Israel: One or Many?

Israel: One or Many?

In Numbers 25:1-9, there is ambiguity as to whether the people Israel are singular or
plural. The passage shifts between identifying Israel as a single unified entity, as in Israel
yoked itself (v. 3, emphasis added), and as a collection of individuals, a disparate mass, as in
your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor (v. 5, emphasis added). The
grammatical ambiguity parallels the passages content, which tells of how the people Israel
threaten to merge with the neighboring peoples, losing their singularity as YHWHs chosen
people and becoming one people among many instead of one people above or against many
others. In order to analyze the tension between singularity and multiplicity, I will rely upon Alex
Wolochs analysis of the same issues for novelistic characterization in The One vs. the Many:
Minor Characters and the Space of the Protagonist in the Novel,1 especially its analysis of
Balzacs Le Pre Goriot and the overwhelming multiplicity of nineteenth-century Paris.
My argument, in brief, is that Israel devolves from one nation to many individuals and
from one nation above many others to one nation among many others. Woloch is useful in that,
by drawing a parallel between the situation of the people Israel and his analysis of Le Pre
Goriot, it is possible to trace this tension between the one and the many not only in the grammar
of plural and singular constructions, but also in the use of Balzacian types and the lurking fear of
social fusion.2 Such an analysis is significant in that it helps to clarify a difficult passage, as
seen in Noths struggle to delimi[t] its elements and resignation to an exposition of the
individual parts of the text instead of the whole text,3 in particular the strange change of
1 Alex Woloch, The One vs. the Many: Minor Characters and the Space of the Protagonist in the
Novel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).
2 Ibid., 263.
3 Martin Noth, Apostasy to Moabite Idol-Worship: 25:1-18, in Numbers, translated by James
D. Martin (Chatham, Kent: W & J Mackay & Co., Ltd., 1968), 196.
1

Moabite to Midianite in v. 6 and the ambiguity as to whether the Israelites crime is sexual or
religious in nature.
Exegesis
I will now trace how the oneness of Israel dissolves formally in the passage, as Israel loses both
its singularity (its oneness) and its distinctiveness (its status of being one above many, not just
one among many). Important aspects of the text for my analysis include the conflicting uses of
plural and singular nouns and conjugations, the presence of types versus individuated
characters, and the imagery of the passage.
The first verse construes Israel as singular: Israel was, not were (v.1). Against that
unambiguous singularity and unity, there is the multiplicity of the people that aligns with that
of the women of Moab, two plural nouns (v.1). It is important that Israel and the people
are treated as separate entities; thus, Israel is more than just the people, more than a mass of
individuals, but rather a character with its own identity. The contrast is made even stronger in
the bizarre use of these for the women of Moab (v. 2). There is no they or these women,
but rather the unusual these, the most general term for a mass. The use of these without a
delimiting noun, like women, gives a tone of obscure multiplicity that is not even worthy of
categorization one imagines an oral storyteller accompanying the opening of v. 2 with a vague
wave of the hand.4 In addition, the use of these as the subject of the first clause these
invited the people denies the sense of unified, coordinated action that they invited gives,
instead portraying the Moabite women as a mass of individuals who, haphazardly, each invite the
people to sacrifices. (If this sounds tendentious, consider the different connotations, in an
account of the invasions of ancient Israel, of They [Assyria and Babylon] attacked Jerusalem
4 There is an echo here of Noths struggles with vv. 6-8, where he notes the presence of elements which cannot
rightly be delimited, just as the unqualified these fails to delimit. Ibid., 196.

as opposed to These attacked Jerusalem: the former implies a joint campaign to the nave
reader, the latter does not.) Israels singularity still contrasts with these people as a united,
singular noun in Israel yoked itself (v.3, emphasis added). What is noteworthy, though, is that
the sins of the many people, who ate and bowed down to their [the women of Moabs] gods
(v. 2), implicate the singular Israel. All Israel is culpable, not just the people responsible,
or the people who make up Israel.
Israel begins to break down into its multiple parts in the next verse, where Moses rewords
YHWHs command: Each of you [the chiefs] shall kill any of your people who have yoked
themselves to the Baal of Peor (v. 5, emphases added). The construction each of you further
subdivides Israel, as the antecedent of you is the chiefs, with each therefore being a further
specification of the previous clause, breaking Israel down into even more parts, with each one
considered individually by Moses. The use of your people, as opposed to the people, as
earlier in the passage, highlights the disintegration of Israel into a multitude of groups, not a
single Israel. And not only the chiefs groups, but the Israelites within each one, are multiplied
here: unlike v. 1, where there is a direct link between the multiple people having sex with
Moabites and the single entity Israel, the people are split into any of them who have sinned,
with the mass of the people now becoming defined as a collection of individuals, since any
implies that each person must be considered one by one. The newfound multiplicity of any of
your [the chiefs] people is emphasized by the plural themselves, in direct contrast to v. 3s
itself. The passages subject, then, has gone from Israel to the people to a collection of
[s]elves, in a movement towards multiplicity.
As the passage moves into the second portion, which is commonly interpreted as a distinct
episode,5 Israel has thus become established as plural. That condition of multiplicity is carried
5 Ibid., 198.
3

through to the end of the passage: one of the Israelites, the whole congregation of the
Israelites, they, the two of them, the people of Israel, those that died (vv.6-9). These
constructions all mark the Israelites as plural, not a single entity Israel, a term wholly absent
from this second episode. The most interesting aspect of this second episode, for the analysis
here, is how a single act (Phinehass double murder in v. 8) can purify the entirety of the people
of Israel (v. 8). Israel, having been split into its component members, is reunified by the actions
of one component: the multiple becomes singular, and Phinehass individual act causes (as seen
in the use of the logical connective so in v. 8) the redemption of the community, its renewed
singularity.
To figure out how the multiple becomes singular in this passage, it is necessary to invoke
the type, the literary figure wherein an individual comes to stand in for a group. Woloch is
useful here in his discussion of the type in Balzac and its relation to multiplicity. Woloch writes:
Balzacian typification moves from stating that a large number of people share a given
characteristic with a particular individual to suggesting that this characteristicfor the particular
individual, and othersis shaped by the existence of a large number of people.6 (An example
is the stock character of the apathetic student, whose apathy is shaped by the overwhelming
number of other students to compete against.) The Balzacian type allows the individual type, the
single character who is in some way typical of a class of people, to embody multiplicity itself.
Such an embodiment of multiplicity is at the heart of the passages logic, where the actions of a
few typical figures Phinehas, the sinning Israelite, and the Midianite woman can affect the
whole communitys fate, and render it either multiple (in the case of the Israelite and Midianite)
or singular (Phinehas). They are both types and representatives of multiplicity or singularity.

6 Woloch, 254.
4

Before turning to these key types, though, we must begin with the first typical figures in
the passage, namely Moses and the chiefs (vv. 4-5), in whom we already see how a type can
embody multiplicity. Israel is first represented by Moses, then by all the chiefs (v.4, emphasis
added). The individual, Moses, is no longer sufficient to represent Israel, and instead a more
multitudinous type, all the chiefs, is needed: Israel implicitly becomes multiple, since its
typical figure is, in fact, a set of figures. Furthermore, it is unclear from the passage who these
chiefs are. Are they the same as the judges of v. 5? If so, why the different title? Noth, to
answer this question, says the chiefs or judges are defined by the specific groups within
Israel for which they are responsible7; that is, each chief as an individual is defined only by
how he or she is a representative or type. They are thus an exemplary case of Balzacian
typification, in that their defining characteristic of chief-ness is shaped by the existence of a
large number of people,8 typifying the increasing multiplicity of Israel.
The second part of the story, as mentioned, also contains three crucial types: the Israelite
man, Midianite woman (v.6), and Phinehas (v.7). The first two are highly Balzacian, in that they
are constructed as embodiments of a mass, not a trait as in the usual type. The Israelite is simply
one of the Israelites (v.6), defined solely by his membership in a mass. More interesting is his
typical companion, a Midianite woman (v.6). Besides the vagueness of a, which defines the
woman only as an instance of a group, in the fashion of Balzacian typification, there is the
oddness of Midianite, since vv. 1-5 had discussed Moabite woman. Noth notes this change,
writing that it is supposed that she was one of the Moabite women, and this substitution is not
strange, since the Midianite woman is introduced as if she were a familiar figure, an
explanation which is not satisfactory: the fact of her introduction as if she were familiar makes
7 Noth, 197.
8 Woloch, 254.
5

her actual unfamiliarity more jarring.9 It is much easier to explain the change in light of the
Balzacian type. The interchangeability of Moabite and Midianite need not be an error; rather, the
free substitution emphasizes that the woman is a type representing multiplicity, since she is a
member of an undifferentiated mass of non-Israelites, being neither conclusively Moabite nor
Midianite but somehow both. Her only marker of identity, nationality, is uncertain and multiple,
rendering her an emblem of multiplicity itself.
Standing against these two Balzacian types is the singular Phinehas. He arises first as an
individual, Phinehas, who is only later qualified by his relation to other people, son of
Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, and he is defined by relations to individuals, not groups (v. 7)
Phinehas is no Balzacian type. His singularity mirrors the earlier singularity of Israel, and he
symbolically restores Israels unity by literally slaying the multiple: two Balzacian types, pierced
together as multiple, in the act of coition or multiplying (v. 8). The passage ends with one final
type, those that died by the plague, defined only by their multiplicity, since all we know is that
they were twenty-four thousand (v.9). This final Balzacian type establishes the lesson of the
passage: those who undo the singularity of Israel will become plural, losing identity and
becoming mere masses, numbers. The representatives of multiplicity, in the guise of the
unnamed Israelite, the Midianite/Moabite woman, and the plague victims, are destroyed, and
Israels singularity and distinctiveness are restored.
So far, we have ignored the actual content of the story, a tale about intermarriage and the
worship of other gods by Israel. The passages content is pertinent to the analysis in that it
parallels Wolochs emphasis on the precariousness [] of the individual when confronted with
social fusion in Balzacs novels.10 The problem of social fusion for Israel, as it seeks to
9 Noth, 198.
10 Woloch, 263.
6

define itself as one unique nation distinct from its neighbors,11 is exemplified in the passages
thematic linking of sexuality and religious identity, and made vivid in the image of the Israelite
and Midianite stabbed in the act of coition.
The ambiguity as to whether the sin of the Israelites is sex with the Moabites, disloyalty
to YHWH, or both can be explained if both acts are seen as instances of social fusion that
threaten Israels singularity. The first part of the passage is not so problematic, since there is an
implied progression from sexual relations to bowing down to their [Moabite] gods (vv. 1-2),
with the first leading to the second, and YHWH is angry about the religious disobedience, that
Israel yoked itself to the Baal of Peor (v. 3); as Noth puts it, though these relationships had
obviously no cultic background to them [] they did have cultic consequences.12 In the second
part of the passage, though, this clear connection sex leads to cultic impropriety, the real
problem is gone. Noth says, in his commentary on v. 6, what exactly was nefarious about the
Israelites action is not specifically stated, and only by looking at vv. 1-5 can he deduce that
intercourse with a Midianite woman also meant subjection to her god or gods.13 Though
Noths effort here is admirable, vv. 1-3 do not make sexual relations and worship equivalent
instead, the first leads to the second, and it is only thus, (v. 3), after the religious worship of
other gods is consummated, that sin is a problem.14 The reason the two are treated as
interchangeable here is because they are both instances of social fusion, and therefore threaten
11 As stated in Jeremy M. Hutton, The Patriarchs (and Matriarchs?) (lecture, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, September 22, 2014).
12 Noth, 196.
13 Ibid., 198.
14 Note that Noths interpretation is also problematic because Moses had married a Midianite,
implying that it was possible to be faithful to YHWH but still marry a non-Israelite. It is more
plausible, then, that the essential problem for YHWH is worship of other gods though Mosess
marriage is still problematic as a less egregious case of social fusion. See Terence E. Fretheim,
ed., Numbers, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010), 227n25.6-15.
7

Israels distinct status of being one nation above many; intermarriage and/or common religious
practices make Israel merely one nation among its neighbors.
Social fusion is at the core of the passages sole image, the Israelite and Midianite
pierced by a spear during sex (v. 8), making it clear that this is the root problem. The image
itself exemplifies social fusion the two are attached, permanently and associates it with
death. A passing social fusion in sex is made both permanent and deadly, implying that social
fusion is literally precarious to the individuals survival. Fusion also happens at the
grammatical level: when Phinehas pierces the two of them, the Israelite and the woman, through
the belly (v.8), the text emphasizes their fusion by a dissonance between the plural subject
two and singular belly the two people have now fused into one, with one belly to pierce.
Thus, not only is social fusion dangerous to the literal survival of a person, as the image itself
shows, but it also, as shown by the grammar, it makes the survival of their individuality
precarious, since this Israelite man and Midianite woman have lost their distinct personhood.
Significance to Noths Commentary
As alluded to above, the passage presents problems for Noth, who struggles with late
phraseology, elements [of tradition] that cannot rightly be delimited, and very unusual, even
unique words and expressions whose exact meaning and field of reference can only be
guessed.15 (He also stumbles on the problems of the Moabite woman becoming a Midianite and
of the Israelites crime being sexual or religious, both of which we have already addressed.) In
essence, his problem is the lack of reference in the passage to the context of the biblical
narrative: it stands apart both in terms of tradition and words, and so the biblical field of
reference cannot account for it. Wolochs account of social fusion, which leads to the
breakdown of the individual, clarifies why the field of reference fails. If we consider the
15 Noth, 196.
8

narrative of the Pentateuch to be about the nation Israel, with Israel thus being the field of
reference, then it is unsurprising that social fusion with other groups would make that field
of reference fail. As Woloch puts it, social fusion in the Paris of Le Pre Goriot can
radically contextualiz[e] individual narratives, stripping them of significance as a
superimposition of stories drowns out the particular tragedy of Goriot.16 The same thing
happens to Noth, where the social fusion of the Israelites and Moabites/Midianites, which
happens in terms of grammar, types, and images, causes the field of reference that ascribes
centrality to Israel, the usual narrative context, to fade away as this passage becomes radically
[re]contextualize[ed], resulting in Noths confusion. Wolochs analysis, on the contrary, can
explain these confusions as a result of social fusion and the conflict between the one and the
many, helping to clarify the meaning and mechanics of a difficult part of the Pentateuch.

16 Woloch, 262-3.
9

Works Cited
Hutton, Jeremy M. The Patriarchs (and Matriarchs?) Lecture, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison, WI, September 22, 2014.
Fretheim, Terence E., ed. Numbers. In The New Oxford Annotated Bible ed. Michael D.
Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Noth, Martin. Apostasy to Moabite Idol-Worship: 25:1-18. In Numbers, translated by James D.
Martin. Chatham, Kent: W & J Mackay & Co., Ltd., 1968.
Woloch, Alex. The One vs. the Many: Minor Characters and the Space of the Protagonist in the
Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

10