12 KORAH, DATHAN, ABIRAM
KUSHATAH
Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,’ may well come from the hand of the redactor. But in any case it is clear enough that all his 250 followers were not Levites; a conclusion which is confirmed, if confirmation were necessary, by Nu 27%, where the daughters of Zelophehad plead that their father had no part in the rebellion of Korah. As Zelophehad belonged to the tribe of Manasseh, this plea need not have been offered if all K.’s followers had been Levites.
The differences between JE and P, and the original independ- ence of their narratives, are equally apparent. JE knows only Dathan and Abiram, P knows only Korah; and, accordingly, the author of Dt 116, who is acquainted with the Jahwistic but not with the Priestly document, mentions only Dathan and Abiram.
The analysis of the two chapters may be given as follows (practically after Driver) :-—
JE 161b-2a. 12-15, 25-26. 27-34, P 161s. 2b-7a. 18-24. 27a. 820. 35. 41-50. ch, 17. Px 167b-11. 16-17. 36-40,
The composite character of the narrative is borne out by the separation, after 161, of the two parties, Dathan and Abiram on the one hand, Korah and his company on the other. They act separately (cf. vv.3-4 with vv.1215) ; they are addressed separately (cf. vv.5-7 wth νν. 35. 26); they are punished separately and differ- ently (cf. ν.3. ith v.%).
Traces of the welding process by which the narrative has assumed the comparative smoothness of its present form may be detected in v.7> (‘ye sons of Levi’), and in v.2b (‘and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods’),
It cannot be over-emphasized that al/ the in- dications in the narrative point to the above result, and that literary differences combine with differences of agents and of motives to establish three distinct elements in the composition. ‘Of course in itself a difference of motive is no ground for supposing that the narrative in which it appears is of composite authorship; that inference follows solely from the manner in which the difference is introduced. . . In itself an alliance between an ecclesiastical and a civil party is perfectly intelli- gible ; but the literary analysis shows Nu 16 to be composite ; and when the component parts have been separated into two groups, it is found that the actors in one group represent ecclesiastical interests, while they represent civil interests in theother. Such a coincidence cannot be accidental ; the differences of person and motive (though they might have been combined in such a manner as to arouse no suspicion whatever that the narrative was composite) so coincide with literary differences as to corroborate the conclusion to which these point’ (Driver, LOT®, App. 523f. [ef. ὁ p. 65)).
We have thus disentangled three distinct narra- tives, of which the last two are memorials of the struggles that took place, and of the various stages that were passed through before the prerogatives of Levi were admitted by the other tribes, and those of the house of Aaron by the other Levitical families. At whatever date we place these last
results, we may be certain that they were not reached without fierce opposition.
One or two remarks have still to be made on the text of Nu 16. In v.! np, for which the LXX offers ἐλάλησεν, and which AV and RV both render ‘took men’ (supplying the last word), can scarcely be the correct reading. There is probably a copyist’s error also in nbs*j3 jx) ‘and On the son of Peleth.’ There is no mention of On in the subsequent narra- tive, nor does his name occur anywhere else in the OT. For Peleth we should doubtless read, as in Ex 6 ete., Pallu, and perhaps, as Graf suggests, v.'® should run thus: jaxy]2 Naa ayds ya OPIN 101). In νν."" and 37 Wellhausen and Driver agree in holding that the original reading was probably ‘tabernacle of J”.’
LITERATURE.—Driver, LOT® 59 ff., App. 523f. (8, 63 ff.]; Graf, Gesch. B. d. AT, 89ff.; Baudissin, es. ἃ. AT Priest. 35n. ; Wellh. Comp. 106, 339; Reuss, AT’, iii. 84, 454; W. R. Smith, © OTJC2 402; Kuenen, ΤΊ xii. (1878), p. 139 ff., Hex. 95, 334; Oort and Hooykaas, Bible for Young Pata iv, 242; Cornill, Einleit.2 59. ; Kittel, Hist. of Hebrews, i. 219.
2. Korah, a son of Esau (Gn 36°). 3. A ‘duke’ of Edom (Gn 3015). 4, A son of Hebron (1 Ch 933). J. A. SELBIE. KORAHITES (‘m7), or SONS OF KORAH (133 mp); AV has in Nu 9008 Korathites, and in Ex 6%, 1 Ch 12° 26!, 2 Ch 20” Korhites. — The inference from Nu 16%, that the whole family of Korah perished along with their head, is checked by a note in 26" to the effect that the ‘sons of Korah died not.’ This explanation was called for in view of the fact that a well-known guild connected with the second temple traced their descent to Korah. At one time the ‘sons of K.’ appear to have con- stituted one of the two great temple choirs, the Asaphites composing the other (see ASAPH). We have two groups of Pss (42-49 and 84. 85. 87. 88) whose superscription np "325 shows that they were taken from what was once the hymn-book of the Korahite choir. The musical service of the temple had been remodelled by the time of the Chronicler, when three guilds (Heman, Asaph, Ethan) had replaced the original two (Asaph, Korah). The Korahites have now become a guild of door-keepers (1 Ch 915 26! etc.), although a reminiscence of their former functions as singers is found in 2 Ch 9019 (W. R. Smith, OTJC? 205 n.). J. A. SELBIE.