill, 1959], 118) places the site about 10 kms. north of Dibon which would corre-
spond well with its importance as an Israelite fort in the war with king Mesha (see ANETP,
320).
Bartlett's statement ("Sihon and Og," 275) that the titles "Sihon, king of the Amo-
rites" and "Og, king of Bashan" are "of great age and were used in the oral cultic tradition
whence E (Numbers) and the Deuteronomist derived them" has nothing to substantiate
it except the "cultic material of Pss. 135, 136," which can hardly be regarded as early or
more original than the deuteronomistic corpus.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
190 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

the request for passage through Edom in Num 20:14-21, which may be set down
as follows:

Num 20:14-21 Num 21:21-23 Deut 2:26-32

vs. 14a Then Moses sent vs. 21 Then Israel sent mes- vs. 26 Then I sent messen-
messengers from Ka- sengers to Sihon, gers from the wilder-
desh to the king of king of the Amorites, ness of Kedemoth to
Edom, "Thus says saying: Sihon, the king of
your brother Israel... Heshbon, with words
of peace, saying:

vs. 17 Let us pass through vs. 22 "Let me pass through vs. 27 "Let me pass through
your land. We will your land; we will your land; I will go
not pass through not turn aside into by the [King's] High-
field or vineyard, nei- field or vineyard; we way, I will not turn
ther will we drink will not drink the aside to the right or
water from a well; water of a well; we to the left.
we will go along the will go by the King's
King's Highway, we Highway, until we
will not turn aside to pass through y o u r
the right hand or to territory."
the left until we have
passed through your
territory."

vs. 18 But Edom said to

him, "You shall not
pass through, lest I
come out with the
sword against you."

vs. 19 And the people of vs. 28 You shall sell me

Israel said to him, food for money that
"We will go up by I may eat, and give
the highway; and if me water for money,
we drink of your that I may drink;
water, I and my cat- only let me pass
tle, then I will pay through on foot,
for it; let me only
pass through on foot,
nothing more."

vs. 29 as the sons of Esau

... and the Moabites
. . . did for me, until
I go over the Jor-
dan . . ."

vs. 20 But he said, "You vs. 23 But Sihon would not vs. 30 But Sihon, the king
shall not pass allow Israel to pass
of Heshbon, was un-
through." And Edom
through his territory. willing to let us pass
came out against He gathered all his by him . . .
them with many people and came out vs. 32 Then Sihon came out
men, and with a against Israel . . . against us, he and all
strong force. his people ...

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 191

vs. 21 Thus Edom refused

to give Israel passage
through his territory.

It is generally recognized that at least the major part of Num 20:14-21 is

from the same hand as that of 21:21-25. This is quite evident in the content of
the message in which 20:17 agrees so closely with 21:22, with the latter a little
shorter. On the other hand, Num 20:19 is generally considered somewhat con-
tradictory to vs. 17 and therefore evidence of another source. Yet a comparison
of Num 20:17-19 with Deut 2:27-29 reveals that in wording Deut 2:27 corre-
sponds to Num 20:17, while Deut 2:28 is similar to Num 20:19. Nevertheless
Deuteronomy does not contain the inconsistencies found in Numbers, since
Deuteronomy does not have the words, "We will not pass through field or vine-
yard, neither will we drink water from a well," which are somewhat redundant
in Num 20:17 and contradictory to vs. 19. Furthermore, Deut 2:28 (cf. vs. 6)
includes the buying of both food and water, while Num 20:19 mentions only
water and leaves the matter of food-supply uncertain. For the rest, however, the
verbal correspondences are so close that they suggest literary dependence rather
than simply a common oral tradition.
This raises the difficult question, in which direction the dependence is to be
viewed. From the older literary point of view we are presented with the hy-
pothesis that the Numbers account rests on two originally independent versions,
J and E, which have been combined by an editor in such a way that they cannot
be separated, yet not so skillfully edited that the inconsistencies have been re-
moved.22 Deuteronomy, on the other hand, would represent a further edition of
an old fixed literary tradition, but in contrast to the JE editor it has completely
removed all inconsistencies and produced a smooth literary account entirely con-
sistent with its own style and viewpoint while retaining much of the actual lan-
guage of the earlier work. Such a contradictory literary history I find hard to
accept.
If, however, Numbers is dependent upon Deuteronomy, then the changes and
inconsistencies came about when the narrator-redactor attempted to modify that
account in conformity with another version, that of Judg 11:12-22. Thus, for
instance, the editor of the Numbers account split the original message as found
in Deuteronomy into two parts to make it resemble the exchange of messages in
Judges between Jephthah and the Ammonites. Consequently, the first statemen
about "not turning aside to the right and left" was expanded to produce a rather
redundant addition and at the same time created a contradiction with the second
part of the message. The implied permission of Edom in Deuteronomy i
changed, following Judges, to a complete refusal. The notion of sending a mes-
sage to Edom, not found in Deuteronomy, is also taken from Judges. Likewise
Numbers includes in its message to Edom a reference to the Heilsgeschichte, not
present in Deuteronomy but alluded to in Judges, vss. 13ff.
Now generally speaking, the recounting of the Exodus events in a creda

'Noth, Numbers, 149-50.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
192 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

form, such as occurs in Num 20:14-16, is most characteristic of deuteronomic

literature.23 Where it occurs outside of the deuteronomic corpus, especially in
Exodus, it is usually regarded as a post-deuteronomic addition.24 However, here
it can hardly be viewed as an addition and yet it resembles the other passages in
Exodus which speak of the angel of Yahweh as the agent of divine deliverance, a
concept which does not occur in Deuteronomy itself, but is characteristic of this
so-called post-deuteronomic redactor. Consequently Num 20:14-21 may also be
considered as a post-deuteronomic narrative with the messenger speech depend-
ent upon, and an expansion of, the messenger speech in Deut 2:27-29. The
messenger speech of Num 21:22 is an abbreviation of that in 20:17 by the same
hand and therefore indirectly dependent upon Deuteronomy.
We still have left the need to discuss Num 21:26-32 within the context of
the longer account. Vs. 32 must be viewed as a separate problem. Noth25 has
recently designated it as a secondary but pre-deuteronomic addition intended to
anticipate Num 32:1. The source designation of this latter chapter remains, for
Noth, an uncertain mixture of older and more recent material. Num 21:32 re-
sembles 32:39-42 in style, but Noth also refuses to designate the source or prob-
able date of the latter passage. The clear implication of both passages, however,
is that there were Amorite kingdoms in Transjordan in addition to Sihon and Og,
a suggestion which is never recognized in deuteronomistic literature and thus
very likely subsequent to Deuteronomy.
Num 21:26-31 is dominated by a poem which is tied to the narrative by
obvious connective passages in vs. 26 and vs. 31. The poem, vss. 27-30 is full
of problems, but it must receive some consideration here.26 No serious treatment
of this poem can ignore its parallel in Jer 48:45-47.27

Num 21:27-30 Jer 48:45-46

vs. 27 Therefore the taunters say: "Come
to Heshbon, let it be rebuilt, and stood, fugitives without strength.
let the city of Sihon be established."

vs. 28 For' fire went forth from Heshbon, vs. 45b For fire went forth from Heshbon,
a flame from Kiriath-Sihon. It con- a flame from the district of Sihon.
sumed the citiesb of Moab, the citi- It consumed the forehead of Moa
zense of the heights of the Arnon. the crown of the sons of tumult

3Deut 26:5-9; 6:21-23. However, see C. Carmichael, "A New View of the Ori
of the Deuteronomic Credo," VT 19 (1969) 273-89. His view of the relationship
Num 20:14-16 to Deut 26:5-9 is not compatible with the arguments presented he
"Exod 23:20-33; 33:1-3; 34:11b; see Noth, Exodus (London: SCM, 1962) 192
253, 262.
2 Numbers, 165-66. Cf. Ottosson Gilead, 67-69.
2 For a more complete review of previous discussion of this passage, see Ottosson
Gilead, 59-61. On suggested emendations of the text which are quite different from my
own, cf. Noth, Numbers, 161; and P. D. Hanson, "The Song of Heshbon and David's Nir,"
HTR 61 (1968) 297-320.
7 Noth completely ignores this parallel while Ottosson makes only very slight refer-
ence to it. G. B. Gray (Numbers [ICC; New York: Scribner, 1930] 305-6) only uses the
Jeremiah parallel for textual comments. Hanson also makes no use of the Jeremiah parallel,

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 193

vs. 29 Woe to you, O Moab. You are vs. 46 Woe to you, O Moab. You are
ruined, O people of Chemosh. He ruined,] O people of Chemosh. For
made his sons fugitives and your sons have been taken captive,
(placed)d his daughters in captivity, and your daughters into captivity.
to the king of the Amorites, Sihon.e

vs. 30 Their dominion' is destroyed fromg

Heshbon to Dibon. And their
princes" as far as Nopah, command-
ers' as far as Medeba.

Notes on the text:

a. Hanson omits the ki and other coordinating conjunctions on a presump-

tion of antiquity, which seems to me unproven and dubious. Ottosson renders
the ki in an asseverative sense, "yea," but in both parallel versions the causal sense
seems a more appropriate connection.

b. Read Care for c,r with Hanson and Noth on the basis that Ar is geo-
graphically inappropriate, and the parallel with the next stichos would be coser.

c. I retain the baC'le which is quite acceptable in such a context (see Judg
9:20). So also Gray. It is unlikely that there should be a second verb since the
pattern of the poem seems to be to use only one verb for every two stichoi or
two lines (vs. 30). Vs. 27 is an exception because it is a later addition (see
below).
d. The verb natan must be understood from the first stichos, but with the
preposition b it has a slightly different nuance.

e. This whole line which is missing from Jeremiah is clearly an addition

(see below). The effort by Hanson and Noth to salvage part of it is not con-
vincing.

f. For this meaning, see Hanson. His further effort of emendation to nir
mo6ab on the basis of haplography seems unnecessary. Noth's emendations of
vs. 30 result in a passage which is no longer poetry.
g. There is some evidence in the Vulgate and the Targum Onkelos that me
has dropped out of the text.

h. This line is very corrupt. One would expect a parallel with the previous
line but without a verb. So nsym must yield a noun parallel to nyrm. Since nir
denotes royal authority, an appropriate parallel would be nespim or nes'ehem,
"(their) princes."
i. 'ser makes no sense, but it may represent sarim or sarehem, in which case
there would be a series of three similar nouns all subject of the verb 'abad.
j. Emend 'abad to 'abadta to agree with the first stichos and Num 21:29a.

but it raises serious problems for his reconstruction of the text and his argument for the
poem's antiquity.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

A comparison of these two passages would seem to indicate that they go back
to a common Vorlage rather than the one being directly dependent upon the
other. Jer 48:45a is not found in the Numbers poem, though it is consistent
with the theme of the poem and therefore not likely a later addition. On the
other hand, Num 21:30, while rather corrupt, also seems to fit, even though it is
not found in Jeremiah. Num 21:27b and 29c do not occur in Jeremiah, but
these seem to be additions which significantly change the poem's meaning. This
evaluation depends, of course, on a consideration of the poem's form.
The problem of the poem's form is not a serious one in this case, since the
context of the Jeremiah version makes it quite clear that it is one of a series of
prophetic oracles against the nations, one of the taunt songs against Moab in
particular. The taunt is in the form of a dirge announcing the destruction of
the state, not with sadness but with derision. Such a form can be characterized in
Hebrew as a masl1.28 Consequently a composer and reciter of taunts could be
characterized as a mosel (even if this was or became a rather specialized use of
the term) and hence the reference to the moellim29 in Num 21:27 points to the
origin of the poem from a collection of taunt songs as is found in the oracles
against the nations in Isaiah 13-19 and Jeremiah 46-51. Furthermore, there
is no good reason to isolate this taunt song from similar ones contained in this
prophetic literature of the late monarchy and early exilic periods.30
If the poem is a taunt song, then the form is an important clue to its under-
standing. The nation, in this case Moab, has committed hybris and will be
brought to ruin by God (cf. Jer 48:26, 29-30, 42). It is thus the divine power
which is ultimately behind the events and, since no other intermediary agent is
mentioned, the "fire" which goes forth from Heshbon is not a separate political
power but the fire of God which begins its destruction in Heshbon, viewed here
as the northern extremity of Moab, and spreads all the way to its capital, Dibon.
This picture of Heshbon as destroyed along with other Moabite cities is pre-
sented in a number of other closely related oracles in Isaiah 15-16 and Jeremiah
48. It is also the only way to make sense out of the opening lines of the two
versions. In Jer 48:45 the fugitives are described as stunned with no place to

28 See Isa 14:4.

2 Ottosson's discussion of this term (Gilead, 59-60) seriously misses the point of this
form. Even the text in Ezek 18:2 could be rendered: "What do you mean by reciting
(mo5elzm) this taunt (mXaal) against the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour
grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge.' " Noth's rendering of moelUm in Numbers
(Numbers, 161) as "ballad singers" has nothing to commend it and prejudices the inter-
pretation of the poem.
so It is difficult to date this taunt song or the others against Moab, since one can sug-
gest many possible historical occasions during the monarchy when such songs might be
suitable. Taken in isolation, for instance, it has been dated to the time of David by S.
Mowinckel, Erwigungen zur Pentateuch-Quellenfrage (Trondheim: Universitetsforlaget,
1964) 54; and Bartlett ("Sihon and Og," 259 n.). However, if it belongs to the others
of Isaiah and Jeremiah, then a date in the early exilic period for the group as a whole
seems most likely. See Van Zyl, Moabites, 157-58; J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB 21; Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 322-23.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 195

find refuge "because" (ki) Heshbon has been destroyed. In Num 21:27 the
invitation to rebuild Heshbon is also linked by kS with the account of its destruc-
tion in vs. 28. Furthermore, the most likely rendering of vs. 30a, "their dominion
is destroyed from Heshbon to Dibon," strongly supports this interpretation.
The writer of Num 21:21ff. included the poem in his account because of
the reference in it to Sihon. His only change was to make this reference more
direct by the addition in vs. 29 "to the king of the Amorites, Sihon." This phrase
is not found in Jer 48:46 and seriously overbalances the line. However, by this
change the writer alters the whole meaning of the poem. He makes out of the
poem a reference to an ancient conflict between Sihon and Moab. In this way
the "fire" proceeding from Heshbon is no longer understood as a reference to
the destruction of the city but is interpreted as the military activity of Sihon
against Moab. That this is a rather forced understanding of the poem is empha-
sized by the fact that the writer must explain this understanding in a connective
passage, vs. 26. It should also be quite obvious that this strained secondary use
of the poem can hardly be used as historical testimony to an event in Israel's
prehistory.
Just who or what Sihon represents in the original poem is not entirely clear.31
The reference in Numbers to qiryat Sihon, for which C'r sho6n is a secondary
rendering, suggested to the narrator that Sihon was a former king of Heshbon.32
However there are other cities mentioned in the OT which have a second name
containing the element qiryat, e.g., Hebron (Kiriath-arba), Debir (Kiriath-
sepher). In the case of Hebron the tradition actually interprets the element
Darba' as the name of a king or ancestor (see Josh 14:15; 15:13), but this is
hardly likely. This raises the suspicion that the same legendary development
took place with the name Kiriath-Sihon. The reference in Jer 48:45b to ben
sih6n, "region of Sihon,"33 may very well suggest a tribal designation but the
matter must remain uncertain. However it is very doubtful that this poem makes
any reference to an ancient tradition about Sihon, the Amorite king.
We may summarize our conclusions by saying that the writer-redactor of
Num 21:21-35 built up his narrative by relying for vss. 21-25 on deuteronomic
sources such as Deut 2:26-37 and Judg 11:19-26 in a fashion similar to his
creation of the Edom episode in Num 20:14-21. He borrowed a taunt song
against Moab, vss. 27-30, which he reworked and fitted into his account with
transition passages, vss. 26, 31. The episode in vs. 32 is a very cryptic and arti-
ficial account of the conquest of Jazer in order to anticipate the settlement ac-
count of ch. 32. Finally the war against Og is taken from only one deuteronomic
account, Deut 3:1-7, with much less revision of detail.

81Sihon is not the usual north-west Semitic type of name so frequently encountered
in the second millennium B.C. It is encountered as a modern Arabic place name in Jebel
Shihan which is south of the Arnon. However, the name may have derived from the bib-
lical tradition and is not very helpful. Og is even more mysterious but seems to be pat-
terned after Gog, the name of the Lydian king Gyges (Assyrian Gugu).
32 Gray, Numbers, 301-2.
3 On the meaning of "region" for byn, see A. Guillaume, "A Note on the Meaning of
lT," ITS 13 (1962) 109-11.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
196 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

This means that the account in Numbers is post-deuteronomic and must be

regarded as late-exilic at the earliest. Furthermore, it can offer no independent
witness to the antiquity of the Sihon tradition. In other passages in Numbers
where references to the Amorites or to Sihon and Og are made we are dealing
with the same basic writer (22:2; 32:33-38). All other passages outside of
Numbers which make any reference to the Amorite kingdoms of Sihon and Og,
with the exception of a few late passages, belong to the deuteronomic corpus.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that a single reference can be dated before the last
few decades of the pre-exilic period.
Finally, some consideration must be given to the function which the Sihon
conquest account serves in the various contexts. In Deuteronomy it functions as
the legitimation of ancient boundaries and claims to territory. God gave to Israel
the land of the Amorite kingdoms who were the prior inhabitants in the same
way that God dispossessed the other primitive peoples before the Edomites,
Moabites, and Ammonites. The theme of the story is the "promised land" which
is a most prominent theological motif throughout Deuteronomy, and the whole
treatment is highly rhetorical and ideological.
In the Jephthah story there is a decided polemical shift directed now against
the Transjordanian nations, particularly Ammon. Following the recounting of
the victory over Sihon there is a speech in Judg 11:22-24, directed at the
Ammonites, which states:

And they took possession of all the territory of the Amorites from the Arnon to
the Jabbok and from the wilderness to the Jordan. So then Yahweh, the God of
Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to
take possession of them? Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives
you to possess? And all that Yahweh our God has dispossessed before us, we will
possess.

The passage goes on to state that Balak, a previous king of Moab did not dispute
this claim, nor was it disputed for three hundred years.
The whole account reflects a territorial dispute, originally with Moab and
secondarily with Ammon after the demise of the Moabite kingdom, over the
right to the region between the Arnon River (Wadi Mojib) and the northern
limits of the Mishor plain at the Wadi Kufrein. The basis of Israel's claim is
that the land was taken from the ancient Amorites who no longer exist to dispute
this claim. The Judges account further emphasizes that the claim was undisputed
by Moabite kings through three hundred years of settlement.
Numbers, on the other hand, does not betray this theological tendency, and
in fact makes a minimum number of theological statements. If anything, it secu-
larizes the other accounts. Consequently, it does not suggest an ideological dis-
tinction between the Amorites and the other nations; nor is there any suggestion
of divine intervention against the Amorites, except for an obvious carry-over
from Deuteronomy in Num 21:34 (cf. Deut 3:2). Furthermore, any polemical
claim to land against Moab would certainly be vitiated by the suggestion in 21:26
that Moab actually owned the land before the Amorites. And the suggestion in

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VAN SETERS: CONQUEST OF SIHON'S KINGDOM 197

Deuteronomy 2 that Yahweh allotted the land east of Jordan to Israel's neighbors
as well as to Israel is also seriously undermined by the Numbers account. It is
perhaps significant that the "promised land" of the exilic period (Ezek 47:13-
23) no longer envisages the eastern region as belonging to the Israel of the resto-
ration.

With regard to the form of the narrative in Numbers it has been generally
assumed a priori that this form derives directly from the nature of the oral tradi-
tions which were utilized independently by Numbers and Deuteronomy. The
degree of literary creativity by the narrator-redactor is thereby reduced to a mini-
mum. Our literary observations, however, which have suggested direct literary
dependence would demand an entirely different type of solution.
Attention has been drawn recently to the similarity in form between the
pentateuchal narratives and the narratives in early Arabic literature,34 particu-
larly the battledays of the pre-Islamic Arabs, the Ayyam al-'Arab, the biography
of Mohammad, the Sirah, and the Hadit, traditions from early Islamic times. The
scope of this paper does not permit a form-critical comparison between these two
literatures except to emphasize that in both there is a process of compilation of
traditions from the oral-tradition stage to elaborate written compositions. What
is particularly significant for this present discussion, however, is the fact that in
the literary stage of the tradition there is precisely the same kind of redactional
development of tradition by means of one author conflating, harmonizing, and
supplementing earlier literary sources in order to create his own distinctive ver-
sion of the tradition.35 Such a redactional literary process is a very widespread
literary phenomenon as is apparent for instance in the synoptic gospels of the
NT. And this is the process, as I have tried to show, that is at work in the devel-
opment of the Sihon conquest story in Numbers 21.
If the conclusions suggested by this study are valid, then the implications for
other areas of OT study are considerable. On the historical level the conquest of
the kingdoms of Sihon and Og must be regarded with grave suspicion. The
oldest accounts in the literary tradition are the rather late deuteronomistic ones
and they have a highly ideological character which make these episodes his-
torically untrustworthy. In the area of literary criticism we are faced with the
possibility of a post-deuteronomic body of literature in the Pentateuch distinct
from "P" in the so-called JE corpus (how extensive remains to be discovered)
which seems to be at least partly redactional of earlier literary levels of the tradi-
tion. In the area of tradition-history we question the current a priori, but un-
warranted, assumption that there must always be primitive oral traditions behind
every episode recorded in the pentateuchal narratives. The possibility of a literary
"artificial" development of the tradition without any great antiquity must be
seriously considered.

3" J. R. Porter, "Pre-Islamic Arabic Historical Traditions and the Early Historical Nar-
ratives of the Old Testament," JBL 87 (1968) 17-26; and G. Widengren, "Oral and Writ-
ten Literature Among the Hebrews in the Light of Arabic Evidence, with Special Regard
to Prose Narratives," Acta orientalia 23 (1959) 201-62.
3 Note especially Widengren's study, "Oral and Written Literature," 244-46.

This content downloaded from

195.16.79.34 on Sat, 11 May 2024 19:33:11 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms