Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge of Pentateuchal Theory Koert van Bekkum Abstract Previous as well as recent discussions of the composition, genre and historical background of the itinerary in Num 33:1–49 and of the description of the promised land in Num 34:1–12 have highlighted the pre-exilic nature of these texts. This paper discusses what challenge this observation offers to recent theories of the formation of the Pentateuch. On the one hand, it is still hard to detect the specific sources behind the itinerary list of Num 33. On the other hand much information is available with regard to the tradition history of the geographical concept that is used in Num 34:1–12, Josh 13:2–6, Judg 3:3 and Ezek 47:15–20. In addition, this pre-exilic material turns out to be remarkably well integrated into Num 26– 36 as a whole. These observations pose serious problems to several literary-critical criteria and to the suggestion that the chapters belong to a post-priestly compositional layer; they suggest that different, less deductive alternatives, exploring the possibility of a tradition regarding an earlier blending of D- and P-like vocabulary and style, need to be found. 1. INTRODUCTION More than ever, it seems that studying the literary, social-historical and theological aspects of the Pentateuch is a discussion without end. The issue of Fall 2014 of the Journal of Biblical Literature took Deuteronomy 34 as an example for a vivid exchange of arguments on one of the foundations ƺƤ “ƩiƨƩƣƽ ơƽiƿiơiƾƸ” ƺƤ ƿƩƣ HƣƟƽƣǂ BiƟlƣ, ƿƩƞƿ iƾ, ƾƺǀƽơƣ ơƽiƿiơiƾƸ. Eƞƽliƣƽ ƿƩƞƿ DŽƣƞƽ ƾơƩƺlƞƽƾ ƨƞƿƩƣƽƣƢ iƹ JƣƽǀƾƞlƣƸ Ƥƺƽ ƞ ơƺƹƤƣƽƣƹơƣ ƺƹ ‘TƩƣ PƣƹƿƞƿƣǀơƩ ǂiƿƩiƹ BiƟliơƞl Liƿƣƽƞƿǀƽƣ’. 1 A short look at (the abstracts of) these contributions, and to some extent also in this volume with papers of the Joint Meeting of SOTS and OTW in Edinburgh 2015, suffices to see that several elements stand out in present research. Despite all efforts to avoid tribalism, and the clear tendency to include empirical knowledge about the literary transmission of texts in the oral cultures of the Ancient Near East, 2 the number of approaches is still multiplying; and whatever issue is discussed, lack of consensus seems to be the main result. 1 S. Fƽƺlƺǁ, ‘TƩƣ DƣƞƿƩ ƺƤ Mƺƾƣƾ ƞƹƢ ƿƩƣ Fƞƿƣ ƺƤ Sƺǀƽơƣ CƽiƿiơiƾƸ’, JBL 133 (2014), 648–660; P.Y. Yoo, ‘TƩƣ Plƞơƣ ƺƤ DƣǀƿƣƽƺƹƺƸDŽ ᇵᇶ ƞƹƢ Sƺǀƽơƣ CƽiƿiơiƾƸ: A Rƣƾƻƺƹƾƣ ƿƺ Sƣƽƨƣ Fƽƺlƺǁ’, JBL 133 (2014), 661–668; S. DƺlƞƹƾkDŽ, ‘TƩƣ DƣƞƿƩ ƺƤ Mƺƾƣƾ, Nƺƿ ƺƤ Sƺǀƽơƣ CƽiƿiơiƾƸ’, JBL 133 (2014), 669–ᇸᇹᇸ; D.M. Cƞƽƽ, ‘UƹiƤiƣƢ ǀƹƿil Proven Disunified? Assumptions and Standards in Assessing the Literary Complexity of Ancient Biblical Tƣǃƿƾ’, JBL 133 (2014), 677–ᇸᇺᇳ. Fƺƽ ƿƩƣ ƻƞƻƣƽƾ ƺƤ ƿƩƣ ơƺƹƤƣƽƣƹơƣ ‘TƩƣ PƣƹƿƞƿƣǀơƩ ǂiƿƩiƹ BiƟliơƞl Liƿƣƽƞƿǀƽƣ: FƺƽƸƞƿiƺƹ ƞƹƢ Iƹƿƣƽƞơƿiƺƹ’, JƣƽǀƾƞlƣƸ, MƞDŽ ᇴᇷ–29, see J.C. Gertz, B.M. Levinson, D. Rom-Shiloni, K. Schmid (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures between Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT), Tübingen 2016 (forthcoming). 2 See in particular D.M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. A New Reconstruction, Oxford 2011.