A fuller expression is #7 n37 Ὁ in Nu 27, Dt 32°), LXX and Vulg. render as in Nu 208, RV has ‘ waters of Meribah of Kadesh,’ while AV has ‘ Meribah in Kadesh’ in Nu and ‘ Meribah-kadesh’ in Dt. Besides these passages in which reference is made by name to the waters which flowed from the rock when smitten by Moses, many others mention the providing water from the stony rock without detail of name or place, e.g. Dt 8%, Ps 78% 20 105" 1148, Is 487),
According to Nu 2078 the children of Israel, finding no water at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin, strove with Moses (both in v.? and v.43 RV has ‘strove,’ while AV by putting ‘chode’ in ν.ὃ ob- scures the double reference to strife which exists in the original). The LorpD commands Moses, ‘Take the rod . . . and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water’; but Moses struck the rock with his rod, and water came forth abundantly. Then follows the sentence of pro- hibition: ‘ ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have piven them.’ The carrying out of this sentence in the case of Aaron is related in Nu 20%-*9, in the case of Moses in Nu 27!*"4, Dt 32*-52(see ahove for the words employed in these passages).
flowing from the rock when smitten by Moses, The language is very similar to that of Nu 20, and in points of detail there is a marked resemblance between the two narratives. In this account stress is laid (v.*) on ‘tempting’ (7.e., in the old sense of the word, proving) as well as ‘striving,’ and in v.? two names are given to the place, MASSAH (‘tempta- tion,’ i.e. proving) because the children of Israel ‘tempted’ the Lord, and Meribah (‘chiding orstrife’) because of the ‘striving’ of the children of Israel (in both verses AV has ‘ chide’ for ‘ strive’ asin Nu 20°), Other passages referring to these events are given at the beginning of this article, from which it ap-
ears that Massah by itself is mentioned twice,
Jassah with Meribah twice, and in Dt 33° mention is made of Massah and the waters of Meribah in connexion with Levi, and the verse apparently refers to an incident not recorded in Ex 17 or Nu 20.
A comparison of these two narratives (those in Ex 17 and Nu 20) suggests many dificult questions. Kuenen was not prepared with an answer, and abstained from expressing a decisive opinion (Hexa- teuch, §6 n. 42, p. 101, Wicksteed’s translation). Cornill (in ZATW, 1891, p. 20 ff.) discusses these narratives at length, and submits them to a searching analysis, arriving at results which are in the main adopted by Bacon (Triple Tradition) in his notes on these passages.
There appear to be two alternatives: (a) the narratives in question are different versions of the same occurrence which has been assigned to different periods in the journeyings of the children of Israel; or (6) an account of occurrences at 8 place to which the name of Massah was given (mainly preserved in Ex 177 and there called Rephidim), and another account of occurrences at Meribah (preserved but with considerable modifi- cations in Nu 20'!8, and these connected with Kadesh) existed at one time as independent narra- tives; but details have been transferred from the one account to the other in the process of compila- tion, perhaps the addition of Meribah and the idea of strife to the narrative of Ex 17.
From Nu 20 it is difficult to understand clearly wherein the sin of Moses and Aaron is supposed to have consisted. According to 20% 27" it is described as rebelling against the word of the Lorp. The waters of Meribah receive their name because the children of Israel strove with the Lorp, and on this occasion the words assigned to Moses are ‘ Hear now, ye rebels.’ May Moses and Aaron on this occasion have shown themselves unworthy of their position as leaders, and in some way joined in the strife? Then a reason for their heavy
unishment would be apparent, while reverence
or the great leader may suggest a further reason why the narrative appears in its present form.
In art. Exopus, ROUTE OF (§ 1v.), some reasona have been given for ascribing to the events re- corded in Nu 20'*! an earlier date than that usually given to them. They may be noted here, as (whatever weight they may have) they reduce the interval between Massah and Meribah.
A note on Dt 332 should find a place here. According to RV, *He shined forth from Paran, and came from the ten t ands of holy ones [m. holiness).’ AV has ‘with’ for ‘from,’ which is not defensible. The rendering in italics arouses suspicion. After mention of Seir, Paran, we might expect the name of some Προ: and as the words which follow (‘ At his right hand was a
ery law’) are certainly corrupt, it is probable that emendation is needed here also. A slight modification of the text would give ‘and came to Meribath-kadesh,’ an emendation which has found much favour.
The manner in which the words ‘strife’ and ‘temptation’ and the corresponding verbs are used in the passages already quoted, invites comment. In Ex 172, Nu 20% the people strove with Moses, but in Nu 20% they strove with the Lorp, in Ex 177 they ‘tempt’ the Lorp. But in Dt 33° another