Numbers 11:3

11:3 So he called the name of that place Taberah ¹  because there the fire of the Lord burned among them.

Numbers 11:34

11:34 So the name of that place was called Kibroth Hattaavah, ²  because there they buried the people that craved different food. ³ 

Numbers 14:40

14:40 And early ⁴  in the morning they went up to the crest of the hill country, ⁵  saying, “Here we are, and we will go up to the place that the Lord commanded, ⁶  for we have sinned.” ⁷ 

Numbers 20:5

20:5 Why ⁸  have you brought us up from Egypt only to bring us to ⁹  this dreadful place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink!”

Numbers 21:3

21:3 The Lord listened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites, ¹⁰  and they utterly destroyed them and their cities. So the name of the place was called ¹¹  Hormah.

Numbers 10:29

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ¹² Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ¹³  “We are journeying to the place about which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, ¹⁴  for the Lord has promised good things ¹⁵  for Israel.”

Numbers 32:1

The Petition of the Reubenites and Gadites

32:1 ¹⁶ Now the Reubenites and the Gadites possessed a very large number of cattle. When they saw that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were ideal for cattle, ¹⁷ 

[11:3]  ¹ tn The name תַּבְעֵרָה (tav’erah) is given to the spot as a commemorative of the wilderness experience. It is explained by the formula using the same verbal root, “to burn.” Such naming narratives are found dozens of times in the OT, and most frequently in the Pentateuch. The explanation is seldom an exact etymology, and so in the literature is called a popular etymology. It is best to explain the connection as a figure of speech, a paronomasia, which is a phonetic wordplay that may or may not be etymologically connected. Usually the name is connected to the explanation by a play on the verbal root – here the preterite explaining the noun. The significance of commemorating the place by such a device is to “burn” it into the memory of Israel. The narrative itself would be remembered more easily by the name and its motif. The namings in the wilderness wanderings remind the faithful of unbelief, and warn us all not to murmur as they murmured. See further A. P. Ross, “Paronomasia and Popular Etymologies in the Naming Narrative of the Old Testament,” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1982.

[11:34]  ² sn The name “the graves of the ones who craved” is again explained by a wordplay, a popular etymology. In Hebrew קִבְרוֹת הַתַּאֲוָה (qivrot hatta’avah) is the technical name. It is the place that the people craved the meat, longing for the meat of Egypt, and basically rebelled against God. The naming marks another station in the wilderness where the people failed to accept God’s good gifts with grace and to pray for their other needs to be met.

[11:34]  ³ tn The words “different food” are implied, and are supplied in the translation for clarity.

[14:40]  ³ tn The verb וַיַּשְׁכִּמוּ (vayyashkimu) is often found in a verbal hendiadys construction: “They rose early…and they went up” means “they went up early.”

[14:40]  ⁴ tn The Hebrew text says literally “the top of the hill,” but judging from the location and the terrain it probably means the heights of the hill country.

[14:40]  ⁵ tn The verb is simply “said,” but it means the place that the Lord said to go up to in order to fight.

[14:40]  ⁶ sn Their sin was unbelief. They could have gone and conquered the area if they had trusted the Lord for their victory. They did not, and so they were condemned to perish in the wilderness. Now, thinking that by going they can undo all that, they plan to go. But this is also disobedience, for the Lord said they would not now take the land, and yet they think they can. Here is their second sin, presumption.

[20:5]  ⁴ tn Heb “and why.”

[20:5]  ⁵ tn Here also the infinitive construct (Hiphil) forms the subordinate clause of the preceding interrogative clause.

[21:3]  ⁵ tc Smr, Greek, and Syriac add “into his hand.”

[21:3]  ⁶ tn In the Hebrew text the verb has no expressed subject, and so here too is made passive. The name “Hormah” is etymologically connected to the verb “utterly destroy,” forming the popular etymology (or paronomasia, a phonetic wordplay capturing the significance of the event).

[10:29]  ⁶ sn For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.

[10:29]  ⁷ sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

[10:29]  ⁸ tn The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” (יָטַב, yatav); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav (ו) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.

[10:29]  ⁹ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[32:1]  ⁷ sn While the tribes are on the other side of Jordan, the matter of which tribes would settle there has to be discussed. This chapter begins the settlement of Israel into the tribal territories, something to be continued in Joshua. The chapter has the petitions (vv. 1-5), the response by Moses (vv. 6-15), the proposal (vv. 16-27), and the conclusion of the matter (vv. 28-42). For literature on this subject, both critical and conservative, see S. E. Loewenstein, “The Relation of the Settlement of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32:1-38, Its Background and Its Composition,” Tarbiz 42 (1972): 12-26; J. Mauchline, “Gilead and Gilgal, Some Reflections on the Israelite Occupation of Palestine,” VT 6 (1956): 19-33; and A. Bergmann, “The Israelite Tribe of Half-Manasseh,” JPOS 16 (1936): 224-54.

[32:1]  ⁸ tn Heb “the place was a place of/for cattle.”