06_Biblica_AN_Ska_Layout 1 01/04/14 12:04 Pagina 104 104 JEAN LOUIS SKA here, too, even if, as we have said, the situation in Numbers, of itself, does not lead us to these results. [...] We must, rather, keep in mind the peculiar position and function of the book within the framework of the Pentateuch. Only thus can we explain the peculiar nature of the book of Numbers” 9. It was worth quoting M. Noth at length just to pinpoint with more clar- ity his dilemma. On the one hand, he is aware of the peculiarities of the book and, on the other, he does not want to contradict himself, in particular with what he said in his commentary on Exodus. This is the reason why he continues to speak of sources, as in the rest of the Pentateuch. He adds one more aspect, however, namely that we find in Numbers a series of late texts, or later forms of the classical sources: “It is simply not practicable simply to proceed to a division of the textual material among the Penta- teuchal sources J, E and P (and, in any event, it would have to be a question of secondary forms of these sources)” 10. The reason for the presence of later insertions is explained in two ways by M. Noth. First, because “any ordinances or actions which had to be attributed to Moses would have to be inserted here [...]” 11. Second, this was the right place to introduce allu- sions and instructions to the impending entrance into the land (or conquest of the land). In other words, the composition of the Book of Numbers can be compared to the preparation of luggage before a long journey. At the beginning of the operation, everything is arranged according to a clear plan. At the end — and here we are in the Book of Numbers, especially in Numbers 26–36 — we have a long series of heterogeneous and heteroclite items added at the last minute, often after reopening the suitcase. We can sum up this short discussion with J. Wellhausen and M. Noth quite briefly. First, it is obvious – to say it with M. Noth again — that “There can be no question of the unity of the Book of Numbers, nor of its originating from the hand of a single author” 12. Second, there is grist to the mill of every theory, or almost, since our two great scholars changed their minds after coping with the difficulties of the book and were forced to nuance their first statements with several corollaries. 9 NOTH, Numbers, 4-5. 10 NOTH, Numbers, 5. Italics are mine. Cf. also 9, on Numbers 26–36. 11 NOTH, Numbers, 9. 12 NOTH, Numbers, 4.