06_Biblica_AN_Ska_Layout 1 01/04/14 12:04 Pagina 106 106 JEAN LOUIS SKA These works follow different lines that can be divided, for practical purposes, into four main categories 17. In the first place, several authors continue to work with “sources”, and especially the classical sources, even though most of these authors recognise the presence of later outgrowths on these same sources in Numbers. Some are faithful to J. Wellhausen and especially M. Noth 18, others belong to a group sometimes called the “neo-documentarians” 19. All of them, notwithstanding differences in the results, distinguish continuous sources in Numbers in spite of the hetero- geneous character of much of the material found in the book. There are enough connections and common elements among narratives, laws, and lists, to gather them into two or three baskets. What does not enter these “baskets” is to be explained as later developments of these “sources”, or later shoots grafted onto them 20. The second group is lead by R. Achenbach and his mentor, E. Otto 21. They see in Numbers one of the latest literary compositions of the Pentateuch that is to be understood as the result of a redactional process. Put briefly, Num- 17 For more details, see L. SCHMIDT, “Literatur zum Buch Numeri”, TR 63 (1998) 241-266; ID., “Neuere Literatur zum Buch Numeri (1996-2003)”, TR 70 (2005) 389-407; H. SEEBASS, “Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung. Das Buch Numeri”, Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on Occasion of His 70th Birthday (eds. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – E. NOORT) (VTS 73; Leiden 1998) 109-121; T. RÖMER, “De la périphérie au centre: Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque”, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. RÖMER) (BETL 215; Leuven 2008) 3-34; H. SEEBASS, “Das Buch Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchforschung”, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (ed. T. RÖMER) (BETL 215; Leuven 2008) 233-259; I. CARDELLINI, “Il libro dei Numeri alla luce degli studi recenti”, Lateranum 76 (2010) 57-71. 18 See the commentaries listed in n. 16. 19 See especially B.J. SCHWARTZ, “Does Scholarship’s Critique of the Docu- mentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for its Rejection?”, The Pentateuch. In- ternational Perspectives on Current Research (eds. T.B. DOZEMAN – K. SCHMID – B.J. SCHWARTZ) (FAT 78; Tübingen 2011) 3-16; J. BADEN, J, E, and the Redac- tion of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen 2009); ID., The Composition of the Pentateuch. Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New Haven, CT 2012). 20 This is the case of L. Schmidt and H. Seebass, for instance. See L. SCHMIDT, Das vierte Buch Moses. Numeri 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7,2; Göttingen 2004) 2-4; SEEBASS, “Das Buch Numeri”, 238-239. 21 See ACHENBACH, Die Vollendung der Tora; to be complemented by “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch”, ZAR 9