Desert Transformations: Studies in the Book of Numbers 3161539672, 9783161539671, 9783161539688

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Edited by

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

137

Christian Frevel

Desert Transformations Studies in the Book of Numbers

Mohr Siebeck

Christian Frevel, born 1962; 1994 PhD; 1998 Habilitation; 1999–2004 professor for Biblical Theology at the University of Cologne; since 2004 professor for Old Testament at the Ruhr-University Bochum and since 2015 also extraordinary professor at the Department of Old Testa­ment Studies at University of Pretoria, South Africa. orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-1191

ISBN 978-3-16-153967-1 / eISBN 978-3-16-153968-8 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-153968-8 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface Almost everyone knows the saying from the Midrash that the Torah has seventy faces (‫כך י שׁ שׁבעים פנים בתורה‬, Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15). There are plenty of modes of expounding the Torah and each of it offers something. The context in which this famous saying is recorded is the wonderful allegoric interpretation of Numbers 7, where the twelve tribes inaugurate the cultic service by bringing silver bowls as their initiatory gifts. The Torah is compared to bread and wine, it is vital and nutritious, and its study is considered to be beautiful (‫)יפה תלמוד תורה‬. And if it requires proof of the many faces of the Torah, the Midrash offers it, because every time a silver bowl is brought by one of the twelve chieftains, another interpretation is given. And at the end of the section a qal wachomer is given with regard to Num 7:89: If even Moses had to think about each passage of the Torah again and again, by how much more must that be the case with an ordinary person! The reflection on the interpretation of the book of Numbers never comes to an end. This volume of collected essays records some interim results of my own understanding. It is published within a research project founded by the German Science Foundation (DFG FR2587/3-1: “Between Tradition and Innovation: The Book of Numbers in Literary and Theological Interpretation”) and is understood as preparatory work for a commentary on the book of Numbers. Twenty essays originated in publications and papers in the period from 2007 until 2019. They include six previously unpublished papers and seven first time translations of previously published German essays. All contributions have been slightly edited for this publication. Parts of the compilation and revision have been done during a research stay at the University of Pretoria, whose academic hospitality is always appreciated. The preparation of this volume has accompanied me a long time and many helping hands have worked on it. I am very grateful to everyone. Peter Altmann translated five of the translations with great diligence, and Jordan Davis prepared the processing of previously unpublished contributions with a lot of empathy and commitment. He also did the final language editing. Annika Neurath, Sarah-Christin Uhlmann, Tobias Schmitz and particularly Katharina Pyschny were in charge of the copy-editing and the preparation of the camera ready manuscript, and they did their job extremely quiet, unagitated and meticulous. Finally, my secretary Katharina Werbeck supported me and everyone else involved throughout the whole process. In addition, I am grateful to the editors of the series, in particular Konrad Schmid, who accepted this vol-

VI

Preface

ume for Forschungen zum Alten Testament. The publisher Mohr Siebeck had a great patience waiting for the final manuscript, and the support was as always professional and reliable. Working on the book of Numbers for such a long time is a great privilege. For me, it has opened up theological horizons, led to a deeper understanding of the composition of the Pentateuch and triggered the insight in processes of interpretation within scripture. My hope is that this will be noticeable in the present volume. Bochum, September 2019

Christian Frevel

Content Wandering the Desert: A Survey into the Present Volume and Beyond ........................................... 1

Literature, History and Ideology Torah Becoming a Blessing: Narratological Impulses for Understanding the Book of Numbers ............ 23 The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah ............................................................................................... 53 Old Pieces – Late Bridges? The Role of the Book of Numbers in Recent Discussion of the Pentateuch ....................................................................................... 83 Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert: Num 21 as Compositional Joint ................................................................ 121 Living in the Midst of the Land: Issues of Centralization in the Book of Numbers ..................................... 143 Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in Numbers .............................. 155 Numbers and the Twelve .......................................................................... 189 The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers ..................................... 209

Ritual and Practice Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context ........................... 225 Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses: Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19 ........................ 261 On the Imperfection of Perfection: Remarks on the Anthropology of Rituals in Numbers .............................. 289

VIII

Content

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers: A Fresh Approach to Ritual Density, the Role of Tradition and the Emergence of Diversity in Early Judaism ................................................. 317 The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer: Legal Hermeneutics and Literary History in Num 15:32–36 .................... 339 Interior Furnishing: Some Observations on Endogamy in the Book of Numbers ..................... 357

Leadership and Priesthood The Transformation of Charisma: Reflections on the Book of Numbers on the Backdrop of Max Weber’s Theorem of Routinization .............................................. 379 Leadership and Conflict: Modelling the Charisma of Numbers ........................................................ 401 “My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace”: The Priestly Covenant and the Issue of Mixed Marriages ......................... 425 “And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed” (Lev 10:20): The Relationship Between Compositional History, the History of Theology and Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Leviticus 10 ............................. 435 “…and the Levites Shall Be Mine”: Remarks on the Connections Between Numbers 3; 8 and 18 .................... 465 Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers ................. 487 List of First Publications ........................................................................... 511 Bibliography ............................................................................................. 515 List of Bibliographic Abbreviations ......................................................... 559 Index of Biblical References .................................................................... 561 Index of Subjects ...................................................................................... 579

Wandering the Desert A Survey into the Present Volume and Beyond The 21st cent. is a fortuitous time to contribute to the study of the book of Numbers. Although in many ways Pentateuchal research is more divided and unsettled than ever before, at the same time this encourages new possibilities to be explored and new conceptions to be pondered. This volume of collected essays represents my own efforts at developing new concepts in understanding the book of Numbers in these exciting times. The articles of this volume are based on the understanding that the current challenges of Pentateuchal research cannot be solved without going deep into the diachrony of the book of Numbers, but that the solution to the so-called Pentateuchal problem cannot be developed only from the book of Numbers. The articles are furthermore convinced that an essential contribution of the book of Numbers lies beyond the analysis of its literary history. The volume is separated into three major categories: The first section represents a collection of essays devoted to demonstrating the artistry of composition, its theological horizon and the significance of the book of Numbers in current Pentateuchal research. The second section offers a deeper look into the innovations the late scribes responsible for Numbers made within the field of rituals and other religious practices. The final section takes a deeper look at the priests and Levites, a topic that finds its clearest and greatest expression in the book of Numbers. In all three sections, the special features of the book of Numbers – which has received too little attention in former research – come to the fore. The following will mainly provide an introduction to each section by highlighting the specific features of the book of Numbers unfolded in the papers in more detail. It also aims at figuring out the characteristics of the book and the peculiarities of my approach. Therefore the presumed function of Numbers as tradition-literature and as part of the Torah is discussed several times. In addition, the three main theological lines land (“wherefrom” and “whereto”), leadership (“who is leading whom in what way”) and blessing (“why and how Israel is preserved in the desert”) are repeatedly emphasized as if under a magnifying glass. Finally, the significance of the book is indicated by pointing at three additional fields, which highlight particularly the special sociological features of the book of Numbers.

2

Introduction

1. Literature, History and Ideology The positive aspects of the so-called Pentateuchal crisis is a de facto breakdown of the former, dominant source criticism, which saw itself in a position to clearly assign each text to one of the main sources J, E and P, or to the editors who linked them. The problems became particularly acute in the book of Numbers, which suffered under the Documentary Hypothesis in that it was often overlooked and (relatedly) that it was often misunderstood. This misunderstanding was especially related to the book’s composition, which seemed to be theologically insignificant and literarily obscure. The book of Numbers was an addendum, supplement or appendix to the real and original narrative of the Pentateuch. To provide two examples of this: In his 1927 commentary L. Elliott Binns writes as follows: […] as a piece of literature [the book of Numbers] falls short of the highest class owing to its lack of unity and proportion. At the same time it cannot be denied that it contains narratives of the greatest merit, strung like pearls on a string, but the underlying idea has been obscured by too great a profusion of detail, and the various authors and editors – even down to the unknown scribe who gave the book its final form – were not at one in their aims. 1

Some 30 years later Martin Noth likewise struggled with the overall structure and compositional unity of Numbers and even proposed that a lot of this disorder could be explained by the book functioning as some kind of repository for materials that could no longer be inserted elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Speaking of the laws contained at the beginning of the book he writes: […] it is understandable that the need was felt, even after the actual conclusion of the Pentateuch, to include various additional items of this kind within the Sinai pericope. The easiest place for this to be done was at the end of that pericope. So, at a very late stage, but before the Pentateuch achieved canonical status, thereby becoming unalterable, all kinds of material were added in 5:1–9:14, material which can no longer be regarded as belonging to the various “sources”. This material consists of numerous individual units, having no connection with one another and in whose sequence no factual arrangement can be discerned. The simplest hypothesis is that in the course of time these units gradually became attached to each other. 2

Noth also struggled with the final third of Numbers and proposed that, “we shall have to reckon with the fact that the individual units were simply added one after the other in the order in which they appeared.” 3 The situation characterized in broad strokes above led to two completely different approaches in the past decades. Irrespective of the increasing problems, even the book of Numbers was subjected to a clear source separation in BINNS, Numbers (1927), xiv. NOTH , Numbers (1968), 6. 3 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 10. 1 2

Wandering the Desert

3

J, E and P by the so-called Neo-Documentarians. 4 In contrast, the traditional source-critical model was increasingly regarded as outdated, especially in Europe. Any attempt to mediate between these two approaches, which are methodologically contrary to each other, has so far failed.5 However, while more or less accepting the “farewell to the Yahwist” and more so the elusive Elohist, my own approach is influenced by the assumption of a late, pre-exilic composition that integrates given older traditions into a narrative of origin that functioned as a charter myth in Judah. 6 This history comprised the exodus narrative and ended up in the conquered land. Accordingly, this theory marks the starting point of the volume’s contributions in attempting to cut swathes in the thick forest of traditions within Numbers (see below). However, the complex literary history of the book of Numbers offers special challenges for this hypothesis as well. More than other books Numbers is characterized by a literary history that spans almost five centuries. But unlike early research was willing to accept, the literary growth of the book of Numbers did not begin from a broad base of pre-priestly source material. The more the sources were doubted in general, the more their contribution to the book of Numbers was called into question. Even the Priestly Source has been challenged to have a share in the literary traditions of Numbers. Together with the striking lack of Deuteronomistic phraseology in the book (which differs compared to Exodus, Joshua and even Leviticus) this led to new models of explanation beyond the sourcecritical approach. It comes as no surprise that these new approaches were inspired by the Fragmentary Hypothesis. Thomas Römer in particular makes use of Noth’s ideas in his proposal that the book of Numbers functions as late compositional bridge between the priestly Tritoteuch (Genesis–Leviticus) and the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy–2 Kings).7 According to Römer, the book of Numbers arose out of the efforts to merge these two corpuses into a single work. As a preexisting corpus, the Sinai tradition contained in Exodus and Leviticus was already in a relatively fixed state and could no longer be easily expanded, therefore new laws were instead added to the beginning of the book of Numbers in order to still fall under the influence of Sinai. 8 However, Römer not only argues that Num 1–10 contains later laws, he also argues that the shift from the mountain itself (e.g., Exod 19:3) to the wilderness of Sinai (Num 1:1) demonstrates the subordinate nature of the laws in Numbers. 9 While 4 E.g., MARQUIS, Composition (2013); BADEN , Composition (2012); IDEM, Stratification (2013); IDEM, Narratives (2014). 5 See F REVEL, Review Gertz et al. (2017). 6 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 123–35. 7 See, e.g., RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 220–4. 8 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 223. 9 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 223.

4

Introduction

Num 1–10 remained a deposit of later additions, Römer strengthened the view that the desert narratives in the book of Numbers were only interpretations of the narratives in Exodus. 10 The focus shifted from originally old narratives, which were later adapted to the exodus narratives redactionally, to the assumption of late editorial formations that were created on the basis of the exodus narratives. The book of Numbers was considered to be “a theatre of scribal interpretations and discussions.”11 This idea of the book of Numbers being a product of scribal erudition had previously been worked out in detail by Reinhard Achenbach. He understood the book of Numbers in general as relecture or better réécriture of the pre-priestly and priestly traditions. To characterize the complexity of the “bridge” between the priestly composition and Deuteronomy, he allowed for successive Hexateuchal and Pentateuchal redactions, which were supplemented by an extensive triple-formative theocratic editorial redaction. By this he characterized the book aptly as the completion of the Torah (Vollendung der Tora). 12 Rainer Albertz took these ideas and applied them particularly to the rear part of the book (Num 26–36), which he understood to be an anticipation of the book of Joshua. 13 He employed the idea of a literary bridge, but underlined at the same time that the book of Numbers includes several closures Num 21:20a; 22:1; 24:25 and 36:13. For Albertz this indicates that the book became not only a formative part of post-exilic identity in the late 5th and 4th cent. BCE, but also a depository of legal and ritual supplements, which have almost nothing to do with the context of the book. 14 This evaluation basically brings us back to Martin Noth’s misjudgment, which was coined half a century ago, that the book is an unsystematic compilation of innumerable pieces of tradition (“eine unsystematische Zusammenstellung von zahllosen Überlieferungsstücken”). 15 It goes without saying that a better understanding of the internal structure of the book of Numbers will undoubtedly benefit, not only the understanding of the contents of the book itself, but significantly it will impact how one views the formation of the Pentateuch. One of the key aims of the first section of the present volume, then, is to demonstrate that these accusations of disorder are misguided. This will be demonstrated from a narratological point of view as well as from the composition history and from various literary historical angles. The book of Numbers, although admittedly complex, can be RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 441–5. RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 445. 12 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 629. 13 ALBERTZ, Pentateuchstudien (2018), 331. 14 ALBERTZ, Pentateuchstudien (2018), 333: “Wurde aber die Brücke zwischen Gen– Lev und Dtn–Jos erst spät und in mehreren Phasen gebaut, dann lässt sich auch erklären, warum im Numeribuch noch so viele gesetzliche und rituelle Regelungen eingeschoben worden sind, die nur wenig oder gar nichts mit dem Kontext zu tun haben.” 15 N OTH , Numeri (1977), 8. 10 11

Wandering the Desert

5

demonstrated to be a self-contained work that was developed with intentionality and purpose. Its contents exhibit an internal logic that are not merely the result of a scribal oversight (such as suggested by the idea of alternating law and narrative segments) and that are not the result of a happy accident (produced by sequentially appended materials). The composition is rather determined by the theological idea of election, blessing and preservation of Israel, which is linked to the narrated history in the Pentateuch as well as to their actual history. While the narrated journey takes place in pre-monarchic times within the desert, it reflects upon the real-world challenges of shaping a collective identity in the late Persian period and developing social structures beyond monarchic leadership and state-bound borders. The book’s narrative arch is deliberately stretched between the two main poles: the constitutive role of Sinai and the Promised Land as a realizing space. In this regard there can indeed be no doubt that the book of Numbers has a bridging function. However, it is misleading to assume that before or even within the priestly narrative there was no narrative link between Sinai and the land beyond Deuteronomy. Although one has to admit that most of the texts included in the book of Numbers belong to post-Deuteronomistic and even post-priestly strata, which often presuppose major portions of (leaving aside the often unclear relation to Genesis) Exodus, Deuteronomy and to a slightly lesser degree Leviticus. Accordingly, many of the studies in this book demonstrate that Numbers often presumes other texts, interprets other texts, comments on other texts, plays with other texts, challenges other texts, expands the view of other texts, etc. Thus, in general, the Fragmentary Hypothesis is quite appropriate to explain the origin of the texts in Numbers. Most of the texts belong neither to a source nor are they part of a redaction (i.e., editorial activity that intervenes in existing texts in several places displaying shared characteristics). In contrast, even if the book of Numbers evinces a continuous sophisticated fivepart final composition, it gathers a striking number of redactionally layered clusters, which could also stand more or less for themselves (Num 13–14; 16–17; 22–24 et al.). This peculiarity distinguishes Numbers from the other books of the Pentateuch. While this was repeatedly used as an argument for the so-called bridge thesis, in my opinion the book of Numbers does not fit completely into a post-priestly existence. The papers in this book illustrate this in detail, but one argument is the specific character of the independent Priestly Source (Priestergrundschrift), which does not end at Sinai according to my longstanding opinion. 16 A further major difficulty with the idea that the book of Numbers was developed entirely as a post-Deuteronomistic, post-priestly bridge book is explaining the place of Deuteronomy 1–3. Even those scholars who champion 16

FREVEL , Blick (2000).

6

Introduction

the idea of a late bridge still maintain that Numbers contains non-priestly materials that functioned as the basis for the re-telling given in Deuteronomy 1–3. In order to align these seemingly contradictory claims, it is suggested that the early materials used by the Deuteronomist were later added into the book of Numbers by the (post-priestly) Hexateuch redactor. However, it remains unclear why this late Hexateuch redactor felt the need to incorporate these earlier materials into his work. The structural role of promise to the fathers on the one hand and Martin Noth’s insight that Sinai is the center but not the target destination of the narrative thread on the other hand suggest that this connection should not first be placed in the hands of a post-priestly redaction. In my understanding, the role of the spy narrative in Num 13–14 is crucial in this respect. The priestly narrative is neither the basic layer of Num 13–14 nor is it developed from the Deuteronomistic variant in Deut 1. The non-priestly spy narrative should rather be considered as part of a pre-priestly “bridge” between the Sinai narrative and the land. Portions of the itinerary in Num 20–21* and of the departure from Sinai in Num 10:19–36* can be regarded as part of this older narrative, precisely because the reasons for assuming that they were older traditions inserted into their current contexts by post-priestly redactional hands are barely comprehensible.17 In addition, it remains a plausible assumption that the death of the protagonist Moses played a role when the birth story made his life a decisive part of the exodus narrative. Since the subversive allusions to the Sargon legend most likely stem from the late Neo-Assyrian times in the late 8th–7th cent. BCE,18 it is reasonable to assume a narrative version of the death of Moses in Deut 34 connected to that.19 In sum, even if the individual boundaries of this non-priestly material remain controversial, the logical result is a pre-priestly narrative framework that cannot easily be dissolved into a Fragmentary Hypothesis and the impact of a post-priestly redactional inclusion. In a nutshell, the model applied here regards the classical Documentary Model for the explanation of the beginnings of the literarily contiguous tradition as having failed. It proved wrong in assuming a genius “author” close to the romantic concept. By taking into account the peculiarities of tradition-building processes and the emergence of tradition-literature, a concept is offered that interlinks the functions of collector, author and editor. This was already put forward by Julius Wellhausen and others and has also strongly influenced Martin Noth’s conceptualization of the formation of tradition in the books beyond the Pentateuch. It was further strengthened in the idea of a Jerusalemite History by Erich Zenger, which has combined Fragmentary Hypothesis and source-critical approaches in a compromise, which brought Pentateuchal research a substanFREVEL , Shapes (2019); GERMANY, Exodus-Conquest Narrative (2017). RÖMER, Moses (2013), 83; IDEM, Mose (2014), 80–1. 19 FREVEL , Abschied (2001). 17 18

Wandering the Desert

7

tial step forward. 20 This perspective of literary growth is far beyond a mechanical source-critical allocation of the narrative material of the book of Numbers to sources as it was provided by the classical commentaries of the early 19th cent. or as it is suggested by the above mentioned more current Neo-Documentarian view. The continuous growth of the narrative and legislative material in the book of Numbers is the underlying concept of the papers in this volume. The desert as interlink in the Pentateuchal narrative is paramount in literary, conceptual and theological respects. It is not an invention of late editors who found the almost empty space between Sinai and land in Deut 1–3 and filled it with all kinds of material, because otherwise there was no more space for editorial additions. On the contrary, even with the earliest Pentateuchal narrative it was made clear that there is no unbroken connection between exodus and land, but that formation and transformation in the intermediate space of the desert are indispensable. Apart from this insistence on a pre-priestly narrative thread, it is quite obvious that the majority of the textual material in the book of Numbers is postpriestly and reaches down to the latest stages of the Pentateuch. By this the connecting character, which links the formative period of founding at Sinai with the perspective of realization in the land, is particularly accentuated. Even if the land is firmly in sight – which is especially underlined by the close Hexateuchal interlocking with the book of Joshua – the formative character is preserved and emphasized by the location of this “bridge” in the mythical primeval times of Israel. In addition to the insight that the vast majority of the book is post-priestly, a second insight is indispensable, namely that ongoing interpretation processes determine its growth. The book of Numbers can only be understood as closely related to Genesis–Leviticus on the one hand and the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua on the other hand. It is a prime example of what has been called “inner-biblical interpretation” in the past decades. 21 Processes of textual supplementation, amendment, adaptation, alteration and transformation have been identified as the trigger of literary production. Fortschreibung is interpretation, and Fortschreibung also comprises redactional amendment as deliberate relation of textual traditions, integration of older material as well as camouflaging new texts as being old. The most intriguing insight within this megatrend 22 comes from the book of Numbers: it is the insight that processes of adaptive interpretation do not only comprise legal material, but also in various ways narrative texts. Although future research will expand on this aspect to describe the common ground of FREVEL , Hermeneutik (forthcoming). Among many others most recently BÜHRER, Fortschreibungs- und Auslegungsprozesse (2019). For the history of research, see LEVINSON, Revision (2008), 95–181. 22 For the classification as a megatrend of exegesis, see F REVEL, Pathos (2015), 42–8 and IDEM, Relationship, p. 444 in the present volume. 20 21

8

Introduction

these processes, first and foremost it is crucial to understand that the most characteristic feature of many of the legal and narrative texts in the book of Numbers is to relate to other texts in an interpretative mode. This is, however, a general characteristic of tradition-literature, but the special feature of Numbers is the density of these interpretation processes. This conceptual reflection of tradition forms the background of my understanding of inner-biblical interpretation within Numbers. A fresh understanding of tradition23 can be of great help to appreciate this characteristic aspect of particularly late biblical literature and particularly the book of Numbers. Change in religious texts is not only triggered by the needs of adaption, assimilation or accommodation, it is rather an inherent aspect because of the dynamics of recursiveness of tradition. In contrast to the common understanding, tradition is not a static unchangeable block, but is rather formed by processes of adaptive application and is thus dynamic. Of course even texts are not static; they become dynamic although the words may not change at all: their interpretation transforms them and makes them a means of embedding. It is the paradox of tradition, that it is a concept that expresses continuity and stability on the one hand, and that it forms at the same time the base for discontinuity and change related to it on the other hand. It is decisive to understand that the metaphor of a “chain of tradition” includes that traditions are linked to other traditions. It is a characteristic of tradition that the absolute beginning where there is no relation to other traditions is no longer discernible. Traditions are interpretation of traditions. Aside from safeguarding, this is one of the most important functions of tradition. With Edward Shils and many others it is important to underline that traditions bridge discontinuity by a continuous process of change. 24 This is crucial even for the understanding of the interpretative power of the book of Numbers. Thus, the book of Numbers in particular combines old and new; it includes the preserved traditional (e.g., Num 10:35–36; 13:17–20; 25:1a, 3a, 5a; 22–24*), the transformed traditional (e.g., Num 11–12; 16–17; 32) and the invented traditional (e.g., Num 6:22–27; 27:1–11). The aspect of interpretation being a trigger of formation though is neatly related to the book’s position wherein Sinai and land overlap in the characteristic manner of “already” and “not yet.” As the articles will explain in more detail, this intermediate position is crucial for the understanding of the structure of the book. Numbers’ allegedly confusing structure comes from its combination of two overlapping influences: on the one hand the book is shaped by the Hexateuchal progression towards the land – from Sinai, through the wilderness, to the plains of Moab – on the other hand the book is shaped by the Pentateuchal pivot about Sinai (in which Numbers is positioned as the counterpart of Exodus), and thus the 23 24

FREVEL , Pathos (2015). SHILS, Tradition (1981), 44–5.

Wandering the Desert

9

wilderness period in particular is shaped by links to Israel’s journey from Egypt to Sinai. A closer look to this structure reveals a strategy of historicizing implementation. It is not only the continuity between the exodus generation and the generation which will inherit the land, but also the interpretation of tradition, which keeps Israel dynamic. The message is clear: Adaptive retaining is a means of preservation. The most striking fact though is that this “Israel” which is shaped in the book of Numbers as an important closed quantity never really existed; neither in the wilderness nor in the time of the tradents in the late Persian period. With its literary fiction, the book of Numbers gives rise to an “Israel,” which is encompassing, inclusive, ideal, promising and even utopian. The above-mentioned dual structure of the book of Numbers has broader implications for understanding the book, not only within the formation of the Pentateuch, but particularly also the Hexateuch. It is of paramount importance for the understanding of Numbers, that the interpretation processes comprise not only the transmitted stories from the exodus and Sinai narratives and the legislative references to Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but in addition develop a strong interlink with the book of Joshua in the greatest extent of its literary history from pre-priestly 7th cent. to post-priestly 4th cent. And again, what is characteristic for the present approach in methodical respect, is the entanglement of the literary and compositional history, which is embedded in former European history of research. Along with the fall of the Documentary Hypothesis, a second significant shift in recent scholarship, that has greatly benefited the study of the book of Numbers, is what I have elsewhere called, “the return to the Hexateuch perspective.”25 This return is primarily born out of the increasing acknowledgment that Noth’s idea of a single work spanning from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings is flawed. In particular, this lacuna makes the idea that there existed a pre-priestly, proto-Hexateuch more plausible. One clear example of the difficulty caused by the Deuteronomistic History is the strong link between Numbers and Joshua. In particular it is the book of Numbers, rather than Deuteronomy, that features a prominent focus on the themes of the land and conquest, which are only concluded in the book of Joshua. I maintain that the idea of a non-priestly Jerusalemite History as first formulated by Erich Zenger and briefly overviewed above is still the most plausible model for the original “Hexateuch,” which included at least the spy narrative and Israel’s arrival at Shittim from the book of Numbers. 26 More crucial though is the insight that the Hexateuchal links were strengthened throughout the literary history of the book of Numbers. The idea of a Pentateuch redaction, which isolated the five books from their reading context by inserting the epitaph in Deut 34:10–12 as the closure of the Pentateuch is as misleading as 25 26

FREVEL , Wiederkehr (2011). ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 123–35.

10

Introduction

the idea of the Persian authorization (Persian imperial authorization thesis) of this Torah as a compromise. Torah comes into being by internal growth of referentiality, and Pentateuch and Hexateuch are rather reference structures than separately existing contexts. It is most important that the horizon of many of the latest texts in Numbers lies beyond the Pentateuch. The standstill of redactional expansion though is rather driven by a growing outsourcing of interpretation in the so-called intertestamental literature. The more this exegetical Midrashic interpretative literature took over and the more the Torah became self-referential, the more the intra-Pentateuchal adaptation and interpretation processes came to an end. The book of Numbers shows clear signs of containing many of the latest materials of the Pentateuch. In addition to the late innovations made with the legislative material and the priesthood, there are a number of other aspects that demonstrate that the contents of the book of Numbers derive from a relatively late social milieu. These include the role of the priests and their privileged access to cult, economy and political power, the emergence of the high priestly office and its political agenda, the formation of Israel as a cultic community particularly characterized by demarcational demands for purity, the growing importance of the diaspora, etc. We are not able to locate the issues of leadership, which are formed and elaborated within the book of Numbers (Num 11–12; 13–14; 16–17; 20:1–13; 25:6–18; 27:15–23), within the post-exilic society beyond a rather rough substantiation within the late Persian period. It is the impression that the narrated conflicts relating to these topics have a rather paradigmatic character. They are a discursive negotiation of a collective identity, which on the one hand extends the existing reality of Yehûd but forms particularly the Judahite community centered on the Jerusalemite temple. However, it is still one of the open questions, how the diversity of Jahwisms in the Persian period, including Samarians, Judeans, Transjordanians, the communities in Elephantine, Makedah, Babylon, Alexandria, etc. relate to each other on the one hand, and to their shared tradition on the other hand. It is clear, however, that the Torah enables variety and thus represents a form of diversity management within Second Temple Judaism(s). Numbers 32 gives an illuminating example of such questions. Many papers of this volume develop the idea that the locally unspecified centralization of cult and society, the fictitious limitation of priesthood to a small Aaronide family, the social structure of Israel as a twelve-tribe nation that encompasses the whole country is designed as an “identity reservoir” to which different groups can refer alike, in a similar but also slightly different manner. This enabled Samarians and Judeans to share the tradition of the Torah and even to cooperate in managing the maintenance of this tradition. How far there were coordination processes in redactional respect is an open question for future discussions.

Wandering the Desert

11

As already said above, Numbers contains narrative segments that display an inner-biblical awareness and engagement that speaks against the traditional (mechanical) source model and instead suggests a greater emphasis on continuous Fortschreibung, a combination of a limited source model and a dominant Fragmentary Hypothesis, including inner-biblical interpretation and harmonization. This complicates the literary process rather than it makes it easier. What becomes clear, however, is that the latest layers in Numbers reveal a growing awareness of being “literature” and becoming “normative.” One example of this can be seen in the death of Balaam alongside the kings of Midian, which is a very late innovation developed from a variety of innerbiblical concerns. It combines Deut 13:2–6, Deut 18:9–22 and Deut 20 as well as Num 22–24 and Num 25:1–18. The killing of Balaam became “necessary” due to scribal interpretation of a verb used within the given tradition (Num 24:1). This verbal phrase was related to other texts concerning sorcery (Deut 18:10), so that the positive image of Balaam in Num 22–24 was tilted and led, in the end, to his demise (Num 31:8). While there are clear indications that the interpretation processes are stimulated by the texts themselves, the texts do not form a self-contained universe. Relations to the political and social developments of the late Persian period are by no means missing. One example of this would be the confusing blending of the various Transjordan people, which can be explained against the backdrop of the continuous late Persian period expansion of the various proto-Arabian tribes in the 4th cent. BCE. However, the term “Arabs” is not employed for that and the very rough literary Arab figurativeness of “the other,” which later becomes apparent in the Nabateans is only a guess. This example shows how indefinite the individual references to social developments unfortunately are. Another example of this is the mixed marriages topic, which has clearly left discursive traces within the book of Numbers (Num 12; 25; 27; 36) but also in this regard, the voices are many and appear only tentatively directed to a demand for a strict clan-endogamy. Even with this example it is difficult to tell, to what extent the social ideal is a consequence of the literary conception of land and landownership or a real discourse about the implementation of marriage rules in the 5th/4th cent. BCE. Nevertheless, the interplay of interpretative reflection and normative impact reveals a further characteristic of the book of Numbers in my understanding. It is true that in some cases the literary world, with its utopian opportunities and also limitations, appears to be a rather “scribal universe” that no longer has a clearly defined connection to a real world. But issues such as the inclusion of foreigners, the mixed marriages question, or the political role of the high priest show, that the “scribal universe” is not detached from social realities. Rather the “scribal universe” represents the attempt to shape a collective identity via the utopian depiction of a desert world, which is by no means only conceptualized as an ideal and free from conflicts. But Numbers is a narrative “constitution” of an Israel, which is a

12

Introduction

better world in terms of an inner unity with simultaneous integration of strangers, and of a broadly comprehensive society which is related to a common past, and finally of a community which, in all its diversity, is aware of its common origin and is thereby preserved by the God who has decided to keep his promise, to reaffirm his blessing and to remain in its midst. This ideal world is transferred to the desert (time), which thus becomes a formative period to relate upon. Having said that, there can be no doubt that many of the topics negotiated narratively in the book of Numbers (claim to priestly leadership, participation structures, priestly economy, endogamy, purity, inheritance of daughters, legal interpretation, centrality of cult, etc.) belong to Persian period discourses. Further research will expand on the embedding within the late Persian period and the simultaneous interlink with traditions and discourses located in Greek and Persian realms. This and the mentioned topics are clear indications of the “lateness” of the book of Numbers and provide key insights into the final formative stages of the Pentateuch. Thus, one of the paramount assertions of the first section of the volume is that the Pentateuch cannot be fully understood without a clear understanding of the book of Numbers.

2. Ritual Innovation in the Book of Numbers No other book in the Pentateuch has such a density of rituals as Numbers. This holds particularly true if one does not take into account the blood rituals and sacrifices performed at the altar of burnt offerings, which are mostly described in the book of Leviticus. But rituals of purification, as well as ordeals, vows and the priestly blessing are concentrated in the fourth book of the Pentateuch. Although the book’s compilation does not intend to display the complete ritual household, the selection is remarkable in several respects. The collection of essays focused upon rituals has several purposes. First, the compilation gathers new as well as traditional rituals. Whereas, for instance, the ritual handling of defilement caused by contact with corpses (Num 19) is rather new, the ordeal of handling the suspicion of the alleged cuckold (Num 5:11–31), the vows of the Nazirites (Num 6:1–21), or the priestly blessing (Num 6:22–27) are building upon earlier rituals. Accordingly, it is instructive to wonder about the role of rituals in the religious performance prescribed in the book of Numbers. In addition to the role of rituals in the cult, the question of ritual agents, of power, office and leadership are important. Second, the ritual texts in the book of Numbers display a high degree of innovation vis-àvis the rituals found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. This is for instance apparent from the role of women, who are mentioned explicitly in some rituals. As several articles will demonstrate in detail, the rituals in Numbers expand or interpret earlier ritual texts, filling in perceived gaps or omissions. This is all

Wandering the Desert

13

the more interesting, because the ritual texts must not be misunderstood as ritual scripts. Third, the increasing focus upon rituals in the book of Numbers, as the latest book in the Pentateuch, strongly suggests a historical development, whereby the rituals contribute to the Pentateuch becoming a “reservoir of identity” for the various Yahwistic communities in the late Persian period and beyond. This seems unexpected, since rituals are usually understood only as a mirror of a real cultic practice. Fourth, as with the book in general the rituals reveal a theology of preservation. It is by no means a rigid ritualistic world, which is demanded by the purity prescriptions or the purifying rituals. It is rather the constitutive means of a ritual mediation of holiness, which describes the ideal of an unimpaired fellowship with God. One of the major aspects highlighted in the enclosed essays is the observation that the rituals of the Pentateuch are surprisingly vague in their instruction. It is argued that this vagueness was a deliberate strategy of standardization and centralization on the one hand but left open the possibility for variation on the other hand. It is precisely the incompleteness and openness of the ritual scripts that allowed for variation in emerging communities, which relate themselves to this Torah as a normative framework. This allowed the various Yahwistic communities to practice their own expression of rituals, yet at the same time provided a means by which these various expressions could be tied to a centralized and standardized core. The ritual practice is understood as forming a common denominator, which should be binding for all variants of the post-exilic varieties of early Judaism. The imprecise rituals helped make Judaism a religion of the book, which was not tied to a specific sanctuary or a specific worshipping community. The ritual texts in particular are a test case for this general understanding of the late shaping of the Torah within the book of Numbers, which takes the burden to allow for variety and unity at the same time. The focus upon rituals, then, is not only interesting exegetically, but it provides a window into the development of post-exilic Yahwism(s). The rituals provide examples of biblical interpretation, which fall particularly under the purview of the priests. This inner-biblical exegesis and/or supplementation of preexisting scripture not only expands the breadth and scope of the ritual texts in the Pentateuch but importantly functions as a type of proto-Midrash Halakha. This observation has further repercussions for understanding the final stages of the development of the Pentateuch: The Pentateuch was not simply a product of writing down fixed and long-standing traditions, rather its very shape was determined by processes of reflection and re-writing. Not only the process of its making, but also the result and its implementation was dynamic rather than static. Further research will expand this idea into a qualified legal hermeneutics, which is also crucial for the understanding of the interplay of traditions within the Torah.

14

Introduction

3. Priests and Levites The final collection of essays deals with priests and Levites. Within the Pentateuch it is only in the book of Numbers that the Levites play a major role. The book mentions their special position in the social body, their essential service to the shrine, their ceremonial consecration and even their participation in the cult. Even more important is that their relation to the Aaronide priesthood is defined time and again. The separation of the priests and Levites has often been interpreted in light of Ezekiel’s condemnation of the Levitical tribe and the exhortation of the Zadokite family. However, the book of Numbers does not denigrate the Levites but instead demonstrates how they fit into the broader cultic order of the community of YHWH. The camp structure, centered about the sanctuary, already demonstrates the important mediatory role played by the Levites with respect to the tribes of Israel. The allocation of Levitical cities and the granting of income via the tithes to the Levites also demonstrate that they hold a special place over the other tribes of Israel. That being said, there is little doubt that the Aaronide family holds an even more prestigious position and has privileges and responsibilities that cannot be performed by anyone else, due to the life-threatening consequences of approaching the holy space. This also ties into the hierarchical structure of society emphasized in the book of Numbers, which centers about the deity YHWH, who resides in the sanctuary that is ministered by the priests, who in turn are supported by the Levites. Within the above-mentioned leadership discourse, the institution of priesthood is legitimized in a unique way throughout the book. By stressing the internal hierarchy and economic issues, not only the institutionalization of priesthood but also its sacralization is increasingly amplified. The hierarchization is implemented up to a top senior level: the high priest, who is strikingly even labelled in the book as the hakkohen haggādol (Num 35:25, 28). Particularly the role of the Aaronide priesthood within the rituals as well as in the (re-)establishment of social and cultic order is remarkable, because in no other book of the Pentateuch is the special role of priesthood so closely linked to political leadership. In the book of Numbers the priests are not only given the highest cultic authority, but they are increasingly granted authority in the political sphere. The successively expanded composition Num 16–18 shows this development with all desirable authenticity. 27 This trend climaxes in Num 18 – where YHWH speaks to Aaron alone, without even Moses being present – and in Num 27 – where Moses’s successor Joshua has no direct access to YHWH (contrary to the facts reported in the book of Joshua itself!) but must instead discern the will of YHWH through the mediation of Eleazar 27

See PYSCHNY , Führung (2017).

Wandering the Desert

15

the priest. The literary figures of Aaron, Eleazar and Phinehas de facto prefigure the succession in the high priestly office. Accordingly, the book ends up in Num 35 with the premise of lifetime tenure and a high priestly succession, which is considered crucial for the perpetual maintenance of order in the land. Gradually, the book gives evidence to a subordination of leadership to the priestly claim. What is special about the book of Numbers is that Israel’s leadership is a family matter, restricted to Aaron and his sons. There can be little doubt, that the introduction of Aaron as elder brother of Moses is mostly secondary in the texts of the Pentateuch. It parallels the role of the “elder brother” (ahu rabû) in late Babylonian literature. 28 Compared to the prominent place of the priest in the Nabonidus Chronicle it becomes clear, that “the dutiful priest who protects the continuity of cultic life”29 is a substitution for the absent king and the lacking institution of monarchy. The most striking fact though is the interplay of the historicizing tendency of the implementation of political power related to the Aaronides and the de facto fictitious character of this small family. Again this raises questions on the relation to the reality of the late Persian period. There was not only one high priest in Samaria and Jerusalem. If one does not want to date the texts down into the Hasmonean period (which is hardly plausible), there is no corresponding domain or sphere of action for the high priest in the period in which the texts were written. As already mentioned above, this peculiarity can be seen as enabling unity and variety at the same time. The shared tradition reflects a common origin and a common point of reference, but is at the same time implemented in different ways in Samaria, Jerusalem and other centers of early Judaism. As with the rituals, the interpretative competence of the priests is given special attention in the book of Numbers. Once again this speaks to the priestscribe relationship and the development of the Pentateuch as a standardizing and centralizing body of work for a broad range of Yahwistic communities. With the loss of a true national governance system, the post-exilic priests became the de facto leaders of the community. However that is not to suggest that the Pentateuch and the book of Numbers in particular reflects directly upon the historical situation of the Persian period, rather it creates an idealized picture, which then shaped and influenced reality. One of the important insights of this book is that Torah influences real historical developments and does not simply presuppose them; it is rather a complex interplay of both levels. This specific formative feature makes clear the growing normativity of

28

See JURSA/DEBOURSE, Literature (forthcoming); see already IDEM , Martyr (2017),

29

WAERZEGGERS, Facts (2015), 113–4.

86.

16

Introduction

the texts which gradually became Torah as a text, which is no longer updated internally, but increasingly commented on externally.

4. The Role of Numbers Within the Pentateuch Becoming Torah To return to the beginning, it is an exciting time to study the book of Numbers as there is no longer a fixed mold into which all Pentateuchal research must be squeezed. On the one hand, my own work on the texts of Numbers for almost 20 years has made it clear that they have grown over an extremely long period of time. If the above-mentioned assumption is correct that there are already late pre-exilic parts, it extends over a period of about three hundred years. On the other hand, it became obvious that the sometimes obsessive occupation with literary history, sources, traditions and Fortschreibungen in current Pentateuchal research is not sufficient to describe the characteristic features. To take a quote from the first essay in this volume: No other book of the Torah is so marked by “ritual density,” no other book constitutes Israel as a coherent and structured social network, no other book negotiates leadership so diversely, no other book is so marked by the implementation of the law and its interpretation into the ideal world of Israel, etc.; tradition and innovation intertwine; paradigmatic norms, constant transformations and creative adaptations determine the understanding of Torah on Israel’s way from Sinai to the land. 30

The book of Numbers has much more to offer than literary history and the present collection of essays aims at bringing this to the fore. Numbers is a thoroughly theological book, which is characterized by an extremely high culture of reflection in the circles of the scribes of the late Persian period. The literati relate texts to other texts, include traditions and shape new ones, develop texts further and shift accents at the same time; they thus gradually proceed from text to commentary, or to put it differently they perform the transition to becoming the Torah. It is a striking fact that current research is convinced that the book of Numbers is multi-layered right down to the last line, but it does not succeed in dissolving this complexity into a conclusive diachronic sequence that is capable of consensus. This holds particularly true for the latest priestly layers, which were characterized beyond various stages of Hexateuchal and Pentateuchal redaction either as post-priestly additions, theocratic revisions, priestly editing or post-redactional supplements. The precise meanings of all these terms remain fuzzy, and particularly the latter reveals certain contradictions. No better designation can or should be introduced here. When working on the essays, I rather came to the conclusion that the fuzziness is precisely the characteristic feature of late Pentateuchal Fortschreibungen. It is impossible to dissolve them into a cascading sequence. 30

See F REVEL, Blessing, p. 26 in the present volume.

Wandering the Desert

17

Textual self-referentiality and a lack of diachronic specification are a characteristic part of the finishing process that brought the Torah into being and the processes of editing to a still stand. Research though, has to open up from subtle differentiation to an appreciation of the sophisticated and innovative theological quality of the book of Numbers. This is precisely the shift the present volume intends to perform. The encompassing topics land, leadership and blessing have been mentioned above. Within this range the distinctiveness of ritual density, the role of the Levites and the specific hierarchization of leadership have already been elaborated above in more detail. However, the book of Numbers has much more to offer, which is unfolded in the essays of this book to some further extent. Let me add three further characteristics in an exemplary manner. These are related to social structure and thus indicating a dimension of the book that has long been underestimated in previous research. The three aspects are the concept of Israel, individualization of religious practice and gender. First, the concept of Israel unfolded in the book of Numbers presents the community not as a state or nation but as a tribal entity. Nevertheless, the conception is centralized in which the temple takes the role of central government. Although the conception of twelve tribes may not be unfolded in the book of Numbers for the first time (it rather already builds upon Genesis and Exodus), no other book makes the kinship based tribal structure an organizing principle of society. The book’s vision is to involve the tribes almost equally, to grant them an equal share. This can be seen, for example, in the initial endowment of the shrine by all tribes (Num 7), the head tax and first-born levy (Num 3:40–51), or in the instructions for a fair distribution of land (Num 26:55–56; 33:54). Nevertheless, the book of Numbers also envisions the differentiation between Cisjordanian and Transjordanian tribes, the separation of the Levites and the rule of the tribe Judah. The arrangement of the tribes around the sanctuary (Num 2) is by no means accidental, but is oriented towards geography and hierarchy. Once more the impression is that the conception of a self-contained and cohesive tribal federation serves unity on the one hand but enables diversity on the other. As already said, despite the distribution of the tribes in the land, the conception is centralized in space and organization. The employed metaphor of description is holiness and the conceptual metaphor is spatial, interchangeably either THE CENTER IS HOLY or THE HOLY IS CENTERED. Holiness is graded, related to organization and leadership, it becomes an organizing principle. Becoming holy is thus a principle of social cohesion. The preservation of Israel in the wilderness relates to this tribal clannishness, and Num 32 (together with Josh 22) makes it clear that Israel’s success in inheriting the land from its previous inhabitants is crucially dependent upon their being a structured, but coherent unit.

18

Introduction

The second aspect “individualization of religion” is usually seen as a feature of postmodern religion. However, Jörg Rüpke in particular has developed a historical perspective on this topic pointing to processes in antiquity (particularly demonstrating individuation in the Roman religion). 31 It is striking that even though the just mentioned concept of the twelve-tribe Israel focuses on the social organization and cohesion of a collective entity, thus emphasizing the public and political dimension, the book of Numbers also reveals the turn to individual religiosity at decisive points. While most of the sacrificial cult is official and driven by the central authority, the book of Numbers fosters individuality in religious practice. The legal case of the postponed Pesach demonstrates that even collective festivals can be individualized. The tendency is all the more evident in the ritual-cluster of Num 5–6, when a jealous husband brings his suspected wife to perform an ordeal or when almost a whole chapter is spent on individual Nazirite vows. The tzizit-tassels (Num 15:38) can also be seen as a means of individualization of the observance of the Torah. Finally, the strong emphasis on individual vows in Num 30 can be mentioned to underline this important tendency of the post-exilic, early Jewish religion. While the Nazirite vow has a somewhat public character in Num 6:1–21, the practice of individual vows in Num 30 is rather private. It is a common prejudice that priestly literature has a patriarchal bias, is fixed on the masculine and its empowerment in social, political and religious respects and thus reinforces patriarchalism. Against this background, the third aspect of peculiarities in Numbers mentioned here is even more unexpected, although there already has been some discussion on a misunderstood gender bias in Leviticus. 32 It goes without saying that the book of Numbers reflects a patriarchal background and in general has a strong gender bias towards males. All representatives of the tribes are male, all acting priests are male, and apart from Miriam all leaders are male. However, women play a significant role in the book and this has really been overlooked as a peculiarity of this book. There are some explicit and rather implicit issues that can illustrate this aspect. Only at first glance, are the gender differentiations in Num 5:3, 6 insignificant. But compared to other legal texts, which are reigned by genderinclusiveness even these singularities become significant. Numbers 6:2, where women are also explicitly mentioned with regard to the Nazirite vow, shows that these are not coincidences. More explicit are the vows of women in Num 30 and the remarkable inheritance rights of daughters in Num 27:1– 11 and 36:1–12. The struggle of Aaron and Miriam on the privilege of prophetic revelation in Num 12:2 is also not by chance, even if, or precisely because, the prophetic spirit of God is poured out only on men. Read against this background the ritual of the suspected wife can be read in a similar way. 31 32

Out of many publications see RÜPKE, Individualization (2013), 3–38. See ERBELE -KÜSTER, Body (2017); GOLDSTEIN, Women (2015).

Wandering the Desert

19

Due to the regulated procedure, the woman is not simply left to whims of her furiously angry husband. The ritual aims at protecting the falsely suspected wife, and it hinders the jealous man from repeating the ordeal as often as he wants following his jealous suspicion. These references are not meant to turn the book of Numbers into a gender-equal book, but the tendency, which goes along the above-mentioned lines of individualization, is remarkable as such and underlines once again, how misjudged the sleeping beauty Numbers was in previous research. As the three additional clues make clear, something such as “religion” emerges in the book of Numbers. This is particularly linked to the aspects unfolded above. The texts on the one hand reflect religious practice beyond the public cult and intend to control them on the other hand. The authors or (allowing a metaphoric agency) the texts seem to be aware of themselves giving orientation and interpretation in a remarkable way. In “their” literary world they combine the continuously developed and transmitted tradition with their own culturally specific system of symbols to create a new understanding of “Israel” as common ancestry which reflects their own selfconception. They form and transform the normative base of their self-understanding, not in an essentialist manner, but rather in a dynamic space of interpretation that includes tradition and innovation, border and variance, demarcation and integration, close-mindedness and openness, reflecting oneself and stepping beyond. As this introduction has alluded and the enclosed essays will expound in more detail, the developments uniquely present in the book of Numbers pave the way for the Pentateuch-as-Torah to be the foundation for a religion of the book. This religion was no longer confined by a state-sponsored sanctuary and was no longer exclusively tied to a particular location. The Pentateuch-as-Torah instead functions as a “reservoir of identity,” which allowed Yahwistic communities, spread throughout the diaspora, to be united by standardizing and centralizing, shared traditions and a mor or less common text. The most crucial aspect revealed by this concept of unity is preservation of the blessed nation Israel. And the constant renewal of the irresolvable and non-negotiable state of being the blessed nation (Num 22–24) is provided by the priestly blessing in Num 6:22–25. Thus the loop of divine providence through hierocracy is completed. Cult is not an end in itself but serves the stabilization and historical realization of God’s will to salvation in the joint, permanent abode in the land. The book of Numbers was regarded a dead desert with only a few oases of theological significance in previous research. In contrast, the present book demonstrates that the wilderness of Numbers is rather blooming.

Literature, History and Ideology

Torah Becoming a Blessing Narratological Impulses for Understanding the Book of Numbers Perhaps the road to a different end is suggested by the nature of the text itself.1

This paper presents some comments on the narratological aspects of the book of Numbers. Due to the amount of material on this subject, this paper will focus on a few key aspects in order to highlight some of the book’s special features. The first section will focus upon the following issues: (1) the unity of the narrated world, (2) the constitution of the narrative voice and (3) the characters of the narrative. Following this, three related theoretical concepts will be discussed: (1) chronotopology (i.e., questions of space-time design), (2) intermittent narrative (i.e., the classical question of the connection between “history” and “law” as it is called in traditional terminology) and (3) narrativization (i.e., questions of the connection between the narrated world and the real world).

1. Center and Goal of the Book of Numbers Despite a considerable intensification of research in recent years, 2 the book of Numbers is still the most underestimated part of the five Pentateuchal books. The attention paid to its narrative parts is far behind that given to Genesis and Exodus, and its concept of holiness and purity is overshadowed by that presented in the book Leviticus. Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize the book’s narrative thread due to the wealth of descriptions, lists and laws that greatly slow down its narrative flow (not to mention the fact that most readers are already tired after the book Leviticus). Thus it is not difficult to see why the book of Numbers continues ‒ especially in Christian reception ‒ to be overshadowed by the other Pentateuchal books. The book, whose overall understanding can only be touched upon here, is admittedly complex, with an intricate structure that at first glance seems disorganized or ‒ as Martin Noth famously observed – “reichlich undurchREES, [Re]Reading (2015), 173. See also the overviews in RÖMER, Péripherie (2008); ARTUS, Enjeux (2016); F REVEL, Formation (2013) and IDEM, Pieces, p. 83–120 in the present volume. 1 2

24

Literature, History and Ideology

sichtig” 3 (abundantly opaque). This impression gets as many things wrong as it gets right, but ultimately proves to be a great misjudgment. Understanding the book of Numbers begins with the fact that it is undoubtedly part of the Hexateuchal narrative. That being said, Num 1:1 and 36:13 function to delimit the book’s contents in such a way that Numbers ultimately functions as a self-contained “book” (in the technical sense of its role) with a self-contained narrative – ignoring the difficulties caused by the personal deixis (“their departure”) in Num 1:1. 4 The structure also depicts what the book wants to relate on the narrative level: the time in the Sinai desert represents a constitutive, forming and structuring time, whereas the time wandering in the wilderness represents a disoriented and chaotic time, full of loss and failure. This simple juxtaposition, however, does not suggest that the book is not supported by a thoroughgoing idea and is designed down to the last detail with this in mind. In a nutshell: the book has a center and a goal. One of the peculiarities of the book of Numbers is that the “how” and the “what” of the narrative are intertwined, and I describe this as its strategy of narrativization (see below). The question of the center could be answered in many ways, such as via the concept of leadership and an analysis of the narrative in Num 16–17, 5 but at present I would like to limit myself simply to the arithmetic center of the book. The Masoretes count Num 17:20 as the center of the book and in fact the verse represents something like a center of the book’s contents: And it will happen: The man I choose, his staff will sprout. So I will silence before me the murmuring that they murmur against you.

In the ordeal, Aaron is wonderfully legitimized as the hierocratic leader of the people by divine authorization. The idea that a murmur against Aaron and Moses is treated as a murmur before God is characteristic and central within the book of Numbers. The divinely legitimized leadership structure preserves Israel by orienting the people towards the “sanctifying center within the center” (Num 17:25). The sanctifying center is God, who has taken up residence in the middle of the camp, in the mobile sanctuary ‒ built in the desert and put into operation in the book of Numbers ‒ and who sanctifies the people 3 N OTH, Numeri (1977), 5. The translation in IDEM, Numbers (1968), 7 speaks of the “confused arrangement of the contents.” 4 It is questionable whether there is a compelling need for the people to be introduced in the narrative. Within the context of the Pentateuch, Num 1:1 clearly follows on from Lev 27:34. Thus it is important to recognize that the frame created by Num 1:1 and 36:13 (cf. Lev 1:1 and Lev 27:34) does not exclude the book of Numbers from being understood in the context of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. This can clearly be seen for example in Num 5‒6 which presupposes and interprets the provisions of Lev 5 without narratively requiring a connection with Lev 5. 5 On the question of development in the book, see F REVEL, Leadership, p. 401–24 in the present volume. For the central text area Num 16‒17, see PYSCHNY , Führung (2017). On the question of the compositional center, see EADEM, 50, 325.

Torah Becoming a Blessing

25

through his holiness. Everything is directed towards this center and determined from this center. Israel finds its orienting center in this hierocratic organizational form, which accepts the high priest as the divinely legitimized leader and conceives the existence of Israel from the holiness of the living presence of God. In other words, the Torah originates from the center on Sinai and determines the existence of this ideal social construct, which is genealogically organized as a cohesive extended family. Why Israel is being preserved in the desert and prepared for preservation and probation in the land becomes apparent when one asks about the book’s center in light of its goal. The first and obvious answer is that the book is structured with an orientation towards the land. After the organization of the departure in Num 1:1‒10:10, the narrative reaches its low point with the people’s refusal to begin the conquest on the basis of the slanderous report of the spies. This sets in motion a continuing dynamic of moving away from the land that results in the death of the entire exodus generation. It is only after the Wiederaufnahme of the Hormah episode (Num 21:1‒3), in which Israel is victorious in battle against the “Canaanites,” that this dynamic is broken. Following this success Israel experiences a change of direction, heading (once again) towards the land. The focus on the land is further emphasized by the contents of the final chapters of the book. From Num 25 onwards, Israel remains camped at Shittim in Moab, located at the border of the promised Cisjordan. Furthermore these final chapters narrate the conquest (Num 31) and distribution of Transjordan (Num 32), the description of the country’s borders (Num 34), the allocation of the Levite and asylum cities (Num 35) and finally the hereditary preservation of the land for the respective clans (Num 36). The second census (Num 26) underlines that Israel was preserved despite the great losses in the desert. 6 Thus the preservation of Israel is the “goal” of the narrative. And why is Israel preserved? As much as the Balaam narrative falls outside of the book’s broader narrative, it makes exactly this goal unmistakably clear: Because Israel is blessed, it cannot be cursed. Elohim himself emphasizes in Num 22:12 to Balaam, “You must not curse the people, for they are blessed.” Balaam reflects this when he replies to Balak in Num 23:20: “Behold, to bless I have received, he has blessed, I cannot turn him back” (‫)הנה ברך לק חתי וברך ולא אשׁיבנה‬. The idea that blessing be understood as preservation is a key concept of the Balaam narrative (Num 22:6, 12; 23:11, 20, 25; 24:1, 9, 10), which goes back to Gen 12:2‒3 via the priestly blessing (Num 6:23, 24, 27). The center and goal of the book of Numbers are related to each other. Torah, leadership, preservation and blessing are intertwined. This is exactly what the title of this paper, “Torah Becoming a Blessing,” plays with. More recent analyses have shown that the book of Numbers, 6 To the five-part division of the book briefly outlined here, see FREVEL, Numeri (2017), 240‒50.

26

Literature, History and Ideology

underestimated for so long, is the completion of the Torah (Reinhard Achenbach). It is an expectant Torah or a Torah in the making. No other book of the Torah is so marked by “ritual density,” no other book constitutes Israel as a coherent and structured social network, no other book negotiates leadership so diversely, no other book is so marked by the implementation of the law and its interpretation into the ideal world of Israel, etc.; tradition and innovation intertwine; paradigmatic norms, constant transformations and creative adaptations determine the understanding of Torah on Israel’s way from Sinai to the land.

2. Narrator – Perspective – Characters: Some Basic Remarks on the Book of Numbers in Narratological Respect This section will highlight some selected narratological questions of the book of Numbers. Due to the lack of in-depth expertise within the field of narratology, 7 I rely upon standard theories and overviews8 to describe elements relevant to the book of Numbers. The following discussion will be divided into three sections: narrator, perspective and characters, whereby minor repetitions cannot be completely avoided. 2.1 Narrator As in most narratives of the Hebrew Bible, the narrator of the book of Numbers operates in an authorial and heterodiegetic narrative mode, i.e., the nar7 This is already made clear by the selection of perspectives that take up impulses from different directions. A uniform meta language is also not used. As is well known, there is no such thing as one “narratology,” and one often finds oneself confronted with an almost unmanageable variety of terminologies with an enormous degree of differentiation, which often enough leaves one feeling helpless. The engagement of narratology in exegesis often lacks a matured criteriology. How far the (mostly structuralist) narratological description models for ancient traditional literature have to be transformed is a question to be discussed further. The approaches of Irene de Jong and Eva Tyrell offer especially helpful reflection. See DE J ONG, Narratology (2014), 6‒11; EADEM , Narratology (2013); EADEM , Traum (2018); TYRELL, Strategies (2017); EADEM, Mittelbarkeit (2018). Doubts about structuralist universalism are also addressed in MÜLLNER, Perspektiven (2018). 8 See S CHMID, Narratology (2010); IDEM, Elemente (2014); BAL, Narratology (2009); FLUDERNIK , Introduction (2009); MARTÍNEZ/SCHEFFEL, Einführung (2016); MAIR, Erzähltextanalyse (2014). From the field of Old Testament narratologies, see MÜLLNER, Zeit (2006); EISEN/EADEM , Figur (2016); ERBELE-KÜSTER, Narrativität (2009); S CHMITZ , Prophetie (2008). The book of Numbers, too, is not a new narratological territory, see above all F ORSLING, Artistry (2013); IDEM, Incoherence (2013); LEVEEN, Memory (2007); EADEM, Reading (2013); EADEM , Wilderness (2016); EADEM, Concept(s) (2019); SALS, Falschprophet (2007); EADEM , Aufbau (2011); KUPFER, Weg (2012); etc.

Torah Becoming a Blessing

27

rative voice is neither part of the plot nor part of the story. At no point is the narrator involved in the plot, he stands outside the action. This is perhaps most evident in the fact that the narrative voice is not subjected to the generational change that fundamentally shapes the book of Numbers (the exodus generation born in Egypt dies in the desert and the generation born in the desert stands on the border of the land): The narrative voice looks back on the death of the exodus generation (Num 26:64) and provides flashbacks on what happened (Num 26:65; 32:10‒12). The narrator is equally knowledgeable about the experiences of both: the exodus out of Egypt, the construction and inauguration of the shrine, the journey through the wilderness and the generational change. This series of events matches the experience of Moses, who (apart from the minor characters Joshua and Caleb) is the only surviving adult of the exodus generation. Moses however is clearly not the narrator of Numbers (see more below). There is only one main narrative voice, not several layered narrative voices. Characters’ perspectives are integrated, but the narrative voice is not broken at any point. Often the narrative voice and the narrative perspective are the same. The events are depicted as the narrator observes them – with the narrative voice the reader views both Moses and God. The narrative voice does not paraphrase dialogues, but reproduces them in direct quotation and never, at least not explicitly, evaluates a character’s speech.9 The only elements that might be read as evaluations are found in Num 12:4, where the ‫“ פתאם‬suddenly,” refers to a reaction of God, or in Num 12:13, where Moses cries out. However, introspections that would reflect the inner life or emotions of the characters (e.g., Num 11:10; 14:39) are almost absent. The focus of the narrative voice is an external and a distanced one – both in terms of the logic of its presentation and the logic of time.10 The point of view of the narrative voice is not identical to that of the characters in the narrative. In terms of the logic of time, the position of the narrative voice is beyond the narrative characters’ time horizon, the events are told as the past. However, the distance to these events is small, one could almost assume that it is positioned immediately after the event narrated in Num 36. The narrative voice does not reach beyond the narrated event through phrases such as “to the present day” or the like, 11 it stands as much as possible in the same time horizon as the 9 Although the narrator does include implicit evaluations, such as those of Aaron and Miriam by the characterization of Moses in Num 12:3 or the speech of God in Num 12:6‒ 8, which say, “Why were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?” 10 On the confusingly inconsistent terminology for the position of the narrative voice, see MAIR, Erzähltextanalyse (2014), 146. See also the explanations by SCHMID, Erzählperspektive (2004), 14‒39 and NIEDERHOFF, Perspective (2011). 11 The only place where “to this day” appears is in the speech of Balaam’s donkey (Num 22:30), who thus brings the past into the present. But this present does not extend beyond the narrated event to the time of the narrative; it is only the narrated present.

28

Literature, History and Ideology

narrated event. Only in a few places is a distance between the time of the narrative and what is told indicated (e.g., Num 21:17: “At that time Israel sang […]”; Num 22:4 “Balak was king at that time […]”). Numbers 35:34, which states, “the land12 in which you have settled and in the midst of which I myself dwell; for I, the LORD, dwell in the midst of the Israelites,” represents a special case in that the participles ‫“ ישׁב‬to sit” and ‫“ שׁכן‬to dwell” give rise to an implied and programmatic anticipation. A further temporal exception is found in Num 3:1, where the genealogy data (“This is the lineage of Aaron and Moses”) is limited to the timeframe of the revelation at Sinai, since Phinehas, who is known to the narrator, is not named as a descendant. Lastly, there are a few verses in which – potentially or factually – the narrated time is extended (Num 7:8913; 9:1614; 15:2315; 35:3416; 36:1217). The narrative voice and the narrative perspective 18 rarely diverge and the knowledge of the narrative voice goes far beyond the knowledge of the characters of the narrative. At first glance, this appears to be a classic example of zero focalization. Although this does not seem to be a question in comparison with other biblical literature, the role of Moses in the narrative should be considered more closely. The narrative perspective often (but not always) has a special proximity to Moses, which may have promoted the attribution of the book of Numbers’ authorship to Moses. But at no point is an explicit or complete convergence of the narrator’s perspective with Moses’s achieved, i.e., Interesting, however, is the question of which land is meant here. The idea of YHWH dwelling is based on Exod 29:43‒46. Numbers 35:29 already extends beyond Cisjordan. The overall concept in the book of Numbers is centralized (see F REVEL, Midst, p. 143–54 in the present volume). 13 Numbers 7:89 is not part of the narrative of Num 7, but describes a general fact beyond the narrative, quasi an iterative state. The event of Num 7:89 does not have to be outside of the narrative time frame, but it can be. The narrative flow is inhibited and in one sentence a second level is inserted, which comments on the first reference and secures the exclusiveness of Moses. Whenever Moses went into the tent, God talked to him. Thus, the short note gains almost the character of a metanarrative. 14 It is unclear how far the “so it happened continually” reaches. It can go beyond the journey described in the book of Numbers, but it does not have to. 15 Numbers 15:23 refers to possible offenses and includes the time beyond the narrated time ( ‫והל אה ל דר תי כם‬, “and following in your generations”). In the potential anticipation, however, the narrated time frame is not abandoned. 16 For the promise of living, see the note above: The ‫“( אשׁ ר את ם ב ה‬where you are”) of Num 35:33 does not imply that Israel is not yet in the land that is being talked about. The point of view of the speech is thus beyond the narrated event, unless Num 21‒34 would be interpreted as a partial arrival in the Promised Land. The pollution, however, affects the entire land, including Cisjordan, which has yet to be conquered. 17 The statement “and so her inheritance remained with the tribe of her father” definitely goes beyond the next generation. But this does not represent a large temporal break. 18 See also KABLITZ, Erzählperspektive (1988). To differentiate between focalization and perspective, see NIEDERHOFF, Focalization (2011). 12

Torah Becoming a Blessing

29

an internal focalization or personal perspective.19 The reader does not perceive the events through Moses’s eyes. However, by linking the entire narrative (regarding Num 18 and Num 22‒24 see below) back to the speech of God addressed to Moses (Num 1:1; 36:13), the main character is so tightly and thoroughly included in the knowledge of the narrative events that the perspective of the narrator and that of Moses peculiarly converge. Joshua, for example, tells Moses on the narrative level that Eldad and Medad remained in the camp (Num 11:26‒27), but the reader may well have doubts as to whether this fact would have remained hidden from Moses without Joshua’s communication. Only rarely is there any perspective other than Moses’s (e.g., Num 11:28; 12:2). This concentration on the perspective of Moses does not completely cancel out the zero focalization of the narrator: The narrator oversees the events even if Moses is not part of them (Num 9:15‒23; 14:45; 21:1; 25:1‒6; 32:1). 20 Num 18 is a clear exception, where God’s speech is not addressed to Moses and does not include Moses. The Balaam narrative also plays a special role, as it is the only narrative piece that remains completely separate from Moses. Moses is simply another unnamed part of Israel in the Balaam narrative, which is integrated into the geography of the book of Numbers via its topographical indications (Num 22:1; 23:14, 28). It is only after the completion of the Balaam narrative that Moses explicitly reappears in the narrative (Num 25:4). The narrative voice remains concealed, i.e., there is no place in the book where the narrative voice identifies or thematizes itself. One point of interest regarding this is that the Tetragramaton is used throughout the book by the narrator and regularly by God himself, however besides Moses it is rarely used by the narrative’s characters. 21 At certain points in the narrative one finds narrator’s commentaries woven into the text. The term “narrator’s commentary,” which is used here in a narrowly defined sense, is to be understood as information that transcends the plot and the event, and refers to what is portrayed. In particular, these include SCHMID, Erzählperspektive (2004), 23. For these passages, see below. 21 The Tetragrammaton is used regularly by God himself, mostly in laws (Num 3:13, 41, 45; 5:6, 8, 16; 6:1‒21; 8:10‒13; 9:10, 13, 14; 10:9‒10; 11:18, 20, 23; 12:6, 8; 14:21, 28, 35; 15:3‒31, 39, 41; 17:3‒5; 18:6, 12‒29; 19:2, 13, 20; 25:4; 27:11; 28‒29; 31:28‒30; 35:34), often by Moses (Num 9:8; 10:29, 32, 35, 36; 11:29; 13:8, 9; 14:14, 16, 18, 41‒43; 16:5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 28‒30; 20:15; 27:16‒17; 30:2‒13; 31:3, 16; 32:7, 13‒14, 20‒23, 29; 34:13; 36:6), but very rarely by another figure (the priest in Num 5:21, embedded in a YHWH speech; the priestly blessing in Num 6:24‒26, embedded in a YHWH speech; among the men who are defiled by the touching of a corpse, Num 9:7; Aaron and Miriam in Num 12:2; the people in Num 14:3; the gang of Korah in Num 16:3; the people in Num 17:6, 28; 20:3‒4; 21:7; 31:50; by Balaam in Num 22:8, 13, 18, 19; 23:3, 8, 12, 21, 26; 24:6, 13; by Balak in Num 23:17; 24:11; by Zelophehad’s daughters in Num 27:3 and 36:2; and finally within the speech of the Reubenites and Gadites in Num 32:4, 27, 31‒32). 19 20

30

Literature, History and Ideology

evaluations by the narrative voice (narrative commentary), metanarrations and metafictions (which, however, play no role in Numbers). In a broader sense, the narrator’s commentary includes all the non-story parts of the narrative that are assigned to the narrative voice and relate to the presentation. 22 A distinction must be made between evaluating and non-evaluating narrative commentaries. Most narrative commentaries are non-evaluative, in that they are simply clarifying explanations. This means that information is given about the narrated world (or beyond) that is not assigned to a character or narrative voice. The description of the manna in Num 11:7‒9, which is not assigned to a character’s speech and gives a general description of the manna beyond the setting of the narrative, is a classic example. Num 11:8 gives an almost miniature metanarrative. The information in Num 21:13, that the Arnon is the border between Moab and the Amorites, functions similarly. The diegetic mode is also abandoned, e.g., when Num 21:14‒15 quotes from the “Book of Wars of YHWH,” but the quote is not assigned to a narrative voice. This is very similar to Num 21:26 with the reference to the prehistory of Heshbon and Sihon’s war with the first king of Moab and the attached song of Heshbon in Num 21:27‒30. A classic narrator’s commentary is the characterization of Moses in Num 12:3: “But Moses was a humble man, more humble than all men on earth,” which, by the way, is one of the very few external character descriptions that leaves the narrative frame through universalization. The explanatory, “it was in the time of the first grapes” in Num 13:20 can also be described as a narrative commentary, which classifies the events of the spy narrative seasonally. Strictly speaking, it can also be considered a narration, but it gives additional information to the reader, allowing him to classify the events and develop expectations. The etiology of place names such as “the place was later called Eshcol” (Num 13:2423) or “the waters of Meribah” (Num 20:13) can also be interpreted as narrator’s commentaries. 24 The density of narrator’s commentaries in the spies’ report is striking, as they include not only Num 13:24 but also the historicizing commentaries on Hebron (Num 13:22) and Amalek (Num 13:29) (and perhaps also Num 14:25a). The ‫אלה‬-sentence “This was the order of departure of the Israelites according to their divisions” (Num 10:28); the comment, “So it was the whole time […]” (Num 9:16); or the totaling numbers in the lists can serve as further examples. Lastly, it is difficult to judge whether the book’s final verse (Num

22 For the definition of commentaries by the narrator, see M AIR, Erzähltextanalyse (2014), 302‒5. 23 The “later” has remained in the revision of the Einheitsübersetzung from 2016, but is not in the text. 24 Also the explanations Num 26:16, 31, 35 et al. can perhaps be interpreted as narrator comments, if one follows a broad concept of narrator’s commentaries (MAIR, Erzähltextanalyse [2014], 302‒5).

Torah Becoming a Blessing

31

36:13) should be evaluated as a concluding narrator’s commentary or as a subscript (see discussion below). Apart from these examples of short commentaries, which provide the reader with additional information and do not disturb the narrative flow too much, there is one case that represents a large digression from the surrounding narrative: That is the list of way stations in Num 33. Unlike the laws it is introduced with, “these are/were the departures of the Israelites,” ( ‫אלה מסעי בני־‬ ‫ישׂראל‬, v. 1), which is not assigned to a character’s voice. The actual list, however, is separated from v. 1 by the open and highly significant “writing notice” in v. 2, which states, “And Moses wrote down their starting points, from which they had set out, at the command of YHWH. And this was their departure according to their starting points […]” The list itself largely follows the pattern: “And they set out from X and they camped in Y,” however it also contains non-geographical insertions. Matthias Ederer has tried to show that the narrative chain of waystations beginning with v. 3 does not identify the whole chapter of Num 33 as a metadiegetic element,25 rather it functions as a representation of the entire exodus event via the insertion of references to key moments of Israel’s journey (e.g., Num 33:37b‒39, which refers to the death of Aaron on Mt. Hor). The list of waystations concludes with Abel-Shittim in Num 33:49, which interlinks with Israel’s narrative location reached in Num 25:1, and thereby reinforces the impression that Num 33 functions as a digression. By reproducing what is written in Num 33, one can also read vv. 2b‒49 as a narrative within the narrative, although the embedded narrative is not substantially different from its context. A look at the comments assigned to the narrative voice reveals the narrator’s point of view. The standpoint of the narrator or narrative voice (i.e., not the “author” in the technical sense of production) is not focalized, i.e., the narrator knows more than the characters in the text and conveys this information outside the characters’ speeches. The narrator’s knowledge is allencompassing and universal over long distances. Everything that God speaks to Moses, even when they are alone in the tent (Num 7:89), is known to the narrator. The same applies to Balaam’s encounters with YHWH in the night (Num 22:9‒12). In particular, the story of Balaam’s donkey offers a good example of zero focalization when the narrator knows God’s wrath and plan, in contrast to the characters in the text (Num 22:22). The narrator perceives that YHWH opens the donkey’s mouth and Balaam’s eyes (Num 22:29, 31). The emotions of God (Num 11:1, 10, 33; 12:9; 25:3; 32:10, 13) are as little hidden from the narrator as the disgruntlement of Moses (Num 11:10), the anger of Balaam (Num 22:27), the grief of the people (Num 14:39) or their greed (Num 11:4, 34). Thus it is not even clear if the narrator should be understood as part of the people or not. The people’s intentions for action – for 25

EDERER, Aufbrüche (2014), 31‒3, 69‒74.

32

Literature, History and Ideology

instance their desire to stone Moses and Aaron (Num 14:10) – are reflected by the narrator, as is the fact that God listens to Israel after it has taken a vow (Num 21:3). The inner experience of the characters is thus partly integrated, even if it is never thematized in any detail. 2.2 Perspective – Topology of the Narrative Voice It is interesting to look at the temporal perspectivization of the narrative voice, from which an apperception of the narrated world is generated by the reader. The positioning of the authorial narrative voice is, topologically speaking, almost always with Moses as the main character of the narrative. This impression is reinforced by the fact that Num 1‒10 are rather lacking in terms of action and very strongly determined by YHWH’s speeches to Moses. 26 In general, Moses is almost always the sole addressee or co-addressee of God’s speeches. There is a total of 43 occurrences of the introduction formula, “and YHWH spoke to Moses” [‫]וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה‬, of which six are supplemented by, “and to Aaron” [Num 2:1; 4:1, 17; 14:26; 16:20; 19:1]). Besides this the introductory formula appears an additional three times with “and he said” (‫ )ויאמר‬in Num 20:12, 23 (to Moses and Aaron) and in Num 26:1 (to Moses and Eleazar), as well as in Num 12:4 with ‫“ אמר‬say” (to Moses, Aaron and Miriam). Besides these, there is only one occurrence where YHWH speaks to Aaron without Moses being present (Num 18:1). This clear focus on Moses as the recipient of YHWH’s speeches is paradigmatic at the beginning and at the end of the book (Num 1:1 and 35:1) (see section 4 below). From a narratological perspective, the few exceptions – such as when God speaks to Aaron alone, without Moses being present (Num 18:1, 8, 29), or when reference is made to an event in which Moses is not directly involved as a character (Num 31) – are particularly interesting for determining the location of the narrative voice. Although a number of passages show minor deviations of the narrative voice’s location, Num 31 represents a very clear divergence of the perspective of the narrative voice from the experience of Moses. The following is a brief look at some of the interesting places where Moses is not explicitly part of the reported events: – In Num 8:2 Aaron is instructed to put the lampstand into operation in the sanctuary and Num 8:3 reports the execution of the order by Aaron without Moses being involved. It is not impossible that Moses also took part in this event, but he is at least not explicitly mentioned. If one considers that Num 1‒4 make a clear distinction between the responsibilities concerning the camp and the responsibilities concerning the cult (Num 3:4, 6, 9, 10; 26 For the observation that the introductory speeches at the end of the book become fewer in quantitative terms, see F REVEL, Relief, p. 70–1 in the present volume. I will not go into further detail in the present context.

Torah Becoming a Blessing

–

– – –

–

– – –

33

4:16, 27 et al.), then it is no surprise that Moses does not appear in Num 8, which belongs to the latter category: In the area of cult, Aaron’s authority prevails over that of Moses. Numbers 9:16‒23 summarizes the entire period of Israel’s migration via reporting the movement of the cloud of YHWH; this guiding cloud implicitly continued to lead the camp into Cisjordan after Moses’s death. Here Moses is potentially no longer involved, so that the narrative voice reaches beyond the experience of the narrative character of Moses. Numbers 11:26 reports the prophetic rapture of the seventy elders, which is subsequently reported to Moses by Joshua in Num 11:27. In the quail story the events occur outside the camp, during which time Moses is inside the camp (Num 11:31), i.e., Moses is withdrawn from the immediate experience. In the spy narrative the narrative voice reports that the spies penetrate from the desert into the Wadi Eshcol. The spies’ activity during the fortyday period is also a reporting element that the figure of Moses could not have perceived himself, because he did not go with them. But because upon returning the spies report their experiences to Moses, the nonparticipation of Moses is narratively quasi-cancelled out. In Num 14:43‒45 there is a short, deliberate divergence between the narrator’s perspective and that of Moses. The text explicitly emphasizes that Moses and the ark of the covenant remain in the camp, while the people go to the mountains against the Amalekites and are beaten. This action, which ends with the scattering of the Israelites to Hormah (Num 14:45), shows that the narrator’s perspective, or point of view, goes beyond the experience of the figure of Moses. In Num 15:32 the Israelites discover a wood-gatherer on the Sabbath and bring him to Moses and Aaron. Thus clearly demonstrating that the narrator’s perspective is different from that of Moses. In Num 17:12‒14 Aaron is separated from Moses, but the narrative voice describes Aaron’s action (previously ordered by Moses). In Num 18:1‒24 YHWH speaks to Aaron alone. At least it cannot be ruled out that Moses will not receive this information, even if no explicit reference is made to the spatial separation of Aaron and Moses. As already indicated, this shift can be explained as a narrative authorization of the Aaronides in their jurisdiction of the cult.

The fact that the narrator reports about the perception of the Canaanite king of Arad (Num 21:1), or the fear of the Moabites (Num 22:3) shows his extradiegetic, omniscient location. At these places his perspective, as in Num 13:21‒25; 14:44‒45, again very briefly leaves the camp of the Israelites. This is particularly clear in the Balaam narrative (Num 22‒24), in which (a) Moses does not appear at all, (b) which takes place outside the unnamed camp and in

34

Literature, History and Ideology

which (c) the narrator departs from the standard narrative perspective and instead depicts events from both Balaam’s and Balak’s point of view. Thus the Balaam narrative takes on a clear, special role with regard to the narrative perspective in the book of Numbers. A further key example in which the point of view of the narrative voice goes beyond Moses is found in the narrative of the Midianite war in Num 31. The narrator reports that the men, chosen by Moses, go to war against Midian and kill the five kings and Balaam (Num 31:7‒11). The case is similar to those described above, because the warriors bring their plunder to Moses (Num 31:12‒13), which may include their report. The list of cities conquered by the Reubenites, Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh in Num 32:34‒42 also goes beyond the perspective of the figure of Moses as narrative information. Overall, the deviations from the general perspective in the book of Numbers are rather marginal and not decisive for the narrative logic. The narrative voice thus primarily reports from a point of view that is at the very least similar to Moses’s, but without being identical to the point of view of the characters. Even though the narrative voice is clearly heterodiegetic, authorial and in some places zero-focalized, it is understandable how this proximity to Moses was traditionally perceived to support the idea that the book of Numbers was written by “Moses.” Overall, there are few metanarrative elements in the book of Numbers, if one does not add the ‫“( ואלה‬and these are”) passages of the lists (Num 1:5, 16; 2:32; 3:1, 2, 18; 13:4; 26:30, 58; 27:1, see below). Numbers 36:13 (“These are the commandments and judgments which YHWH commanded by the hand of Moses to the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho”) functions as a subscript and therefore represents one of the key metanarrative elements in the book. Besides these, the phrase “this is the Torah” (‫ זאת תורת‬or similar) in Num 5:29; 6:13, 21; 19:2, 14; 31:21 and in Num 30:17 (“these are the statutes,” ‫ )אלה החקים‬can be understood as a kind of metatext, although in most places it is included in a YHWH speech. Through the textualization of the list of way stations introduced by “these are/were the departures of the Israelites” (‫ )אלה מסעי בני־י שׂראל‬the list is assigned to Moses and thus also somewhat withdrawn from the plot-external point of view. 27 Numbers 7:89 was already mentioned above as a short metanarrative, but altogether there are few metanarrative elements that are not connected to each other or do not unfold a second plot.

For the role of the note of scripturalization, see also DOHMEN, Tora (2009), 256‒65, 261‒3 and EDERER, Aufbrüche (2014), 171‒83. However, the “according to the mouth of YHWH” (Num 33:2) probably does not refer to the writing, as DOHMEN, Tora (2009), 261 assumes, but refers, as in Exod 17:1; Num 9:18; 10:13, to the departures which followed the command of YHWH. 27

Torah Becoming a Blessing

35

2.3 Characters Compared to Exodus and Leviticus, the multitude of individual characters in Numbers is striking. I assume that these are usually fictitious characters, i.e., that the actors in the text adopt certain types in fictional-literary space. The fact that at least some of the characters in the text are “invented” does not play a role in their introduction on the narrative level. For the determination of the characters only the information in the text is available. Whereas YHWH, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Miriam, Eleazar or Phinehas also occur outside of Numbers, a large number of characters such as Dathan, Abiram, Eldad, Medad, Balak, Balaam or Zelophehad’s daughters are only documented as plot bearers in the book of Numbers. Many of the characters in the book of Numbers represent a single idea in the narrative, which means – following E. M. Forster’s categories – that they are “flat” rather than “round” characters. Classic examples are Eldad and Medad, Dathan and Abiram, Caleb, the king of Arad, or the Moabite king Balak, etc. To expand briefly upon this idea: The full scope of Balak’s character can be reduced to his being Israel’s adversary (“destroyer,” root ‫ )בלק‬and that he was responsible for hiring Balaam as a sorcerer against the people (“devourer of the people,” ‫)עם בלע‬. The play on words is refined, but Balak is a less complex character than Moses, who functions as the archetypal “round” character in the book, since he is characterized by several traits. Moses, Aaron and Joshua can be considered as complex characters because they are subject to dynamic changes. Further examples of “flat” characters are Korah (whose role amounts to nothing more than contradicting Moses’s and Aaron’s claim to leadership) or Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Tirzah and Milcah (who only appear in the matter of their deceased father, Zelophehad’s inheritance). Within the field of narratology there are countless taxonomies for character analysis besides the basal dichotomous distinction “flat/round.” 28 For example, if one follows William Harvey most of the characters in the book of Numbers are background characters. The main protagonists, Moses, Aaron, Miriam and Joshua are more detailed, individually drawn characters (compared to ficelle), whilst Korah or Phinehas are characterized as persons who have an outstanding quality (i.e., possibly card ), but the criteria for this differentiation remains somewhat blurred. 29 The defining feature of the characters in the book of Numbers is that they are characterized, as much as possible, by the author rather than by the character him/herself, i.e., self-characterizations are rare. One example of a selfcharacterization can be found in the flat character of Miriam, who has an active role only in Num 12 but who is defined through her statement made 28 For the character concept in the narrative analysis, see the overview of JANNIDIS, Figur (2004). 29 JANNIDIS, Figur (2004), 89.

36

Literature, History and Ideology

with Aaron, “Did the LORD speak only through Moses? Didn’t he speak through us also?” (Num 12:2) and the subsequent discourse about her temporary impurity. As a rule, characters are defined more implicitly than explicitly. An exception to this is, for example, the identification of Moses as “more humble than all men on earth” (Num 12:3). There are no physiognomic details given for any character, overall all actors are defined by little or no detail at all. The characters of Eldad and Medad provide a fitting example in that the full extent of their characters are defined by the narrator’s report (a) that they were on the list, i.e., that they belonged to the elders and listed leaders and therefore were known to Moses (Num 11:16‒17, 23), (b) that they remained in the camp, but (c) nevertheless fell into prophetic rapture, and (d) that they attracted Joshua’s skeptical attention. This scarcity of detail is especially apparent for secondary characters who are regularly defined only by their clan (Dathan and Abiram, Zimri and Cozbi, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah, etc.). These few remarks on narrator, perspective and characters show a narratological profile of the book of Numbers, which is similar to the other books of the Hexateuch and is undoubtedly closely linked with the book Exodus in compositional terms, but at the same time has a specific profile, which also applies to literary history. It is a narrative that needs the context of the Pentateuch, but which is delimited by Num 1:1 and 36:13 as a “book” and also largely stands for itself. 30 Taking this as a general background, the following will examine three narratological aspects of the book of Numbers (chronotopoi, intercalations and narrativization), all of which are important for a narratological profile of the book.

3. Chronotopoi In chronotopos, a spatial-theoretical descriptive category by Mikhail M. Bakhtin, 31 time and space interpenetrate and are related to each other in a mutually structuring way. In the literary artistic chronotope, spatial and temporal indicators are fused into one carefully thought-out, concrete whole. Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of

See F REVEL, Relief, p. 53‒82 in the present volume. BAKHTIN, Forms (1981) (= Chronotopos [2008]). Cf. the background FRANK, Chronotopoi (2015), 160‒1, where IBIDEM, 164 also underlines the conceptual vagueness and semantic ambiguity. 30 31

Torah Becoming a Blessing

37

time, plot and history. This intersection of axes and fusion of indicators characterizes the artistic chronotope. 32

The narrated space and the narrated time are related to each other in a complex interplay. The result is a dynamization of the narrative. A look at the spatial and temporal semantics of the book of Numbers reveals the elaborate and artistic design of the narrative,33 which can only be touched on here. In doing so, I fall back on results that I developed more broadly in 2007 together with Erich Zenger in a lecture in Leuven:34 Spatial categories are very important for the book of Numbers on several levels. Physical-material, conceptual and symbolic aspects come together to form complex realities ‒ in this one may recognize the Lefebvrian triplicate of perceived space (espace perçu), conceived space (espace conçu) and lived space (espace vécu). The book of Numbers can be divided into three major spatial categories: Num 1:1‒ 10:10 prepare the people for the transition from their stay at Sinai to their journey in the wilderness, Num 10:11‒24:25 describe the Israelites wandering in the desert and Num 25:1‒36:13 the stay in Moab. Although these categories trace Israel’s movement in real space, they are not recognizable in purely geographical terms, rather they are socially constituent spaces in which Israel is founded on Sinai and designed from Sinai. To name yet another category of the spatial discourse, which is also very fruitful for the book of Numbers, spaces are simultaneously constituted as heterotopias through movement in space. 35 A special space is the camp, which represents a tiered and structured space consisting of the tribes’ camps, the Levites’ camps and the sanctuary in the middle. The camp (i.e., the use of the determined ‫ המחנה‬as a designation of the whole is only found in Num 4:5, 15; 5:2) is arranged concentrically about the sanctuary (Num 2:17; 35:34): The camp of the Levites and priests encase the sanctuary in an inner circle, whilst the camps of the tribes form an outer circle. This order applies to the camp (Num 2:1‒30) and to the departure (separated by points of the compass ‒ Num 2:9, 16, 17, 24, 31, 34; 10:11‒28). Center and periphery are each determined by the spatial structuring function of the sanctuary in the center of the camp. This defines the inner-outer boundaries of the camp, which also marks a pure-impure boundary by creating liminal zones and an BAKHTIN, Forms (1981), 84. On the application to historiographical texts of antiquity, cf. MAIER, Chronotopos (2016), 465‒94. 34 See F REVEL, Relief, p. 53–81 in the present volume. 35 With regard to the concept of heterotopia introduced by Michel Foucault as an indexing category for the book of Joshua, see BALLHORN, Topographie (2011), 129‒34. In IBIDEM , 131 Ballhorn also refers to the use of the term “heterochronia,” (Heterochronie) which is intended to express the special connection of heterotopias to temporal structures. This is particularly true of the founding scenarios situated at Mount Sinai, which are described here. 32 33

38

Literature, History and Ideology

endangered exterior (Num 5:4; 12:14‒15; 19:3; 31:24). Thus, a cult-centered community is constituted, which spatially symbolizes inclusion and exclusion (Num 11:2, 26; 25:6‒7; 31:12, 19). A closer inspection of the chronological indicators in Num 1‒10 demonstrate that these chapters are strongly Sinaitic in character. Numbers 7:1 and 7:10 date the text of the following five speeches of God (Num 7:1‒8:26) to the day of the blessing of the shrine, which pre-dates the first day of the second month of the second year (Num 1:1), thus forming an (anachronic) analepse (i.e., a flashback). The commissioning of the lampstand in Num 8:4 contains an explicit back reference to Exod 25:31‒40; 35:14; 37:17‒24; 39:37; 40:4, 24 and Lev 24:2‒4 and 27. The narrative voice first adds a description of the lampstand in a commentary and then explicitly links the production back to the revelation at Sinai. Since in Exodus there is no explicit execution report for the commissioning of the lampstand, Num 8:4 can be read as the completion of its commissioning. The entire section oscillates between Sinai and departure, between looking back and looking forward. The commissioning of the lampstand might appear situational at first, but it reveals an interplay of principium and initium that applies to the entire cult. The summarizing theology of revelation in Num 7:89 – reporting the means by which YHWH would communicate to Moses – functions almost like a short metanarration, proleptically tying all revelation events to the tent, not only the situational proclamation in Num 1‒10. The instruction for the priestly blessing in Num 6:22‒27 likewise does not only apply whilst Israel remains at Sinai but is intended for all future blessings. Numbers 9:16‒23 anticipates the whole desert migration. Lastly, the trumpets are designated in Num 10:1‒ 6 to signal the camp’s departure, however in Num 10:7‒8, 9‒10 these same trumpets are to be used as part of the calendrical celebrations of the permanent cult order in the land. The events in Num 1:1‒10:10 that appear spatio-temporally located exactly at Sinai form several chronotopoi, which can be recognized especially by the dates in Num 7:1, 10. These are usually considered to comprise a flashback.36 But the passage does not open in an analepse. The story is anchored to Sinai yet points – Eva Tyrell has used the apt term “foreshadows” here – at the same time across the desert to Israel’s existence in the land in advance.37 Analepses and prolepses dovetail to form a founding chronotope. What apSee OLSON, Numbers (1996), 44 as well as the commentaries by Baruch Levine, Irene Nowell, Daniel Durken, William H. Bellinger, Jr. and many others. See FREVEL , Relief, p. 73 in the present volume. 37 TYRELL, Strategies (2017), 217. I would like to thank Eva Tyrell for providing her (at the time of writing) unpublished manuscript. It is striking how little these crossfades are marked. Here, too, Tyrell rightly sees a narrative strategy: “A minimum of narrator intervention in the text gives the addressees the impression that there is no gulf between the present and the past” (for the original German quote, see TYRELL , Gestaltung [2016], 39). 36

Torah Becoming a Blessing

39

plies in a special way to Num 1:1‒10:10, can also be said for the sacrifices in Num 15:2, 14, 17‒21, the festival calendar in Num 28‒29, the leading role of the Aaronides in Num 17:23‒24, the taxes determined in Num 18:13, 19, the second census in Num 26, or the heritage of Zelophehad’s daughters in Num 27:1‒11; 36:1‒12. These texts point both topologically and chronologically in different ways beyond the book of Numbers. They make orders that regulate life in the land. Thus, they reflect a basic function of the narratives of the book of Numbers, namely the formative design of Israel, or of the early Judaism that was being formed, which received the book of Numbers in the late post-exilic period (in the 4th cent. BCE; see below). The chronotopoi slide into each other several times and reinforce the impression of a Janus face of the book of Numbers, which does not give up the connection to Sinai but is nevertheless carried towards the land by its “future-open” dynamics. The topos “wandering Sinai,” coined by Benno Jacob, expresses this aptly. 38

4. Intercalations As is well-known, even Goethe lamented that the laws that were put into effect would spoil his reading pleasure, since, “one (cannot perceive) the actual cause, why they were given at that moment, or, if they are of later origin, why they were quoted and inserted here.” 39 Narrative and legislative passages alternate in the book of Numbers, which is repeatedly perceived as a problem in the exegesis of the book: The narrative thread is interrupted40 or even disturbed, according to common understanding. “History” and “law” – as they were called in classical terminology – were separated in the history of research. From a narratological perspective, this assessment is wrong. The observation that the fable is discontinuously presented due to the chapters of law in the book of Numbers might be correct and there are numerous attempts in exegesis to explain this, but the phenomenon calls for an explanation rather than questioning the integrity of the narrative. Mary Douglas has argued that the book of Numbers operates on a surprisingly simple alternating princi-

38 JACOB, Book (1992), 1047. Cf. also IDEM, Pentateuch (1905), 328: “Der Sinn des Ganzen ist also: das Heiligtum ist eine wandelnde Offenbarungsstätte, die eine Weisung für das Leben und Vergebung gewährt, ein mit Israel wandernder Sinai, ein Stück Himmel mitten auf Erden unter dem Volke, eine Niederlassung Gottes, des Heiligen, in Israel, ein Abbild und Vorbild himmlischer Heiligkeit.” 39 This is an English translation of GOETHE , Divan (1819), 426: “man die eigentliche Ursache, warum sie in dem Augenblick gegeben worden, oder, wenn sie späteren Ursprungs sind, warum sie hier angeführt und eingeschaltet wurden (nicht einsehen kann).” 40 S CHMIDT , Numeri (2004), VII.

40

Literature, History and Ideology

ple,41 however a closer look at the separations between “law” and “story” reveals that the separations must be blurred in order to get the alternating to work. A further issue is the fact that the sections are very different in length. Even the attempt to assign the laws to the narratives and thus to create “order” does not cope equally well with all the insertions – such as Num 15. A popular, alternative explanation is that the legal passages were arbitrarily inserted as supplements into the text because they still had to be included “somewhere,” which ultimately suggests the coincidence of “history” and “law” derived from an editorial oversight. In narratology, these and similar forms of discontinuous plotting are discussed under terms (each with its own connotations) such as simultaneity, embedded levels, metalepses, intercalation or intermittent narration. 42 The term “intermittent narration” (intermittierendes Erzählen) was coined by Ingeborg Gerlach, 43 who emphasizes the reader’s activity following Wolfgang Iser’s concept: “It is the reader’s responsibility to connect them [i.e., the intermittent narrative parts], to understand the parallels and contrasts, and to supplement the omission.” 44 The inserted narrative levels can have different references to the plot or even – as in the metalepsis – break through the fable in a way that is contrary to the narrative. In the book of Numbers, however, the legislative passages are not interwoven with a metadiegetic, secondary plot. The fable is merely adjourned or suspended, but not completely discontinued or separated from the narrative. Rather, the legislative parts in the book of Numbers are in many ways integrated as narratives into the fable and inserted into the plot – they are intradiegetic digressions. The fact that the legal insertions are only loosely integrated into the narrative creates the impression of a montage or collage, so that – and this is an important point – the narrated world is related to both forms of reality: the law is implemented into the story and the story – at least in part, as in e.g., Num 16 – develops out of the law. Several different strategies are used to connect the legislation to the story: First of all, the laws are integrated into history through the dates, especially Num 1:1 and Num 9:1. The legislation takes place within a chronological and topological framework. The mention of the wilderness or Sinai as the place

DOUGLAS, Wilderness (1993), 103, 123. For the definition, see KEEN , Form (2015), 101; with a clearer focus on the concept of intercalation COSTE/PIER, Levels (2009), 295‒308; see also PIER, Levels (2014). The term narration intercalée was introduced by Gérard Genette, who describes the phenomenon that the act of narration alternates with the action of events. 43 GERLACH, Suche (1980), 139‒50. 44 This is an English translation of GERLACH, Suche (1980), 143: “Dem Leser obliegt es, sie zu verbinden, die Parallelen und Kontraste nachzuvollziehen und das Ausgesparte zu ergänzen.” 41 42

Torah Becoming a Blessing

41

where the law was received (Num 1:1, 19; 3:1, 4, 14; 9:1, 545) creates a concrete space-time connection to the revelation of the law. In addition, there are explicit narrative indications of the laws’ implementation. Already at the end of the first chapter we read: “And the Israelites did everything as YHWH had commanded Moses – so they did [it]” (Num 1:54). This formulaic connection can also be found in the same or varied form in Num 2:34; 5:4; 8:3‒4, 20, 22; 9:5; 17:26; 27:22; 30:1; 31:31; 36:10. In this way, the giving of the law is connected to the narrative and the implementation of the law is integrated into the plot. Altogether there are 68 transmission formulas embedded in the narrative framework (see already above in section 2; “and YHWH spoke to Moses” 43 times + 1 time “and YHWH spoke to Aaron;” “and YHWH said to Moses” 24 times46), and already by this almost every law transmission is integrated into the narrative. There is therefore no law in Numbers that is not narratively integrated. The laws are woven into history and one cannot always be sure whether they are warp or weft threads. Three cases in the book of Numbers stand out due to their interweaving of narrative and law: Num 9:1‒15; 15:32‒35; 36:1‒12. All three cases (the similarly formulated Lev 24:10‒23 belongs to this same category) are narratively introduced: Num 9:2 with “There were men […],” Num 15:32 with “And the Israelites were in the wilderness […]” and Num 36:1 with “And the heads of the family of Gilead […].” In each case, immediately after the narrative introduction a problem of law or interpretation arises, which is then solved by an oracular novella, 47 an oral supplement authorized by God and provided by Moses: (1) The narrative of the postponed Pesach in Num 9:1‒15 is about Israelites who cannot participate in the regular Pesach (Exod 12 ‒ on the 14th of Nisan) due to their being polluted by contact with the dead. Moses clarifies the case by questioning YHWH, with the result that the celebration can be postponed by one month (Num 9:6‒14). This adjusted provision is then implemented immediately in the narrative. (2) The story of the man caught collecting wood on the Sabbath in Num 15:32‒35 is also a case of interpretation, which is clarified by questioning YHWH, who subsequently determines the man’s punishment. Numbers 15:34 explicitly notes that the delinquent was taken into custody because there was no legal provision for such a case (“and they detained him firmly because it had not yet been determined what should happen to him”). Moses’s query regarding the case is not explicitly referred to here, but the divine decision is still clearly communicated through him (‫)וי אמר י הוה אל־משׁה‬. Having received With the exception of Num 3:1, Sinai and desert are always mentioned together in Num 1‒10. 46 Exceptions such as Num 3:1 are not counted. 47 Regarding this term CHAVEL, Novellae (2009), 14. To the cases detailed IDEM, Law (2014). 45

42

Literature, History and Ideology

the decision, the death sentence is carried out immediately (‫כאשׁר צוה י הוה‬ ‫את־משׁה‬, Num 15:36). (3) The third and final case is the adjustment of the endogamous marriage rules in Num 36:1‒12, after a new law regarding daughter succession was introduced in Num 27:1‒11. This new law, however, led to the land potentially being inherited outside the clan, so Moses determines that heiresses can only be joined in clan-endogamous marriage to keep the land within the clan. All three cases are specific narrative adaptations of already existing provisions that advance the interpretation of the law with the principle of narrated case histories. It is significant that of the four cases in the Torah all but Lev 24 occur in the book of Numbers. This is not only due to diachronic reasons (the passages belong to some of the late interpretation additions in the Torah), but also narrative ones. Through them the meaning of the law and thus also the intercalated narrative in the book of Numbers is revealed: Obviously the Torah, which is in the process of becoming, is not detached from its narrated world, but on the contrary, in a special way woven into its texture,48 it is embedded in the narrative world. Assnat Bartor therefore aptly speaks of “the Laws of the Pentateuch as ‘embedded stories.’” 49 The connection between the narrative events and the narrative integration is not as clearly recognizable everywhere as in the legal case histories, elsewhere laws such as those found in Num 15, Num 19 and, particularly, the block with the festival calendar and the vow provisions in Num 27‒30 can be regarded as digressions in the plot. The narrative’s pace is extremely slowed down (the ‘narrated time’ drawnout); the narrative is almost paused, but not suspended, because the narrative thread is taken up again later and partly within the proclamation of the law (e.g., Num 15:32‒36). This creates the impression of extraneous elements, which in formal terms, however, remain intradiegetic in all cases in the book of Numbers. The passages of the promulgation of the law itself are by no means without narrative elements, as Meir Sternberg in particular has pointed out. 50 The casuistic “if-plots,” which leave the immediate level of instruction by narrating a condition, establish an embedded second level in the narrative within the framework of character speech. Numbers 30:3‒6, in which the provisions for voluntary self-commitments are described (one might even say that these were the “trending” acts of private piety in the post-exilic period), serves as an apt example. Moses is introduced in v. 2 by the narrator without a prior YHWH speech, which in the book of Numbers usually signals a subordinate 48 The metaphor of fabric for the juxtaposition of legislative and narrative texts already appeared in Zenger’s first edition of his Einleitung in das Alte Testament (see ZENGER et al., Einleitung [1995], 38). The explanation is that the “law” grows out of “history” and at the same time wants to protect and keep open the dynamics of “history” (IBIDEM). 49 BARTOR, Law (2010), 17. 50 STERNBERG, If-Plots (2008).

Torah Becoming a Blessing

43

interpretation of the law. 51 In this case Moses provides a further interpretation of Lev 22:18‒25 and Lev 27. Unique to this law is that Moses speaks only to the “tribal chiefs of the Israelites” (‫אל־ראשׁי המטות לבני ישׂראל‬, v. 2 – i.e., those co-responsible for the implementation of the law in the clans), and does not address the people as a whole. He refers to the word of YHWH (“This is the word that YHWH commanded,” v. 2), which – also unusually – is taken up again in v. 17 by a narrative commentary (“These are the statutes that YHWH commanded Moses”). The scenarios described in the ensuing casuistic laws (“If a man […]”) of vv. 3‒16 function as a series of micro-narratives, these scenarios/micro-narratives thus constitute a second level of the narrative because they are still clearly a part of the primary narrative (i.e., first level). Another example of the narrative nature of the proclamation of the law would be the narrative ritual in Num 19. In the middle 52 of the instruction it says: A pure man takes hyssop, dips it into the water and splashes it over the tent, the vessels and the people who were there, or the one who touched bones, the slain, the dead or a grave. The clean one splashes upon the unclean on the third and seventh day, and sins against him on the seventh day. Then the man shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; in the evening he shall be clean (Num 19:18‒19).

The sequential nature of the ritual is unfolded narratively as a scenic representation. This piece is also embedded in a YHWH character speech (Num 19:1) and is therefore integrated into the narrative. Contrary to the evaluations of the older exegesis, one cannot regard these digressive passages as foreign bodies in the narrative. Here, the rigid genre dichotomy between “narrative” and “law” has led to assessments that have driven lex and narratio apart. The issues concerning the separation of narrative and law were already being fiercely debated in the 19th century, although there the narrative was often subordinated to the law in order to deny Mosaic authorship. Admittedly the premises of this discourse can no longer be shared, but one should welcome the emphasis with which Michael Baumgarten defends the coherence of history and law in his Theologischer Commentar zum Alten Testament: For so little does the law stand in contrast to history that in the Pentateuch the law appears not as such, but rather as a narrative of legislation. “And Jehovah spoke to Moses,” “and Moses spoke to the sons of Israel,” are the ordinary formulas with which the laws are introduced. If now the narrative next to it tells of the course of Israel and its individual events, it is not something strange, but something similar. 53 Numbers 30 is generally regarded as a later supplement within Numbers, see ACHENVollendung (2003), 612–4. 52 See also F REVEL, Vitality, p. 261–88 in the present volume. 53 This is an English translation of BAUMGARTEN, Commentar (1843), XCIII: “Denn so wenig steht das Gesetz im Gegensatz zur Geschichte, daß das Gesetz im Pentateuch nicht 51

BACH,

44

Literature, History and Ideology

If one compares this with the recent narratological discussion, then, as so often, Kohelet’s scepticism arises that there is nothing new under the sun. The fact that law cannot do without narration is an insight that, according to Greta Olson, has also grown strongly in recent years in narratological studies in jurisprudence. The mediation of law or its application takes place almost always narratively: “Narration plays a central role in legal discourse and permits law to be communicated.” 54 The dichotomy between law and narrative is not a formal one either, because law and narrative are closely connected through narrative techniques. 55 As Meir Sternberg notes, “law […] incorporates the narrativities of repetition and quotation among its makings, workings, aids to processing and understanding.”56 The relationship between “law” and “narrativity” is by no means one-sided: Jane L. Karanek has shown the permeability of narratives to law in her study Biblical Narrative and Rabbinic Law, while Calum Carmichael has attempted ‒ unconvincingly ‒ to show that the narratives of Genesis contain the basis of legal formation.58 Within the book of Numbers it can easily been seen that narrative components can also be legal interpretations, for example, in the narrative of the Midianite war (Num 31), where the laws of purity and the law of war are interpreted and supplemented via complex references to Deuteronomy and Leviticus. The interweaving of law and narrative is not an end in itself and there is certainly no justification to explain this phenomenon in the book of Numbers by supposing that existing laws needed to be integrated narratively. The model of an additive supplementation of the fable by legislative material is wrong, because in many cases it is quite clear that the laws relate to their place in the fable (e.g., Num 15; 18; 19).59 But there are various other reasons why history and law are so indissolubly intertwined. Assnat Bartor names one sowohl als solches, sondern vielmehr als Erzählung der Gesetzgebung erscheint. ‘Und Jehova sprach zu Mose,’ ‘und Mose sprach zu den Söhnen Israels’ sind die gewöhnlichen Formeln, mit denen die Gesetze eingeleitet werden. Wenn nun daneben die Erzählung von dem Zuge Israels und dessen einzelnen Begebenheiten berichtet, so ist das nicht etwas Fremdartiges, sondern ein Gleichartiges.” 54 OLSON, Narration (2014) – with reference to Monika Fludernik (with whom she coauthored FLUDERNIK /EADEM, Grip [2004]). With regard to origin of this line of thought, Fludernik in turn refers in other places to Hayden White. Cf. the introduction of FLUDERNIK/F ALKENHAYNER/STEINER, Erzählen (2015), 5. For a detailed discussion, see BLUFARB, Geschichten (2017), 146‒206. 55 See also H AYES, Laws (2017), 42 with reference to H ALBERSTAM, Art (2007), 345‒ 64. 56 STERNBERG, If-Plots (2008), 38. 57 KANAREK, Narrative (2014). 58 CARMICHAEL, Law (1985). For the extension of his thesis to the book Leviticus, see IDEM , Leviticus (2006) and his most recent book on Numbers IDEM, Numbers (2012). 59 For Num 15, see A CHENBACH, Reading (2013); for Num 18, see PYSCHNY, Führung (2017); for Num 19, see F REVEL , Vitality, p. 261–88 in the present volume.

Torah Becoming a Blessing

45

of them: “The laws themselves, even if we ignore their content, motivate the story plot, since the continued survival of the nation is dependent on receiving and observing them.” 60 The hybridization of the genre “narrative” weaves normativity into the factuality of history. At the same time, it leads the reader into identification processes, such that the reader reflects on history and law as preservation in a double sense (keeping it as tradition and being preserved by it). The reader is invited to integrate the discontinuous coincidence into a textual world; he is thus stimulated to develop strategies for the implementation of the Torah in his own world. The implementation of the Torah in a narrative perspective clearly distinguishes the book of Numbers from Leviticus, but also from the other books of the Pentateuch: Numbers is pervaded by execution reports and speeches. 61 The laws are issued and immediately applied, many of them are announced publicly to the Israelites. The historization of the laws into the mythical past means that the reader’s identification with these cannot be straightforward. James Watts accurately describes a dialectic of alterity and identification. He interprets this as a rhetorical strategy that wants to convince the recipients to behave towards the construct “Israel” (in an identifying manner). 62 Put more simply, as Wellhausen, Graf and Kuenen had already recognized, the implementation of the law in history can be understood as a strategy of historicization. “Historicization” is only approximately accurate because it is not about history as it actually occurred, but about a fictitious, formative prehistory with Israel wandering the desert for forty years and their encounter at Mount Sinai. The high degree of fictionality of this historicization, which takes place in a temporally constructed framework completely outside the land, is perhaps explained by what I call the Torah narrativization strategy (see below). The alterity of the narrative, which has little in common with the reality of life in post-exilic Israel, is highly significant. In the presence of the text producers and recipients, it creates a world of reference, a common tradition that enables a collective identity beyond the boundaries of one’s own group: “These requirements will have the effect of shaping the people, of

BARTOR, Law (2010), 20. See also the similar treatment by HAYES, Laws (2017), 42. Numbers 1:17, 19, 54; 2:33; 3:16, 42, 49; 4:49; 5:4; 7:6, 89; 8:3–4, 20, 22; 9:5; 15:36; 17:26; 20:9, 27; 21:9; 25:5; 26:3; 27:22–23; 30:1–2; 31:6, 31, 41; 36:5–6 et al. Cf. besides only “as YHWH had commanded Moses, so they did” ( ‫ככל אשׁ ר צ וה י הוה את־ משׁה כן‬ ‫ )עשׂו‬Num 1:54; 2:34; 8:20; 9:5; cf. 30:1 or the ‫כאשׁ ר צוה י הוה את־ משׁה‬, which occurs 13 times in Num (Exod: 24 times; Lev: 8 times; Deut: 1 time; Josh: 3 times). In Exodus and Leviticus, the twist concentrates on a few sections, while the book of Numbers is completely pervaded: Exod 12:28, 50; 39:1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31; 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32; Lev 8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:10; 16:34; 24:23; Num 1:19; 2:33; 3:51; 8:3, 22; 15:36; 26:4; 27:11; 31:7, 31, 41, 47; 36:10; Deut 34:9; Josh 11:15, 20; 14:5. 62 WATTS, Identification (1999), 112. 60 61

46

Literature, History and Ideology

molding their character as individuals and as a nation.” 63 It thus ultimately forms what we know under the common denominator as Judaism: a “religion” that is plural in itself, but united in its reference to Torah. From a theological point of view, the coexistence of history and law – as Erich Zenger once put it – is constitutive of meaning (“aussagekonstitutiv”). 64

5. Narrativization The often-used word play that history contains a story will hardly make anyone sit up and take notice. Both coincide in creating coherence and both offer interpretations by relating events. The underlying view that fictionality and representation of history are not mutually exclusive, and that historiographical narration cannot do without fictionality is more likely to generate resistance. 65 It was the recently deceased historian Hayden White who, through his metahistory in 1973, initiated the view that all historiography is necessarily narrative.66 Beyond the positive function of this wake-up call, which unsettles the entire study of literature and history, Ansgar Nünning has criticized the danger inherent in its flattening of history, without returning to the illusion of an “objective” factual representation of historiography. He emphasizes that historiography and fiction cannot be reduced to narrativity and that the conventions governing action must not be disregarded. 67 The dissolution of the separation is just as inappropriate as the “sharp cut”: everything is narrative, but not all narration is fictional. 68 The variety of forms in which histori-

HAYES, Laws (2017), 42. ZENGER, Pentateuch (1996), 9. 65 The amount of literature on “fiction” is unmanageable, even in the field of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament exegesis. For general orientation, see, e.g., BLUME, Fiktion (2004); ZIPFEL, Fiktion (2015); NÜNNING, Paradigma (2015) and KONRAD , Dimensionen (2014). An insight into the biblical horizon is provided by DYMA, Geschichten (2015), 35–7; at least the heuristic dichotomy of historiography and fictional texts is widespread, see, e.g., FLUDERNIK , Erzähltheorie (2013), 11‒2. For the debate, see also NÜNNING, Überlegungen (1999), 368‒77; FULDA, Narration (2014), 13‒4. STASZAK, Asylstädte (2006), 46‒62 reflects on the question of fictionality and legislative texts. 66 WHITE, Metahistory (1975). 67 See NÜNNING , Überlegungen (1999) and IDEM, Historie (2002), 543–4. 68 This is not the place to deal with pan-fictional theories of reality. ZIPFEL , Fiktion (2015), 12‒3 notes: “Die philosophische These von der Fiktivierung oder Fiktionalisierung der Wirklichkeit wird m. E. für literaturwissenschaftliche Betrachtungen dann problematisch, wenn damit eine theoretische Parallelisierung zwischen der so genannten realen Welt (die ihrerseits als fiktiv entlarvt wird) und den fiktiven Welten literarischer Texte einhergeht.” English translation: “In my opinion, the philosophical thesis of the fictification or fictionalization of reality becomes problematic for literary studies if it is accompanied by a 63 64

Torah Becoming a Blessing

47

ography and literature are interwoven to the present day are similar in that they do not face each other in distinct antagonism. 69 For traditional biblical literature, too, hybrid rather than pure forms of historiography can be assumed. 70 What Nünning emphasizes with regard to the situation in the present is also true of traditional biblical literature, namely “that narrative-fictional representation of history also differs from historiography in formal terms by a multitude of fictional signals and fictional representation privileges.” 71 However, if I understand it correctly, biblical literature lacks a moment of selfreflection or metareflexion, which Nünning calls metahistoriographic fiction.72 Means of fiction are not used to address metahistorical or metahistoriographical questions. Unless one wanted to understand the so-called child question (Exod 13:14; Deut 6:20) in the collective memory figure as such a metahistoriography. The reflections on fictional elements and the relationship between literature and historiography lead to the question of the significance of history in the narrative of the Pentateuch. In my exegetical approach, I am convinced that the preoccupation with fictional texts does not lead to a loss of reality, but that even the most fictional text still contains some reference to reality. In my opinion, this fact cannot be abandoned as the core of historical-critical exegesis. However this is not the place to unfold this any further. 73 Returning to the question at hand, one may ask whether the book of Numbers can be understood as a historiographical narrative. Apart from Balaam’s donkey, there is nothing in the book to suggest that it does not see itself as a representation of history. As already shown, there are few signals at the level of production that would clearly identify the representation as an intentional fiction. The most natural understanding of the narrative voice is that it represents the voice of the author, following Gérard Genette’s basic distinction; this would imply that the book of Numbers is presented in a factual narrative form. At the same time, from a historiographical point of view, there is no doubt that the book is fictional, i.e., the events told cannot and should not be understood as history. Already at this point the fuzziness of the distinction between factual and fictional narrative forms becomes apparent, if they are only measured according to the

theoretical parallelization between the so-called real world (which in turn is exposed as fictitious) and the fictitious worlds of literary texts.” 69 See NÜNNING , Historie (2002), 543. 70 Cf. the exemplary considerations in S CHMITZ, Prophetie (2008), 19‒43. 71 NÜNNING , Historie (2002), 544: “[…] daß sich narrativ-fiktionale Geschichtsdarstellung auch in formaler Hinsicht durch eine Vielzahl von Fiktionalitätssignalen und fiktionalen Darstellungsprivilegien von der Historiographie unterscheidet.” 72 NÜNNING, Historie (2002), 547. 73 Cf. in addition F REVEL, Recht (2016), 137‒49, 170‒5.

48

Literature, History and Ideology

degree of reference to extra-linguistic reality.74 The inherent claim of texts is an important feature that forces their volatile indecisiveness, as Monika Fludernik points out: Normative narratives, for example, aim to convey drafts of how something should be and to influence the recipient didactically and morally, while visionary texts are fictitious, because what they describe does not exist, but claim by visionary claim to truth that these events will be, i.e., would be quite factual (in the future). 75

The special character of the Pentateuchal narrative can thus more appropriately be regarded as neither factual nor fictional. 76 This, I believe, is also the case for a number of reasons for the book of Numbers: (1) Because signals of fictionality in the narrative of the Pentateuch (and thus in the book of Numbers) are not very pronounced beyond the direct speech and the narrator’s location (signs of fictionality can be found in e.g., the miracle narratives of Num 11‒12; 16‒17; 20; 21; 22), but at the same time the emblematic strategies of legitimization and authorization remain unclear in their actual reference to reality. (2) Because narration in the book of Numbers is not free from aestheticizations that go beyond real-world authentifications (such as the poetic pieces in Num 10:35‒36; 21:14‒20, 26‒30; 23:8‒10, 18‒24; 24:3‒9, 16‒24), which speaks against it being considered a factual narration. (3) Because the legislative parts, which are embedded into the fiction, have a claim to validity that goes beyond fiction even at the textual level. (4) Because a detailed analysis of the text reveals that it cannot represent historic reality and so the text becomes fictional retrospectively, contrary to its own claim (not least paradoxically through the claim to validity associated with canonization77). This must be differentiated from the idea that a text is fictional simply because its readers understand it to be fictional.78 74 For the differentiation between factual and fictional narrative and its blurry lines, see the introduction of FLUDERNIK/F ALKENHAYNER/S TEINER, Erzählen (2015), 9‒12; RÖDER, Verhältnis (2015); FLUDERNIK, Probleme (2015), 116‒20; IRSIGLER, Erzählen (2015), 23‒ 5 and IDEM , Erzählen (2014), 2‒7. 75 This is an English translation of FLUDERNIK, Probleme (2015), 116: “So wollen normative Erzählungen Entwürfe vermitteln, wie etwas sein soll, und zielen auf eine didaktische und moralische Beeinflussung des Rezipienten, während visionäre Texte zwar fiktiv sind, weil das, was sie beschreiben, nicht existiert, aber per visionärem Wahrheitsanspruch behaupten, dass diese Ereignisse sein werden, also durchaus faktual (in der Zukunft) wären.” 76 DYMA, Geschichten (2015), 36. Cf. also ZIPFEL, Fiktion (2015), 23‒4, who is critical of NÜNNING, Paradigma (2015), 38, 54‒6, who attempts a criteriological approach via the category of “unreliable” and pleads for applying the distinction heuristically without the claim of finality or provability. 77 See IRSIGLER, Erzählen (2015), 26‒7 with apt descriptions of the canon’s dialectic, which at the same time delimits and produces meaning. In the opening of canonical reception, the meaning of the text goes beyond the sum of its historical textual senses, but al-

Torah Becoming a Blessing

49

(5) Finally, a characteristic trait of the book of Numbers is that although reality is described referentially (i.e., as factual), the potential meaning of the text stretches well beyond a mere reporting of events (i.e., it creates a fictional ideal), without, however, breaking away from it. The designation of the text as “literature” is insufficient to describe this moment of the formation of meaning directed at the reception (which already begins “inner-biblically”), but indicates the direction with which the oscillating hybrid of “factual” and “fictional” can be grasped in relation to biblical texts. In order to describe this last aspect a little more clearly, I would like to refer back to the concept of “narrativization” and bring it into discussion with the category of “historization” as a characteristic of the narrative’s relationship to the narrator’s historical reality. I use the term “narrativization” in a specific way and clearly distinguish it from “storification.” This should be emphasized because the term is used very differently in narratology. It was first written by Paul Ricoeur and was especially fruitful in the narratological discussion by Monika Fludernik. She defines “narrativization” (in contrast to Hayden White)79 as “making something a narrative by the sheer act of imposing narrativity on it.” 80 Thus narrativization detaches itself from the plot as the determining principle of a text’s construction. Narrativization “naturalizes texts by recourse to narrative schemata,” here text is to be understood as being more open than narrative in that it can also include discourse, transmission, etc. Fludernik sees narrativization as the transition between reader and text and between a text and its historicization. 81 Simply put, narrativization refers to the process by which discourse is redefined by means of narrative. Thus, their meanings are not only transposed into the narrated world, but are also limited by the conditions of the narrated world: Narrativization reads texts as narrative and therefore reduces their potential metaphorical or philosophical or argumentative meanings to the projection of a fictional world, to embodied experientiality within it and to the specifics of individuality. 82

Thus, narrative becomes both a relative and a relational concept. The reader’s world of experience thus determines, for example, the interplay of factual description and fictional vision in the narrative. Through narrativization, the reader places himself in relation to the historicization of discourse in the ways includes them, see F REVEL , Recht (2016), 161‒9. In the paradigmatic reference to the life world of the recipients, the normative-factual narrative changes into a fictional, but no less normative one. It would be worthwhile to describe this second level fictionality in more detail and to evaluate it for methodological reflection. 78 Cf. BLUME , Fiktion (2004), 80–81. 79 WHITE, Narrativization (2004), 92. 80 FLUDERNIK, Narratology (2002), 25. 81 FLUDERNIK , Narratology (2002), 25: “Narrativization thus constitutes a processual boundary between the reader and the text, and between the text and its historicization.” 82 FLUDERNIK, Narratology (2002), 278.

50

Literature, History and Ideology

narrative. This aspect is important for understanding the book of Numbers for the following reasons: The book of Numbers is fictional. It tells the fiction of a desert stay and transition but presented in the mode of a factual narrative, which is not limited to describing an existential reality outside of the text that was or is, but includes forming a textual world that is to become. The author’s description is based on a past that the author himself probably did not experience. The book of Numbers constitutes a narrative world in the desert, far before the existence of the political state of Israel. In exegesis, there is broad agreement that (regardless of possible older traditions) the narrative itself originated after the collapse of the state and that the book took shape in the 5th and beginning of the 4th cent. BCE. From a historical perspective, the world described is not only fictional, but also fictitious – there was no “Israel” that wandered in the desert in pre-monarchic times. The social structure of a twelve-tribed Israel described in the book, the introduction of the Aaronide priesthood with the subordinate Levites, the purity rituals described in the book, etc. are all fictional for the time narrated, i.e., pre-monarchic Israel. Even during the time in which the text was created (regardless of when one wants to date them exactly) – and here things becomes as exciting as they are complex – were these elements fictitious, i.e., ahistorical. Paradoxically, however, parts of this fiction become reality, the striking example being the hierocratic leadership of the high priesthood in the 3rd and 2nd cent. BCE. The book of Numbers shapes reality through the processes of narrativization of ancient readers by separating the historicized discourse from its fictive framework, partially decontextualizing and re-historicizing it. If this process can be better understood, the early forms of normativity in this text and the relationship between normativity and narrative should also be better understood. The meaning of the Torah, in any case, seems to me to lie in invoking strategies of narrativization, in which the narrative is constituted as the collective identity of post-exilic Israel. In other words, the Torah shapes social reality via means of reinforcing normativity. But insofar as the strategies of narrativization do not necessarily start from the same preconditions, the Torah forms plural identities. Christine Hayes links narrativization to the discourse on the relation of “law” and “history” and puts the above-expressed meaning with reference to the interplay of history and law as follows: “The integration of law and history led to a ‘narrativization’ of the Law.”83

83

HAYES, Laws (2017), 42.

Torah Becoming a Blessing

51

6. Rank and File: Numbers as Foundation Story The previous section has shown that what was characterized above as the founding chronotope is far more fundamental and goes well beyond the situation at the foot of Sinai. The dialectical historicization of the narrative, both into the past and into the future, has been demonstrated by the book of Numbers as part of the great founding narrative of Israel. The specific turn to the past, which is itself interpreted as a foundation, forms a literary world that embeds a high degree of innovation in tradition. A look at narratology, the organizational form and the functions of narration in the book of Numbers has made it clear how much this narrative is underestimated if it is not connected with normative and formative knowledge of reflection, but understood as a mere description of the past. To sum up, I would like to name three fields in which, in my opinion, the study of the book of Numbers has been particularly worthwhile from a narratological perspective: (1) With the question of the so-called final form and its scroll-related narrative independence; (2) with the location of the extradiegetic narrative voice and text-pragmatic reflections on the location of the book of Numbers and (3) finally with the deeper understanding of the relationship between narrative and legislative parts in the book. The narrative independence of the book of Numbers is surprising. It remains an open question whether any conclusions can be drawn from this observation regarding the scroll production of the five-part composition of the Torah. From a narratological perspective, the proximity of the narrative voice to the perspective of the narrative characters confirms what has been said elsewhere: about the book of Numbers as the completion of the Torah, about the increasing equation of Moses and Torah and about the growing self-referentiality of the Torah in latest phases of the process of becoming. 84 The narratological classification of the juxtaposition of law and narrative is recognizably more in keeping with the Jewish way of reading. While a dichotomous separation of history and law as it appears in Christian reception tends towards a devaluation of the law, the Jewish perception shows the integrative and formative power that history and law have. This also encourages one to consider the underlying hermeneutics.

84

See F REVEL, Pieces, p. 92, 118–20 in the present volume.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah1 Martin Noth was convinced that the book of Numbers did not have much to offer, because it “participates only marginally in the great themes of the Pentateuchal tradition.” 2 He understood Num 1–4 as a “supplement to the Sinai theme,” which paved way to “all kinds of later insertions.” This supplementary material “consists of numerous individual units, having no connection with one another and in whose sequence no factual arrangement can be discerned.”3 Hence his general evaluation of the book’s structure was quite negative: “the book lacks unity.”4 His understanding was even more negative than the translator James D. Martin dared to express. Noth’s original judgment expressed in German was, “reichlich undurchsichtig” (abundantly opaque), which was translated more mildly but still devastatingly as, “it is difficult to see any pattern in its construction.” 5 Although Noth was probably one of the greatest geniuses of the Old Testament exegesis of the 20th cent., he could derive little from the book of Numbers in its final form. The common Christian devaluation of the law is easy to see behind this assessment. To make it clear, Noth is not an isolated case in this, to give a second (more sophisticated but similar) example. The Princeton professor Katherine DoobSakenfeld stated in her commentary that the book needs explanation in order to be understood. The attributes she uses here sound similar to those of Noth (although they are not meant entirely negative): While an initial reading of the book may give the impression of a disorganized conglomeration of material, there is in fact some overall organization to the presentation. And while its confusing stories and ancient ritual legislation may at first seem strange and remote, even such obscure material takes on new meaning as its context is clarified.6

1 The bulk of this contribution was a paper given with Erich Zenger on the books of Leviticus and Numbers as part of the Pentateuchal composition (ZENGER/F REVEL, Bücher [2008]). While the part on Leviticus was written by E. Zenger, the Numbers part and the conclusions were worked out by the present author. This part was translated, slightly revised and integrated in the present volume. 2 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 5. 3 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 6. 4 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 1. 5 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 1. 6 D OOB-S AKENFELD, Numbers (1995), 1.

54

Literature, History and Ideology

While it is certainly true that the structure of the book is not straightforward, this raises the question of how to avoid such negative assessments. What is special about the book in the context of the Pentateuchal composition? To approach this question, it seems important to note what would be missing if the book of Numbers did not exist: just chaos? Let me list only three major issues: (1) Without the book of Numbers the whole story of the desert wandering would depend on Deuteronomy 1–3. Apart from Deut 2:1 there would have been no basis upon which to understands Israel’s entrance into the land via Transjordan instead of the more direct path via Kadesh in the south. (2) The implementation of Israel’s organization as a tribal society consisting of twelve tribes would be lacking. (3) There would be no cult in the wilderness sanctuary. The organization of the cult performed by Aaronides and Levites, including their hierarchical order, succession, consecration, duties, etc. would have been mostly unknown. Would the Pentateuch be complete without these aspects? The negative answer to this question was already recognized by Martin Noth who wrote: “Indeed, within that whole it [i.e., the book of Numbers in the Pentateuch] is indispensable.” 7 This becomes clear when one gets closer to the composition of the book within the Pentateuch. The specific character unfolds if one compares it to the book of Leviticus, which did not really progress the narrative forward but rather shaped the atoning presence of YHWH, in the midst of the congregation, as the theological base and center of being “Israel.” There can be no doubt that from a cultic viewpoint the annual kippur-ritual-reconciliation is (not the, but) a center in Lev 16 and in some way in the whole Pentateuchal composition. The spatial and temporal organization of Leviticus is the strongest structuring aspect of the book and particularly this spatial and temporal viewpoint is taken up in the continuation in the book of Numbers.

1. The Compositional Relief of the Book of Numbers Situated in the Sinai desert at the beginning of the second month of the second year, exactly one month after the erection (Exod 40:17) and inauguration (Lev 8:33–9:1) of the sanctuary, it is clear from the outset that the book of Numbers has to be read in continuation of the Sinai narrative. It begins spatially at Sinai ( ‫ )מדבר סני‬and thus supports the centripetal power of Sinai, in 7

NOTH , Numbers (1968), 11.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

55

the middle of which stands the reconciling proximity of God (Lev 16). At the same time, it ends at the border of the land where Deuteronomy takes place (‫בערבות מואב‬, Num 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48–50; 35:1; 36:13). In this way, it continues the movement towards the land via Sinai, which was affirmed in the promise to the fathers and begun in Exodus. The oath to the fathers (Exod 6:8; 32:13; 33:1; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 30:20; 34:4) is referred to only a few times in Numbers (Num 14:16, 23, cf. 32:9), and only once explicitly mentioning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Num 32:11). However, the gift of the land (‫נתן ארץ‬, Num 13:2; 14:8; 15:2; 20:12, 24; 27:12; 32:5, 7, 9, 29, 32; 33:53; 34:13; 36:2) as an inheritance (Num 16:14; 18:20, 21, 23, 24; 26:53, 54, 56, 62; 27:2, 8, 9, 10, 11; 32:18, 19, 32; 33:54; 34:2, 14, 15; 35:2, 8; 36:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12), and the allocation of the Promised Land (‫נחל‬, Num 26:55; 32:18–19; 33:54; 34:13, 17, 18, 29; 35:8, cf. vv. 18, 20, 23, 24; ‫אחזה‬, Num 27:4, 7; 32:5, 22, 29, 32; 35:2, 8, 28) is a common issue that becomes more prominent in the final parts of the book. The striking fact is that the land had already been handed over to the fathers (‫ נתן‬perfect tense) but the promise (which had already been fulfilled) had not yet been fully realized. Thus, the theme of the land establishes a close link to the patriarchal narratives.8 While the announcement of Moses’s death (Num 20:12 and 27:12–14) leads – via the farewell speech in Deuteronomy – to the final chapter of the Pentateuch in Deut 34, the organization of land distribution in Num 32–36* also points to the book Joshua: “It is undeniable that the holy land is a main theme underlying the whole book of Numbers looking forward to Joshua as bringing the fulfilment of this theme.”9 These basic observations already demonstrate the double-faced nature of the Pentateuch’s composition, which is essentially determined by the book of Numbers: promise and fulfillment, both drawing back and going beyond the book. In order to explain the argument, the book’s character and the book’s structure will be briefly outlined, then the compositional entanglement with the book of Exodus will be described and finally a look at the interlocking function of the transition area, Num 1–10, will be taken. At the end of this paper the final part of the book, which is determined by a Hexateuchal perspective, will briefly be taken into consideration.

2. Numbers as a Book Composition However, its own shape does not easily reveal a coherent and homogeneous literary work. Numbers is a literary composite: it is cast in different styles; it contains a respectable

8 9

See for discussion, LOHFINK, Volk (2004), 9–30. SEEBASS, Land (2006), 93; cf. also IBIDEM, 95, 103.

56

Literature, History and Ideology

diversity of genres; it betrays in its individual units a variety of aspects whose relationship among one another and place in the composition of the whole is not self-evident. 10

Compared to the negative assessments quoted at the beginning of this paper, the evaluation of Rolf R. Knierim and George W. Coats is more positive but still reserved. In any case, it should be possible to reach a consensus on the heterogeneous complexity of the book and on the fact that its structure is not immediately apparent to the reader. “One important obstacle in interpreting Numbers has been the failure to detect a meaningful structure for the book as a whole.” 11 The spectrum of opinions on the book of Numbers in biblical research range from the assumption of a diachronic collection without a recognizable structure to the assumption of a thoroughly composed literary artwork. The position of the present author is to be located somewhere in the middle, it assumes that the narratives are not arbitrarily arranged, but that several structures overlap and thus no completely homogeneous overall picture emerges. The book of Numbers is a mirror of the diversity of the Torah, in which the interweaving of history and law is programmatic. As a starting point, one can certainly follow Knierim and Coats: It is unquestionable that the complexity of the structure of the book is related to the book’s growth. At the same time, this means that the composition is not from a single author or redactional hand. It is rather an evolved diversity of materials combined during the process of growth, which are not accidentally arranged, but intentionally, even if the finished product was not planned on the drawing board. However, the diachrony of the composition is not the focus of this essay, rather, “attention must be paid to the mainly final outcome of the long growth process of Numbers, the shape of its final redaction in its Masoretic form.”12 Different approaches to the subdivisions of the final composition have been proposed, based either on the itinerary (migration and departure notes in Num 10:11–12; 11:35; 12:16; 20:22; 21:4, 10–13; 22:1), the book-internal dates (Num 1:1, 18; 7:1; 9:1; 10:11) or the two censuses in Num 1 and Num 26. These subdivisions relate to the spatial, temporal or generational signals in the text respectively. These insights result either in two or three, rarely in four, five or seven sections of Numbers. 13 Structuralist approaches that focus on the alternation of narrative and legislative material have been less successKNIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 6. OLSON, Numbers (1996), 3; see also S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 1; KNIERIM/COATS, Numbers (2005), 9–10. 12 K NIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 9. 13 Cf. the overview of the structuring suggestions in OLSON, Death (1985), 9–40; FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007), 24–35. The division into 10 parashôt (1:1–4:20; 4:21–7:89; 8:1–12:16; 13:1–15:41; 16:11–18:32; 19:1–22:1; 22:2–25:9; 25:10–30:1; 30:2–32:42; 33:1–36:13), which is oriented to the reading order and only partly corresponds with the division signals in the text, will not be discussed in this paper. 10 11

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

57

ful. Mary Douglas, for example, sees the laws and narratives in a ring composition arranged in pairs, whereby the assignment of the legislative parts to the narrative units and the relationship between the narrative pairs is sometimes arbitrary and not fully convincing. 14 Much attention was paid to Dennis T. Olson’s proposed division of the book into two parts, based on the two censuses, signifying the generational change as the decisive structural moment. 15 Although the transition from the exodus generation of the fathers to the land generation of the children is a very decisive moment in the structure of Numbers, the generational change does not prove successful as the only structuring device in the book. The stubbornness of the old generation is not a determining feature (especially in Num 1–10) until the scout narrative (in Num 13–14), nor is the blessing in the Balaam narrative (Num 22–24) limited entirely to the side of the exodus generation. The blessing and its confirmation are aimed both at the generation passing away in the wilderness and at the next generation reaching the land. Another dichotomy has been proposed by Rolf Knierim, also with two very unequal parts of the book: the preparation Num 1:1–10:10 of the wandering and its implementation Num 10:11–36:13. 16 While this basic division cannot be denied, the problem is that the implementation has not yet reached its end by Num 36. In addition, the structure does not do justice to the watershed moments of Num 13–14 and Num 21. This led Ulrich Fistill to subdivide the second part following the changed basic tenor in Num 21 (Num 10:11–21:20; 21:21–36:13).17 Due to the increasing dynamics of blessing from Num 21 onwards, I have suggested a five-part division of the book, in which the two positive framing parts of Num 1:1–10:10 and 26:1–36:13 are related to each other.18 The middle section is determined by the alternation of climaxes and anti-climaxes. Num 10:11–14:33 describe, with many references to the exodus narrative, the departure from the camp to the decisive turning point at the end of the spy narrative. The third part is determined by the motif of punishment and ranges from Num 15:1–20:29. Here, too, the cultic order placed at the beginning creates a perspective directed towards the future in the land.19 There is a thereafter that goes beyond punishment and the generational change carried out in the death of Aaron and Miriam. In the fourth part (Num 21:1–25:18) the basic, positive line of the promise prevails ever more clearly, be it in the first military success against the king of Arad or in the blessing of Balaam. Cf. DOUGLAS, Wilderness (1993). See OLSON, Death (1985), 83–125; IDEM, Numbers (1996), 3–7. 16 Cf. K NIERIM , Numbers (2011), 155–63; IDEM/COATS , Numbers (2005), 9–10, cf. also LEE, Punishment (2003), 73–290. 17 See FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007), 33. 18 Cf. F REVEL, Numeri (2017), 242–3. 19 Cf. also LEE, Punishment (2003), 135–6, 280, 290; SEEBASS, Land (2006), 95. 14 15

58

Literature, History and Ideology

All three middle parts end with anticlimaxes and are connected with the mourning or crying of the people (Num 14:39: mourning of the people, Num 20:29: mourning for Aaron, Num 25:6: weeping in front of the tent of meeting), however in part IV the anticlimax is counteracted by the positive action of Phinehas. The end of part II and the beginning of part IV are closely interconnected. I. Num 1:1–10:10 II. Num 10:11–14:45 III. Num 15:1–20:29 IV. Num 21:1–25:18 V. Num 26:1–36:13 One remaining problem with this division is that it does not match the spatial division provided by the itinerary notices in Part III and IV with the “mental” boundaries. The simple tripartite division Sinai – Wilderness – Plains of Moab (Num 1:1–10:10; 10:11–21:35; 22:1–36:13)20 represented by L. Schmidt is therefore also very plausible, although the various division signals in Num 20–21 (Num 20:14; 21:1, 10, 21) also cause problems for him. The problems of structuring the book of Numbers cannot be solved conclusively in this essay. However, it can already be seen that the narrative and legislative materials are not arbitrarily arranged, but that the book of Numbers has a well thoughtout structure that presupposes the literary corpus of Numbers as a composition, or a book. The book’s character is underlined above all by the two framing verses (Num 1:1; 36:13), in which each of the spatial categories plays an important role. The following section will concentrate on the closing of the book and demonstrate the importance of spatial categories for understanding the book’s overall structure. After that, attention will be paid to Num 36:13’s parallelism to Lev 26:46 and 27:34, as well as the unusual order of the law terms ‫המצות‬ ‫ והמשׁפתים‬which emphasize the Pentateuchal character of Numbers and its nature as a book. 2.1 The Book’s Closure in Numbers 36:13 In an almost cascading manner, the localizations, starting from the book’s closure (Num 36:13), unfold back-references that range from Num 35:1; 33:48, 50 to Num 22:1, where Israel has arrived in the plains of Moab. The ‫ בערבת מואב על־ירד ן י רחו‬first refers to the introductory speech formula in Num 35:1.21 The last two speeches of God in the book can be found in Num 20 21

Cf. S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 1. See LEE , Punishment (2003), 100–11.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

59

35 singling out the cities of asylum. Numbers 36 no longer contains any direct divine speech.22 This particular feature alone demonstrates that the book of Numbers has Moses’s speech in Deuteronomy as deuteros nomos (“a second/repeated law”) in mind and is deliberately aiming for an end of God’s speeches. Singling out the Levitical and asylum cities explicitly focuses on both the Trans- and Cisjordan (Numbers 35:14) and thus having its standpoint in Transjordan extends the horizon to the Cisjordan. This is also underlined by scheduling issues relevant for the time after the crossing of the Jordan river (Num 35:10). Numbers 35 has its textual counterpart in Josh 20–21. At first glance, then, the formulation ‫ ב ערבת מואב על־י רדן י רחו‬does not appear suitable to guarantee the final character of Num 36:13 or the book-character of Numbers. Prior to Num 35:1, the formulation is mentioned twice in Num 33 (Num 33:48, 50; cf. v. 49) denoting the last station of the exodus from Ramses in Egypt to Moab in Transjordan. Thus, the localization at the end of the book of Numbers is deliberately configured as the completion of the exodus liberation project. This indicates that Israel’s turn away from rebellion towards blessing has already occurred in the book of Numbers – an assessment that is underscored not only by the Balaam narrative, but also by the changed perspective on the gift of land already made in Num 20, to which Norbert Lohfink referred.23 Needless to say, both the exodus and the eisodus are conceptually present in the book of Numbers. The book of Numbers is created for continuation. Although three more chapters of the book of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy follow, the conclusion of the itinerary in Num 33, in the “plains of Moab,” is more than just a place-name: it unfolds a gravity of closure. The speech of God in Num 33:50–56 is interlocked with the closure of the book in a marked way. Numbers 33:50 adds a location to the introductory speech formula, thus distinguishing it from most introductory speeches in the book. In a language influenced by late-Deuteronomistic style, “in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho” looks towards the conquest. Introduced by a conditional structure it demands the allocation of the land of Cisjordan as a counterpart to Num 32. Strikingly the entire land is described as already given in v. 53 (‫)כי לכם נתתי את־הארץ לרשׁת אתה‬. On the one hand this drives the view beyond the end to the book of Joshua, on the other hand it creates a linguistic link to Num 36:13. Numbers 36:13 thus undoubtedly marks a break. This finally becomes clear when one includes the previous occurrence of ‫בערבת‬ ‫מואב על־ירד ן ירחו‬, the very first in the book of Numbers (and even in the whole Pentateuch). 22 This absence of direct divine speech therefore signals the change from law provision to law interpretation, which takes place at the end of the book and is continued with Deuteronomy (see below). 23 Cf. LOHFINK, Volk (2004), 9–30; IDEM, Landübereignung (2005), 273–92.

60

Literature, History and Ideology

The localization is found for the first time in Num 26:3, 63. Thus Num 25:19–36:13 are constituted as a separate book part. The suggestion of a constitutive bipartite division of the book based on the two censuses Num 1 and Num 26 (D. T. Olson)24 finds support in this signal of division. With the second census the turn of the book of Numbers is finally completed and a new dynamic is set in motion. This dynamic is the realization of the promise to give the land as living space. The exodus generation – who had refused the gift of the land in Num 13–14 and who had been sentenced to die in the desert (Num 14:20–23) – died out in the meantime (until Num 25:9) with the exception of Moses, Joshua and Caleb (Num 26:64–65). After the death of the old, the new is imminent, not only in terms of generation with the newly mustered Israel, but also spatially at the border of the land. The promise given to the fathers can now be completed by the newlycounted generation that has grown up since Num 14. Only the death of Moses is still pending, which is announced in Num 27:12–14, but whose implementation is delayed until Deut 34. The tension that Israel’s narrative journey will not progress while the mediator of laws, Moses, is still alive and has something to mediate, is maintained throughout Deuteronomy; the whole book being depicted as Moses’s farewell speech. The parenthesis created via the shared localization formula between Num 26:3 and 36:13, creates a part of the book that does not stand for itself but transcends the boundary of the Pentateuch in terms of content and thus unfolds a dynamic towards the land at the end of the book. The localization parenthesis extends beyond the book in both directions. Although not verbatim, the location “in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho” can be found both before and after the last part of the book. The only evidence of ‫ ערב ה‬in the book of Numbers outside the discussed evidence is found in Num 22:1. There Israel camps “in the plains of Moab opposite of the Jordan of Jericho” (‫)בערבת מואב מעבר לירדן י רחו‬. This formulation is distinguished by the ‫מעב ר‬ ‫ ל‬from the previously treated formulations with ‫על‬. In terms of their physical location there is no difference, from Num 22:1 to Josh 3:1 where Israel is still camped in Shittim, which is first mentioned in Num 25:1 and from which Israel sets out to cross the Jordan in Josh 2:1 and 3:1. Nevertheless, the variation of the formula is significant because only in this way does the constitution of the book part Num 26:1–36:13 function successfully. From Num 22:1 the narrative arc is also built into Deuteronomy, not only loosely into the complex structure of place names in Deut 1:1–5, 25 but rather to the end of Deut 34, where the localization ‫ ערבת מואב‬appears in vv. 1, 8.

See OLSON, Death (1985), 55–125; IDEM, Numbers (1996), 3–6. It is characteristic of the separation between Num and Deut that ‫ אר ץ מואב‬appears for the first time in Deut 1:5, as FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007), 24 has pointed out. 24 25

61

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

Thus overall, the events are interlinked by the last station of the desert wandering from Num 22:1 to Deut 34:8 and even to Josh 3. To sum up this section: Focusing on the location in Num 36:13 has pointed out that the spatial category is a very decisive one for the book of Numbers. The place names and localizations are chosen deliberately, weaving a net that extends far beyond the boundaries of the book. On the one hand Num 36:13 establishes many links reaching backwards to Num 22:1 and forwards to Deut 34 and Josh 3. Furthermore, it was observed that Num 36:13 creates the final part of the book by forming a parenthesis with Num 26:3. Thus Num 36:13 gains a finalizing character. 2.2 The Book’s Colophon in Numbers 36:13 Numbers 36:13 becomes a colophon by comparison with the double conclusion of Leviticus (Lev 26:46; 27:34). The synoptic overview shows differences and similarities, which are intensified by the combination of the two Leviticus passages: Lev 26:46

Lev 27:34

Num 36:13

‫אלה‬ ‫החקים‬

‫אלה‬

‫אלה‬

‫המצות‬

‫המצות‬ ‫והמשׁפטים‬

‫אשׁר צוה יהוה‬ ‫את־משׁה‬ ‫אל־בני ישׂראל‬ ‫בהר סיני׃‬

‫אשׁר צוה יהוה‬ ‫ביד־משׁה‬ ‫אל־בני ישׂראל‬ ‫בערבת מואב‬ ‫על י רדן ירחו׃‬

‫והמשׁפטים‬ ‫והתורת‬ ‫אשׁר נתן יהוה‬ ‫בינו ובין בני ישׂראל‬ ‫בהר סיני‬ ‫ביד־משׁה׃‬

The differences and the diachronic relationship of the positions to each other cannot be discussed in more detail here. 26 We limit ourselves to a few observations that underline the final character of Num 36:13: (1) Leviticus 27:34 and Num 36:13 are virtually identical and closely related to each other. In addition to the term ‫המצות‬, which is introduced by the demonstrative pronoun and the first part of the relative clause ‫אשׁר צוה י הוה‬, the special feature of the adverbial determination ‫אל־בני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬, which is related to the ‫ צוה‬is particularly significant. (2) In addition, there are parallels to Lev 26:46, too: the ‫ והמשׁפטים‬and above all the ‫ביד־משׁה‬. It seems obvious that the unusual double ex26

See F REVEL, Transition (forthcoming).

62

Literature, History and Ideology

pression ‫ המצות והמשׁפטים‬in Num 36:13 was formed from the selective combination of the two Leviticus passages. ‫ביד־משׁה‬, however, occurs far more frequently in Numbers (Num 4:37, 45, 49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 17:5; 27:23; 33:1; 36:13) than in Leviticus (8:36; 10:11; 26:46). It seems to have been introduced in Lev 26:46 from the book of Numbers. 27 In synchronic respect, the two Leviticus closures are coupled together and connected with Num 36:13. Whatever the relationship between the two closures of the book of Leviticus in Lev 26:46 and 27:34 is to be determined editorially, 28 there is a close relationship to Num 36:13 which goes beyond mere verbatim parallels and underlines the concluding function. (3) The laws given on “Mount Sinai” (‫ )בהר סני‬are contrasted with those given “in the plains of Moab” ( ‫)ב ערבות מואב‬. Referentially Num 36:13 as the colophon of the book refers only to the laws given between Num 22:1 and Num 36:13. The other laws in the book of Numbers – both those which are given at Sinai (‫ )במדבר סיני‬and those which are given on the way (‫ – )במדבר‬would thus lack an analogous summarizing formula. The gravitation of the final position, however, seems so strong in the final version that all laws within the book of Numbers are concluded with the colophon. This is indicated by another detail in addition to the parallelism with Leviticus. The connection of the direction ‫ אל־בני י שׂראל‬with the verbum ‫ צוה‬points (beside Lev 27:34) to Exod 25:22. This passage, in which the mode of revelation in the tent is explained from the ‫כפרת‬, has a special significance for the book of Numbers, as can be seen by looking at the ‫ באהל‬in Num 1:1 and especially Num 7:89. Thus the legislation in the first part of the book of Numbers is implicitly integrated into the colophon. In addition to the location ‫בערבת מואב על ירדן י רחו‬, every detail of the formulation is important. Summarizing with regard to Lev 27:34 and Num 36:13: Both colophons are related to the demarcation of the respective works as books. They are book

27 The hypothesis of an intentional reference solves many of the problems mentioned by LOHFINK, Prolegomena (2003), 186–7. 28 It is usually assumed that Lev 27 is a supplement. GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus (1993), 408, for example, states that Lev 27:34 is a weakened closing formula compared to Lev 26:46 (“eine gegenüber Lev 26,46 abgeschwächte Schlussformel”). The judgement is derived from Lev 26:46 and the references to the other closing formulas of the book. However, the use of the final ‫ צ וה‬gives Lev 27:34 independence and special weight. Since Num 36:13 combines both Leviticus closures, Num 36:13 presupposes the conclusion in Lev 27:34 in diachronic respect. That said, the question of an editorial alignment of the closing verses is not yet finally answered.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

63

closures. 29 At the same time, it is clear that Num 36:13 assumes a book closing function on the one hand and reaches beyond the book boundaries on the other. 2.3 Numbers 1:1 as Beginning of the Book of Numbers Further corroboration of the importance of the spatial category, which was particularly demonstrated in the final part of the book of Numbers, can be seen by comparing the book’s beginning in Num 1:1 with the beginning of the book of Leviticus: Lev 1:1 ‫ויקרא אל־משׁה‬ ‫וידבר יהוה אלי ו‬ ‫מאהל מועד‬

‫לאמר‬

Num 1:1 ‫וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה במדבר סיני‬ ‫באהל מועד באחד לחדשׁ השׁני‬ ‫בשׁנה השׁנית‬ ‫לצאתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫לאמר‬

The beginning of Leviticus is distinguished by the call of Moses ‫ויק רא אל־‬ ‫משׁה‬, whereby it is left open how far the “invocation” reaches. 30 Important is the difference in the mode of revelation. While Moses at the beginning of Leviticus – consistently with regard to the sacrificial legislation that follows – resides at the entrance of the tent of meeting ( ‫מאהל מועד‬, Lev 1:1; cf. Lev 1:3, 5 et al.) and remains there at least until Lev 9:23, he enters the tent in Numbers, which is the logical understanding of ‫באהל מועד‬. The revelation inside the tent, according to Exod 25:22, occurs from the holy of holies, which following the rabbinical exegesis it is most likely to be assumed that

LOHFINK, Prolegomena (2003), 184: “Man verbindet die Kolophone am besten mit der Größe ‘Buch’ denn sie befinden sich am Ende der beiden ‘Bücher’ Levitikus und Numeri. Es sind Buchabschlüsse.” 30 It is not entirely clear whether Num 1:1 still belongs in the range of the “calling” of Lev 1:1. ‫ ק רא אל‬can be interpreted as calling and thus as the opening of a “strike of revelation” which would only be ended by a local movement of Moses. But it is unclear whether Moses has to move away from the tent of meeting in order to fulfill the task of the assembly in Lev 8:4 and thus the duration of the revelation indicated in Lev 1:1 does not encompass the whole book. In Lev 9:23 Moses and Aaron go into the tent of meeting, but come out again to the people gathered at the entrance, whom they bless before the appearance of the ‫כבוד‬. After that there is no more movement of Moses in Leviticus. Numbers 1:1 could still belong to the same “scene” marked by the receiver of the revelation placed in front of the tent. 29

64

Literature, History and Ideology

Moses stands before the curtain and not in the sanctum.31 The localization, “in the Sinai desert” (‫)במדבר סי ני‬, as well as the temporal specification, “the first [day] of the second month in the second year” (‫באחד לחד שׁ השׁני ב שׁנה‬ ‫)השׁנית‬, is important to shape the book of Numbers. Israel came into the Sinai wilderness (Exod 19:1) and camped opposite the mountain (‫ההר נגד‬, Exod 19:2), which is where they remained. 32 Neither in Exodus nor in Leviticus was the particular location of Israel granted much importance. Only Lev 7:37–38 picks up the location again when the Sinai desert is named as a place of the sacrificial service. This is different in the book of Numbers, where already the census at the beginning explicitly takes place ‫במדבר סיני‬. Num 1:19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12 (and with reference to Num 1:19 in retrospect also Num 26:64) explicitly take up the localization. In Leviticus, however, the mountain plays a greater role as the place of revelation (Lev 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34). 33 Where Lev 1:1 could be understood to encompass the whole book of Leviticus, the range of Num 1:1 is limited. It reaches up to the departure from Sinai (Num 10:12) and thus encompasses, strictly speaking, only the first part of the book. However, as with the end of the book, the opening has various levels, it relates on one level to the immediate context and on another within the range of the whole book. Following Num 10:12, the middle section of the book (Num 11:1–21:35) remains without an express opening or summarizing notice. But here too, the spatial notices mark a boundary for the immediate context and at the same time point beyond the book. This is evident from the occurrences of ‫מדבר סיני‬, which appear twice in the opening of the Sinaipericope in Exod 19:1–2 in addition to the numerous appearances in Num 1–10 (notwithstanding the special case in Lev 7:38 related to Num 7). The backlink also clarifies the dating to “the first day of the second month in the second year,” which on the one hand refers to Exod 40:1–2, 17 (“the first day of the first month in the second year”) and on the other hand to the beginning of the exodus. The departure from Sinai, i.e., the end of the ‫ במדבר‬wilderness part, is dated in Num 10:11 to “the twentieth day of the second month of the second year.” After that there are no further dates in the book of Numbers. The other dates within Num 1–10 serve the “flashback,” which will be discussed below. Both spatially and temporally the book of Numbers is delimited and at the same time connected to the previous context. From beginning to end it The much-discussed problems of the difference between Exod 25:22; Lev 1:1 and Num 7:89 do not have to be dealt with here. See, e.g., BAMBERGER, Pentateuchkommentar (2002), 256–7; LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 258–9, 264, 266. 32 “The wilderness” (Num 1:1, 19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12) already has a special presence as a place of encampment in the first part of Exodus (Exod 13:18, 20; 14:3, 11–12; 15:22; 16:1–3, 10, 14, 32; 17:1; 18:5; 19:1–2). The term appears only four times in the book Leviticus, three of which are in the ritual instructions Lev 16. 33 The relationship between Lev 1:1 and Lev 7:38 can be ignored here. 31

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

65

becomes obvious that the book of Numbers (a) is a completed and selfcontained entity, (b) is coordinated with the book of Leviticus in its opening, closing and its narrative time and (c) is a book that points beyond and behind itself much more than the other books of the Pentateuch.

3. The Spatial Structure of the Middle Section Focusing on the book margins revealed the structure of the book of Numbers on an imaginary spatial axis, which covers Egypt – Sinai – wilderness – Moab – Canaan. The book moves in a space within the three middle parts. The transition from wilderness to conquest is concentrated in the area of Num 20– 21.34 This can be corroborated by the occurrences of the lexeme ‫מדבר‬. While the desert already played a special role as a place of Israel’s encampment in the first part of the book (Num 1:1, 19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12, see above), the occurences of the lexeme ‫ מדבר‬in the middle part increases: half of the total of 48 passages with ‫ מדבר‬can be found following the departure in Num 10:10 up to and including Num 21. Again and again, the desert is contrasted with the cultivated land as a distance from life. This corresponds to the outstanding role that Kadesh – situated as an oasis on the border to the arable Promised Land – plays in the middle part of the book. From there the scouts go to the Promised Land (Num 13–14), whose return provokes the slander and rejection of the gift of God. This marks the mental low point of the book and motivates the delay in the gift of the land as well as the detour via Transjordan. From Kadesh Moses sends messengers to Edom (Num 20:14, 16, 22), which again results in a change of route. This is taken up in Num 21:4. Both narratives are connected by the ‫( דרך ים־סוף‬Num 14:25; 21:4). The ‫דרך ים־סוף‬ indicates a backward facing orientation in both a geographical as well as a mental respect. In Num 14:45 the unsuccessful, unauthorized taking of the land by the Israelites ended in Hormah.35 This same location appears (like ‫ )דרך ים־סוף‬a second time in Num 21:3. 36 34 SCHART , Konflikt (1990), 42: “Die Frage nach einer Abgrenzung von Wüste und Landnahme spitzt sich in der Forschung zu Recht auf die Kapitel Num 20 und 21 zu.” 35 The determination is unusual. Only Num 14:45 uses ‫ע ד־ הח רמ ה‬. Text-critically this is hardly to be complained about, even if Sam and Tg changed the text. Neither may the return to the camp be recorded according to LXX and Sam version in Deut 1:44. One possible explanation, which the Targum has also taken up, is to interpret the determination as an implicit “play” with annihilation (“and they beat them to annihilation”). Cf. LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 372. However the problem is to be solved, the relation to Num 21:3 remains unambiguous. 36 Even though Num 20:14–21 addresses the subject of conquest, it is not convincing to end the complex of desert narratives with Num 20:13 already. So with further arguments also S CHART, Konflikt (1990), 42.

66

Literature, History and Ideology

The murmuring narrative Num 21 is characterized by the implementation of a permanent means of healing through the production of a ‫ שׂרף‬or a ‫נחשׁ‬ ‫נחשׁת‬. Together with Num 21:1–3 it is thus the decisive turning point for preservation and blessing. This theme then unfolds in the text up to the second census in Num 26 (Num 21: first successes in the conquest of the Transjordan, Num 22–24: blessing instead of curse, Num 25: uncultic expiation by the zeal of Phinehas, Num 26: the second “turn” in the census, which also reveals preservation of Israel in its figures). This line of blessing and preservation additionally makes clear that the space enclosed by the mention of Kadesh (Num 13:26; 20:1) in the middle part of the book, is a negative space, which is marked by Israel’s gravitation towards death and decline. It is a decisive section in the middle part characterized by a chain of rebellion and the loss of an entire generation. These few observations also show that the middle part of the book is determined by a spatial structure. This is additionally corroborated by the itinerary notices tracking Israel’s journey – which frame the “Kadesh block” with three notes at the beginning (Num 10:11–12; 11:35; 12:16) and three notes at the end (Num 20:22; 21:4, 10–13) – until Num 22:1 (the final departure note) when the people reach the plains of Moab. Although the places mentioned in the locations of encampments cannot be unambiguously located or tied together in a concise, geographically concrete way, the departure and travel notes provide a recognizable spatial orientation of the “in-between” of the three poles: Sinai – Kadesh – Moab. Allow me at this point to make just one comment on an area that has not yet been addressed in this paper. The connections between the second part of Numbers (Num 10:11–14:45) and its fourth part (Num 21:1–25:18a) bracket a central, third part (Num 15:1–20:29). This central section, in contrast, is almost completely devoid of motion, which is not by chance. The dynamics of loss and preservation are driven instead by the implementation of an institution: hierocracy. It is the theocratic orientation of the book, which is the subject of this core: priestly ritual (Num 15; 19), priestly hierarchy (Num 16– 18) and succession (Num 20:23–29) as a means of preservation. This has to be kept in mind when it comes to the impact of the final composition of Numbers. In any case, with these observations on the spatial structure of the book, Martin Noth’s judgement given above, 37 concluding that the structure of the book is abundantly opaque can only be called a gross misjudgment. This common misunderstanding, that the book of Numbers is in itself disordered, almost chaotic and confusing, is most likely due to a second level organization, which superimposes the spatial structure, especially in the middle section. This second level is the close structural connection with the book of Exodus. Three focal points of networking can be identified. Firstly, the book 37

NOTH , Numeri (1977), 5: “[…] reichlich undurchsichtig.”

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

67

of Numbers appears to parallel the book of Exodus in its overall structure, secondly, the Sinai part is encased by the arrangement of the narratives in Num 11–2038 and thirdly, Numbers 1–10 is, above all, closely linked to Exod 35–Lev 27.

4. Parallelization Between Exodus and Numbers The structure oriented towards spatial categories and the movement between two diametric poles connects Exodus and Numbers. The poles are each connected by a transitory suspense line, but the auspices in Numbers are reversed with respect to Exodus. The division of the book of Exodus into three parts, which cannot be explained in more detail here, 39 represents (very roughly speaking) the transition from Egypt to Sinai via the wilderness. Egypt is the negatively occupied cultural land in which the oppressed people of God cannot thrive. It lacks the closeness to God and the lasting relationship with God. Sinai, on the other hand, is the positively occupied goal and center, in which the closeness to God, ordained on the mountain, enables a life in God’s presence. In the wake of the plague cycle, the celebration of the Pesach kicks off the exodus event, which represents the saving transition between the two poles. But the Sinai desert, which represents distance from life, does not offer the space to live in fellowship with God permanently, so that Israel remains in a state of already and not yet. The narrative thread of Exodus thus calls for continuation. This thread is taken up again in the book of Numbers after the “center at a standstill” Leviticus. The book of Numbers stretches the narrative arch from Sinai to the outer edge of the cultivated land. It begins in the posi38 In the following, earlier observations on the overall composition of the Pentateuch are taken up and expanded. Cf. already ZENGER, Pentateuch (1996), 5–34; IDEM, Levitikus (1999), 47–83 as well as the considerations in IDEM et al., Einleitung (2012), 62–9 with further references. See also F REVEL , Götter (2003), 3–22; IDEM, Numeri (2017). 39 The established division into seven parts (Weimar/Zenger, Scharbert and others) causes problems in a threefold respect. On the one hand the border between Exod 15:21 and Exod 15:22 is not sufficiently effective, on the other hand the framing of the sevenpartite structure is only fixed on the first part of the Sinai event and shows rather an interest in the revaluation of the pre-priestly Sinai narrative than in the final composition. Thirdly, the separation of the Sinaitic shrine complex between Exod 24:11/Exod 24:12 and the associated revaluation of the theophany in relation to the indwelling raises the question whether the Sinai theology of the final composition and the central position of the book Leviticus can be captured appropriately. Without being able to explain this in detail here, a rough division into three parts of the book of Exodus suggests itself (Exod 1:1–15:21; 15:22–18:27; 19:1–40:38), even if it remains rather superficial. However, Exod 15:22– 18:27 form an oscillating intermediate element and form a transitory intermediate area. The two important exterior parts are each completed by a significant life-giving highlight: liberation at the Red Sea and foundation of the presence of God in the midst of the people.

68

Literature, History and Ideology

tively charged Sinai as a place of nearness to God and of divinely granted encounter. The journey away from Sinai towards the border of the cultivated land is again characterized by Israel’s endangerment in the wilderness. However, where the liberation in Exodus was initially threatened from the outside, Israel’s murmuring against God in Numbers poses a threat from within. This endangerment began in Exodus between the Red Sea and Sinai with the murmuring stories of Exod 15–17 (Exod 15: Marah; Exod 16: guidance, manna and quails; Exod 17: Massah and Meribah). In Numbers the threat by external forces is again accumulating after the stay in Kadesh up to the land (Num 20: Edom; Num 21: Canaanites; Num 22–24: Moabites; and with a certain special position Num 25/31: Midianites), whereby the blessing, the accompaniment and preservation by God and/or the success in acting increase. Thus from Num 21 onwards the challenge of Israel’s existence is balanced and finally pushed back. The correspondences in the narratives of the two transition areas before and after the Sinai (Exod 15:22–18:27 and Num 10:11–21:35), which were already mentioned above, are particularly clear. Manna and quails (Exod 16; Num 11), water from the rock (Exod 17; Num 20 [with reception of the ‫מרה‬ from Exod 15:23]), guidance and authority (Exod 18; Num 11–12). These parallels become even more obvious by additional correspondences: The father-in-law of Moses is mentioned in Exod 18 (Jethro) and Num 10:29–30 (Hobab), 40 the wife of Moses in Exod 18 (Zipporah) and Num 12 (the Cushite). Miriam, who elsewhere goes unmentioned, appears in Exod 15:21 and Num 12:1; 20:1. Only in Exod 17 and Num 13:29; 14:25, 43, 45 are the Amalekites mentioned. 41 In both stories Joshua plays a prominent role. The root ‫ לון‬occurs in the Pentateuch only in Exod 15:24; 16:2, 7, 8; 17:3 and then again in Num 14:2, 27, 29, 36; 16:14; 17:20 (in the meaning “to complain”). Taken together, these correspondences are so dense that a compositional design cannot be dismissed. Through the transition areas (Exod 15:22–18:39 and Num 10:11–21:34) Mount Sinai is compositionally embraced. In addition, there are three further significant correspondences in the structure of the books of Exodus and Numbers in different book parts, which can only to be indicated here: Both books begin with a list of twelve members introduced by ‫ואלה שׁמות‬ (Exod 1:1–4; Num 1:5–15). The ‫ הבאים מצרימה‬in Exod 1:1 corresponds to the polar formulation Num 1:1 ‫לצאתם מארץ מצרים‬. The book-openings are thus aligned. ‫ חת ן‬does not occur between Exod 18 and Num 10:29 and is only attested there in Num. The ‫ מדי ן‬in Exod 18:1 corresponds to the ‫ המדיני‬in Num 10:29. In between there is no mention of Midian. 41 The Balaam saying Num 24:20 is the only exception. Deuteronomy 25:17, 19 then refers to the Amalekite resistance in Exod 17. 40

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

69

It has already been pointed out several times that the great interpreting narratives Exod 32–3442 and Num 13–14 are programmatically and theologically interlocked. They could be described as a diptych. They represent a failure of the people with far-reaching consequences and a limited punishment of God, which are characterized by the prioritization of mercy over justice. God’s reconciling will of salvation prevails, it enables survival and the continuation of the program of salvific history. This corresponds to the quotation of the grace formula from Exod 34:6–7 in Num 14:18, as well as the role of the intercessor Moses (Exod 32:9–14; Num 14:13–19) and the meaning of God’s togetherness (Exod 33; Num 14:42–43). The latter in particular makes it clear that both stories are about the conversion of the salvific will of God and the questioning of divine guidance. Of particular importance are the arrangement of the Pesach before the procession and the functional correspondence of the plagues of Egypt to the murmuring stories in the desert. The regulations about the Pesach festival Num 9:1–14 are deliberately placed before the departure of Sinai (cf. Exod 12). In order to ensure this, a “flashback” into the first month of the second year is constructed by dating, so that the catch-up date of the Pesach is immediately before the departure from Sinai. The parallelism between departure from Egypt and departure from Sinai is unmistakable. It is not so much the reconstitution of Israel, which is endangered by the golden calf, as D. T. Olson43 has interpreted, but rather a macro-compositional equivalent. In the final form of the book Exodus ten plagues determine the exodus event. The middle part of the book of Numbers – from the departure from Sinai until Shittim – contains ten narratives in which rebellion (either by individuals or by the entire people) occur. The people are therefore reduced between the two censuses by the fatal punishments enacted upon the exodus generation. Although one may argue about the division of the murmuring narratives into ten units, a compositional correspondence with the exodus plagues is nevertheless undeniable. Accordingly, the focus is not on the claim of a literary 1:1 correspondence or an intertextual link between plagues and murmuring, 44 rather, it is about the functional analogy between the plagues as the threat to Egypt for the preparation of the rescue miracle at the Red Sea and the threat to the inner unity of God’s people through the rebellion against God’s salvation. The struggle of YHWH with external resistances against the Cf. e.g., BLUM , Studien (1990), 190–1; WIDMER, Dynamics (2004), 7–8. OLSON, Numbers (1996), 51: “This second Passover in Numbers 9 signals the reconstitution of Israel after the golden calf debacle has endangered Israel’s status as God’s holy people.” 44 Also, the reference to the functional correspondence of plagues and post-Sinaitic murmuring narratives is not intended to deny the compositional references between the murmuring narratives before and after Sinai. Cf. already above and SCHART, Konflikt (1990), 49–57. 42 43

70

Literature, History and Ideology

exodus project corresponds to the struggle with internal resistances against the eisodus project on the final text level. This compositional coincidence parallels the liberation at the Red Sea with the gift of the land and marks it as a combined event. The narrative thus unfolds a dynamic of promise for the textual section Num 10:11–20:29 (or 22:1 respectively), aiming at the gift of land, which is still outstanding even after reaching the border “in the plains of Moab.” The increasing severity of the plagues against Pharaoh/Egypt and the retarding pattern of refusal, coercion, consent, relief and renewed refusal corresponds to the ever-increasing dynamics of blessing in the middle section of the book of Numbers and the retarding pattern of the murmuring stories with rebellion, punishment, intercession, relief and new rebellion. Just as Pharaoh and Egypt were punished for their questioning of the power of God, so Israel is punished for its refusal to completely enter into God’s salvific devotion with complete trust. The steady growth of the exodus generation in Egypt is matched by their steady reduction in the desert. With these observations of the macro-compositional correspondence of Exodus and Numbers, on the one hand the compositional bracketing function around the Sinaitic center is strengthened; on the other hand, the dynamics directed towards the land are recognizable in the correspondence between exodus and eisodus. Up to now, the compositional correspondences for the two outer parts of the book of Numbers have been much less pronounced than for the middle part of the book. This is due to the special nature of these parts of the book. The two framing parts (like the book’s beginning and book’s end, see above) each take on a double function, insofar as they are oriented Janus-faced looking both into the book and beyond. This observation will be further explained in the following two sections.

5. The Janus Face of Numbers 1–10 Unlike the book of Leviticus, the book of Numbers has no single “center,” but is composed linearly such that the journey towards the land is characterised by the tension “in-between” the two censuses. It is rather the hierarchical implementation of the Aaronides in the third part Num 15:1–20:29 that forms the compositional pivot. This places the center, strikingly, outside of Sinai, which is most important for the book of Leviticus. This forms a deliberate play of succession: constitution at Sinai and implementation beyond. Thus, Sinai remains important for the book of Numbers. A closer look at Numbers 1–10 can demonstrate that the Sinai even remains constitutive for the structure of the book. Numbers 1–10 is the most underestimated in terms of its function and performance in research. This underestimation is echoed in the judgments of e.g., Bruno Baentsch, for whom the whole section was pretty

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

71

much one of the most tedious ever produced in literature. 45 The devaluation is based on the post-Sinaitic position and on the misconception that priestly epigones had added less important laws to it, which no longer found a place in the Sinai narrative itself. The judgement is often also connected with a devaluation of the theological meaning of the laws in the book of Numbers in general. However, even at a glance, the number of formulaic speech introductions demonstrates that the book of Numbers does not fall behind Leviticus in terms of its revelatory function. In total, there are 68 speeches of God in the book of Numbers: That is almost twice as many as in the book Leviticus! This is striking even if it is taken into account that Numbers has 1,289 verses in contrast to 869 verses in Leviticus, and even if the introductory formulae of narratives are left out. The character of God’s speeches in the book of Numbers cannot be discussed here in detail, but some summarizing observations are in order: (1) Sections I, III and V contain the lion’s share of occurrences, with a decreasing tendency as the book progresses: Num 1–10 (24) and Num 15:1–20:23 (18) and Num 26:1–36:13 (13). Sections II and IV in contrast contain comparatively few speeches of God: Num 11–14 (8) and Num 21–25 (5). (2) Apart from three easily explainable exceptions (Num 18:1, 8, 20), the speeches are addressed to Moses alone. The number of deviating introductory formulae in which Aaron (Num 2:1; 4:1, 17; 14:26; 16:20; 19:1; 20:12, 23), Aaron and Miriam (Num 12:4) and Eleazar (Num 26:1) are named as addressees is higher in absolute terms than in Lev, but in percentage terms the deviation is comparable (14 % in Lev vs. 16 % in Num) or even lower if the instances from narrative passages are not taken into account. This means that Moses remains the dominant figure in the communication with God – or in other words: God continues the speech events beyond Leviticus and Sinai. However, the speeches of God in Numbers clearly differ in several points from those in Leviticus. (3) The speeches in the book of Numbers are more glowing in their propagation and aim far more at immediate implementation. Where in Leviticus Moses is infrequently the subject of a speech, and it is rarely reported that he implements the commandments, 46 Numbers is crossed by reports of execution and the transmission of speech: Num 1:17, 19, 45 BAENTSCH , Exodus [1903], 444: “Übrigens gehört der ganze Abschnitt so ziemlich zu dem Ödesten, das in der Literatur jemals produziert worden ist.” 46 With exceptions in, e.g., Lev 8:4: ‫ ;וי עשׂ מ שׁה כא שׁר צ ו ה י הו ה א ת ו‬Lev 8:5: ‫ו יא מ ר משׁ ה‬ ‫ ;אל־ העדה זה הדבר אשׁ ר־ צוה י הוה ל עשׂ ות‬Lev 21:24: ‫וי דבר משׁ ה אל־ אהרן ואל־ בני ו ואל־ כל ־בני‬ ‫ ;ישׂר אל‬Lev 23:44: ‫ ;וי דבר משׁ ה את־ מע די י הוה אל־בני י שׂראל‬Lev 24:33: ‫וי דבר משׁה אל־ בני־‬ ‫ישׂר אל‬.

72

Literature, History and Ideology

54; 2:33; 3:16, 42, 49; 4:49; 5:4; 7:6, 89; 8:3–4, 20, 22; 9:5; 15:36; 17:26; 20:9, 27; 21:9; 25:5; 26:3; 27:22–23; 30:1–2; 31:6, 31, 41; 36:5–6 et al. (cf. also only the phrase … ‫ככל אשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה כן‬, Num 1:54; 2:34; 8:20; 9:5; cf. 30:1 or the phrase ‫כאשׁר צוה יהוה את־‬ ‫ משׁה‬which occurs 13 times in Numbers [Exodus 24 times; Leviticus 8 times; Deuteronomy once; Joshua 3 times]). 47 The laws are issued and immediately applied, many of which are announced publicly to the Israelites. Compared to that, one of the special features of the book Leviticus is that the laws are not expressly promulgated, written or applied. Despite these differences, it is clear that legislation remains important in the book of Numbers even after Sinai. It is not a revelation of subordinate or second degree, which is less important compared to Exodus and Leviticus from the start. This holds true for the whole book and not just for the Sinai part in Num 1–10. This particularly valorizes the last part of the book in Num 26:1–36:12 with its quite juridical view of the land. But let us first return to Num 1–10. Often the laws in Num 1–10 are exclusively connected with the topic of departure. Norbert Lohfink for instance argues that the laws do not belong to the Sinai context because of their content; they are preparatory in character and thus belong to the wilderness period.48 In my opinion, neither the concise structure of Num 1–10, nor the function of the “interspersed laws” are acknowledged properly. The consecration of the Levites (Num 8:5–26) as well as the initial operation of the candelabrum (Num 8:1–4) demonstrate that Num 1–10 is intended to be understood as “Sinaitic.” Erhard Blum, too, understood the laws in Num 1–10 as situation specific (situationsbezogene Instruktionen), but associated them with important observations on their function to enclose the book of Leviticus. The section is understood as a progression of Exod 25–40, which is related to the situation of desert migration.49 But even according to Blum, the laws have a different quality for the addressees than “real” commandment texts.50 Numbers 1–10 remain unThe distribution shows, however, that the phrase in Exod and Lev is more clearly concentrated on a few sections, while in the book of Numbers it is pervasive: Exod 12:28, 50; 39:1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31; 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 39, 32; Lev 8:9, 13, 17, 21, 29; 9:10; 16:34; 24:23; Num 1:19; 2:33; 3:51; 8:3, 22; 15:36; 26:4; 27:11; 31:7, 31, 41, 47; 36:10; Deut 34:9; Josh 11:15; 11: 20; 14:5. 48 LOHFINK, Prolegomena (2003), 185: “Die göttlichen Anordnungen in Numeri 1–10 bereiten zumeist den Aufbruch vom Sinai vor. Die wenigen eigentlichen Gesetze sind nur eingestreut. So wird man das Ganze doch schon der Wüstenzeit, von der Numeri handelt, und nicht mehr dem Sinai zuordnen können.” 49 Cf. BLUM, Studien (1990), 301–2. 50 BLUM , Studien (1990), 301: “Zum anderen bleiben sie bezogen auf die Situation der Wüstenwanderung und haben insofern für die Adressaten eine andere Qualität als ‘eigentliche’ Gebotstexte.” 47

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

73

derdetermined in their function and meaning. In addition, Blum himself has seen that his functional determination is much more drawn from Num 1–4 than from Num 5–10. If one looks at the whole section, it quickly becomes clear that the laws cannot be described only as a continuation of Exod 25–40, nor can they be reduced to the departure or the desert situation. Although in diachronic respect the assessment is correct that above all quite late material has been gathered here, the entire section is concisely composed. An oscillation between backtracking and foresight can be observed throughout. The laws are geared towards the goal of living in the land. They design permanent regulations and point beyond the situation of departure from and the staying at Sinai. 51 These include the provisions on embezzlement (Num 5:1–10), the sotah ritual (Num 5:11–31), the Nazirite ordinance (Num 6:1–21), the priestly blessing (Num 6:22–27) and the provisions on the postponed date of the Pesach (Num 9:1–14). The Janus face of the passage, which appears in almost every section of the 24 speeches of God in Numbers 1–10, can only be briefly concretized here using two examples: the menorah in Num 7–8 and the trumpets in Num 10. (1) Numbers 7–8 complete the consecration of the sanctuary, which was described already in Exod 40 and Lev 8–9. Thus, this section relates to the enabling of a permanent atoning cult. With this, before the departure from Sinai, they create a cult related “Sinaitic” image of the holy people Israel. This emphasizes how much the existence of Israel in the orderly, pure and holy camp is determined by the presence of God. It underlines the importance of the cult that provides atonement and secures God’s presence. The stubbornly diachronic (un)solved problems of chronology in Num 7 suddenly make sense on the synchronic level. Numbers 7:1, 10 date the event, more precisely the textual extent of the following five speeches (Num 7:1–8, 26), to the day of the consecration of the sanctuary. According to Erhard Blum, the section thus reveals itself as a supplement. 52 As correct as the assumption of a supplement may be in diachronic perspective, the peculiarity of chronology remains. 53 In fact the entire block functions as a flashback (B. A. Levine) to the dense description in Exod 40; Lev 8–9. “Exodus 40 and Leviticus 8 provide background for the opening statements of the present chapter, which refer to the unction and consecration of the Tabernacle.” 54 With the consecration of the shrine, the reader sees himself in a dynamic that will be maintained from now on. Cf. LEE, Coherence (2008), 473–89. Cf. BLUM, Studien (1990), 301. 53 Here it is not necessary to go into detail about the problems of the twelve-day course and the tensions with the eight-day course of the priestly ordination. The two systems are not fully compatible, as confirmed by the presumption of a supplement. While Num 7 attaches importance to the participation of all Israel, the ritual in Lev 8 – also unaffected by the Sabbath – is based on a seven-day scheme. 54 LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 247. 51 52

74

Literature, History and Ideology

Initially, the donated means of transport (Num 7:1–3) are aimed at departure. This makes it clear that Num 7 is by no means misplaced at this point. The initial gift of the tribes for the consecration of the altar, on the other hand, is (as the consecration of the Levites in Num 8) a continuation of the consecration ceremony from Lev 8–9. Only the donated cult vessels make it possible to carry out the cult permanently. The ordination of the Levites complements the priestly ordination in Lev 8 and falls back in several details on Exod 25–40. The consecration of the Levites is recognizably parallel with the consecration of the priests. The sacrificial cult is only practicable with the institution of the Levites – or in other words: the cult is only fully initiated with the consecration and institution of the Levites. This is made clear in, e.g., the commissioning of the menorah in Num 8:1– 4. This section refers to Exod 25:31–40; 35:14; 37:17–24; 39:37; 40:4, 24. Numbers 8:4 explicitly emphasizes the accordance of the candelabrum with the ‫ מראה‬seen by Moses on Sinai. The ‫ כן עשׂה את־המנרה‬in Num 8:4b refers back to Exod 36:11, 22, 29 and esp. Exod 40:16. Thus the unit is linked quite closely to the latter part of Exodus. The flashback function of the verse is made clear because Moses had already completed the lampstand in Exod 37:17–24. Unlike the other cult requisites, the lampstand had not yet been explicitly put into operation. While in Num 3:30–31; 4:9 the Kohathites had been assigned for the transport and care of the lampstand, Aaron was already assigned in Lev 24:2–4 for the service of the menorah. Numbers 8:2–3 relate to this when the commissioning is referred to by “when you set up” (‫)ב העלתך‬. This in turn falls back on Exod 27:20, where pure oil is to be made available “that a lamp may be set up to burn continually” (‫)להעלת נר תמיד‬. Exodus 30:7–8 also mentions Aaron’s daily service at the candelabrum. There he was summoned to offer a daily ‫ קטרת סמים‬while preparing (i.e., keeping them functional and clean, ‫ )בהיטיבו את־הנרת‬the lamps. The incense offering should also accompany the lamp service at other times of the day ( ‫ובהעלת‬ ‫אהרן את־הנרת בין הערבים‬, v. 8) and this was ordained as, “a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations” (‫קטרת תמיד לפני יהוה‬ ‫)לדרתיכם‬. Only here is this daily and durable service taken up for the first time, because before Num 8 there is no execution report related to the lampstand and its service. Thus Num 8 sets a permanent dynamic in motion, which has been prepared in Exodus and Leviticus. The ever-burning lamp – which by its design with flowers and leaves symbolizes not only the enlivening and meaningfulness of the cult but also the prosperity of Israel, who celebrates in the enlivening presence of the exodus-God – is the last cult inventory of the tabernacle that is put into operation and which (from now on) will remain in operation (after Num 8:4 the menorah is not mentioned again in the Torah!).

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

75

With the lamp, the cult is initiated exemplarily and finally at the tent of meeting. This does not take place on the day of the departure, but in the departure of Israel the installation and initiation is remembered by looking forward. The breaking of the chronological order is thus directed specifically towards the oscillation between initiation and installation of the cult for Israel, which is now no longer Sinaitic. Hermeneutically, the entire intermediate area is thus taken into the ceremony of consecration by forming a bridge with Exod 25–40. Here Erhard Blum’s observation that through Num 1–10 the orders of Leviticus want to be understood as the equivalent of the institution is true. The cult is only fully installed with Num 8, but with a decisive look ahead. Only then does the tabernacle unfold its function as a wandering Sinai (Benno Jacob)55 and only then do the people serve the God who moves with them in the pillar of cloud and remains present (Num 9:19, 23) in perfect agreement with the provisions given at Sinai. This could be shown analogously in the second awkward verse of the section, Num 7:89, but here I would like to briefly draw attention to the final section, the manufacture of the trumpets in Num 10. (2) The command for the production of the trumpets (‫)חצוצרת‬, which are mentioned only here in the Pentateuch, seems to be motivated exclusively by the departure from Sinai. The trumpets are to be sounded at Israel’s departure, which is now imminent. On the theological level they represent the response given by the priests, on behalf of the people, to God’s signal in the pillar of cloud. 56 Nevertheless, their function is not limited to the situation of departure, which is not an end in itself. Two areas of application are already mentioned in the arrangement for production. Even before the function of blowing to depart, the trumpets are to serve to call the ‫ העדה‬at festive times (‫)והי ו לך למקרא העדה‬. The term ‫מקרא‬, which is only used once in Num 10, builds a bridge to the permanent cult in the annual cycle. For besides Exod 12:16 and Num 10:2 the term is found only in the festal calendar prescriptions of Lev 23 (12x) and Num 28–29 (6x). The linear dynamic of the departure is here linked with the cyclical return in the cultic calendar. Thus the moment of departure, which is pointing beyond Sinai, is stabilized. Israel is Israel only if it is “Sinaitic” even beyond Sinai. How much the section looks beyond the organizational moment of an orderly departure is shown by vv. 9–10, which in chiastic correspondence to v. 2 take up the use of trumpets beyond the signal of departure. There, in addition to the calendrical use, the trumpets are employed in the regular sacrificial service (for the burnt sacrifices and the offerings of well-being) and in temporary wars, which – and this is significant – are explicitly located in the land (‫)בארצכם‬. The trumpet signal is intended so, “that you may be remembered 55 56

Cf. J ACOB, Exodus (1992), 1047. See BUDD, Numbers (1984), 107.

76

Literature, History and Ideology

before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies” (Num 10:9: ‫ונזכרתם לפני י הוה‬, 10:10: ‫)והיו לכם לזכרון לפני אלהיכם‬, in order to motivate the preserving and saving intervention of the exodus-God. The unusual formulations refer to the end of the book of Leviticus, where God was the subject of memory. There the perspective of the promise was unfolded, that God would commemorate his covenant with the fathers and the land for preservation and salvation (Lev 26:42, 45). The unbreakable devotion of God in the oath to the ancestors is a lasting promise. History that turns to redemption and salvation is linked to the innermost character of God. The covenant of the ancestors and the Sinai covenant are constructively intertwined. At the very end of the stay at Mount Sinai (exactly in the last verse) the very forefront of the exodus project is invoked by the phrase “bringing into memory” (Num 10:9: ‫ונזכרתם לפני יהוה אלהיכם‬, Num 10:10: ‫לזכרון‬, cf. Exod 2:24; 6:5). The second textual signal is the affirming assurance “I am YHWH, your God” (‫)אני יהוה אלהיכם‬. Of course, the phrase ‫ אני יהוה‬occurs more often, also in the book of Numbers (Num 3:13, 41, 45; 14:35; 15:41 [bis]; 35:34). The exact formulation of Num 10:10 with the counterpart bound by an enclitic personal pronoun, however, is found 22 times in Leviticus, most recently in Lev 26:13. At the beginning and at the end of Lev 26, the defining presentation of “I am YHWH” is brought in programmatically, summarizing the promises that were given during the exodus and at Sinai. The final verses (Lev 26:44–45) in particular are marked by repetitions of “I am YHWH, your God.” Leviticus 26 is – as shown above – of central importance for the understanding of the atonement theology and its integration into the Pentateuch. When Num 10 refers to it, Sinai, the migration and the land’s realization perspective are linked. In sum, Num 1–10 is anything but detached from Sinai, rather it is linked to it in many ways. At the end of Num 10, the institutional and calendrical integration of Sinai’s events into the durable cult opens up a central perspective of salvation that pushes beyond Num 10 and points to the land. The section has a threefold function: (1) In addition to the laws of departure there are permanent regulations (embezzlement, ordeal of jealousy, law of the Nazirite, priestly blessing), which are directed towards the implementation not only on the journey, but rather in the land. That strengthens Num 1–10 as a jurisdiction. In terms of importance and normativity, the provisions in Num 1–10 are not inferior to those in Exodus and Leviticus. (2) Numbers 1–10 look forward and configure Israel, sanctified by the indwelling divine center, for departure. The beginning and end of the section are tailored to the departure situation by the census, the determination of the Levite services during transport and by the production of the trumpets and the arrangement of the signals. This makes the

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

77

event dynamic beyond the Sinai. The suspense is continuously built up until the departure in Num 10. In the process, the long-term perspective and the goal of the land are repeatedly brought into focus: The responsibility of the priests and Levites for equipment and areas of the shrine remains permanent. The postponed Pesach festival date enables the celebration of the central exodus remembrance in the land even for problem cases. Trumpet signals are also intended for the ‫קהל‬assembly and the festivals in the land. (3) Numbers 1–10 follow Exod 25–40 and Leviticus, and offer a continuation of this section with interlocked provisions for the implementation of cultic equipment (demonstrated by using the example of the menorah). However, it is not only a matter of “finishing,” but of constitutive aspects that aim at the initiation of the cult and its permanent implementation. The promise that culminates at Sinai is alluded to and thus transferred theologically into perpetuation. Num 1–10 has consciously been given a very “Sinaitic face,” because the connection is achieved above all by the dating to the day of the dedication (altar consecration, consecration of the Levites) (Num 7:1; 9:15). Accordingly, Num 1–10 are closely interlocked with Exod 35:1–40:38 and Lev 26. The Holiness Code is thus not a consequence of the installation of the cult, but its proclamation is surrounded by the initiation. By this it becomes part of the institution of the cult. In addition, the book opening in Num 1:1 parallels Numbers with Leviticus in many ways and thus conveys a unity of the Sinai event, which reaches from Exod 19–Num 10:10. It was shown that Num 1–10 are closely linked to Sinai events and the Sinai legislation, and that the Sinai narrative would not be complete without Num 1–10. The above-mentioned aspects have underlined that the hermeneutical awareness of the authors of Num 1–10 is incredibly high. Theologically, Num 1–10 set dynamic accents that extend beyond Sinai. Viewed from Num 1–10, the book of Numbers cannot and will not fully stand alone. In a final step, this has to be reified in the last part of the book.

6. The Hexateuchal Character of Numbers 25:19–36:13 The narrative line of blessing, which is also important to understand the last part of the book, was already mentioned above and can be summarized here briefly: It shows up in the preservation and success of the land conquest and the life-saving making of the pole with the serpent of bronze in Num 21. The Balaam narrative (Num 22–24) also refers to the exodus event and the fulfilled promise of increase (Exod 1:7, 9; Num 22:3–4). Due to its size (‫כי רב ־‬ ‫)הוא‬, Israel appears to Balak to be a danger, which he tries to solve by curs-

78

Literature, History and Ideology

ing. However, the blessing can no longer be reversed, but only reaffirmed and enlarged. If the reference to the land was already implied in the spy narrative (Num 13–14) of part II and more or less clearly unfolded also in part III from Num 15:1 onwards, the reference to the land had, however, continued to increase in part IV from Num 20 onwards. It has culminated in the arrival to the plains of Moab in Num 22:1. The final part of the book is based on these preconditions and, like Num 1–10, unfolds a Janus face which, on the one hand, is marked by a strong parallelization with Num 1–10 and, on the other hand, evokes the context of the Hexateuch. The second census in Num 26 affirms the preservation of Israel through time. With a population decrease of only 1,820 from an initial 603,550 people, the loss of the exodus generation is almost compensated. The Levites have even increased from 22,000 in Num 3:39 to 23,000 in Num 26:62. Although there is a total loss of nearly 3% of the originally registered people, the symbolic representation of preservation is clear. With the realization of the complete disappearance of the exodus generation in Num 26:64, the expectation of a continuation of the land giving is renewed. This is underlined by the mention of Joshua and Caleb in Num 26:65, which refers to Num 14:24, 30, 38. From this point forward, the topic of land is on the agenda and will not be withdrawn in the entire final section. The final part shares a close correspondence with the first part of the book. Where in the beginning the tabernacle was in the center and the land was the goal of the departure, now it seems to be the other way around. The festival calendar and the vows (Num 28–30) aim at a cultic order in the land (Num 10:10) influenced by the Sinai events. In the following chapters the conquest and distribution of the land comes to the foreground. The second census (Num 26:1–65) creates the conditions for the distribution of land to the tribes, which reaches far beyond the limit of the book of Numbers to Josh 19:51.57 By the arrangement of the camp in Num 1–4, all Israel was ordered around the sanctuary as the center. The sanctifying God, who descended at Mount Sinai to take residence in the midst of the people (Exod 25:8; 29:46; Lev 26:11) shall also remain in the middle of the land (Num 35:34). Just as in the first part all Israel participated in the cult ordered by Moses (Num 7), which was organized and led by priests and Levites (Num 8), so now it is determined that all Israel shall participate in the conquest (Num 32). Just as the order observed in Num 8 protects against unlawful contact with the sanctum and the deadly consequences of doing so (see Lev 10!), so the united action of Israel in Num 32:7–15, 31–32 ensures that the catastrophe of Num 14 is not repeated.

57 The limit of the references is not already reached with Josh 12, against LEE, Punishment (2003), 290.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

79

The conquered land on the east side of the Jordan from Num 21:21–31:54 is distributed, and the conquest and distribution of Cisjordan is regulated within the explicitly outlined borders (Num 34). Levite and asylum cities (Num 35) are determined for the land on both sides of the Jordan, as are the inheritance law provisions in Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12. This landinheritance-legislation, which temporally demarcates land ownership for generations to come, surrounds the final part. If the first part was bound back to the exodus and Sinai narratives, Num 26–36 is not complete without the reference to Josh 13–22. Already Josh 1:10–18 picks up the thread from Num 32–35 again. The main characters of the conquest and distribution of Cisjordan (Josh 14:1; 19:51) are Eleazar, the successor of Aaron (Num 20:23–28), and Joshua, the successor of Moses (Num 27:15–23). In Josh 13:1–14 the subject from Num 32 is taken up again and the distribution of the land is prepared, it begins with a repeated report of the land in the Transjordan (Josh 13:15–33), after which the distribution of the land in Cisjordan is reported in the presence of the Reubenites and Gadites (Josh 14:1–19:51). Here, ensured by the framing notes Josh 14:1; 19:51, exactly the committee determined in Num 32:29 is employed. Joshua 17:3–4 refer to the orders of Num 27:7; 36:2. Joshua 20–21 narrate the selection of the asylum and Levite cities as ordered in Num 35. Joshua 21:43–45 conclude the conquest of the land and distribute it. In Josh 22:1–9 the Reubenites and Gadites, together with half-Manasseh,58 return to Gilead in Transjordan, referring to Num 32:20–22. The references could be increased and deepened, for example with regard to the land distribution committee, the allotment of land or the participation of the Gileadites in the conquest of Cisjordan. Hardly any piece within the Tetrateuch demands the connection with the book of Joshua as clearly as Num 27–36. 59 Although on the one hand Num 36:13 sets a clear book ending (see above), the fable of the last part configures the book as an open entity within a greater work.

Cf. F REVEL, Blick (2000), 207–8. For the diachronic evaluation of the references in the history of research, see the overview in NOORT, Josua (1998), 173–97 and now SEEBASS, Land (2006). Seebass describes above all the differences in land concepts and comes to the very far-reaching (and in my opinion inaccurate) conclusion: “Up to now I see no necessity to regard Joshua as the literary sequence of Numbers except for a few additions in both books” (IBIDEM , 103). Although it is important to record the differences, some differences are explained by the history of tradition, others by concepts. In any case, the compositional brackets between Num 32–36 and Josh 13–21 are not only editorially added. The dispute must be dealt with in more detail elsewhere. 58 59

80

Literature, History and Ideology

7. Deuteronomy 34 and Death at the River Border: An Outlook Consequently, Deuteronomy follows Numbers, because only the death of Moses, as an event, is still outstanding for the realization of the events based in the book of Numbers. Although this death sets a clear boundary that runs counter to the Hexateuch and identifies Deuteronomy as the end of a narrative arc, the bridge pillars of the book of Numbers are so concrete (in terms of the narrative context) that the bridge has to be built across Deuteronomy into the land. Without the conquest narrative, the arch remains incomplete. Hermeneutically, the interpretation of the Torah is thus integrated into the narrative, because Deuteronomy wants to be understood as an interpretation. With the last order given to Moses in Num 35, the death of the mediator in a certain sense already seems to have taken place. What follows is interpretation.60 Hermeneutically, the end of the book in Num 36 already indicates this. For already in Num 36 there is no further speech of God (the last speechintroduction is in Num 35:7). When the Gileadites approach Moses, they remind Moses of the YHWH speech from Num 27:6–11 and Moses answers one last time. However, although the issue is settled with an answer of God, it is not quoted with an introductory formula. Moses commands the Israelites “according to the word of the LORD” (‫על־פי יהוה‬, v. 5) without an explicit speech of YHWH in this regard. In his answer Moses is alluding to Num 27:7, and Moses himself interprets the YHWH speech from Num 27. Thus, he corresponds to the revealed will. Moses is the means of interpretation and the normative frame of interpretation is the word of God given in the Torah. Even if Deut 34:10–12 did not exist, the death of Moses in Deut 34 would close the book of Numbers without abandoning its open perspective beyond Deut 34. 61 The emphasis on the revelatory function of the mediator, Moses, which is maintained by the abundance of God’s speeches throughout the entire book, gives rise to a Pentateuch as a work constituted by references. This is performed already through the biographical watershed of Moses’s death at the end. The double face of the Pentateuch is thus reflected in a special way in the book of Numbers. In the final composition, the two perspectives, the concentric, which is oriented towards the reconciling Sinaitic center in Leviticus and 60 The discussion about the thesis that Deuteronomy sees itself as an interpretation cannot be conducted here. LOHFINK, Prolegomena (2003), 197–8 has most recently expanded the counterarguments. 61 The function of Deut 34:10–12 as a closure is often overestimated in recent times. Even if without doubt a clear cut is made by the final verses, the Pentateuch is not sufficiently defined as a literary work. The Pentateuch, as was explained in detail elsewhere (cf. FREVEL, Abschied [2001]), arises rather from the conception of Deuteronomy as a referential quantity from the book of Joshua. Also, very late Hexateuchal extensions speak against an absolute textual separation between Deut and Josh.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

81

the linear, Hexateuchal, which is oriented towards the gift of the land across the Jordan, cannot be separated from each other. It has become clear that without the book of Numbers the order of the people of God as a ritual community of the reconciling God, which is constituted in Exodus and particularly in Leviticus, would not take effect, just as the liberation of the exodus is not completed without the eisodus. Without Sinai, Israel will not enter the land. The blessing that determines the book of Leviticus at the end is developed in the book of Numbers in an eventful story, but with impressive dynamism and stringency. At the end of the book it is transferred into an open ending that consolidates the narrative position outside the land as a perspective of hope. The structure of the Tetrateuch is such that there can be no doubt that this hope will be realized in the land. The promise to the fathers, confirmed in the encounter and the promises of the Sinai pericope, finds its realization in the gift of land within the book of Numbers. The promise is at the same time already and not yet fulfilled. Numbers is thus a formative and formatting part of the Pentateuch and to some extent also of the Hexateuch.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges? The Role of the Book of Numbers in Recent Discussion of the Pentateuch Never should you ask me, Nor carry a concern for knowledge, Of the journey from where I came, Nor about my name and manner! Richard Wagner, Lohengrin

1. Shoals, Shallow Water and Several Channels: Remarks on Current Pentateuchal Scholarship Ever since the first edition of the Einleitung for which Erich Zenger was responsible, one sentence has characterized the “current state of scholarship”: “The scholarship of the Pentateuch, once the jewel of biblical scholarship, is currently its most difficult and controversial field.”1 The designation of the situation as a “crisis” in the 1980s allowed for hope to arise that it could soon be overcome. Nevertheless, the discord can hardly still be seen as an interim circumstance that promises to give way in the near future to the clarity of a broadly accepted thesis. On the contrary: the complexity and diversity of voices continues to increase. There are only a few that are still able to maintain an overview of Pentateuchal scholarship as a whole in light of the multiplicity of methods, perspectives and results of 200 years of historical-critical scholarship that continue to grow. Because there is neither general consensus for diachronic nor synchronic points of view, the framework of orientation for a sustainable and comprehensive hypothesis is missing. And visa-versa, the depth of analysis of individual texts is generally so great that the plurality of observations, arguments and hypotheses piles up to the point of confusion. Thomas Römer speaks of intellectual chaos and an anarchic situation that has persisted since the 1980s. 2 The strategies for handling the situation are diverse. In addition to attempts to minimize the differences, some seek radical 1 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 115. Cf. earlier, ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1995), 69: “Die Pentateuchforschung, einst Glanzstück der Bibelwissenschaft, ist ihr derzeit wohl schwierigstes und kontroversestes Feld.” 2 RÖMER, Urkunden (2013), 2–3.

84

Literature, History and Ideology

reductions of the complexity, most clearly the so-called “Neo-Documentarians” coalescing around Baruch Schwartz, Joel Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, who attempt to re-pristinize a classic source model. 3 While Fortschreibung in each of the four sources J, E, D and P is acknowledged pro forma, ongoing redaction-historical as well as literary-sociological considerations are methodologically subordinated, or even suppressed, or rejected in controversial discussions as methodologically unreliable. 4 When one holds – to mention just one example – on the other hand, like Christoph Berner, that the exodus narrative dissolves into so many processes of Fortschreibung that neither source nor foundational layer of text remains,5 it is not surprising that without agreement on presuppositions, discussion has become difficult. This is especially the case when texts are dissolved into their redaction history, and the linguistic relationships that they supposedly call forth are determined to be dependent upon one another. Pentateuchal scholarship is undoubtedly in need of methodical justification in the field before cascading redaction-historical assignments can be derived from the supposed terminological dependencies. In the meantime, there have arisen a multiplicity of de facto, insular, Pentateuchal hypothesis that are hardly in discussion with one another. What makes the situation more difficult is that these models are often built upon a very narrow set of texts and observations, 6 so their transferability to the phenomenon of the Torah as a whole still remains to be demonstrated. 7 Although it has been a long time since there was the “European” Pentateuchal scholarship, different scholarly cultures contribute further to a lack of understanding. 3 For an overview, see BADEN, Composition (2012), 13–33, 45–81, 103–28, 129–48, 169–92, 214–29, 246–50; most succinctly IDEM, Re-Emergence (2012). 4 Cf. for background, S CHWARTZ, Critique (2011), 13–4. Cf. BADEN , Promise (2013), 139–41 on the role of the “compiler,” who apparently combined the sources as completely as possible and without theological intention (“lack of any theological intention in the process of compilation,” IBIDEM, 141), and was responsible for the final form of the Pentateuch such that no place for processes of redaction remained after the compilation. In this book Baden emphasizes again the significance of this theological development without locating it historically (see, e.g., IBIDEM , 134–7): “Absolute dating […] is technically not the concern of the documentary hypothesis” (IBIDEM, 137). 5 BERNER, Exoduserzählung (2010), 450–1. For a critical – though also (too) polemic – response, see ZIEMER, Diskussion (2013), 397–8. 6 Cf. the sharp criticism of the extrapolations in SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 32*. 7 ZIEMER recently attempted to turn the discussion once again to the post-biblical literature for an empirical model in order to arrive at greater certainty in the reconstruction of redactional processes. This led, however, to the argument that the narrative priestly frame texts […] were formulated precisely for the final form of the Pentateuch back to which MT, Sam and LXX can be traced (ZIEMER, Diskussion [2013], 399: “[…] [die] erzählenden priesterlichen Rahmentexte […] für genau diejenige Endgestalt des Pentateuch formuliert worden sind, auf welche sich MT, Samaritanus und LXX zurückführen lassen”). This simplistic model opposes the broad discussion of post-priestly additions in the Pentateuch that arise from observations of the text in hand.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

85

In addition, different terminology makes understanding even more difficult. For example, the Yahwist of Christoph Levin is something completely different than the Yahwists of Reinhard Gregor Kratz, John Van Seters, Ludwig Schmidt, or Joel Baden. They all share little more with the Yahwist of the Documentary Hypothesis than the name. Sometimes quite divergent conceptions operate under the siglum “P,” and the formations of divergent terms such as “post-priestly” and “post-final redactional” remain unwieldy and inconsistent. Something like Esperanto is currently missing, in which one could agree upon foundational issues such as the degree of cohesion and coherence that can be expected from traditional literature, conceptions of text and work, textual and linguistic relationships as criteria of literary dependence, elementary techniques of editing and the literary-sociological conditions for the formation of ancient literature. 8 In the following I single out three threads of the discussion in which the balance of Pentateuchal scholarship has shifted dramatically in the past decades. Through all three the book of Numbers – as Thomas Römer formulated appropriately – moves from the periphery to the center. 9 1.1 Lack of Consensus on the Basic Models One can argue about whether the Documentary Hypothesis has already collapsed or whether it is only no longer accepted by a continuously growing number as the unquestioned starting point for Pentateuchal scholarship. The fact that the dominance of the (and itself, however, modified in dates, sources, redactions, etc.) Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen model is broken in European scholarship as the explanatory model for the formation of the entire Pentateuch is basically indisputable, 10 even if the source model is still quite present in textbooks outside the scholarly discourse. 11 Yet there is even dispute over this elementary assessment. Baruch Schwartz objects that the exact criticisms of the source model remain unclear, and the content of the debate is mistaken for the description of its demise. 12 From his perspective, the model itself remains adequate: “There is nothing inherent in the tradition-historical investigation to negate the emergence of narrative sources in the form of literary documents, as von Rad and Noth clearly perceived, nor is there any8 This is documented, for example, in the volume by DOZEMAN/SCHMID /S CHWARTZ , Pentateuch (2011). 9 Cf. RÖMER, Périphérie (2008); F REVEL, Formation (2013). 10 Cf. K RATZ, Pentateuch (2011), 46; RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 419; IDEM, History (2013), 16, who laments, like S CHWARTZ, Critique (2011), 4–5, that a discussion of the basic arguments of the model is often missing. 11 RÖMER, History (2013), 16: “Statistically the Documentary Hypothesis is far from being given up, in my guess more than 90 % of the historical-critical teaching about the Pentateuch in the world still is done on the base of the Documentary Hypothesis.” 12 SCHWARTZ , Critique (2011), 3.

86

Literature, History and Ideology

thing that makes the documents identified by source criticism any more or less likely to emerge from the evolution of tradition and texts.” 13 It is not a question of whether the basic model in itself was fundamentally coherent – such an argument would almost be absurd, but in fact about whether the theory no longer optimally explains the given evidence – as it is portrayed in current (!) scholarship!14 For the classical criteria of the separation of sources are under debate for part of the text of the Pentateuch, as are the beginning and ending of the “sources,” not to mention their literary-sociological location and the presupposed linear editorial technique of compilation. It has long been accepted that the explanatory value of a hypothesis declines from Genesis on, and in the book of Numbers at the latest, it is quite limited,15 for the criteria of Genesis are no longer effective to the same degree or are at least not as directly applicable. The hypothesis does not, therefore, fulfill the demands that Baruch Schwartz apparently also places upon it: If a scholar were to succeed in producing an analysis in which the four sources did emerge clearly, their respective degrees of preservation in the canonical Torah were explained logically, the work of the redactor in combining them was elucidated consistently, and the discrepancies and discontinuities in the canonical Pentateuch – law and narrative – that the theory was developed in order to account for were satisfactorily explained, the hypothesis would have to be accepted, as it remains the most economical and literarily plausible way of accounting for the greatest amount of data. 16

One should state here with as much clarity as possible that this has yet to be achieved by the classical differentiation of sources, the Documentary Hypothesis, or the “Neo-Documentarians.” As a result – whether one likes it or not – the source-critical model is placed in question. Almost all recent hypotheses on the overall formation of the Pentateuch therefore resort to a combination of basic writing, Documentary, Fragmentary and Supplementary Hypothesis.17 SCHWARTZ , Critique (2011), 18; cf. also IBIDEM, 16. That this causes the hypothesis to waver is accepted by S CHWARTZ himself (Critique [2011], 14–15). His vehemently formulated critique of the designation “model,” is questionable, in my view, in terms of the philosophy of science and does not bring clarity. 15 Cf. FREVEL, Pentateuch, p. 121 in the present volume. Often cited is NOTH, Numbers (1968), 4: “If we were to take the book of Numbers on its own, then we would think not so much of ‘continuous sources’ as of an unsystematic collection of innumerable pieces of tradition of very varied content, age and character (‘Fragment Hypothesis’).” It is often overlooked, though, that Martin Noth then does go on to identify the Yahwist and the Priestly Document in Numbers. ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie I (2011), 172, 182 correctly underscores Martin Noth’s generally careful distance. 16 SCHWARTZ , Critique (2011), 16. 17 This is marked very clearly the documented changed in the “Münster Pentateuch Model” from source criticism to a combining compromise model (see ZENGER et al., Einleitung [2016], 104–6, 109–10, 123–6, 211–2 et al.). For a combination of a basic layer model, cf. the earlier work of LEVIN, Jahwist (1993), 34 also with the very appropriate 13 14

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

87

A further mark of recent discussion is constituted by the insight that the tradition and redactional-historical processes in the individual books or rolls, narrative complexes, and works18 need not have proceeded identically and therefore should not be construed uniformly.19 One can no longer hold to one Pentateuch redactor in the classic sense, who determined the structure of the Pentateuch through the combination of the preexisting sources. While the Documentary Model, as in the “quest for the historical Jesus,” pushed the beginnings of the literary production to the forefront, today the closing questions of the formation and redaction processes are more prominent. While this in no way makes the search for the beginnings obsolete, this search – following among others, tendencies in the reconstruction of the history of Israel – have shifted from the period of the early state to the late pre-exilic and often even into the post-exilic period. Questions regarding the configuration of the overall narrative complexes are, therefore, of central importance both for scholarship on the Pentateuch and on the so-called Deuteronomistic History. When were the primeval history and the ancestral narratives, the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative, exodus and conquest narrative first connected with one another in literary terms? 20 Even this formulation itself suggests that the presumption of one literary scheme that combined the narrative materials in one “source” in a more or less auctorial rather than redactional fashion would be viewed as reference to Julius Wellhausen and finally RÖMER, Urkunden (2013), 4, who also concludes that older scholarship was considerably more flexible in its combination of basic models. 18 The terms have a heuristic function. As narrative complexes there are, e.g., the primeval history, the ancestral narrative and the exodus (and conquest) narrative; as works on the other hand are those construed as “teuchs”: Tria-, Tetra-, Penta-, Hexa- and Enneateuch. There is certainly some haziness in the terms. In recent discussion, the question of the division of the books and the binding of the rolls plays a large role, especially for the late redactional phases. Cf. e.g., on the book of Numbers RÖMER, Urkunden (2013), 15, 19. 19 The “Neo-Documentarian” school instead maintains that the transmission processes – however complex as they might have been – condensed into the four strands JEDP: “There is in principle no reason that the tradition-critical approach cannot coexist with the conclusion that the culmination of the tradition-historical process – the penultimate stage in the formation of the Pentateuch – was in fact the four documents that source critics identify” (SCHWARTZ , Critique [2011], 16). As has been shown above, it would be absurd to disagree with the first part of the statement, but the fact that it is possible does not necessary mean that it is probable. The clear limits of the model even appear in the lack of compositional homogeneity between the remaining entities of J, E and P, which in their reconstructed forms are only partially connected to earlier scholarship. 20 In each case further distinctions are possible like e.g., between the ancestral and the Joseph narrative, or between the exodus narrative, the Sinai theophany, wilderness narrative and conquest narrative. In this particular question, the scholarship of the Pentateuch and the discussion surrounding the Deuteronomistic History are conspicuously analogous.

88

Literature, History and Ideology

obsolete. 21 This doubt is summarized in the slogan-esque phrase “farewell to the Yahwist,” 22 with the result that now only the Priestly Document is described as responsible for creating the original connection between the ancestral narrative and the exodus narrative, which – this also marks recent arguments – did not extend beyond Sinai. 23 The non-priestly material, respectively, is subordinated within a Fragmentary or Supplementary Hypothesis. One can view this pointed “farewell” as premature and contradict it like Levin with a “Welcome Yahwist!” 24 or at least – as in the English variant of the book that appeared four years after the German one – supply it with a question mark. 25 At minimum, it can be said that the sustainability of the hypothesis that the Priestly Document, either as a “source” or “redaction,”26 as the only remaining source plus everything non-priestly as post-priestly redaction to the Duo- (Genesis–Exodus) or Triateuch27 (Genesis–Leviticus), has been challenged on multiple fronts. While a few maintain that there was a nonDeuteronomistic, pre-priestly and also a late dated Yahwist, the “Münster Pentateuch Model,” 28 developed primarily by Erich Zenger, proposes the alternative of a “Jerusalemite History” from the 7th cent. BCE, which bound the antecedent narrative complexes into a foundational myth for Israel. 29 While it was unquestionable for the four-source model that the first narrative strand extended at least as far as Balaam, if not to the conquest of the Trans- or Cisjordan, recently this has been placed in question, which has pushed the book of Numbers into the center of attention. Were the nonpriestly narrative traditions that are generally found in Num 11–12; 13–14; 21 The “Yehowist,” whom the Münster Pentateuch Model accords responsibility within the so-called Jerusalemite History for the overarching narrative arc and the outline of the history, is at the same time compiler, redactor and author in a Wellhausian sense. 22 GERTZ et al., Abschied (2002); D OZEMAN /S CHMID, Farewell (2006). 23 This is the outline by Otto, who locates the core of the formation of the Pentateuch in exilic/post-exilic Deuteronomy and the Priestly Document like the two focal points of an ellipsis, which were first connected with one another by a post-exilic Hexateuch redaction; cf. the overview in OTTO, Pentateuch (2011). 24 LEVIN, Abschied (2004), 344. 25 D OZEMAN /S CHMID, Farewell (2006). 26 On the issue of source or redaction, see the overview in W ÖHRLE , Fremdlinge (2012), 12–5. 27 The German-speaking discussion uses the terms “Triateuch” (Römer [2013], Frevel, Seebass), “Tritoteuch” (Römer [2008], Otto, Achenbach) and “Triteuch” (Albertz). The last of the three was used at the beginning of the 19 th cent. with regard to Athanasius for JoshJdg-Ruth, so “Triateuch” seems better to me. 28 See the overview in ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 123–6. On its genesis and current form, see also F REVEL, Relationship, p. 435–40 in the present volume. 29 Reinhard G. Kratz limits the Yahwist to Genesis and, along with this Yahwist, sees the Hexateuchal exodus-conquest narrative as the basic material of the Pentateuch (see KRATZ, Pentateuch [2011], 47, 65–6). Except for the quite late combination of “J” and “E,” this model is very close to the conception of the Jerusalemite History.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

89

16; 20–21; 22–24; 25; 32 all first attached after P, or were they at least in part attached to a pre-priestly narrative strand that narrated at least from the exodus story in the direction of the land? 1.2 The Extent and Composition of the Priestly Material The second strand of the discussion is also comprised of numerous aspects. One is the debate over the extent of the original priestly historical narrative (Pg). It is now more than 25 years since Lothar Perlitt, who died several years ago (2012), argued against of any part of Deut 34 belonging to the original Priestly Document,30 which initiated a competition of shortening the conclusion of the historical narrative in scholarly discourse, to Num 27:23 (Bernd Janowski, Jean Louis Ska), 31 Num 10:9 (Otto Kaiser), 32 Lev 16:28 (Matthias Köckert, Christophe Nihan), 33 Lev 9:24 (Erich Zenger), 34 Exod 40:34 (Reinhard G. Kratz), 35 Exod 40:33b (Thomas Pola), 36 and the furthest is back to the events at Sinai in Exod 29:46 (Eckart Otto). 37 I have addressed these propositions in critical fashion elsewhere, as part of a plea for Deut 34:8 as the end of Pg, so I will not repeat it here. 38 I only underscore again that, if Israel remains at Sinai after the exodus, then questions raised about the meaning of the promise of land given to Abraham in Gen 17:8 and reinforced in Exod 6:8 so far remain unsatisfactorily answered in my opinion by alternative proposals. In the current context, a more important question that arises from the shortening of P is the growth of the priestly material, especially if P originally concluded no later than Lev 16 and was then supplemented by the Holiness Code (H) in Lev 17–26 and 27, but H does not extend substantially beyond the boundaries of the book of Leviticus. Then where does the priestly narrative and legislative material in the book of Numbers, found in Num 1–10; 13– 14*; 16–17*; 18; 19; 20; 25:6–18; 26–31; 33–36, belong? And how do the PERLITT , Priesterschrift (1988). JANOWSKI, Tempel (1993), esp. 224, 231, 243–4. SKA, Introduction (2006), 147–51; IDEM , Récit (2008). 32 K AISER, Grundriß (1992), 58–59, 62. 33 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 340–94; K ÖCKERT , Leben (1989) and with a different emphasis IDEM, Land (1995). 34 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1995), 95, like in the subsequent editions, e.g., the 4 th (2001), 150–51; IDEM, Priesterschrift (1997), 438–39. From the 4 th edition of the Einleitung on, however, the alternative of Deut 34:9 or rather 34:8 is upgraded again in terms of its plausibility. 35 K RATZ, Composition (2005), 103–6, 113, 243, 307, 320, 326. 36 POLA, Priesterschrift (1995), esp. 213–349. 37 OTTO, Forschungen (1997). 38 FREVEL, Blick (2000), 9–210. Reinhard Achenbach’s criticism of my thesis that a narrative of the conquest is begun by Pg without any continuation to be found (ACHEN BACH, Pentateuch [2007], 226) is not effective because neither Num 27 nor Deut 34:8 are reckoned as part of Pg. 30 31

90

Literature, History and Ideology

priestly and non-priestly materials relate to one another in the book of Numbers as compared to those in the book of Exodus? Lastly, Horst Seebass has pointed out that a sustainable model for the processes of Fortschreibung of the basic non-priestly layer in the book of Numbers remains absent because the multi-layered additions can hardly be organized into solid layers like Ps,ss,sss etc.39 The internal division of the priestly materials therefore takes central stage because the issue arises that the editorial and redactional rules followed in Genesis–Leviticus are different than those of the Fortschreibung here. Both issues – the conclusion of Pg and the internal divisions of P – are more closely interrelated than it commonly appears. 1.3 The Formation of the Torah in the Interplay Between Pentateuch and Hexateuch The formation of the Pentateuch names a third domain in which the book of Numbers plays an important role. The Pentateuch becoming Torah, that is, the change into a referential entity that develops normative power for prophets and writings, can no longer be connected to a single Pentateuch redaction that combined preexisting strands of tradition – be they JEDP or KD and KP or Triateuch and Deuteronomy – or that separated Deuteronomy from the DtrH (however one might conceive of it)40 in order to create the Pentateuch. It is no longer possible to explain the move from production to reception with minimal redactional strokes of the pen like the insertion of Deut 34:10–12 or also a formative final redaction – named either RP or with Israel Knohl “H.” 41 In fact, with Deuteronomy as a starting point, there is increasingly a change in the direction of the processes of Fortschreibung within the Pentateuch toward self-exegesis, that is, to inner-biblical interpretation.42 This inner dynamism that took place in multiple steps led in the end without external impetus to stabilization and completion. The process is closely related to the inter39 SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 30*: “[…] andere, z.T. frühere Ergänzungen lassen sich kaum festen Schichten zuordnen wie etwa Ps,ss,sss usw. […].” Ed Noort writes appropriately that the further that Pg is pushed back into the Sinai block, the more editorial layers must be postulated (“[…] je weiter Pg in den Sinaibereich zurückgedrängt wird, desto mehr […] Bearbeitungsstufen [müssen] postuliert werden”, NOORT, Grenze [2008], 104). 40 On my own skeptical position with regard to the plausibility of a DtrH, see F REVEL , Wiederkehr (2011) and IDEM, Palimpsest (2013). 41 Most recently KNOHL, Pentateuch (2011), 366. On the similar proposals by Jacob Milgrom and the critical discussion on the thesis of viewing HR as the final redactor, see NIHAN, Laws (2013), 111–2. 42 The literature on inner-biblical interpretation has grown exponentially in recent years. Introductions and overviews include FISHBANE, Interpretation (2004), 25–35; ZAHN, Scripture (2011); EADEM , Texts (2011), 93–119; LEVINSON, Revision (2008); ZAKOVITCH, Interpretation (2010), 92–118; S CHMID , Traditionsliteratur (2011). For the legal literature most recently ACHENBACH , Reading (2013), 201–32.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

91

pretation that on one hand binds itself to Moses (ultimately in the form of the Torah) and to the interpretive authority that became connected step-by-step ever closer to the Aaronide priesthood (Lev 10; 14:37; Deut 33:8–10).43 It is striking how the self-conception of especially the legislative texts in the book of Numbers take on an additive-adaptive interpretation of preexisting Torah texts (esp. Num 5–6; 7; 8; 9; 15; 27–28; 35; 36) and increasingly take on a form similar to early extra-biblical exegetical literature. Reinhard Achenbach spoke appropriately in 2003 – despite all the difficulties with the details of his model – of the “completion of the Torah.” Martin Noth, on the other hand, clearly underestimated the late texts in the Pentateuch in 1948 in his derogatory statement that “hardly any essential significance 44 was formulated. On the contrary, in them the Pentateuch is formed as Torah. While the model of a Persian imperial authorization of the Torah can hardly still explain the formative closure of the Pentateuch, the pre-Hellenistic, late Persian period remains the most plausible time period for the development of the Pentateuch as Torah, 45 even if some small details were reworked further. 46 The Pentateuch, however, is not a balanced compromise between P and D, 47 nor other conflicting positions,48 but it is instead an integral or an inclusion. The positions are often placed in immediate juxtaposition without reconciliation. At the same time, the Pentateuch is not sharply separated from Joshua. Especially the later part of the book of Numbers, Num 27–36, is related in such various ways and so closely to Josh 13–22 that to simply speak For more detail, see F REVEL , Relationship, p. 435–63 in the present volume. NOTH, History (1981), 242 n. 634: “The material in P that comes after the Sinai narrative represents merely the continuation of the transmitted Pentateuchal narrative up to the death of Moses and has hardly any essential significance for the theology of P.” 45 This was developed most recently by RÖMER, Models (2013), 33–4. 46 E.g., the issues of chronology, the high priestly office, etc. 47 This is the argument put forward by RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 443 and in numerous other places. However, a compromise implies the balancing of at least two positions. Cf. the indecisiveness of the term in RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 222. 48 Most recently again, RÖMER, Models (2013), 46–7. Römer presents the conception of the land as the difference between the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch: “There is indeed a major ideological difference between a Pentateuch and a Hexateuch. The theological focus of the Hexateuch is undoubtedly the land, promised by YHWH to the Patriarchs and conquered by Joshua. A Hexateuch would have constructed a post-exilic identity centered on the possession of or the claim to the land. For political, sociological and theological reasons, such an idea was difficult to maintain. The majority of Judean intellectuals accepted Judah’s integration into the Persian Empire and would have been unhappy with a foundation document that ends with a narration of a military conquest of regions that did not even belong to the provinces of Yehûd and Samaria. For the members of the Babylonian – but also Egyptian – Diaspora, the idea that living in the land is a constitutive part of Jewish identity was unacceptable” (IBIDEM, 47). However, one might ask how the same intellectuals could have come to terms with the conquest of the entire Transjordan and the pronouncement of the conquest of the Cisjordan in the Torah. 43 44

92

Literature, History and Ideology

of an “ephemeral Hexateuch” 49 is to miss the point. 50 It is the admittedly late Fortschreibung at the end of the book of Numbers that either assumes or constructs a connection to Joshua. How the two textual complexes are related to one another diachronically remains debated. This cannot be discussed in detail here. Rainer Albertz bases a later date for the book of Numbers on the differences in language among other arguments. 51 The book of Joshua uses ‫ ראשׁי אבות‬for the leaders of the people, while Numbers uses ‫נשׂיאים‬. But ‫ ראשׁי אבות‬appears not only in the crucial chapter in Num 32:28, but also as ‫ ראשׁי האב ות‬in Num 36:1. Along with the appearances in Josh 14:1; 21:1 and with the determinative article ‫ ראשׁי האבות‬in Josh 19:51, this is quite important. ‫ נשׂיאים‬also occurs in Josh 17:4; 22:14, 30, 32. The use of ‫ עלה לצב א‬only twice, in Josh 22:12, 23, in contrast to ‫ יצא לצבא‬in Num 31:27, 28, is surely too little when viewed in light of the verbal usage of ‫בוא‬, ‫ חלץ‬and ‫ שׁלח‬in Num 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43; 8:24. It is doubtful that the terminology supports a later dating of Numbers as a whole. The conceptual differences brought forward by Rainer Albertz are unconvincing, as they expect, e.g., that the committee responsible for parceling out the land should absolutely be named beyond what appears in Josh 14:1; 19:1. Countering Horst Seebass’ argument for a late literary-historical date, Olivier Artus correctly states that the literary analysis, however, must account for the multiple convergences that link the book of Numbers to the narratives of Josh 13.52 Artus himself sees good reason to date Joshua later: the post-priestly relecture of Josh 13–14 appears, therefore, in continuation with the postpriestly composition of the book of Numbers. 53 In my view, this position is closer to the textual evidence, which does not preclude that even the first edition of the post-dtr chapters Josh 13–22 were related to the latter chapters of the book of Numbers or even (as supported by the promise-fulfillment connection) arose in conjunction with it. In any case, new investigations of the connection, which appear badly needed, should also consider the possibility of redactional reciprocations. In contrast, Rainer Albertz’ latest proposi-

49 BLUM, Knoten (1997), esp. 194–206; RÖMER, Hauptprobleme (2004), 298–9; IDEM, Models (2013), 46–57; IDEM, History (2013), 17; ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie I (2011) and IDEM , Quellentheorie II (2011). Cf. also IDEM , Redaction (2013), 220, which posits “[…] an intermediary Hexateuchal redaction, before the Pentateuch was finished.” 50 FREVEL , Wiederkehr (2011), 22–5. 51 ALBERTZ, Alignment (2007), 290. 52 A RTUS , Livre (2012), 237: “L’analyse littéraire doit cependant rendre compte des multiples convergences qui relient le livre des Nombres et les récits de Josué 13s.” 53 A RTUS, Livre (2012), 241: “la relecture post-sacerdotale de Jos 13s. apparaît donc en continuité avec la composition post-sacerdotale du livre des Nombres” (cf. IBIDEM, 246– 7).

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

93

tion that Num 25–36 was created as a block by a/the Pentateuchal redaction54 in order to replace the book of Joshua 55 is unconvincing because the entire later portion of the book of Numbers is arranged as a continuation and so what it presumably would attempt to replace is thoroughly presupposed. Numbers 25–36 does not separate, but rather makes connections to the book of Joshua. 56 In both text complexes – whether Num 32 and Josh 14 or in Josh 24 and many others – Samarian claims are just as present as Judean/Yehûdite ones. 57 The focus of scholarship has changed pronouncedly in the last decade such that an oppositional paradigm in which the Samarians only appear as a heterodox sect no longer dominates (the keyword is concordance rather than competition). 58 With this integrative perspective on the the regional variants superimposing each other, which I described with the physical image of an 54 The compositional and redactional attribution of Num 25 to Num 26–36 is markedly peculiar. It ignores, among other things, the narrative connection between the narratives of Num 16–25, in which the exodus generation except for Moses dies off in order to make “room” for the next generation that will enter the land. Because Num 26 is oriented toward the land by the second census and by the connection to Num 1 and because no further grumbling or rejection of the people follows, a division after Num 25:18 should still be accepted. 55 ALBERTZ, Redaction (2013), 230: “Thus, one of the main functions of Num 25–36 was to replace the book of Joshua within the scope of the Pentateuch.” One could take solace in that there were evidently a number of main functions, but this does not make the proposition more plausible. In short: Nothing in Num 25–36 aims at the replacement of the book of Joshua. 56 In addition, subordinating Num 25–36 as a literary block beyond the finalization of the book of Joshua is just as unconvincing as implying that there was a uniform intention for the section (cf. just Num 31 with Num 32). The literary form of the latter part of the book of Numbers is too complex to lead it back to a single Pentateuch redaction. To mention only a couple points of opposition, if the Pentateuch redaction intended to sever the book of Joshua by means of Num 25–36, why did it leave them in Shittim in Num 25:1, which also appears in Josh 2:1; 3:1? Why does Num 35:25, 28 speak of the death of the ‫ הכהן הגדול‬as in Joshua 20:1 (and otherwise nowhere except for Lev 21:10)? Why does Num 34:15–29 announce the apportioning of ‫ אר ץ כנע ן‬in such a way that creates a close connection to the book of Joshua? In short: Num 25–36 does not work to separate the Pentateuch from the book of Joshua. 57 See A RTUS, Problem (2013), 380; IDEM, Conflit (2012), 22; IDEM , Livre (2012), 247; NIHAN, Samaria (2007); IDEM , L’autel (2008). Artus points out that Judah and Ephraim are present in Joshua and Caleb, offering a possibility for identification (ARTUS, Problem [2013], 373; IDEM, Livre [2012], 244). 58 See S CHMID, Samaritaner (2012), 49; RÖMER, Models (2013), 47: “Biblical scholarship has so far largely neglected the question of the role and the participation of the Samaritan authorities with regard to the process that led to the promulgation of the Torah.” Cf. KNOPPERS, Torahs (2011), 525–7: “[There was] an ongoing relationship between the two communities in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. During this time, the Pentateuch was likely a document shared by both groups” (IBIDEM, 527); for an overview, IDEM, Jews (2013). On the Pentateuch, IBIDEM, 178.

94

Literature, History and Ideology

interference of waves of formation processes of early Judaism and of the Samarians in the late Persian period, which would have been essential for the conclusion of the Pentateuch as Torah, moves the book of Numbers even more centrally into focus. In addition, it is suggested that the conception of the land connected with the twelve tribes in the books of Numbers and Joshua (Num 34:1–12//Josh 13:2–6) was likely connected more closely to the processes of formation of “Judaisms” in the Trans-Euphrates (Samaria, Ammon, Idumea, Galilee, Moab, Yehûd) than admitted to this point.59 It appears, at least, that the cooperation between Samarians and Judeans in the formation of the Pentateuch as Torah was one part of the integrating whole of an integrative perspective. Precisely the very late perspectives folded into Joshua and Numbers evidently play an important role in this process. In the three sketches of “hot spots” in the current Pentateuchal discussion that follow – (1) the question of the first overarching perspective of the Pentateuchal narrative and the placement of the non-priestly textual traditions, (2) the extent of the priestly narrative and the redactional and Fortschreibung of priestly literature and finally (3) the formative phase of the development of the Torah in the context of the formation of a pluralistic early Judaism – the book of Numbers, which was relegated to the shadows during the phase of the 59 Cf. A RTUS , Problem (2013), 380; IDEM, Livre (2012), 247; ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 589–93. ARTUS, Problem (2013), 373, cf. 378, suggests relating Num 32 to the organization of the diaspora. The model of the 9 ½ / 2 ½ tribes would describe belonging to Israel beyond, or rather against the model of Num 15 and 19 (IBIDEM, 380: “a new way of describing the diversity of the community, over and against the previous scheme ‫אזר ח‬/ ‫גר‬, found in Num 15 and Num 19”). If this argument points roughly in the right direction, then the presence of the Judean “diaspora” not only in the territory of Idumea but also in Transjordan should be reconsidered. On the epigraphically attested temple in Makedah (Idumea), see ostracon 283 in LEMAIRE, Temple (2004). While the architectural remains from the 3rd cent. in ʻIraq el-Emīr should not be understood as remains from a temple of Simon II (see F REVEL, Geschichte [2018], 383), even the discussion about the interpretation indicates the possibility of a Transjordanian temple in the early Hellenistic period and perhaps even earlier. How should one imagine the religious context in which the Tobiads were active? The pluriformity of YHWH religion should certainly be considered. The relationship between Yahwistic subsystems would need to be discussed further. BECKING, Ezra (2011), 69 describes it as “a variety of – probably competing – Yahwistic temples,” but the correspondence suggests that possibly much less competition existed than was assumed in the practiced special place of Jerusalem. S CHMID, Samaritaner (2012), 48– 9 argues: “Offenbar reichen die bislang vorgeschlagenen Kategorien zunächst von Konkurrenz und nachfolgender Separation für das Verhältnis von Samaritanern und Judäern nicht aus. Man muss für die Zeit vor der Konkurrenz in der Situation des Mauerbaus unter Nehemia wohl auch mit einer Phase der Konkordanz rechnen.” English translation: “Evidently the categories suggested thus far initially of competition and subsequent separation are inadequate for the relationship between the Samaritans and the Judeans. One should reckon with a phase of concordance before the time of competition in the situation of the building of the wall under Nehemiah.”

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

95

classical separation of sources, moves to the center of discussions of literary history, the history of religion and theology in Pentateuchal scholarship. Following Thomas Römer, one can even describe the book of Numbers as a touchstone for global Pentateuchal theories.60

2. The Book of Numbers in Current Outlines This second section will show how current perspectives link the three lines of inquiry with scholarship on Numbers. The entire breadth of scholarship naturally cannot be displayed; instead I will limit myself to several positions, two recent German-language commentaries and three representatives of newer hypotheses. For pragmatic reasons, I concentrate on the texts that are viewed as the earliest in the context of a Hexateuch, Pentateuch or Tetrateuch and on the formational phase of the book. 2.1. Horst Seebass Horst Seebass’s commentary on the book of Numbers was completed in 2012 with the volume on Num 1–10. Not all details are clear in the synopsis in the first volume of the commentary. With regard to the book, Seebass postulates a composition that is initially delimited by the latest additions and “canonical” supplements from the 1st cent. BCE (Num 7:1–88; 9:1–14; 31:1–54). 61 The composition of Numbers from the 4th cent. has two stages and consists, according to a first design in the first half of the 4th cent. BCE, and in the second half of the century a combination between non-P and an already supplemented Pg that included an abundance of P additions. 62 Seebass only separates these texts out redaction-critically in some cases because there is, he argues, no illuminating criteria for the specific classification to one specific Ps variant or another. 63 In full awareness of its hypothetRÖMER, Urkunden (2013), 19: “Prüfstein für globale Pentateuchtheorien.” SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 35*–9*. The latest additions include, for example, the numbers in Num 2; 26 as well as 1:20–45; 5:5–6:21 and the latest layer in Num 16–17. 62 SEEBASS , Numeri (2012), 31* (“einer Fülle von P-Nachträgen”); the statement concerns the first and second “designs.” On the first stage, see the overview of texts in IBIDEM , 26*. There is so much material that falls outside of the first design that one can really only speak of a composition as a book in terms of the organization of material. Numbers 5:11–31; 6:1–21; 15:37–41; 19:1–22; 27:1–11; 36:1–12 and the canonical additions Num 7:1–88; 9:1–14; 31:1–54 are designated as “post-compositional.” 63 SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 34* (“keine einleuchtenden Kriterien für eine spezifische Zuordnung zu einer der Ps Varianten”). Because there are no reliable criteria, Seebass does not present a model for the P additions. He argues that this is no longer possible in current source-criticism on the book of Numbers. Pg alone is somewhat solidly identifiable (IBIDEM, 26*: “angesichts der gegenwärtigen Diskussion um die Literarkritik zum Buch Nu60 61

96

Literature, History and Ideology

ical nature,64 Seebass identifies Pg traditionally and assigns to it large parts of Num 1–4*, the narrative of the departure from Sinai in Num 10:11–28, the spy narrative of Num 13–14, the waters in Kadesh, the death of Aaron in Num 20* and the installation of Joshua in Num 27*. 65 The basic Priestly Document was created before 515 BCE in order to proclaim the Aaronide priests as the replacement to the Zadokites. 66 As expected, P is not, however, the oldest source in the book. While Seebass only finds the Elohist in the middle section, the episode of the bronze serpent in Num 21:4b–9, in the victory over Sihon in Num 21:21–24, 31 and in the Balaam narrative of Num 22–24*, 67 the textual inventory of the Yahwist from the 8th cent. BCE is identified as more extensive. It begins with Hobab (Num 10:29–32 … [35–36]) and sections from Num 11 and 12 (Num 11:1–3, 4–25a, 30–35; 12:1, 4–5a, 9–10, 12–16a), then a spy narrative, 68 and the Dathan-Abiram narrative (Num 16:1b, 2aα, 12–15, *26, *27a, 27b–32a, 33–34). After the transition in Num 20:14, 16bα*, 19, 21; 21:10–20 are parts of the Balaam narrative in 22:2–24:25*, 69 the Baal-Peor tradition of Num 25:1–4 and Num 32:1–3270 belong to the earliest inventory of texts, which were already edited considerably in the pre-priestly setting.71 How might one characterize Seebass’ approach more precisely? The basic model remains beholden to traditional scholarship with a moderate shift of the dates because the base material cannot be separated from the editing sharply in all cases. With regard to the assignment of the non-priestly texts, Seebass holds forcefully not only to a pre-priestly date, but also to the intemeri nicht mehr möglich [ist]. Einzig Pg ist einigermaßen solide bestimmbar”). Therefore, directive for him is the composition of the book, which [leads] to a better, more objective outcome than the attempts to isolate Ps, ss, sss and so on (IBIDEM, 30*: “zu einem besseren, objektiveren Ergebnis [führt] als die Versuche, Ps,ss,sss usw. zu isolieren”; cf. IBIDEM, 34*– 5*). At this point it is worth noting that this approach cannot hide the methodological hazard of a circular argument. 64 SEEBASS , Numeri (2012), 34*: “im vollen Bewußtsein der Hypothetik.” 65 On the inventory of texts, see SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 34*. 66 SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 34*: “Proklamation aaronidischer Priester eine Ablösung der Zadoqiden.” 67 SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 35*: Num 22:2–3a*, 5, 6, 7b–21, 36–41; 23:1–4, 5b–15, 17b–26; 24:11b–13, 25. 68 On the inventory of texts, see SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 96: Num 13:17b–20, 22–24 (Kadesh in 26), 27–28, 30–31; 14:3–4, 8–9, 11a, bα (14aβ, b, 17–18, 19b), 21a, 30a, 31, 24, 25b, 39–41, 43–44a, 45 (note the transposition of 14:24, 25b!). 69 The basic narrative of the Balaam narrative in Num 22:2–3a, 5*, 6, 7b–21, 36–41; 23:1–4, 5b–15, 17b–26; 24:11b–13, 25 is assigned to the Elohist and a parallel version to J: Num 22:3b–4*, 7a*, 22–34; 23:28; 24:1–10a, bα‫א‬, 11a, 14. The analysis of the oracles is assembled in the same manner. 70 Numbers 32:1, 2a, bα (as far as “Moses”), 4aβ–6, 16–17, 19b–20a, 22b, 24–25, 34– 36a, 37–38. Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 335. 71 Cf. SEEBASS , Numeri (2012), 26*–37*.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

97

gration of a presupposed Yahwistic historical work. While the redaction history of the book of Numbers continues beyond the combination of P and nonP, the formal and institutional placement of the late additions is missing, though they continue to an exceptionally late date. The growth of the late priestly additions is in accordance with a Fragmentary Hypothesis that is not developed further. The alternative to redaction-historical analysis that investigates the late layers of the “composition layer” on the level of book remains anemic and is not really able to illuminate the formation of the book in the end. 2.2 Ludwig Schmidt Ludwig Schmidt, declared brilliant for his literary-critical work by Seebass, 72 presupposes the Documentary Hypothesis. He presented his commentary on Num 10:11–36:13 in 2004 to follow Martin Noth, and in numerous essays since then he has defended and defined his analysis more precisely. As with Seebass, in addition to the departure narrative and the notices of the way stations, Pg, which in Schmidt’s view is early post-exilic (first half of the 5th cent. BCE) and ends in Deut 34:9, consists of the priestly spy narrative, the rebellion of the 250 men in Num 16–17*, the water from the rock in Num 20:1aα, 2–12*, the death of Aaron in Num 20:22b–29* and the installation of Joshua in Num 27:12–23*. Unlike Seebass, however, the priestly components that are specific to Numbers such as the layout of the camp in Num 1–4; 10:13–28; 26:1–54*; the Korah narrative in Num 16–18 that was expanded through numerous levels; the inheritance of daughters in Num 27:1–11; Num 19; and many other texts are reckoned as expansions to a still independent P. The book of Numbers was first formed through the combination of the P material with JE by the Pentateuch redaction in the first half of the 4th cent. Through an intense process of Fortschreibung that extended until the end of the 4th cent., materials like Num 28:1–30:1 and narratives like Num 25:6–18 and the Midianite war of Num 31 were also added. 73 Ludwig Schmidt also assigns portions of the Sihon narrative in Num 21:21–24abα, 31 and a version of the Balaam narrative in Num 22:2–23:26* with two proclamations in Num 23:7–10*, 18–24 to the Elohist. This source, which was formed around 760 BCE, ends with the settlement of the Reubenites in the Transjordan in Num 32:1–38*. The oldest, dated in very classical manner to the time of Solomon (!), Yahwistic layer speaks of Hobab in Num 10:29–32, 33a*, the provision of the quail in Num 11:4b–6*, 10bα, 31–34*, a spy narrative beginning from Kadesh, as well as a short wilderness wandering in Num SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 37*. For details, see S CHMIDT , Numeri (2004), 3–10. The bi-directional influence between the DtrH authors and the book of Numbers will not be discussed here, but see esp. IBIDEM, 4, 8. 72 73

98

Literature, History and Ideology

20:22a; 21:4a*, 11b* to which the Balaam narrative in Num 22*; 24* and the two proclamations in Num 24:3–9, 15–17 were appended. The Yahwistic work ended with Num 24:17. Schmidt designates a considerably larger portion of the Yehowistic redaction to the exilic period than Seebass, also assigning to it narrative material such as, e.g., Num 11:1–3; Num 12*, the oldest Dathan-Abiram narrative, the detour around Edom in Num 20:14–21* and Num 25:1a, 3, 5. It is also clear for Ludwig Schmidt that no model on the growth of priestly texts is presented, which may result from the fact that he did not provide a commentary on Num 1:1–10:10. However, even very late texts like Num 18; 19; 27; 36 are understood as additions to a still independent Priestly Document because they generally do not feature non-priestly material. This leads to questions regarding the institutional background of the redaction history. The Pentateuch becoming Torah as a binding and singular point of reference in the Persian period is not located in a successive process of growth, but rather more traditionally seen as the combination of preexisting materials by a Pentateuch redaction. In terms of the non-priestly material, Schmidt tends to equate non-P with pre-P. In maintaining the early date of the Yahwist in the 10th cent. BCE, Schmidt fights against the trend that questions such an early date for a literary production of this scale on the basis of a number of reasons. On the other hand, with the proposition of an exilic Yehowist conceived of not only as a redaction, Schmidt establishes a non-priestly layer of considerable weight. 2.3 Reinhard Achenbach While the two commentaries are still clearly attached to the Documentary Hypothesis, the situation changes completely with the appropriately titled Vollendung der Tora (“completion of the Torah”), published by Reinhard Achenbach in 2003. His work can be identified as a milestone in recent scholarship on Numbers because he provides a complete analysis of the book of Numbers – a de facto commentary. It is especially innovative and new in terms of its redaction history of the book. Achenbach thoroughly discards the basic proposition of the Documentary Hypothesis that the majority of the foundational layer of non-priestly material in the book of Numbers – whether under the name Yahwist or Yehowist – should be reckoned as part of a prepriestly narrative thread connected to Genesis and Exodus. However, he takes this step without claiming that the formation of the non-priestly materials is therefore exclusively post-priestly.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

99

Even if he places different redaction-historical emphases, 74 Achenbach’s point of departure is initially the analysis of the frame of the book of Deuteronomy by Eckart Otto and the Pentateuch model that is based upon it. 75 Characteristic is the function of the source of the priestly portion of the book of Numbers. No longer is any portion of Pg found in Numbers; the Priestly Document ends at Sinai. This means that the composition-historical background of the book is no longer explained by means of a source model, and that the book of Numbers is perceived de facto as the latest book of the Pentateuch functioning as a bridge between the exodus narrative and Deuteronomy. Not all texts are immediately to be designated post-Deuteronomistic, however. The analysis identifies a limited amount of older material, reaching from the departure from the mountain of God (Num 10:29b, 30–32*) through Num 11:1b*, 2–3*, 4b, 10a*, 13, 18–20a*, 31–32; to the spy narrative (Num 13:17b–20, 22aα, 23–24, 27*, 28a*, 30–31; 14:23, 24*, 25b), extending from Num 20:14a, 17–21*; 21:1–3, 6–9*, 21–24*, 27–30 and the Balaam tradition as far as the border (Num 22:1–3a, 4b, 5–6, 7b, 8–20, 36–38a; 23:1–4, 5b, 12, 16aα, b, 17–20, 25–30; 24:1a, 2–3a, 5, 6–7a, 10–13, 14a, 25). Numbers 25:4aβ also comes from a preexisting tradition. An ill-defined apportionment of the land in the Transjordan in Num 32* forms the final, hardly still identifiable foundation. It is not surprising that these texts were also to a great extent treated by the source model as pre-priestly stock. The older nonpriestly material, which in part had provided a model for the depiction in Deut 1–3; 9–10, was, however, only integrated post-priestly by a Hexateuch redaction in the first half of the 5th cent., which combined the Priestly Document that was assumed to end at Sinai and DtrL (Landnahme, “conquest”). 76 Hobab, the mixed rabble, Moses’s Cushite wife, Caleb, Balaam and the Edomites should promote an opening of the community to non-Israelites. The Pentateuch redaction integrated the Holiness Code and the Priestly Document Torôt, which in the meantime continued to exist independently and grew, into a new form of Mosaic Torah which became separated from the book of Joshua.77 What is decisive for the final form of the book of Numbers, however, is what follows in the 4th cent. BCE. This was a threefold, staggered theocratic adaptation that carried out a reshaping of the book of Numbers into a great 74 Achenbach published his analysis of Num 13–14 and the corresponding sections of Deut 1–3 separately in a comprehensive essay, but they present an important perspective of his overall hypothesis. Cf. ACHENBACH, Erzählung (2003). 75 For an overview, cf. O TTO , Pentateuch (2011). On the place of Achenbach’s suggestion within the model, see IDEM, Books (2013), 385. 76 Cf. on the expansion to Gen 1–Josh 24 also OTTO, Deuteronomium (2012), 75. 77 On the specific hybrid location of the expanded Priestly Document, which should have continued to be transmitted separately even after integration into the narrative of the Hexateuch redactor and was then expanded by, for example, Lev 1–7, 11–15, 16, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 631.

100

Literature, History and Ideology

legend of origins for a hierocratically led Israelite theocracy.78 The first phase added the framing portions of the book of Numbers in Num 1–4*; 10:11*, 13–28, 34; 26–27; 32*; 33:50–56; 34–35; 36:13 along with the reworking of the spy narrative and the Korah rebellion in Num 16–18* to the wilderness tradition. Numbers 5–6; 15; 19; 28–30:1 followed later. In addition to editing, the final phase generated several midrashim, to be found in Num 3:11–13, 24, 30, 32, 35*, 40, 51; 7–8; 9:1–4, 15–23; 10:1–10; 30:2–17; 31; 33:1–49; 36:1– 12. Reinhard Achenbach describes the late additions as a partly haggadic and partly halakhic interpretive process. 79 Achenbach presents a complex model that is almost completely beyond the Documentary Hypothesis. He explicitly speaks multiple times of the book’s bridging function. 80 The presentation of the material in Deut 1–3; 9–10 receives primary importance – or, to state it pointedly in the words of Otto, the originator of the idea: “the book of Deuteronomy proves to be the key for the literary history of the book of Numbers.”81 There was no pre-dtr or prepriestly narrative complex in the book of Numbers, only older “traditional pieces” that were incorporated at a post-dtr stage. Unfortunately, just at the point where the context of these traditional pieces and their relationship to the Priestly Document is concerned, the model is not very clear. Any relationship between these traditional pieces is unrecognizable according to Achenbach. The proposition that the post-priestly material is summed up as theocratic, redactional insertions presents a considerable enhancement to scholarly discussion. While the three-stepped process of “theocratic redactions” is not always convincing, 82 Achenbach describes the pre-Hellenistic, 4th cent. BCE “completion of the Torah” as a stepped process of Fortschreibung in which additions, supplements, adaptations and interpretations enter, which are on the one hand related to the situation between Sinai and the land, and on the other hand are placed there because the Torah could only be supplemented “in summary fashion” in that location. 83 The bridge function of the book of Numbers results along the way, that is, the book of Numbers was not created in order to fill a hole between a Triateuch and Deuteronomy, however the latter was connected to it.

78 A CHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 632: “zu einer großen Ursprungslegende einer hierokratisch geführten israelitischen Theokratie.” 79 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 629: “haggadischen, teils halachischen Auslegungsprozess.” 80 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 2, 3, 4 and more often. 81 OTTO, Books (2013), 395; cf. IBIDEM, 385, 388. 82 Cf. F REVEL, Review Achenbach (2005). For criticism on the term “theocratic,” see also NIHAN, Laws (2013), 133. 83 Cf. A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 628, 633; IBIDEM, 628 uses the term “summarische Ergänzungen” (“summarizing additions”).

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

101

2.4 Rainer Albertz The body of work by Achenbach presents an important starting point for the approach taken by Rainer Albertz. In addition, the Pentateuch model developed by Erhard Blum with KD and KP forms the foundation of his reflections in that he assumes three supplemental priestly layers of P3–P5. 84 Albertz attempts, therefore, something of a conflation that combines the approaches of Blum and Achenbach. Unlike the works discussed thus far, Albertz does not offer a complete analysis of the book, but initially develops his proposal based on Num 20–21(24) and most recently extrapolates for Num 25–36. In terms of the model, he builds upon the proposals on the book of Exodus that flow from his commentary on Exodus. 85 According to Albertz, the basis for the formation of the book of Numbers is the acceptance of complex non-priestly and priestly redactional processes: especially in the book of Numbers, which contain a considerable amount of late textual material such that one should reckon with a repeated progression of non-priestly and priestly redactions. 86 The starting point is presented by the late dtr dated KD, which already assumes the priestly editing of Genesis–Leviticus.87 KD is accorded the earliest non-priestly layer in the book of Numbers. The core texts of KD are Exod 33:7–11; Deut 31:14–15, 23; Num 10:29–36; 11:14–17, 24b–30; 12:1–10; 13–14* (non-priestly); 31:1–3 (maybe!), 4–9, 10–20. Next Deut 1–3* with the oldest frame of Deuteronomy was connected. The priestly editing of the book of Numbers in P3 assumes this D composition. It is responsible for Num 20:1–13, 22–29*. Also belonging to P3 are Num 13–14; 16–18 in the priestly version. P3 was not limited to these narrative sections, however: perhaps the same priestly editor brought in the notion of Israel as a military-religious community that camped in well-ordered manner around the tent sanctuary.88 The differentiation of P1–P5 is, however, already found in Abraham Kuenen, beginning with the separate formation of the Holiness Code as P1. It should be observed that Kuenen was not able to make razor sharp distinctions between the priestly layers in Num 1–10 and saw it necessary to leave certain questions open. See KUENEN, Hexateuch (1886), 92–5. 85 References are made in the case studies to ALBERTZ, Exodus (2012). 86 ALBERTZ , Quellentheorie I (2011), 173: “Insbesondere im Numeribuch, das viel spätes Textmaterial enthält, ist mit einer mehrfachen Abfolge von nicht-priesterlichen und priesterlichen Redaktionen zu rechnen.” Cf. IDEM, Redaction (2013), 220. 87 Cf. ALBERTZ , Quellentheorie II (2011), 337–8. “Wie ich andernorts nachzuweisen versucht habe, setzt D die wesentlichen priesterlichen Bearbeitungen (Pg und HS = P1 und P2) in den Büchern Gen–Lev voraus” (IBIDEM, 338).” In contrast to Blum, Balaam in Num 22–24*; Sihon-Og in 21:21–35 and Num 16* are not seen as part of KD. 88 ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie II (2011), 340: “Möglicherweise führte derselbe priesterliche Bearbeiter auch die Vorstellung von Israel als einer militärischen und religiösen Gemeinschaft ein, die wohlgeordnet um das Zeltheiligtum herum kampierte.” 84

102

Literature, History and Ideology

The texts in view are Num 1–2; 3:(1–4[?],) 5–10, 14–39; 4:1–6, 21–29; 11:11–28. P3 also added Deut 32:48–52 and was responsible for Num 22:1. The short-lived redaction that attempted to create a Hexateuch, emphasized by Blum in more recent works that tried to create a Hexateuch but that was short lived, is designated the second non-priestly layer by Albertz and found in Num 20:14–21, 23b* (without ‫ ;)לאמר‬21:13aβb, 21–35; 22:2–24:19, 25. In the first two essays, Num 25–36 (!) were split between P4 and P5 and understood as something of a replacement for the book of Joshua.89 In Num 25:1–5, the priestly redactors thereby adopted a tradition in Num 25:1–18* that was not, however, part of a source.90 Most recently, Albertz affirms that a Pentateuch redaction is at work here: “Num 25–36 can be ascribed to a Pentateuchal redactor, who created from existing material a well structured composition which focuses on the conquest and the distribution of the Promised Land as a task for the future (32–34). Thus, the book of Joshua was replaced and factually corrected.” 91 In contrast to the older models that attempt to explain the book of Numbers within the framework of the source theory, Albertz’s model exhibits a considerably higher degree of complexity and flexibility. Non-priestly texts were not limited to pre-priestly formation, and it reckons with late non-priestly redactions. It adopts the important insight from Abraham Kuenen that the structure of the book of Numbers cannot be derived from the priestly narrative. More than anything else, however, Albertz’s model, following Achenbach, views the book of Numbers in the context of the emerging Torah, that is, in the area of conflict between the Tria-, Tetra-, Penta-, Hexa-, Enneateuch and Deuteronomistic History. Albertz’s emphasis on the importance of the late redactional processes in the book of Numbers is especially recognizable. A compromise is attempted through the combination of Blum and Achenbach, the models with broader influence in current scholarship. Nonetheless, this complex redaction-historical model calls forth many questions ranging from the concrete analysis of Num 20–21 to the hardly apparent homogeneity ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie II (2011), 346: “eine Art Ersatz für das Josuabuch.” ALBERTZ, Redaction (2013), 222: “It has become more and more apparent that the short scene about the apostasy with Baal-Peor is not part of an older source, but a rather late and complex tradition which was used by the priestly redactor together with the Phinehas episode for constructing a decisive crisis of apostasy and mixed-marriages just before the conquest of the land.” Strangely, however, the Moabites and Midianites are lumped together without good cause, but apostasy and mixed marriages are separated. As is well-known, the “tradition” ends as a torso, which requires an explanation if one attempts to accord the composition of Num 25 to a single hand. Yet Albertz does not say where the tradition in Num 25:1–5 came from. Perhaps it is not as obvious as he assumes that Num 25 does not belong to a source. 91 ALBERTZ, Redaction (2013), 232. For the final phase of the redaction history of the book of Numbers, Albertz also reckons with traces of a non-priestly final redaction (Deut 33; the parenthesis of Deut 32 with Gen 49). 89 90

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

103

of the individual redactional layers (e.g., of P3 or the Hexateuch redaction) and the issue whether the combined models are really compatible with one another. To name just a couple of concrete examples, one can critique the unity of Num 20:1–13 and the redaction-historical combination with Num 20:14–21 as well as the redaction-historical unity of Num 25:6–18. These details cannot be discussed in detail here (in part this is already found elsewhere), 92 but in the end, the bridge function of the book is mentioned, which Albertz accords to the post-priestly D composition. The D editor was actually the first to create such a narrow and relatively short connection between Num 10:29–14:45*; 21:(1–3[?],)4–30*. 93 Albertz thus sees his reflections as “support” for T. C. Römer’s important idea that the book of Numbers, as a bridge, first connected a priestly edited Triateuch (Genesis–Leviticus) and the book of Deuteronomy at a relatively late date.94 According to Albertz, a central role is played by the itinerary in Num 21:20, ‫ומבמות הגיא אשׁר בשׂד ה מואב ראשׁ הפסגה ונשׁקפה על־פני הי שׁימן‬, which is hinted at in Deut 1:5 (‫)ארץ‬, Deut 3:27; 34:1 (‫ )ראשׁ פסגה‬and Deut 3:20; 4:46; 34:6 (‫)הגיא‬. The fact that the first transition to the book of Deuteronomy has been considerably extended a number of times has caused it to be overlooked until now. 95 Can the appearance of terms that are dispersed in Deuteronomy really be evaluated as the resumption and significant connection? That is, would one not expect a clearer link to Deut 1:1–5 if Num 21:20 was attempting to build a bridge? One may also question whether the idiosyncratic placement of the repeated spy narrative of Num 13–14* in Deut 1 is really suited to the bridge function, if only Num 21:4–20* appears between Num 13–14* and Deut 1.96 In any case, the bridge between the Triateuch and Deuteronomy appears to have grown in stages and have been started by KD. This redaction-historical 92 On the necessary diachrony in Num 20, see FREVEL, Blick (2000), 306–36; on the weaknesses of a hypothesis of a merely temporary Hexateuch, see above as well as IDEM, Wiederkehr (2011), 42–3 and IDEM, Palimpsest (2013), 68–9; on the question of tradition and redaction in Num 25, see IDEM , Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume and above n. 90; on the proposal of a Pentateuch redaction in Num 25–36, see above. 93 ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie II (2011), 338: “der D-Bearbeiter [war] überhaupt der erste, der mit Num 10,29–14,45*; 21,(1–3[?].)4–20* eine solche, noch schmale und relativ kurze Verbindung schuf.” 94 ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie II (2011), 344: “Sie unterstützt die nicht weniger wichtige Idee von T. Römer, dass das Buch Numeri erst relativ spät als eine Brücke zwischen einem priesterlich edierten Triteuch (Gen–Lev) und dem Buch Deuteronomium geschaffen wurde, um beide miteinander zu verbinden.” 95 ALBERTZ, Quellentheorie II (2011), 338: “Nur weil das Numeribuch an seinem Ende danach noch mehrmals stark ausgebaut wurde, ist dieser erste Übergang zum Buch Deuteronomium bislang übersehen worden.” 96 Numbers 21:1–3 do not really exhibit a close proximity to the dtr geographical terms in Deut 34 such that according it to KD remains unproblematic.

104

Literature, History and Ideology

concretization distinguishes Albertz’s hypothesis from Römer’s, on which it is built. Römer’s well-respected hypothesis will be addressed next. 2.5 Thomas Römer In a number of essays, Thomas Römer has developed the hypothesis that the book of Numbers is a “livre pont,” a bridge book.97 Because the thesis does not simply occur in the context of redaction-historical evaluations, and he instead locates it prominently with the discussion, Römer can be called the “father” of the modern thesis of Numbers as a bridge book. The starting points are developed as follows in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Römer views the first literary connection from Genesis to Exodus as having been made by P; there was, therefore, never a Yahwistic history. Römer marks a core problem in the rarely pronounced connection of the non-priestly texts of Numbers with the non-priestly Genesis–Exodus texts: “The problem of all these Yahwists (or ‘Deuteronomists’) is that they tend to become very elusive after the exodus story.” 98 If one assumes the Hobab episode of Num 10:29–32* and Num 11–12* as the first non-priestly texts in the book of Numbers, then few clear connections to the non-priestly exodus narrative result that can be seen as a possible pre-priestly connection. Neither can Römer recognize a connection between the priestly texts in Numbers and the Priestly Document; he sees the end of the Priestly Document at Sinai, mostly likely in Lev 9:24. 99 According to Römer, Deuteronomy precedes P. With regard to the question of how, then, the Pentateuch was formed, he develops an outline of his hypothesis: The first “Pentateuch” was a Triateuch, that is, the combination of the traditions in Genesis–Leviticus under priestly direction. Independently from this was the so-called Deuteronomistic History extending from Deuteronomy to Kings. 100 The book of Numbers was formed in order to create “a widely accepted foundational document.” 101 It mirrors the complex situation of the Judean society in the 5th cent. before the promulgation of the Torah. 102

97 Cf. primarily RÖMER, Anfragen (2002); IDEM, Sojourn (2007); IDEM, Périphérie (2008). 98 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 421; cf. 423. 99 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 424–6. 100 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 222: “Der erste ‘Pentateuch’ war ein Tritoteuch, d.h. die Zusammenstellung der Traditionen in Gen–Lev unter priesterlicher Federführung. Unabhängig davon gab es ein von Dtn bis Kön reichendes ‘Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk.’” 101 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 222: “ein breit akzeptierbares Gründungsdokument.” 102 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 230: “die komplexe Situation der judäischen Gesellschaft im 5. Jahrhundert vor der Promulgation der Torah.”

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

105

He conjectures that Num 16–17; 25 and 32 were (or could have been) conceived from the beginning to accommodate “dtr” and “priestly” concerns.103 Römer considers many of the legislative materials in the book of Numbers, which he considers to be disorderly (especially in the latter part), 104 to be displaced, 105 on the basis of which he assumes the remainder of the Pentateuchal books have a “proto canonical status.” 106 “Apparently it was impossible to interpolate them in these books, which were already more or less closed to important additions.” 107 As a result, the book of Numbers was already clearly separated from the revelation on Sinai through the headings. Numbers 1:1 marks a qualitative and diachronic difference from what comes before it. 108 In addition to the notion of the subordinate and later placed supplements is their “proto-midrashic” character: Numbers should be understood “as a late post-priestly development of the Pentateuch and a forerunner of midrashic literature.” 109 Numbers 1–10 supplements materials that belong to themes in Exodus–Leviticus and Deuteronomy; Num 28–29 supplement the festival calendar of Lev 23; the vows in Num 30 are addenda to Deut 23:22– 24: many texts in Numbers can be understood as late commentaries on legal and narrative texts in Exodus–Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which then provided the opportunity for renewed modification with the book roll itself.110 The land-oriented chapters of Num 32–35, on the other hand, are spun out of Josh 13–22, in order to assert the notion of a Pentateuch instead of a Hexateuch.111 For the latter section of Num 27–36, Thomas Römer concurs with Martin Noth in favor of a successive growth, and from those texts he also transfers

103 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 223: “von vornherein so konzipiert (worden sein könnten), um ‘dtr’ und ‘priesterlichen’ Anliegen Rechnung zu tragen.” 104 Cf. recently RÖMER, Nostalgia (2013), 68. 105 Numbers 5:11–31 belongs to Deut 22:13–15; Num 7 after Exod 40; Num 8:1–4 after Exod 25:13–15 or 37:12–14; Num 8:5–7 belongs to Lev 8–9; Num 9:1–14 to Exod 12. 106 Cf. also RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 427, 428, 443. Römer combines these proposals with notions of quite early separations of the parts of the Pentateuch on rolls. On the evidence of the rolls in Qumran, see NIHAN, Laws (2013), 128 n. 68. 107 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 428. 108 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 223: “qualitativen und diachronen Unterschied zum Vorangehenden.” 109 Cf. RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 427 and IDEM, History (2013), 17–8 (with reference to Konrad Schmid). 110 RÖMER, Urkunden (2013), 20: “Viele Texte in Numeri lassen sich als späte Kommentare zu gesetzlichen und erzählenden Texten in Ex–Lev und Dtn verstehen, die dann innerhalb der Buchrolle zu erneuten Modifikationen Anlass gaben.” 111 Cf. the similar argument in A LBERTZ, Alignment (2007), 287–303 and most recently IDEM , Quellentheorie II (2011), 346. It concerns a markedly shortened view of the actual context. See already ARTUS, Livre (2012), 236 and the explanation above (esp. n. 48).

106

Literature, History and Ideology

the idea of a “rolling corpus” to the non-priestly narratives in the middle section. 112 The starting point for his analysis of Num 12–20 comes from an observation of the handling of the murmuring in the wilderness that then leads to a very far-reaching hypothesis. Outside the Torah, the wilderness is treated positively as an abode, and this was generally the older point of view. The motif of murmuring in the exodus narrative would then first be inserted redactionally to the originally positive miracle narratives. Both the oldest manna etiology (Exod 16:1*, 4a, 13b–14bα, 15, 21, 31) as well as the priestly manna narrative (Exod 16:1, 4abα, 13b, 15–17, 21–27, 30–31) did not originally contain the murmuring motif. The rebellion first appears as a motif redactionally, through Exod 16:2–3, 5–12, 28–29. The post-priestly Fortschreibung of Exod 15:22–23, 27 prepares the way for Exod 16:28. A positive water miracle in Exod 17:1, 3aα, 5–6* is also reworked. Thus, Römer concludes, “Post-priestly redactors transformed these positive accounts into stories of a complaining people.” 113 His analysis of the seven murmuring narratives in the book of Numbers then builds on this conclusion from the book of Exodus, which Römer views as a whole as later than the redactional reformulation of the narratives in Exodus. Numbers 11:1–3 is a model murmuring narrative, which is apparently put at the front of the concentric cycle. Numbers 11:4–35 apparently combines Exod 16 and 18 and assumes them both. “The author of Num 11.4–35 offers a re-reading of Exodus 16 and 18 (or Deut 1.9–18) from the perspective of post-exilic prophecy.”114 On the democratization of prophecy and the reduction of Moses’s revelatory function, Num 12 reacts by emphasizing Moses’s incomparability and the rejection of the critique of him. The spy narrative in Num 13–14 with the motif of the change of generations and the decisive intercession by Moses would be in the center. The rebellion against priestly authority in Num 16–17 is framed by the legislative material in Num 15; 18–19. Numbers 20, on the other hand, calls upon Exod 17, but now apparently explains why Moses and Aaron are shut off from arriving in the land. Numbers 11–20 in the final form then would constitute a complex, successively expanded composition that explains how Israel gambled away the land. “Numbers 11–20 expresses therefore, a more radical view than the wilderness accounts in Exodus.”115 The text block presents (which in turn does not fit immediately with what was just stated), “a coherent mythic background for Judah’s political situation after the exile.”116 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 428, 436. RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 433; on Exod 16:3 and 17:3, now also IDEM, Nostalgia (2013), 74–75. 114 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 437. 115 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 434. 116 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 443. 112 113

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

107

In the analysis of the wilderness narratives, Römer presents a far-reaching model of how the founding myth of Israel changed historically. At the same time, this thesis attempts to combine this successive growth with the composition-historical formation of the Pentateuch. The negative “murmuring frame” around the Sinai theophany marks the etiology of failure that attempts to process reflexively the loss of the land. Distinguishing of this view is that the formative power of the composition of this core section of Torah arises neither from pre-priestly tradition nor from the priestly-colored narrative tradition (Num 13–14; 16–17; 20), or even from priestly legislative reflection (Num 15; 18; 19), but from post-priestly reworking of the originally positive Sinai narratives on the murmuring cycle. Following an idea from Mary Douglas, Römer sees a coherent mythical design for the community of post-exilic Israel in the murmuring narratives as well as in the entire book of Numbers. Since “exile” (in a mythical sense) and life outside the land had become important aspects of the “Jewish identity” which originated during the Persian period, there was the need to strengthen life outside the land in the Pentateuch and to foreshadow the divine judgment, which was necessary for the “new identity” of Israel. And this was the origin of the book of Numbers. 117

Römer develops an innovative model for the core of the book of Numbers beyond the earlier models, which were more or less still bound to source analysis. In order for this composition to function as a “bridge” between the Triateuch and Deuteronomy, Num 21–24; 35–36 need to be pushed later in terms of their redaction and composition history. The later placement of this section of literature was already mentioned above, but it does not appear in Römer’s work with the same level of development as the thesis of the wilderness traditions. For the critical evaluation of his proposal, one must keep in mind that this thesis was formulated with a certain tentative openness. It is understood as a whole to be a contribution to the dialogue that is thoroughly aware of its hypothetical character. Upon closer look, the literary gears soon begin to grind. Römer initially combines the leading phrase “rolling corpus” with the simple notion of texts reacting to texts in successive manner (see above). In terms of literary history, however, this perspective is borne out only in Num 11–12. Because these texts in their final form belong to the latest of the what is found in the Pentateuch, it is hardly plausible to place them later than the murmuring narratives, especially with regard to Num 13–14: “The fact that Numbers 12 should be understood as a Fortschreibung of Numbers 11 does not mean that the following chapters are necessarily later. The redaction of Numbers cannot be explained by the simple idea of a continuous process of addition of chapters. 118 As a result, however, the notion of a “rolling corpus” is already abandoned for Num 11– 117 118

RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 443. RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 440.

108

Literature, History and Ideology

20 because Num 11 does not react to the literary-historically preexisting chapters of Num 13–14. Thus, it is only hinted how Num 13–20 could concretely conform to the model of a “rolling corpus.” For example, it is remarked that Num 16–17 could react to Num 12. As a result, then, the notion of literary-historical succession is once again implemented. For Num 13–14, on the other hand, a combination of conquest traditions is only suggested, which could only mean Num 32*: “In Deuteronomy 1–3, the spy story is immediately followed by narratives about Israel’s entry into the Transjordanian territories. This might be an indication that the story behind Numbers 13–14* was originally conceived as an introduction to the Transjordanian campaign and only later became the kernel of a ‘rebellion cycle.’”119 The composition-historically late role of the spy narrative as the pointed core of the land oriented murmuring motif does not cohere with a late date in terms of literary history, as should by a view of the hypothesis as a whole. The post-dtr spy narrative of Num 13–14 is placed at the beginning. It is followed by Num 11:4–35 and 20:1–13, simultaneously with the reworking of the exodus narrative. Numbers 12:2–9 and 12:1, 10–15 and perhaps 11:1–3 and 21:4–9 are then added. Finally, in a multi-stepped process, Num 16–17 and the corresponding legislative chapters of Num 15; 18–19 are added. Generally speaking, many aspects of Römer’s thesis should be affirmed, even though the proposals and conclusions of the literary analysis of Num 11–21 cannot be shared in all points. It would be appealing, e.g., to begin the analysis with Num 11–12 because these chapters form Römer’s starting point. 120 One might offer the conscious connection of Num 11:4 with Exod 12:38 and the characterization of Moses in Num 11:10b, 21–22 because neither really fits with the late date nor to the function of the murmuring narrative reacting to Exod 16 and 18. To the benefit of the evaluation of the hypothesis’ overarching conclusion – that is the “bridge character” of the book – the discussion should, however, be postponed. In the following therefore, Römer’s arguments for the bridge thesis are repeatedly mentioned.

3. The Book of Numbers as a Bridge Book The emphasis of the bridge character in terms of the literary-historical point of view can be reckoned one of the characteristics of recent Numbers and Pentateuchal scholarship. It is beyond question that the book of Numbers exhibits a transitional character and that it leads from Sinai into the Transjordan. However, was the book created for this purpose? Because this thesis has a number of different layers, an exhaustive interaction with each part of the 119 120

RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 441. Cf. already RÖMER, Exode (1991).

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

109

argument would be desirable. Due to spatial constraints, I limit myself in the following to selected remarks on the (1) presuppositions, (2) the framing assumptions and (3) the concrete implementation of the thesis. 3.1 Presuppositions The thesis results as a certain implication from two of the trends of recent Pentateuchal scholarship sketched above. The first is the shortening of the basic later of the Priestly Document to a conclusion at Sinai, and the other is the questioning of something like a pre-priestly source that extends beyond the exodus narrative. From these presuppositions, it begs the question that the literary form of the narrative material in Deuteronomy is older than the material in the book of Numbers. A different view of the growth of priestly texts also belongs to the presuppositions. The form of the priestly Fortschreibungen in the book of Numbers, whether narrative or legislative, are identified as so divergent, that their belonging to Ps, the Fortschreibung of the independent Priestly Document, is excluded. This distinguishes the thesis clearly from older scholarship, for whom the closeness between Num 1–10 and Exod 25– 31, 35–40 as well as Lev 1–16 implicated a literary connection. In my view, these presuppositions are not at all obvious. Aside from the question of the form of the basic Priestly Document and its end (see above), there is too little proof that Num 1–10 are quasi work-external Fortschreibungen that are markedly different in literary terms from the priestly influenced Fortschreibungen in Exodus–Leviticus, which is assumed if the Triateuch ended with Lev 16. In my assessment, Römer’s model presents greater problems than Achenbach’s. I need not emphasize that there can be different opinions about a pre-priestly Hexateuch, but the mere assertion or denial of this fact is not helpful at all. Hence, I turn to the plausibility of some framing assumptions of Römer’s “bridge thesis.” First the assumption of successive endings of the individual books of the Pentateuch will be discussed, then the thesis of the revelation-theological subordination and finally the framing assumption of an intentional balancing between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy. 3.2 Framing Assumptions The thesis oscillates between the proposition that the entire book is quasi “inserted in between,” namely intended and composed as a bridge and the proposition of successive growth beginning with a core that served as the first bridging element and was redactionally enlarged through supplements. In the latter case, the book is not limited to bridging functions. The successive side is less explicit with Römer than with Achenbach and Albertz. For Römer, in any case, the thesis that the book of Numbers was created as a bridge goes together with the assertion that the book was first started when the books of

110

Literature, History and Ideology

Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were almost closed. An addition into these books with the addenda that were gathered in the book of Numbers was no longer possible. 121 This proposition is widely propagated and appears in rudimentarily form for the materials in Num 26–36 in Martin Noth. For Römer, on the other hand, this thesis is now broadened to the entire book. The implicit farewell to a final Pentateuch redaction that would have finally edited all the books appears correct initially.122 Even if Numbers tends to be the latest book in the Pentateuch, the thesis in its extreme as presented by Römer is false. Unfounded on the whole are both the notion of its continuous character as additions and of its continuous literary-historical date as later. With regard to the first, Römer underestimates the sophisticated structure of the book, which is intentionally placed its order between Sinai and the land and does not accord with a simple characterization of additions. This is the case not only for the narrative materials, ordered concentrically around Sinai, but is also shown to be probable for the placement of the legislative traditions of for example Num 5–10; 15; 27. 123 These are not only strongly interlaced with the legislative materials in Leviticus, but also step compositionally in a janusfaced manner between Sinai and the land. With regard to the literary-historical post-dating of the entire book, recent investigations have repeatedly identified very late insertions in the other books as well, which show that the thesis of a successive conclusion of the Pentateuch with the book of Numbers as the only capstone is not fitting. Leviticus 10, for example, is held to be a text from the end of the Persian period in which the midrashic interpretation that marks the book of Numbers is justified narratively. 124 Leviticus 27 is held to be an addition to the Holiness Code that is very close in disposition to Numbers, even if it likely precedes Num 18.125 Also the purity prescriptions for the high priest in Lev 21, which assume the stipulations about the impurity of corpses in Num 19, were evidently edited at a very late date. Why do the late additions in the Pesach instrucRÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 443. For discussion, see ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 52, 122, 125. 123 See F REVEL, Relief, p. 53–81 in the present volume. On Num 5:1–4 as the compositional anchor for the purity regulations in the book of Numbers, see FREVEL, Purity Conceptions, p. 253–8 in the present volume. 124 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 604; F REVEL, Relationship, p. 461–3 in the present volume. 125 Most recently the detailed comments in NIHAN , Laws (2013). There (IBIDEM, 128, 133) the conjecture (with explicit affirmation of Römer’s thesis of conclusions of scrolls), that Lev 27 was added when the book of Leviticus was generally closed and already transmitted on its own scroll; namely that Lev 27 represents a supplement in the same way as the materials in Numbers, but it still found space in Leviticus. Evidently the final processes of supplementation and their relationship to the production of scrolls remains unclear. There do not appear to be clear separations between the redaction edits of the books, but rather floating transitions such that the hypothesis tends to be correct, but is inapplicable for the growth of the entire book of Numbers. 121 122

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

111

tions of Exod 12:18–19, 48–51 find room in the book of Exodus, 126 unlike Num 9:1–4? The genealogy of Moses and Aaron in Exod 6 and the mention of Eleazar in Exod 38:12 are also very late additions. The H-Fortschreibungen dependent on Lev 17–26 in Exodus and Leviticus are not much later than the H-like Fortschreibungen in Numbers. The complex redactional entanglement between the individual books of the Pentateuch cannot be reduced to a concluding redaction, but at the same time, they resist the proposition of a successive conclusion to scrolls for the formation of the book of Numbers. Römer’s thesis in its extremity must presuppose that all redactional processes in the book of Numbers – and this is undoubtedly quite a few – first took place after the completion of the rest of the Pentateuch, which in my view is quite unlikely. Furthermore, Römer himself does not maintain the fundamental presupposition when he determines Num 13–14; 11:4–35; 20:1–13 as the invention of the murmuring narratives: “This stage possibly coincides with the transformation of Exodus 15–17 into rebellion accounts.” 127 This means that very significant changes must still have been possible in the book of Exodus when the first murmuring narratives were incorporated to frame the Sinai account. Noteworthy from the discussion of this part of Römer’s argument is that just because the book of Numbers was closed relative late, this does not mean that the other books/scrolls had already been closed. The second framing assumption, that there is a claim to qualitatively lesser revelation in the texts of Numbers, which would be clearly set off from Leviticus by Num 1:1 and Num 36:13, is also difficult to maintain. The events in the book of Numbers now take place ‫( ב מדבר סיני‬Num 1:19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12; [15:32] 26:46) and no longer ‫בהר סיני‬, but one should not infer a qualitative difference. In contrast, Römer states: This is a hint that the editors of Numbers understood the laws in Numbers as not having directly emerged from God’s revelation on Mount Sinai, but as supplements given later, still in relation with “Sinai” but located in the “desert” and not on YHWH’ S mountain. Is there a better way to indicate that the laws collected in Numbers are supplements to the “original” priestly and deuteronomistic revelation of the Law? 128

Römer attempts to emphasize and attach a conceptual value to the terminological difference between Lev 27:34 ‫ בהר‬and Num 1:1 ‫במדבר‬, but this largely suppresses the parallelism between Lev 26:46; 28:34 and Num 36:13. After On Exod 12:14–20, see NIHAN , Torah (2007), 564–8; on the discussion and place of the H-like adaptations outside of Lev 17–26, see also IDEM , Laws (2013), 132–4 and 117, where Nihan mentions Exod 12:43–49; 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 3:17; 7:22–27; 11:43–45 and 16:29–34a. 127 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 442. 128 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 428. On the framing verses and their scope, cf. F REVEL, Relief, p. 53–81 in the present volume. On Num 36:13, whose compositional function should not be underestimated, cf. F REVEL , Pentateuch, p. 124–8 in the present volume. 126

112

Literature, History and Ideology

Exod 40:34–40, the tent is of the same value as Sinai; God’s ‫ כבוד‬had taken up residence there for the period of the wandering. Sinai is no longer ascended after Exod 34; Lev 1:1 recalls Exod 40:34–40 with ‫“ מאהל מועד‬from the tent of meeting” just like Num 1:1 with ‫“ ב אהל מועד‬in the tent of meeting.” Numbers 9:15–23 is likewise undoubtedly related. ‫ בהר סי ני‬in Lev 7:37; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34 does not contradict Lev 1:1. 129 It is correct that ‫ בהר סיני‬encloses the laws in Leviticus in the brackets of Exod 31:18/34:32, but Num 3:1 (and 28:1) also relate back to the situation ‫בהר סיני‬. This is not to deny the structural function of Lev 1:1; 7:36; 26:46; 27:34 and Num 1:1; 9:15–23, but rather to contest the subordination of the theology of revelation of divine speech in the book of Numbers. Numbers 1:1 designates the revelation dated to the first day of the 2nd month in the 2nd year not as a supplement. The connection with Num 9:15–23 is opposed to the interpretation of a primary and secondary revelation. Even this date in Num 1:1 shows that the superscription does not intend to cover the entire book but initially extends to 10:12. In view of Num 7:89 and Lev 16:17, one should furthermore refrain from identifying the difference between ‫ ב אהל‬and ‫מאהל‬. So Num 9:1–14 is likewise Torah and Num 31 paradigmatic Torah discussion. Precisely the issues of priestly authority dealt with in the book of Numbers (Num 16–18; 25; 27; 31) are not formulated from the presupposition of a subordinate and lower level of normativity. In sum, the structural signals of the book of Numbers do not speak in favor of a bridge function. They instead present a complex and nonlinear literary-historically system that places the Torah in Numbers in relation to, rather than subordinate to, Exodus–Leviticus. The conception of the Torah that does not distinguish between the value of the revelation on Sinai and the revelation of the wilderness has ramifications for legal hermeneutics, especially if one relates this to the interpretation already implicit in the Torah itself. The third framing assumption of Römer’s bridge thesis that raises questions is the book of Numbers as “conciliation.” If the book of Numbers was formed in the Persian period in order to combine a Triateuch with Deuteronomy to form the foundation for one Torah as Römer supposes (and at this point one can only note that the basic propositions of supplement, bridge and compromise do not really go together), then why is such reconciliation unrecognizable? The torôt in the book of Numbers, for example, do not arbitrate between the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy. Neither does the introduction of the Levites in the book of Numbers really act as a mediation between the Levitization of the priesthood in Deuteronomy and the “family business of Aaron & Sons” in Exodus–Leviticus. Why are the geographical descriptions 129 On this, see NIHAN, Torah (2007), 264–5 with the correct suggestion that ‫ב הר סי ני‬ “does not necessarily mean ‘on Mt Sinai,’ but may also be rendered ‘at Mt Sinai’” (IBIDEM, 265).

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

113

of the wilderness wandering in the itineraries neither aligned among themselves nor with the descriptions in Deuteronomy if they are later in terms of their literary history? They undoubtedly belong to the structural portions of the book. Does this not speak against the late bridge function as well? As is known, the non-priestly and priestly descriptions are superimposed upon one another such that assigning the itinerary notes to a single hand is certainly insufficient. This is not only the case for the convoluted play with the stations in Num 21 or for the discrepancies with Num 33 as mentioned above. 130 Exemplary is the framing of Num 11–12 by the itinerary notes in Num 10:12 and 12:16: according to Num 10:11–12, after setting out from the wilderness of Sinai, the cloud settled in the wilderness of Paran (‫ויסעו בני־י שׂראל‬ ‫)למסעיהם ממדבר סיני וישׁכן הענן במדב ר פארן‬, in Num 12:16, on the other hand, the people set out from Hazeroth and then camp in the wilderness of Paran (‫)ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות ויחנו ב מדבר פארן‬, which represents the priestly starting point for the spy narrative in Num 13:3. Neither notice is part of a source (“quellenhaft”), as Thomas Pola pointed out; 131 that is, they presuppose redactional activity that recalls preexisting materials and place names. Aside from the different between ‫ עם‬and ‫בני ישׂראל‬, the topographical differences indicate that the framing notice in 12:16 had an integrated version of Num 11–12* in which Hazeroth was named as a waystation (cf. Num 11:35; 12:16a). Why else should the inconsistency be accepted? 132

130 On Num 21, see F REVEL, Pentateuch, p. 121 in the present volume. Numbers 33 should certainly not be assigned to a Priestly Source, contra BADEN, Redaction (2009), 133. For Num 33 one should stick with the classification as a “learned study,” as Holzinger appropriately characterized the chapter (HOLZINGER, Numeri [1903], 160). 131 Cf. POLA , Priesterschrift (1995), 114–6. 132 I have elsewhere attempted to support a plausible solution for the special form of Num 10:11–12 and Num 12:16 in the combination of P and non-P (F REVEL, Blick [2000], 78–82). A further example indicating the diachronic shape of the place designations appears in Shittim in Num 25:1, which is reminiscent of Abel-Shittim ‫ אבל )ה(שׁטי ם‬in Num 33:49. The composite name here, contrary to Num 25:1; Josh 2:1; 3:1; Mic 6:5 likely arises from the homonymy of the root ‫אבל‬, which in addition to mourning (see Num 25:6) can also denote a watering place/waterway (see ‫)ע רבות מואב‬. Numbers 33 therefore presupposes the narrative of Num 25, to which the continuation with the prohibition on treaties in Num 33:50–56 also points. However, the formulation ‫ וי שׁב י שׂר אל בשׁיטי ם‬in Num 25:1 is already unusual for the itinerary notes and the link to Num 22:1. It refers back to Num 21:25, 31, where Israel in disturbing unambiguity already dwells in the land of the Amorites that stretches from the Arnon to the Jabbok. This area is apportioned to the Reubenites in the later division of the land (Num 32:33–38). One should not dismiss the possibility that Num 25:1 is connected to Josh 2:1 and 3:1 and presents an important indication of a pre-priestly connection between the wilderness wandering and the conquest of the land.

114

Literature, History and Ideology

3.3 Implementation It would take us too far afield to go through Römer’s argument on the formation of the book of Numbers in detail. An extremely crucial point setting the direction of his discussion takes place in the ordering of the relatively uncontested non-Deuteronomistic and pre-priestly traditional material. It is striking that also more recent analyses agree that the material is too bulky to just consist of the work of late hands in the Hobab narratives (Num 10:29– 32*), the older spy narrative (Num 13:17–14:45*), the conquest of the cities of Canaan (Num 21:1–3a), the Sihon narrative (Num 21:21–24bα, 31),133 perhaps the tradition of the bronze serpent (Num 21:4–9), 134 the Balaam narrative (Num 22–24*) and the Baal-Peor tradition (Num 25:1a, 3, 5). To what degree this is also the case for Num 32 requires further discussion. One cannot – to summarize the consensus in condensed fashion – get by in all cases without the acceptance of some older traditions. It is not by chance that these texts were assigned to the Yahwist or the Elohist in the Documentary Hypothesis. Now Otto, Achenbach and Römer among others work with the assumption that these traditions might have existed, but they were first integrated into a continuous narrative in the Persian period. The issue is complex and cannot be clarified with a simple stroke of the pen as the example of the spy narrative shows.

According to SCHMIDT, Beitrag (2013), 320. The fact that the present form of Num 21:4–9 does not belong to a source and that Deut 8:15 is part of its pre-history should not be controversial (for the reasoning, cf. FREVEL, Pentateuch, p. 136–38 in the present volume). This does not, however, resolve the issues of transmission because Num 21:4–9 – contrary to the pointed assertion most recently by BERNER, Schlange (2012) – does not fit with a post-priestly date. Berner views Num 21 as a post-priestly depiction of an attempt to outdo the Asclepius snake. The serpent would be a literary construct that is already transformed theologically in 2 Kgs 18:4. The connections that Berner sees to Exod 15:26 and Num 17:1–5, 25–26 are appropriate, yet there is the question of whether his diachronic conclusions are correct. The fact that the first and last murmuring narratives in the preexisting composition framing Sinai emphasize the theme of healing (and evidently like Exod 17 and Num 20 are related to one another) is also correct, but it is more likely that diachronic conclusions should be drawn for Exod 15:26 than for Num 21. The parallels to Num 17 in both function and content are truly conspicuous, but does the direction of dependence run unequivocally from Num 17 to Num 21 (“eindeutig von Num 17 nach Num 21”; IBIDEM, 351)? I see too little evidence. This is especially true for Berner’s presumption of the secondary character of 2 Kgs 18:4b. Precisely the relationship between 2 Kgs 18:4 and Num 21 instead shows that the tradition of the bronze serpent cannot entirely be attributed a late date (cf. F REVEL, Pentateuch, p. 137 in the present volume). 133 134

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

115

The dissent regarding the spy narrative, which offers almost diametrically opposite models, has now continued for about two decades.135 There is only wide-reaching consensus that the basic text of Deut 1:19–46*136 and the nonpriestly inventory of Num 13–14 are dependent on one another, but the priestly inventory was not presupposed by Deut 1:19–46*. For the bridge thesis, literary-historical (but not necessarily tradition-historical) priority is usually claimed for Deut 1:19–46* over Num 13–14, in reliance on the analyses by Blum137 and especially Otto.138 According to Eckart Otto, the dtr foundational text of Deut 1 presupposes a spy narrative from the 7th cent. BCE.139 Because this is not allowed to be part of a pre-priestly narrative complex, it is assumed that this narrative was known to the Deuteronomist, but not from some kind of literary context that offered a narrative thread from Sinai to the land. This narrative also exhibits no trace of Deuteronomistic or priestly influences and should most likely be dated in the late pre-exilic period, presenting an etiology for the loss of Judahite territory south of Hebron that took 135 Only to mention the disparate monographic analyses by S CHART , Konflikt (1990); RABE, Gerücht (1994); ARTUS, Etudes (1997); KNIPPING, Kundschaftergeschichte (2000) and the synchronic perspective of KUPFER, Weg (2012). See S CHART, Spy Story (2013). 136 For Otto this is Deut 1:19a*, 20, 22–23ab*, 27a*, 28a, 34–35ab*, 39a*, b, 40–45 (OTTO, Deuteronomium [2012], 381). Except for minor details, the result is not significantly different from the analysis of L. Schmidt: Deut 1:19, 20, 22a, bα, 23, 24a, 25–30, 31a* (only “and in the desert”), b, 34, 35* (without “this evil generation” and without “to give”), 39* (from “and your sons”), 40–43, 44* (without “Seir”), 45. See S CHMIDT, Kundschafterzählung (2006), 54. His argument (IBIDEM, 52) that the exclusion of Deut 1:28 makes the rejection of the people incomprehensible is convincing. This is also contra S CHART, Spy Story (2013), 175, who attempts to see the arbitrary rejection as based on the complete hardening of the people. This, in turn, he connects with the initiative of the people to send out spies, which in his view does not fit with the genre of spy narratives (S CHART, Spy Story [2013], 183). Whether Deut 1:28a needs the verb ‫ ר אינו‬in 28b, as Schmidt claims against Otto, is an open question. For Schmidt, however, this is also the reason for adding the Anakim motif. 137 BLUM , Studien (1990), 177–81. 138 See OTTO, Deuteronomium (2012), 377. On the question of a shared Vorlage, see also (with a somewhat different emphasis) ACHENBACH, Erzählung (2003), 61–77. 139 Numbers 13:17b–20, 22aα, 23–24, 27aβ, 28aα, 30–31; 14:1b, 40–44a, 45 (see OTTO, Deuteronomium [2012], 381 with the text, IBIDEM, 382). This is also adopted by RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 441: Deut 1 was “apparently based on an older spy story, which cannot be reconstructed in its original form.” Very similar is ACHENBACH, Erzählung (2003), 61–77. With the given presuppositions, the analyses are always in danger of circular reasoning. For example, Deut 1:27b is assigned to the basic narrative because the text is parallel to Num 14:3. ACHENBACH , Erzählung (2003), 68–9 states that verse 27b appears, however, to recall the reworked pre-dtr tradition because it corresponds to the “anti-faith creed” of the murmuring question of Num 14:3 (“V. 27b scheint allerdings auf die verarbeitete vor-dtr Überlieferung wieder zurückzugreifen, denn sachlich entspricht das ‘Anti-Glaubensbekenntnis’ der murrenden Frage von Num 14,3”).

116

Literature, History and Ideology

place in the 8th/7th cent. 140 It was first edited by the Hexateuch redactor postdtr from Deut 1 and adopted into the Tetrateuchal narrative flow in order to link the “source of the source.”141 The plausibility of the supporting presupposition and the reasonableness of such a process of transmission are not tested. In my view, a written “spy narrative” in which Israel is located outside the land that assumes the aim of conquering the land makes little sense without literary context. 142 On the other side, one has to admit that the continuation was always a problem in the non-priestly variant: In the failed conquest of Num 14:40–45*, 143 Israel is dispersed beyond Hormah because of the judgment that “they will not see the land” (Num 14:23a). The transition, whether it be to the conquest of the Canaanite cities of Hormah named in Num 21:1–3144 or the itinerary notices in Num 20:22a; 21:4a*, 11b* until the Balaam narrative in Num 22–24*, does explain how the turn toward the positive came about and how the declaration in 14:23 relates to the crooked path in the land and the irrevocable blessing of Num 22–24*, which is insoluble from the promise of the land. Unlike the version in Deuteronomy, the Numbers variant (if one assumes that the land promise should ever be fulfilled) has this problem until the stage in the text in which the generational pattern is implemented compositionally and narratively. A “Yahwist” without a spy narrative and a fulfilled promise of land (Exod 3:8) in which one jumps from Num 11:32 to Num 20:1a to Num 22:1 as Levin presents it, does not have this difficulty. 145 If the argument to this point is correct, then one encounters a dilemma. A version of the narrative that fulfills all the conditions mentioned does not

140 O TTO , Deuteronomium (2012), 384: “Diese Erzählung zeigt auch keinerlei Spuren deuteronomistischen oder priesterschriftlichen Einflusses und dürfte am ehesten in spätvorexilische Zeit zu datieren sein und eine Ätiologie des Verlustes judäischen Territoriums südlich von Hebron seit dem 8./7. Jahrhundert [darstellen].” One can surely question whether this proposition sufficiently explains the narrative’s motif in the tradition. 141 Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium (2000), 55; cf. IDEM, Deuteronomium (2012), 384; the layer of Num 13–14 that integrated the tradition is in Num 13:1–17a, 17b, 20, 21, 22aα, 27aβb*, 28aαb*, 29, 30–31, 32–33; 14:1ab, 2–39, 40–44a, 44b, 45 (IBIDEM, 381, sections from the tradition are in italics). Otto considers the basic narrative of Deut 1 to have been reworked in the process of linking up with the Tetrateuch; cf. IBIDEM, 377. Kadesh is only an alignment to Josh 14:6–7. 142 The same schema is adopted for the Sihon narrative as well (cf. O TTO, Deuteronomium [2012], 453), which does not make it more plausible. 143 If one follows the analysis of SCHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 51, the foundational layer consists of vv. 39b, 40, 41aαb, 43, 44a, 45. 144 On the secondary character of Num 21:3b, see FREVEL, Pentateuch, p. 133–4 in the present volume. 145 Cf. in contrast to the changed published version of LEVIN , Geschichtswerk (2012); IDEM , Scriptures (2013), 48.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

117

exist, neither among those propounding the bridge thesis nor among those who propose a pre-priestly narrative thread in the book of Numbers. It is similar for the rest of the old pieces of tradition, which will only be suggested here: the tradition of Moses’s father-in-law presupposes a location outside the cultivated land, the Sihon tradition, the Balaam and Baal-Peor tradition call for a location in the Transjordan. 146 Even with all the difficulties that come with the proposal of a non-priestly narrative thread, the hypothetical nature of the proposal that it instead concerns traditions without context – to state it carefully – is quite risky. 147 It is at least as hypothetical as the proposal that these traditions were bound together earlier in a non-priestly narrative threat that connected the exodus narrative with the conquest tradition. Pulling together the three parts of the argument with the presuppositions, the framing assumptions and the explanation for the book of Numbers presented here as the “bridge thesis,” there are many questions that are not simply dependent on the fundamental issues of the “farewell to the Yahwist” and the “shortening of the Priestly Document.” The proposal of a literaryhistorical bridge function for the book of Numbers is one of the most important impulses of recent Pentateuchal scholarship, but it is not sustainable. Especially Römer’s proposition that Numbers emerged in order to combine the largely finished text complexes of Genesis–Leviticus and Deuteronomy with one another to create a Torah as a compromise is insufficient to accommodate the complexity of the transmission, redactional and interpretative processes of the book of Numbers. The decoupling of the non-priestly traditional sections and the narrative exodus-land complex are unconvincing both in terms of transmission and tradition history.

4. The Book of Numbers as Expanding Interpretation: Conclusion and Summary In light of several foundational issues in Pentateuchal scholarship, the previous remarks focused on recent scholarship on the book of Numbers. This 146 The Balaam narrative is not only anchored in the Transjordan, it also presupposes, in whichever form of the text one might choose, the election of Israel. Even without taking the Balaam oracles into consideration, the motif of the failed curses by the enemy remains difficult to understand without context. Therefore, the tradition-historical independence of the Balaam narrative is hardly plausible in spite of the originality of the material. 147 Is the provision of quail in Num 11, one might finally query against Römer, really derivative from the exodus narrative? And how does it make sense to bring together the conflicting tendencies of Num 12? If the narrative should both strengthen Moses’s authority and at the same time propagate mixed marriages for the diaspora on the basis of Moses’s example, is it not astonishing that it allows Moses to transgress the authority of the Torah without commenting on it?

118

Literature, History and Ideology

investigation solidified the impression that the explanation of the genesis of Numbers has become the litmus test for Pentateuchal scholarship. This can, in conclusion, be presented in five points: (1) The perception of the “book character” is correct, but the notion that its formation history is separate from the formation of the rest of the Pentateuch is false. Numbers is neither disorderly nor haphazard, though the recognizably compositional orientation of the texts to one another has often been mistaken. The book of Numbers was generally the last book to be formed, but certainly not only upon the foundation of the already closed books of Genesis–Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In my view, a successive canonization of individual scrolls neither arises conclusively from the structural signals nor from the Fortschreibungen within the Pentateuch. On the other hand, it is correct to search for the closing potential within the individual books beyond one final redaction of the Pentateuch, which in my view has not been successful. (2) Conspicuous are special features developed in Numbers and sometimes limited to this book found in its priestly influenced texts such as the image of the camp with a specific social order, the conception of the Levites including the clear primacy of the Aaronide priesthood, the uncleanness of corpses, etc. A comparable list of features is much less clear for the non-priestly texts. The priestly conceptions in the book of Numbers exhibit peculiarities that should not, however, quickly lead to setting them apart literarily. (3) The perception of the book as proto-midrashic interpretive literature unequivocally moves in the right direction in that it is very appropriate for the post-priestly material of the book of Numbers. The ritual composition of Num 5–6, for example, presupposes Lev 5 and builds upon it;148 Num 36 exegetes Num 27 further; etc. The tendency toward exegetical literature that becomes dominant in the book of Numbers is, however, appropriate throughout the late priestly literature, as Christophe Nihan writes: Perhaps more than any other portion of the Torah the Priestly literature is the product of a creative yet highly coherent process of reception, revision, and re-formulation spanning the totality of the Persian period, from the first return of exile and the rebuilding of the Temple to the end of the Achaemenid domination in Southern Levant, continuously adapting the doctrine of previous generations of scribes to the ever-changing historical circumstances in order to meet the religious and political requirements of their time. 149

The impression that it concerns inner-biblical exegetical literature, even if this does not exhaust the contents of the book, is strengthened by the halakhic character of the legal sections (esp. Num 5–6; 7; 8; 9; 15; 19; 27–30; 35). While haggadic traces can be recognized in the narrative sections (Num 11– 12; 16–17; 20; 31), their character – except for Num 25 – is not different in 148 149

See the detailed discussion with good observations in NIHAN , Laws (2013), esp. 127. NIHAN, Calendars (2008), 231.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges?

119

principle from the narratives in Exodus and Leviticus (e.g., Exod 15–19; 32– 34; Lev 10). In this way as well, the book of Numbers does not have a completely different status. (4) The final version of the book of Numbers is not oriented toward the filling of a gap between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, but instead points beyond Deuteronomy to the book of Joshua. Nowhere does the book of Numbers presuppose the narrative plot (!) of Deuteronomy; instead its narrative threads are continued and often bracketed in Joshua, whether through Joshua and Caleb, the daughters of Zelophehad, the cities of asylum, the building of the altar by the Transjordanian tribes, etc. This naturally does not mean that there are no relationships between texts in the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy and the book of Numbers, but only that the book of Numbers, contra Römer and Albertz, does not constitute the Pentateuch in a certain sense. (5) The book of Numbers arose successively in relation to the rest of the Pentateuch rather than that it represents a blockwise universe of expansions. The de-coupling of the redactional history of the book of Numbers from that of the remainder of the Pentateuch creates more problems than it solves, both in the realm of the non-priestly and also of the so-called priestly texts. Even as the source model appears increasingly inappropriate for explaining the comprehensive formation of the book of Numbers, the connections with the narrative threads in Exodus should still be taken seriously. Not all nonpriestly texts in Numbers were only inserted post-priestly. In place of a de facto block model that allows for the formation of the book of Numbers as a “bridge,” more appropriate are cycles of expansion that are bracketed with the Triateuch from the very beginning and continue the narrative. In my view, the proposition of a pre-priestly, Hexateuchal, exodus-conquest narrative that combines the older traditions through the itinerary notices is a thoroughly plausible hypothesis, that is, however, farther from a consensus than ever. The weaknesses of this proposal are not greater than those in the current alternative hypothesis that the non-priestly components of the book of Numbers arise from Deuteronomy, but at the same time reckon with unattached pre-dtr traditions. The direction of dependence between Numbers and Deuteronomy should not, contra Eckart Otto, be resolved uni-directionally in favor of viewing the Numbers texts as later. The change to interpretive literature appears, as noted, most clearly in the legal passages in which the Torah becomes its interpretation. This process, which Achenbach correctly observes, coincides with a hierocratic institutionalization that installs the Aaronide priesthood. This consists de facto of a very small circle, which has perhaps been underlined too little in the past. On the whole, a plausible model is still missing in which to place the non-redactionally organized late processes of expansion in terms of social location and in connection to the conditions for producing biblical literature in the late

120

Literature, History and Ideology

Persian and early Hellenistic periods. This I consider to be the greatest challenge for future Numbers scholarship.

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert Numbers 21 as Compositional Joint Since the declining of the sun of source criticism in the 20th cent. the book of Numbers has become a “sleeping beauty.” There are a lot of prejudices against this book, be it its legal content or the mostly misunderstood alternation of story and law. The Christian prejudices of the 19th cent. are still perceptible. Only one example of an influential judgment shall underline this, namely Bruno Baentsch’s comment on Numbers 1–10: Incidentally, pretty much the entire section belongs to the most tedious that has ever been produced in literature. But like a pearl in a worthless shell, the marvellous priestly blessing of 6:22–27 lies embedded within, and in relation to cultural history, the jealousyinstruction in 5:11–31 comprises one of the most interesting documents of the Pentateuch. 1

Numbers is interesting, but not relevant. The source-critical model worked out well in Genesis. It worked less well in Exodus, but in Numbers only roughly, and sometimes with violence. Martin Noth set a landmark with his exegesis of Joshua, in which he neglected the traditional sources and found the Deuteronomistic History instead. 2 In his commentary on Numbers on the one hand he held fast to the sources in this book, but on the other hand he recognized the pressure of the Documentary Hypothesis, which seeks to trace the lines starting in Genesis. Noth respected the bridge-building function of the book of Numbers and searched for Hexateuchal and Enneateuchal solutions. But in the meantime, the source-critical model as a base for Old Testament exegesis of the Pentateuch has been broken. The Yahwist is challenged just as the Priestly Source. One of the new arising battlefields can be found in Numbers. To give just one example: if one asks for the end of the Priestly Source (Pg), the alternative between the Sinai pericope and the traditional end with the death of Moses in Deut 34:8 or Deut 34:9 is not decided in Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy: the crucial point is the existence of a P-version of

1 This is an English translation of BAENTSCH , Exodus (1903), 444: “Übrigens gehört der ganze Abschnitt so ziemlich zu dem Ödesten, das in der Literatur jemals produziert worden ist. Aber wie eine Perle in wertloser Schale liegt darin doch der herrliche Priestersegen 622–27 eingebettet, und die Eifersuchts-Tora in 511–31 gehört zu den in kulturhistorischer Beziehung interessantesten Dokumenten des Pentateuchs.” 2 See F REVEL, Geschichtswerk (2004).

122

Literature, History and Ideology

the spy story in Numbers. 3 During the last decade the book of Numbers has been re-evaluated in Pentateuchal discussions as well as in redactional criticism. 4 This is due to the broad study Die Vollendung der Tora of Reinhard Achenbach, 5 the studies of Oliver Artus6 and Ulrich Fistill,7 or the famous compositional analysis of Won W. Lee.8 Certainly, the structure is a challenge to many and was often misunderstood as chaotic or “reichlich undurchsichtig” (“abundantly opaque”). 9 Thomas Römer has characterized the situation felicitously: “Numbers is indeed the only book of the Pentateuch where commentators need several pages to justify their idea of the structure of the book and to refute others.” 10 Here I do not discuss the proposals of a twofold, threefold, or fivefold structure of Numbers in detail, 11 but will focus on the significance of “space” and “land” in the book of Numbers, especially in its latter part. The starting point of my argumentation is the proposal of structuring Numbers in five parts: Num 1:1– 10:10; 10:11–14:33; 15:1–20:29; 21:1–25:18; 25:19–36:13 predominantlyoverlaying the twofold structure of an old and a new generation (Num 1:1– 25:18; 25:19 respectively 26:1–36:13). 12 In the first part I shall analyze the structure of the posterior parts of Numbers synchronically by taking the end of the book as point of departure. This illustrates that the spatial dimension and the “land”-theme are crucial for the arrangement of Numbers in a Hexateuchal context: Numbers is a Hexateuchal not a Pentateuchal book. In the second part of this article Numbers 21 is considered as a transitional chapter and turning point of the composition of Numbers proceeding from failure to success or from refusal to realization. The argumentation brings about some diachronic aspects of Numbers 21. At the end, I draw some lines of the origins of the narrative material behind the text, respectively behind the redactional layers of the book of Numbers, by taking Numbers 21 as example. This sheds light on the interrelation between historical (diachronic) and compositional (synchronic) analysis. 3 See FREVEL, Blick (2000). The last overview was given by RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), esp. 423–7, regrettably without taking my counter-arguments of an early end of P in Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers into account. 4 See RÖMER, Périphérie (2008); IDEM, Sojourn (2007), esp. 419–27; IDEM , Nombres (2004); ARTUS, Redactions (2007); SEEBASS, Land (2004), esp. 104. 5 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003). 6 A RTUS , Etudes (1997) 7 FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007). 8 LEE, Punishment (2003). 9 N OTH , Numeri (1977), 5; IDEM , Numbers (1968), 4: “the confusion and lack of order in its contents.” 10 RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 427. 11 See OLSON , Death (1985), 9–40; FISTILL , Ostjordanland (2007), 24–35; F REVEL, Relief, p. 55–8 in the present volume. 12 See F REVEL, Numeri (2017), esp. 242–3.

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

123

1. The Book of Numbers as a Composition There is no doubt that the book of Numbers is part of a larger literary unit. It is chronologically attached to the time frame of Exodus 40 and Lev 8–9 and continues the narrative threads of the Sinai narrative. It carries on this narrative not only chronologically, but spatially, too. It begins at the foot of the mountain thus underlining the centripetal power of Sinai and its central theme, the reconciling nearness of God. Thus, it is looking back to Sinai. At the same time, it ends at the border of the land where the events described in Deuteronomy take place. Thus, the book of Numbers bridges the gap between Sinai and Promised Land by the transition from Sinai to Paran/Kadesh (Num 10:11–12:16) and from Kadesh to Moab (Num 20:22–21:20; 22:1) at the border of the land. In that way it continues the movement, which started with the exodus and which was grounded in the promise to the fathers. In announcing and preparing the death of Moses in Numbers 20 and 27 the book of Numbers refers relatively early to Deuteronomy and to the end of the Pentateuch. With the division of the land of Canaan it points far beyond the death of Moses to its actualization in the book of Joshua. Already this simplification of the plot sheds light on the significance of the “land”-theme in the book of Numbers. This is obvious in the topics of the last part of Numbers 25:19– 36:13: the “new generation” which will come into the land, the appointment of Joshua as leader, and the announcement of the death of Moses as the last one of the exodus generation, the allocation of the land east of the river Jordan, and the inheriting of the land by the daughters of Zelophehad. However, the significance of the land-theme is present from start to finish with gradually increasing impact. The book of Numbers has a Janus face looking back and ahead, and keeping in mind the importance of Sinai on the one hand and the land on the other hand.13 The shift from refusal of the land and resistance against God and his chosen leader in Num 11:1–14:33 to the beginning realization of inheritance in Num 25:19–36:13 presupposes the death of the old generation. It is important that this demographic decline in the middle parts Num 15:1–20:29 and Num 21:1–25:18 is affiliated with, first partly and then fully, preservation notwithstanding new sins, insurgencies, skepticism and disbelief. While this development is gradual, Numbers 21 is a turning point in several respects. This will be unfolded below, but first we have to look at the spatial markers and the importance of Moab in Num 21:1–25:18.

13

See for details F REVEL, Relief, 53–81 in the present volume.

124

Literature, History and Ideology

2. Unfolding the Structure from the End: The Compositional Function of ‫“( בערבת מואב‬in the Plains of Moab”) At the end of the book the legislation of some of the laws that were given before is located “in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.” The spatial dimension of Num 36:13 is crucial. It is a structuring element in the last part of the book; besides that, it builds bridges to Num 21:1–25:18. As a kind of “cascade” Num 36:13 refers back to Num 22:1 via Num 35:1; 33:50; 33:48; 26:63; 26:3. In Num 22:1 Israel is said to encamp in the plains of Moab ( ‫וי חנו‬ ‫)בערבות מואב מעב ר לירדן ירחו‬. Geographically speaking the ghōr el-belḳa are the lowlands of the Jordan estuary. The localization ‫בערבת מואב על י רדן ירחו‬ in Num 36:13 takes up the introduction of the speech in Num 35:1. The last two divine speeches of the whole book are found in Num 35 (introduction formulae in Num 35:1, 9) mentioning the selection of the cities of refuge. Numbers 36 does not contain divine speeches in direct manner anymore. The selection of the cities of refuge and the Levitical cities refer explicitly to the territories of the East and West Jordan as well (Num 35:8, 14). Consequently, Num 35:14 recalls the actual position and refers to Canaan as the final destination. That is underlined by referring to the time after the Israelites will have crossed the Jordan. Numbers 35 deals with the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge and points therewith to its textual counterpart in Joshua 20– 21. Thus, the expression ‫ בערבת מואב על ירד ן י רחו‬seems to be inappropriate to mark the closure of the book, because it strengthens the Hexateuchal dimension. Before Num 35:1 the localization in this exact form is attested twice in Num 33:48 and 33:50. First, it is referring to the last stage of the exodus from Rameses in Egypt in the itinerary v. 48. With this reference, the current position in Moab at the end of Numbers is configured as conclusion of the events of the exodus and the act of liberation. This fact indicates that the turning point in the book of Numbers from wrathful annihilation (Num 14:21–23) up to the blessing at the end (Num 22:12) has already been accomplished. This altered prospect becomes obvious in the Balaam story as well as in the division of the land in the east, and it is underlined by the changed perspective in the “Landgabeformel.” 14 From Num 20:12 onwards the land which was promised to the fathers is given already on a text level, namely syntactically by the shift from ‫ נתן‬yiqtol to ‫ נתן‬qatal. Whereas this is merely stated by God in Num 20:12, it is beginning to be accomplished from Num 21:1 onwards as will be seen below. We consider now the significance of the phrase ‫ בערבת מואב על ירד ן ירחו‬in Num 33:48 and 50. Although there are still three chapters of Numbers and the whole of Deuteronomy to come, the localization “in the plains of Moab by 14

See LOHFINK, Volk (2004); IDEM, Landübereignung (2005).

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

125

the Jordan of Jericho” in the itinerary (Num 33:48) can be seen as a gravitational push towards the end of the book of Numbers. The second attestation of the phrase in the final divine speech in Num 33:50–56 establishes a significant link to the end of the book. Numbers 33:50 expands the introduction formula ‫ וידבר י הוה אל־משׁה לאמר‬with the exact localization ‫בערבת מואב על‬ ‫ ירדן ירחו‬and differs thereby from most of the speech-introductions in Numbers. The speech “in the plains of Moab by the Jordan of Jericho” in vv. 50– 56 is clearly influenced by the late Deuteronomistic language and presents the classical late mixed style of the book of Numbers. It takes into account the conquest of Canaan and orders the distribution of the western part of the land, which is given already (v. 53: ‫)כי לכם נתתי את־הארץ לרשׁת אתה‬. The short YHWH speech has its compositional counterpart in Numbers 32 in the allocation of the land east of the Jordan. It is very important with respect to the composition that the long itinerary in Numbers 33 stands between the distribution of Gilead (Numbers 32) and the instructions how to manage the distribution of Canaan (Num 33:50–34:29), which is narrated in Josh 14:1–19:51. We cannot neglect that the distribution in Numbers 32 is a hybrid between “already” and “not yet.” The eastern tribes are confronted with the refusal of the land by the fathers (Num 32:8–15) and the threat of the continuation of the stay in the desert. Hence, they confess to join the whole of Israel in conquering Canaan. Thus, Numbers 33 is both a retrospect and the beginning of something new. On the one hand Num 33:50–56 points to the book of Joshua and beyond, on the other hand it is connected with Num 36:13. There is no doubt that Num 36:13 signals a conclusion as well as an open end. That becomes quite clear, when one includes the first instance of the localization in the book of Numbers. ‫ בערבת מואב על י רדן ירחו‬is also found exactly in Num 26:3 and 63 as the location of the second census. By spanning Num 26:3 with 36:13 the phrase constitutes a main subdivision of the book of Numbers. Thus, Num 25:19–36:13 is configured as an independent part of the book supporting the suggestion of a two-part structure of Numbers by Dennis Olson and others. 15 The second census in Numbers 26 is the clear signal that the already mentioned turning point in Numbers 21 reached its climax. The generation of the exodus that rebelled against the quality of the land and to whom the death in the desert had been announced (Num 14:20–23; beyond the last reduction narrative of Numbers 25), except Moses, already died out (Num 26:64–65). After the death of the old, the new raises. This is presented by the newly patterned Israel, and it is located at the border of the land, too. Towards this new generation the promise is to be realized. Only the death of Moses, which is announced shortly after the census in Num 27:12–14 is still outstanding

15

See OLSON, Death (1985), 55–125; IDEM, Numbers (1996), 3–6.

126

Literature, History and Ideology

and it takes several chapters until the leader dies in Deut 34:5. 16 The tension that the promise will not be fulfilled persists as long as Moses lives. By the link between Num 26:3 and 36:13 a unit of the book of Numbers is created. However, this unit cannot stand alone. It even crosses the borders of the Pentateuch and thus evokes certain dynamics towards the land in the last part of Numbers. The spatial connection overarches both sides of this part of the book. Although not the same words are used, the determination “in the plains of Moab” can be found across the borders of the last part of the book of Numbers, both before and after Num 25:19–36:13. The only occurrence of ‫ ערבה‬in the book of Numbers (except from the already mentioned) can be found in Num 22:1. Israel dwells ‫בערבות מואב מעב ר לירד ן ירחו‬. By using the prepositional phrase ‫ מעב ר ל‬the form differs from the already discussed form with the preposition ‫על‬. There is no difference in the local position, because from Num 22:1 to Josh 3:1 Israel dwells in Shittim. This site is mentioned explicitly in Num 25:1 at first, and from there Israel departs to cross the Jordan in Josh 2:1; 3:1. The local data strengthens the Hexateuchal frame as a presupposition to understand Numbers. Nonetheless, the slight difference in the formulation is quite important, because it is the presupposition for the constitution of Num 26:1–36:13 as an independent part of the book of Numbers. From Num 22:1 a literally overarching feature is present, not only loosely in the overall structure of the local data in Deut 1:1–5, but it is even more obvious at the end in Deuteronomy 34. The localization ‫ ערבות מואב‬can be found in Deut 34:1 and 8 for the last time. Thus, the whole “plains of Moab”-section (Num 22:1–Deut 34:8, respectively Joshua 3) is considered the last stage of the wilderness period. The significant phrase “in the plains of Moab” can be further subdivided. While Moab plays a significant role in the Balaam story Num 22:1–24:25), 17 the nomen proprium is attested 8 times before Numbers 22:1. Thus, the reality of Moab is present in the book of Numbers before Num 22:1, first in the encamping notice of Num 21:11. However, Iye-Abarim is not located in proper Moab but in the desert east of Moab (‫)ויחנו ב עיי העברים במדבר אשׁר על־פני מואב ממזרח השׁמשׁ‬. 18 The other references of Moab in Numbers 21 are geographically deviant in a comparable way: in Num 21:13 Moab is used twice to distinguish the location of Israel from Moab. Numbers 21:15, 26, 28, 29 are poetical references that do not denote the position of Israel. Only in Num 21:20, at the end of the fragmenFor the analysis of the death notices in Numbers and Deuteronomy, see F REVEL, Blick (2000), 248–66. 17 In total 15 records: Num 22:1, 3 (bis), 4 (bis), 7, 8, 10, 14, 21, 36; 23:6, 7, 17; 24:17. The only instances beside the Balaam story are the ‫ בנ ות מואב‬in Num 25:1. They have their own compositional significance, which cannot be discussed here. 18 See for the vague localization of Iye-Abarim M ILLER, Journey (1989), esp. 589; MACDONALD, East (2000), 210: “In SE plain of the Dead Sea between Wadi Khanazir and Bab adh Dhra‘.” 16

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

127

tary itinerary of Num 21:18b–20, the location is: “to the valley lying in the region of Moab, by the top of Pisgah, which overlooks the wasteland” (‫הגי א‬ ‫)אשׁר בשׂד ה מואב ראשׁ הפסגה ונשׁקפה על־פני הישׁימן‬. 19 Different from other itinerary notices in the book of Numbers this itinerary lacks the verbs ‫ נסע‬and ‫יחן‬. Israel is not encamping explicitly in Moab. This is said only in Num 22:1 by the mentioned phrase ‫ב ערב ות מואב מעב ר לירדן ירחו‬.20 Nearly every single phrase in Num 21:20 is significant in its textual reference, especially to the Balaam story (where Moab plays a significant role, too), Num 22:1 and Deuteronomy 34. 21 It is clear that Num 21:20 has a structuring function. This is, however, quite different from the reference system described above. Thus, there is a clear distinction between the references to Moab in Numbers 21 and Num 22:1. Moab is spatially present, but not the “plains of Moab,” and Israel is not encamping explicitly inside the borders of Moab. It is important that Num 22:1 locates Israel ‫מעבר לי רדן ירחו‬. Numbers 21 is in some way “inbetween.” We will look closer to the compositional function of Numbers 21 below. Let us summarize: Our starting point was the last verse of Numbers (Num 36:13) and its intertextual references. This verse reveals the spatial dimension of the last part of the book of Numbers. Taken together, the local data form several overarching structures, which shape the last part of the book and bridge the central part of the book of Numbers. Moreover, the framework of the last chapters of Numbers points far beyond Deuteronomy into a Hexateuchal context of understanding. The spatial dimension is truly important for the composition of the book of Numbers. Numbers 36:13 establishes and concludes the last part of the book by its resumption of Num 26:3. Thus, it becomes a colophon. This is not only so because of the spatial dimension of the verse, but also because of the similarity with the last and concluding verse of Leviticus (27:34). 22 This cannot be unfolded at length here, but we can summarize with Norbert Lohfink: “It is best to combine the colophons with the quantity ‘book’ […] They are book conclusions.” 23 Numbers 26–36 must be analyzed within the scope of the Hexateuch, since it is incomplete on its own and needs Joshua 13–22 to be understood. No Translation by BUDD , Numbers (1984), 237. FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007), 32 is missing this crucial point by characterizing Num 22:1 only as “überleitende und einleitende Ortsangabe, welche die nachfolgende Perikope in diesen Zusammenhang einreiht.” 21 ‫( גי א‬the only reference of this lexeme in Numbers) is pointing to Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; ‫ ראשׁ הפסגה‬is pointing to Num 23:14; Deut 3:17, 27; 34:1 and ‫ שׁק ף‬N-stem with ‫על־‬ ‫ פני הישׁי מן‬is pointing clearly to Num 23:18. 22 See F REVEL, Relief, p. 60–3 in the present volume. 23 This is an English translation of LOHFINK, Prolegomena (2005), 184: “Man verbindet die Kolophone am besten mit der Größe ‘Buch’ […] Es sind Buchabschlüsse.” 19 20

128

Literature, History and Ideology

other passage in the Tetrateuch necessitates the Hexateuch more than Numbers 26–36. But first we look more closely at the central part of Numbers.

3. Between Kadesh and Moab: The Spatial Structure of the Center The fringe of the book has shown a far-reaching perspective, beyond the borders of the book of Numbers and even beyond those of the Pentateuch. I cannot deal here in detail with the first part of Numbers, Numbers 1–10, but the results are the same. 24 The book is anchored firmly in the Sinai narrative of Exodus and Leviticus. Numbers 1:1 begins something new and is simultaneously a continuation of the foregoing. Thus, the book of Numbers is encamped “between” Exodus and Joshua and is embedded in Exodus and Joshua by a structure with a starting point and a destination. The structure of the book of Numbers is designed by the spatial axis “Egypt – Sinai – wilderness – Moab – Canaan” whereas the narrative location of the book of Numbers is restricted to the middle three. The following will reveal the important transition area between Kadesh in Num 20:22 and the encamping of Israel in the lowlands of Moab Num 22:1. 25 In Exodus and in the first part of the book (Num 1:1, 19; 3:4, 14; 9:1, 5; 10:12) the desert as the location for the camp was fundamental; but in the following chapters the ‫מדבר‬, “desert,” is even more important. Half of all the attestations of ‫ מדבר‬in the book of Numbers (48 times) are found in the section from Num 10:11 through Num 21:23 respectively 21:35. This desert area is marked by an obvious system of three geographical connections: Kadesh, Red Sea and Hormah. It symbolizes a situation between an endangering of life and the life giving Promised Land. Kadesh at the border of the cultivated land has, thus, a liminal function. The spies in Numbers 13, who are to inspect the land of Canaan depart from Kadesh (Num 13:26). When they are back at Kadesh, their report provokes detraction and rejection of the divine gift, the Promised Land. The story is the crucial turning point of Numbers as well as the anti-climax. It evokes the wrath of YHWH, which causes the delay of entering the land and the wilderness journey. Also from Kadesh as point of departure, Moses sends messengers to Edom (Num 20:14, 16, 22). This causes a detour again. Both stories are linked to the ‫דרך ים־סוף‬, “the way of the Sea of Reeds,” phrase See F REVEL, Relief, p. 63–5, 70–7 in the present volume. I will leave aside the parallels in Deut 1–3 which are – following the plot of the Pentateuch – not relevant in compositional respect here. I want to emphasize the fact that the diachronic relation between Num 13–14; 20–21 and Deut 1–3 is rather complex and would have needed a too lengthy argumentation here. 24 25

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

129

(Num 14:25; 21:4). In both instances – but especially in Num 21:4 – the way to the Sea of Reeds is a textual cipher signalizing a setback rather than a concrete geographical specification. In Num 14:45 the already failed conquest amounts to the “disaster of Hormah” (‫)חרמה‬. Like the ‫ דרך ים־סוף‬there are only two attestations of this location in the book of Numbers, and it is again Numbers 21, where the term appears (Num 21:3). However, the situation has changed: in Numbers 14, YHWH was not with Israel, so Israel was defeated (Num 14:42); in Numbers 21 YHWH drives the Canaanites into the hands of the Israelites (Num 21:3). 26 It is not by chance that Numbers 21 is the turning point from destruction to blessing: (1) Num 21:4–9: the power of the copper serpent as a continual and thus lasting prevention; (2) Num 22:1–24:25: preservation of Israel by the failing curse of Balaam; and, thus, the confirmation of the blessing of Israel; (3) Num 25:1–9: uncultic expiation and preservation through the act of Phinehas; (4) Num 25:19–26:65: attested preservation in the second census which signifies the minimal loss in quantity. The section from Numbers 21 to Numbers 26 is crucial for the development of the theological message of the book of Numbers, namely preservation and saving by YHWH (due to his promise and his steadfast grace) in spite of the disobedience of Israel in the past. 27 It is not accidental that this area, which is connected with “preservation,” is especially marked by the encounter with the peoples of the lands the Israelites are crossing through (Edomites, Canaanites, Amorites, Moabites and Midianites). In contrast, the preceding part, which is enclosed by the mention of Kadesh (Num 13:26; 20:1), is marked by loss and rebellion. It seems to be intentional that the trespass of the leaders and the passing by of Miriam and Aaron are positioned at the end of this subsection, and that Kadesh is mentioned four times in Numbers 20. Numbers 21 forms a transitional area in compositional regards; it leads over from the wilderness period to the “conquest period” as Martin Noth already noted in a seminal article from 1941. 28 It is obvious that spatial tags with structuring functions characterize the central part of the book. The encampment and decampment itinerary notices that occur three times each at the beginning and the end of the Kadesh block (Num 10:11–12; 11:35; 12:16 and Num 20:22; 21:4, 10–13) makes this structuring function even clearer. The last notice in Num 22:1 is situated in the plains of Moab whose significance we have discussed already. Though it is FISTILL , Ostjordanland (2007), 32 underestimates the significance of the turning point in Num 21:1–3 by characterizing the military success as “Zwischenfall” without compositional significance. 27 The citation of the grace formula of Exod 34:6–7 in Num 14:18–19 is the only instance of ‫ חסד‬in the book of Numbers. Note the ‫ וכאשׁ ר נשׂ את ה ל עם הזה ממצרי ם וע ד־ הנ ה‬in Num 14:19 and the important ascertainment in v. 20 ‫ סל חתי כדבר ך‬referring to the citation of Exod 34:6–7 by Moses. 28 N OTH , Glied (1940/41). 26

130

Literature, History and Ideology

impossible to reconstruct a route based on the itineraries geographically, it is obvious that the notices mark the transition and the in-between of the three poles Sinai – Kadesh – Moab.

4. Numbers 21 as Transitional Area If our observations concerning the spatial structure of the core of the book of Numbers are correct, the localization of Num 22:1 in the plains of Moab is not by chance. It opens the posterior part of the central part up to Numbers 26 as a new beginning. As we have already mentioned, in Numbers 26 the change is completed. The short statement “after the plague” (‫)ויהי אחרי המגפה‬ in Num 25:19 signals that “it is over.” Then Eleazar as successor of Aaron is addressed (‫ )ויאמר יהוה אל־משׁה ואל אלעזר בן־אהרן הכהן לאמר‬signalizing: “it will go on.” Numbers 26 is the keystone of the “new generation” which will enter the land. The section about the daughters of Zelophehad frames this last section in Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12. Thus, Num 22:1–25:18 has the function of an interlude, taking place in the ‫ערבות מואב‬, only a stone’s throw away from the Promised Land. It plays with the “already” and the “not yet.” However, one would expect the interlude to begin in chapter 21 because the most significant change of mood is to be found there. But it seems to be relevant that Israel enters the plains of Moab after Numbers 21. Ulrich Fistill has seen the tension between the geographically structuring function of Numbers 21 on the one hand (Num 22:1), and its being a turning point on the other hand. Following Rolf Knierim in assuming a twofold structure of Numbers (Num 1:1–10:10 and 10:11–36:13)29 in general, Fistill wants to divide the second part of Numbers into two parts Num 10:11–21:20 and 21:21–36:13: “There are some arguments in favor of beginning the second section with Num 21:21.” 30 But as we have seen already, the text seems to be aware of the remarkable difference between Num 21:20 and Num 22:1 in referring to Moab as place of sojourn. Furthermore, Num 21:20 is not part of the spatial reference system in the second part of Numbers. And third, Num 21:1–3 is the turning point from decimation to preservation after the death of Aaron, which has already been mentioned. 31 It seems quite clear that Numbers 21 stands on 29 See K NIERIM , Numbers (2011); IDEM/COATS, Numbers (2005), 9–10; see further LEE, Punishment (2003), 73–290. 30 This is an English translation of FISTILL, Ostjordanland (2007), 32: “Es spricht einiges dafür, den Beginn des zweiten Teilabschnittes bei Num 21,21 anzusetzen.” See also SKA, Introduction (2006). 31 Fistill, Ostjordanland (2007), 34–5 tries to emphasize his proposal by adding a religious aspect: “Im ersten Teilabschnitt (Num 10,11–21,20) geraten die Israeliten in mehrere Glaubenskrisen und das Vorhaben scheitert; sie müssen militärische Einbußen hinnehmen und interne religiöse Streitfragen lösen. Im zweiten Unterabschnitt (Num 21,21–36,13) ist

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

131

its own in a somewhat intermediate position, being both part of Num 10:11– 20:29 (respectively 15:1–20:29) and of Num 22:1–26:55.32 Numbers 21 functions as a compositional hinge (see below): there seems to be a difference between the geographical area between the south and the north of the Arnon and the Moabite plain. While the land of Moab south of the Arnon (Num 21:13) is neither conquered nor occupied, the land of the Amorites ranging from the Arnon to the Jabbok is conquered and settled (Num 21:25, 35). Thus, Numbers 21 is the transitional area between the desert existence and living in the land. From Num 21:35 onwards Moabites are neighbors and not only enemies in transition. This compositional argument seems plausible, but is in fact not compelling. It is rather obvious to presume that there is more than one compositional structure in Numbers or that the background of the inconsistencies in compositional respect is due to diachronic reasons. It is communis opinio that in diachronic respect, especially chapters 20–25 contain various older material which were blended together almost without order. We can take this position paradigmatically to comment rather scantly on some questions of literary artwork and diachrony, tradition and oral transmission of the Pentateuchal traditions. Focusing on Numbers 21 we have to struggle with the structure of the disparate material. With relative consensus, we can roughly subdivide it into the following sections: Num 21:1–3; 4–9; 10–20; 21–31; 32–3533 being aware that we have neglected therefore the structuring function of the back references and the poetical passages.

5. Neither Hexateuchal nor Pentateuchal: Numbers 21:1–3 Seebass reminds us to be careful with the interpretation of the conquest of Hormah described in Num 21:1–3: “The explanation of this short notice suffers from eisegesis.” 34 As already noted, Num 21:1–3 is the shift from failure to military success in conquering the land and Num 21:4–9, the section about the bronze serpent, is the transition to preservation instead of obliteration (the story ends significantly with ‫“ וחי‬and he survived”). To understand this sigIsrael wieder zu neuer Einheit erstarkt und kann sowohl seine ‘rein militärischen’ (Num 21,21–35) wie auch ‘kultischen’ Feldzüge (Num 31) erfolgreich austragen.” Thereby he neglects the importance of Num 25 as the last part of resistance of the people. 32 For Num 15:1 as significant break, see F REVEL , Numeri (2017), 242, 288; LEE, Punishment (2003), 135–6, 280, 290; SEEBASS, Land (2006), 95. 33 Cf. K NIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 235–46; LEE, Punishment (2003), 157–66; SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 305–67 (adding Num 22:1) and SCHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 100– 16 (not dividing Num 21:21–35 strictly). 34 This is an English translation of SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 306: “Die Erklärung dieser kurzen Notiz leidet unter Eisegesen.”

132

Literature, History and Ideology

nificant change, it is necessary to go back to the Kadesh chapter in Numbers 20. This chapter is the climax of the wilderness rebellion and the climax of – the “death of the old. ” Miriam’s death is unfounded – she dies as first of the leader trio, and it is explicitly stated that she died in Kadesh. The trespass story of the main leaders is in some way mysterious because it misses an explicit rationale for their being discharged from leadership in v. 12. The story ends with a likewise mysterious wordplay on the location Kadesh in Num 20:13 (‫)המה מי מריבה אשׁר־רב ו בני ־ישׂראל את־יהוה ויקד שׁ בם‬. Then Israel sets out from Kadesh in Num 20:22, but again by a devious route. The direction of the route is given by the refusal of the king of Edom to cross his area (Num 20:14–21). Not by chance, the negotiations with the King of Edom include a flashback to the exodus story in vv. 16–17. It is the turning point of the wilderness journey. The ‫ לא תעבר‬spoken by the king of Edom is thrown upon Israel as an almost unbearable obstacle on the journey to the land (‫בעם‬ ‫)כבד וביד חזקה‬. The refusal to let the Israelites pass causes them to proceed on the way to Mount Hor. The problems concerning the identification of this place are well-known. It seems impossible to get a clear geographical orientation.35 This fits in very well with the geographical chaos which is part of Numbers 20–21 concerning the geographical connection between Kadesh, Hor, the way of Atharim, the Jabbok as border of the Ammonites and the itinerary in 21:21 et al. Anyway, in Num 21:1 the king of Arad or the ‫הכנעני‬ attack Israel and take prisoners (‫)וי שׁב ממנו שׁבי‬, and this is the reversal of the liberation of the exodus. Thus, there has to be a change if the promise of YHWH shall go forth and be actualized. Israel makes a vow to ban (‫ )חרם‬the cities of the Canaanites. This is a contradiction to the conquest narrative, but also a clear Hexateuchal link to the book of Joshua: on the one hand – as R. Achenbach has pointed out – it is the counterpart to the refusal of taking the “land of the giants” in Numbers 13–14. 36 This becomes obvious by the explicit resumption of the already mentioned place name ‫ החרמה‬in v. 3. But as the reader knows, the vow to conquer the cities of Canaan is not fulfilled immediately, but has to wait until Joshua 6–11, where ‫ חרם‬is used frequently in the context of the conquest of the Canaanite cities (Josh 6:17, 18, 21; 7:1, 11, 12, 13, 15; 8:26; 10:1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 12, 20, 21). Contrarily, we read in Num 21:3 ‫וי שׁמע יהוה בקול ישׂראל ויתן את־הכ נעני‬. The elliptical formulation lacks ‫בידו‬, but it can only be understood as a narrative of the The proposal of AHARONI, Land (1979), 201–2 was to locate Hor near Kadesh on the way to Arad (he mentions the hill ‘Imāret el-Ḫuraŝe/‘Ameret Ḫuraŝe). Since Josephus (Ant. 4.82–83; 4.161) Hor was located in the vicinity of Petra, since Byzantine times on the Ĝebel Harūn (cf. KEEL/KÜCHLER, Süden [1982], 176; ZWICKEL, Durchzug [1990], 483–4). The proposal of a complete artificial denotation Sin or Abarim (cf. WEIMAR, Tod [1993], 354–5) is somehow sophisticated, because the sense of ‫ הר ההר‬as artifice remains obscure. 36 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 346. 35

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

133

conquest of the Canaanite cities. The text continues ‫וי חרם אתהם ואת־עריהם‬ “and they banned them and their cities.” This is clearly anachronistic. If YHWH has given the cities of Canaan to Israel, and if Israel has conquered the cities entirely, why does Israel accept a further delay in taking possession of Canaan, and why does Israel keep staying in the wilderness? The problems have led to different solutions in the history of research. The fathers of source criticism assigned the passage to the Yehowist or Yahwist 37 as Horst Seebass and others recently do. 38 Other exegetes challenge any source affiliation and see an editorial construct.39 Since the passage does not seem to fit in here, it was often opted in favor of a displacement. Martin Noth has written: Its present position also gives it the character of an addendum to the wilderness tradition; but this position is apparently due only to the redactional order of things. 40

Because of the obvious and conflicting parallel to Judg 1:17, Achenbach sees the fingerprint of the Hexateuch redactor and a reflection on the conflicts of possession regarding the southern Negev in post-exilic times. 41 But it is not only the “South” or the “Negev” that is mentioned here. It is the whole land of Canaan and all the cities of the Canaanites and that contradicts the Hexateuchal thread and perspective. Ludwig Schmidt has recently suggested the latest date: “Die kleine Erzählung ist jünger als die Pentateuchredaktion.” 42 The only background for this assumption is the attribution of Num 21:4a to the Pentateuch redactor and the ‫ ויקרא את־שׁם־העיר חרמה‬in Judg 1:17. There is an obvious contradiction between the itinerary in v. 4, which mentions that Israel departed from the mountain Hor (‫)וי סעו מהר ההר ד רך ים־סוף‬, which is the continuation of Num 20:23–29, and the itinerary in Num 21:1, which mentions that Israel is on the way of Atharim ( ‫)כי בא ישׂראל דרך האתרים‬. But in attributing vv. 1–3 to the very late redaction without any relation to a tradition, Schmidt makes the author responsible for the syntactical discordance between the single place name and the many cities. Would it not be more convincing to take the etiology ‫ ויקרא שׁם־המקום חרמה‬as a later addition, borrowing the phrase from Judg 1:17? The naming of the conquered place as See BUDD , Numbers (1984), 229–30. Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 307–9; KNIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 236. 39 See the reference in A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 345; LEVIN , Jahwist (1993), 379. 40 This is an English translation of N OTH , Numbers (1968), 154: “Seine jetzige Stelle gibt auch ihm den Charakter eines Nachtrags zur Wüstenüberlieferung; doch diese Stelle verdankt es erst anscheinend der redaktionellen Anordnung der Dinge.” Cf. also IDEM , Glied (1940/ 41), 180 attributing Num 21:1–3 to the Yahwist: “Where it comes from can no longer be ascertained; it could at one time have had a place somewhere in the Jnarrative and have been later transferred to its present position by an editor.” 41 See A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 345, 347 with the assumption of a displacement in the background. 42 SCHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 100. 37 38

134

Literature, History and Ideology

‫ חרמה‬fits in with the singular ‫ ויחרימו אותה‬in Judg 1:17 and not in Num 21:3. Thus, it seems obvious that Num 21:3b is an editorial addition which aims to link the phrase up to Num 14:45 by consciously ignoring the tradition of Judg 1:17 and the geographical accuracy. The same probably holds true for the ‫דרך‬ ‫ ים־סוף‬in Num 21:4, which does not fit in with the geographical facts, wherever Hor is to be localized. 43 The redactor wanted to link up the wilderness period from Numbers 14 up to Numbers 21: the unsuccessful attempt to conquer Canaan on Israel’s own responsibility in Num 14:40–45 and the successful counterpart in Num 21:1–3. The disobedience of the people is replaced by obedience and therefore the story motivates to go beyond murmur and towards the successful conquest. Since this redactor uses Judg 1:17 without any need of harmonization, he, of course, did not have an Enneateuchal context in his mind. It is the “composition”-layer of the book of Numbers that organized the whole Hexateuchal material as one account. I do not want to call it a/the Hexateuch redaction as E. Otto and R. Achenbach do, because my accents and dates are different, but it has a Hexateuchal background and it is indeed dated after the priestly tradition and the Pentateuch redactor. But who is responsible for the short narrative about the violent resistance of the king of Arad against Israel? On the one hand, it reveals a Pentateuchal horizon, because it skips or in some way replaces the Joshua account of the conquest. Thus, it can fit the so-called Pentateuch redactor who attests no conquest of the land in the book of Joshua. But, on the other hand, the story itself does not fit into the horizon of the so-called Pentateuch redaction if we take the portrayal of the conquest of the Canaanites as revenge.44 The Pentateuch redactor cannot be the author of this narrative. It seems to be associated with an older tradition. It is striking that the only four occurrences of the verb ‫ לחם‬can be found in Num 21:1, 23, 26 and Num 22:11. The story of Sihon is often claimed to belong to an older tradition. 45 The same is true for the Balaam story. Maybe the Yahwist or the Yehowist is responsible, but that is by no means clear. 46 Thus, it is likewise possible that the “older” tradition of Num 21:1–3* was part of the Yahwistic or Yehowistic account of the conquest of Cisjordan. But this assumption is rather due to the need of a link in the older tradition. However, it was picked up by the so-called Pentateuch redactor and brought together with the P-source, to which we have attributed the preceding narrative of Aaron’s death and the itinerary of Num 21:4aα; Presupposed is the identification of the Reed Sea with the Red Sea, the Gulf of Eilat, which is by no means clear and depends on the date of every single attestation, see LAMBERTY-ZIELINSKY, Schilfmeer (1993), 201–2, 239–40. 44 We have to compare this carefully to Num 31 where the war against the Midianites seems to be a sort of revenge. 45 In older source-critical studies it is usually attributed to E, cf. N OTH, Glied (1940/41) and his commentary. 46 See F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume. 43

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

135

22:1. 47 Eventually, this can also explain why the incident is not mentioned in Deut 2. In sum: Not the Hexateuch redactor picked up the older traditions (R. Achenbach) in this case, but – comparatively conventional – the so-called Pentateuch redactor did. Certainly, Achenbach is right in demonstrating the Hexateuchal face of the last formative redaction of Numbers. This redaction took up the link between the end of Numbers 14 and Numbers 21 and strengthened it, neglecting the concrete contradiction between Joshua and Numbers 21:3a. The suggested sequence of the redactional layers in Numbers hints to the fact that there should be more than one Hexateuchal redaction. The one we have proposed in Num 21:3a and the one we hold responsible for the end-redaction of Numbers should be dated subsequently to the Pentateuch redactor.

6. Oozing Sources or Sources Oozing out of Numbers 21:4–9? Interestingly enough the following tradition is similar in function and origin. 48 The story of the bronze serpent (Num 21:4–9) is the last real murmuring story that is linked to Numbers 11–20 and especially to the beginning of the murmuring stories Numbers 11 in many ways: (1) It begins with the faint-heartedness of the people, which is literally expressed as “the næpæš of the people became short on the way” (‫)ותקצר נפשׁ־העם בדרך‬. The only incidence of the root ‫ קצר‬in Numbers is the question of YHWH in Num 11:23 ‫היד יהוה תקצר‬, “is the hand of YHWH too short?” (2) ‫דבר ב‬, “to speak against” in v. 5, which is attested two times in Numbers 21 (cf. v. 7). This phrase is a clear link to the only other instances of this phrase in Num 12:1, 8, where Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses (v. 1: ‫ ;ותדב ר מרים ואהרן ב משׁה‬v. 8: ‫)לדב ר ב עבדי במשׁה‬. (3) The question ‫למה העליתנו ממצרים‬, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt?,” of 21:5 is attested likewise in 20:5 and – even though with ‫ יצא‬Qal instead of ‫ עלה‬Hiphil – attested in Num 11:20. (4) ‫ונפשׁנו קצה בלחם הקלקל‬, “and we detest this miserable food” (Num 21:5) states the disgust against the food, which was announced with reference to the quails in Num 11:20 with a completely different wordOr in a more elaborate manner: Num 21:4*, 10–11; 22:1; for discussion, see F REVEL, Blick (2000), 356. 48 The following remarks on the redactional shape of Num 21:4–9 cannot discuss the elaborate positions in research of the last two decades. I mention only SEEBASS, Versuch (1994); BEYERLE, Schlange (1999) and KOENEN , Schlange (1999). 47

136

Literature, History and Ideology

ing (‫והיה לכם לזרא‬, “and becomes loathsome to you”). The ‫לכם‬, “to you,” points to the manna, which was criticized already in Num 11:6 ‫בלתי אל־המן עינינו‬, “except for this manna to look at.” (5) The confession of the people with ‫חטאנו‬, “we have sinned,” (Num 21:7) refers to the two other attestations of this form in the book of Numbers in Num 12:11; 14:40. (6) ‫ פלל‬Hitpael, “to plea, to pray,” is the next explicit link. We can find this verb in Numbers only in 11:2 and 21:7. The sentence ‫ויתפלל משׁה‬ ‫אל־יהוה‬, “and Moses prayed to God,” is divided into the request ‫התפלל‬ ‫ אל־יהוה‬and the execution ‫ויתפלל משׁה‬. Taken altogether, there is no doubt that these relations are not by chance. Erik Aurelius has characterized the final form of Num 21:4–9 rightly as “ziemlich schriftgelehrte[s] Murren.”49 Ludwig Schmidt has pointed out that v. 5 summarizes different reasons that cause murmuring. But contrarily to E. Aurelius and R. Achenbach, 50 it is not Num 11:1–3 which is the main point of reference, but preponderantly Num 11:4–11 and Numbers 12. 51 The parallelization to Num 11:1–3 is rather of a structural nature. However, the narrative in Num 21:4–9 seems to be intended as a closing parenthesis of the murmuring tradition. It is carefully composed and related to the other wilderness narratives. Whether we have to relate the narrative material to any late redaction is doubtful because there remain certain withstanding moments: (1) unlike the other murmuring stories, there is no remedy of the shortcomings of water and food, which is presented as the cause of the murmur. So there seems to be a break between vv. 5, 6. (2) The different designations of the serpents as ‫ הנחשׁים השׂרפים‬in v. 6, ‫ הנחשׁ‬in v. 7, ‫ שׂרף‬in v. 8 and again ‫ נחשׁ‬in v. 9 remain puzzling. Deuteronomy 8:15 with its ‫ נחשׁ שׂרף‬crosses one’s mind. However, are the inconsistencies the work of a redactor alone? Several recent analyses have disproved the assumption of traditional sources in this text.52 Already Martin Noth had written: AURELIUS, Fürbitter (1988), 147. Whether this has the post-RP-origin as the only consequence, as IBIDEM , 153 thinks, is an open question. S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 103 allocates the narrative to the Pentateuch redactor. 50 See ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 347. The parallels to Num 11:1–3 are mostly structural, so rightly AURELIUS, Fürbitter (1988), 141–60 and S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 102–3. 51 I cannot follow A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2004), 349 that Num 21:4–9 is related to Exod 15:22–26 and Exod 32:1–6 as “ein Gegenstück zur Murr- und Wandererählung am Beginn des Wüstenzuges.” 52 Recently Seebass offered resistance and deployed the Yehowist again in vv. 4b, 5a*, b, 6aβ–7, 9; see S EEBASS, Numeri (2003), 315–9, cf. BUDD , Numbers (1984), 232 with reference to A. Dillmann, J. Wellhausen and A. Kuenen: “There is general acceptance of the view that this passage belongs to JE.” 49

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

137

For methodological reasons, objection must be raised against the justification of a source distinction based upon isolated and, neither formally nor objectively, coherent unevenness within the text itself; experience teaches that this makes the distinction of sources a screw without end, and wrongly leads itself to absurdity. 53

We cannot discuss the problems of Num 21:4–9 here, but there are reasons for troubling oneself with source material, tradition or at least oral history.54 The tradition was taken up by a late redaction, which round off the murmuring stories with a final and new one. The impeachment does not cease, but instead, the threat of the justified wrath of YHWH ceases. Instead of doubts there is confidence that God will heal and preserve from death. The monotone pattern of murmuring is replaced by repentance and trust in the intercession of the leader. As in Numbers 12 and 14, the intercessional function of Moses is accentuated. The wrath of YHWH, which was justified, ceases durably – not because of a vow like in Num 21:1–3a – but because of the penitential confession and the intercession of the mediator Moses. The older tradition concerning a snake plague (with or without the murmuring v. 5?), which cannot be reconstructed in detail, has been completely integrated into this text. 55 How to locate this redaction? Deuteronomy 8:15 cannot provide an anchor, even though the notice is one of the stimuli for our artistic work.56 Taking into account the recent debate on the redactional layers in Numbers, we have certain possibilities: (1) the so-called Hexateuch redaction of R. Achenbach, which is dated post-P and post-D in the 5th cent. prior to the Pentateuch redaction and described to the point as “réécriture.” (2) If we follow the traditional hypothesis, the Pentateuch redaction shapes the book of Numbers in combining pre-P-material with the P-Source (in whatever extended stage). (3) The formerly exposed end-redaction of Numbers, which constructs the whole 53 This is an English translation of NOTH, Glied (1940/41), 177–8: “Aus methodischen Gründen muß Einspruch erhoben werden gegen die Begründung einer Quellenscheidung auf vereinzelte und unter sich weder formal noch sachlich zusammenhängende Unebenheiten im Text; die Erfahrung lehrt, daß dadurch die Quellenscheidung zu einer Schraube ohne Ende wird und sich zu unrecht selbst ad absurdum führt.” Noth assumes a late formation with an E core in the tradition history. In his commentary he wrote on Num 21:4–9: “This must not make us think of dividing up the passage into different ‘sources,’ since the narrative in itself proceeds smoothly and is free of doublets […] Since in the Pentateuchal narrative it is the use of the divine name Yahweh which predominates, the striking feature here is the appearance of the appellative ‘God’ in v. 5. This inclines one to suppose that its appearance here is original and that the use of the divine name Yahweh is a secondary accommodation to what is generally the usual practice. In that case this passage would have to be allocated to the E source” (NOTH, Numbers [1968], 156). 54 See S EEBASS, Numeri (2003), 315: “deutet eher auf eine Bearbeitung als auf späte Entstehung.” 55 Whether there was a second tradition narrating the murmur of the people, is uncertain. 56 See correctly SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 316.

138

Literature, History and Ideology

book within a Hexateuchal context. It is of course a case of “réécriture,” while the older tradition cannot be located accurately. With caution, it could be the last formative redaction of Numbers as well, which is organizing the material in transition. In that case we would have a signal that the taking over of “older” material is not restricted to one redaction and not to the time before the Pentateuch redaction. In my view, “the Pentateuch” is rather an issue of textual reference than a redactionally separated literary corpus.57 It is important to emphasize that the emergence of narrative traditions is not restricted to the early phase of Israel and can be assumed to be contemporary to the redactional process.

7. Numbers 21:10–20 as Geographical and Redactional Hodgepodge? The next passage in Numbers 21, the itinerary of vv. 10–20, reveals a similar picture. It is full of unsolvable textual problems in the Masoretic text that cannot be discussed here.58 Its importance in the history of research cannot be overestimated as Thomas Dozeman has shown in Abschied vom Jahwisten. 59 The source-critical exegesis has always rightly signed it a “hard nut to crack.” The main problem is that this passage seems to be a pivotal for the transition from wilderness to conquest and that it is part of the geographical linkage between the spy story and the Balaam story. However, it does not fit in with any of the sources. 60 Again, Martin Noth has marked the limits clearly: It belongs to one of the sure observations that in Num 21 with the simple dissection of the traditional stock, in which, above all, the known “sources” from Genesis and Exodus do not continue through, that here the redactional activity is much more deeply interwoven and later supplements take up more space than usual. From that it necessarily resulted in a complication of the literary facts, which makes it impossible for us to clarify every detail of the literary development perfectly and surely, and also unavoidably forces us to work with probabilities and assumptions. 61

See the tentative suggestion in F REVEL , Abschied (2001), esp. 233–4. See SEEBASS, Umgehung (1997), esp. 256–7. 59 D OZEMAN , Geography (2002). 60 N OTH, Glied (1940/41), 170–1. It is not our concern to struggle with the continuation of the pre-priestly Pentateuch here, see, for instance, S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 108: vv. 11b*, 13aα*. 61 This is an English translation of N OTH, Glied (1940/41), 178: “Denn zu den sicheren Feststellungen gehört die, dass in Num. 21 mit der einfachen Zerlegung des überlieferten Bestandes in die vor allem aus Gen. und Ex. bekannten ‘Quellen’ nicht durchzukommen ist, dass hier vielmehr die redaktionelle Arbeit tiefer eingegriffen und spätere Ergänzungen einen breiteren Raum eingenommen haben, als man gewöhnlich annimmt. Daraus musste sich notwendig eine Verkomplizierung des literarischen Tatbestandes ergeben, die es uns 57 58

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

139

Or in one sentence: “Every source distinction in this piece is a wasted labour of love.” 62 But let us have a look at the content: first we have in vv. 10–13 pieces of an itinerary, which mentions two stations from Num 33:44 (Oboth and IyeAbarim)63 and with the rivers Sered (Wādī el-Ḥesā) and the Arnon (Wādī elMūğīb) two stations which are attested in Deuteronomy 2 (Sered: Deut 2:13– 14; Arnon: Deut 2:24). Besides, we find three other stations in vv. 18b–20, which are not attested elsewhere (Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth).64 “Commentators and biblical cartographers have struggled with Num 21:10–20 for years on the mistaken assumption that it is supposed to make geographical sense. But it simply does not.” 65 The route is not accurate in geographical respect, or to say it with J. M. Miller boldly, though strictly to the point, “a geographical hodgepodge.” 66 Nonetheless it describes the way to detour Edom. 67 The way ends with three locations, which are all linked to the setting of the following stories of Balaam (see above). The “valley in the field of Moab” is not mentioned in the Balaam story – comparable to Bamoth Num 21:19, 20, which associates Bamoth-Baal in Num 22:41 – but it alludes to the region where the Balaam story takes place. The last two (oddly enough divided by a syndetic waw) are mentioned explicitly in the Balaam story in Num 23:28. Thus, the itinerary is divided into two parts (Num 21:10–13, 18b–20), which are formulated in different styles and for different purposes. Between them, two short traditions are interwoven which are both linked to the itinerary in some way. The first is introduced as a citation of the ‫ ספר מלחמת‬and links up to the Arnon complex (Num 21:14–15). It is framed by the mention unmöglich macht, alle Einzelheiten des literarischen Werdegangs noch einwandfrei und sicher zu klären und uns zwingt, notgedrungen auch mit Wahrscheinlichkeiten und Vermutungen zu arbeiten.” 62 This is an English translation of NOTH, Glied (1940/41), 178: “Jede Quellenscheidung ist an diesem Stück vergebene Liebesmüh.” 63 See, for example, NOTH, Wallfahrtsweg (1940); DAVIES , Way (1979); M ILLER, Journey (1989), 585–7. 64 The identifications cannot be discussed here. ZWICKEL, Durchzug (1990), 491 suggests to identify Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine with Mattanah, but there are reasons to follow AHARONI/DEARMAN, Location (1984); FINKELSTEIN, Architecture (2000) and others in identifying Ḫirbet el-Mudēyine with Jahaz. Cf. SEEBASS, Umgehung (1997), 260 (locating it afterwards aberrantly at Ḫirbet Rumēl). 65 MILLER, Journey (1989), 585. 66 MILLER, Journey (1989), 587. 67 For discussion, see DOZEMAN, Geography (2002), 173; SEEBASS, Umgehung (1997), 255–62; IDEM , Numeri (2003), 335–6 (with some unconventional solutions); MACDONALD, East (2000), 66–90; ZWICKEL, Durchzug (1990), 492 suggests an exact date for Numbers 21 in the 7 th/6 th cent. BCE. The presupposition of this proposal (IBIDEM, 480), that Num 21 and Num 33 represent two phases of writing down the same oral tradition, is not convincing.

140

Literature, History and Ideology

of the borders of Moab ( ‫ גב ול מואב‬Num 21:13b, 15b). 68 Later on, the itinerary proceeds with one station introduced by the unusual ‫ משׁם‬and marked by the he-locale: 69 Beer, which is the textual anchor for the “song of the well” (Num 21:16b, 17, 18a). The introduction v. 13b resembles the song of the sea of Exod 15:1 very clearly. Thus, passing the Arnon is marked as a parallel to the liberation by passing the Red Sea. Again, it is obvious, that Numbers 21 has an important function as compositional hinge between “desert” and “land.” The literary character of this piece is highly sophisticated and interwoven with Deuteronomy 2, Judges 11 and Numbers 33 on the one hand and the Balaam story on the other. Its compilatory character is widely accepted, following the basic study of Martin Noth from 1941.70 But whose hand has formed the interplay between poetry and geography? In Achenbach’s analysis, the passage is debris-like and “nach-endredaktionell” by only attributing vv. 12–13a to the Hexateuch redaction. 71 But beginning with ‫ משׁם‬these verses cannot stand alone.72 Aside from this less-than-ideal solution, it is not convincing, because it underestimates that this chapter is the main compositional link between the wilderness journey and the beginning of the conquest. We see basically the same tendency here: different material of various provenances, e.g., Oboth and Iye-Abarim, two place names which have been borrowed from a late compilatory text (Numbers 33), old poetic material in the two songs, partly invention in the itinerary, partly older material, partly linkage to the Balaam story. In short, a highly networked coupler, which has the book of Numbers as a backbone. Again, we can find a redactional layer, which is, on the one hand, depending on relatively late Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomistic traditions and, on the other hand, taking up old or at least older traditions that do not fit the context completely. As in the preceding passages, there are several links to the composition of Numbers. The blessing becomes visible here as well. While in Num 21:5 the people lamented that the lack of water and the plea was not fulfilled, now YHWH gives water spontaneously. 73 After the station 68 BLUM, Studien (1990), 126 points further to the connection between Num 21:14–15 and Num 21:36–30. 69 Because of the he-locale ‫ בא ר ה‬should be read as place-name, contra SEEBASS , Numeri (2003), 332, 334. 70 See the history of research in DOZEMAN, Geography (2002), esp. 179–182; BUDD, Numbers (1984), 236–40. 71 See A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 357. 72 There is no connection to Num 20:22a, which is the last itinerary fragment attributed by Achenbach to the Hexateuch redaction, because according to Achenbach Num 21:1–3 belongs to the Hexateuch redaction just like Num 21:4–9 (ACHENBACH , Vollendung [2003], 345–52). The short itinerary deviation with the noticed death of Aaron in Deut 10:7 is not comparable and cannot support his view. 73 See BLUM , Studien (1990), 126–7: “Ja, wahrscheinlich markiert sie […] bewußt so etwas wie einen ungetrübten, heilvollen Abschluß der Zeit in der Wüste.”

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert

141

called ‫באר‬, “Beer,” (the aetiology says: ‫הוא הבאר אשׁר אמר יהוה למשׁה אסף‬ ‫את־העם ואתנה להם מים‬, “that is the well of which YHWH said to Moses, ‘Gather the people together, and I will give them water’”, Num 21:16), YHWH is supplying Israel with care, which is exceeding Israel’s needs and thereby granting a durable preservation.

8. Conclusions The diachronic reflection on the synchronic structure and diachronical relief of Numbers 21 has to come to an end. There would be much to say about Sihon, the song of Heshbon and the spy story of Jazer, and I am aware of the pitfalls in this part of Numbers 21 and of its relation to Deuteronomy 1–3 and Judges 11. Looking over the recent history of research, 74 the tendency seems to be the same. The transition area of Numbers 21 contains partly, but indisputably, old(er) material, which was combined with redactional interest. The material is not integrated entirely into the context, and tensions remain. Its origin is not traceable, and there are by no means clear connections to traditional sources or source material. Composition and redaction are mutually dependent on each other. It is remarkable that it is even the transition area of composition between Num 15:1–20:29 and Num 22:1–26:38 where this technique is apparent. The younger redactional layers have not only integrated narratives from different older or maybe contemporary traditions but they also have had a very straight idea of the composition of the book of Numbers, which was discussed above. Arranging the material in an increasing axis of blessing, preservation and fulfillment of promise from Numbers 21 onwards, seems to be the central issue of this redactional interest. The redactional impact is a clear spatial structure of Numbers in a Hexateuchal perspective on the one hand, and the inner organization of Numbers as a book in itself on the other hand. It is obvious that the inner organization of Numbers is the foreground and the Hexateuch the background. It is not a redaction that “forms” the Hexateuch but it implies an existing Hexateuch. The redactional material is older than the redaction itself, but very disparate. In Numbers 21 we have to struggle with material that is apparently not part of any older source (Yahwist or Yehowist). It uses names and terminology that are on the one hand reflecting concrete geographical circumstances, but that has – as J. M. Miller has already suggested75 – on the other hand paradoxically no connection to our known (geo-)political history in the time of our supposed redactions. Thus, in 74 See DOZEMAN, Geography (2002), esp. 184–7; BLUM , Studien (1990), 124–30; OTTO, Deuteronomium (2000), 134–5; ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 366–9. 75 Cf. MILLER, Journey (1989), 588.

142

Literature, History and Ideology

methodological respect, it seems to me more appropriate to re-establish the capability of oral tradition without trying harder to understand the edition and all the more the composition of the Pentateuch. The assumption of oral tradition does not necessarily imply a very old date. It has just to precede the redaction that integrates it. However, this issue would require more attention and further research.

Living in the Midst of the Land Issues of Centralization in the Book of Numbers 1. Understanding of Centralization: Introduction Centralization has been a debated issue since it became a major topic in Wellhausen’s approach. His observation on the relationship of the Priestly Code and Deuteronomy, and in particular the festival calendars led him to assume that Deuteronomic centralization is presupposed in the priestly literature.1 This paved the way for a century of European scholarship without challenging this view. 2 Almost nobody ever cared that Kaufmanian’s were not convinced by Wellhausen’s idea. 3 Kaufmann still held to the view that centralization was not an issue of the Priestly Source and that P did not know D, to whom the chosen place was attached to a specific temple in a specific city. 4 In contrast, it was Kaufmann’s understanding that, “P’s own system of sacred and profane precincts make it abundantly clear that the Deuteronomic concepts are unknown to it.”5 This raises the question, whether a concept of centralization can be found in priestly literature or not. Another aspect of this question is, whether Wellhausen and Kaufmann had the same understanding of centralization. For Wellhausen centralization in the Priestly Source had various aspects: The transposition of the central sanctuary in pre-Solomonic times by introducing the priestly tabernacle; Levitical cities were introduced at sites containing former local sanctuaries in order to diminish pluriformity: “His forty-eight Levitical cities are for the most part demonstrably a metamorphosis of the old Bamoth to meet the exigencies of the time;”6 Wellhausen also argued that the priestly source suppressed any pluriformity by marSee ELREFAEI, Wellhausen (2016), 58. AUDIRSCH, Themes (2014) more or less follows Wellhausen. For the explicit contrast, see PITKÄNEN , Sanctuary (2004). 3 Cf. K AUFMANN , Religion (1960). 4 K AUFMANN, Religion (1960), 173: “The novelty of the Deuteronomic law is not the conception of a great central sanctuary of unique importance and holiness. From earliest times, the great sanctuaries of Shechem, Bethel, Dan, Gibeon and Jerusalem overshadowed the smaller local altars. To these great temples, it was the custom to make pilgrimages three times a year (1 Sam 1; 1 Kgs 8). The new feature of Deuteronomy is its emphatic interdiction of all sacrifice outside the one chosen site (Deut 12:13f., 17, 26f.).” 5 K AUFMANN, Religion (1960), 177. 6 WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (2009), 37–8. 1 2

144

Literature, History and Ideology

ginalizing the altar in Transjordan in Josh 22; and finally by shaping the patriarchs as if they were not cultic at all.7 Wellhausen himself gave a kind of definition for his understanding of centralization: “Centralisation is synonymous with generalisation and fixity, and these are the external features by which the festivals of the Priestly Code are distinguished from those which preceded them.”8 This is a far-reaching definition that does not limit itself to the centrality and unification of space. However, in my understanding to limit it to the spatial aspect – which dominated the reception of Wellhausen’s idea – is often the most mistaken point in the concept of centralization: i.e., one sanctuary dominating the surrounding space. However, although it was not entirely clear what Wellhausen meant by “generalisation” and “fixity,” it is important to understand, that centralization is not only a spatial concept. Based on this insight, I will differentiate three levels of centralization: centralization as (1) standardization, (2) hierarchization and (3) unification. Apart from this there is another aspect related to unification: the question of spatial centrality, that is the sanctuary as a central place where each and every point within the land is equally far away (the midst of a circle). In terms of standardization I will take the rituals and their function in the book of Numbers as an example. The second perspective, hierarchization, will be elaborated by looking at centralization in Num 16–18, and in the final part, I will engage the question of spatial organization and centrality in the book of Numbers by looking at Num 35.

2. Ritual Density as a Means of Standardization and as Part of a Centralizing Strategy In my paper on “The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers: Aspects of Adaptation, Innovation and Interconnection” 9 I argued to understand the textualization of rituals in the book of Numbers as part of processes of standardization: Textualization is an issue of authority, regulation, homogenization and representation by which rituals become a common denominator of communities, which share a great part of their traditions, but which differ in many details of practice and interpretation. By cosmic, anthropological, physical,

7 W ELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (2009), 38: “The patriarchs, having no tabernacle, have no worship at all; according to the Priestly Code they build no altars, bring no offerings, and scrupulously abstain from everything by which they might in any way encroach on the privilege of the one true sanctuary.” 8 WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (2009), 103. 9 See F REVEL, Texture, p. 317–38 in the present volume.

Living in the Midst of the Land

145

biological and social aspects, rituals encode order. 10 The various rituals in the book of Numbers define a framework of ritual correctness, or ritual regularity, as a minimal consensus. While there is never a total congruence between a society and its tradition, ritual practice amongst the diverse set of Yahwistic groups inevitably varied, despite this it is important to emphasize that each group’s variant practice still matched “the tradition.” The striking incompleteness of ritual scripts in the Hebrew Bible thus enables a limited amount of plurality, diversity and variance. In this line of argument, I showed that the set of rituals in the book of Numbers did not arise from simply writing down a given tradition in a last-minute panic before the Torah edition was closed. It is rather that they define a set of practices, which can form a collective understanding of the same practice. I have called this a “reservoir of identity” of Second Temple Judaism. It is the birth of “religion” as objectifying factor; to form a unity regardless of minor differences; it is a consensus toward existing dissent. In a nutshell, this is my understanding of the book of Numbers. To elaborate on this position, I used the term “ritual density” by Catherine Bell. By introducing this term, she describes the obvious fact, that some “societies or historical periods have more ritual than others.”11 The book of Numbers is crucially relevant in terms of “ritual density.” Homogenization and standardization are indicated in these processes of textualization. Blessing for instance is now limited to Aaron and his sons, which, on the one hand, is highly standardized, but, on the other hand, is open for variations because the standardized form is put into the irretrievable past – ‫ ב מדבר‬in the [Sinai] desert. Catherine Bell differentiates between high and low ritual systems, and considers priestly systematization as part of the former, which is introduced to claim particular power: There are other ways to perceive and analyze the organization of rites. One method that regularly turns up in discussions of ritual density concerns the historical development of a corpus of rituals guarded and maintained by a class of priests. In this case, an elite ritual system gradually grows quite distinct and removed from the more flexible ritual customs of the rest of the community; the latter may also develop their own ritual specialists, usually less formal, who offer their clientele ritual services not provided by the more elite priesthood. 12

Introducing a liturgical order is not as harmless, as the terms “harmonization” and “potential of identification” suggest. Against this background, it is an important question, whether there were real Aaronides or whether this elite group is also an invention of tradition to enable identification. To my understanding there were no real fights between Zadokites and Aaronides at any time during the First and Second Temple periods. In contrast, Aaronides are RAPPAPORT, Ritual (2006). BELL, Ritual (2009), 173. 12 BELL, Ritual (2009), 176. 10 11

146

Literature, History and Ideology

an “invention of tradition” within the biblical text.13 They are as fictive as the tent of meeting or the camp in the desert. The “real” priests were the priestly classes in Jerusalem, Gerizim, Elephantine and other places – wherever a YHWH-cult was established. In other words: Priesthood is not actually centralized in terms of the YHWH-cult in general. If we accept, for instance, the evidence from the Elephantine papyri, there were concurring interests in various priestly groups. These groups were united by the common reference to the Torah-framework-agreement. As long as they relate to this common tradition, they are acceptable Yahwists with almost the same rights. The Aaronides are part of the literary plurality management of early Judaism. But regardless of whether the Aaronides were identical with the priestly class at the temple (in Jerusalem), it is clear that these processes of standardization are empowering the priestly elite on the literary level. The positive side of locating this standardization in the primeval desert is that it enables variance via the process of linking the local practice to the roughly described “Aaronide” practice. The negative side is the almost “unquestionable-ness” (to use a term of Roy Rappaport) of priestly power beyond the text. The attribution of liturgical power is unquestionable, or as Rappaport puts it in defining sanctity, “absolutely unfalsifiable and objectively unverifiable.”14 The crucial point for Catherine Bell is the relation between ritual practices and the sociocultural contextualization, in which centralization plays a major role: A ritual must be understood within the context of its larger system, whether this system is elaborate or minimal and the connections overt or latent. […] Some evidence suggests that the very practices that generate and maintain the systemization of ritual – processes of hierarchization, centralization, replication, marginalization, and the like – can be powerful forces in politics, regional identity and interregional relations, economics, social stratification, philosophical speculation, and theological abstraction. As such, the systemization of ritual practice would not simply relate to other social and cultural phenomena as much as it would help constitute them. 15 13 For the Zadokites, see M ACD ONALD, Rule (2015), 147–8. MacDonald poses additional arguments for the Wellhausen view that the Levites are part of these inventions of tradition: “The beginnings of the Levites as minor clergy are, therefore, to be found in the Pentateuch and its emergence as a single, authoritative Torah. In the case of the Levites, an imperative to create a unified Torah required that the different presentations of the priesthood in P and D be harmonized. The result was a distinction between Levites and priests. The distinction did not reflect an extra-textual reality. In time, the extra-textual reality probably imitated the text that had become canonical Torah” (IBIDEM, 149). 14 BELL, Ritual (2009), 176 with reference to RAPPAPORT, Ritual (2006), 281: “The authority of this order is a result of the invariance of the canonical, non-self-referential encoding, and it gives rise to a particular notion of the sacred as that ‘quality of unquestionableness imputed […] to postulates [that are] absolutely unfalsifiable and objectively unverifiable.’” 15 BELL, Ritual (2009), 177.

Living in the Midst of the Land

147

Another field of standardization that cannot be elaborated in detail here, is the standardization of money, which is strongly related to the centralization of power in the temple. The ‫ שׁקל הקדשׁ‬which is mentioned in Num 3:47; 18:16; 31:2 and many times in Num 7, indicates that there were processes of standardization driven by the temple authority to claim centralized power. The most concrete application is the redemption of the first born of unclean animals in blending Exod 13:13 and Lev 27:27.16 In sum: Processes of standardization are a means of power. Seen as an aspect of centralization, they shape the institutional unity and control the economic, cultic and sociopolitical power.

3. Centralization as Hierarchization No other book in the Pentateuch is so explicit on priestly hierarchy as the book of Numbers. It is the Aaronides, the Aaronides and the Aaronides who are put in first place. This holds true in Num 1–4, in the ritual cluster in Num 5–6 and particularly in Num 16–18. In addition to this the priestly succession after the death of Aaron in Num 20:23–29 and the “covenant of peace” ( ‫ברית‬ ‫ )שׁלום‬in Num 25:12 implicitly foster the unique position of the Aaronides. The number of direct speeches to Aaron, or Moses and Aaron, is significantly higher in Numbers compared to Exodus and Leviticus. In the texts mentioned above, priestly power is restricted to the Aaronides so that other mentions of priests (e.g., in Num 5:1–6:22; 15:25, 28; 19:6, 7; 35:2, 28, 32) are tinted by the prominent role of the Aaronides, which is the only priestly group mentioned in the book of Numbers. The unique position of the Aaronides is even explicitly underscored by the degradation of the Levites in Num 16–17: Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to let you approach him in order to serve the duties of the LORD’s dwelling, and to stand before the congregation and serve them? (Num 16:9).

The superiority of the Aaronides over the Levites compares to the superiority of Aaron over his sons. 17 The hierarchical pyramid ends up in a sole, unique and superior high priest, who performs the expiation, who carries the ephod and the diadem or tiara. Wellhausen considered the whole tribe of Levi in P and subsequently the hierarchical order between Aaronide priests and Levites an artificial product:

16 17

MACDONALD, Rule (2015), 101. This is emphasized already by WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (2009), 149.

148

Literature, History and Ideology

We know that this clerical tribe is an artificial production, and that its hierarchical subdivision, as worked out in the Priestly Code, was the result of the centralisation of the cultus in Jerusalem. 18

Notwithstanding considerations on the existence of a tribe of Levi, which was involved in the cult centralization of Jerusalem, performed by King Josiah, the first part of Wellhausen’s quote is crucial: The hierarchization of priesthood is a means of centralization. On the narrative level, it is only one family that forms the top of the pyramid and an encompassing tribe of Levi with 22,000 (first census in Num 3:39) or 23,000 (second census in Num 26:62) members respectively. Israel is constituted as a twelve-partite unity, and the Aaronides are responsible for the whole cult, which is performed at one central place in the wilderness. However, this does not necessarily reflect the situation beyond the fictive time in the desert. Within the Pentateuchal logic Israel exists ideologically as a unit of twelve, geographically distributed tribes. Thus, the system of the twelve tribes is only the umbrella under which several communities may exist. Following the logic of Aaronide hierarchy, the priestly leaders are legitimized so long as they relate genealogically to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. Strikingly enough, the priestly Aaronide genealogy in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers is started but not defined in its narrow ramifications. No information is provided regarding the fate of Eleazar’s brother Ithamar, who has responsibility over the Merarites and Kohathites (Num 4:28, 33; 7:8), or even on Phinehas’ possible brothers. By this very openness, it is possible to claim one’s own priestly line to be legitimately Aaronide in post-biblical times. 19 Is this the reason why all income is hierarchically centralized in Num 18? Apart from the pastures, which could be used to feed small animals or to breed sacrificial animals, nothing is said in Num 35 about the financing of the Levitical cities. Their provision is included in Num 18 in the allotment of the tithe (Num 18:20–21, 24), 20 and it is comfortable: The tithe of the 601,730 males is divided among the 23,000 Levites; thus, the Levites each obtain the portion of about 26 people from which they have to lift a tenth part (Num 18:25–32). The Levites’ income is therefore more than double of any normal Israelite. Hence centralization is also a matter of economic power, 21 which we have already seen in the previous section on standardization. The remaining aspect to be discussed relates to centralization of space.

WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (2009), 218. The Samaritan Pentateuch depicts Eli as Ithamar’s descendant. 20 For the connection of the tithe to centralization, see AUDIRSCH, Themes (2014), 101. 21 For Num 18, see also MACD ONALD, Rule (2015), 106. 18 19

Living in the Midst of the Land

149

4. Centralization as Unification and the Question of Spatial Centrality “There is never any doubt in P’s sanctuary account that YHWH desires that the Israelites construct only one shrine for him.” 22 Thus the question of unification within the narrative is answered. However, the point open for discussion is whether the concept necessarily includes the uniqueness of shrines in the land. Thomas Römer has promoted an idea of Bernd Jørg Diebner that the concept of a mobile sanctuary in P is intended to be a cultic compromise between Jerusalem, Gerizim and Bethel.23 I also took up the idea that the wilderness sanctuary is a centralized concept that allows multiple realizations in the land, because no concrete space in the land is mentioned. However, this idea presumes an understanding of centrality that is not spatially centered. The P and H phraseology uses ‫ בתוך‬to describe the relation between people (or land respectively) and the dwelling of God (Exod 25:8; 29:45–46; Lev 15:31; 16:16; 22:32; 26:11–12; Num 2:17; 5:3; 35:34). In addition to ‫בתוכ ך‬ (two times), ‫ בקרב‬is employed, interestingly enough, in the so-called nonpriestly passages in Num 11:20 (‫ )את־י הוה אשׁר בק רבכם‬and Num 14:14, 42 (‫כי‬ ‫)אין יהוה בקרבכם‬. 24 Both phrases do not necessarily imply geometrical centrality (cf. e.g., for ‫ בתוך‬Lev 16:29; 17:10; Num 1:49; 2:33; 17:10 and for ‫ בקרב‬Exod 3:20; Num 11:21 et al.). 25 When it comes to the centrality of place everybody will expect that Numbers is centralized spatially throughout: One sanctuary in the center of the camp surrounded by four sub-camps (facing the four cardinal directions) each comprising of three tribes. To be clear, this model is only explicit in the first chapters of Numbers, and there is nothing to indicate that every part of the book presupposes this model. Notwithstanding the dating of the priestly account, it is my understanding that the book of Numbers is not explicitly centered until the addition of chapters 1–4. In contrast, all priestly centrality before the introduction of Num 1–4 is directed towards uniqueness, but not towards centeredness. The place, where the ‫ אהל מועד‬was erected in the priestly narrative before the introduction of Num 1–4 is not clear, it can be within the camp, or even outside. While in Num 19 the ritual starts in the camp it then moves outside (Num 19:3) and does not necessarily imply that the ‫ אהל מועד‬is inside the camp. 22 RHYDER, Centralization (2018), 78 does not discuss Lev 27:30–31 as mentioning many sanctuaries in the land ( ‫ במות‬in v. 30 and ‫ מקדשׁי ם‬in v. 31). For the possibilities of understanding, see BLUM , Issues (2009), 52. 23 See RHYDER, Centralization (2018), 59. 24 Cf. Exod 8:18; 17:7; 33:3; 34:10 25 The only instance is Num 35:5, where ‫ בת וך‬obviously implies centrality in terms of geometry.

150

Literature, History and Ideology

The same holds true for Num 20:6; 16–17 or even Num 11:3 or Num 9:15– 23. All these passages can be understood if the tent of meeting was outside of the camp. Having said that, the passages in which the tent of meeting resides explicitly outside of the camp (Num 11:26, 30; 12:4–5, cf. Exod 33:7–11), become perhaps much more integrated into the regular conception than it is usually considered. But this is another topic of centralization to elaborate upon. Let me summarize the argument so far: Numbers 1–4 are not part of the priestly narrative, but rather have to be understood as a (quite late) postpriestly Fortschreibung. Except for Num 1–4 the priestly literature is not explicitly centralized in terms of spatial centrality. To be clear, this does mean that there is more than one sanctuary, rather that it is (1) not as clear as is usually thought and (2) it is not necessarily spatially centered. Due to the fact that there is the fiction of only four Aaronides performing the cult (Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar and Phinehas), no other sanctuary can be managed on the literary level, even if it would not have been mentioned explicitly. It is the one miškan, which is built in the Sinaitic desert and which moves from camp to camp. Not very much is said with regard to the situation in the land later on. Interestingly enough, no sanctuary is mentioned in Num 15 at all! The tithe and many other levies have to be delivered but the location is not brought up. Everything has to take place “before YHWH” (‫ )לפני יהוה‬but none of the three terms denoting the sanctuary are used. 26 ‫אהל מועד‬ ‫משׁכן‬ ‫מקדשׁ‬

54 times with clear centers of emphasis 42 times with often the same chapters of emphasis Num 3:38; 10:21; 18:1, 29; 19:20

This is implicit decentralization. However, the situation is quite different in Num 18, where the cultic income is explicitly granted to Aaron and his sons. All offerings and holy gifts shall be brought into their hands as a ‫חק־עולם‬, which is temporarily unlimited. Verse 13 mentions the first fruits of the land, which shall be brought before the LORD and shall be consumed by all members of the priestly family. The phrase ‫ בישׂראל‬in v. 14 ( ‫כל־חרם בישׂראל ל ך‬ ‫ )יהיה‬does not necessarily relate to the land, but read against v. 13 it is the most plausible understanding. Explicit reference to the situation in the land can also be found in the additional speech in vv. 20–21, where it is demanded that the Aaronides and the Levites will not inherit portions of the land. Strikingly no place or location of the sanctuary is mentioned in this context. Noth26 For the various designations within the priestly literature, see THELLE, Approaches (2012), 198–200 and most recently ACHENBACH, Mishkan (2017), who argues for a redactional development from ‫ משׁ כן‬to ‫אהל מועד‬. For this, see already UTZSCHNEIDER, Heiligtum (1988) and NOTH, Numbers (1968), 76.

Living in the Midst of the Land

151

ing is said about where the mobile sanctuary of the desert is to be placed in the land, neither Shiloh, nor Jerusalem, nor any other place. That it actually will be erected somewhere can be implicitly read from Num 17, where the rod of Aaron shall be placed in front of the ‫ העדות‬in the ‫משׁכן‬. However, the rod of Aaron is mentioned only here and not thereafter (if one does not identify the rod in Num 20:9 with the rod of Aaron). 27 The most interesting point is the centrality of Num 35, the chapter on asylum. The concept of the Levitical cities is a decentralized concept that explicitly goes beyond the organization of the camp, where the 22,000 Levites shall live in cities with pastureland. These 48 cities follow a centralized concept. The Levitical cities are strictly designed with a centralized plan: the city as a central space singled out amongst suburbs of the same size, which stretch in each direction. While the number (48) can be a spatially centralized concept with the central city in the middle, the concept of six cities of asylum cannot. Thus, the concept of asylum is decentralized because it cannot be arranged symmetrically in each direction around a central place. Another aspect underlines that they are decentralized: The concept of asylum is detached from the altar of the centralized sanctuary. While Exod 21:14 explicitly mentions the altar as the place of asylum (cf. 1 Kgs 1:50–51; 2:28) the particular place is not specified in Num 35. Nothing indicates that it is still an altar. Although the concept of the cities of asylum is decentralized, it has a centralized moment. Numbers 35:25, 28 determine that the manslayer can live in a city of asylum until the death of the great priest, who is anointed with the holy oil. This can only be the high priest in the central sanctuary. While the concept of asylum is locally decentralized, it is centralized in terms of operation. This links the aspect of hierarchization on the one hand and the aspect of unification on the other hand. The centrality of place is not necessarily presumed; the central sanctuary can be anywhere in the land. The final sentences of Num 35 give the impression of a centralized concept and it was most often understood in this way: ‫ולא תטמא את־הארץ אשׁר אתם ישׁבים בה‬ ‫אשׁר אני שׁכן בתוכה‬ ‫כי אני יהוה שׁכן בתוך בני ישׂראל‬ Two seemingly space related phrases that can be interpreted in several directions. The first one relates the concept of God to the land. The land of the Israelites is qualified by God’s living in it. This is not meant to refer to a specific locale but to the idea that the presence of God pervades the entire land. One can understand the phrases to mean that God is living in the middle, but this is not necessarily the case. The meaning is better understood as “amongst” rather than “in the midst,” and as centrifugal (going out from the 27

See F REVEL, Blick (2000), 112.

152

Literature, History and Ideology

center) rather than centripetal (directed towards the center). The conception of defilement does not necessarily imply that the sanctuary is spatially centered as it is usually translated (RSV: “in the midst,” J. Milgrom: “in which I Myself abide,” B. Levine: “in whose midst I [also] maintain to reside”). 28 We find the concept of defilement also in Lev 15:31; 16:16 (cf. Num 5:3), where ‫ בתוך‬is also translated “in the midst”), but it is not an issue of geometrical centeredness, but rather each and every point of the camp is related in the same proximity to the sanctuary, that it can be defiled from afar. It doesn’t matter where it actually stands. The second part with the ‫כי‬-sentence does not bring any new aspects, but further substantiates the ‫אשׁר‬-sentence, where the living in the land is only the implicit rationale of the imperative. The affirmative phrase ‫ כי אני יהוה‬is connected to the dwelling of YHWH only here in Num 35:34. Whether we should assume that the H-phrase, which resembles Exod 29:46 (Exod 25:8) and Num 5:3 is a later addition, 29 is open for discussion. One can also read the verse as a structural device in which the final sentence matches Num 35:33b. This brings us finally to the explicit spatial phrases in Num 1–4, which I consider as the explicit centering of the sanctuary within the camp. Provided that the tent of meeting is placed right in the middle of the camp, the setting of the wilderness sanctuary is centralized on a spatial axis from the beginning of the narrative. The layout of the camp is aligned towards the sanctuary in its middle. This becomes clear in two simple steps: In Num 1:50 Moses is instructed that the Levites shall surround the tent of meeting in the camp: And you shall put the Levites in charge of the tabernacle of testimony and of all its equipment, and all what belongs to it, they shall carry the tabernacle and all its equipment, and they shall do its service, and around the tabernacle they shall camp.

‫ואת ה הפק ד את־ הלוים על־ משׁכן העדת‬ ‫ועל כל־ כלי ו ועל כל־ אשׁ ר־ל ו‬ ‫המה ישׂ או את־ המשׁכן ואת־ כל־ כלי ו‬ ‫והם ישׁ רת הו‬ ‫וסביב למשׁ כן י חנ ו׃‬

When it comes to Num 2 the concept is explicitly centered. For the issue of centralization, the final words, which are repeated in Num 1:53, are crucial. The adverbial particle ‫ סביב‬is related to the ‫ משׁכן‬by the preposition ‫ל‬, which is characteristic for priestly texts (Gen 23:17; Exod 16:13; 40:33, cf. Jdg 28 NRSV: “You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.” LEVINE, Numbers (2000), 550: “You must not defile the land wherein you reside, in whose midst I [also] maintain a residence; for I, YHWH , maintain a residence among the Israelite people.” MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 295–6: “You shall not defile the Land in which you live, in which I Myself abide for I the Lord abide among the Israelite people.” 29 The concept is in contrast to Lev 16:16.

Living in the Midst of the Land

153

7:21; 1 Kgs 18:32, 35; Ps 34:8; 78:28; 125:2) denoting a state “of something or someone being surrounded by something or someone.” In Num 1:53 the repeated phrase ‫ סביב ל‬is specified functionally, saying that the camp of the Levites acts as a “protective wall” for the Israelites. However, until now the sanctuary is not placed explicitly in the middle of the camp. This is instructed in the second step in Num 2. All other camps of the twelve tribes (the number of twelve is reached by dividing Joseph into Manasseh and Ephraim) are now placed ‫מנגד סביב לאהל־מועד יחנו‬. The combination of prepositions and adverbial phrases is unique: ‫ מנגד‬meaning “opposite, vis-à-vis,” and ‫“ סביב ל‬surrounding.” All Israel shall be aligned towards the camp, not in the direction of the land or whatever, but towards the tent in the middle. With this the order of the camp is centered and the tribes are located on a spatial map, which is significantly different to the geographical order of the settlement pattern of the tribes in the land described in Josh 13–19 or Jdg 1. It is a graded order, putting the front (east) and back (west) in first and last place, and the right hand (south) superordinate over the left (north). Judah, Issachar and Zebulon in the East, Reuben, Simeon and Gad in the South, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin in the West and Dan, Asher and Naphtali in the North. The order of the tribes in Num 2 is strikingly different to the former lists. It is not based on the order of birth (Gen 29:31–30:24) or grouped by their mothers (Gen 35:23–26; Exod 1:2–4), but a rather unsystematic order with a Judean bias, which is important when it comes to the question of the social background of the narrative. It is the first time that not Reuben, but Judah is mentioned in the first position. Some of the genealogical aspects of the former lists are kept, for instance the order Reuben – Simeon, or the order Joseph (Manasseh – Ephraim) – Benjamin. Within the departure the order is not in the same way centralized although the order of the tribes is similar as in Num 2. The sanctuary is split between the Merarites and Gershonites who carry the ‫ משׁכן‬and the Kohathites carrying the ‫מקד שׁ‬, the former departing between the first and second group of tribes, and the latter quite in the middle between the Gadites and Ephraimites. Even this order mirrors the centrality of the tabernacle. In sum, in the spatial regulations of the camp there is a Judean bias, but there is no direct link from the centrality of the tabernacle in the camp to the centrality of the sanctuary in the land.

5. Some Concluding Remarks Centralization proved to be an important topic in the book of Numbers. In all three aspects standardization, hierarchization and spatial centering the texts in this book were crucial. The concept of a centered space singled out in the very middle of the square camp is the idea perhaps only of Num 1–4. This idea is informed by a conception that considers holiness to emanate from the

154

Literature, History and Ideology

center to the periphery, and uncleanness, which is conceptually at the border and beyond, to touch upon the center and to defile it. This model has preconceptions in many priestly texts, but it does not necessarily imply the centeredness of the sacred place. I also argued that in the book of Numbers hierarchization and standardization are clearly means of centralization.30 Some of the rituals are centralized (e.g., the Nazirite vow, the sotah, the blessing, etc.) to make ritual practice more uniform. It is a means of control on the literary level and where it is applied as a normative tradition, be it in Yehûd, Idumea, Elephantine or Samaria or elsewhere.

30 For further discussion and a comparison with the concept of centrality in Deuteronomy, see now PYSCHNY , Core (2019).

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die? Prophecy, Pseudo-Prophecy and Sorcery in Numbers 1. Introduction: The Unsolved Riddle of Balaam Becoming a Villain The murder of Balaam is more or less like a stirring whodunit with an intricate plot, shady characters and a lot of crime. A long prelude introduces the story’s protagonists, Balak, Balaam and the Moabites (Num 22–24), followed by a twofold interlude (Num 25) whose relevance is not immediately obvious because Balaam, the kingpin and victim, is entirely absent from the Baal-Peor episode. Numbers 31:8 explicitly mentions the murder weapon – a sword – and the circumstances of the crime are illustrated. According to Num 31 12,000 chosen Israelites (Num 31:6) killed Balaam along with five kings from Midian who are mentioned by name: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba (Num 31:8). The context of our thriller is the Midianite war, the purpose of which is to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Num 31:2). The exegetical superintendent finds only some cryptic clues in Num 25 regarding the provocation that called for the revenge recounted in Num 31. After Phinehas killed – for whatever reasons – the Midianite Cozbi (the daughter of one of the Midianite kings who was killed later) and the Simeonite Zimri with a javelin, YHWH says to Moses in Num 25:17: ‫צרור את־המדינים‬ ‫והכיתם אותם‬, “Treat the Midianites and smite them.” This request to fight the Midianites is extensively substantiated in the following verse, Num 25:18: Because they treated you as enemies by the trickery they did against you in the affair of Peor and in the affair of their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, (the woman) who was killed in the time of the plague on account of the affair of Peor.

‫כי צר רי ם הם ל כם‬ ‫בנ כלי הם אשׁ ר־נ כלו לכם על־ דבר־ פע ור‬ ‫ועל ־דבר כזבי בת־נ שׂי א מדי ן אחתם‬ ‫המכה ביום־ המגפה על ־ דבר־ פע ור׃‬

If the criminalist only had this involute witness he should have to stay the proceedings immediately. Because Balaam and his presumed guilt are not mentioned in any way, we need to hear a further witness whose testimony is by far clearer. This witness, once again, is Moses, this time in Num 31:15–16. There it is reported that the triumphant Israelite combatants bring all their

156

Literature, History and Ideology

booty – Midianite movable property, cattle, children and particularly women – back to the camp, and are then thoroughly scolded by Moses: Have you spared every female? Yet, they are the very ones who were detrimental to the Israelites in the Balaam affair, by instigating sacrilegious rebellion against YHWH in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the community of YHWH . 1

‫החיי תם כל־נ קבה‬ ‫הן הנ ה הי ו ל בני ישׂ ראל בדבר בלע ם‬ ‫ל מסר־ מע ל בי הוה על־ דבר־ פע ור‬ ‫ות הי המגפה בע דת י הוה‬

Now, interestingly enough, the story – which has up to now been characterized by the absence of Balaam – is called (following Levine’s translation) “the Balaam affair.” He is blamed for causing the plague which killed 24,000 Israelites, by counselling the Midianite women in leading the Israelites astray. Yet that advice is found neither in the Balaam narrative nor the entire BaalPeor episode. 2 It is a commonplace that the greater the distance between the real event and the testimony of the witness, the more fantastic and untrustworthy that testimony becomes. In that respect, we can listen to the last witness in the biblical files that passed down to us, namely in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:14). There, the writer accuses Pergamon to house the Nicolaitans and to take advice from them, thereby misleading the people in the way of Balaam: Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

ἀλλ᾽ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὀλίγα ὅτι ἔχεις ἐκεῖ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάµ, ὃς ἐδίδασκεν τῷ Βαλὰκ βαλεῖν σκάνδαλον ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι.

From this vantage point the addressees of Balaam’s advice are no longer the Midianite women; rather Balak and the Moabite king is said to have seduced Israel to commit idolatry and to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols. Now the two stories are significantly interwoven: While in Num 25 Balak plays no role at all, in Num 22–24 Balaam does not give any seductive advice. Balaam is regarded as villain, but what was his crime? Is it (also) to be found in Num 22–24 or just in the strange, sophisticated reception of Num 25? The outstanding question of our whodunit is not the identity of the murderer, but the reconstruction of the motive – an issue that has occupied many in a long stream of reception stretching from early Judaism, the New TestaThe translation is based on LEVINE, Numbers (2000), 448. In the later tradition the advice is rooted in Num 24:14 alongside a reinterpretation of this verse to relate it to Num 25 and to solve the problem of Num 31:16. See NOORT , Villain (2008), 15–6. 1 2

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

157

ment and the Church Fathers, to generations of exegetical detectives and chief inspectors. 3 In order to uncover the traces of the murder of Balaam we will not attempt to enumerate the reception once more, but will rather ask some questions to the biblical tradition. One of the most puzzling of these is the following: When and why was Balaam associated with the accusation of leading Israel, Balak, or the Moabites astray? Can this question receive a comprehensive answer simply by hinting at the composition of Numbers? Thus, for instance, E. A. Knauf argued that the motif of Balaam’s guilt was thoroughly produced between the 4th and the 2nd cent. BCE, following a logical editorial process: Because the Cozbi anecdote has attached itself to the Peor report, anyone looking for culprits must find Cozbi responsible [...]; and because Cozbi was a Midianite, all Midianites must be guilty of Baal-Peor; if the Midianites are guilty of Baal-Peor, because their story has attached themselves to this story, then Balaam also must be guilty of Baal-Peor, because their story has attached itself to his story. Because the Midianites were already guilty, Balaam must now be the culprit behind the Midianites. 4

With due respect to the position advocated by Knauf, this is not so much a “logical” explanation but rather some sort of basic German thoroughness, namely: explaining the complexity of redactional processes by the obvious logic of chains of causation. However, intertextual coherence and textual cohesiveness are not the same. There is no must-see of the accusation against Balaam simply because the Balaam story stands beneath the Baal-Peor story. However, the Balaam story does end in a positive fashion, with Balaam being fired by his employer (Num 24:11, 25). Within the Balaam story there is little if any connection between Balaam and the Moabites. The only exception may be the phrase ‫ בני־עמו‬in Num 22:5, pointing to a Transjordan origin of Balaam. Thus, one has to skip the Balaam story in the first instance. Yet the background of Balaam’s murder cannot be grasped within Num 25 either, because Balaam is completely missing from that story. Are there any reasons why Balaam had to die? The question is not entirely new,5 but it is still of interest. Here we enter the endless debate about the positive or negative image of Balaam in the tradition as well as in the process 3 See, e.g., G ROSS, Bileam (1991); D ONNER, Balaam (1994), 121–32 and with many others the recent anthology VAN KOOTEN/ VAN RUITEN, Prestige (2008). 4 This is an English translation of KNAUF, Midian (1988), 167: “Weil sich die KozbiAnekdote an den Peor-Bericht angelagert hat, muß Kozbi für jemanden, der nach Schuldigen sucht, daran schuld sein […]; weil Kozbi eine Midianiterin war, müssen alle Midianiterinnen an Baal Peor schuldig sein; wenn schon die Midianiterinnen an Baal Peor schuld sind, weil sich ihre Geschichte an diese Geschichte angelagert hat, dann muß auch Bileam an Baal Peor schuld sein, weil sich dessen Geschichte an seine Geschichte angelagert hat. Weil die Midianiterinnen schon schuldig waren, muß Bileam nun der Schuldige hinter den Midianiterinnen sein.” 5 D ONNER, Balaam (1994), 127 highlights Philo as forefather of this venture.

158

Literature, History and Ideology

of redaction. For that reason, my own proposal will be prefaced by four preliminary comments, all of which have some diachronic relevance: At the beginning of the tradition, Balaam is a hired specialist for incantations that shall affect enemies in war. His incantations are directed against the people of Israel and aim at harming Israel’s military strength. This trial is foiled, however, because of the blessed state of Israel. The task Balak wants Balaam to do is a task of magic. By means of the gradual intensification of the blessing motif in the story, Balaam becomes a positive diviner. The more his verdicts are interpreted from an eschatological perspective, the more he becomes a “wise man” whose activity can be described as “tangent” to prophecy, although he is himself no prophetic character at all. Stages one and two cannot be divided properly one from the other; they are already closely interconnected in the earliest stage of the Balaam narrative. Balaam was never acknowleged as a prophet in the biblical tradition. To the contrary, there is ample evidence that any proximity with “true” prophecy was deliberately avoided. (1) His negative image, which was implied from the beginning, has been taken up in the mockery of the donkey pericope, where the jenny proves itself to be more competent in its encounter with the LORD than Balaam. (2) Because of the use of ‫ נחשׁ‬in Num 24:1 and 23:23, Balaam was a dead duck. According to the Deuteronomistic ideal he became a heathen “prophet” with false methods, who could therefore only be associated with false gods. (3) Following the sharp Deuteronomistic distinction between true and false prophets on the one hand, and Moses as the only Torah prophet on the other, Balaam was received as a pagan prophet in the postDeuteronomistic reception of Num 22–24. The connection with Num 25 constituted the further background needed to sentence Balaam, according to Deut 13, as a heathen seducer of the whole community. This justified, or more precisely required, at the very least, his death. The murder of Balaam in Num 31:8 is a consequence of the innerbiblical reception of the somehow ambivalent beginning of the Balaam story. It is an outcome of inner-biblical interpretation and application of the Torah. Balaam thus became associated with the Midianites, respectively the Midianite women, in Num 31:16. That association itself was anticipated in the earlier tradition by the intermingling of the Moabite ambassadors and the elders of Midian in Num 22:4, 7. In the following argument, I will try to substantiate these suggestions by means of a close reading of the relevant passages in Num 22–24, Num 25 and Num 31 in six successive steps. First, I will investigate the association of Balaam with the Midianites and then consider the question of whether Balaam can be associated with a sanctuary of Baal-Peor. After that I will examine the profession of Balaam and its recognition in the biblical tradition. In the following paragraphs the association of Balaam with magic will be con-

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

159

sidered. The description of the mode of his divination leads to the question of whether there is a change in Balaam’s intention during the course of his several attempts. This is discussed, finally, by focusing on the ‫ נחשׁים‬in Num 24:1 and the development of the negative attitude of Balaam in inner-biblical reception. All of these steps combine synchronic and diachronic observations. Methodologically, I will follow Erich Zenger et al. in reflecting the synchronic approach diachronically. My paper will argue for a development within the Balaam tradition that can be called an intensification of inner-biblical interpretation.

2. Hooking Up with the Wrong Crowd: Balaam and the Midianites We can start with one of the most puzzling items, namely the reference to Balaam’s advice in Num 31:16. Introduced by the substantiating interjection ‫הן‬, Moses gives the rationale for his directive to kill the women of Midian as well by referring to Balaam’s behavior. Balaam is supposed to have incited the Moabite women to seduce Israel. Also, he is held responsible for the plague which struck Israel in Shittim and killed 24,000 people (Num 25:9). Oddly enough, that plague is not mentioned in the story of the fornication between Israel and the “daughters of Moab” in Num 25:1–5. Rather, it is an interpretation of the (yehowistic) phrase ‫ ויחר־אף יהוה בישׂראל‬in Num 25:3. It is the post-exilic, priestly text in the second part of the story (Num 25:8), with the shady hero Phinehas, which refers to the plague for the first time. Numbers 25:8 states that “the plague” was stopped ( ‫ותעצר המגפה מעל בני‬ ‫ )ישׂראל‬by the killing of Cozbi and Zimri. However, in v. 18 the plague is directly connected to the Baal-Peor episode ( ‫)המגפה על־דבר־פעור‬. Although the ‫ פעור‬in ‫ על־דבר־פעור‬can be understood as referring to a location,6 ‫ פעור‬is mentioned only in Num 25:3, 5 as a label for the divine addressee of Israel’s idolatry. Thus, v. 18 seems to refer back to vv. 1–5. With respect to the priestly redactors who were responsible for inserting the Phinehas episode in its present context, the plague has a dual capacity: on the one hand, it fills the gap caused by the fragmentary tradition of vv. 1–5 (roughly: vv. 1a, 3, 5 are

6 See Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6 and Josh 13:20, which mention a location ‫ ב ית פע ו ר‬situated at the slope of the mountains south of the Ghor plain. Numbers 23:28 speaks of a ‫ר אשׁ‬ ‫ הפע ור‬and in Josh 22:17 there is a location called ‫ פעור‬which is an abbreviated form of ‫בי ת‬ ‫ פע ור‬or ‫( בעל ־פעור‬for the identification with modern places, see below). The latter on the other hand is associated with the sin of Israel in Num 25, which is tied to the God named ‫ בע ל־ פע ור‬in Num 25:3, 5; Deut 4:3 (bis) and Ps 106:28. Hosea 9:10 is oscillating between “location” and “deity,” too.

160

Literature, History and Ideology

yehowistic, vv. 1b, 2, 4 Deuteronomistic 7), where the execution of Moses’s directive in v. 5 is missing; on the other hand, the plague connects the two strings (“idolatry” and “intermarriage”) that were tied together in Num 25:1– 9.8 The late post-Pg passage (Num 25:16–18) – the justification of the Midianite war – regards both stories as being intertwined (or reads them together, respectively) and turns the Midianites into the protagonists of the Baal-Peor episode. Balaam is not yet involved. For that reason, it is widely accepted that the accusation leveled against Balaam is a very late phenomenon in the redactional process of the Pentateuch or (including Josh 13:22 and Josh 24:9–10) of the Hexateuch. This is consistent with the fact that the murder of Balaam is mentioned only one more time in the post-Pg tradition of Josh 13:22. It is significant that Balaam is here called a ‫קוסם‬. According to Deut 18:10, 14, this term clearly refers to some form of illegal practice (cf. Jer 14:14; 27:9; 29:8; Ezek 13:6, 9, 23; Isa 44:25; Mic 3:7; Zech 10:2). Thus, the perception of Josh 13:22 sees Balaam through the glasses of the Deuteronomistic prophecy theory. However, the root ‫ קסם‬in Num 22–24 occurs only in connection with the fee the elders of Midian try to give Balaam, and in the second Balaam oracle in Num 23:23 (see below). Was his advice in Num 31:16 regarded as illegal practice, too? We can leave that for a moment and note the striking fact that Balaam is killed within the territory of Midian in Num 31:8, alongside the killing of the five Midianite kings. How has Balaam become a Midianite or how has he entered Midianite territory, respectively? At the end of the story Balaam departs and returns to his place (‫ויקם בלעם וילך וישׁב למקמו‬, Num 24:25). Balaam’s home is described in Num 22:5, enigmatically “in Petor by/on the river in the land of the sons of Amaw/his people” ( ‫פתורה אשׁר על־הנהר ארץ‬ ‫)בני־עמו‬. This could be anywhere, but unlikely in Midian (see below). One presupposition underlying the perception of Balaam as a Midianite in the textual intertwining of Num 25 and Num 31:16, as mentioned above, is the association of Moabites and Midianites in the Balaam story: Moab is terrified by the vast number of Israelites (Num 22:3) and thereupon Balak addresses the elders of Midian (‫ )זק ני מדי ן‬in v. 4. It is remarkable that in Num 22:7 the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian are mentioned together. Strikingly enough, v. 4 mentions Balak’s kingship after he was already introduced in v. 2. Taking this and the double subject in vv. 3–4 (Moab, Balak) into account, one could assume that v. 4 was created in order to insert the Midianites into the story. They were therefore likewise added in v. 7 at the same stage. However, the first mention of Balak in Num 22:2 clearly refers to 7 The diachronic analysis is similar to the one advocated by S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 146–50. Contra ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 425–6, who assigns the earliest tradition of the Baal-Peor story to a late Deuteronomistic layer. 8 Cf. F REVEL/CONCZOROWSKI, Water (2011), 35–9.

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

161

the narrative in Num 21 and the Amorites. It is striking that he is not introduced as “king of Moab,” which is clearly stated in v. 4. Furthermore, the sending of the messengers in v. 5, which is crucial for the story, fits better if the king of v. 4 is the subject, and not Moab of v. 3. Thus v. 2, which links the Balaam story to the context may be a redactional addition. In consequence, only the elders of Midian and not the whole verse in v. 4 should be regarded as secondary, as Ludwig Schmidt suggested: “In V. 4a.7a wurde später ‛die Ältesten Midians’ eingefügt. Damit sollte eine Brücke zu 31,16 geschlagen werden.”9 In any event, all mentions of the Midianites in the Balaam story appear to be redactional. However, neither in Num 22:4 nor in Num 22:7 is Balaam a Midianite. Therefore, we need to take a closer look at Num 31, where a dark, damning light is cast upon Balaam. First of all, we need to look at the literary integrity of the story of the Midianite war and the killing of Balaam. In Num 31:7 the Israelites are said to have slain every male (‫)וי הרגו כל־זכר‬, in conformity with the Deuteronomistic war theory laid out in Deut 20:13. This should also include the kings of Midian mentioned in that passage as well as Balaam, who has seemingly turned from an Aramean, or less probably an Ammonite (Num 22:5, see below), via a Moabite (Num 25), into a Midianite in Num 31:8. Following E. A. Knauf, R. Achenbach and others, the list of the five kings and their names are not historical or traditional; rather, they comprise a fictional construct stemming from the 4th cent. BCE or perhaps even later.10 If we examine more carefully the killing of the kings, we can detect the possible redactional joint for the killing of Balaam: ‫ויצ באו על־ מדי ן כאשׁ ר צ וה י הוה את־ משׁ ה וי הר גו כל זכר׃‬ ‫ואת מל כי מדי ן הר גו ע ל־ חל לי הם את־ אוי ואת־ר ק ם ואת־צ ור ואת חור ואת־ר בע חמשׁ ת מל כי מדי ן‬ ‫ואת בלע ם בן־בעור הרגו בחרב׃‬ They did battle against Midian, as YHWH had commanded Moses, and killed every male. And they killed the kings of Midian in addition/because of their wounded ones: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and they killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword (Num 31:7–8).

The threefold use of ‫ הרג‬is striking; indeed, the killing of Balaam is redundant after the killing of all males and has nothing to do with the Midianites. But if one is correct in presuming that the law of war in Deut 20 “emerges as the principal Torah source on the subject of warfare and policy towards defeated and conquered people,” 11 then Deut 20 has influenced Num 31 in several ways. Deuteronomy 20:13 prescribes the killing of all males with the S CHMIDT , Numeri (2004), 124. KNAUF, Midian (1988), 166; ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 617, cf. the argumentation in SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 293–8 joining the five kings with the Nabateans. 11 LEVINE, Numbers (2000), 467. 9

10

162

Literature, History and Ideology

sword, which is transcribed with a slight semantic deviance (‫ הרג‬instead of ‫ נכה‬H-stem). The women, the children and the cattle have to be spared and treated as booty. However, this only applies to “all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby” (Deut 20:15). The killing of all Midianites is based upon and derives from the law of war in Deut 20, but Deut 20 makes a difference between the narrow cities within the settlement area and the far-off cities outside of the settled area. The members of the seven indigenous nations have to be entirely exterminated, so that they cannot “teach you to do all the detestable things which they do to honor their gods” (Deut 20:18). Following the legislation in Deuteronomy the allochthonous women taken as booty can be married. It is obvious that this Deuteronomistic distinction between material booty and the female captives is highly problematic from the perspective of anyone objecting to mixed marriages as such. Even from this point of view every foreign woman can be hazardous and seduces to adultery. However, what are the abominations (‫ )תועבת‬of the indigenous people that threaten Israel in Deut 20:18? Basing ourselves on other passages in Deuteronomy, these abominations should comprise letting the children go through fire (Deut 12:31; 18:10), eating unclean animals (Deut 14:3), as well as engaging in sorcery, divination, soothsaying, necromancy, etc. (Deut 18:10). Particular emphasis is laid on worshipping gods other than YHWH (Deut 12:31; 17:4) as well as seducing Israel in order to prompt the people to commit idolatry (Deut 13:15). According to Num 25 all of this applies to the Moabites. They led Israel astray by inviting them to eat food sacrificed to idols and to worship Baal-Peor. Thus, the Moabite women act like the indigenous people. Because the Moabites and Midianites are conjoined in Num 22:4, 7, and also because they are oddly tied in Num 25:18, they are lumped together as “Midianites.” The text is further influenced by the refusal of mixed marriages, and thus contributes to their rejection in the formative given text. From a historical perspective the obliteration of Moab as a political entity, together with the expansion of pre-Islamic Arabs in the vicinity of BaalMeon, Nebo and Medeba, 12 appear to foster this impression. The expansion of the Nabateans in the south of Judah is likewise a further cue for the notion that the “Midianites” could have been reckoned as the indigenous nations of Deut 20:16–18 living in the cities of the Promised Land and posing an almost deadly threat, which could lead to a renewed expulsion from the land. However, they are de facto not indigenous and their killing can therefore not be justified by resorting to Deut 20:16–18, because Midianites are not part of the seven nations mentioned in Deut 20. Yet, by killing all male children and all 12 K NAUF, Midian (1988), 163. For the process of “Arabization,” see Frevel, Arab Connection, p. 209–22 in the present volume.

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

163

potentially pregnant women the instruction of Moses in Num 31:17 aims at annihilating Midian like the indigenous nations in Deut 20:16–18. Thus, there has to be another vindication for exterminating Midian once and for all. Worshiping foreign gods is a crime that warrants the death penalty both for the seducer and for the seduced people (Deut 13:16–18). The Midianite (i.e., the Moabite) women have committed this crime, which led to a death sentence. Thus, Num 31:17 appears to comprise a combination of Deut 20 and Deut 13. Without the reference to Num 25:1–6, the annihilation of the Midianites could not be justified. This is the logic of Num 25:18: “for they have harassed you by the trickery with which they deceived you in the affair of Peor.” The texts are part of a very late intertextual play, which aims at justifying the Midianite war by bringing the traditions of Num 22–25 in alignment, and that to the detriment of the Midianites.

3. “Worse is Better!”: Bad Press on Balaam from the Beginning? Up to this point, we have worked out the reason for the motive of the killing of the Midianite male children together with the Midianite women, who could be potentially pregnant; however, we have not yet found the concrete reason why Balaam had to die. Or the other way around: The fact that the Midianite women seduced Israel is self-sufficient and does not need the advice of a foreign prophet (Num 31:16), a motif which is constructed in contradiction with the text of Num 25. Every single fingerprint of the Balaam tradition in the Old Testament texts can be retraced with respect to their intention as well as their redactional origin; only Num 31:16 appears to remain untraceable.13 Why was Balaam associated with the Baal-Peor tradition of Num 25? There is one possible answer in the tradition history, which was advanced at this crucial point by Wilhelm Rudolph14 and, most prominently, by Martin Noth, and which was rejected several times (notably in the end by Noth himself). In his History of Pentateuchal Traditions Noth had argued that there is a connection between Balaam and the very prominent sanctuary of Baal-Peor at the level of oral transmission. 15 According to this view, therefore, the story of Balaam had its provenance and home there. Without yet being aware of the Tell Dēr ‘Allā evidence, Noth reckoned that “an old, independent Balaam tradition which was known until a late date but is otherwise lost to us,” 16 established Balaam as soothsayer (‫)קוסם‬. Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 68: “Demnach sind alle Notizen bis auf Num 31,16 ableitbar.” 14 RUDOLPH, Elohist (1938), 111. 15 N OTH , History (1981), 74–5. 16 N OTH , History (1981), 76. 13

164

Literature, History and Ideology

Stories about such a man, who once frequented the sanctuary of Baal-Peor, were told preeminently in the circles of non-Israelite visitors of the sanctuary. But the Israelite visitors soon learned about him also; and since he was claimed first and foremost by the others, among the Israelites he took on the form of an evil, hostile magician, who through his word and influence had done all kinds of harm to them. At this point the path of the Israelite tradition divided. 17 It is the putative historicity of this lore, which had a widely known diviner as its starting point, which seems to explain the dual tradition presenting Balaam as a blessing and a cursing prophet in the Old Testament tradition. Yet, this hypothesis is too good to be true, although it seems in some way to be congenial to the later findings regarding Balaam in Tell Dēr ‘Allā. There are several rough edges, which concern mainly the assumption of the BaalPeor tradition and its original combination with the Balaam tradition: (1) The assumption of a well-known sanctuary in Beth-Peor, (2) the assumption of a mixed people in that border shrine and (3) the association of Balaam with this sanctuary. First of all, we do not know much about the place called Baal-Peor. Deuteronomy 3:29; 4:46; 34:6 and Josh 13:20 mention a location ‫בית פעור‬, and Num 23:28 speaks of a ‫ ראשׁ הפעור‬which may be a place name or the peak of the mountain called Peor. Finally in Josh 22:17 there is a location called ‫פעור‬, which is perhaps an abbreviated form of ‫ בית פעור‬or ‫בעל־פעור‬. If one takes Hos 9:10 literally, Israel came to ‫בעל־פעור‬, which has to be understood most probably as a place name, although it remains oscillating between “location” and “deity.” The first assumption must be that there is a particular location that is referred to by all these variants, which is probable but not entirely clear. Speculations about a well-known cult place have weighty ancestors, for example Philo, who surmised a στήλη δαιµονίου at Bamoth-Baal.18 The assumption of a prominent open sanctuary is merely based on a huge umbrella acacia in Šeḫ ğāyil, which is mentioned by Alois Musil in Arabia Petreae 19 and which has been given the name Shittim. 20 But usually the place Peor is NOTH , History (1981), 77. PHILO, De vita Mosis § 273. 19 M USIL, Arabia Petraea (1907), 344, 348; NOTH, History (1981), 80. 20 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Schitttim (2001), 481: “Während der pers.-hell.-röm. Ort relativ sicher mit Ḫirbet el-Kefrēn (Koord. 212.140) in des perennierenden Wādī el-Kefrēn gleichgesetzt werden kann, schlug Glueck für den altl. Ort Tell el-Ḥammām (2,5 km osö, Koord. 213.138) desselben Tals vor, für den neuere Oberflächenuntersuchungen eine Erstbesiedlung in der FB und eine Neubesiedlung in der EB II bestätigt haben.” Similary NOTH , Numbers (1968), 196, although he seems to have suggested Tell el-Kefrēn before. See NOTH, Stämme (1944), 26 with n. 3; cf. WALLIS, Peor (1966). Cf. further GASS, Moabiter (2009), 176 with n. 925. 17 18

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

165

distinguished from the submontane Shittim and identified with Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā near Nebo, 21 or as recently argued by Siegfried Mittmann with the Rās Mušaqqar (located at the middle of a fictitious line between Hesban and Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā).22 Horst Seebass is the most concrete: The cult must have taken place on Mount Peor (rās mušaqqar) so that the Israelites turned back from their journey on account of Moabite women. [...] As a place on the descent to the Jordan rift, Peor forms the final station on the mountains on the way to Jericho. The cult is likely to be a reference to the complex situation of Israelites and Moabites north of the Arnon. The fact that (Beth-)Peor was a way station is most likely to suggest a protective function of the god, from which the Midianites also made use. 23

It is mere speculation to assume the hilltop as a wayside shrine or border sanctuary between Israel and Moab. The entire complex of ideas remains hypothetical. This holds especially true for any concretization based on the biblical account. Simply stunning in this regard is the biblicistic summary in the latest history of Israelite religion by Wolfgang Zwickel and Michael Tilly, which mingles all the evidence together; grabs the Balaam story and includes it into the cult of Baal-Peor, too: Peor: Num 23,28–25,18 (sic!); Dtn 4,3; Jos 22,17; Hos 9,10; vgl. Num 31,16; Ps 106,28. At this location, modern day Khirbet Uyun Musa near Mount Nebo, the deity Baal-Peor has been honored. The Bible mentions diverse cult practices with their outcomes (fireofferings upon seven altars: Num 23:28–30); meal offerings and fornication: Num 25:2; 31:16; Josh 22:17; Hos 9:10 (?); food offered to the dead: Ps 106:28; a death penalty for anyone who honored Baal-Peor: Num 25:5; 31:16; Deut 4:3. 24

21 There are several proposals regarding the identification of Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā (map. ref. 2202.1318). See GASS, Moabiter (2009), 188, 215–6. Gaß prefers the identification with Sibmah (Num 32:38; Josh 13:19; Isa 16:8, 9; Jer 48:32). 22 MITTMANN, Gebietsbeschreibung (1995), 23. 23 This is an English translation of S EEBASS , Numeri (2007), 138 (with change of word order): “Der Kult muß oben auf dem Berg Pegor (rās mušaqqar) stattgefunden haben, so daß die Israeliten sich wegen moabitischer Frauen auf ihrem Weg rückwärts wandten. […] Als Ort am Abstieg zum Jordangraben bildete der Peor die letzte Station auf dem Gebirge am Weg nach Jericho. Der Kult dürfte ein Hinweis auf die Gemengelage von Israeliten und Moabitern nördlich des Arnon sein. Die Tatsache, daß es sich bei (Bet) Pegor um eine Wegestation gehandelt hat, lässt am ehesten an eine Schutzfunktion des Gottes denken, von der dann auch Midianiter Gebrauch machten.” For the identification of Bet Peor with el-Mušaqqar (map. ref. 2239.1335), see the list in GASS, Moabiter (2009), 186. 24 This is an English translation of TILLY /ZWICKEL, Religionsgeschichte (2011), 68: “An dieser Ortslage, heute Khirbet Uyun Musa nahe dem Berg Nebo, wurde die Gottheit Baal-Peor verehrt. Die Bibel erwähnt diverse Kultpraktiken mit ihren Folgen (Brandopfer auf sieben Altären: Num 23,28–30); Opfermahlzeiten und Unzucht: Num 25,2; 31,16; Jos 22,17; Hos 9,10 (?); Essen von Totenopfer: Ps 106,28; Todesstrafe für diejenigen, die Baal-Peor verehren: Num 25,5; 31,16; Dtn 4,3.”

166

Literature, History and Ideology

The additive register insinuates historicity. There are no doubts that a historical local Baal is referred to and that there were idolatrous sexual practices and – horribili dictum – a combination with the cult of the dead. Especially noteworthy is the interpretation of the seven altars in Num 22:28–29, which are attributed to Baal-Peor. Balaam and/or Balak are offering to the foreign god to propitiate YHWH from whom an oracle is expected. That is quite fanciful, but by no means responsible in historical respect. From Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā we have some Iron I, Iron II, Persian and Byzantine evidence and from Rās Mušaqqar some EB and Iron II and Iron III, Persian and Roman-Byzantine sherds, but no archaeological hints of a sanctuary or a way-station either on the Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā or on the Rās Mušaqqar. Thus it is quite consequential when Erasmus Gaß records none of them in his list of Moabite sanctuaries.25 He only mentions the figurine from the surface of Ḫirbet el-Mešhed, which was published by Nelson Glueck.26 Ḫirbet elMešhed is probably to be identified or to be connected with Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā. 27 The figurine is a typical Iron II B “woman holding a round objecttype,”28 which is common in the Transjordan and more likely evidence for a Goddess household cult than evidence for a cult of the local Baal. Likewise, we do not have any reliable evidence for identifying the place Baal-Peor or Beth-Peor with the Rās Mušaqqar. Considering the phrase, ‫וי צמד י שׂראל לב על פעור‬, in Num 25:3 (cf. Num 25:5), the assumption that there existed a Baal-Peor tradition does not seem to be incongruous in itself. Because the god is not introduced, one could assume that Baal-Peor is familiar to the addressees of Num 25. But there are no clues other than the assumed sanctuary in Num 25; and yet the text in Num 25:1–5 does not mention any sanctuary. Just a (or the holy) tent is mentioned in the Phinehas story (Num 25:6), yet without any reference to a change in the location. One should note, furthermore, that Deut 3:29 differentiates between the place where Israel camped and the location Baal-Peor. In sum: To put Balaam in a local sanctuary in Beth-Peor dedicated to the local Baal is mere speculation and cannot be considered as a historical background of the Balaam tradition. The assumption that the sanctuary was located at the frontier between Israel and Moab is by no means clear. The mišor (“plain”) with the northwestern slopes, the plain of Moab (‫ )שׂדי מואב‬and the lowlands ( ‫ )ערבות מואב‬have been part of the Moabite territory for the majority of the time, although this GASS, Moabiter (2009), 287–92. GLUECK, Explorations (1933/34), 24, 27 with fig. 8. See the parallels from Transjordan in PAZ, Drums (2007), 33 (A.53). 27 G ASS, Moabiter (2009), 216. 28 Cf. KEEL /UEHLINGER, Gods (1998), 164–6. See the parallels from Transjordan in PAZ, Drums (2007), 12–51. 25 26

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

167

prosperous area may have been occasionally disputed by other nations.29 Thus the hilltops of the Abarim-mountains could have been the frontier between Moab and Israel temporarily. But we have no concrete evidence for the view that Baal-Peor was a border-guard or a border-sanctuary. Because the hypothesis of a well-known sanctuary at the Baal-Peor hilltop skates on thin ice, Meindert Dikjstra has searched for a better starting point and believes to have found it in the sanctuary of Nebo (Ḫirbet al-Muḫayyaṭ), which is mentioned in the Mesha inscription (lines 14–18). 30 But on the one hand it is doubtful to identify the sanctuary of Kemosh in line 17–18 with Nebo, and on the other hand the location is neither noted in the Balaam story nor in the BaalPeor/Phinehas episode. In sum: It may be plausible to assume (a) border shrines or wayside shrines on the King’s Highway, but to associate either Balaam, Balak or the Moabites of Num 25 with a particular sanctuary dedicated to Baal-Peor remains shaky. If Balaam was at home in Shittim or at the sanctuary of Baal-Peor, why is he summoned from Pethor ‫ אשׁר על־הנהר ארץ בני־עמו‬according to Num 22:5? To complicate the matter further, it is not clear where Pethor is to be located.31 According to Deut 23:5 it is located in Pitru, in Mesopotamia (‫ארם‬ ‫)נהרים‬, at the Sağūr-estuary that is called after the 9th cent. Ana-Aššur-uṭēraṣbat, and which is perhaps to be identified with Aušar. 32 This is quite in agreement with the ‫ מן ארם‬in Num 23:7. Another possibility comes from the Amun temple in Luxor, where Ramesses II mentions a city in Moab written B(w)-tj-rʼ-tj. 33 Presupposing the verse should actually read ‫“ ארץ בני־עמון‬the land of the Ammonites,” a localization in Ammon, especially in the vicinity of Tell Dēr ‘Allā and the Jabbok, has been discussed as a possible alternative.34 If this is accepted, the reading of ‫ אדם‬instead of ‫ ארם‬in Num 23:7 is a natural consequence. Adam(ah) or Adma can be identified with Tell edDāmiye (map. ref. 2018.1679) located at the lower course of the Jabbok in the Jordan valley. Still another possibility, however, is that ‫ פתור‬was not meant as a real geographical name, but as an Aramaean word which denotes the occupational title “interpreter.” 35 This interpretation is attested in the Targumim. 36 In any event, the fact remains that Balaam comes from outside, 29 For the discussion of the Moabite borders, see GASS, Moabiter (2009), 2–4, 163–8, 174–5, 208–9. For the geographical term Mishor, see NA ’AMAN , Israel (2005), 51. 30 DIJKSTRA, Geography (1995). 31 See the overview in G ROSS , Bileam (1974), 97–115. 32 TIMM, Moab (1989), 150; KESSLER, Untersuchungen (1980), 191–3; GÖRG , Heimat (1976); GASS, Bileam (2007). 33 See TIMM, Moab (1989), 16–9. 34 ROUILLARD, Péricope (1985), 42–53. 35 See TIMM, Moab (1989), 150–1; D ELCOR, Texte (1981); D IJKSTRA, Geography (1995), 72–97; S CHÜLE, Sohn (2001), 143–50. 36 See VERMEZ, Scripture (1961), 129.

168

Literature, History and Ideology

rather from the North, 37 so that there is no biblical or extra-biblical evidence that Balaam was associated with a sanctuary in the vicinity of Shittim. Lastly, there is another presupposition in Noth’s hypothesis that demonstrates how circular his argument is. Namely, by assuming that the location of Baal-Peor is the focus of the Balaam story, he already implies the connection between Num 25 and Num 22–24. In sum: Noth’s hypothesis of Balaam’s homeland is extremely hypothetical and not compelling. The reasons for the accusation of Balaam can be found neither in the tradition nor in the given connection to the cult of Baal.38 Numbers 31:16 is not the oldest historical tradition about the seer Balaam39 who advised the Moabite women. While the hypothesis of Martin Noth, that the clue for combining the Balaam tradition with Num 25:1–5 lies in the oldest tradition of the seer fails, we have to admit the congeniality of M. Noth regarding the early history of Balaam. Although this is not our focus here, we have to mention briefly the extra-biblical Tell Dēr ‘Allā tradition. The site, which is often identified with the biblical Succoth, is located in the upper Jordan valley about 2 km north of the Jabbok (map. ref. 2088.1782). The excavations, which were conducted from 1917 to 2005, revealed a building complex that was destroyed by an earthquake at the end of the 9th cent. BCE. The totally collapsed walls of room E335, which were found in 1967, were plastered and the walls painted with a large inscription of which largely two combinations were restored and published first by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij in 1976.40 The first largely readable combination mentions the seer Balaam as son of Beor, who receives his visions as seer of the gods (ʼš ḥzh ʼlhn) by night. The (proto-)Aramaic inscription mentions El, the Shadday gods, the sun deity Šamš and the star twins Šagar and ʼAštar as being involved in the judgement that Balaam is concerned with. The building was interpreted as a sanctuary, but there are no cultic installations at all. Thus, Erich Zenger and Robert Wenning’s hypothesis to address the building as a prophetic assembly room seems to be the better option. 41 This does not exclude the possibility that minor cultic activities may have occurred in the building, but there is no evidence that Tell Dēr ‘Allā was a regional or even a local sanctuary. Nothing in the inscription or in the archaeological context gives evidence for an association of Balaam with SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 68–9. There is one other possibility to connect Balaam to Peor: the sound of his name. It could be possible that the parallel sound of ‫ בלע ם בן בע ר‬and ‫ בעל פע ר‬led to the association of Balaam with the Baal-Peor tradition. But taking into account that the connection between the two is a very late one, which implies written rather than oral traditions, this possibility has little plausibility. 39 Cf. N OTH, Numbers (1968), 231; D ONNER, Balaam (1994), 124. 40 H OFTIJZER/ VAN DER K OOIJ , Texts (1976); see further HOFTIJZER, Text (1991). 41 See WENNING/ZENGER, Heiligtum (1991). 37 38

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

169

Baal. What we can learn from the extra-biblical evidence in our context is that Balaam was known in the region as a seer who was associated with a severe judgment of the people. The patronym “son of Beor” indicates that the biblical Balaam cannot be seen independently from the seer of Tell Dēr ‘Allā. Although it is tempting to go deeper into the parallels between the biblical tradition and the Tell Dēr ‘Allā inscription, we have to restrict ourselves to the conclusion that the extra-biblical Balaam may provide the roots for the biblical tradition, but not for the combination of Baal-Peor and Balaam in Num 31:16.

4. Is Balaam Also Among the Prophets? The basic question remains unsolved: Why was Balaam blamed for causing the death of 24,000 Israelites? Our suspicion that the reasons should be traced in the Balaam story itself now needs to be more closely scrutinized. Significantly, Balaam is never called a prophet (‫)נביא‬, be it in the Balaam story or in the entire Old Testament tradition. He is simply labeled as ‫ קוסם‬in Josh 13:22. No other titles are attributed to Balaam, neither in Num 22–24 nor in Deut 23:5–6; Josh 24:9–10; 1 Chron 6:55; Neh 13:2; Mic 6:5. Ignoring that fact, Balaam is consistently referred to as a “prophet” in articles and books. 42 On the one hand this is true according to a general concept of prophecy, associated with visions, dreams, political advice, etc. Balaam is labeld ʼš ḥzh in the Tell Dēr ‘Allā inscription, and Num 24:4, 16 likewise state that he sees the vision of Shadday/the Almighty (‫)מחזה שׂדי יחזה‬. Thus, in a general manner it is appropriate to call Balaam a prophet, but on the other hand Balaam has to be read against the background of the biblical concept of prophecy. From this particular angle, there are reasonable doubts that Balaam is perceived as prophet. Of course, the association with visions in Num 23:4, 16, may be a sign of prophecy, but clearly not of true prophecy. On the other hand, the significance of the word of YHWH in the Balaam story fosters the impression that Balaam is a prophet. Let us take a closer look at that issue: Balaam is the one who hears the utterance of El (‫שׁמע אמרי ־אל‬, Num 24:4, 16) and who sees the visions of Shadday (‫מחזה שׂדי י חזה‬, Num 24:4, 16) and who, in addition, has the knowledge of Elyon (‫וידע דעת עליון‬, Num 24:16). Although El, Shadday and Elyon can be read against a polytheistic background, the association of YHWH with Balaam in the whole narrative is obviSCHÜLE, Sohn (2001); RÖSEL , Propheten (1999); SCHMIDT, Bileam (2004); SCHMantiker (1994); VAN SETERS, Prophet (1997); GASS, Modes (2008), 25, 32. Ed Noort explicitly notes that no titles are used to characterize Balaam; see NOORT , Villain (2008), 3. 42

MITT,

170

Literature, History and Ideology

ous (Num 22:8, 13, 18, 19; 23:3, 5, 8, 12, 16, 17, 21, 26; 24:1, 11, 13). El is used synonymously with YHWH in 23:8, 19, 22, 23; 24:8, 23. Is Balaam fully at YHWH’s side? The term ‫מחזה‬, which is used to denote the mode of revelation in Num 24:4, 16, is attested only once more in a “prophetic” context (Ezek 13:7), where it is quite clearly associated with false prophecy (‫הלוא מחיה־שׁוה‬ ‫)חזיתם‬, which is combined with ‫ומקסם כזב אמרתם‬: “Have you not seen a false vision or uttered a lying divination?” The use of ‫ אמר‬is not characteristic for so-called classical prophecy. If we let the feminine form aside, the term is attested in Isa 32:7 as ‫ אמרי־שׁק ר‬only, as well as in Isa 41:26 as utterances of the false gods. Only in Hos 6:5 do we find a positive connotation to revelation. Lastly, the term ‫“ דעת‬knowledge” is not part of the classical description of prophecy, or an attribute of true prophets. In “prophetic” contexts it is used in Isa 44:25, yet associated with ‫ קסם‬again. He, YHWH, is the one “who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the knowledge of the wise and turns it into nonsense.” The idol maker is without “knowledge” (Jer 10:14; 51:17). Balaam encounters YHWH in order to receive a message. The verb ‫ קרה‬Nstem (Num 23:3, 4, 15, 16) is never used in prophetic contexts, as is the case with the infinitive of ‫ ק רא‬II. with ‫ ל‬in combination with YHWH (‫)לקראת י הוה‬. That God (‫ )אלהים‬comes (‫ בוא‬G-stem, wayyiqṭōl) to Balaam (Num 22:9, 20) during the night is by no means prophetic, and is never used in reference to Israel’s prophets. 43 All other instances report an encounter with non-Israelite people (Gen 20:3; 31:24; 1 Sam 3:10). The phrase ‫ותהי עלי ו רוח אלהים‬, which is attested in Num 24:2, touches upon prophetic contexts (cf. Saul in 1 Sam 10:10; 19:20, 23) and there is no doubt that the spirit of God is connected with prophecy (cf. Num 11:25–29; Joel 3:1; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chron 15:1 et al.).44 But the phrase as such is not used in classical prophecy. Thus, the phrase alone cannot bear the burden of proof to categorize Balaam as prophet. Looking at the seemingly prophetic words in the Balaam pericope leads us, once again, to some amazing results. The phrase ‫( דבר‬in yiqṭōl 3rd pers.) followed by the Tetragrammaton (and not the usual narrative ‫וידבר יהוה‬, which is attested hundredfold) is quite rare and mostly restricted to the Balaam pericope: Num 22:8; 23:26; 24:13. The only instance of the phrase ‫כל־אשׁר ידבר‬ ‫ יהוה‬beside Num 23:26 is the highly significant passage of the Horebtheophany in Deut 5:27, where the people ask Moses to tell them all the words of YHWH. The phrase “the word which I tell you” (‫את־הדבר אשׁר־אדב ר‬ ‫ )אליך‬is attested in the Balaam story in Num 22:20, 35 only. The phrase “to put a word into the mouth” (‫)שׂים את דבר בפי‬, which is used four times to See MILGROM , Numbers (1990), 189. For ‫ ר וח י הוה‬with ‫הי ה על‬, see Jdg 3:10; 11:29; 2 Chron 20:14 and with ‫ צל ח על‬Jdg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 10:6; 16:13. 43 44

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

171

describe the revelation to Balaam (Num 22:38; 23:5, 12, 16), is quite rare. It figures prominently in Exod 4:15, where Moses puts the words of YHWH in Aaron’s mouth – again a striking parallel between Moses and Balaam. 45 Beside this significant instance the phrase is further used in Isa 51:16, where YHWH remembers that he has put the words into the mouth of his people (a statement also reflected in Isa 59:21), or in the story of Joab, when Joab engages the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14:3, 19). With this phrase Ezra instructs the wise man to validate his message to Iddo (Ezra 8:17). All in all, it appears to be a phrase which assures the congruence between the message of the sender and the utterance delivered by the messenger.46 In prophetic contexts the verb ‫ נתן‬is used more frequently. This is especially the case in Deut 18:18, where YHWH gives his word into the mouth of the chosen prophet. The phrase “to give a word” is attested in Jer 1:9 in accordance with Deut 18:15. A deceptive spirit (‫ )רוח שׁק ר‬is “given” into the mouth of the false prophets in 1 Kgs 22:23 and 2 Chron 18:22. Even though Ezekiel eats the word of the LORD along with the “book scroll” (cf. Ezek 2:8–3:3), and though the law about prophecy in Deut 18:18 attests the motif of the divine word being “given” into the mouth, the phrase “to put a word in someone’s mouth” is not part of prophetic language. To sum up: It is striking to note that all prophetic formulas that introduce or describe prophetic words are completely absent in the Balaam story. It seems that, on the surface, the text carefully avoids characterizing Balaam as a prophet. This can be corroborated by a closer look on the terminology used in the (false) “prophecy” of Balaam. ‫ משׁל‬is used in all introductions to the sayings in Num 23:7, 18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23. Its alleged meanings are “saying, proverbial saying, verse of mocking, ridicule, likeness, parable or simile,” and the word is attested about 40 times in the Old Testament. The term mostly denotes a wisdom genre such as the proverbs (Prov 1:1), or wisdom sayings. In the prophetic literature, the term is used infrequently by Ezekiel (for instance Ezek 17:2; 24:3, and most prominently 21:5 “they are saying of me, ‘Is he not a maker of allegories?’” ‫)הלא ממשׁל משׁלים הוא‬. However, the term ‫ משׁל‬is never used to introduce a prophetic speech. 47 Thus Balaam cannot be recognized as a prophet by the use of ‫ משׁל‬in the “oracles.” Only the terminus technicus ‫נאם‬, which is best translated with “speech,” and which is used respectively six times in a stepped parallelism (Num 24:3– 45 Both the parallel with Deut 5:27 and this parallel are not mentioned by EMBRY, Endangerment (2010), who emphasizes strongly the (counter) parallelism between Moses and Balaam, which is stressed by the rabbis in the biblical text, esp. in the journey of Moses and Zipporah and Balaam and his ass. 46 Cf. S CHÜLE , Sohn (2001), 253. 47 Beside the prophetic corpus, the term is used in the psalter to denote an utterance, most significantly in Ps 78:2. See HOSSFELD/ZENGER, Commentary (2005), 286, 294.

172

Literature, History and Ideology

4, 15–16), has a distinctively prophetic flavor, inasmuch as it recalls the socalled “messenger formula” (“Botenspruchformel”), ‫נאם יהוה‬. However, it is significant that the term ‫ נאם‬is never connected with a word of the LORD in the Balaam story, but is always presented as an utterance by Balaam himself. By this, Balaam is coined as counter-prophet. Furthermore, it is remarkable that ‫ נאם‬is found only three other times as nomen regens without being combined with ‫יהוה‬, ‫ אדני‬or ‫האדני‬. These three occurrences are the introduction of the words of Agur in Prov 30:1, the introduction of David’s last words in 2 Sam 23:1 and the ‫ נאם־פשׁע‬in Ps 36:2. While the ‫ נאם־פשׁע‬in Ps 36:2 are utterances of the wicked, the other passages broach in some way the issue of prophecy, but they are not prophecy. Most striking are the parallels regarding the last words of David: The introduction is very similar, compare the use of ‫נאם‬, the reference to the filiation of David and Balaam, the presence of the term ‫גבר‬, the connection with the spirit of God and, lastly, the parallel between the formulation ‫ אמר אלהי ישׂראל‬in 2 Sam 23:3 and ‫ אמרי אל‬in Num 24:4. The most significant difference is the limitation to utterances in the David passage and the concentration on visions in the Balaam pericope. If we consider these parallels from a diachronic perspective, both are comparatively “late” occurrences. Taking the reference to the Decalogue into account, the words of Agur are of post-exilic origin according to Arndt Meinhold, who calls them a “summary of late, wisdomtheological thought,” 48 and who dates them to the 4th cent. BCE. The dating of the last words of David is disputed in the exegetical tradition; the dates offered vary from pre-monarchial to post-exilic times. 49 “For a long time in scholarship, 2 Sam 23:1–7 has been considered an especially ancient text,”50 but recently the later date has been predominantly favored. Walter Dietrich and Thomas Naumann refer to the analysis of Hans-Peter Mathys, who argued for a late date due to the unspecific prophetic dignity, which shows a “great gap from both royalty as well as from prophecy.”51 Ernst-Joachim Waschke has assigned the last words of David to a late compositional layer, which is close to the completion of the canonical books of Samuel. 52 In his analysis of the last words of David, Martin Kleer argues that the Balaam pericope served as a Vorlage. 53 He points out further parallels between “David’s last words” in 2 Sam 23:1–7 and the narrative of Balaam. Besides the 48 M EINHOLD, Sprüche (1991), 495: “Summarium späten weisheitlich-theologischen Denkens.” 49 See STOEBE, Buch (1994), 488; KLEER, Sänger (1996), 66–7. 50 This is an English translation of DIETRICH /NAUMANN , Samuelbücher (1995), 163: “II 23,1–7 hat der Forschung lange Zeit als besonders altertümlicher Text gegolten.” 51 M ATHYS, Dichter (1994), 160: “großen Abstand sowohl vom Königtum wie von der Prophetie.” 52 W ASCHKE , Königsvorstellung (2005). 53 KLEER, Sänger (1996), 51–4, 66–9.

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

173

spirit of God (Num 24:2; 2 Sam 23:2), he thus refers to the emphasis on the mouth in the case of Balaam (Num 22:8, 18, 28, 38; 23:5, 12, 16; 24:13) and on the tongue in the case of David (2 Sam 23:2). Finally, in both cases the introduction is already part of the prophetic speech, which reflects the word of God, itself addressed to the recipient: Despite the stated similarities between the Balaam pericope and the “last words of David” there are no direct parallels in their formulation, such as corresponding speech introductions, but in the prophetic understanding, Balaam and David correspond in three ways. The spirit of Yhwh or god is important for speaking as a prophet. God’s word is in the mouth, or on the tongue, of the prophet. Finally, the prophet is unable to speak anything on his own, he goes on to say what god informs him, or rather god is allowed to speak through him. 54

Regarding the poetry of Balaam it is possible to highlight a close link with the wisdom tradition as regards both the form (‫ )משׁל‬and content (promise of a ruler in Num 24:17). It is the same with David’s last words, behind which Ps 1 seems to linger. It seems that wisdom and prophecy intertwine at this point and fuse into a new “form,” which is characterized by nearness to God and the fear of God. The conclusion of the analysis of the word in the Balaam story is inescapable: Balaam is not a prophet; at the very most a wise man. Contrary to the communis opinio, the introductions of saying no. 3 and 4 in Num 24:4, 16 are not prophetic as such. They are “words of God,” indeed, and the importance of the close match between Balaam’s words and the word of the L ORD is highlighted several times, but the language used is not affected by, even less identified with, prophetic language. Moreover, there are no prophetic formulas or prophetic titles. It seems that there was definitely no interest, either in the text of Num 22–24 or in the biblical tradition, to construe Balaam as a prophet. With respect to the Balaam Inscription of Tell Dēr ‘Allā, there are some clear indications for classifying Balaam as a seer (‫)חזה‬, but the biblical image of Balaam is of course different. Balaam is not among the prophets like Ezekiel, Amos, Hulda or Moses. He is rather characterized as a wise man like the late David, the late Solomon, the wise women of Tekoa and others. The conclusion reached here has many important bearings. In the present, canonical text, Balaam functions as the one who ratifies the blessed state of Israel. In this respect, it is striking that the biblical tradition did not seek to fit This is an English translation of KLEER, Sänger (1996), 57: “Bei den genannten Ähnlichkeiten zwischen der Bileamperikope und den ‘letzten Worten Davids’ gibt es zwar keine direkten Parallelen in der Formulierung, wie in den entsprechenden Sprucheröffnungen, aber im prophetischen Verständnis stimmen Bileam und David in dreifacher Weise überein. Der Geist JHWHs bzw. Gottes ist wichtig für das Reden als Prophet. Gottes Wort ist im Mund bzw. auf der Zunge des Propheten. Und schließlich ist der Prophet außer Stande, etwas eigenmächtig zu reden. Er sagt weiter, was Gott ihm mitteilt, bzw. lässt Gott durch sich reden.” 54

174

Literature, History and Ideology

the foreign diviner into a prophetic role, even though the foundations would have been “ideal” and the assignment of such a role to Balaam would have made sense in that context. Was there a rivalry with the Israelite prophets from the beginning? Was Balaam evaluated as “foreign” and did this factum create an unbridgeable gap? Were there any inhibitions to receive him as a prophet? By the way: We should also note that blessing and cursing are not at all prophetic responsibilities in the Old Testament. However, the answer to the riddle of his assassination can neither be found in the fact that he was recognized as an opponent to Moses, nor in the fact that he spoke in the name of the LORD, yet did not listen to his words (Deut 18:19–20); nor even can it be found in the fact that he was reckoned as a false prophet in the sense of Jer 23 or Mic 3, where the emphasis lies on the word of YHWH. Bearing this in mind, we need to ask whether the justification may be found in a negative attitude regarding the practice of Balaam, or whether it resides in Balaam’s attempt to curse the people of Israel. If Balaam was not recognized as a prophet of YHWH, but as a sorcerer who resorted to forbidden practices, then he would have been “rightly sentenced” according to the Torah by being put to death (Deut 13:2–7; 18:20). Thus, we need a final step to uncover the motive of the murder of Balaam. Was he regarded as a foreign magician or sorcerer?

5. Bewitching the Blessed! Balaam as a Sorcerer in the Balaam Story? With Martin Noth, we hold the possibility that Balaam was a well-known sorcerer with a negative image. If we did not have the famous fragments from Tell Dēr ‘Allā, we would certainly have speculated about the name of our protagonist as an invention of a storyteller: In the name Balaam one can hear ‫“ בלע עם‬he devours the people” and ‫“ בל עם‬no (chosen) people,” although it is etymologically not correct. 55 “An Israelite ear heard nothing but fire and destruction from this name.”56 The name of Balaam definitely supports the negative image, but this is part of the game: Balaam is the negative charming diviner, who fails in his incantations against Israel, because Israel is a “(chosen) people” (‫ )עם‬by divine blessing: The ‫בל עם‬, “no (chosen) people,” who tries to ‫בלע עם‬, to “devour the people,” must be unsuccessful, if the story told from the blessing of this people holds true. This may be the background for

See recently GASS, Bileam (2007). This is an English translation of BAENTSCH, Exodus (1903), 594: “Ein israelitisches Ohr hörte aus diesem Namen nichts als Brand und Verderben heraus.” 55 56

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

175

taking up the Transjordanian seer in the story, if the narrative was connected with the topic of blessing from the beginning. 57 To follow this trace, we have to take a look at the story of Balaam itself. There are some clues about the fact that Balaam is a sorcerer in the text and that his function is part of a common practice in the context of SyriaPalestine in the 1st millennium BCE. In the following argumentation, we will (1) consider the practice of divination in general, then (2) in particular the modes of revelation in the Balaam story. (3) A third argument will focus on Balak’s intention and the constellation of space in the action of Balaam. (4) At the end of this section we will focus on the mode of divination in Num 23:27; 24:1 and note a change of the mood and manner of Balaam. (1) First of all, we need to differentiate between incantation and divination. Divination is typically connected with a form of deliberation concerned with various alternatives regarding political action, especially in the case of war.58 There is no power to act without the assurance of a diviner or prophet: “Die Divination ist natürlich generell ein unverzichtbarer Bestandteil altorientalischer Kriegsführung. Die Herbeiziehung eines Sehers oder eines für Mantik zuständigen Priesters ist im Kriegsfall unabdingbar.”59 The reason is to be found in the widespread worldview that presupposes a narrow interaction between Gods and men in the world order. In antiquity, there is no action of men without the conduct of gods. “[A]ny disaster was attributed to the gods turning away from mankind, provoked to divine anger by pollution or the breaking of taboos.”60 Every failure and every evil is based on the acts of gods, their dysphoria, or fury, is caused by men and has to be prevented without delay. Divination aims at determining the benevolence or malevolence of gods by interpretation of given deductive or provoked inductive signs. 61 The signs that applied for divination are for instance the flights of birds, terrestrial and astral omens, the occurrence of deformed births, the physiognomy, rhabdomancy, the pouring of oil and the smoke of incense. Especially in military contexts, the oracle was of great significance. It aimed at ascertaining the point of time when the adversary should be attacked, at finding out the strategic options concerning military campaigns and at defining the military objectives. Divine will becomes apparent not only in the immediate signs of nature: it could be asked through provoked signs. Accordingly, oracular expertise during the course of Mesopotamian history gradually rose to primary importance 57 Contextualized within the literary analysis, which is not included here, this observation becomes a strong argument against the elimination of the blessings in the oldest narrative as suggested by WITTE , Segen (2002), 206–7, 201–12. 58 E.g., SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 72. 59 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 392. 60 M AUL , Divination (2006). 61 Cf. MAUL, Divination (2006).

176

Literature, History and Ideology

among the different forms of divination, as with its help it was possible to determine forthwith whether the gods approved a certain course of action and what results it would have. Haruspicy in particular came to be an important instrument of kingship, legitimizing its decisions. More, the divine will could be communicated in coded or immediate form in dreams, or through ecstasy and prophecies. 62 The most important form of divination in Mesopotamia was certainly the examination of entrails, particularly the lamb-liver. To that end, a pure lamb has to be offered to the personal god of the specialist conducting the enquiry, and entrails of the lamb were examined by the seer (bārû). Herbert Niehr emphasizes the lack of evidence for divination with entrails in the 1st millenium. 63 However, this does not exclude other practices of divination such as necromancy, the inscribing of arrowheads, or the interpretation of dreams and visions. The latter practice was most prominent in the ancient Greek world. More than once, the parallels between the Balaam story and the Anabasis of Xenophon have been rightly stressed. 64 An even more contemporaneous example can be found in the Aramaic Zakkur inscription from the 8th cent. BCE.65 We can find numerous parallels in the Old Testament too, some of a general character (1 Sam 9:9; 22:15; Isa 8:19; 19:3; Ezek 14:1–10; 20:1–3, 31 et al.) and others relating to the practice of oracles in the context of warfare (e.g., Jer 37:7; 1 Macc 3:48). 1 Samuel 28 can be regarded as a “classical” example: Facing the danger stated by the Philistines, Saul resorts to necromancy in order to evoke the (dead) ghost of Samuel, because YHWH did not give him an answer (v. 6) by means of dreams (‫)חלום‬, of lot-casting (‫)אורים‬, or of prophets (‫)נביאים‬. Jehoshaphat consults four hundred prophets in order to decide whether he shall campaign against Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kgs 22:6–29; cf. 2 Chron 18:5–27). This causes a conflict between Micaiah ben Imlah and the prophets of the court. Finally, Jehoshaphat’s campaign against Moab is also to be mentioned. In this context, when asked for advice, Elisha answers to the king of Israel in a harsh tone: “What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother!” (2 Kgs 3:13). Later on, he predicts the victory over Moab. As in 1 Kgs 22, it is emphasized in 2 Kgs 3 that YHWH’s

See MAUL, Divination (2006). NIEHR, Divination (2006); cf. J EFFERS, Magic (1996); CRYER, Divination (1994). 64 ROST, Fragen (1977); VAN SETERS, Yahwist (2013), 392, 408–9, 412–3. 65 The text of the Zakkur inscription from Hamath (785 BCE) presents Zakkur finding himself confronted with a coalition led by Arameans at Hazrak. After questioning the seers and prophets Zakkur receives the advice that he can stand against the aggressors with the aid of his god Baalshamem, to whom he owes his kingdom (lines 11–17). 62 63

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

177

prophets should be involved. 66 Thus, divination in military campaigns was a common practice in Israel, too. (2) However, it is no longer possible to state which forms of divination are concerned in the above-mentioned military contexts. This is all the more so because certain types of oracles became disreputable, and were rejected later on. Nonetheless, the available evidence points to the fact that assistance in warfare by means of some form of inductive mantic such as the casting of lots, dream interpretation, or prophetic-ecstatic visions were indeed common practice. If we look at the Balaam narrative from the perspective of the above-mentioned omens, there are hints, indeed, that these practices also play some role in our story. The basic conflict between Moab and Israel affords a “classical” standpoint for the obtaining of an external divinatory advice. Balak is of two minds about risking an aggression because of the previous events, as well as because of the numeral strength of the people whom he regards as a threat (Num 22:3–4). Therefore, he sends for a famous seer with an international standing, whom he is ready to remunerate well. Animals are slaughtered and parts of them are brought to Balaam and to the leaders around him. Most of the exegetes do not consider this report as the preliminary for an examination of entrails. Usually, the sacrificed animals in Num 22:40 are interpreted as a prince’s service to his guests. The mentioning of the ‫ שׂרים אשׁר אתו‬turns out to be a problem for this interpretation, because it is not clear why the messengers should be rewarded with such honors as well. 67 However, ‫ שׂר‬can also describe the military leader. In this case, no messenger would have been sent to Balaam but the leader of the army, who shall attend the augury (Num 22:40; 23:6). Even though the association is of interest and inductive mantic divinatory practices (often) come along with offerings (burnt offerings in Num 23:1–3, 14, 29–30), the events reported cannot be interpreted as preliminaries for some form of entrail augury/extispicy. First of all, specific information regarding the ritual is absent; and, second, cattle (cf. ‫ בקר‬Num 22:40) are usually not used for the scrutiny of entrails. 68 Regarding Num 22:40 the classical interpretation of a prince’s service to his guests in order to support his actions appears to make more sense. Besides Num 22:40, there are more decisive signals for some sort of divination in the narrative of Balaam. The sacrificed offerings may contribute to See further 2 Chron 20:3. The ‫ שׂרי ם‬are considered messengers in Num 22:8, 13, 14, 15, 21, 35, 40; 23:6, 17. While they are called ‫ שׂר י מואב‬in Num 22:8, 14, 21, 23:6, 17, they are referred to as ‫שׂ רי‬ ‫ בלק‬in Num 22:13, 35. Only in Num 22:40 are they not specified but attached to Balaam. 68 On mantic examination of entrails, see DIETRICH/LORETZ, Mantik (1990), 307; SCHWEMER, Leberschau (2002); LORETZ, Leberschau (1993). 66 67

178

Literature, History and Ideology

the preparation and to the introduction of the incubation.69 That incubation is considered in Num 23:3 as a meeting with the deity ( ‫)לק ראתי אולי יקרה יהוה‬ and aims at an (oral) revelation (‫ ;)דבר‬furthermore, it is denoted as a visionary event (‫ ראה‬in the H-stem) and shall be announced afterwards ( ‫ נגד‬in the H-stem). In Num 23:5, the revelatory event is described as putting a word into the mouth (‫וישׂם י הוה דבר בפי בלעם‬, cf. Num 22:38; 23:12, 16); and in 23:7, it is designated as a proverb (‫משׁל‬, cf. Num 23:18; 24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23). This is in line with the obtaining of an oracle, in which the issue is all about the question of the relevant military actions to be undertaken. (3) Thus, on the one hand we have some clues of a mantic divinatory practice in which Balaam is specialised. On the other hand, we have clear indications of an incantation, by means of which Balak seeks to weaken Israel. Balak wants to defeat Israel, because they are many and aggressive in Balak’s opinion. He has seen “all that Israel had done to the Amorites” (Num 22:2) and he is now terrified and afraid for his own territory. We cannot solve the problems of the “geographical hodgepodge” 70 in Num 21, but the defeated Amorites are suggested there to settle between the Wādī el-Ḥesā (biblical Zered) and the Wādī el-Mōǧib (biblical Arnon) (Num 21:13) – typically Moabite territory. Regardless of where, exactly, the northern border of Moab is to be situated, in Num 22 Israel is camping in the north of Moab and thus threatens Balak backwards accordingly. Balak appears in Num 22 as a king without territory who is forced to fight against Israel. He wants to drive Israel away from his land (‫גרשׁ מן הארץ‬, Num 22:6). But from his own appraisal of the situation, Israel is too strong to be defeated. If Balak could weaken Israel by means of an incantation, Israel’s present superiority would therefore be reversed to failure and military inferiority. Hence, Balak hires Balaam as a mighty specialist in order to curse Israel: “Come now, curse this people for me, since they are stronger than I; perhaps I shall be able to defeat them and drive them from the land; for I know that whomever you bless is blessed, and whomever you curse is cursed” (Num 22:6).71 69 ROST, Erwägungen (1958), 379 approximates the difference with the Babylonian cult, which did not include fire/burnt offerings (‫)ע ל ה אשׁ ה‬, with the following terms: “Tierschlachtungen kamen in Babylonien-Assyrien im Zusammenhang mit der täglichen Götterspeisung vor. Aber nur ausgewählte Teile des geschlachteten Tieres wurden zur Göttermahlzeit verwendet. Sonst kam nur die Leber des Kleinviehs, also der Schafe und Ziegen, als Mittel zur Leberschau in Betracht. Verbrannt wurden weder die der Gottheit dargebotenen Teile noch der Rest des Fleisches der geschlachteten Tiere.” 70 MILLER, Journey (1989), 587; see further FREVEL, Pentateuch, p. 121–42 in the present volume. 71 We have to recognize the difference between ‫( אר ר‬Num 22:6, 12; 23:7; 24:9) and ‫ק ב ב‬ (Num 22:11, 17; 23:8, 11, 13, 25, 27; 24:10). The latter is far more scarce in the Old Testament. Outside the Balaam pericope it is attested only in Job 3:8; 5:3; Prov 11:26; 24:24. Classically, the difference was taken as indicator for the two-source model. However, there was no consensus whether ‫ אר ר‬should be attributed to the Yahwist or the Elohist. See

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

179

One of the presuppositions of this proceeding seems to be the necessity of eye contact between the sorcerer and the object. Thus, there is a striking emphasis on inter-visibility between Balaam and Israel in the first two attempts (Num 22:41; 23:13; cf. 24:1). The greater part of Israel Balaam can see the lesser is the power of his “incantations.” Or the other way around: the strength and power of Israel corresponds to the dimension of the visible portion of the people. First Balak guides Balaam to Kiriath-Huzoth which can not be localized yet. On the next morning – I leave the tension between 22:39 (where Balaam and Balak still stand close to each other) and 22:40 (where Balak and Balaam seem to be locally separated from each other) aside – Balak leads Balaam to the Bamoth-Baal ‫( במות בעל‬Num 22:41). There is a considerable discussion whether Bamoth-Baal should be recognized as a place name or as the designation for a holy place. In Josh 13:17 Bamoth-Baal is mentioned together with Dibon and Beth-Baal-Meon. If we could take that association for granted, Bamoth-Baal should be regarded as a city in the mîšor, most likely to be identified with Ḫirbet Quwēğīye south from Nebo about 700 m above sea level (cf. Num 21:20). 72 From this place (and not from the “barren height,” Num 23:3, where Balaam withdrew to meet the LORD) Balaam was able to see the outer part of Israel (‫ ;)וירא משׁם קצה העם‬and from this place he uttered his saying (Num 22:5). Next time, Balak brings Balaam to the field of Zophim/the field of scouts on the top of Pisgah ( ‫שׂדה צפים אל־‬ ‫)ראשׁ הפסגה‬. The localization is an outstanding question, because in Deut 34 Pisgah is identified with Nebo. Usually Pisgah is located on the Rās esSiyāġa but there is no real clarity concerning this localization. Be that as it may, the emphasis of the inter-visibility is the same: ‫לכה־נא אתי אל־מקום אשׁר‬ ‫ראנו משׁם‬. The divination takes place on another venue ‫“ כה‬over there,” where Balaam goes alone. In the third attempt, Balak takes Balaam up again and leads him to the top of Peor (‫)ראשׁ הפעור‬, whose location is defined as “overlooking the wasteland” ‫( על־פני הישׁימן‬Num 23:28). Again, the question arises whether Peor is a place name associated with Baal or (likewise) the name of a nearby hilltop. Whether we take the traditional localization Ḫirbet SCHOTTROFF, Fluchspruch (1969), 203–4. But splitting the use into two discrete sources does not work, as all newer analyses have shown (e.g., S CHMIDT , Numeri [2004], 122–30). Furthermore, Schottroff has rejected the view that cursing was assigned to a ritual specialist, because his interest was to allocate the “Sitz im Leben” of a curse in the clan and tribe tradition. More to the point is Scharbert’s work, which establishes the interdependence between power and effect: “Das ‫ אר ר‬im strengen Sinne versteht nicht jeder, sondern nur bestimmte Personen, denen das Volk geheimnisvolle Kräfte zuschreibt […] [Wir] werden uns immer vor Augen halten müssen, dass es sich dabei um besonders wirksame Fluchworte handelt, die in der Regel nur gewissen, mit ungewöhlichen Fähigkeiten ausgestatteten Personen zugeschrieben werden.” See S CHARBERT, Segen (1958), 6. 72 Map. ref. 2203.1267. Cf. the discussion of bt bmt in the Mesha inscription by G ASS, Moabiter (2009), 44.

180

Literature, History and Ideology

ʽUyūn Mūsā, or Mittmann’s alternative proposal of Rās Mušaqqar (see above), does not matter in this context. (4) The change of proceedings, which takes place in Num 23:27; 24:1, is important. The visibility of the people is no longer emphasized by Balak. His last effort to curse the people leads to just “another place” ‫אל־מק ום אחר‬. The difference in Balaam’s behavior is expressed in the introduction to the third saying in Num 24:1. He does not dissociate from Balak again and refrains from an ultimate attempt to curse Israel, because he “saw that it pleased YHWH to bless Israel” (Num 24:1). And thus, he did not go for omens as he had done each time before (‫ ;)ולא־הלך כפעם־בפעם לקראת נחשׁים‬rather, he turned his face to the desert (‫)וישׁת אל־המדבר פניו‬. The verse is most significant to discuss the tension between divination and incantation in the Balaam story, so we have to dig a little bit deeper here. 5.1 Facing the Desert to Prevent Another Attempt at Cursing? Several open questions concerning the meaning of Num 24:1 remain to be answered: Is there any change in Balaam’s mind, a turn from curse to blessing? Has Balaam really tried to curse Israel before? Which previous omens or divinatory/mantic practices are meant? Is the connotation of ‫ נחשׁים‬meant positively or negatively? Why does Balaam turn his face towards the desert, and which desert is meant? Is there an eye-contact with the Israelite people and if not, why? Contrary to what applies in Num 23:3, the verb ‫ ראה‬in v. 1 denotes some form of recognition, like ‫ידע‬, rather than an auditory or visual perception. 73 It is Balaam’s personal insight, as resulting from the empirical knowledge after his first two attempts to curse Israel, which leads to a change in his practice. It is difficult to decide whether it is implied that Balaam has attempted really to “jinx” Israel before. The tradition has understood the passage in that way, but is this opinion justified by the text, too? Blessing is a performative speech act.74 In Num 22:6 Balak is convinced that a one-time blessing is durable and does not have to be renewed. If Balaam has blessed once, he does not have to do it twice or even more. There is no necessity to repeat the act of blessing, and no capacity either to abrogate the blessing or to transform it into a curse. Balaam can only confirm the blessed state of Israel which is noticed in Num 22:12. This is emphasised by Balaam himself in Num 23:20: “I have received a command to bless; he has blessed, and I cannot change it.” Thus, the insight in Num 24:1 is not new at all. The new moment is that Balaam recognizes that the confirmation of the 73

On the special significance of ‫ ר אה‬in the Balaam story, cf. GASS, Modes (2008), 22,

29. 74 See SEYBOLD, Segen (2004); LEUENBERGER, Segen (2008), 4–11. For the blessing in Num 22–24, see further WEISE, Segnen (2006) and LEUENBERGER, Segen (2008), 444–7.

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

181

blessed state of Israel is a pleasure in God’s eyes. In that respect, we cannot conclude with certainty from Num 24:1 that Balaam has attempted to curse Israel in previous times before. From the perspective of Num 24:1a, there does not appear to be any significant change regarding Balaam’s gesture of blessing. Why is Balaam setting his face toward the wilderness, then? We need to understand what is implied by Balaam turning his face to the desert; as we will see, this has important implications for understanding the topic of eye-contact as having a negative function or purpose. Why did Balaam turn his face towards the desert (Num 24:1 ‫ ?)וישׁת אל־המדבר פניו‬B. A. Levine and others parallel the expression in v. 1 with Num 23:28, where the summit of Peor is specified as ‫“ הנשׁק ף על־פני הישׁימן‬overlooking the wasteland.” In this case there is no change in manner: Balaam is now overlooking all of Israel the first time while receiving the omens. This does not make sense in my opinion. On the contrary, Balaam averts his gaze from Israel. Because ‫ מדבר‬and ‫ י שׁימן‬are somehow synonymous, Levine seems to be right at first glance. On the other hand, Seebass states correctly: “Alttestamentlich heißt die Araba nie ‘Wüste, Viehtrift.’ Man wüsste gerne, was mit ‫ מדבר‬hier gemeint ist.”75 As a matter of fact, some scholars read ‫ הישׁימן‬as a place name like BethJeschimoth (Tell el-ʽAḏēme, map. ref. 2090.1320); but the presence of an article opposes this view. If ‫ הישׁי מן‬is the “wasteland,” it seems to indicate the Ġor plane in northwestern Moab. Close to the Dead Sea, the Ġor widens up to 13 km and forms a flat plain, which is called ‫ערבת מואב‬. On the northwestern fringe of the Ġor the barren, rugged and uncultivable marl terraces named Katar begin, which rise up from the edges of the deep valley of the Jordan river proper named Zor. 76 This area is never called ‫מדבר‬, contrary to the region east of Moab which is indeed called ‫ מדבר‬in the itinerary of Num 21:11 (‫)ויסעו מאבות ויחנו בעיי העברים במדבר אשׁר על־פני מואב ממזרח השׁמשׁ‬. Likewise, the region north and northeast of the Arnon river is called ‫ מדבר‬in Num 21:17. From there, Israel set out in Num 21:18b and from there, Sihon marched out against Israel (Num 21:23). The city of refuge named Bezer, probably in the Medeba area,77 is also said to be located in the ‫( מדבר‬Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8). In Jdg 11:22 the desert is the eastern part of the Amorite territory and the area is described as extending from Arnon to Jabbok, from the desert to the Jordan river. In sum, the desert in Num 24:1 is definitely not the area where Israel camped. 78 Balaam turns his face to the desert to look away from Israel. But 75 SEEBASS , Numeri (2007), 92. Yet he presumes the descent to the Jordan valley. In that respect, he conforms to most interpreters, which envision an eye-contact between Balaam and Israel. 76 Cf. IBRAHIM , Jordan Valley (1992), 958–60. 77 Umm el-‘Amad ? (map. ref. 2355.1328); cf. G ASS, Moabiter (2009), 186. 78 Cf. N OTH, Stämme (1944), 27.

182

Literature, History and Ideology

the desert is, according to this analysis, not meant as the “true source of inspiration.”79 To face something or someone is rarely expressed with ‫שׁי ת פנה‬. Only Jacob’s lambs in Gen 30:40 are faced by whatever was striped or black in Laban’s flock. It resembles the more common use of ‫ שׁית‬with ‫ פנה‬and the preposition ‫אל‬, which is used especially in Ezekiel as an introduction formula to an instruction within a prophetic speech that is directed at the addressee. 80 This has misled scholars to conclude that the phrase in Num 24:1 points at the revelation process. But the act of seeing is accurately stated in v. 2a: “And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe,” followed then by the phrase ‫ותהי עלי ו רוח אלהים‬. Seebass starts from the assumption that Balaam faces the desert and recognized Israel thereby: “22,41; 23,13 suggerieren, daß der Gottesgeist nach 24,2 über Bileam kam, weil er das Volk sah.” 81 But seeing Israel is not an actual event; rather, it appears to be prospective and visionary according to v. 2. Thus, there is no real connection between seeing Israel and the coming down of the spirit of God upon Balaam. Rather, the spirit is part of the introduction formula that follows. In sum: Facing the desert corresponds to a change in Balaam’s practice, which can only be explained as a refusal to curse Israel. In his previous attempts, Balaam had really tried to see Israel on the grounds that there must be eye-contact if an incantation is to have an effect. Because of that, Balak tried to change the location of Balaam’s acts. By using different angles, he searched to minimize the power of Israel’s blessing and to strengthen the maleficent power of Balaam’s curse. In Num 24:1 Balaam now refuses to look at the present Israel, because any possible attempt to curse should be excluded by his posture, and hence he sees the coming Israel. This view can be strengthend by some observations on the transformation taking place in Num 24:1. 5.2 Balaam Runs the Risk of Being Killed Because of His Engagement in ‫נחשׁים‬ First, we may look at the text from a synchronic perspective: The text indicates a significant change in the methods of Balaam’s divination, which may suggest a change in his mind. Balaam recognizes the positive assessment of blessing and thus changes his practice accordingly: He no longer acts as in

BUDD, Numbers (1984), 268. Ezek 6:2; 13:17; 14:8; 15:17; 21:2, 7; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 35:2; 38:2; cf. Lev 20:5; 1 Kgs 2:15; Jer 21:10; 42:15, 17; 44:11, 12; Dan 11:17; 11:18 and further 1 Kgs 18:42; Isa 50:7. 81 SEEBASS , Numeri (2007), 92. 79 80

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

183

“previous times,” 82 and it is explicitly said that “he did not go to face omens” (‫)ולא־הלך לקראת נחשׁים‬. The verb ‫ הלך‬with the preposition ‫ לקארת‬echoes Num 23:3 once again ‫ואלכה אולי יקרה י הוה לקראתי‬. Now Balaam does not dissociate himself from Balak – the only formal difference – and therefore he does not seek after ‫נחשׁים‬, but gets the message through another channel: from the spirit of God, which came upon him (Num 24:2). If the change is indeed one of method, we have to interpret the method’s distinction to the “former times” in Num 23:3–4 and 23:15–16 as being one implying ‫ נחשׁים‬as well.83 Thus, the question emerges as to whether ‫ נחשׁים‬is connoted in a positive or a negative fashion. If it is to be interpreted negatively, then one has to explain why. Why should the divination, which leads to confirming Israel’s blessing, be negative? If it should be interpreted in a positive way, one has to ask how it was possible to alter that meaning into the clearly negative meaning found in Num 23:13, where it is combined with ‫קסם‬. From a terminological perspective, the term ‫ נחשׁים‬can be interpreted as plural of ‫ נחשׁ‬meaning “serpent, snake,” but that does not make sense in this context. The lexeme can be recognized as a technical term that denotes incantation against snake bites (Jer 8:17), 84 but it denotes more likely some sort of augury that has nothing to do with charming snakes. 85 It is the only term within the semantic field of “augury, magic, incantation, charming, witchcraft, divination and so on,” which, in some rare instances, is positively connoted, namely in the Laban story, where it is significantly connected to a blessing (Gen 30:27); in the Joseph story, where it is related to the motif of Joseph’s Egyptian divination cup (Gen 44:5, 15); and lastly in the war story recounted in 1 Kgs 20:33, where the servants of Ahab interpret the statement of the king ‫ אחי הוא‬as a positive ‫נחשׁ‬. 86 However, in most instances the verb is indeed negatively connoted, first of all in the Torah (Lev 19:26): “Do not practice auguries and inspection of clouds” (‫)לא תנחשׁו ולא תעוננו‬. The next and most significant evidence is the prohibition in the law about prophets in Deut 18:10: ‫לא־ימצא מך מעבי ר ב נו־ובתו באשׁ קסם ק סמים מעונן ומנחשׁ ומכשׁף‬. “Let no one be found among you, who makes his son or daughter pass 82 ‫ כ פע ם ב פע ם‬occurs six times in the Bible: Num 24:1; Jdg 16:20; 20:30–1; 1 Sam 3:10; 20:25. 83 Cf. G ASS, Modes (2008), 31–2. 84 RÜTERSWÖRDEN, Gemeinschaft (1987), 79: “‘‫ ’מ נח ש‬bezeichnet wahrscheinlich die Beschwörung zur Abwehr von Schlangengift.” Cf. IBIDEM, 143. 85 G UNNEL, ‫שׁ ף‬ ַ ‫( ָכ‬1995), 361: “Some scholars connect nḥš, ‘practice divination, seek omens,’ with nāḥāš, ‘serpent,’ interpreting it as ‘snake charming.’ More likely, however, it is connected with Arab. nḥs, which originally probably meant ‘omen’ in general but came to be understood as an unfavorable or negative omen.” 86 Whether all instances of ‫ נ חשׁ‬are “post-exilic,” like S CHMIDT, Magic (2002), 252 assumes, remains to be proven.

184

Literature, History and Ideology

through the fire, and no one who seeks oracles or interprets meteorological phenomena or omens or engages in evil spelling/witchcraft” (cf. 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6; 2 Chron 33:6). The next verse lists various sorts of necromancy and sorcery. “It should be noted that the enumeration is about oracular (‫קסם‬, ‫ענן‬, ‫אוב‬, ‫שׁאל‬, ‫ )ד רשׁ אל המתים‬and magical (‫נחשׁ‬, ‫ )כשׁף חב ר‬practices; the prophet takes the place of the oracular expert and mage.”87 Also, Rüterswörden has correctly pointed out that the listing in Deut 18:10 should not so much be viewed as a comprehensive enumeration than as an attempt to sharpen the pattern distinctive of the Deuteronomistic view on prophecy, a pattern that was itself conceived against the background of Moses’s prophecy in Deut 18:15. 88 There is no place for such practices beneath prophecy in Israel, and the “prophet is to take in Israel the place of the heathen soothsayer.” 89 In that respect, there is a sharp opposition between the ones who engage in divination and the prophets who engage in revelation according to the Torah. Regarding the above-mentioned results, two interpretative options arise, both of which correspond to different portions of the text: On the one hand ‫ נחשׁ‬can be understood as a neutral or positive term for divination; this is what Balaam desires from YHWH in Num 23:3 (‫ )דבר מה־יראני‬and it refers to the former process of divination. Now Balaam will do otherwise and look towards the desert. The background of this line of interpretation is the positively connoted usage within the Laban or the Joseph story. From this point of view ‫ נחשׁ‬exclusively applies to the encounter with YHWH, and not to the attempt of cursing which Balaam is supposed to undertake. On the other hand, ‫ נחשׁ‬can be interpreted in a negative sense in Num 23:23a: ‫כי לא־נחשׁ‬ ‫“ ביעקב ולא־ק סם בי שׂראל‬There is no sorcery against/in Jacob, no divination against/in Israel.” The background of this line of interpretation is clearly the benchmark of Moses’s prophecy in Deut 18 and, together with it, the negative assessment of sorcery and divination. If the standard of interpretation is negative, the former trials of Balaam may then be understood as attempts to curse Israel. The very important role of Num 23:23 in this context requires further attention from a diachronic perspective. Reinhard Achenbach assigns Num 23:23 and Num 24:1a to the same layer, namely the Pentateuch-redaction. He evaluates Num 23:23 as a subtle self-relativizing of Balaam and he views the redactional insertion as a redactional “trick” of sorts, by means of which the redaction of the Pentateuch gets Balaam to act in Num 24:1 in conformity to Num 23:23, where divination is entirely “pagan.” So Balaam becomes a more 87 This is an English translation of RÜTERSWÖRDEN , Gemeinschaft (1987), 80: “Festzuhalten ist, daß es bei der Aufzählung um orakelhafte (‫ק סם‬, ‫ענ ן‬, ‫אוב‬, ‫שׁאל‬, ‫)דרשׁ אל המתי ם‬ und magische ( ‫נ חשׁ‬, ‫ )כשׁ ף חבר‬Praktiken geht; der Prophet tritt an die Stelle der Orakelkundigen und Magier.” 88 RÜTERSWÖRDEN, Gemeinschaft (1987), 79. 89 D RIVER, Commentary (1978), 221; S CHMIDT, Magic (2002), 242–59.

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

185

distinctively heathen prophet. Numbers 24:1aβ is often regarded as a later addition. Since Wellhausen this has also been the case for the whole passage in Num 23:22–23. However, these two passages are usually not assigned to the same hand. 90 The assumption that Num 23:23 is a later addition is commonly accepted, but there is hardly any consensus regarding the delimitation of the redactional addition.91 The main argument relies upon the odd contrastive parallelism with respect to v. 21a ‫לא־הביט און ביעקב ולא־ראה עמל בישׂראל‬, “No misfortune is seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel,” as well as upon the parallel between the wild ox ( ‫ )ראם‬in Num 24:8 and Num 23:22, which contrasts the classical source-critical two version theory. Ludwig Schmidt assumes vv. 22–23 to be a secondary interpretation of v. 21: “Der Ergänzer, der V. 22f einfügte, wollte mit diesen beiden Versen V. 21 auslegen.”92 Markus Witte is more radical concerning the diachronic perspective. He thus recently argued: The reason, or rather the exclamation that mantic means fail against (‫ )ב‬Jacob/Israel (v. 23a), strongly connects to v. 22a, but lies on the same level as v. 20. The resumption in v. 23b already proves itself to be a later supplement through its unpoetic form and the time reference ‫“( כעת‬at that time”). 93

And, finally, we should mention Horst Seebass, who argues that v. 23a fits well into the context while v. 23b should comprise a later addition. 94 However, v. 23a cannot be understood without the background of Deut 18:10, 95 and the preposition is varying between “in Israel” and “against Israel.” There is no divination or sorcery against Israel, because there is no divination or oracle in Israel. In that respect, a significant tension remains between Num 23:23 and Num 24:1, where ‫ נחשׁ‬against Israel is part of Balaam’s practice. That Achenbach assigns both verses to the Pentateuch redactor is in my view a tricky but too subtle theory. Numbers 24:1 is prior to Num 23:23. With Num 23:23 the practice of Balaam changes from a possibly positive sense to a distinctively negative meaning. Now Balaam resorts to prac90 Cf. for example WELLHAUSEN , Composition (1963), 111; N OTH, Numbers (1968) and S CHMIDT , Numeri (2004). 91 For a different view, see G ASS, Stern (2001), 45, who pleads for the consistency of the second oracle, or S CHMIDT, Magic (2002), 253, who follows the analysis of Rouillard (N1 = earliest text). See also ROUILLARD, Péricope (1985). 92 SCHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 139. 93 This is an English translation of WITTE, Segen (2002), 202: “Die Begründung bzw. der Ausruf, daß mantische Mittel gegen (‫ )ב‬Jakob/Israel versagen (V. 23a), schließt schwer an V. 22a, liegt aber auf einer Ebene mit V. 20. Die Fortsetzung in V. 23b erweist sich bereits durch ihre unpoetische Form und den Zeitterminus ‫‛( כע ת‬zu der Zeit’) als spätere Ergänzung.” 94 SEEBASS , Numeri (2007), 41–2, 90. 95 TIMM, Moab (1989), 143: “Die Vorgabe von Dtn 18:10 ist zum Verständnis unerlässlich. Num 23:23 muss nach Dtn 19:10 entstanden sein.”

186

Literature, History and Ideology

tices that are inefficient, non-existent and forbidden in Israel. Thus, he slides onto the slippery slope of the pagan sorcerer, where Balak wants him to be from the outset. From this perspective, he definitely walks in the detestable ways of the nations (Deut 18:9) and his killing may be justified according to Deut 18:20. The insertion of Num 23:23 in the second saying became a trap for the wise Balaam, who had acknowledged in an earlier state of the tradition that the blessed state of Israel could not be abrogated in any way, and that he should not attempt to do so. This insight was not sufficient from the viewpoint of those later tradents who had Deut 18:10 in their minds.

6. Conclusions Answering the question whether there are reasons why Balaam had to die is little more than guesswork. The leading question of this essay was the negative attitude of the biblical Balaam and the striking association of Balaam with the tradition of Num 25 in Num 31. It was argued that the combination in Num 31:16 was not deducible from the tradition, neither from the Balaam nor from the Baal-Peor tradition. In combination with the law for warfare (Deut 20:10–18), the law concerning false prophecy in Deut 13:13–19 appears to comprise the main source for the justification of the war against Midian and for the killing of Balaam. However, even that reading is not entirely foolproof. In particular, our analysis relies upon the assumption that there is no connection between the Baal-Peor episode in Num 25 and the Balaam account in Num 22–24 before the composition of Num 31, be it in the oral transmission or the tradition history. Because Balaam was not engaged in Num 25, the murder of Balaam in the Midianite war in Num 31:16 was opaque at the least. Therefore, the essay considered the attitudes of Balaam in the narrative in Num 22–24. By focusing on the modes of revelation and the divinatory acts, the paper argued for a difference between Balaam and true prophecy. Balaam was not regarded as a prophet in the biblical account. In contrast, his actions were devalued by sophisticated differences in wording, which associated him with false prophecy. His literary function was to ratify the blessed state of Israel by the failure of his malevolent acting. Thus, on the one hand, Balaam was evaluated positively by following the word of the LORD or by not turning his blessing into curse. On the other hand, there were inhibitions to receive him as a prophet from the beginning. It was argued that the true reasons why Balaam was negatively assigned appear to be latent in Num 22–24. Balaam is not explicitly condemned in the story, but he is progressively seen in a negative, damning light. Balaam is “positive” since his attempt to act malevolently fails because of the blessing of Israel. Hence his image is characterized by his observance of the LORD’s word. Even though he is a positive figure on the surface of the final text of Num 22–24, he is not a

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die?

187

prophet, and the tradition process has gradually given much emphasis to the difference between Balaam and true prophets, and between his visions and true Mosaic revelation. Balaam remains a subtle sorcerer from the beginning, and late redactional hands have forced this image inside (and outside) the Balaam narrative in order to finally turn Balaam into a bad guy. He is engaged in ‫נחשׁים‬, which is reprehensible as such. It is suggested that he was paid with ‫ק סמים‬, which is even worse. He is mocked for failing to recognize the meaning and nature of his encounter with the LORD, which makes him foolish. Lastly, he was uprooted from the Jordan valley and made an Aramean stranger. If the ambivalence attached to Balaam’s figure was present in the story from the beginning, then the group which passed on the Balaam story was not prophetic at all, or at least not prophetic in the sense of the biblical understanding of prophecy. This leads to further questions regarding the Balaam tradition in Tell Dēr ‘Allā. It seems unlikely that the first biblical tradition is only exilic or post-exilic. The well-known seer of Tell Dēr ‘Allā was taken up by the biblical narrative to question the predefined blessing of Israel because of his traditional association with judgement, doom and imminent calamity. The specific reasons for the gradual condemnation of Balaam remain hidden. One possibility, it was surmised, lies in the fact that Balak trusted Balaam’s maleficent power, whereas the text leaves the question open whether Balaam attempted to curse Israel or not. That the earliest tradition already evinced some critical reservation vis-à-vis Balaam is possible, but this track may no longer be convincingly traced.

Numbers and the Twelve 1. Introduction Although it still does not receive the attention that it deserves, the book of Numbers has become a crucial element in recent Pentateuchal discussions. 1 More specifically, its narrative function (bridging between the exodus and Sinai accounts on the one hand, and the fringes of the land on the other), plays a key role in understanding the diachronic formation of the Torah. Where older models assigned the non-priestly strata to the Yahwist and the Elohist, recent models are much more cautious to attribute all non-priestly traditions to pre-priestly redaction layers. There is a growing reluctance for assuming the existence of a pre-priestly Tetrateuch and, even less, a Hexateuch. Thus, the question of the first continuous narrative thread from Sinai to the land, (i.e., the first instance of an exodus-conquest narrative) can be regarded as a central issue in current research. 2 Among the manifold aspects related to this issue, three shall be highlighted here: (1) The relation between the different accounts of the spy story and the sojourn in Kadesh found in Deut 1–3* and the non-priestly strata in Num 13– 25*. If the account in Numbers is not antecedent to the account in Deuteronomy as has traditionally been assumed, a new model is needed to explain how the dense depiction in Deut 1–3* was extended in the wilderness account in Numbers. (2) The long held idea of the existence of a separate Deuteronomistic History spanning Deut 1 to 2 Kgs 25 dating to the late exilic period is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Alternative hypotheses see the book of Deuteronomy as part of (a) a Hexateuchal-Fortschreibung that was never transmitted separately from the Tetrateuch (e.g., Gertz, Kratz, Heckl, Frevel)3 or (b) as part of a Deuteronomistic composition spanning Deuteronomy and Joshua (DtrL) composed in the late pre-exilic, exilic or post-exilic times (e.g., Braulik, Otto). 4 In both variants, the traditions of the book of 1 On the growing awareness of the importance of the book of Numbers, see, e.g., RÖMER, Périphérie (2008); F REVEL , Formation (2013) and IDEM , Pieces, p. 83–95 in the present volume. 2 See GERMANY, Hexateuch Hypothesis (2018); IDEM , Exodus-Conquest Narrative (2017), 1–5, 447–55. 3 GERTZ, Funktion (2006), esp. 111–2; K RATZ, Ort (2000); HECKL, Vermächtnis (2004); FREVEL, Wiederkehr (2011). 4 BRAULIK, Deuteronomium (2016), esp. 166–7; IDEM, Landeroberungserzählung (2016); OTTO , Deuteronomium (2000), e.g., 4–5; IDEM, Deuteronomium (2012), e.g., 162.

190

Literature, History and Ideology

Numbers have a crucial compositional function. (3) If the original priestly source – presuming that it was once transmitted separately – ended with or within the Sinai narrative in Exod 29:46; 40:33, 34; Lev 9:24, or in Lev 16; and if the non-priestly wilderness narrative did not precede this priestly account, a new model is needed for the relation between the non-priestly and the (so-called) priestly material in the book of Numbers. 5 Thus it can be seen that one of the critical issues for progressing the state of the discussion concerning the development of the Pentateuch is to more clearly understand the bridging function of the book of Numbers. Scholarly views on the origins of this narrative bridge can loosely be divided into two main camps.6 On the one hand are those scholars who maintain that there must have existed a pre-Deuteronomistic, pre-priestly exodusconquest narrative dating to the pre-exilic era, typically attributed to the Yahwist, the Yehowist, or (avoiding allusions to the source-critical model) to an unnamed tradition. 7 On the other hand are those scholars who assume that this narrative bridge was created by a post-exilic, post-priestly Hexateuch redactor, who was responsible for filling the details of the wilderness journey with assorted older materials, which were already partly present in Deut 1–3.8 Recently, one of the most influential hypotheses in this scholarly discourse is the assumption of Thomas Römer, that none of the non-priestly traditions of Numbers form a pre-priestly narrative bridge between Sinai and Moab, or even less Jericho, Gilgal, or Shechem; but that the book of Numbers was rather created to fill the narrative gap between a priestly Triateuch (Genesis– Leviticus) and the book of Deuteronomy, which formerly was part of the Deuteronomistic History.9 This hypothesis was recently modified by Rainer Albertz, who argues that the first narrative bridge (or perhaps more accurate5 It is beyond the scope of the present paper to enter the discussion on the ending of the Priestly Source in any detail. For an overview of the various proposed options, see FREVEL, Blick (2000). See also summaries in F REVEL , Formation (2013), 6–7 and SCHMID , World (2015), 331. 6 One key deviation from this general trend can be found in O SWALD, ExodusGottesberg-Erzählung (2012), who argues that the pre-Deuteronomistic, pre-priestly material in the book of Exodus was originally a self-contained narrative ending at Sinai. 7 See, e.g., K RATZ, Composition, 125–6; IDEM, Hexateuch (2002); F REVEL, Pieces, p. 83–119 in the present volume; GERMANY , Exodus-Conquest Narrative (2017). See also ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2016), 123–4. VAN S ETERS, Life (1994) understands the Yahwist to be pre-priestly but post-Deuteronomistic, whose goal was to create an “introduction to the national history of DtrH” (IBIDEM, 457). Thus his Yahwist ends with Deut 34 and was never intended to function as a stand-alone work. This is very similar to Blum’s KD, which is likewise a post-Deuteronomistic, pre-priestly redactional composition. See esp. BLUM, Studien (1990). See also the overview in S CHMID , Exodus (2014), 45. 8 See, e.g., A CHENBACH , Vollendung (2003); OTTO, Deuteronomium (2000), e.g., 74, 106. 9 RÖMER, Anfragen (2002), 220–4.

Numbers and the Twelve

191

ly, narrative tightrope) was developed by a post-priestly D-compiler who sought to join the P and D corpuses via the small addition of Num 10:29– 14:45* and 21:4–20*. 10 The question driving the present paper is simple: Is there evidence, outside of the Pentateuch, that can lend support to the idea of a pre-priestly exodusconquest narrative? To this end, the twelve (so-called) Minor Prophets (henceforth “the Twelve”) provide a promising platform from which to undertake such an investigation. Although the Twelve themselves lay claim to their own jungle of redaction critical issues and opinions, there is a growing consensus (in spite of one published obituary) that during the exilic period Hosea, Amos, Micah and Zephaniah originally formed “a Book of the Four.” 11 There is, furthermore, a general consensus that the Twelve also contains purely post-exilic literary works (i.e., the Haggai-Zechariah corpus and the books of Joel, Jonah and Malachi). 12 Finally, the Twelve includes works that belong halfway between these two categories, i.e., books with pre-exilic or exilic roots but not belonging to the exilic composition (i.e., Nahum, Obadiah and Habakkuk). 13 The present paper will thus look at the implicit and explicit references to the book of Numbers in the Twelve in order to see what correlations can be made. Which texts are cited where, and when (i.e., how early) were they implied or presumed in the Twelve? If, for example, the narrative transition between the exodus and the land is already presumed in pre-exilic or exilic parts of the Twelve, this would be a strong argument in favor of a narrative context, or even a body of history dating to this period.14 The present investigation will be limited to those passages in Hosea, Amos and Micah, which allegedly presume texts from the book of Numbers. If it 10 ALBERTZ , Pentateuchstudien (2018), 346. See also IBIDEM, 348: “der D-Bearbeiter [war] überhaupt der erste, der mit Num 10,29–14,45*; 21,(1–3[?].)4–20* eine solche, noch schmale und relativ kurze Verbindung schuf” and IBIDEM, 354: “Nach der vorliegenden Untersuchung war es niemand anders als die spät-dtr. Redaktion (D), die einerseits auf die priesterliche Edition des Triteuch (P1, P2) folgt, andererseits aber der priesterlichen Bearbeitung des Numeribuches (P3) vorangeht, welche die ersten Brückenseile spannte.” 11 On the idea of the “Book of the Four,” see, e.g., ALBERTZ, Exile (2003); NOGALSKI , Precursors (1993), 278; S CHART , Entstehung (1998), 156–7; WÖHRLE , Sammlungen (2006). This consensus was recently challenged by LEVIN, Vierprophetenbuch (2011). 12 On a stand-alone Haggai-Zechariah corpus, see, e.g., N OGALSKI , Precursors (1993), 278. 13 See the overview of the development of the Twelve in e.g., N OGALSKI, Processes (1993), 274–5; ZENGER, Zwölfprophetenbuch (2016), 633. 14 For the present investigation, issues surrounding the validity of reading the Twelve as a redactional unit are of a reduced importance. What is of primary concern is the categorization of the prophetic books into general epochs, which can then be correlated with the book of Numbers. On methodological issues with seeing the Twelve as a unit, see, e.g., BEN ZVI , Books (1996) and on techniques to overcome these issues, see, e.g., ZAPFF, Book (2012).

192

Literature, History and Ideology

can be demonstrated that those prophetic passages referencing or alluding to the book of Numbers can be attributed to pre-exilic or exilic layers (e.g., as part of the compositional “book of the Four”), this would constitute evidence that the book of Numbers was not exclusively a post-exilic work. However it must be emphasized that a negative result does not prove the reverse, that is, if all the prophetic passages referencing the book of Numbers date to the post-exilic period, this does not prove that the book was created exclusively as a bridge after the exile.

2. The Book of Numbers in the Book of the Twelve: A General Observation Looking at the book of Numbers from the Twelve is a disillusioning task. As it holds true for the primeval history, the patriarchal narratives, the exodus narrative, or even the legal corpora of the Pentateuch, clear receptions, quotes, cross references, allusions, etc. are quite rare. Therefore the present venture is subject to the verdict of limited data. Despite the paucity of evidence, the available results are quite striking. When one separates the priestly and non-priestly references, one finds that the post-exilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi allude to, or reference, priestly texts, whereas Hosea, Amos and Micah (i.e., three of the prophets belonging to the Four) allude to, or reference, non-priestly texts. The remaining prophets of the Twelve (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah) lack any clear links to the book of Numbers, so whilst the available data appears to point rather clearly to a system whereby late prophet = priestly and early prophet = non-priestly, this system is admittedly built upon a very small set of texts. One may wonder whether a greater quantity of references within certain arguments of the individual books should be expected. However given that there are no references to the books of Genesis or Exodus, the presence of only a few references to the book of Numbers does not seem to be unusual. The instances in Hosea, Amos and Micah refer to Numbers in general by making recourse to the wilderness period of forty years (Num 13–14), to the guidance of Moses, Miriam and Aaron (Num 12), to the Baal-Peor incident (Num 25:1–5) and, in particular, to Balaam and Balak (Num 22–24). The “priestly” references rather generally imply either the impurity of corpses (Num 19), the conditions of the high priest and the dual leadership of Eleazar and Joshua (Num 27), or the discourse on intermarriage and the atonement of Phinehas (Num 25:6–18). One may also wonder if any weight should be given to those parts of the book of Numbers that have no references in the Twelve. These include almost all of the late priestly texts (Num 1–10 and 28– 34), which are not alluded to or mentioned in any way. The same holds true

193

Numbers and the Twelve

for the complex narratives in Numbers such as the quail story (Num 11), the spy story (Num 13–14), the Dathan-Abiram-Korah compilation (Num 16), Aaron’s rod (Num 17), the waters of Meribah (Num 20) and the story about the Transjordan tribes (Num 32). But again the scarcity of evidence suggests that such an investigation would be futile. The following table gives an overview of the references, separated by four groups: (1) texts that more or less clearly refer to the book of Numbers, (2) texts that allude to passages in Numbers, (3) texts that require information from the book of Numbers to be understood and finally (4) texts where it is possible, but unclear, that a text from the book of Numbers is in the background. Numbers

referred to

alluded to

Hosea

Hos 9:10

Hos 12:14

Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

presumed

Unclear Hos 5:2 Hos 9:4? Hos 11:2, 9 Hos 13:4–6

Amos 2:10–12 Amos 5:25 Mic 6:4–5

Hag 2:12–14 Zech 2:4? Zech 12:12 Mal 2:4

3. Aaron, Miriam, Balak and Balaam, Balak: Micah 6:4 and the Periodization of History One of the clearest references to the book of Numbers by the Twelve is found in Mic 6:4–5, which name the characters Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Balak and Balaam in the context of the exodus event and subsequent wilderness journey. So it seems reasonable to begin with this passage. Without entering into the discussion of the history of composition of the Twelve here, the above mentioned view of James Nogalski and Aaron Schart that the older parts of the book of Micah (Mic 1–3 and Mic 6) together with parts of Hosea, Amos and Zephaniah originally formed a “book of the Four” has something to offer. Despite belonging to the Four, Mic 6–7 have long

194

Literature, History and Ideology

been recognized as a later addition. 15 Kessler for example suggests that this section stems from the Persian period. 16 Thus before looking at these particular verses in detail, there are several issues related to Mic 6:1–8 as a whole that must first be dealt with. While there is much discussion on the addressee of Mic 6:1 – the hills or the nations – and on the supplementary character of this introductory verse compared to v. 2, far less attention has been paid to vv. 4–5.17 This is potentially due to the fact that vv. 2–8 have commonly been considered a literary unity, and as such, vv. 4–5 provided little interest on a diachronic level.18 Jacob Wöhrle has recently challenged this view by arguing that vv. 6–8, and vv. 4b–5 are later additions, so that only vv. 2–4a remain as an exilic, Deuteronomistic layer. 19 In his view the reference to the time after the exodus, to the leadership of the three siblings and also the transition from Shittim to Gilgal is secondary. His arguments regarding the later provenance of vv. 4b– 5 are the shift from qatal to wayyiqtol and the asynchronous listing of Moses, Aaron and Miriam after the exodus event in v. 4a. None of Wöhrle’s arguments are ultimately convincing: first, while the qatal in the ‫כי‬-sentence is syntactically necessary to denote a completed circumstance in the past, the continuation of the narrative with wayyiqtol is syntactically required. 20 Second, the argument regarding the order (exodus event => leaders sent) is invalid because (a) the peculiarity is part of the statement, but more importantly, (b) it is not solved by assuming an additional textual layer! Put more simply, if one cannot imagine that an author would place v. 4a before v. 4b, why is it more plausible that an editor would do so? Editor or author, one cannot escape the fact that the sending of Moses, Aaron and Miriam takes place after the initial act of liberation by God. The coherence and literary integrity of vv. 3–5 may be further corroborated by the structural parallels between v. 3 and v. 5: Both use ‫ עם‬with the enclitic pronoun 1st pers. sing., the double interrogative ‫ מה‬and (although in different manners) the verb ‫ענה‬. Speaking against the integrity of vv. 3–5, is the potential shift in speaker. While the addressee remains the same throughout, the conclusion to v. 5 (‫ )צדקות יהוה‬suggests that the speaker may no See, for instance, ALBERTZ, Exile (2003), 235. KESSLER, Micha (1999), 260, cf. most recently TERVANOTKO, Voice (2016), 109–11 for a detailed overview on the history of research. 17 See the discussion in WÖHRLE, Sammlungen (2006), 173–4 and in contrast RAPP, Mirjam (2002), 332–3, 339–43. See also TERVANOTKO, Voice (2016), 109–18. 18 S CHART, Entstehung (1998), 191, for example, states: “mit Mic 6,2 beginnt ein deutlich von dtn-dtr Tradition geprägter Abschnitt.” 19 According to W ÖHRLE, Sammlungen (2006), 174, 196, vv. 4b–5 are not attributed to a redactional layer but considered – together with vv. 6–8 – as isolated additions (“vereinzelte Nachträge,” 196). 20 G ROSS, Verbform (1976), 139. 15 16

195

Numbers and the Twelve

longer be YHWH in that verse. But is this inconsistency, which is not unusual in complex prophetic texts, dissociating vv. 3–4 from v. 5 diachronically? It is not necessary for the larger discussion to answer this question, but in my opinion the answer is no. Read consecutively, Mic 6:3–5 comprise a clear trajectory which aligns with the (Hexa-)Pentateuchal equivalent: the exodus, the wilderness period, Moab and Israel’s transition to Cisjordan (see the following chart).21 3

O my people, what have I done to you? In what have I wearied you? Answer me! 4 For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of bondage; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. 5 O my people, remember what Balak king of Moab devised, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, and what happened from Shittim to Gilgal, that you may know the saving acts of the LORD.

Exodus 3–15 Exodus 3–15 Exodus 15–Numbers 20 Numbers 22–24 Numbers 22–24 Numbers 25–Joshua 10

The vocative ‫“ עמי‬O my people” in v. 3 is renowned as the popule meus, a prominent responsory of the Good Friday liturgy, which was repeatedly set to music. It is repeated in v. 5, but not as part of a complaint as it appears in v. 3 but rather as part of an answer that concludes by hinting at YHWH’s saving acts. By use of the imperative, “answer me,” the argument is embedded into a rîb-setting (cf. v. 2), denoting a trial between YHWH and his people, who are bound together by a covenant or legal agreement. It implicitly accuses the people of a denunciation or a breach of agreement. The challenging ‫ענה בי‬ (cf. Ruth 1:21) calls for a public defense, but this does not follow. Verse 4 begins with the often used “Herausführungsformel” (‫ עלה‬H-stem), to denote the quintessential act of the exodus, bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt.22 The second half of v. 4a (‫ )פד ה מבית עבדים‬is more specific, recalling Deut 7:8 and 13:6, where the act of bringing Israel out of Egypt (‫ י צא‬H-stem with ‫מארץ‬ ‫ )מצרים‬is combined with the Deuteronomistic formula of redeeming Israel out of the house of bondage. 23 As already noted the continuation in v. 4b is extraordinary, the verse begins with the paired lexemes ‫ שׁלח‬and ‫לפני‬, which are typically used (with God as the subject) to denote when God acts on someone’s behalf. This usage can be seen in Abraham’s speech in Gen 24:7 (object: YHWH’s ‫ )מלאך‬and in Joseph’s speech towards his brethren in Gen 45:5, 7 (object: Joseph, cf. Ps 105:17); it also appears in Exod 23:20 and 32:2 (object: YHWH’s ‫ ;)מלאך‬Exod 23:27–28 (object: YHWH’s terror); Josh 24:2 (obFor the sake of convenience I use the translation of the RSV. See GROSS, Herausführungsformel (1974); WIJNGAARDS, Approach (1965). 23 ‫ מ בית ע בד ים‬in Exod 13:3, 14; 20:2; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6, 11; Josh 24:17; Jdg 6:8; Jer 34:13. 21 22

196

Literature, History and Ideology

ject: the hornet); Mal 1:1 (object YHWH’s ‫ )מלאך‬and 3:23 (object: Elijah, the prophet). Thus, read against these parallels, sending (‫ )שׁלח‬Moses, Aaron and Miriam before ( ‫ )לפני‬the freedmen is meant as an act of providence, protection and preservation. 24 Mentioning the three siblings side by side is rare and besides one exception (1 Chron 5:29), only appears elsewhere in the book of Numbers (Num 12:1, 4; 26:59); of these Num 12:4 is the only verse featuring the same order as Mic 6:4. Micah 6:4 stresses that sending the three is a deed of salvation, which should be viewed as being in line with, and on the same preserving level as, the exodus. Thus, it does not seem as if Mic 6:4 seeks to emphasize the issue of equivalent revelation as it is presented in Num 12:2, but rather emphasizes the role played by the three siblings in the exodus event. 25 As mentioned above, the chronology of Mic 6:4 has often been criticized for reversing the standard ordering as found in Josh 24:5–6 and 1 Sam 12:6: mentioning the leadership of Moses and Aaron first, followed by the exodus. However, if one considers the reference to the deliverance of Israel roughly beginning with the commission of Moses in Exod 3 and ending with his triumphal song in Exod 15, then the alignment in Mic 6 is striking: Exod 15:21 mentions Miriam and in Exod 16 Aaron acts alongside Moses. Thus, it seems to be no accident that Moses, Aaron and Miriam are mentioned “after” the exodus in Micah. This becomes clear in Mic 6:5, which (in taking up v. 3) opens with the appellative ‫עמי‬. The emphasized call for remembrance ( ‫זכר־‬ ‫ )נא‬leads towards the final line of the stanza, “in order that you may know the righteousness of YHWH.” However the objects to be remembered are not only Balak and Balaam, but also the odd phrase “from Shittim to Gilgal” ‫מן־השׁטים‬ ‫עד־גלגל‬. To begin with the reference to Balak and Balaam. Again, a distinction should be made between a textually and a temporally bound reference, and the direct sense in which it points at the story of Num 22–24. Strikingly, compared to other references to the foreign prophet outside of the Balaam narrative (cf. Num 31:8, 16; Deut 23:4–5; Josh 13:22; 24:9–10; Neh 13:2), There is no need to transpose the initial ‫“ עמי‬my people” of v. 5 to the end of v. 4 and read it as “with him” as suggested in BHS. Such a reading is a marginalization of Aaron and Miriam, which denigrates them to subordinated messengers by the side of the important person Moses. On the idea of marginalization, see the discussion in RAPP, Mirjam (2002), 346–9. SMITH, Micah-Malachi (1984), 50 alternatively argues that ‫ ע מי‬belongs at the end of v. 4, not for conceptual reasons, rather that this addition balances the meter of the verse and thus functions better poetically. 25 In regards to the shared presence of the three siblings in Mic 6:4, A NDERSEN /F REEDMAN , Micah (2000), 519 note: “if, however, the choice of this remarkable construction was deliberate, the effect of using ʼēt only once, and with one verb, is to join the three siblings together as closely as possible, as if they were partners in a single enterprise. If ʼēt had been used with each proper noun, this construction could be read as implying that each person had a distinct mission.” 24

Numbers and the Twelve

197

Micah seems to assess Balaam positively, because he is set in opposition to the counsel of Balak. It is not mentioned that he is the one who is obliged to curse, but rather the emphasis lies on his resistance to Balak by giving him an answer that contradicts Balak’s intent (cf. Num 23:11, 25; 24:10–11). This is the common interpretation of v. 5 that stresses the diametrical juxtaposition of Balak and Balaam (cf. Josh 24:9–10).26 The counsel that Balak gives Balaam is considered to be his charge for cursing Israel, or more specifically advising him for a better place to curse (Num 23:13, 27). Balaam’s answer references the word of the Lord, which has to be followed by the prophet come what may (Num 23:12, 26; 24:12–13): Thus Balaam must pronounce blessing instead of curse, preservation instead of damnation.27 Balaam’s answer (‫ענה‬, v. 5), to act according to the word of the LORD, can therefore be seen to function as the model that Israel should follow in response (‫ )ענה‬to YHWH’s questions in v. 3. In light of this, a slightly different interpretation of v. 5 is presented here, by taking a closer look to the use of the root ‫ יעץ‬in the Balaam narrative. Although the most obvious understanding of v. 5a is to see Balak as the subject of ‫“ יעץ‬he devised,” it is possible that Mic 6:5 is alluding to Num 24:14: “... let me advise you what this people will do to your people in the days to come.” As such it is possible that Balaam, rather than Balak, is the subject. Thus Mic 6:5 could more accurately be paraphrased, “My people, remember, what Balaam advised Balak (regarding all his efforts to curse you) and how he answered him (with the righteous acts of YHWH).”28 Therefore the reference to Balaam and Balak continues along the same trajectory as v. 4: salvation instead of doom, company instead of abandonment, blessing instead of curse. Three short theologies of God’s salvific engagement with Israel. The broader textual reference becomes clear if one looks at the fourth stage, which elliptically states, “from Shittim to Gilgal.” Shittim is first mentioned in Num 25:1, just after the Balaam story, which links to Josh 2:1 and 3:1 where it functions as the point of departure for Israel’s Jordan crossing. Rather than geographical precision, the emphasis appears to be on Shittim’s position as the final location outside the Promised Land.29 Unsurprisingly then, Gilgal is mentioned in Josh 4:19–20 as the first location within the Promised Land. As with the prophecy of Balaam, the transition of the Jordan is a consequence of the blessing, which is YHWH’s righteousness. However Micah’s reference to Gilgal may be deeper still, it is arguable that the entire conquest event itself is encapsulated in the mention of Gilgal, for the conquest of the land both begins and ends in Gilgal. Joshua 10:40–43 See, e.g., RAPP, Mirjam (2002), 349. See, e.g., KESSLER, Micha (1999), 265. 28 A potential further element of support for this interpretation can be found in what follows after Num 24, the so-called “messianic” star and scepter prophecy, which would invite a stronger parallelism between Mic 5 and Mic 6. 29 Numbers 33:49 instead suggests the final location was Abel-Shittim. 26 27

198

Literature, History and Ideology

narrate that after “defeating the whole land” (v. 40), Joshua and all Israel with him return to the camp at Gilgal (v. 43). 30 Thus in the condensed phrase, ‫מן־‬ ‫השׁטים עד ־הגלגל‬, the prophet encapsulates, not only the conclusion of the exodus event, but also the conquest. This short passage in Micah, then, includes the whole Heilsgeschichte in a nutshell. In sum: The combination of exodus, Miriam, Balaam and Gilgal is by no means arbitrary but rather deliberate. The literary structure of the Hexateuch (excluding Genesis) is drawn here with very bold but in the end highly sophisticated and textually applicable strokes. The keywords and clues, which aim at a periodization of the salvation history, demarcate more or less clear textual arrays that comprise the Hexateuch from Exodus to Joshua. The whole is addressed as an act of salvation, which should be the matter of remembrance or, literally, knowledge (‫דעת צדקות י הוה‬, v. 5).31 If this interpretation is correct, Mic 6:3–5 cannot be evaluated as a Michanic reference to pre-priestly narratives in Num 12 and Num 22–24, or as a reference to an early pre-exilic Hexateuch. Micah 6 is not part of a preexilic Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic book of Micah, or far less DeuteroMicah.32 Although, strictly speaking, it remains possible that the textual boundaries mark pre-priestly parts of the Torah, this is not the most convincing alternative. Rather, Mic 6 seems to presume at least the late Deuteronomistic extension of the Hexateuch in the book of Joshua. There is no explicit priestly frame of reference. If Moses, Aaron and Miriam textually hint at the transition from Exod 15:20 to Miriam’s song in Exod 15:21, and to Moses and Aaron in the manna story in Exod 16 as the start, and the death of Miriam in Num 20:1 and Aaron in Num 20:23–28 as the end of the wilderness period, then Mic 6 clearly presumes the combination of the priestly and non-priestly accounts in the book of Numbers. If Mic 6 refers to Josh 10:41–43, a postDeuteronomistic layer in Joshua is referred to. In referring to the latter parts of the Balaam story in Num 24:14 and including the “messianic” perspective in Num 24:17, it is the post-exilic shape of the Balaam narrative rather than a possible early stage.

30 As has often been noted, this passage has a concluding character and likely functioned as the original end to the book of Joshua. KNAUF, Josua (2008), 109 calls it the first closure of the book (“der erste Buchschluss”) and attributes it to the very late redactional stage in Hasmonaean times (IBIDEM , 22). See also GERMANY, Exodus-Conquest Narrative (2017), 421–41. 31 For ‫צ ד ק ות‬, see Jdg 5:11; 1 Sam 12:7 and Ps 103:6. The combination with ‫ דעת‬is unique. 32 See the overview of positions in ZAPFF , Studien (1997), 6–12. Zapff himself opts for a late pre-exilic date under Deuteronomistic influence (IBIDEM, 296).

199

Numbers and the Twelve

In sum, this result fits Lescow’s, Kessler’s and other’s dating of Mic 6 to the Persian period. 33 It must therefore be concluded that Mic 6:3–5 provides no argument for the existence of a pre-priestly “book” of Numbers.

4. They Came to Baal-Peor: Hosea 9:10 and Numbers 25 As has often been noted, Hosea takes up many Pentateuchal themes and traditions including Jacob and Moses in Hos 12, the desert tradition in Hos 9–10 and perhaps even the Decalogue. 34 One of the most intriguing links between the Twelve and Numbers is the review in Hos 9:10 which is embedded in a general accusation of Ephraim. Like grapes in the desert, I found Israel. Like the first ripe on the fig tree as his first fruit35 I saw/considered your fathers. They came to Baal-Peor and they consecrated themselves to that shame and they became detestable like the thing they loved.

‫כענבים במדבר מצ אתי ישׂראל‬ ‫כבכורה בתאנ ה בראשׁיתה‬ ‫ראיתי אבותיכם‬ ‫המה באו בעל־פעור‬ ‫וינזרו לבשׁת‬ ‫ויהיו שׁקוצים כאהבם׃‬

From a compositional perspective v. 10 is the beginning of four reviews: Hos 9:10–17; 10:1–8 (both use the viticultural figure of vine stock) and Hos 10:9– 15; 11:1–7 (both use the agrarian figure of livestock). 36 All focus on positive beginnings followed by processes of depravation, on election and rejection. At the end of book-part 2 they all lead to the declaration of compassion and love in Hos 11:8. 37 9:10–17 Israel = grapes

wilderness

10:1–8

land

Israel = luxuriant vine

Baal

election challenge

10:9–15 Ephraim = trained heifer land 11:1–7

Ephraim = young cow

Egypt/exodus/Egypt

Baal

acceptance 11:8

See LESCOW, Analyse (1972); KESSLER, Micha (1999), 260. OEMING, Liebe (2018), 261–2. 35 ‫ בר שׁית ה‬is not attested in Sam, but in the rest of the tradition (see, e.g., LXX πρώιµος). Thus, GELSTON, Prophets (2010), 65* rejects it on text-critical reasons. This does not exclude that it may be considered a later gloss. It is obvious that it escapes the given parallel structure of the two comparisons in v. 10: ‫מצ את י ישׂ ראל כענ בי ם במדבר‬ ‫כבכור ה בתענ ה בר אשׁ ית ה ראיתי אבותי כם‬ 36 ZENGER, Zwölfprophetenbuch (2016), 638; K ÖHLMOOS , Bet-El (2006), 127–8. 37 Cf. OEMING, Liebe (2018), 258, 261, 266. 33 34

200

Literature, History and Ideology

Israel’s situation in Hos 9:10–17 deteriorates with remarkable suddenness. It starts tenderly with Israel’s election and ends with affective disgust. As with other prophetic texts, the wilderness period is evaluated positively, as a time of election and courtship. As one does not usually find grapes (which grow on crop plants) in the wilderness, the premature fig that ripens early on the sprout of the previous year is distinctly rare. 38 The term ‫ מצא‬is used here not in the sense of detection but rather in parallel to the verb ‫ ראה‬as a declaratory evaluation: God has considered Israel in the wilderness as very special and hence he elected them as his people and – metaphorically speaking – his spouse. 39 But this fully positive beginning tilts over into an atmosphere of disgust, which is characterized by the lexemes ‫פער‬, ‫ ב שׁת‬and ‫שׁק וץ‬, and which ends in diametrical contrast by once again evoking the term “love,” but now in the context of Israel’s shame. The circumstance of this change is initiated when Israel comes to Baal-Peor, ‫המה באו ב על־פעור‬. Here the prophet plays on the ambiguity of the second phrase, which can be interpreted either as a location or as the god of Peor. However, the primary syntactical function of BaalPeor is locative. The intertwined function of ‫ בעל־פעור‬as a location or as a god can be traced back in the Old Testament and the history of interpretation. Deuteronomy 3:29; 4:46; 34:6 and Josh 13:20 mention a location,‫בית פעור‬, situated at the slope of the mountains south of the Ghor plain. Numbers 23:28 speaks of a ‫ראשׁ הפעור‬, and in Josh 22:17 there is a location called ‫פעור‬ which is an abbreviated form of ‫ בית פעור‬or ‫בעל־פעור‬. Whilst Beth-Peor might be considered a neutral designation, Baal-Peor on the other hand is associated with the sin of Israel in Num 25, which is tied to the God named ‫ בעל־פעור‬in Num 25:3, 5; Deut 4:3 (bis) and Ps 106:28.40 When the text says ‫המה באו בעל־פעור‬, a deeper meaning is alluded to by associating ‫( בוא‬H-stem) and understanding ‫ בעל־פער‬as a dative object: Israel brought (their sons/themselves/sacrifices/donations) to Baal-Peor, and joined in the celebrations of the Moabites in Num 25:1–2. Although it might be of some interest for the deeper understanding of the passage, the issues of localization (Ḫirbet ‘Uyūn Mūsā or Rās Mušaqqar) will not be addressed in this paper.41 Hosea’s accusation continues in two steps that are extraordinarily phrased via two short wayyiqtol sentences: ‫ נזר‬as a verb denoting apostasy has only one parallel (Ezek 14:7). Consecrating oneself is an act of total assignment to the addressee or to eschew from something on behalf of someone. Here, the beneficiary is called with a surrogate name for Baal, which is known from Jer Cf. JEREMIAS, Hosea (1996), 121. WAGNER/FABRY, ‫( ָמָצ א‬1997). 40 The ‫“ על ד ב ר פע ור‬because of the Peor incident” in Num 25:18 (bis) and 31:16 remains ambivalent; it can be related to a location or to a god. In the latter case this deity would be assigned uniquely with the shortened form ‫פע ור‬. 41 See F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume. 38 39

Numbers and the Twelve

201

3:24 and 11:19. Although it is not attested elsewhere in Hosea, the term, ‫ב שׁת‬, (as an insult) cannot be used to date this passage to the post-exilic period.42 However, the term ‫ שׁקוצים‬also points in the direction of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Deuteronomistic (or later) contexts. 43 Whilst this represents the only attestation of this term in Hosea, it does not automatically indicate that it is a loanword, as the sophisticated argument is characteristic for Hosea: Idolatry represents a double “mistake” in that Israel both loses the privileges inherent in worshipping YHWH as well as being shamed by worshipping (a) dishonorable God(s).44 The underlying principal here is that one becomes like the thing they love, thus instead of the honor and election granted by reciprocating YHWH’s love, Israel instead chooses self-imposed shame due to their love of foreign gods. 45 These accusations would work with Baal alone, which raises the question of why Hos 9:10 refers instead to Baal-Peor? There is nothing in Hos 9 that would form an obvious background against which Num 25 could play a particular role, neither the latter part of the chapter that focuses on Phinehas and the mixed marriage issue, nor the former part that addresses idolatry (or apostasy) in or to Baal-Peor. The best explanation for this peculiarity lies in the compositional disposition of the story in the book of Numbers. The events of Num 25 represent the first explicit violation of the first commandment after Num 13–14, thus the wilderness period can be understood as being framed by the violation of the first commandment. Additionally Num 25:3 represents the first mention of Baal in the Pentateuch. 46 Thus Hos 9:10 refers programmatically to the very first encounter with the conventionalized opponent of the cultured land. 47 42 The term also appears in several of the “early” Minor Prophets (Mic 1:11; Hab 2:10; Zeph 3:5, 19) and does not appear in the (purely) post-exilic Minor Prophets. That said, perhaps the closest (thematic) parallel can be found in Isa 42:17, a text that must be lateexilic at the earliest. Cf. STUART, Hosea-Jonah (1987), 151, who optimistically suggests that, “the later practice of substituting ‫‘ בשׁת‬shame’ for ‫‘ בע ל‬Baal’ by pious OT copyists may have begun on the precedent of this verse [i.e., Hos 9:11].” 43 Cf. Deut 29:16; 1 Kgs 11:5, 7; 2 Kgs 23:13; 23:24; Isa 66:3; Jer 4:1; 7:30; 13:27; 16:18; 32:34; Ezek 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:32; Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 2 Chron 15:8; Nah 3:6; Zech 9:7. 44 The plural, which is incongruent to the equation Baal/shame/abomination, fits well to the plural subject “they.” 45 This does not indicate sexual rites in any way but takes up a theme in Hosea: the wrong love and the wrong foreign lover: Hos 2; 4:18; 9:1 et al. See the discussion in FREVEL, Accusation (2018). 46 The only exceptions are the locations Baal-Zephon (Exod 14:2, 9) and Bamoth-Baal (Num 21:28, 22:41) and the double-entendre in Lev 21:4. Cf. further only Num 32:38; 33:7; Deut 4:3. 47 Cf. JEREMIAS, Hosea (1996), 122, who speaks of the “allerersten Berührung mit dem Baalkult, noch am äußersten Rande des Kulturlandes.”

202

Literature, History and Ideology

This function in Hosea implies the place of the Baal-Peor story in the compositional outline of the Hexateuch: in the plains of Moab at the border of the land immediately before crossing the Jordan. This allusion would be clearer if one imagined an earlier stage of the Hexateuch in which (a) the narrative of Num 25 did not include the focus on mixed marriages, the furor of Phinehas and the reference to the Levi covenant, and (b) was thus confined to the pre-Deuteronomistic text level in vv. 1a, 3, 5, which (c) joined more directly to Josh 2 (i.e., without Num 26–Deut 34 as a textual digression).48 On the other hand, as mentioned above, the wording of Hos 9:10 has striking non-Hoseanic peculiarities: the reference to the fathers, the use of ‫ בשׁת‬for Baal, ‫ נזר‬for idolatry and at least the phrase “to become ‫שׁק וצים‬.” These peculiarities are not strictly Deuteronomistic, but they share a closeness to Deuteronomistic language.49 Whilst it is methodologically problematic to decide solely on linguistic grounds, these peculiarities at least point to a tendency, which either puts Hos 9:10 in the post-exilic or – considering its conceptualization of history, the positive wilderness concept, the closeness to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, etc. – rather a late pre-exilic or exilic book of Hosea. Thus Hos 9 does not seem to be suitable to support the existence of a portion of Numbers belonging to a pre-Deuteronomistic Hexateuchal setting.

5. Visions of Preservation? Moses and Balaam in Hosea 12:14 One of the most important as well as the most discussed references to Pentateuchal traditions are the intertwined Jacob-and-Israel traditions in Hos 12. It is beyond the scope of the present paper to engage in the discussion of the two contrastive, though complementary, stories on Israel’s beginnings in any detail.50 However for the present discussion, Hos 12:13–14 provides an interesting test case. And Jacob fled into the open field of Aram, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he guarded [sheep], and by a prophet YHWH brought up Israel from Egypt, and by a prophet he was guarded.

‫ויבתח יעקב שׂדה ארם‬ ‫ויעבד ישׂר אל באשׁה‬ ‫ובאשׁה שׁמר‬ ‫ובנביא העלה יהוה א ת־ישׂראל ממצרים‬ ‫ובנביא נשׁמר‬

The analysis of S CHMIDT , Numeri (2004) is more convincing than the assumption of the Hexateuch redaction of ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003). But in contrast to S CHMIDT , Numeri, 147, Hos 9:10 is not the Vorlage for the Jehowistic text. 49 See, e.g., NISSINEN, Prophetie (1991), 316. Cf. DEISSLER, Zwölf Propheten (1993), 44, who considers Hos 9:10 as Hoseanic, which comprises a language that precedes and forms the Deuteronomistic phraseology. 50 For an overview of positions, see BEN ZVI , Hosea (2005), 260–1; WÖHRLE, Jacob (2016) or HALLASCHKA, Foundation (2017). 48

Numbers and the Twelve

203

It is common to relate both lines of v. 14 to Moses and to read both lines as synonymous parallels. Both lines should be related to the exodus and the role of Moses therein. The difficulty is assigning the act of guarding to the exodus. One possibility is the prophetic intercessory role in Exod 32–33: By advocating in favor of guilty Israel, Moses in effect guarded Israel from the righteous anger of God (Exod 32:11; 33:12). Another (although less convincing) possibility is to identify the transmission of the law at Sinai as an act of preservation. Based upon the precedent set by v. 13, there is one further possibility. Verse 13 refers to Jacob’s courtship of Leah and Rachel, and cleverly uses the two references to “a wife” to indicate Jacob’s two wives. Thus the juxtaposition of the two lines can be seen to encompass the full timespan of Jacob’s time with Laban. Read against this interpretation, the two lines in v. 14 may refer to two different prophets at the beginning and the end of the exodus. This would suggest identifying the second prophet with Balaam, who guarded Israel by observing the LORD’s word and resisting Balak’s commission to curse Israel. This interpretation can be further corroborated by the description of the prophet’s role in v. 11, which is divided into three parts: First, “I will speak through prophets” is the common role of prophets and may relate to Moses as well. Second, “I have multiplied visions” is unusual and cannot readily be attributed to Moses. Third, ‫ חזון‬is never used with Moses and is often attributed to, or associated with, false prophecy (Jer 14:14; 23:16; Ezek 13:16; Mic 3:6); but on the other hand it is a prominent term in Isa 1:1, Obd 1:1 and Nah 1:1. The term is not used in the Pentateuch to denote Mosaic prophecy but is applied twice to Balaam (Num 24:4, 16): He is the one who sees visions of the Almighty. The third part of Hos 12:11 is usually related to the prophets of doom, who announce damnation and destruction. This seems obvious because of the use of II-‫“ דמה‬to destroy” in e.g., Hos 4:5, 6; 10:7, 15. The Septuagint offers an alternative interpretation in reading the lexeme as I-‫“ דמה‬to liken, to compare”, thus rendered, “through the hands of prophets I have been likened” (καὶ ἐν χερσὶν προφητῶν ὡµοιώθην). This may hint – among others – at Balaam since the prophet is transparent to God in his behavior. Thus, the LXX reading gives perhaps an old testimony of relating the second prophet not to Moses, but rather to Balaam. One may ask whether the passage in Hosea focuses on prophecy anyway? If v. 10 refers not only to Egypt, but with ‫ באהלים‬to Sinai, then Hos 12:11 may allude, with the theme of prophecy, to Num 11 and Num 25, and by that to the wilderness period. It goes without saying that this evidence does not necessarily point to fixed literary traditions in Numbers, but neither does it mean that a narrative nexus can be excluded in principle. The only thing which is obviously presumed is the identification of Jacob with “Israel”. To see Balaam and traditions of Numbers in Hos 12 is hypothetical, but it remains a possibility that should to be taken into account in scholarly dis-

204

Literature, History and Ideology

course. 51 It was often considered that Hos 12:14 is a Deuteronomistic addition, because Moses is coined a, or better the, prophet in Deut 18:15 and Deut 34:10. Likewise the different function of Moses in Hos 12:14 compared to the Pentateuch has regularly been noted. 52 Wöhrle wonders whether it would have been possible to remember Moses as a prophetic leader in Hos 12:14 “without knowledge of a tradition presenting Moses as prophet.”53 However, this is a chicken-and-egg question, and simply prioritizing the Deuteronomistic tradition is not the correct way to reach a solution. Although I do not share the confident view that we have a Hoseanic reflection here, the possibility of a pre-exilic date of v. 14 cannot be ruled out in principle. That the providential preservation in the sequence Jacob – exodus – Balaam provides testimony of a pre-priestly connection of the Jacob story with the exodus and the Balaam tradition in Numbers is possible, but cannot be irrefutably proved from the argument above.

6. Amos 2:9–12 The final, clear textual allusion to traditions that appear in the book of Numbers, is found in Amos 2:9–12. The key linking motifs are the destruction of the Amorites as giants (vv. 9, 10), the exodus from Egypt (v. 10), forty years wandering in the wilderness (v. 10) and (potentially) the mention of Nazirites (vv. 11–12) whose regulations are given in Num 6. And yet, I exterminated the Amorites from before them whose height was like the height of a cedar and who was as strong as oaks. And I exterminated his fruit above and his roots beneath. 9

‫ואנכי השׁמדתי את־ האמרי מפניהם אשׁר כגבה ארזים‬ ‫גבהו וחסן הוא כאל ונים ואשׁמי ד פריו ממעל ושׁרשׂיו‬ ‫מתחת‬

And I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and led you forty years in the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite.

‫ואנכי העליתי את כם מארץ מצרים ואולך אתכם‬ ‫במדבר אר בעים שׁנה לרשׁת את־אר ץ האמרי‬

And I raised up some of your sons for prophets, and some of your young men for Nazirites. Is it not indeed so, O people of Israel? says the Lord.

‫ואקים מבניכם לנביאי ם ומבחוריכם לנזרים האף אי ן־‬ ‫זאת בני ישׂראל נ אם־יהוה‬

10

11

51 This stands in contrast to BLUM , Hosea (2009), 317, who states “dies macht es unwahrscheinlich, dass die ihm bekannten Ägypten- und Wüstentraditionen wie in Exodus und Numeri bereits vom Motiv des immer wiederkehrenden ‘Murrens’ des Volkes bestimmt waren.” 52 Cf. for both variants W ÖHRLE, Jacob (2016), 1006. 53 W ÖHRLE , Jacob (2016), 1006.

Numbers and the Twelve But you made the Nazirites drink wine, and commanded the prophets, saying, “You shall not prophesy.” 12

205 ‫ותשׁקו את־הנזרים יין‬ ‫ועל־הנביאים צויתם לאמר‬ ‫לא תנבאו‬

The role of the passage within the cycle of oracles against the nations merits much more discussion than the few remarks that follow. 54 There is little doubt that parts of the Israel-strophe form the original composition of the cycle of oracles against the nations in an earlier book of Amos, but whether vv. 9–12 belong to the original layer is open for discussion and finally doubtful. The verses do not stem from the pre-exilic edition of Amos, nor do they form part of the exilic edition of the Four. To begin with, one has to acknowledge the “sudden shift to direct address” 55 in vv. 10–12, which is then continued in v. 13: While v. 9 refers to “Israel” as “they” (‫)מפניהם‬, vv. 10–12 use a 2nd pers. pl. However, both verses are not only linked by the reference to the Amorites, but also by the emphasis of the “I” ( ‫ואנכי‬, followed by an H-stem verbal phrase with an accusative object). The stylistic closeness led to the discussion whether they belong to the same layer or not. 56 Taking the chronological misplacement of vv. 10–12 into account (the verse goes back to Egypt while the reference point in v. 9 is already in the land), it is more convincing to assume at least two redactional stages for the passage. Although difficult to decide,57 it seems further reasonable to take vv. 10–12 as the later addition, which copied the stylistic features of v. 9 to introduce a short historical retrospect comprising the sequence exodus – wilderness – land. The mere prosaic account of the exodus, the wilderness and the conquest in v. 10 shows certain features of late Deuteronomistic texts. First, although using the “Heraufführungsformel” (‫ )העלה‬instead of the “Herausführung” (‫ )היצא‬and notwithstanding the parallels in Amos 3:1 and 9:7, the overall style of the verse is rather late (cf. Jdg 6:8; 1 Sam 10:18, further Jdg 2:1). Second, the reference to forty years in the wilderness, is at least of Deuteronomistic, and probably even post-priestly origin. The motif of forty years would seem to point most naturally to the spy narrative of Num 13–14, however the forty years punishment derives from the forty days the spies spent in Canaan (Num 13:25, 14:33–34), and these verses all derive from the priestly version of the story. 58 Alternatively, the forty years are mentioned in Deut 54 I owe important suggestions to the discussion of the passage with Jordan Davis, who will publish his view on Amos 2 separately. 55 EIDEVALL, Amos (2017), 117. 56 See the discussion in HAMBORG , Righteous (2013), 151–2; K ÖCKERT, Land (1991), 69; S CHART, Entstehung (1998), 60. 57 The relation to the idolatry Amorite passages in 1 Kgs 21:26 and 2 Kgs 21:11 makes it even more complex, see F LEISCHER, Menschenverkäufern (1989), 44–5. 58 F REVEL, Palimpsest (2013). On Num 13:25 belonging to P, see, e.g., NOTH, Numbers (1978), 101; S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 35.

206

Literature, History and Ideology

2:7; 8:2, 4 and the almost verbatim parallel Deut 29:4; 59 and in these passages the wilderness period is explicitly a period of preservation. However, there is no pre-Deuteronomistic reference to a period of forty years. Third, the conquest of the land of the Amorites, which is not only phrased with the “Deuteronomistic” infinitive of ‫( י רשׁ‬Deut 9:1, 4, 5; 11:31; 12:20; Josh 1:11 et al.), but which takes the Amorites as catch-all term for all native inhabitants of the land (cf. Gen 15:16). Although this may relate to the conquest of Transjordan reflected in the Sihon-Og narrative (particularly Num 21:31–34; 32:39; 32; cf. Deut 2:24; 4:47; Jdg 11:21–23) it more likely relates to Deut 1:20, 27, 44, where the Amorites are the indigenous people of the Promised Land. Deuteronomy 1:19–25 reports that after leaving Mt. Horeb Israel journeyed through the “great and terrible wilderness” until they came to ‫הר האמרי‬. Thus Jericke argues that the phrase ‫ הר האמרי‬in Deut 1:19–20 should not be understood to be referring to the land occupied by Sihon in Transjordan, but rather to the hills in the eastern Negev. 60 In sum, Amos 2:10 is rather a post-exilic reference to the Heilsgeschichte presuming at least Deut 1–3 rather than building upon early traditions in the book of Numbers. Regardless of whether Amos 2:11–12 are a secondary addition to v. 10 or not, the text bears characteristics of a certain “lateness.” Theologically the reference to the vocation of prophets is intended to exonerate the deity in the repercussions of doom.61 The prophets have warned Israel to turn from their evil ways and to observe the law/the Torah (Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4; 2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chron 24:19; Neh 9:26, 30). Indicative is the use of ‫( קום‬H-stem) from the Deuteronomistic law of the prophet (Deut 18:15, 18; cf. Deut 34:10; Jer 29:15) to express the call of Torah-conforming prophets. The unique juxtaposition of prophets and Nazirites has its point of comparison in the special bond to YHWH. Just as the breaking of the vow corrupts this special relationship with YHWH, so does the refusal to take note of the prophetic word. The emphasis of the Nazirite vow is clearly a sign of post-exilic spirituality. Even if there were Nazirites in pre-exlic Israel/Judah, the prominence of this sort of individual vows develops especially in the time of the Second Temple. The idea of a short-term period of purity, ratified by a personal vow speaks to a more advanced social milieu, which likely did not exist prior to the Persian period. 62 The fact that it is used together with the prophets 59 OTTO, Deuteronomium (2017), 2037–57 argues that Deut 29:1–8 (as well as 2:7 and 8:2–4) belongs to a post-exilic Fortschreibung relating to the “Moab redaction.” 60 JERICKE , Bergland (2009), 57. 61 EIDEVALL, Amos (2017), 118. 62 1 Maccabees 3:49 refers to those Nazirites, “who had completed their days,” which only makes sense in the context of a limited period of purity as stipulated in Num 6. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 511, for example, allocates the Nazirite law of Num 6 to his Theocratic readaction II. For the compositional role of Num 6 within the ritual composition, see FREVEL, Texture, p. 317–38 in the present volume.

Numbers and the Twelve

207

as a paradigm is a further corroboration of this dating. That YHWH “raises up” not only prophets but also Nazirites points at the paradigmatic stories of Samson and Samuel as comparison. 63 Their nazirite-ness is a rather late feature of the stories, which in redaction-critical perspective is part of a post-exilic, Torah-conforming rewriting of these stories. In sum, particularly the very mention of broken vows as a demonstration of immorality is an indicator that Amos 2:11–12 presupposes Num 6 and other Nazirite contexts rather than the other way round. Amos 2:9 is a tough nut to crack, because the Amorites mentioned in the verse can only refer to the original version of the defeat of Sihon in Num 21. For Jeremias, the verse is an integral part of the Israel-strophe, and Bjørndalen has established the originality of the allegoric argument with great effort. 64 However, the attribution of the Amorites being giants, which is crucial for the allegory, is not drawn from Num 21, but rather from a combination of Deut 3:11 and Deut 31:4. The Amorite king Sihon is never called a giant, and in Num 21 Og is not a king of the Amorites, but of Bashan (Num 21:33, 35; Deut 1:4 et al.). Og becomes an Amorite king only in Josh 2:10; 9:10 and Deut 31:4. Interestingly enough, the giants in Num 13:33 are Anakites not Amorites (cf. Deut 2:11; 9:2), but they are said to be ‫ מן־הנפלים‬so that it is possible that other previous inhabitants of the land were also giants. 65 We cannot unfold the complex network of giant-passages here in detail, but Og as king in Ashtaroth (Deut 1:4; Josh 9:10) becomes the last of the Rephaim-γιγάντες (Jos 12:4; 13:12, cf. later Gen 14:5). Deuteronomy 3:11 explicitly mentions the iron bed of Og in Rabba (the displacement of this verse is another story), which is nine cubits in length, that is, about 13 feet. Thus Og not only becomes a king of the Amorites but also a giant. It is unclear whether Amos 2:9 refers to a single Amorite (not only is the ‫את־האמרי‬ singular, but also the grammar of the whole allegory) or the collective of “the Amorites” which is also possible. But anyway, in making the Amorite or the Amorites giants, it presumes already the reception history of Num 21 in late Deuteronomistic traditions. Unless one posits that Amos was referring to traditions about the Amorites that are no longer available, the most logical assumption is that Amos 2:9 is drawing on those texts that combine Og, the Amorites and the Rephaim. To sum up this last passage: Even Amos 2:9 does not refer to earlier traditions in the book of Numbers. As with Amos 2:10–12 It is therefore interesting that many scholars tend to analyze the stories of Samson and Samuel through the lens of Num 6. See, e.g., BLOCK, Judges (2010), 403; STOLZ , Buch (1981), 26. 64 JEREMIAS , Prophet (1995), 25 argues: “Ich selber halte es für undenkbar, daß die Israel-Strophe literarisch einmal ohne v. 9 bestanden haben sollte; dazu sind die oben genannten Kontextbezüge zu eng (die in vv. 10–12 eben charakteristischerweise fehlen).” Cf. BJØRNDALEN, Untersuchungen (1986), 135–58. 65 For the motif of giants in the conquest narratives, see PERLITT, Riesen (1994). 63

208

Literature, History and Ideology

it rather presumes late post-Deuteronomistic traditions, as well as their reception in late Deuteronomistic texts of Deuteronomy and Joshua.

7. Summary Our deeper soundings in the book of the Twelve have brought a sobering result with regard to a solid ground of a pre-exilic stratum in Numbers. This can neither be drawn from the references to passages of Numbers in Micah nor safely from Amos. Only Hosea remains as a potential candidate. As said in the introduction, this result is not the knockout for a pre-priestly Hexateuchal strand in Numbers, but it seems difficult to corroborate such a view from the book of the Four as a point of reference. Micah 6:4–5 and Amos 2:9–12 have been proved to be both post-exilic and to presume a post-priestly Hexateuchal composition dating to the Persian period. These passages are therefore better described as belonging to the Pentateuchal reworking of prophetic traditions. With the material from Micah and Amos presented here it is not possible to make valuable suggestions on a pre-exilic thread in the book of Numbers such as the traditional Yahwist, or Yehowist, or whatever. On the other hand, the opposite view – that there were simply no continuous traditions between Sinai and Moab that predate the priestly strata – could be proved unlikely by our analysis of the Hosea traditions. As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle: While Amos 2:9 and Amos 2:10 presume the combination of late Deuteronomistic and Pentateuchal material, Amos 2:11– 12 have the post-priestly ritual composition of Num 6 as a reference point. If we accept the coherence of the passage, it is rather a witness of the late postexilic re-reading of prophetic traditions. Micah 6:4–5 also presumes one of the very last stages of the Pentateuch, which was almost completed in compositional respect. Finally, Hos 9:10 is a good candidate for a pre-exilic literary bridge in the book of Numbers, of which Num 25 is a part. If my suggestion on Hos 12:14 is accepted, this provides a further candidate for the discussion on late pre-exilic texts of Numbers.

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers The word “Arabia” does not appear in the Pentateuch, neither as a geographical term nor as an ethnic one. The only potential allusion to the land and people of the Arabian Peninsula is found in Gen 10:7, 1 but the term “Arab” does not occur at all in the Pentateuch. Why then should one wonder about the presence of Arabs in the book of Numbers? The interest of the present investigation lies in the entanglement of the historical development in the Levant with the Fortschreibung in late biblical texts, rather than in “finding” Arabs in the book of Numbers. To begin with one tiny and indeed puzzling clue in the reception history: In commentaries of the 18th cent., Balaam is identified with Elihu the Buzite (Job 32:6) and thus he is an Arab because bûz is located in Arabia (as attested in Jer 25:23). Within the book of Job, Elihu is depicted alongside Job and his friends, and thus also connected with Teman and the Arabian Peninsula. Job comes from Uz (Job 1:1), which is related to Edom (Lam 4:21) and SouthArabia (Jer 25:20; Gen 36:28). The extended epilogue of the book of Job found in the Septuagint reports that Job married an Arab wife (λαβὼν δὲ γυναῖκα Ἀράβισσαν) and that he was king in Edom (καὶ οὗτοι οἱ βασιλεῖς οἱ βασιλεύσαντες ἐν Εδωµ) in succession of Balak, who – although being the king of Moab in the biblical account (Num 22:4; Josh 24:9; Mic 6:5 et al.) – is reckoned as king of Edom following the Greek tradition, which identifies Bela with Balak (as seen in Gen 14:2, 8; Gen 36:32–33 and 1 Chron 1:43– 44). Job is said to have lived in a land called Ausitis (ἐν µὲν γῇ κατοικῶν τῇ Αυσίτιδι), which is mentioned in Job 32:2 (LXX) as the home of Elihu. 2 These intricate paths demonstrate that in the Greek and Syrian tradition there is apparently an Arabization of Job that is anchored, rhizome-like, in the biblical texts. Balaam is identified with this Arab connection by combining Num 24:25 and Num 31:8 to suggest a geographical cohabitation; interpreting the passing mention of Balaam in Num 31:8 as a sign of ethnic proximity, and the shared patronym with Balak in Gen 36:32 (LXX) and Job 42:17 as indication of kinship. In this paper, I intend to trace some roots of the Arab “rhizome” in the book of Numbers by dealing with the textual superimposing of Moabites with Midianites in Num 22–25. While Midianites are “Arabs” by locating them beyond the desert in the far South and by associating them with the Arabian 1 2

See GERTZ , Genesis (2018), 311, 313–4; GRAF, Arabia (2016), 458–9. This is in line with the alleged Syrian tradition in the epilogue.

210

Literature, History and Ideology

long-distance trade by their use of camels (Gen 36:25), the Moabites are originally “Transjordanian locals.” But in mixing Midianites and Moabites together in Num 22, the Moabites also become Arabs. This is further reflected in Num 25, where in vv. 1–5 the Moabite women seduce Israel, and then in vv. 6–15 Cozbi, a daughter of one of the five Midanite leaders (Num 25:18), is introduced by the Israelite Zimri into the congregation. Both accounts combined provide in Num 25:16–18 the rationale for vengeance on the Midianites in Num 31. Thus, the Midianites and the Moabites are reckoned ethnically related as people of the desert, east of the Arabah, i.e., “Arabs” although this is not correct in terms of etymology. Thus, the following paper will first explain the way in which the term “Arabs” will be used. Then it will explore the implications of the book of Numbers as a late Persian period text. Finally, the paper will reflect on the early Arab expansion and its possible traces in the Hebrew Bible and its early reception. The paper aims at describing a process of “Arabization” of ethnica in late biblical texts that allows identifying “Arabs” in the Hebrew Bible.

1. What is Meant by the Term “Arab”? The term “Arab” is as blurred in history as it is in the present. While there seems to be an evident etymological connection between the rare ethnonym ‫ ערבים‬or ‫ ערביאים‬and the Hebrew root ‫“( ערבה‬dry, infertile”), and thus the geographical term ‫“( ערב ה‬desert”), there is no link between the ‫ערבי‬-people and the geographical region of the Arabah, or the regions called ‫ערבות‬ ‫יריחו‬/ ‫“( מואב‬lowland or desert of Moab/Jericho”). The term ‫ ערבים‬is attributed in the Assyrian-Babylonian period to semi-nomads and oasis dwellers in the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula and in the Syrian Desert. 3 However the Hebrew term ‫ ערבים‬does not appear in texts dating to this period, rather it is attested only in very late biblical texts of the second half of the 5th and first half of the 4th cent. (2 Chron 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh 2:19; 4:1; 6:1; Isa 13:20, and someway isolated Jer 3:2). This may be taken as a sign of the increasing Arabization in the second half of the 1st millennium. Conspicuously, the term does not appear in the Torah. Previously this was interpreted as indicating that the Pentateuch had already been completed when the “Arabs” came to light, however it is no longer held that the Pentateuch was finished by the mid 5th cent., as the result of something like the

3 See H ÜBNER, Araber (2006). Due to space considerations, the present article will omit investigating the attestations in Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian texts of the 9 th cent. BCE and later. See RETSÖ, Arabs (2003), 119–20; EPH’AL, Arabs (1984), 74–214.

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

211

Persian imperial authorization. 4 Rather it is now assumed that the redactional processes continued at least until the early Hellenistic period in the 4th cent. and must therefore be contemporary with Ezra, Nehemiah and the prophetic layers mentioned above. This raises the question, where are the Arabs in the Pentateuch? Given their presence in the late books mentioned above, it follows that one would expect to find the Arabs in the latest part(s) of the Pentateuch also, that is, in the book of Numbers. This paper will argue that the Arabs do appear in the Pentateuch, however they do so under the labels of “Ishmaelites,” “Qedarites,” “Amalekites,” “Edomites,” “Midianites,” “Amorites” and “Moabites.” 5 The “Arab connection” in the book of Numbers is omnipresent; it comprises Midianites, Moabites, Amalekites, Edomites and Amorites and their blending in the text on very different levels: figuratively, geographically and historically but in none of these cases lexically. Due to space considerations, the present paper will not be able to detangle these various levels of the “Arab connection” in terms of the literary growth of the book of Numbers (within the context of the Pentateuch and its historical background in the (late) Persian period), but will rather trace some of these different threads with the intention of developing criteria for their differentiation. “Arabs” – as we use the term in regard to the biblical account – are not a homogenous ethnical factor but rather a colorful construct of oppositions, devaluations and displacements. The term in this paper thus does not address the historical “Arabs” who are mentioned in Assyrian sources from the 9th cent. BCE onwards, also it does not address the term “Arabs” in biblical sources.6 It will instead be argued that the deliberately blurred ethnical boundaries in southern Transjordan, the Negev, the Sinai region and the northern part of the Ḥiǧāẓ, the Arabian Peninsula (in short the classical southern Arabia deserta without Syria and north-western Palestine), are associated to – or better constitute – a proto-Arabian, pre-Nabatean literary network which mirrors the process of early Arabization in Persian period Palestine. The latest book of the Pentateuch, the book of Numbers, is part of this process so that it is a perfect case study of what we may call “ArabiThe idea of the Persian imperial authorization originated with F REI, Zentralgewalt (1996). S CHMID, Authorization (2007), 38 notes that it was, “one of the most successful hypotheses of Old Testament scholarship during the past twenty years.” However, the theory has been increasingly criticized in recent times and no longer enjoys a wide reception. See particularly the discussion in WATTS, Persia (2001) and KNOPPERS/LEVINSON, Pentateuch (2007). Despite its general decline, some scholars argue that the core idea of the theory still has some merits even if the theory in its entirety can no longer be maintained, see, e.g., S CHMID , Authorization (2007); CARR, Formation (2011), 217–8. 5 Mentioning the Amorites (see FLEMING, Amorites [2016], 28–9) and Moabites (see FREVEL, Geschichte [2018], 121–3) in this row may be unsettling even in a historical perspective, but the rationale for their inclusion is derived, strikingly, from the book of Numbers itself. See the argument below. 6 See, for instance, PAHLITZSCH/DIETRICH, Arabia (2006). 4

212

Literature, History and Ideology

zation.” The argument is not historical in a strict sense because it remains obscure whether this network refers to the formation of the large tribal networks of semi-nomads in the mentioned region, which are quite present in Hellenistic, Roman and later times. However, it is not without close contact to the historical development. This paper adds to the meager historical knowledge of this process of Arabization from a literary perspective and extends the discussion beyond the Geshem discourse of the Ezra/Nehemiah account.7

2. The Situation in the Book of Numbers Several systems of geographical and ethnic order superimpose each other in the book of Numbers. These systems cannot be attributed to one historical or literary-historical level, they do not even have historical foundations in every respect, as can be seen in the striking example of the boundaries of Moab in Num 21:13 and the cooperation of the elders of Midian and Moab in Num 22:7. It is inappropriate to consider these in historical terms, rather both arise as a consequence of the literary growth of the book of Numbers. 8 It may be useful to begin with sorting the evidence in the book of Numbers in a more or less synchronic perspective with particular attention paid to the aforementioned geographical area (southern Transjordan, Negev, Sinai, Ḥismā northern Ḥiǧāẓ). As will be demonstrated below, the juxtaposition of Midianites and Moabites in the Balaam narrative and the events of Num 25 comes as a result of a foreshadowing of the merging of the proto-Arabian or proto-Nabatean people. This process reveals the growing Arabization, which began in the south and developed along the main trade routes that link the North-Arabian Peninsula with the North and West. In historical terms, Transjordan in the first millennium was an “ethnic” melting pot (Arameans, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Nabateans, etc.) and it seems as if the region was also such a melting pot on the literary level: (1) The first encounter with “proto-Arabs” in the book of Numbers is associated with the departure from Mount Sinai in Num 10. 9 Numbers 10:29–30 7 See the overview in EPH’AL, Arabs (1984), 192–214, esp. 192–3; RETSÖ, Arabs (2003). The book of Numbers shows this process, which is continued in the reception history after the completion of the Torah and which is taken up in commentaries of the 18 th cent. as well. 8 For Num 22–24, see F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume. For the shift of the borders of Moab, see IDEM, Shapes (2019). 9 Because ‫ נ סע‬is a keyword in Num 9:17–10:35 it is not quite clear whether Israel in Num 10:29 is already on its way to the wilderness of Paran (Num 10:12, 28) since they depart from the mountain of God ( ‫ )מהר י הוה‬a second time at the end of the chapter in Num 10:33. If this is taken as a summarizing resumption, Israel is already on its way, otherwise

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

213

reports that Moses discussed the upcoming journey with his father-in-law, “Hobab the son of Reuel the Midianite” (‫)חבב בן־רעואל המדיני‬.10 Although this name differs (apart from Exod 2:19) from that found in the Exodus tradition (wherein he is called Jethro), by mentioning Moses’s fatherin-law the author of Num 10 links Israel’s departure from Sinai with their arrival in Exod 18 (and to Moses’s initial encounter at the mountain of God in Exod 3). 11 Hobab is reported to have excellent knowledge of the area through which Israel would journey and Moses therefore requests that he be “the eyes of the Israelites” in the wilderness (Num 10:31). Wherever we speculate the mountain of god to be in geographical respect, the intended way of the Israelites goes beyond the Midianite heartland through the (unspecified) desert to Kadesh, and from there northwards into the cultivated land, the hill-country of Judah (Num 13–14, esp. Num 13:17). Thus, Hobab is presented as having knowledge of wells and campgrounds in a very wide area that includes the southern Negev. Although it is not said explicitly, one may assume that such knowledge implies he has connections to the people who live there. If it is accepted that Hobab has some connection to Arabs, the excellent local knowledge of Hobab the Midianite may be taken as a cipher for the ProtoArabian long-distance trade in Persian times.12 Israel departs finally only at the end of the chapter. The indecisiveness has on the one hand narratological reasons and on the other hand is perhaps related to the mention of Moses’s father-in-law in Jdg 1:16. See KNIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 163–4 and below. It is not by chance that the Kenites are considered to be connected with Arabs in the Aramaic Targum tradition (GIL, Origin [1999], 159). Wellhausen exposed Israel’s kinship with the inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula: “As regards the ethnological position of the Hebrews as a whole, tradition has it that they had connexions not only with the Aramaeans of Osrhoene (Nahor), but also with certain of the old half-Arab inhabitants of the Sinaitic peninsula (Kenites, Amalek, Midian)” (WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena [2009], 429) 10 The tradition that Moses’s father-in-law was a Midianite was undoubtedly problematic. One of the strategies of the late biblical authors to ameliorate this was via the genealogies. In both Gen 36:4 and 1 Chron 1:35, Reuel, the father of Hobab, is depicted as a descendant of Esau, and thus becomes a distant relative of Moses via their shared ancestors, Abraham and Isaac. In this way Moses’s marriage is “endogamized.” 11 In redactional respect the story of Hobab doubles the departure of the priestly texts. It is striking that following Jdg 4 it becomes unclear whether Hobab accompanies Israel or not, and that the denial uses phrases of Gen 12. However, it may be that Jdg 4:11 represents an alternative strategy, such that Hobab is depicted as joining Israel (i.e., separated from the Kenites). 12 Genesis 25:2 makes the ancestor of the Midianites a son of Abraham born by his second wife Keturah (‫)ק ט ור ה‬, whose name is likely a derivative of the word for incense (‫)קט רת‬. This further suggests that the Midianites function as a cipher for the “Arabs” of the Persian period whose major trade was incense. See also RETSÖ, Arabs (2003), 228. EPH’ AL, Arabs (1984), 208 remarks, “the value of the Arabs’ ‘gift’ [to the Persian empire], in frankincense rather than precious metals or animals, etc., points to involvement in the spice trade and considerable income […].”

214

Literature, History and Ideology

One additional remark on endogamy in the family of Moses, which will become important later on, is in order here: Reuel (understood as the father of Hobab) is made one of the sons of Esau, born by his second Hittite wife Basemat (Gen 36:4; 1 Chron 1:35, cf. the Midianites related to Abraham by his second wife Keturah in Gen 25:2). The genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles make the father-in-law a blood relative of Moses (whose great-grandfather Levi was a cousin of Reuel) and thus “endogamize” the marriage of Moses. It is not quite clear whether it is the change of name (from Hobab to Reuel) or the genealogies (making Zipporah a relative of Moses) that adjust the obvious exogamous “stigma” of Israel’s leader following Exod 2:21; 4:25; 18:2 and Num 12:1. 13. Be that as it may, the Jethro/Hobab/Reuel conundrum proves to be a complex network, which not only has an inner-biblical function to whitewash Moses’s exogamy, but is also related to the “Arabization-rhizome.” (2) Within the spy story there is an odd ethno-geographical explanatory verse in Num 13:29: Amalek dwells in the land of the South, and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country; and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the Jordan.

The verse is related to Num 14:25, 45 and Josh 11:3 and is widely considered to be a secondary, post-priestly parenthesis. 14 Due to the area under investigation, the present paper will focus on the Amalekites who are located in southwestern Palestine and in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula. 15 As with Hobab, the genealogies in Gen 36:10 and 1 Chron 1:36 depict Amalek as a descendant of Esau (he is son of his firstborn Eliphas, who is the brother of the above-mentioned Reuel). Thus, both Midian and Amalek are “Arabized” by the “late” genealogy in Genesis.16 Furthermore, Ishmaelites (Gen 25:18) and Amalekites (1 Sam 15:7) are located in the same territory between Havilah and Shur. This area includes the territory from the border of Egypt in the Nile delta to the Sinai Peninsula and particularly between the western part of the Arabian Peninsula and the eastern part of Africa, east of 13 The trend is perhaps followed in the LXX, where a certain Gadite Ραγουηλ as father of Elisaph is mentioned several times (Num 1:14; 2:14; 3:24; 7:42, 47; 10:20). Following Num 32:34–36 the Gadites are living at the most southern fringe of the land up to the border of the Moabites (Num 21:13, 26). 14 Cf. N OTH , Numbers (1968), 98, 107; S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 45; SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 111–2; OTTO, Deuteronomium (2000), 36–7. Already KNOBEL , Numeri (1861), 528 considered the list in v. 29b as secondary. DILLMANN, Numeri (1886), 73 argues against it. 15 Cf. G ASS, Amalekiter (2012), 190–1, who determines the northwestern Negev as core territory. For locating the Amalekites in this area, see also TANNER, Amalek (2005), 24. 16 For the exegesis of Gen 36, see KNAUF, Alter (1985); IDEM , Genesis (2012) and NASH, Edom (2018).

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

215

the Red Sea. 17 It is in this economic area (which correlates to modern day Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Yemen, Oman and southern Saudi-Arabia) that frankincense (boswellia sacra, boswellia papyrifera) was produced, processed and shipped. Frankincense formed the primary means by which the Arabs paid their due to the Achaemenid empire. 18 From the Assyrian period onwards, at the latest,19 the incense trade was in fact promoted by the protoArabian tribes, especially the Qedarites.20 Both the incense trade and the Qedarites are not linked explicitly to the Amalekites in the biblical text but allow by their connotations in the biblical text to be integrated in the greater construct of Arabs later on. Further evidence of an “Arab” background behind the Amalekites is found in Jdg 6, where the Amalekites are mentioned alongside the Midianites and the “children of the east” (‫( )בני־קדם‬Jdg 6:3, 33; 7:12), and are said to be using camels like the proto-Arabian traders (Jdg 6:5; 7:12).21 It may be that Amalek – which is neither a historical ethnicon in the time addressed by Num 14 or Jdg 6, nor in the assumed time the literature was produced – has to be understood as one of the representatives of Edomite expansion in NeoBabylonian and early Persian times in figurative respect. 22 But it is also possible that the Amalekites are a kind of figurative, ethnical resonance of this process after the Nabonids liquidation of Edom in 552 BCE, and the protoArabic immigration into the territory of the (later) Persian province of Idumea in the 5th/4th cent. BCE.23 It is striking that the Amalekites are not attested in extra-biblical sources, suggesting that they are an ahistorical con-

17 See JERICKE, Ortsangaben (2013), 28–9; KNAUF, Ismael (1989), 64. Genesis 25:18 is often considered to be a post-priestly addition. See already NOTH, History (1981), 17, 109 and the discussion in WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge (2012), 68, who takes v. 18a for P. 18 EPH ’AL , Arabs (1984), 206 notes that although the Arabs were exempt from paying a φόροϛ (annual tax), they instead had to contribute a yearly δῶρα (gift) of 1,000 talents of frankincense. 19 See FINKELSTEIN, Trade (1988); J ASMIN, Conditions (2005); HAUSLEITER, Tayma’ (2011); IDEM, Kingdoms (2012), F REVEL /PYSCHNY, Introduction (forthcoming). 20 See, e.g., H ÜBNER, Ismael (2006). 21 In Jdg 3:13 the Moabites are in alliance with the Amalekites and the Ammonites. Cf. GASS, Amalekiter (2012), 198. 22 For the west expansion of the Edomites in the Neo-Babylonian period see JERICKE, Mamre (2003), 81–4; LEMAIRE , Edom (2010), 237–9; F REVEL, Esau (2018), 353–8. 23 The date of the formation of the Persian province “Idumaea” is not clear. The most probable date is around 400 BCE or in the first half of the 4 th cent., see FREVEL , Geschichte (2018), 127, 318, 339. Yigal Levin in contrast denies a province of Idumaea during the Persian period at all. He instead seas the Qedarites being employed as stakeholders by Cambyses in 525 BCE, see LEVIN, Formation (2015), 190–1.

216

Literature, History and Ideology

struct (stemming from the 8th/7th cent. BCE?), who were reflected in the situation of the Persian period. 24 Within the Pentateuchal narrative, the Amalekites are said to have attacked the Israelites already in Refidim (Exod 17:6) in the Sin desert (Exod 17:1) before arriving at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–2) but they were fought back by the Israelites (cf. Deut 25:17–19; Num 24:20). However, when Israel departed from Kadesh to conquer the Promised Land from the south, the Amalekites (and the Canaanites of the hill country) pursued them as far as Hormah (Num 14:45). At the end of their forty years wandering the desert, Israel returns to this location in Numbers 21, where the outcome is reversed and Israel achieves victory. 25 Leading the opposition is “the king of Arad” who appears elsewhere only in Num 33:40 and Josh 12:14 (alongside the king of Hormah). 26 Although the narrative is set in the LB–Iron I periods, it is not historically possible that there existed a king of Arad during this time because Arad was not inhabited in the LB.27 Thus the reference most likely derives from the time when the book of Numbers was composed, however even here it is not possible to decisively conclude who the king of Arad is intended to represent. One possibility is that the “king” of Arad refers to an administrative role of Tell Arad in the Persian period. Alternatively, clues might be ascertained by the fact that during this account Israel camps at Mount Hor (Num 21:4 and Num 33:39, 41). An Edomite connection can also be ascertained from the title, “king of Arad,” which although often considered a later gloss locates the incident clearly in the northern Negev. 28 The defeat of the Canaanites and the king of Arad at the location of Hormah (Num 21:3) also points towards this same region. 29 Deuteronomy 1:44 locates Hormah in Seir, which fits very 24 See FREVEL, Geschichte (2018), 102. Speculations about the early-Israelite period (Iron I or IIA) are mostly futile, see GASS, Amalekiter (2012), 222: “Diese frühe Konfrontation ist somit ein ideologisches Konstrukt.” 25 In terms of the composition of the book of Numbers, it is important that this reversal of fortune occurs after Israel’s wandering. Numbers 21:3 states, that the place was named Hormah because of the destruction Israel caused to Canaan ( ‫)וי ק רא שׁם־ המק ום חר מה‬. See FREVEL, Torah, p. 25–6 in the present volume. For the diachronic perspective, see F REVEL , Pentateuch, p. 133 in the present volume. 26 “The king of Arad” is taken often as an addition. See the overview in SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 305. 27 As shown in NEAEHL (Arad), the site at Tel Arad was a Canaanite city up until approx. the EB II and was reinhabited by Israelites in the Iron I at the earliest when a bamah was erected at the site. 28 Regardless of whether it is a gloss or not, the discrepancy may be rooted in the expansion of the Edomites into the southern Negev and the vicinity of Kadesh. 29 MITTMANN, Siedlungsgebiet (1977), 222–5 suggests that Hormah should be located on the periphery of the Judean hill country and the Negev. He further notes that the connection of Hormah with the “king of Arad” allows for a greater precision in locating the toponyms. To this end he suggests that Hormah should be located at Tell el-Milḥ (map. ref.

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

217

well, since Seir is not restricted to Transjordan but is rather a designation of the Arabah and its adjoining areas. 30 However, this seems intended to be understood in a figurative (rather than a geographic) sense, such that it clearly links Hormah to the Edomite, that is to say “Arab,” territory in the NorthWest.31 In sum: Within the Pentateuchal literary network Amalek is part of the proto-Arabian hodgepodge of hostile people living in the southern Negev. (3) The geographical difficulties in Num 20–21 are well-known, with one common explanation being that the redactors did not have sufficient knowledge of the locations mentioned, or as MacDonald suggests, the redactors were confused by the account in Deuteronomy and tried to “fix” it.32 We cannot go into details here,33 but one possible alternative to these ideas is to trace the itinerary of the Israelites with the “Arab connection” in mind. Ignoring for the moment the question of whether Israel passed through Edom (Deut 2:4–5) or skirted around it (Num 20:21), the itinerary according to Num 21:4 states that Israel left Mount Hor by the way of the Red Sea (‫ים‬ ‫ )סוף‬as they detoured Edom. On their way to the plains of Moab, Israel makes two encampments, Oboth and Iye-Abarim, of which the latter (at least) is located in Transjordan (‫ב מדבר אשׁר על־פני מואב ממזרח השׁמשׁ‬, Num 21:11). 34 Thus the crossing of the Arabah rift, which must have taken place between Israel’s journey from Kadesh (Num 20:1, 14, 16) to Iye-Abarim (Num 21:11) remains obscure. Also unclear is the location of the “king of Edom” to whom the messengers are sent in Num 20:14. The Israelites intended to cross Edom by the King’s Highway, which leads probably from Aqaba through the Transjordanian highlands (cf. the northern part in Num 21:22). Where do they 1525.0696). See also JERICKE, Horma (2008), who presents a range of possibilities, amongst others the preferable Tell el-Ḫuwēlfe (map. ref. 1373.0879) in the North-West or the less probable Tel Masos/Ḫirbet el Mšāš (map. ref. 1467.0691). 30 For the location of Seir in the Arabah and the Negev, see F REVEL , Esau (2018), 344– 6. 31 “Insofern könnte sich hinter Amalek die allmähliche territoriale Expansion nach Westen verstecken” (GASS, Amalekiter [2012], 193). Gaß considers the Amalekites to be a cipher (see esp. IBIDEM , 223). 32 In particular M ACDONALD, Numbers (2012), 140 suggests that the redactors of Numbers 20–21 understood Deuteronomy’s reference to both Seir and Mount Seir as referring to the same location, which caused difficulties in reconstructing the path that Israel journeyed. 33 See FREVEL, Pentateuch, p. 138–40 in the present volume and FREVEL, Shapes (2019). 34 While Oboth is often identified with ʽAin el-Wēbe (map. ref. 1680.0030), what remains uncertain beyond the sound of the names, see ZWICKEL , Studien (2015), 22–3. IyeAbarim may be identified with Ḫirbet ʽAy (map. ref. 2112.0603), north of Wādi el-Ḥesa southwest of Kerak, cf. DONNER, Topographie (1982), 183–8. SEEBASS, Umgehung (1997), 256 reckons the location east of Moab is a gloss. For Oboth being a place east of the Arabah rift, see IBIDEM, 257.

218

Literature, History and Ideology

intend to enter Edomite territory – just after crossing the Arabah rift or shortly after departing Kadesh as Num 20:16 suggests (‫ ?)עיר קצה גבולך‬35 The geography of this passage is quite confusing and the only clue to get a bit of alignment may be the assumption that the Edomite territory comprised at least the southwestern Negev. 36 While this may reflect the conflictive situation in the Negev after the expansion of Judah in the 8th cent. BCE37, it also fits very well to the fact that after 597 BCE Edom took control over the Negev, the southern Shephelah and the hill country. Whether there was an Arabian Qedarite kingdom that succeeded the Edomite predominance in the Negev in the second half of the 5th cent. is still a debated issue: 38 Lemaire assumes If Aaron died in Transjordan, the transition of the rift valley should have happened before. But then the way of Atharim ( ‫ )דרך האת רי ם‬which is mentioned directly after Aaron’s death (Num 21:1) cannot lead from Kadesh to Arad, as AHARONI, Land (1979), 202 suggested. SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 308 notes: “Leider fehlt es an Anhaltspunkten für die Bestimmung des Atarim-Weges.” One may further suggest that the ‫ דרך י ם־ סוף‬which is mentioned in Num 21:4 starts at or crosses Kadesh (Num 14:25; Deut 1:40), but this way is said to detour Edom (‫)ל סבב את ־אר ץ אדום‬. 36 The borders of the Persian province Idumaea are not quite clear but one can be guided by the southern “border” of the province of Yehûd (with Keila, Beth-Zur and En Gedi as southern outposts, see F REVEL, Geschichte [2018], 339, map 12 in contrast to LEVIN, Frontier [2007], 250–2). Thus Maqqedah, Lachish, Maresha and Hebron were probably part of the province Idumaea. As LEMAIRE , Nabonidus (2003), 291 states: “Not only the Negev but most of the Judean Shephelah and part of the hill country of Judah were outside the Neo-Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic province of Judah.” If the king of Arad in Num 21:4 is not an invention per se, and if he is timely displaced too and like the Edomites to be associated rather with the Persian situation, one may discuss the status of Arad. But the Aramaic ostraca of Arad and the archaeological evidence are in conflict with an autonomous existence of Arad in Persian times. 37 See F REVEL, Esau (2018), 350–7. 38 The Edomite autonomous political status in the Edomite heartland ends with the North-Arabian Campaign of Nabonidus 553/52 BCE. LEVIN, Formation (2015), 191 argues that there is no compelling evidence for a Persian province before Alexander at all, but the question, why the geostrategically important and populated region south of Yehûd should have been treated so differently by the Persians remains unanswered. The “handing over” of control to the Qedarites by Cambyses in 525 BCE is drawn only from Herodotus, who mentions a “king of the Arabs.” Whether Edom was integrated into Arabia before the establishment of the province “Idumaea,” as Lemaire argues (LEMAIRE, Nabonidus [2003] 290; IDEM, Edom [2010], 242, cf. already KNAUF, Edom [1988], 75), is a disputed issue (see JERICKE, Mamre [2003], 83–5; GRABBE , History [2004], 165–6). Jericke argues that Lemaire’s suggestion of an Arab kingdom of Qedar (LEMAIRE, Qédar [1974]; IDEM, Nabonidus [2003], 290) has only the shaky evidence of the Lachish incense altar. Lemaire reads the inscription: lbnt ’yš bn mḥly hmlk. “Incense altar of Iyš son of Mḥly the king.” This reading is sophisticated but untenable. See for discussion F REVEL /PYSCHNY, Räucherkästchen (2014), 29. That said, LEMAIRE, Nabonidus (2003), 290–1 additionally supports his case via the presence of a large number of Arabic personal names in the Aramaic ostraca, which he suggests is evidence for an Arabic kingdom stemming from Neo-Babylonian Arabia. 35

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

219

the particular territory being part of the kingdom of Qedar before the province Idumea was established by the Persian authority (probably around 400 BCE).39 Due to the limited space, it is not possible to go into detail here, but the assumption of there being a Qedarite kingdom that was displaced by the Persian military authority is less convincing than the assumption that protoArabian tribal federations (including the Qedarites) controlled the territory (a sort of sub provincial control) together with local people without a central government (Lachish, Arad, Beersheba, Makedah). The Qedarite tribal chiefs called themselves “kings” and they took political control with the consent of (and on behalf of) the Persian authority. However, extra-biblical evidence of proto-Arabic presence from the Maresha ostraca mentions (with some remaining uncertainties) the Qedarites (qdryn) as well as Arabs (‛rbyn), which suggests that these were understood to comprise two separate people groups. 40 In sum although there is no strong evidence, it is not impossible that the puzzling geographical hodgepodge and the encounter with the Edomites in Num 21 has the proto-Arabian presence in the 6th/5th cent. in southern Palestine as its background. (4) While the situation is far from clear, we lastly have to consider the “Arabization” of the Midianites and Moabites in Num 22–25 and 31. The five Midianite kings in Num 31:8 (Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba) are said to have been slain alongside Balaam (whose inclusion implicitly makes him a Midianite also) in the Midianite war. 41 In all likelihood the five kings in Num 31 are not a historical reminiscence, rather they comprise a fictional construct stemming from the 4th cent. BCE or perhaps even later: The quantity may be inspired by the five sons of Midian mentioned in Gen 25:4 and 1 Chron 1:33 (Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida and Eldaah). The high number of the Midianite kings in Num 31 implies that they are meant rather as chieftains, sheiks or clan leaders than kingly monarchs.42 Ernst Axel Knauf has deduced the five

39 See LEMAIRE, Nabonidus (2003); LEVIN, Frontier (2015), 246. In the second half of the 5 th cent. the tribe of Qedar controlled the northern Higaz, the South of Palestine, the Sinai Peninsula and the South of Transjordan (see KNAUF, Administration [1990], 207). The Qedarite tribal chiefs called themselves “kings” and they took political control with the consent and on behalf of the Persian authority. For the history of the Qedarites, see EPH’ AL, Arabs (1984), 223–7; ESHEL, Onomasticon (2007), 149; DUMBRELL , Kingdom (1971); KNAUF, Kedar (1992). 40 ESHEL, Onomasticon (2007), 149; EADEM, Inscriptions (2010), 62. 41 Joshua 13:21–22 recalls the killing of the five kings, and again the killing of Balaam is mentioned alongside. Aside from these two instances Zebah and Zalmunna are referred to as kings in Jdg 8:5, 12 together with their camels in Jdg 8:26. 42 The rulers cannot be strictly compared to the Sumerian cities in Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BCE or to the small states in Syria during the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE as AL-GHAZZI, Kingdom (2010), 213 assumes.

220

Literature, History and Ideology

names as place names in the region of Petra.43 Regardless of whether Knauf is correct, the region of Petra lies outside of the traditional territory attributed traditionally to Midian. That said, his proposal fits well against the backdrop of the northern expansion of the proto-Arabian tribes after the decline of Edom in 552 BCE. Thus, it could well be that Num 31 retrojects the situation of the Persian period in the 5th/4th cent. BCE. The proto-Nabatean expansion of Arab tribes along the King’s Highway in Transjordan up to the province of Ammon may give an explanation for the odd entanglement of Midianites and Moabites in Num 22–25, and which led to Balaam’s incorporation into the Midianites in Num 31:8. The reason why Balaam had to die lies deeper, namely in the application of Deut 13 and his identification as a false prophet engaging in forbidden divination practices. 44 The place of his execution in the Midianite war, which is carried out in Num 31:8 and substantiated in Num 31:16 (combining Num 22–24 with Num 25), cannot be derived equally from the interpretation of the law. Here the abovementioned context offers itself as an explanation. 45 The intermingling of Midianites and Moabites provides one of the peculiar narrative elements in the Balaam narrative: while Moab is terrified by the vast number of Israelites (Num 22:3), Balak bizarrely addresses the elders of Midian (‫זקני מדין‬, Num 22:4). In literary respect, there are strong arguments to consider the elders of Midian in vv. 4 and 7 as an addition. 46 The Midianites are introduced into the See KNAUF, Midian (1988), 166–8. He argues that Rekem is the old Nabatean name of Petra rqmw/*ar-Raqam. Zur, literally “rock,” refers to Ḫirbet Ḍōr between Ṣadaqa and Rās en-Naqb, Hur is assumed to be Ḫaurā’, which is modern day Ḥumaina. Finally, Reba refers to Rābiġat in the northern part of the Ḥiǧāẓ or the name of a saddle on the way from the Arabah to Petra Naqb Rubāʽī. Only Evi “refuge, shelter” cannot be connected to an existing or ancient place name, but it may fit well to the refuges on the hilltops near Petra like, e.g., Umm el-Biyāra. 44 See F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume. 45 The association of Balaam with one of the five kings in Num 31 is perhaps inspired by, or alternatively mirrored by, Gen 36:32, where a certain Bela, Son of Beor, is said to have been an Edomite king. Whether Gen 36:32 is later than Num 31:8 or earlier, is not to decide here. KNAUF, Alter (1985), 253 dates the list 6 th/5 th cent. BCE, but this is by no means clear. Not to mention the possibility that v. 32 is an intrusion into the list, which tends to associate Balaam with the Edomite ruler, which may be inspired by Num 31:8. If the identification of Dinhaba with Ḫirbet ed-Denn (map. ref. 2210.0870) or Ḫirbet elMḥaṭṭa (map. ref. 2186.1341) is correct (for a discussion, see J ERICKE, Ortsangaben [2013], 206), the intermingling of Moab, Edom and Midan is fostered because this place is located in the traditional territory of Moab. 46 See already F REVEL, Reasons, p. 160–1 in the present volume. Concerning Balaam: Strikingly enough, v. 4 mentions Balak’s kingship after he was already introduced in v. 2. Taking this and the double subject in vv. 3–4 (Moab, Balak) into account one can assume that v. 4 was created as a whole in order to insert the Midianites into the story. At the same stage, they were likewise added in v. 7. However, the first mention of Balak in Num 22:2 clearly refers to the narrative in Num 21 and the Amorites. It is striking that Balak is not 43

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

221

story to get them involved as hostile neighbors of the Israelites. This does not make sense from a historio-geographical perspective (there was never a conflation of Moab and Midian), but if their inclusion is referring to the perceived or real threat by the “Arabization” of southern Transjordan, the postpriestly intermingling makes sense. The Moabites and Midianites are also combined in Num 25, which likely constitutes the first instance (in diachronic respect) in the book of Numbers. The earlier Peor episode is supplemented by the Phinehas account in which the Moabite women are replaced by one exemplary Midianite daughter Cozbi. By reading Num 25 as a literary unit, recent attempts gloss over the tension that identifies the Moabites simply with the Midianites by combining ‫ועל־דב ר‬ ‫ כזבי‬and ‫ על־דבר־פעור‬in v. 18. The verse provides the rationale for the war against the Midianites and is taken up in Num 31:16, referring to the counsel of Balaam, who is made responsible for the Baal-Peor incident (‫הן הנה הי ו‬ ‫)לבני ישׂראל בדבר בלעם למסר־מעל ביהוה על־דבר־פעור ותהי המגפה בעדת יהוה‬. Hence Balaam’s ethnicity is here already presented ambiguously as Moabite or Moabite/Midianite. In short: Balaam is presented as a Midianite in Num 25:18, which provides the rationale for the war against Midian, and which results in his own demise at the hand of the Israelites in Num 31:8. However, this link, again, makes much more sense if these stories are referring to the same people group, i.e., the proto-Arabian tribal and trade network that expanded from the Ḥiǧāẓ to the North and into the Negev in the 5th/4th cent. BCE. Having said that, it is plausible to elucidate the qubbāh (‫ אל־הקב ה‬v. 8) and the ’ummāh (‫ראשׁ אמות‬, v. 15) in Num 25 as reminiscent of proto-Arabic dialects and culture, although this is by no means clear. 47

3. Summary (1) This paper questioned the absence of clues to a particular historical situation in the formation of the Pentateuch in the late 5th and 4th cent. BCE. That is, the expansion of Arab tribes in Idumea and the growth of the Nabatean introduced as “king of Moab” as is clearly stated in v. 4. Furthermore, the sending of the messengers in v. 5, which is crucial for the story, fits better if the king of v. 4 and not Moab is the subject. Thus v. 2 which links the Balaam story to the context may be a redactional addition, see F REVEL, Shapes (2019). In consequence, only the elders of Midian and not the whole verse in v. 4 should be regarded as secondary as SCHMIDT, Numeri (2004), 124 suggested: “In V. 4a.7a wurde später ‛die Ältesten Midians’ eingefügt. Damit sollte eine Brücke zu 31,16 geschlagen werden.” In any event, all mentions of the Midianites in the Balaam story appear to be redactional. However, neither in Num 22:4 nor in Num 22:7 is Balaam a Midianite. 47 See KNAUF, Midian (1988), 163.

222

Literature, History and Ideology

influence, which is not reflected explicitly in Pentateuchal texts. Although there are no Arabs lexically or literally in the Pentateuch, the present study has suggested that the latest phases of the post-priestly redactional processes in the Pentateuch in the late 5th and 4th cent. BCE suggest an awareness of the expansion of proto-Arabian tribes from the Negev and the South Arabian Peninsula to the North and West of the Southern Levant. Within this process a literary network of identifications is constituted, which builds up a closeness of the people in the south, east and west of the Arabah. At different levels, the biblical scribes worked with the assumption of a common kinship as well as with shared geographical space. These late scribes had knowledge of most of the Pentateuchal texts, built upon them and networked them in creative ways. The density of linkages, combinations and correlations is fascinating and puzzling at the same time. In order to unravel this density requires a certain perspective or “glasses,” which we have called “Arabization.” (2) It is by no means clear to what amount this network makes use of the older “ethnic” material, which was already placed in the book of Numbers. Whether this redactional process is by one hand or school, or an increasing self-controlling process may be open for discussion. It seems to me an integrative perspective of late redactional Fortschreibungen rather than a coordinated or unified process. (3) By this process the former established boundaries, e.g., between Moabites, Midianites, Edomites, etc. are blurred. Ethnic figures, who were not real historical figures in the second half of the 1st millennium BCE, are also included in an extremely skillful and sophisticated way. The units that are often falsely interpreted as referring to ethnically homogenous entities, but which were rather constituted by a real or just assumed political central authority, are thus dissolved in some way. This may also reflect the process of decline of national sovereignty of Moab and Edom. (4) Although Israel’s detour of Edom can be explained as the result of the concept of the settled land in Transjordan (the Arnon as southern border), some of the geographical confusion in the book of Numbers may be due to this process of “Arabization,” in which the geographical region of the southern Judean hill country and the Negev became Idumean.

Ritual and Practice

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context Everyone will agree that purity is an important issue in the book of Leviticus and that these texts have had the strongest impact on purity discussions through the ages. 1 Because of the predominance of Leviticus in the reception process, the importance of the book of Numbers regarding purity issues is often neglected. But is the idea of purity in Numbers the same as it is in Leviticus, or are there differences in conceptualizations of purity within the book of Numbers? If the latter, are they conflicting concepts or do they complement each other? The following chapter aims to address these questions and to compare purity conceptions in Leviticus and Numbers by giving an overview of the purity texts and their vocabulary, focusing on the book of Numbers. In a second part, the chapter will focus on the example of Num 5:1–4 as one of the most compositionally important purity texts in Numbers. Within this line of argumentation, the chapter aims at determining the specific outline of purity conceptions in the book of Numbers.

1. General Observations and the Semantic Field “Purity/Impurity” in the Book of Numbers If you ask which book contains the main purity texts in the Torah, the most common initial answer is Leviticus. But a closer look reveals that the semantic field of “purity” is present as well in the book of Numbers, and it is almost as frequent and dense there as it is in Leviticus. Although they do not always constitute the central focus, purification, pollution or defilement are addressed in the arrangement of the camp (Num 5:1–3); in the ordeal of jealousy (Num 5:11–31); in the instruction of the vows of the Nazirite (Num 6:1– 21); in the passage on the initiation of the Levites into their service (Num 8); in the commandments regarding the postponement of the Passover ritual (Num 9:1–14); in the explanation of the donations to the priests (Num 18:9– 14) and at the end of the general regulation of their behavior in the service in the tent of meeting (Num 18:32); in the chapter on vows, once the profanation of a vow is brought up (Num 30:3); in the chapter on the Midianite war, when the warriors return with their captives (Num 31:12–24); and at the end of chapter 35, within the regulations of the cities of refuge (Num 35:33–34). 1

See, for instance, POORTHUIS/S CHWARTZ , Purity (2000).

226

Ritual and Practice

In addition to these instances where the theme is at least touched upon, the whole chapter on the red heifer in Num 19 concerns impurity caused by corpses. One may add the narrative chapters 12, 17 and 25, where purity issues are treated more or less explicitly: Miriam’s leprosy (Num 12:12–15), Aaron’s ‫כפר‬-rite on the occasion of the plague (Num 17:6–15) and Phinehas’ act of expiation by killing Cozbi and Zimri (Num 25:5–15). The semantic field covers the entire spectrum, which is shown in the chart below: lexeme

word class

translation

frequency

evidence

to clean, to purify

10

G-stem Num 19:12 (bis), 19; 31:23, 24; D-stem Num 8:6, 7, 15, 21; tH-stem Num 8:7

pure, clean

11

Num 5:28; 9:13; 18:11, 13; 19:9, 18, 19

1

Num 6:9

‫טה ר‬

verb

‫טה ו ר‬

adjective

‫טה ר ה‬

noun

purification, cleanness

‫טמ א‬

verb

to pollute, to defile, to become unclean

24

G-stem Num 6:12; 19:7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22; D-stem Num 5:3; 6:9; 19:13, 20 (bis); 35:34; Num 5:13, 14 (bis), 20, 27, 28, 29; tH-stem Num 6:7

‫טמ א ה‬

noun

pollution, defilement, uncleanness

2

Num 5:19; 19:13

‫טמ א‬

adjective

unclean, defiled, polluted

11

Num 5:2; 9:6, 7, 10; 18:15; 19:13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22

‫נד ה‬

noun

set apart, menstruation

6

Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21; 31:23 (attested only as ‫)מי־נ דה‬

‫חלל‬

verb

to profane

2

D-stem Num 18:32; H-stem Num 30:3

‫חנ ף‬

verb

to pollute

2

H-stem Num 35:33

‫חט א‬

verb

to sin, to purify

10

D-stem Num 19:19; tH-stem Num 8:21; 19:12, 13, 20; 31:19, 20, 23

‫חט את‬

noun

purification offering

43

see below

‫כפר‬

verb

expiate, purify

16

Num 5:8; 6:11; 8:12, 19, 21; 15:25, 28; 17:11, 12

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

227

Besides the undisputed lexical clues to the semantic field of purity, purification, impurity, pollution and defilement in general, one has to consider particularly the terms ‫חטא‬/ ‫ חטאת‬on the one hand and ‫ כפר‬on the other hand. We cannot respond to the scholarly discussion on the ‫חטאת‬-offering here at length, but some introductory considerations may be in order for understanding the particularities of the book of Numbers. There is a growing consensus, following Jacob Milgrom’s assumption that “‘Purification offering’ is certainly the more accurate translation” 2 of ‫חטאת‬, rather than “sin-offering”: “The function of the ḥaṭṭa’t sacrifice […] is to remove contamination (ḥiṭṭē means ‘decontaminate’). Hence, it should be rendered ‘purification offering.’” 3 In his study on the ‫חטאת‬, Nobuyoshi Kiuchi has underlined the connection of this offering with impurity and purification. Accordingly, he admits: “It is, however, incontrovertible that the ḥaṭṭa’t offering and possibly also the term ḥiṭṭē deal with uncleanness.”4 However, the interpretation of the ‫חטאת‬-offering is still debated: Instead of the traditional meaning, Kiuchi sees the primary notion of ‫ חטא‬as “hiding oneself,” 5 and he acknowledges the “rationale for uncleanness […] in the fall (Gen 3).”6 Regarding the connection to an actual sin, in the end he sticks to a psychological transformation of the ‘traditional’ understanding of the ‫ חטאת‬by addressing the level of unconsciousness. Thus, “the ḥaṭṭa’t offering deals with uncovering the offerer before the LORD in form of a sacrificial animal being killed […].” 7 In this interpretation the uncleanness is not physical or acquired by contamination, but mainly by moral means. In contrast to this interpretation, Jacob Milgrom has convincingly argued for an understanding of pollution of the sanctuary by the sinful, that is, polluting, deeds of men. The blood, which is applied to the altar, cleanses the sanctuary by acting as a ritual detergent.8 With this argumentation, Milgrom further substantiated the abovementioned translation “purification offering” for ‫חטאת‬. He assumed two kinds of ‫חטאת‬, which differ as to the place of the application rite, namely, either inside or outside the sanctuary. In his study on Leviticus, Christophe Nihan has also pointed to two types of ‫חטאת‬, but he goes in a different direction: The first type was typically a rite for cleansing of sancta and eliminating impurities, in which the animal’s blood served as a ritual detergent and the carcass, after having absorbed impurity, was disposed of by being burnt outside the sanctuary […]. This ritual was further developed by the school of P […] into a proper offering and extended from the purification MILGROM, Sin-Offering (1971), 237. MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 439. 4 KIUCHI , Study (2003), 101. 5 KIUCHI , Study (2003), 41. 6 KIUCHI , Study (2003), 102. 7 KIUCHI , Study (2003), 102. 8 MILGROM, Kinds (1983), 73. For discussion, see GILDERS, Blood (2008), 77–83. 2 3

228

Ritual and Practice

of sancta to that of persons by being combined with a burnt offering. The second type was an offering made for the atonement of (moral) offenses, possibly mostly collective rather than individual. 9

Both types of ‫ חטאת‬coexist in the books of Leviticus and Numbers alike. Looking at the evidence in Numbers, we find 43 instances of ‫חטאת‬. Four of them clearly use the noun in the sense of “misconduct, sin” (Num 5:6, 7; 12:11; 16:26; 32:23) and can be left aside here because they are not connected to a sacrifice. Numbers 18:9, where the provisioning of the priests is outlined, is not relevant with respect to the purpose of the offering. While the ‫ חטאת‬is mentioned together with ‫ מנחה‬and ‫אשׁם‬, it is not explicitly connected either to a purifying aspect or to moral offenses. The same is true for the thirteen instances in the consecration ceremony in Num 7, although the ceremony may be seen against the backdrop of the purgation of the newly installed altar. But the combination of offerings hints at an integration of the ‫ חטאת‬into the regular sacrificial system.10 The same holds true for most parts of the thirteen instances of the festival calendar in Num 28–29, where the ‫ חטאת‬is often combined with the ‫עלה‬-offering. A ‫ חטאת‬as a public rite is mentioned in the cultic calendar of the New Moon festival, in Num 28:15, where it may be interpreted rather as a purification offering for the sancta, as J. Milgrom suggests, following rabbinic interpretation (m. Shevu’ot 1:4–5). 11 The “regular” cases of Num 6:14, 16; 15:27 are included in the following observations. Of particular interest are the instances in which the ‫חטאת‬-offering is combined with a ‫כפר‬-formula, as in Num 6:11; 8:12; 15:24–25, 27–28; 28:22; 29:5, and the ‫חטאת הכפרים‬, as in Num 29:11. The ‫כפר‬-rite is clearly an expiation rite with purifying aspects. As Roy Gane argues, following Jay Sklar: “‫ כפר‬for sin may also include an aspect of purification because sins can pollute, and ‫ כפר‬for impurity may also include an element of ransoming because impurity causes danger.”12 The intentional object of the ‫כפר‬-rite is usually marked by the preposition ‫“ על‬on behalf of.” However, the central reference and target of the ‫כפר‬-rite is the sanctum and especially the altar, not the offerer.13 In the following I will comment briefly on the relevant passages for the ‫כפר‬-rite in Numbers. All passages are related to purity: (1) In Num 6:11 it is the Nazirite who has defiled himself by touching a corpse unwittingly or, more accurately, who has had indirect contact within NIHAN, Torah (2007), 183–4. For the discrepancies and contradictions of Num 7 vis-à-vis the sacrificial system and the assumption that the initial sacrifices were not individual sacrifices, see MILGROM , Numbers (1990), 362–4. 11 Cf. MILGROM , Numbers (1990), 242. 12 G ANE , Review Sklar (2006); cf. S KLAR, Sin (2005), 186–7. 13 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 178. 9

10

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

229

the room where a deceased human lies. 14 In so doing, he or she has annulled his or her vow by profanation (literally: he has made his vow unclean ‫כי טמא‬ ‫נדרו‬, v. 12). Although unintended, the encounter of the Nazirite with the dead afflicts the sanctuary and thus he/she has to offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons on the eighth day. Though it is not explicated, the temporal setting of Num 6 hints at a correspondence with Num 19:17–19, where the defiled person is purified after seven days, following the performance of the purification rite on the third and seventh days. Thus, in Num 6:11, the priest effects purification because the Nazirite has incurred guilt by reason of the corpse (literally “from that he/she has sinned because of the vitality,”15 ‫מאשׁר‬ ‫ ;)חטא על־נפשׁ‬the offering of two birds ensures that the defilement will not affect the sanctuary. (2) Numbers 8:12 is part of the induction of the Levites, which is displayed ritually as a solemn inauguration with several different aspects: initiation, purification, compensation for Israelite firstborn and determination of the relation between Aaronides and Levites. 16 Following the plot of Num 8, the selection and purification of the Levites is described in Num 8:5–7. Because they operate in proximity to God, special purity requirements are emphasized. Moses shall purify the Levites by sprinkling the water of ‫ חטאת‬on them (‫)הזה עליהם מי חטאת‬. Whether this is identical with the ‫ מי )ה(נדה‬of Num 19 (cf. v. 9: ‫ )חטאת הוא‬or is a separate water of lustration is disputed. 17 Both are similar in function insofar as they are used as agents of purification. In Num 8:7 there is not the merest hint of sin; 18 rather, ‫ חטאת‬here, as in Num 19:12, 14 This interpretation can be substantiated by a couple of arguments: The unwitting pollution follows the general law in Num 6:7. The Nazirite shall not bury his relatives because of his vow. He may not touch any corpse. Numbers 6:9 starts anew with a specific case: The presence of a Nazirite in a room contaminated by death. As the death is sudden and unforeseen (see the double accent on this aspect through the phrase ‫)בפתע פת אם‬, the Nazirite cannot avoid pollution. According to Num 19:14, everyone who is in an enclosed space in the event of a death becomes unclean. Thus, even if the Nazirite does not touch the corpse directly, he has polluted himself through the corpse. Thus, he has to follow the ritual described in Num 19:17–19. Even if he realizes the coincidence of his attendance and the time of death only later, he has sinned and thus has to offer a guilt offering (Lev 5). For the interpretation of the ‫אשׁ ם‬-offering in Num 6:12, see LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 223: “The Nazirite was regarded as a form of sacred property, for he was, after all, sacred to God.” For the interpretation of vv. 13–18, see also GANE, Function (2008), 13–6. 15 For ‫ נ פשׁ‬as vitality of the deceased rather than corpse, see below. 16 See F REVEL, Levites, p. 465–85 in the present volume. 17 MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 61; W RIGHT, Purification (1985), 215; S CHARBERT, Numeri (1992), 38; STAUBLI, Bücher (1996), 233 and others opt for equalization. LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 284 has argued against it, but he acknowledges the functional analogy. Cf. the LXX, which translates ‫ מי חט את‬in Num 8:7 as ὕδωρ ἁγνισµοῦ and ‫ מי נ דה‬in Num 31:23 as τῷ ὕδατι τοῦ ἁγνισµοῦ (because of the following ‫ )?ית חט א‬but in Num 19:9, 13, 20, 21 (bis) as ὕδωρ ῥαντισµοῦ. 18 For a contrary appraisal, see LEVINE , Numbers (1993), 283.

230

Ritual and Practice

means purification. 19 The symbolic sprinkling by the priest shall remove all possible impurities from the Levites that may hamper or separate them from contact with the holy. Numbers 8:12 describes the ritual inauguration by offering two bulls, one as a ‫ חטאת‬and the other as an ‫עלה‬, as expiation/purification on behalf of the Levites (‫)לכפר על־הלוים‬. No certain misconduct, sin or pollution of the Levites is presumed, and following the rite in vv. 5–7 they are already pure. Thus, the ‫כפר‬-rite is related to the altar of the sanctuary rather than to the Levites personally (cf. esp. Lev 8:15, 34; 16:30). The cleansing aims at the inner relationship between YHWH and the Levites, who are singled out as his particular property. With the purgation of the sanctum from all impurities connected to the Levites, this relationship is established as pure. This line of interpretation is substantiated by the execution in Num 8:21, where the phrase ‫ ויכפר עליהם אהרן‬is followed by ‫לטהרם‬, “on behalf of their purification” or “to purify them.” 20 (3) In the chapter of additional commandments on sacrifices and atonement, the passage Num 15:22–31 treats inadvertent trespasses. While vv. 24– 26 cover unintentional sins by the community, vv. 27–29 cover the individual case of ‫שׁגגה‬-wrongdoing. The structure of the passages is similar, but the number of sacrifices differs. Both cases require a goat as purification offering, and in both cases the order is followed by a ‫כפר‬-formula: ‫וכפר הכהן על‬ “and the priest shall make atonement on behalf of […]”. Although not explicitly stated, the inadvertent sins have defiled the sanctuary. Because of their defiling impact on the sanctum, the blood ritual for purification is required for the altar. In both cases, forgiveness follows the sacrificial rite, denoted by a weqaṭal of ‫ סלח‬in the N-stem: ‫“ ונסלח ל‬and they/he shall be forgiven.” As Jacob Milgrom has emphasized, the forgiveness is not part of the purification ritual; rather, the ‫כפר‬-ritual is the formal pre-condition for the mercy of God and the forgiveness of the inadvertent trespasses.21 (4) The purification rite as part of a purification offering (‫חטאת‬-offering) followed by a ‫כפר‬-formula is attested explicitly twice in the late festival calendar in Num 28–29 (Num 28:22; 29:5), which cannot be discussed here at length. Of special significance is the phrase ‫ חטאת הכפרים‬in Num 29:11, which may be translated as “the purification offering of purgation.” This is

19 A further argument can be seen in the use of the tH-stem of ‫ ח ט א‬in the sense of “to purify”, which is attested in Num 8:21; 19:12, 13, 20; 31:19, 20, 23 merely in connection with the ‫ מי חט את‬and the ‫מי נ דה‬. The verb in Num 8:21 is usually translated as “purifying from sin”, as in RSV, NRSV, etc. But see MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 64; LEVINE , Numbers (1993), 270: “they purified themselves.” 20 Cf. NIHAN, Torah (2007), 179. 21 See MILGROM , Numbers (1990), 123–4.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

231

related to the Day of Atonement, as can be seen from the date and from the parallel in Exod 30:10.22 After taking a closer look at the passages on the ‫כפר‬-rite in Numbers, we can conclude that the ‫חטאת‬-offering in these cases can be termed a “purification offering” and that the ‫כפר‬-rite clearly shows aspects of purgation. Notwithstanding differences in detail, the book of Numbers is part of the priestly purity system. This is based on the physical, contagious dimension of impurities, on the one hand, and the importance of purgation for the sanctum, on the other hand. Because the impure and the holy are antagonistic and mutually exclusive of one another, the sanctuary has to be kept free from all impurities. The most striking characteristic of this system is the violability of the sanctuary by pollutions from afar, via unatoned trespasses. Thus, the ‫חטאת‬offerings mentioned above are required for expiation and purgation of the sanctum. It is most obvious that a strict separation between moral and physical impurity falls short of this cultic system. There is neither a “pure” moral purity nor a physical impurity without any link to the ethos of a specific society and thus to a certain ethic. The levels are closely related to each other and are often intertwined. In the book of Numbers there is neither a spiritualization of purity nor an independent metaphorical use of purity outside of the cultic realm. 23 In sum: The evidence of the book of Numbers seems to corroborate the development and integration of the ‫ חטאת‬in the priestly offering system but does not provide clear evidence for two separate and distinct types of ‫ חטאת‬or an inner diachrony. In most instances, the purifying aspect and the relatedness to the sanctum stand in the background.24 The “two types” are not clearly differentiated, and although they are related to sin in some instances, they are largely free of moral aspects. Before progressing from the semantic aspects of purity to Num 5:1–4 as an example, I want once more to emphasize one peculiarity of the semantic system of Numbers: The verb ‫ חטא‬is used rarely in Exodus–Numbers in the Dstem in the sense of “to purify” or “to purge,” especially for the altar (Exod 29:36; Lev 8:15) but also for the purification of the contaminated house (Lev 14:49, 52) or of one who has been defiled by the realm of death (once; Num 19:19). 25 In contrast, the tH-stem of ‫ חטא‬is used only in the book of Numbers (Num 8:21; 19:12, 13, 20; 31:19, 20, 23). As we have seen, the verb ‫ חטא‬in 22 Cf. LEVINE, Numbers (2000), 388–9 and for further considerations, NIHAN , Calendars (2008), esp. 182, 207–10 rejecting the assumption that ‫ חט את הכפר ים‬in Num 29:11 has to be regarded as an addition. 23 This holds true for the impurity of the land in Num 35:33, although the concept of the defiling blood-guilt is a bit too complicated to deal with here at length. For some further considerations on Num 35:33–4, see below. 24 See J ANOWSKI, Sühne (2000), 101–2. 25 Additionally, in Lev 6:19 and 9:45 the D-stem denotes the performance of a ‫חט את‬offering.

232

Ritual and Practice

the tH-stem in Num 8:21 has the meaning “to purify from uncleanness” and may not have the connotation of “sin.” The same holds true for Num 19:12– 13, 20. Finally, in Num 31:19–20 ‫ חטא‬in the tH-stem clearly means “to purify.” Apart from Num 8:21, all instances are related to the defilement by death that is the most important “purity” issue in the book of Numbers (see below). We can summarize the considerations on the semantics of purity in the book of Numbers as follows: A wide range of purity and impurity terms is attested in the book of Numbers. There are references to physical, ritual and moral aspects but neither to a genealogical nor an “ethnic” dimension (e.g., the “holy seed” in Ezra 9:2) nor to a metaphorical use of purity. Only once (Num 35:33–34) is the land explicitly the object of defilement by bloodshed. This has clear moral and metaphorical aspects, but again the physical dimension stands in the foreground (see below). There is no indication of a separate and distinct moral dimension of purity. All attestations related to persons deal with the ability or inability to attend the cult or to be part of the congregation that is constituted by the presence of God in its midst. Any impurity will hinder encounters with the holy and may pollute the sanctuary. This is particularly explicit in the inauguration of the Levites in Num 8. The Levites require extensive purification before their service around and for the tabernacle (Num 1–4, cf. 9:3b). Very important is the relation between holiness and purity, pollution and the integrity of the sanctum. The aspect of purgation can be observed in the use of ‫ חטא‬and ‫חטאת‬, especially in the use of the tH-stem of ‫ חטא‬that is found only in the book of Numbers. The book of Numbers confirms the hypothesis that ‫ כפר‬is not primarily restricted to “atonement” as reconciliation of the sinner with God but rather constitutes the purgation of the sanctum, which would otherwise be affected permanently by the committed sins. If impurities are not purified or treated properly, their “negative” power accumulates and defiles the sanctum from afar. If the defilement is not eliminated or absorbed ritually, the logic of the cult – that is, the presence of the life-giving God in its midst – is endangered. It must be emphasized that this conception reveals the impossibility of separating the intertwined physical and moral aspects of purity. The most relevant issue in the book of Numbers is coping with death. The realm of death is seen to contrast with the lifegiving power and thus defiles the holiness of the sanctum (see on this further below). Overall, purity is an important issue in the book of Numbers. The frequency of the total attestations, especially in Num 5, 8 and 19, reveals a density of purity vocabulary similar to that found in Lev 11–15. 26 Hence, the opinion that purity issues are treated primarily in Leviticus is misleading. 26 Taking as a reference point, for example, the relation to the total number of words in each chapter, Num 19 is third in the quantitative ranking of purity-related vocabulary, directly after Lev 15 and Lev 12.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

233

Striking, however, is the restriction of purity issues to a few chapters: Although we would expect purity to be an important theme, it is absent from the organization of the camp and the order of service in Num 1–4. Yet after this section, almost every chapter up to the departure of Israel in Num 10 focuses on several purity aspects. It is remarkable that in the narrative chapters (Num 11–14; 16–17; 20–25), which are usually considered at least in part to be older than the priestly stratum, purity is by no means absent, although it plays only a minor role. Apart from the central chapter of Num 19 (and some minor issues in Num 31:12–24 and Num 35:33–34), purity is generally less present in the second half of the book of Numbers. In sum, even though purity is an important issue throughout the whole book of Numbers, the book’s structure and plot are not dominated by this theme. The second part of this paper will focus on Num 5:1–4, its contextual integration within the book of Numbers and its relations to Leviticus. Thereby it will be possible to expand our considerations on the function of purity in Numbers and our comparison of it to the book of Leviticus. The impurity caused by corpses will receive detailed attention because it constitutes one of the most striking particularities regarding purity in the book of Numbers.

2. The Purity of the Camp: A General Order in Numbers 5:1–4 The book of Numbers begins with the preparation for the wilderness sojourn with the census of the people and the organization of the camp in Num 1–4. It is quite significant that purity regulations appear after the general organization of the camp. The congregation is structured as follows: the sanctuary in the very center of the camp is framed by the Aaronide priests in front of the eastern entrance and the Levites at the sides and back (South: Kohathites; North: Merarites; West: Gershonites). Around the transportable sanctuary, the campgrounds of the twelve tribes are arranged. Thus, the congregation of the people of Israel is constituted as a unity in preparation for setting out (Num 10:11–28). On the one hand, we must consider the composition of Numbers as a situational adaptation of the desert migration. On the other hand, it is also the constitution of the congregation in a space with clear borders defining “in” and “out.” The camp may be compared to an idealized walled city with a sanctuary in its center. On a third level, the camp also signifies the land in which the Israelites will settle (see Num 21 and 32 for Transjordan and Num 34 for Cisjordan). 27 On a literal level, the text addresses the specific

27 The situation is still more complicated because the borders of the Holy Land possessed by the Israelites are an ideal rather than real. The historical background is much more likely the province of Yehûd in the late Persian period, which is presented as separate

234

Ritual and Practice

situation in the desert, but likewise on a conceptual or metaphorical level it presents the ideal city (i.e., Jerusalem28) and the ideal land (Israel, the Promised Land). The intertwined conceptual levels represent a specific worldview that is structured on a horizontal axis by dichotomies: presence/absence, holy/profane, pure/impure, etc. (see the figure below).

Fig. 1: Concentric Purity

The concentric conception of the camp, or the city or land, is highly idealized along a horizontal axis. The sanctuary lies at the center and the outer edge is the periphery. All outside borders have the same distance to the center of holiness. The sacred precinct is the most holy and pure, and the uncleanness of the periphery may endanger the purity of the center. Thus, purity has a liminal function, emphasizing the borders in relation to the center. Although the whole concept is geared to the center, where the divine presence lies, the fringe and the outskirts are not inherently impure. 29 While the sanctuary is constitutively pure, the camp is not pure in principle or per se, because of the unavoidable uncleanness of the Israelites; therefore, the issue of purity has to be addressed after narratively constituting the basic arrangement of the from all neighboring provinces. But the matter of this perspective is too complicated to be dealt with in this paper. 28 See A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 500: “Der Text der Kapitel 5–6 wie auch die folgenden Texte sind zu lesen als Vorbilder, nach denen in Jerusalem die Grundregeln der Reinheit und der Heiligung zu beachten sein sollten.” 29 See, for example, Num 19:9 where a pure place ( ‫ )מק ו ם ט הו ר‬exists outside the camp.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

235

camp. 30 This crucial function is assumed by Num 5:1–4, which at first glance may appear rather marginal: The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelites to put out of the camp

‫וי דבר י הוה אל־ משׁ ה ל אמר׃‬ ‫צו את ־בנ י ישׂ ר אל וישׁ ל חו מן־ המחנ ה‬

everyone with skin disease, and everyone who has discharge,

‫כל ־צר וע וכל ־זב‬

and everyone who is unclean regarding a corpse.

‫וכל ט מא ל נפשׁ׃‬

You shall put out male and female alike, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp, where I dwell among them. The Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp; as the LORD had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites

did. 31

‫מזכר ע ד־נ קבה תשׁ לחו‬ ‫אל־ מחוץ ל מחנ ה ת שׁל חום‬ ‫ול א י טמאו את־ מחנ י הם‬ ‫אשׁ ר אני שׁ כן בת וכם׃‬ ‫ויע שׂו־ כן בנ י ישׂ ר אל‬ ‫וישׁ ל חו אות ם אל־ מחוץ ל מחנ ה‬ ‫כאשׁ ר דבר י הוה אל־ משׁ ה‬ ‫כ ן ע שׂ ו בנ י י שׂ ר א ל ׃‬

The three cases of impurity are defined linguistically in the shortest manner possible: A general quantifier (‫ )כל‬is followed by a participle or a short nominal clause. The narrative sequence in v. 4 reports the execution in a formulaic style. 32 But the simple, straightforward phraseology should not obscure the fact that Num 5:1–4 is very important in a compositional respect. The newly established camp is configured as a pure enclosure that has to be kept clean for God, who is considered to be dwelling in the midst of the people (see above). Addressing purity after establishing the camp is all the more necessary because the encampment of the Israelites is likewise to be understood as a military camp, 33 which has clear inside-outside borders marked by the purity of the camp.

Cf. LEE, Coherence (2008), 474–6, 482–4, who strengthens the compositional link between Num 1–4 and 5:1–4 on the one hand, and on the other hand quite correctly emphasizes that purity is conceptually relevant in Num 5:1–10:10: “The concepts of divine holiness, purity or uncleanness are at best indirect unifiers of the twelve units of Num 5,1– 10,10” (IBIDEM, 483). 31 The translations given in this text are mostly borrowed from the RSV, sometimes with slight variations. 32 See POLA, Priesterschrift (1995), 124–7, 144, esp. 127. 33 Cf. HIEKE, Unreinheit (2009), 50: “Das ‘Lager’ von Numeri 5 ist – kurz vor dem Aufbruch zur Wüstenwanderung – konzipiert als eine Mischung aus regulärer Wohngemeinschaft und Kriegslager […]. Es ist kein Kriegslager im strengen Sinn, da auch Frauen und Kinder eingeschlossen sind und die dadurch auftretenden Unreinheiten wie Menstruation und Samenerguss beim Geschlechtsverkehr nicht zum Lagerausschluss führen.” 30

236

Ritual and Practice

2.1 The Linguistic Structure and Conception of Numbers 5:1–4 Thus, after the arrangement of the camp and the regulations for the ministry of the Levites in Num 1–4, Num 5 starts (or, to make it clear on the conceptual level: has to start) with general remarks on the purity of the newly arranged camp, conveyed in a direct instruction to Moses. Moses is assigned by the LORD to command the people to keep the camp clean from (1) every leper,34 (2) everyone having a discharge and (3) everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead (‫כל־צרוע וכל־זב וכל טמא לנפשׁ‬, v. 2). The threefold case is followed by the same directive, namely to put the unclean person out of the camp (‫מזכר על־נקבה י שׁלחו אל־מחוץ למחנה תשׁלחום‬, v. 3a), that they may not defile their camp (‫ולא יטמאו את־מחניהם‬, v. 3). This is substantiated by the dwelling of the LORD in the midst of the camp (‫אשׁר אני שׁכן בתוכ ם‬, v. 3). The short unit is closed by a slightly expanded formulaic execution report that the people of Israel did as the L ORD said to Moses ( ... ‫ויעשׂו־כן בני י שׂראל‬ ‫כאשׁר דבר יהוה אל־משׁה כן עשׂו בני ישׂראל‬, v. 4). The focus of the paragraph is underlined by semantic repetitions. The term ‫ מחנה‬and the verbal phrase ‫( שׁלח‬D-stem) are used four times each. The passage begins with the third person plural (they shall put out of the camp […]; ‫מן‬ ‫המחנה‬: “where from”) and shifts to the 2nd pers. pl. (you shall put out both male and female […]; ‫מזכר עד־נקבה‬: “whom”, and finally you shall put them outside the camp; ‫אל־מחוץ למחנה‬: “whereto”). This is for rhetorical reasons and need not indicate diachronic development. 35 The unit is highly structured, as can be seen in the following figure:

34 There is a consensus that “leper,” which is traditionally used to translate ‫צ ר וע‬, denotes a person with a skin disease rather than leprosy (so-called Hansen’s disease, caused by the Mycobacterium leprae). 35 But see BAENTSCH, Exodus (1903), 469; D AVIES , Numbers (1995), 44–5. N OTH , Numbers (1968), 46: “The double phrase in v. 3a disrupts the context by its use of the second person and is therefore shown to be an addition.” In the same way, KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 163–5, who considers v. 3a an addition that seeks to provide the dismissed people with protection and support: “Der Zusatz will also in zweifacher Hinsicht präzisieren. Auch für die Frau hat die Vorschrift ihre Gültigkeit; und die Reinerhaltung des Lagers ist nicht gleichbedeutend mit der brutalen Ausstoßung der Unreinen, sondern deren Platz ist in der Nähe des Lagers, vermutlich weil die Ausstoßung in den meisten Fällen befristet war.” This interpretation is by no means given in the difference between ‫מן־ המחנה‬ and ‫אל־ מחוץ ל מחנ ה‬, which corresponds to the difference between “from where” and “whereto.” Thus, there are no substantial reasons to cut off v. 3a and v. 4aβγ. The literary criticism of the latter, in particular, is a petitio principii.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

237

Fig. 2: Structures of Numbers 5:1–4

The core and focus is expressed at the end of the instruction, namely, the general need for the congregation to avoid any pollution because of the presence of the Lord in the midst of the congregation. 36 The rationale follows the concentric concept of graded holiness (see above). While the center is defined by the sanctuary, the outer, liminal border is the transition area from “inside” to “outside” the camp. The camp is depicted as having clear spatial borders that separate the center and its surroundings from the periphery. Therefore, the polluted person has to be put out; otherwise the center would be defiled by the uncleanness. Significantly, the ‫ מחנה‬in the rationale in v. 3 has an enclitic personal pronoun, “their camp.” There is no need for text-critical arguments37 since the Septuagint attests the plural as well: τὰς παρεµβολὰς αὐτῶν. Rather, it seems to be a textual play on the single camp and the living places of the people (oscillating between bed and encampment). These encampments (‫ )מחניהם‬together with the sanctuary constitute the camp (‫מחניהם‬ ‫( )אשׁר אני שׁכן בתוכ ם‬Num 1–4) and are thus related to the holiness and purity of the center. The plural illustrates the spatial concept of the whole passage: By identifying the individual living places with the zone that is determined by the presence of the divine, the whole camp becomes affected by the holiness of the center. There is no real periphery inside the camp; the center pervades the surroundings all the way to the outer fringe. The camp is defined by the sanctuary and the holiness of the divine. The phrase ‫ שׁכן ב תוך‬takes up Exod 25:8 (‫ )ועשׂו לי מקדשׁ ושׁכנתי בתוכם‬and Exod 29:45 (‫ושׁכ נתי בתוך בני י שׂראל‬ ‫)והייתי להם לאלהים‬. It justifies the requirement of purity with the presence of the holy expressed in the Priestly Code in the Sinai pericope. Conceptually one may also compare Lev 11:44–45: 36 37

Cf. LEE, Coherence (2008), 484. See, for example, ASHLEY , Numbers (1993), 106 without any substantiation.

238

Ritual and Practice

For I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves […] For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

‫כי אני י הוה אל הי כם‬ ‫והת קדשׁת ם‬ ‫והיי תם ק דשׁי ם‬ ‫כי ק דושׁ אני‬ ... ‫ול א ת ט מאו את ־נ פשׁת יכם‬ ‫כי אני י הוה‬ ‫המעל ה את כם מאר ץ מצ רי ם‬ ‫להית ל כם ל אל הים‬ ‫והיי תם ק דשׁי ם‬ ‫כי ק דושׁ אני‬

The fourfold ‫כי‬-motivation (A “I am YHWH, your God;” B “I am holy;” A’ “I am YHWH, your savior;” B’ “I am holy”) accounts for the “mimicry” of the people: to be holy and, hence, to avoid defilement. Purity is the mode of encounter with the holy rather than an essential aspect of holiness. The rationale is not “be pure for I am pure” but “be holy for I am holy.” Purity seems to be the exterior of holiness. While Lev 11 substantiates the command not to defile oneself by eating unclean animals by making an appeal to the nature of God and the derived demand to be holy, the particularity of Num 5 lies in its strong spatial conceptualization. If one replaces the camp with the land, this also holds true for Num 35:34: You shall not defile the land

‫ול א ת טמא את ־ האר ץ‬

in which you live,

‫אשׁ ר את ם ישׁ בי ם בה‬

in the midst of which I dwell;

‫אשׁ ר אני שׁ כן בת וכה‬

for I the LORD dwell

‫כי אני י הוה שׁ כן‬

in the midst of the people of Israel.

‫בת וך בני ישׂ ראל‬

As in Num 5, the requirement for purity follows from the concentric spatial concept and the centrifugal force of the holy center and the presence of the divine.38 However, the focus of Num 5:1–4 is a general view on the constitution of the camp, rather than single and differentiated regulations regarding purity. Accordingly, neither the temporal limits of uncleanness nor the modes or rites to dissolve it are addressed. There are no rules of responsibility, jurisdiction, or competence regarding the attestation of impurities. The threefold ‫ כל‬is absolute and pretends that the cases are obvious. There is no judgment by a priest as in Lev 13–14. The passage focuses on defilement and uncleanness more generally; the precise and detailed regulations have to be 38

For further observations on Num 35:33–34, see below.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

239

commanded elsewhere (see below). Thus, purity is in a sense the “regulative idea” of the camp, its organization, structure and form. The three modes of impurity are of overriding importance. They are characterized not as acts of active pollution but rather by the fact that immediate and virtual contact with them is defiling and thus endangers the whole camp. One can compare this to regulations for entering sacred areas in different cultures, which are often related to bodily defined (often gender-biased) conditions of purity. 39 Insofar as they are applied generally in Num 5:1–4 to the camp, one can see the extension of the holiness concept of sacred space to the whole congregation. The brevity of the regulations in Num 5:1–4, without any further specification, emphasizes their relatedness to the contextual presuppositions of (1) the commitment to the constitutive holiness of the community (Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:26 et al.) and (2) the graded holiness of the sacred space expanded from the inner center to the outer fringe (Num 1–4). A further hint that Num 5:1–4 is better understood as a compositional hinge with general importance, rather than as a compendium with catechetical purpose, 40 may be seen in the lack of the natural, “regular” and unavoidable impurities (the blood of menstruation, childbirth and seminal emission). These are not ominous in the same way as skin diseases, irregular discharges and defiling contact with corpses. Rhetorically, the threefold ‫ כל‬in v. 2aγb is underlined by the singular phrase ‫מזכר עד־נקבה‬, which mentions both sexes explicitly.41 This seems essential in order to avoid the misunderstanding that the strict purity laws and the danger of defilement are only due to the fact that the ‫ מחנה‬is the Israelite military camp (Deut 23:10–15) and therefore related only to the men counted in the census (Num 1:36–45). The purity of the camp is the responsibility of the whole congregation of the ‫בני ישׂראל‬, which comprises men, women and children, leaders and people, priests and Levites to the same degree. If the understanding of the ‫ מחנה‬as military camp was the (only) rationale of Num 5:1–4, the silence on defilement by excrement and ejaculation (Deut 23:11– 14) would be much more striking. 39 Cf. regarding Egypt Q UACK, Conceptions (2013); regarding Greece, see GUENTHER, Concepts (2013) and ROBERTSON, Concept (2013) with further references. 40 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 501: “Ein einheitlicher, als Kompendium gedachter Text mit Beispielen für die katechetische Unterweisung des Volkes.” In contrast, in a recent article Achenbach labels the unit an episodic legend: “In einer episodenhaften ätiologischen Legende wird erzählt, man habe Aussätzige, Ausflussbehaftete und solche, die durch Berührung mit einem (toten) Körper […] verunreinigt gewesen seien, aus dem Lager ausgeschlossen (V. 2)” (ACHENBACH, Verunreinigung [2009], 360). This categorization underestimates the legal character and compositional function of Num 5:1–4, but see Achenbach’s appropriate considerations at the end of his article (see on this below). 41 Cf. both sexes regarding purity issues explicitly in Lev 12:5–7; 15:33. For the phrase ‫ זכר ונ קבה‬or ‫זכר או נ קבה‬, cf. Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:19; 7:3, 9, 16; Lev 3:1, 6; Deut 4:16.

240

Ritual and Practice

In sum: Num 5:1–4 is the general constitution of the camp’s holiness and purity. By addressing three grave and general cases of defilement, it integrates the purity laws of Leviticus as the foundation of the congregation. The constitution of the community is essentially defined by the presence of the holy in its center. 2.2 The Significance of the Three Impurity Cases Regarding Content and Context In a first review, we will focus on the three forms of impurity separately. After that we will concentrate on defilement by corpses in particular and subsequently come back to compositional and diachronic concerns. The compositional function and the Janus face of the passage become clear when we look at the three categories of impurity: (1) ‫ כל־צרוע‬includes all skin diseases that were ascertained as anomalies in Lev 13–14. 42 There, the afflicted person is declared impure (‫ טמא‬D-stem) by the priest. In cases of doubt or unclear diagnosis, the priest has to segregate (‫ סגר‬H-stem) the afflicted (‫ )נגע‬person and examine him or her again after a period of seven days. In cases that are not diagnosed as ‫ צרעת‬or that have healed up in the meantime, the priest declares the person pure again (‫ טהר‬Dstem). Leviticus 14 gives directions for the cultic reintegration of the healed person. As long as a person is declared unclean (‫)טמא‬, he or she must live alone outside of the camp (‫הוא בדד י שׁב מחוץ למחנה מושׁב ו‬, Lev 13:46). While Lev 13–14 gives the more detailed regulation, the isolation of the diseased outside the camp in Num 5 is in line with Lev 13–14. Numbers 12:10–15 is a narrative application of the law: Miriam is struck by ‫ צרעת‬and has to keep out of the camp for seven days. Thus Num 5:2 links Lev 13–14 and Num 12 compositionally. (2) ‫ כל־זב‬includes all kinds of bodily discharge, including secretion, pus, ichor, semen and especially blood. It is striking that the discharge is neither specified nor narrowed down. Obviously, it is only understandable with Lev 15 as its background. The noun ‫ זוב‬and the G-stem participle ‫ זוב‬are used in Lev 15 frequently to designate bodily or, more precisely, male and female genital discharges that make a person temporarily unclean, so that he or she is unable to attend the cult (‫)טמא‬. These defilements are uncontrolled and involuntary but not pathological; 43 they do not need priestly appraisal. After cleansing, the person is potentially ‫“ טהר‬pure, that is, capable of attending the cult again” but has to wait a further period of seven days until he or she is While less frequent than the noun ‫צ רעת‬, the G-stem passive participle is used in Lev 13:44, 45; 14:3; 22:4 to classify the ‫צרע ת‬-skin anomaly in a diagnostic manner (Diagnosebezeichnung). Exodus 4:6; Lev 14:2 and Num 12:10 (and other instances outside the Torah) use the D-stem passive participle. See SEIDL , ‫( ָצ ַרַﬠת‬2003), 469–75. 43 See NIHAN , Torah (2007), 282–3. 42

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

241

reintegrated into the cultic community. After washing the clothes and the body in fresh water, he or she is clean ‫( טהר‬Lev 15:13, 28); the priest offers a ‫ חטאת‬and an ‫עולה‬-offering on the eighth day to reintegrate the person through ritual purification (‫עלי ה‬/‫ויכפר עליו‬, Lev 15:14–15, 29–30). The most striking difference between Num 5:2 and Lev 15 is that the unclean person with abnormal bodily discharge does not have to leave the camp in Leviticus.44 He or she may live in the camp but every contact with him or her is defiling for the period of his or her uncleanness. We will focus on this difference more precisely below. (3) Finally, ‫ כל טמא לנפשׁ‬mentions uncleanness literally, in contrast to the two aforementioned cases. While ‫ כל צרוע‬and ‫ כל זב‬were made intelligible as repercussions of the taxonomies of the purity laws in Lev 11–15, the defilement by corpses is more specific. The impurity caused by dead bodies is mentioned in Leviticus, but not at the same length as are the ‫ צרוע‬and ‫ זב‬cases. This argument is valid only if ‫ כל טמא לנפשׁ‬refers to dead human bodies exclusively and not to animal carcasses, which are mentioned several times in Lev 11:8, 11, 24–25, 31–40. Touching the carcass of an unclean animal is as polluting as touching a corpse. But this conception is not intended in Num 5, nor is it present at all in the book of Numbers. Taking the semantics of the Torah into account, it is quite clear that Num 5:2 covers dead human bodies only. 45 The combination of the adjective ‫ טמא‬with ‫ נפשׁ‬introduced by the

44 But

compare Deut 23:11–12 regarding the military camp. The texts in the Hebrew Bible are largely but not entirely consistent in differentiating between corpses and carcasses. Usually the dead person or dead body is denoted by participial forms of the root ‫( מות‬Gen 23:4, 6, 8; Exod 12:30; Num 17:13; 19:11, 13, 18; Deut 14:1; 26:14; 2 Sam 14:2; 2 Kgs 8:5; Job 33:20; Ps 31:13; 88:6, 11; Qoh 4:2 et al.). Except for Exod 21:34–36 where it is used for a carcass of an ox, the participle is restricted to deceased humans and corpses. It can be used to indicate the recently deceased (e.g., Ezek 44:25) as well as the long dead (e.g., Lam 3:6). ‫ע צם‬, which literally means “bone,” is used in the plural to denote a dead body or corpse (Jdg 19:29; 1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 21:12, 13, 14; 1 Kgs 13:31; 1 Chron 10:12; Ezek 37:1, 7; Amos 2:1); the mummified body of Joseph (Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32); or skeletons that have been dead for a longer period (1 Kgs 13:2, 31; 2 Kgs 13:21; 23:14, 16, 18, 20; 2 Chron 34:5; Jer 8:1; Ezek 6:5; 37:3, 4, 5, 7, 11; cf. Job 20:11; Ps 141:7). This term is usually not used for carcasses. The same holds true for ‫פגר‬, which is used for corpses, mostly in cases of death by force (Lev 26:30; Num 14:29, 32, 33; Isa 14:19; 37:36; Jer 41:9; Nah 3:3; 2 Kgs 19:35: ‫ פגר ים מתי ם‬et al.). Apart from Gen 15:11 there is no record of ‫ פגר‬denoting a carcass. On the contrary, the terminus technicus ‫ נבל ה‬is used for corpses and carcasses alike, but in a remarkable distribution between non-priestly and priestly texts: While in the non-priestly tradition ‫ נבל ה‬is used to denote a dead human body (Deut 21:23; 28:26; Josh 8:29; 1 Kgs 13:22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30; 2 Kgs 9:37; Ps 79:2; Isa 5:25; 26:19; Jer 7:33; 9:21; 16:4; 19:7; 26:23; 34:20; 36:30), it is used in the priestly tradition solely for animal carcasses (Lev 5:2; 7:24; 11:8, 11, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40; 17:15; 22:8; cf. Ezek 44:31). Finally, ‫ טר פה‬is a term that denotes the animal carcass especially under the aspect that the death of the animal was not 45

242

Ritual and Practice

preposition ‫ ל‬would then express the pollution caused by the realm of death: everyone who is unclean regarding the ‫נפשׁ‬, 46 which means most obviously becoming unclean by touching a corpse. There are several predominantly late instances in which ‫ נפשׁ‬is related to death or the dead: Lev 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num 5:2; 6:11; 9:6, 7, 10, 11; 19:11, 13; Hag 2:13. Although there is a consensus that the term does not mean “soul” as an entity separate from the body, there is an ongoing discussion on the semantic value of ‫ נפשׁ‬in the above-listed instances: Does it denote “corpse?” 2.3 The Conception and Logic of Defilement by Corpses If we look for example at Lev 19:28 ‫“( ושׂרט לנפשׁ לא תתנו ב שׂרכם‬You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead”, NRSV), and compare it to Deut 14:1 ‫ למת תתגדדו‬... ‫“( לא‬You must not lacerate yourselves […] for the dead”, NRSV), ‫ נפשׁ‬appears to be synonymous with ‫מות‬. The same holds true for Lev 21:1, which begins with the general commandment regarding the priests: ‫“( לנפשׁ לא־יטמא בעמי ו‬No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his relatives”). By defining different social relations that allow or prohibit defilement,47 vv. 2–4 make clear that the funeral and the maintenance of the deceased are addressed (cf. Ezek 44:25–27). Thus, it is obvious that any corpse defiles in some way, yet depending on the degree of family relation, defilement of the priest may be permitted. Very interesting in this respect are the restrictions on the high priest in Lev 21:11, where the wording natural (Gen 31:39; Exod 22:12, 30; Lev 7:24; 17:15; 22:8; Ezek 4:14; 44:31; Nah 2:13). In the aspect of violence, the term may be seen as analogous to ‫פגר‬. While the living animal is addressed as ‫( נ פשׁ )ה(חי ה‬Gen 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 9:10, 12; Lev 11:10 et al.), the carcass of an animal is never designated as a ‫נ פשׁ‬, esp. not in the priestly tradition. Thus, it is semantically clear that Num 5:2 comprises human corpses only. This is further substantiated by the appositional ‫ נ פשׁ )ה(אדם‬in Num 9:6, 7; 19:11, 13. There are some additional terms denoting a corpse or carcass that are of less relevance but should be mentioned here for the sake of completeness: ‫גוי ה‬, literally “body,” can denote a human and an animal body alike (Gen 47:18; Neh 9:37; cf. Ezek 1:11, 23). In Jdg 14:8–9 the carcass of a lion is meant, in 1 Sam 31:10, 12 the dead body of Saul (1 Chron 10:12 uses ‫ גופה‬instead). Psalms 110:6 and Nah 3:3 use the term as a synonym of ‫פגר‬, denoting dead human bodies. Finally, ‫ מפל ה‬denotes a carcass in Jdg 14:8. 46 The Septuagint translates ‫ נ פשׁ‬literally, as in all other relevant instances; in Num 5:2 καὶ πάντα ἀκάθαρτον ἐπὶ ψυχῇ. For the understanding of ψυχή as “vitality,” see RÖSEL, Geburt (2009), 160–6, esp. 160: “Vor allem bei Homer bezeichnet ψυχή die Lebenskraft des Menschen, die am Atem erkennbar ist.” Rösel wants to see traces of a conceptual shift in Lev 21:1 in the use of the exceptional plural Ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς instead of the singular (see further RÖSEL , Mensch [2005], 80). However, the change of the number may be influenced by Lev 21:11 and the exceptions in Lev 21:2–4. 47 It is striking that the wife of the priest (see Lev 21:7, 13–15; Ezek 44:22) is not mentioned at all. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is permitted for a priest to bury his wife.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

243

differs slightly: ‫ועל כל־נפשׁת מת לא יבא לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא‬. The NRSV translates: “He shall not go where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother.” The demand for purity is increased with the rank of the priest, because of his greater proximity to the sanctum, the holy and pure center. While every priest may defile himself in burying his close relatives, the highest priest, or high priest, may not even defile himself in the case of parental death. He is generally warned not to approach any ‫נפשׁת מת‬. The phrase ‫ נפשׁ מת‬is also attested in Num 6:6 in the law of the Nazirite, which is closely related to the purity prescriptions for the high priest. If ‫נפשׁ‬ were to be understood simply as a synonym of ‫ פגר‬or the like, the phrase ‫נפשׁ‬ ‫ מת‬would be a pleonasm. Because the basic meaning of ‫ נפשׁ‬is “gorge,” “throat,” “desire,”48 and the noun does express vigor and vitality, the denotation “corpse” as a euphemism49 was challenged convincingly by Diethelm Michel and Horst Seebass. 50 They argued, in contrast, that in the context of death the noun denotes the “human spirit” or vitality that was dissolved in the process of dying. 51 ‫( נפשׁ מת‬Lev 21:11; Num 6:6) means the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased rather than the death of the ‫ נפשׁ‬or “dead ‫נפשׁ‬.”52 Because of the importance of this concept, some general remarks on the ‫ נפשׁ‬should be made here: we must regard ‫נפשׁ‬, in essence, as the main conceptualization of “personality.” It comprises the actual vitality of a given person, including aspects of biography, status, individuality and performative presence. In this regard, it is never detached from the physical, mental, historical and social existence of a person. In the case of death, the aspect of physical presence diminishes and the capability for active motion decreases, but the ‫ נפשׁ‬continues to “represent” the deceased. He can still be addressed and is somehow – in a reduced form – present and part of the living world. His ‫ נפשׁ‬abides in the netherworld (‫ )שׁאול‬during the process of decomposition (Ps 16:10; 30:4; 49:16 et al.) but is at the same time not completely absent from the world of the living, because of the enduring remembrance of his former social environment. 53 In fact See KÖHLER/BAUMGARTNER, ‫( ֶנ ֶפשׁ‬1983), 672–4. See, for example, WOLFF, Anthropologie (1990), 43; LEWIS, Dead (1999), 229. 50 See MICHEL , Leichnam (1994), 81–4; SEEBASS, ‫( ֶנ ֶפשׁ‬1998), 515–6; LEHNART, Leiche (2009). BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009), 294 again opts for the dead body denoting especially the corruptible parts. 51 See KÜHN , Totengedenken (2005), 130–4. 52 If ‫ מ ת‬is to be rendered as a masculine singular participle, it cannot be easily interpreted as an adjective modifying ‫ נפשׁ‬because of the incongruence in gender with ‫נ פשׁ‬, which is usually feminine. However, the numeric incongruence in Lev 21:11 conflicts with the understanding “a ‫ נ פשׁ‬of a deceased.” 53 Cf. the Zororastrian concepts of uruan, daēnā and frauuašī. These components “refer not only to life, but remain relevant after death” (HUTTER, Impurity [2009], 16). Following Hutter, frauuašī refers to the vitality, uruan to the soul and daēnā to the “(religious) view.” Especially relevant is the concept of uruan, which is not the same as the ‫נפשׁ‬-concept but 48 49

244

Ritual and Practice

the ‫ נפשׁ‬cannot act anymore, but it is nevertheless not powerless. Thus, the simple contrast of either existing on earth or subsisting in a shadowy mode in the netherworld (‫ )רפאים‬is a false dichotomy. This is the background for the gradual concept of death (e.g., Ps 88). Following this fuzzy concept, one may admit that there is a tendency for the ‫ נפשׁ‬to have a detached or dissociated existence not physically but socially. Anthropologically, the phrase ‫נפשׁ מת‬ “the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased” is thus most relevant in a twofold respect: There seems to be a tendency in the development of post-exilic anthropology for the holistic (synthetic, aspective, stereometric) concept of the “person” as a psychosomatic unity to be broken up by dichotomic or trichotomic concepts, which act more or less on the assumption of a “separate soul.”54 The second aspect is that one may see more clearly the connection between death and defilement. It is not the dead body and its characteristics: the alienating deadness, motionlessness and the strange rigor mortis or the rapid process of decay. Neither does it stem from the body or the corpse itself, or from a demon or demonic capacity, as in the Persian belief. 55 Instead, the danger emerges from the vitality, presence, personality (‫ )נפשׁ‬that has gone out of the body but is not totally detached from the body. This is not exactly the conception of a spirit of the dead (Akk. eṭemmu, 56 Hebr. ‫ אטים‬or more often ‫)אוב‬, although the similarity of the abiding ‫ נפשׁ‬and the spirit of the dead are irrefutable. The ‫ נפשׁ‬as the vital agency or vitality is displaced by the process of which seems to be comparable: “This soul can temporarily leave the person (still alive); at the same time, it is the component of humanity, which endures after death, when spirit, mental power or vitality have ceased to exist. After death, this soul is the bearer of human thinking and feeling and must take responsibility before the otherworldly judgment seat” (HUTTER, Impurity [2009], 17). 54 Whether this tendency is influenced by Egyptian concepts, by early Greek philosophy or is due to an inner-biblical development should be discussed anew. If one takes into account the giving of breath in Gen 2:7 or testimonies such as Ps 49:16; 104:29; Lev 17:11; Job 11:20; 12:10; 14:22 et al., one may find the roots of a dichotomic conceptualization. Cf. F REVEL, Frage (2010), 36 and IDEM, Leben (2015), 313–5. 55 Following Zoroastrian conceptions, “the corpse demon (Av. Nasu-, Pahl. Nasuš, Nasrušt) was believed to rush into the body and contaminate all that came in contact with it” (BOYCE , Corpse [1993], n.p.); cf. HUTTER, Impurity (2009), 14, 18, who stresses the “pivotal challenge which death implicates for the bereaved […] to minimize the pollution emanating from the dead body” (18, cf. 20, 25). 56 Following the Mesopotamian conception, a human (awīlum) splits into two “entities” upon dying, the corpse (pagru), on the one hand, and the deathly ghost or spirit (Sum. GIDIM, Akk. eṭemmu), which descends into the netherworld, on the other hand (cf. LORETZ, Nekromantie [1993], 304; TROPPER, Nekromantie [1989], 49–56). The eṭemmu is “some form of intangible, but visible and audible ‘spirit’ […]. Normally the dead body was buried, and burial allowed for the preservation and maintenance of the deceased’s identity after death and for his continued connection with both the living and the dead members of the family. Burial is crucial, for if a corpse is unburied […] the dead person cannot be integrated into the structured community of the dead” (ABUSCH, Etemmu [1999], 309).

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

245

death, but it is not totally removed from the deceased at a certain point in time. Because it is in a way “out of order,” it is dangerous and thereby defiling. The ‫ נפשׁ‬is comparable to blood, 57 which is the substance conveying vigor and vitality and, hence – once it is emitted and thus ‘out of place’ – one of the most defiling substances possible. However, the difference from blood is that ‫ נפשׁ‬cannot function as an agent in the cult. The purifying capacity is restricted to blood alone, because the ‫ נפשׁ‬is not material and is therefore impossible to comprehend as an agent in cultic or ritual acts. In categories of time, death is not so much a single point in time as a process. In the phase of transition, the ‫ נפשׁ‬appears to have an endangering power that is no longer effective in the deceased but is not yet apart from the body.58 This intermediate state, which may last until the corpse is fully decayed, explains why direct contact with the corpse, as well as contact with the realm of the deceased, is defiling. If we accept this line of argumentation, the use of ‫ נפשׁ‬in a defiling capacity becomes quite clear. 2.4 Defilement by Corpses in Numbers 19 Looking from this perspective at the main chapter on the impurity of corpses and the ritual addressing it in Num 19, 59 we may understand the logic of the two different passages concerning defilement by corpses in Num 19:11 and 19:13, 14–16. The second part of the chapter, after the making of the ‫מי‬ ‫)ה(נדה‬, begins with a general statement (v. 11): The one touching a dead [body] of any human being, He will be unclean seven days.

‫הנ גע במת לכל־נ פשׁ אדם‬ ‫וט מא שׁ בעת ימי ם‬

Every contact with a corpse is defiling, without exception. This is in agreement with Lev 21:1–4, where the difference between allowed and prohibited 57 This does not mean that ‫ נ פ שׁ‬denotes the blood of the dead! N OAM , Impurity (2009), 249 discusses the possibility of equating ‫ נפשׁ‬with ‫“ דם‬blood” according to the phrase ‫כי‬ ‫ הדם הוא הנ פשׁ‬in Deut 12:23, as suggested by Yadin regarding 11Q19 50:4–7. This attempt fails, as Noam has convincingly argued and as can be seen in Num 6:11, where ‫ נ פשׁ‬is not accompanied by ‫מות‬. Hence, it cannot be a synonym for blood only. Blood indeed has a defiling capacity, but it is used as a purifying agent in the cult as well. Priests do not become unclean by touching blood in cultic activity. 58 Cf. K ÜHN , Totengedenken (2005), 134. 59 The present paper does not aim to cover the complex ritual in detail. Numbers 19 consists of different parts, roughly divided as follows: the making of the ritual detergent, vv. 2–10; the general law on defilement by a corpse, vv. 11–13; specifying subsets, vv. 14– 16; ritual of purification, vv. 17–19; additional regulations, vv. 20–21. See BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009), 289–301 (with literature) and F REVEL, Vitality, p. 261–88 in the present volume.

246

Ritual and Practice

cases of pollution through contact with a corpse was enumerated for ordinary priests. This uncleanness, which is unavoidable in cases of family funerals, epidemic plagues or theaters of war, applies to all Israelites. Without cleansing, the sanctuary will be afflicted with pollution. The difference between carcasses (Lev 11) and human corpses is accentuated by the appositional ‫לכל־‬ ‫נפשׁ אדם‬. As can be seen clearly in other attestations in Lev 24:17; 31:35, 40, 46; Ezek 27:13; 1 Chron 5:21 and also in Num 9:13, this phrase has to be understood as a priestly phrase, by analogy with the classification of ‫נפשׁ חי ה‬ (Gen 1:20, 21, 24, 30; 2:19; 9:10, 12, 15, 16; Lev 11:10, 46; Ezek 47:9), denoting a human being instead of an animal. 60 Thus, the additional phrase separates Num 19 clearly from Lev 11 and the uncleanness that is caused by carcasses. 61 The latter does not need the water of lustration or a ‫חטא‬cleansing. The one who has touched a carcass of a clean (Lev 11:39–40) or unclean (Lev 11:8, 24–25, 27–28, 31) animal has to wash his clothes and remains unclean until the end of the day. Numbers 19:12 illustrates the procedure in the period of uncleanness in the “human” case, which is seven times longer: The polluted person has to purify him- or herself (‫ חטא‬tH-stem) twice, on the third and seventh days, otherwise he or she shall not be clean again. The ritual of lustration is described in vv. 17–19. It ends after seven days, in the same way as Lev 11:25, 28, 40: the defiled person has to wash his or her clothes (‫ )בגדיו כבס‬and, additionally, him- or herself (‫)רחץ במים‬, and he or she becomes clean at the end of the day. The second general statement, in Num 19:13, underlines the relevance of the defilement for the sanctuary and differs significantly in its expression: Everyone who touches a dead [body] – a ‫ נ פשׁ‬of a human being who dies – and who does not purify himself has defiled the tabernacle of the LORD; such a person shall be cut off from Israel. Since the water of lustration was not dashed on him, He remains unclean; his uncleanness is [still] on him.

‫כל ־הנ גע במת‬ ‫בנ פשׁ האדם אשׁ ר־ ימות‬ ‫ול א ית חט א‬ ‫את־ משׁ כן י הוה ט מא‬ ‫ונ כר ת ה הנ פשׁ ההוא מישׂ ראל‬ ‫כי מי נ דה לא־זרק עלי ו‬ ‫טמא י הי ה ע וד ט מאתו בו‬

As in v. 13, the difference from Lev 11 is stated explicitly by qualifying the dead as human. In contrast to v. 13, the defining ‫נפשׁ‬-phrase is not introduced by a ‫ ל‬of specification but by the repetition of the ‫ ב‬that marked the object of 60 One can discuss whether ‫ א ד ם‬may be understood grammatically like ‫ חי‬as an adjective or whether the noun is used in an adjectival sense. Be that as it may, the literal understanding of a constructus-relationship phrase, “a ‫ נ פשׁ‬of a human,” likewise resonates (see Gen 9:5 and Num 19:13). 61 From a compositional viewpoint, it is striking that the purity laws in the Torah begin with animal carcasses in Lev 11 and end with human corpses in Num 19.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

247

the ‫נגע‬-case (‫)במת‬. The determination of the noun qualifies the ‫ נפשׁ‬explicitly as “a ‫ נפשׁ‬of a human being,” 62 which is further defined as deceased. Thus, the focus shifts from ‫ ב מת‬to ‫בנפשׁ‬: the defiling and thus dangerous power is located in the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the dead, which is related to the corpse, and not in the corpse as such. There is no restriction on direct physical contact because there is no definite location of the polluting power. Consequently, not only is touching the corpse itself defiling, but so are all objects, areas, zones and spaces in which the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased is “present.” 63 This is treated in the three following subsets, which are meant as examples and introduced as ‫התורה‬: Dying in a tent (v. 14) stands for any enclosed and roofed space, an open vessel (v. 15) stands for any endangered object within the “realm” of the dead, and “touching” the ‫ נפשׁ‬in the open field (v. 16) stands for any open space.64 The inner logic is the spatial dimension rather than the relation to the deceased vis-à-vis degree of kinship or degree of social familiarity. 65 While the first subset defines all persons who are defiled by the ‫ נפשׁ‬of a dead body (everyone who is inside and everyone who enters the room where a dead body is present: direct and indirect contact), the second makes clear that any open space is part of the intended enclosure, but a sealed space in the surroundings of a dead body is to be treated differently: “The operative principle is that the impurity present within the structure invades all of its interior air, or space, and only sealed vessels resist the impurity of the atmosphere.”66 Since the open field in the third subset is not determinable by space and time, the contamination is restricted to direct contact. Thus, the permanence of the defiling power is defined by further classification in four modes of touching The only other instance of ‫ נ פשׁ האדם‬is Gen 9:6, where God requires a reckoning for the death of every human being. 63 Maccobi convincingly argues against the analogy of “gas” to describe the polluting atmosphere of a ‫נ פשׁ‬: “Pollution was not some substance that crept around rooms. It was a state or condition of people or vessels that were situated, together with a corpse, in a certain kind of area” (MACCOBI , Corpse [1997], 203). Hence, one should not assume from Num 19:13 that ‫ נפשׁ‬has a certain material or physical quality. 64 NOAM , Impurity (2009) 250 has recently suggested that in Num 19:16, ‫ א ו ב ד ם‬should be added in the biblical text, because it seems to be presumed in the Temple Scroll 11Q19 50:4–7, the War Scroll 1QM 9:7–9a and in a Geniza fragment of the Midrash Sifre Zuta on Num 19:11. Although the lack of blood is striking, it is methodologically problematic to amend the text. The assumption of a homoioteleuton is not convincing (cf. also the LXX and Sam). Perhaps the lack of blood should be ascribed to its use as ritual detergent. This would require further discussion. 65 Thus BERLEJUNG , Variabilität (2009), 297–8, who otherwise correctly stresses the reduced order of the periphery. Because people die in enclosed spaces in the city, the confrontation is not “the city” against “the field” but “the tent” (as a roofed, enclosed space, see LXX ἐν οἰκίᾳ) and “the field” as periphery. 66 LEVINE , Numbers (1993), 467. Instead of the inappropriate metaphor “gas” (see n. 63 above), BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009), 321 uses the metaphor of a filthy film (Schmutzfilm). 62

248

Ritual and Practice

connected by the coordinator ‫או‬. (1) Irrespective of all circumstances, the one slain by the sword is defiling. This is crucial because there seems no escape from defilement in cases of war. Numbers 31:19–24 is the narrative implementation of this case. 67 (2) With the second case and the absolute form “the dead” (‫)המת‬, the perspective is expanded again to all cases of death. (3) The focus on the ‫ עצם אדם‬in the third case enlarges the category of defiling matter and the period of defilement. ‫ עצם‬literally means a single bone. If a skeleton is meant, Hebrew usually uses the plural (as shown in note 45, above). Thus, any human bone, especially a skeleton, is defiling. The expansion to human bones makes the defilement durable because of the long-lasting existence of bones. (4) Thus, the last stage logically refers to the grave as the confined space of bones, that is, their usual abode. 68 The arrangement of the four cases expands the temporal dimension of defilement from the time of death to the existence in the grave, which is an enduring “abode.” Concurrently, the spatial dimension in which the defilement is taking place is again delimited from every place to a specific and marked one. With the grave, the defiling power is restricted to an enclosure, but it is enlarged in its temporal aspect and therefore totally disconnected from the time of death. Matter

Time

Space

One who has been killed by a sword

between slaughter and burial

any space

One who has died

after death until burial and beginning of decomposition

any open or enclosed space

a human bone or skeleton

during and after decomposition of the body

any open but usually enclosed space

a grave

utilization phase

a defined enclosed space

What appears to be an incomprehensible casuistic enhancement and accentuation of Num 19:14–16 becomes quite logical on the textual level at second 67 We cannot discuss the singularities of vv. 21–23 here. See WRIGHT, Purification (1985) for the differences from Num 19 and the striking supplementary content of Eleazar’s speech. 68 Besides exceptional cases (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:37; Jer 9:21; 36:30; Ezek 39:15; Tob 1:17), human bones are not to be found in a natural or cultivated environment, because of the high estimation of the dead and burial customs in ancient societies. Thus, the usual place for bones or skeletons is the grave. For the dangerous realm of graves, see the marking of the places meant as a warning against pollution in m. Sheqalim 1:1; 1:46; Matt 23:27. Perhaps 2 Kgs 23:6b also attests to the defiling power of graves when Josiah throws the dust of the pulverized asherah “upon the graves of the common people” to underline the irreversibility of cultic use symbolically (cf. the long-term defiling capacity of bones in 2 Kgs 23:14, 16 and the defiling sacrilege of slaughter in 2 Kgs 23:20).

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

249

glance. The realm of death and the defiling power of the ‫ נפשׁ‬are durable or even everlasting. They do not end with the abiding of the spirit of the dead in the netherworld. Body and vitality may not be figured as separate realms, even after a long period of time. The ‫ נפשׁ‬has a relationship to the oncerelated body. This forms part of the conception of “person” in ancient Hebrew thought. 2.5 The Cultic and Conceptual Dimension of Impurity by Touching a Corpse Finally, we have to consider the cultic dimension of ‫ כל טמא לנפשׁ‬in Num 5:2 in particular. Conceptually, the life-giving power of the holy and the realm of death are considered totally incompatible, just as purity is to impurity and wholeness to incompleteness. Integrity (or better, approximative integrity) is a presupposition for attending the cult. Because the encounter with death impairs this integrity temporarily, it hinders the people involved from participating in the cult at least for a certain period of time. Otherwise the power of death is polluting and defiling to the sanctuary.69 Holiness and impurity are considered incompatible: “Since the quintessence and source of holiness resides with God, it is imperative that Israel controls the occurrence of impurity lest it impinge upon the realm of the holy God.”70 In this context, Milgrom points to the importance of the relationship and the opposition between impurity and death on the one hand and the life-giving power of the cult on the other: “Of all the diachronic changes that occur in the development of Israel’s impurity laws, this clearly is the most significant: the total severance of impurity from the demonic and its reinterpretation as a symbolic system reminding Israel of its imperative to cleave to life and reject death.”71 Because impurity is contrary to life in a symbolic respect, the holy sanctum – which represents the power of life given by the resident God – has to be kept free from all uncleanness. Milgrom’s statement includes the diachronic appraisal that this system is not the earliest stage in the purity system. While it is not easy to determine the development precisely, 72 it seems obvious that this system is represented in some later texts of the book of Leviticus and the later priestly stages of the book of Numbers. A first hint in this direction in the book of Numbers can be found in the law of the Nazirite, where defilement by touching a corpse is a central issue (Num 6:6–12). The vow of the Nazirite becomes invalid in case of unclean69 See the comparable conception in Ezek 43:7–9, where the proximity of the king’s death in the palace is rendered unavoidably defiling to the sanctuary (see LEVINE , Numbers [1993], 476). 70 MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 346. 71 MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 346. 72 See, for example, 2 Kgs 23:14, 16, 20; Ezek 9:7; 44:23–25; Hag 2:13–14 against Jdg 20:6; 2 Kgs 13:21; Ezek 37:2; Jer 31:40.

250

Ritual and Practice

ness, even if the encounter was inadvertent and unwitting (Num 6:9). This could happen, for example, with a sudden death in the presence of the Nazirite. Because he or she is assigned to the sphere of God (‫קד שׁ הוא ליהוה‬, v. 8), the demand for purity is as strong as for the high priest (Lev 21:11). He or she may not even touch his or her parents in the case of their death (v. 7). Although the Nazirite is not urged to keep in proximity to the sanctuary, his or her vow creates a strong bond to God, who is connected to the sanctuary. Thus, the Nazirite is required to maintain a higher degree of purity. Further hints can be found in the specific law in Num 19: A period of seven days must elapse before cultic reintegration can take place on the eighth day, as mentioned in Num 19:11, 12, 14, 16, 19 and in Num 31:19, 24. Neither Lev 21:1–4 nor Lev 21:11 mentions temporary sanctions. The term ‫חלל‬ N-stem in v. 4 implies exclusion from all cultic functions. 73 The disqualification from attending the cult is addressed explicitly in the passage on the Passover in Num 9:6–12. For some men, the period of uncleanness resulting from touching a dead body (‫ )טמאים לנפשׁ אדם אנשׁים אשׁר היו‬coincides with the fixed date of the first Passover after the exodus (Num 9:1–5). They are not able to attend the festival at the proper time (‫ולא־כלו לעשׂת־הפסח ביום ההוא‬, v. 6). These men argue that they should be given the privilege of fulfilling their cultic duties: “Why must we be kept from presenting the LORD’s offering at its appointed time among the Israelites?” (‫למה נגרע לבלתי הק רב את־קרב יהוה‬ ‫במעדו בתוך בני ישׂראל‬, v. 7). The problem occurs because of the general obligation to celebrate the exodus annually as a perpetual ordinance (Exod 12:14, 17). 74 The Passover is established as part of Israelite identity: foreigners (‫בן־‬ ‫נכר‬, Exod 12:43) and uncircumcised sojourners (‫כל־ערל‬, Exod 12:48, cf. Num 9:1475) are excluded from eating it. There is no exemption from this obligation for any Israelite (Num 9:13), but purity is required because the Passover is considered a sacrifice (‫)קרבן‬. Uncleanness inhibits cultic attendance, especially the consumption of sacrifices (Lev 7:19, 21, cf. 22:4–6). The solution for the people temporarily excluded from the sacrifice is the postponement of the date of the festival until one month later (Num 9:10–12). Thus Num 9 clearly illustrates the requirement of purity in cultic affairs not only for matters of sacrifice (Lev 27:11) but for all attendees alike. Additionally, it shows that the congregation that is constituted by the celebration of the exodus is a pure community that should not be affected by any impurity.

73 Cf. for the duties of priesthood Lev 21:9, 15; 22:9 and ‫ חלל‬in the sense “to make a vow invalid” in Num 30:3. 74 The phrase in Exod 12:14, 17 ‫ ל ד רתי כם חק ת ע ול ם‬is attested further in Exod 27:21; 30:21; Lev 3:17; 6:11; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3; Num 10:8; 15:15; 18:23; 35:29. No other commandment is related to a cultic obligation that comprises all Israelites positively in an act that requires purity for its accomplishment. 75 The requirement of circumcision is lacking in Num 9:14.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

251

Interestingly enough, it is not skin disease or discharge that is used as an example for discussing the degree of cultic obligation, but the impurity of touching a dead body. This underlines the centrality of this issue in the book of Numbers synchronically and likely diachronically, too. The impurity caused by a corpse, that is, the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased, causes exclusion from cultic activity because the affected person is unclean. The defilement does not affect the sanctum as such, as can be seen clearly from Num 19:13, 20.76 Only in the event of default is the sanctuary defiled by the uncleanness: If the polluted person is not sprinkled with the water of lustration on the third and seventh days, there is no purification and the defilement continues to affect the sanctuary. Because the pollution is serious, it also affects the sanctum from afar, without physical contact. The gravity of the transgression is marked by the definitive exclusion from the congregation (‫ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא מתוך הקהל‬, Num 19:13, 20).77 However, Num 5:2 prescribes that every unclean person (‫)כל טמא לנפשׁ‬ shall be put out of the camp. Is this in accord with the other instructions in the Torah? To answer this question, let us return to these other instances. Leviticus 22:4–7 is very similar to Num 5:2: No one of Aaron’s offspring who has a skin disease or suffers a discharge may eat of the sacred donations until he is clean. Whoever touches anything made unclean by a corpse or a man who has had an emission of semen, and whoever touches any swarming thing by which he may be made unclean or any human being by whom he may be made unclean – whatever his uncleanness may be –

‫אישׁ אישׁ מזרע אהרן‬ ‫והוא צר וע או זב‬ ‫בק דשׁי ם לא י אכל עד אשׁר י ט הר‬ ‫והנ גע בכל טמא נ פשׁ‬ ‫או אישׁ אשׁ ר־ת צ א ממנ ו שׁ כבת ־זרע‬ ‫או אישׁ אשׁ ר י גע בכל־ שׁר ץ‬ ‫אשׁ ר יט מא־ לו‬ ‫או באדם אשׁר י ט מא־ל ו‬ ‫לכל ט מאת ו‬

the person who touches any

‫נפשׁ אשׁר ת גע־ בו‬

such shall be unclean until evening

‫וט מאה ע ד־ הע ר ב‬

and shall not eat of the sacred donations

‫ול א י אכל מן־ הקדשׁי ם‬

unless he has washed his body in water.

‫כי אם־ רחץ בשׂ ר ו במי ם‬

There is no difference between ‫ את ־משׁ כן י הוה ט מא‬in v. 13 and ‫ את־ מקדשׁ י הוה ט מא‬in v. 20. The same holds true for the variation between ‫ מי שׂראל‬and ‫ מתוך הק הל‬in the ‫כר ת‬phrase. 77 See the ‫כ רת‬-formula in Exod 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 6, 17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num 9:13; 15:30, 31; cf. further Num 4:18. The seriousness can be seen further in the fact that the law of Num 19 covers the Israelite and the foreigner ( ‫ )גר‬alike as a perpetual statute (Num 19:10, 21; cf. Exod 29:9; Lev 16:29, 34; Num 10:8). 76

252

Ritual and Practice

When the sun sets he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food.

‫ובא השׁ משׁ וט הר‬ ‫ואחר י אכל מן־ הק דשׁי ם‬ ‫כי ל חמו הוא‬

Again, we can see stricter requirements for priests, who are explicitly not allowed to eat from the offerings not only in five cases of uncleanness caused by themselves (skin disease, discharge, touching a corpse, seminal flow, touching a swarming thing) but in every case of secondary uncleanness caused by touching an unclean person. This latter is explicitly independent of the type of uncleanness. The secondary pollution causes a period of uncleanness until the evening. The duration of cases of direct uncleanness is not stated; only the newly achieved pure state is mentioned as a qualification. Nor is it explicitly stated whether the priest has to remain outside the camp in the relevant cases of skin disease, discharge or pollution by a corpse, although we cannot exclude that this is implied. Thus, we cannot adjudicate on the question of whether the person has to leave the camp. The same holds true for Lev 21:1–4 because the ‫חלל‬-state of priesthood does not imply segregation from the community. But again, we cannot judge whether the priest also has to leave the camp if he has made himself unclean by touching a corpse. The above-discussed narrative of the deferral of the Passover seems to be more explicit. The men come to Moses and Aaron ( ‫ויקרבו לפני משׁה ולפני‬ ‫אהרן‬, Num 9:6) and make their plea. Jacob Milgrom has argued that the phrase ‫ ק רב לפני‬is intentionally used instead of ‫קרב אל‬: The use of lifnei, ‘before,’ instead of ʾel, ‘to,’ with the verb karav is deliberate, indicating proximity but not contact. It is used whenever ritual or etiquette requires one to keep one’s distance, for example, women before communal leaders (27:2; Josh 17:4), lay Israelites before God (e.g. Exod 16:9), or, as here, contaminated persons before Moses. 78

The statistical base is too small to decide whether this apparent tendency is being interpreted correctly. Whatever the case, the persons face Moses and Aaron, and it is not stated explicitly that the leaders (as in Num 31:13) have moved outside the camp. Thus, it appears that the application of Num 19 in Num 9 is not acquainted with Num 5:2: the defiled persons may be inside the camp. If we look at Num 19, there is only a slight indication that the person who is polluted by a corpse should leave the camp. The red heifer is slaughtered outside of the camp (Num 19:3, 7), and the ashes of the burnt heifer are deposited outside the camp in a clean place. But nothing is said about the whereabouts of the unclean persons on which the water of lustration is sprinkled on the third and seventh days (Num 19:11–22). However, the warriors who have been defiled in the Midianite war explicitly have to keep outside

78

MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 68.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

253

the camp for seven days, in accordance with Num 19:11 (Num 31:19–24). 79 This is a strong indication that the (military) camp is imagined as a pure place, and this conception accords with Num 5:1–4. Although there is need of further substantiation, we may dare to assume that Num 31:19–24 may be preceded by Num 5 diachronically. 80 2.6 Further Compositional Considerations on Numbers 5:1–4 The formulation ‫ טמא לנפשׁ‬was incomprehensible without either recourse to Lev 21:1, 11; 22:4 or the anticipation of Num 9:6–10 and Num 19. By encompassing the whole congregation rather than the priests only, Num 5:2 offers a more general formulation and therefore presumes the general law in Num 19 as its setting. By accentuating the fact that the defiled person has to leave the camp, Num 5:2 is more advanced and goes further than the general law in Num 19, where no such exclusion is ordained. With the link to Num 31:19–24, the horizon of Num 5:2 reaches beyond Num 19 and comprises most of the migratory campaign, up to the allocation of Transjordan in Num 32. Numbers 19 is the central chapter on purity from corpse contamination and at first glance it seems to be isolated from the central Pentateuchal laws and especially the Sinaitic purity laws. Its compositional location may be influenced by the narrative of Num 16–17, as is often argued, and the “digression” of Num 18 is not the strongest argument against this hypothesis: The priests are the only ones who may enter the taboo zone without endangering themselves. 81 Be that as it may, it is striking that compositionally, Num 19 is the last great chapter on purity issues in the Torah, while Lev 11 is the first one. Leviticus 11 (impurity by carcasses) and Num 19 (impurity by corpses) are clearly related to each other by theme.82 This is not by chance, as can be seen in the framing relationship of Lev 10:1–8 (sin of Aaron’s sons) and Num 20:1–13 (“sin” of Aaron and Moses). 83 The purity laws in Leviticus and Numbers are arranged intentionally. However, Num 19 remains textually

79 The narrative of Tobit’s engagement in burying a person strangled in the marketplace gives a further hint: After the burial, Tobit spends the night outside his own house, in the courtyard, because of the defilement (µεµιαµµένος, only in G I). 80 See SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 292, 306; A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 615–22. 81 See FREVEL, Numeri (2017), 294–5, 299–300. For rejecting Num 20 as the compositional anchor, see ACHENBACH , Verunreinigung (2009), 362. 82 The reception of Num 19 in the Temple Scroll 11Q19 is aware of the close relation. For this see BERLEJUNG , Variablität (2009), 301–2. 83 Leviticus 10 is closely related to Num 19; see JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit (2001), 283. Note in addition the use of ‫ ק דשׁ‬in Lev 10:3 and Num 20:13, which is regarded as putatively peculiar in both cases. For the compositional link to Lev 22:32, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 316–7; NIHAN, Torah (2007), 25 and below. Regarding Lev 10:10, see below.

254

Ritual and Practice

“afar” from Lev 11–15. 84 Compositionally, Num 5:1–4 bridges the gap by setting the purity agenda for the camp. On the one hand, Num 19 is introduced as the general law that makes the ‫ טמא לנפשׁ‬comprehensible; on the other hand, Num 5:1–4 forms a link to the priestly agenda in Lev 21 regarding defilement by corpses.

Fig. 3: Compositional Hinge

Hence, on a diachronic level it is obvious that Num 5:1–4 presumes not only Num 19 and a certain compositional form of the book of Numbers but also some form of Lev 11–15 and the Holiness Code alike. To be more precise, there are several hints demonstrating that Num 5:1–4 is part of a composition that has most parts of the books of Leviticus and Numbers in its background. This may be called a late priestly Pentateuchal composition, the final redaction, RP or the like. The argument can be further substantiated by some remarks on the compositional link between Lev 11–15 and Num 5:1–4. Usually Num 5:2 is evaluated as an accentuation of Lev 15. Diachronically this intensification is considered to be an argument for the relatively late date of Num 5:1–4. Thus for example D. Kellermann: “The intensification of the provisions from Lev 15 leads to the conclusion that Num 5:2 is younger than Lev 15.”85 Very interesting in this regard is the concluding admonition before the general subscript in Lev 15:32–33, in v. 31: Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness,

‫והזרת ם את־ בנ י־ישׂ ר אל‬ ‫מט מאת ם‬

lest they die in their uncleanness

‫ול א י מת ו בט מאת ם‬

by defiling my tabernacle

‫בט מאם את־ משׁ כני‬

that is in their midst.

‫אשׁ ר בתוכם‬

84 The horizon of this concept of legislation goes beyond Sinai. Moses as revealing agent, Aaron and Eleazar as cultic representatives and the orientation towards the (portable) sanctuary and its cult are more important in this late compositional stage than is the fixation on Sinai as the preferred place of God’s revelation. 85 This is an English translation of KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 163: “Die verschärfende Ergänzung der Bestimmungen von Lev 15 läßt den Schluß zu, daß Num 5,2 jünger als Lev 15 ist.”

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

255

On the textual level, Moses and Aaron are addressed, as Lev 15:1–2a makes clear. Thus, the specific regulations of ch. 15 are framed by the exhortation just before the chapter closes with the general subscript or colophon. The focus is emphasized by the threefold use of ‫“ טמאה‬uncleanness.” Verse 31 gives a rationale for the commandments of the whole chapter: The uncleanness endangers the Israelites by polluting the sanctuary if it is not removed. The defiled Israelites will die (‫ )ימתו‬because of the defilement of his sanctuary.86 There is no explicit divine agency mentioned in the killing, but there can be no doubt that God is involved, as in Exod 28:35, 43; 30:20; Lev 10:2, 6, 7; 16:2, 13; Num 1:51; 3:4; 17:28; 18:22 et al. Jacob Milgrom is right in pointing to the ‫כרת‬-formula in Num 19:13. 87 Everyone who has touched a corpse and who has not purified himself with the water for impurity (‫)מי נדה‬ (usually translated as “water of impurity”) shall be cut off from Israel ( ‫ונכרתה‬ ‫ )הנפשׁ ההוא מישׂראל‬because he has defiled the sanctuary (‫)את־משׁכן יהוה טמא‬. Here in Lev 15:31 the danger of death concerns all Israel, not only those who have failed to react to their pollution. It is remarkable that the temporary and thus minor pollution from bodily discharges also defiles the sanctuary, if it is not treated adequately. Purity is a serious matter for the system of the Sinaitic world that is constituted by the sanctuary and the divine presence. Therefore, Moses and Aaron must separate the people from their uncleanness. The unusual H-stem of the verb ‫ נזר‬in v. 31 is difficult to interpret. Following the Septuagint (καὶ εὐλαβεῖς ποιήσετε), the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Peshitta, it is often altered to the H-stem of ‫“ זהר‬to admonish.” 88 If one keeps the Masoretic ‫נזר‬, the most probable meaning is that the priest sets the people apart from their uncleanness.89 This may be interpreted as the admonishing function of the priests, as Jacob Milgrom has suggested: We find that the imperative (dabbĕrû) in the plural, ostensibly addressed to Moses and Aaron (v. 2), is actually aimed at the priests whose perpetual function is to separate Israel from impurity (Lev 10:10; Saadiah), that is, to teach the Israelites (10:11; Ezek 44:23) to abstain from impurity and to purify them when it occurs lest they bring about the pollution of the Sanctuary. 90

Although this is one possibility, the difference from Lev 10:10, where ‫ בדל‬in the H-stem means “to distinguish,” is striking. Thus, the other possibility may be to separate the people (‫ )בני ישׂראל‬from the uncleanness amongst them by For the ‫ משׁ כן‬with enclitic personal pronoun, the only other instance in the Torah is Lev 26:11. Thus, KNOHL, Sanctuary (2007), 70 ascribes it to the Holiness School. Cf. MILGROM , Leviticus (1991), 946–7. 87 See MILGROM , Leviticus (1991), 945–6. 88 For introducing the object with the preposition ‫מן‬, see Ezek 33:8, 9. 89 Cf. Lev 22:2. Literally, Moses and Aaron are addressed, but notice the associative realm of the priest and his duty in ‫ הכהן‬in Lev 15:30. 90 MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 945; cf. NIHAN, Torah (2007), 283. 86

256

Ritual and Practice

dissociating the unclean persons. In both lines of interpretation, Lev 15:31 is not so far away from Num 5:2. Leviticus 15:31 is commonly considered an addition to the “priestly” material in Lev 15.91 This is further substantiated by the compositional function of the verse. It is remarkable that the same structure of “relevant specifications – concluding admonition focusing on purity – subscript” can be found in the chapter on unclean animals, Lev 11. Leviticus 11:43–45 motivates the Israelites just after the taxonomy, underlining the relation between purity and holiness. The Israelites shall not make themselves abominable (‫אל־תשׁקצו‬, v. 43)92 by the unclean animals93 (‫)ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם‬. The rationale is the holiness of the LORD and his salvific deeds for Israel. The twofold ‫כי אני‬ ‫ יהוה‬in vv. 44–45 is followed each time by the exhortation ‫והייתם קדשׁים כי‬ ‫קדושׁ אני‬. There is little doubt that this wording resembles H in Lev 20:25–26. Christophe Nihan has convincingly argued that Lev 11:44–45 belongs to a larger framework: The interpolation of v. 43–45 serves evidently to prepare for 20:25–26a, where Israel’s holiness is also made dependent on observing the distinction between pure and impure animals […]. Moreover […] the reference to 11:43–45 – and more generally, of course, to the tôrâ of Lev 11 – in 20:22–26, the conclusion to the collection of Lev 18–20 (see the parallel with Lev 18:2–5), builds a great inclusion around Lev 11–20. It identifies these chapters as forming a distinct section on the purity of the community as a whole, since the section immediately following, Lev 21–22, is primarily concerned with the purity of the priests specifically. 94

While there is a link between the motivation clauses of Lev 15:31 and Lev 11:43–45 regarding the analogous function, we must mention the link to Lev 16:16 in relation to the content. Both verses are constrained by the centripetal concept of the camp and both stress the existence of the sanctuary in its midst as endangered by the impurities of the Israelites. In the ritual of the “Day of Purification,” the sanctuary shall be cleansed from all impurities of the Israelites (‫וכפר על־הקדשׁ מטמאת בני ישׂראל‬, v. 16a) by Aaron. “He shall do so for the tent of meeting, which remains with them in the midst of their uncleannesses” (‫וכן יעשׂה לאהל מועד השׁכן אתם בתוך טמאתם‬, v. 16b). 95 As Jacob Milgrom has convincingly argued, the ritual in Lev 16 addresses all kinds of pollutions of the sanctum, which have not been dealt with in other rituals and which have accumulated during the past year. 96 See, e.g., ELLIGER, Leviticus (1966), 196; KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 63; NIHAN, Torah (2007), 282–3 and above n. 86. 92 ‫ שׁק ץ‬was a Leitwort in Lev 11 in vv. 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41, 42. 93 ‫ שׁר ץ‬was addressed in vv. 29, 31, 41, 42 and stands pars pro toto for the whole taxonomy. 94 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 299. 95 Cf. NIHAN, Torah (2007), 96. 96 MILGROM, Studies (1983), 75–84; IDEM, Leviticus (1991), 1033–4. 91

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

257

Accordingly, the motive clause in Lev 15:31 has a double horizon: on the one hand, it closes Lev 11–15, and on the other hand it links them with Lev 10 and Lev 16, as Nihan has argued: It connects the legislation in Lev 11–15 with the episode of the death of Aaron’s sons in Lev 10 and with the ceremony of ch. 16, where a similar statement concerning Yahweh’s sanctuary residing ‘in the midst’ of Israel’s impurities is found (see 16:16b). The request to “separate” […] ‘the Israelites from their impurities’ makes perfect sense after 10:10–11. 97

This concept parallels Num 5:1–4. Therefore, it seems probable diachronically that Num 5:1–4 either presumes or parallels Lev 15:31, which should be assigned “to the book’s final editor.” 98 The bridging function of Num 5:1–4 within the book of Numbers is further substantiated by the phrase ‫אני שׁכן בתוך‬, which appears almost exactly in Num 35:34 and there only. Numbers 35:33–34 treats the pollution of the land by bloodguilt and is the final purity topic in the book of Numbers!99 The motivation in v. 34 is striking because it mentions the LORD living in the land twice: “You shall not defile the land ( ‫ )ולא תטמא את־הארץ‬in which you (pl.!) live, in which I live (‫)אשׁר אני שׁכן בתוכה‬, for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites (‫)כי אני יהוה שׁכן בתוך בני ישׂראל‬.” The conception parallels the expansion of the required purity to the whole living space in Num 5. Since Num 35 is related to the Israelites’ living in the land, the pure “enclosure” is consequently the whole land rather than the camp of the Israelites.100 The ‫ כי אני יהוה‬motivation relates to the Holiness Code and especially Exod 29:46, where the formula is connected with the living of the LORD as well.101 Thus, there can be no doubt that Num 35:34 has a compositional function in the Torah.102 By resuming Num 5:2 and the combination of ‫טמא‬ with the dwelling of the LORD, which is unique in the Torah,103 the relation between the beginning and the end of purity issues in the book of Numbers seems to be intentional.104 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 283. NIHAN, Torah (2007), 283. 99 The conception of the defilement of the land is attested in the book of Numbers in Num 35:34 only. But see Lev 18:25, 27; Deut 21:23; Josh 22:19; Jer 2:7; Ezek 36:17–18; Amos 7:17 (‫ ;)אדמה‬cf. further Ezra 9:11; Ps 106:38–39; Zech 13:2. 100 In this respect, one can agree with Seebass, who regards Num 35:33–34 as an indication “that the land Israel lived in was thought of as holy” (SEEBASS, Land [2006], 99), although the land is not explicitly addressed as holy. 101 Cf. SEEBASS , Numeri (2007), 447. 102 See further the link to Gen 9:5–6. 103 The only other instances of the combination of ‫ שׁ כן‬with ‫ ט מא‬are Josh 22:19 and, slightly differently, Ezek 43:7. 104 Whether the phrase ‫ אשׁ ר אני שׁ כ ן בת ו כ ה‬in Num 35:34 is a redactional intrusion of the author of Num 5:1–4 or whether both should be attributed to the same hand at all is difficult to decide because Num 35 is already a very late text as such. See BARMASH, Quandary 97 98

258

Ritual and Practice

Hence, Num 5:1–4 is a late and very dense text that brings the final composition and theology of the book of Leviticus into the concept of the book of Numbers. The congregation is regarded as holy and therefore must remain pure. With Num 5:1–4 the borders of purity and the borders of the holy enclosure are enlarged from the sanctuary to the whole camp. This is comparable to the conception of the holy city in Ezra and Nehemiah, where Jerusalem and the temple are identified by strengthening the outer borders. In sum: Num 5:1–4 is a very late compositional bridge between the book of Leviticus on the one hand and the book of Numbers on the other. It links the purity conception of the book of Numbers with the final edition of the book of Leviticus. It is probably to be dated in the late Persian period. This becomes clearer with the emphasis on the impurity of corpses, which is also a major focus of early Greek and Zoroastrian religion. 105 2.7 Evaluating the “Intensified” Purity Restrictions in Numbers 5:1–4 We have demonstrated above that Num 5:1–4 has picked up given purity conceptions from Leviticus and Numbers in a dense and abbreviated manner. The short phrases in Num 5:2 were incomprehensible without their intertexts in Lev 11–15; 21; Num 19 and others in mind. The composition was intended to constitute the congregation of all Israel as pure and holy. Purity was displayed as the “regulative idea” of the camp, its organization, structure and form. The camp as the living place of this community was configured to be pure. The pure camp created a segregated entity with clear-cut outer borders. The text of Num 5:1–4 was created for this particular context in order to formulate a specific vision of the relation of the whole congregation to the center. Its function was not to give justifiable, individual commandments on purity issues in detail but to include a general sketch of the given purity laws. From this angle, it seems inappropriate to compare the three single cases in detail with their hypotexts and to weigh the differences as tensions. The main and often-discussed singularity of Num 5:1–4 is the expulsion of impure persons from the camp, which does not conform to Lev 11; 15 and Num 19 but which is in accordance with Lev 13–14: While the unclean person with a discharge and the person who was defiled by a corpse do not have to leave the camp, the person with ‫צרוע‬-skin disease does. It seems that all (2004), 7–8 for attributing v. 34 to H. More appropriately, S EEBASS, Numeri (2007), 436: “Man muß nicht einen Redaktor H bemühen, um 35,34 zu erklären, da 9–34 insgesamt wohl ein recht später Text ist.” ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 598 attributes v. 34 to the first theocratic redaction of the book of Numbers: “Das Prinzip Num 35,34 schließt die Tora des ThB I ab.” 105 See ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 502–3; IDEM, Verunreinigung (2009), 364– 66; HUTTER, Impurity (2009), 15–20 and F REVEL, Vitality, p. 261–88 in the present volume.

Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context

259

the cases in Num 5:2 were subordinated under this legislation in accordance with the concept of a camp that must avoid any defilement of the sanctuary. The rationale can be found not in an intentional accentuation of the laws of Lev 11 and Num 19 but rather in the general concept of expanding the borders of holiness and purity to the whole camp. This concept is developed from the composition of the priestly texts in Exodus and Leviticus, especially the Holiness Code, and has its parallels in Ezra and Nehemiah: The camp and the sanctuary, which stand in for the temple and the city, are conceptualized as a unity set apart clearly from the outside. 106 Following the logic of the sanctuary in the midst of the congregation and the logic of the camp in Exod 29–Num 4, the segregating aspect is intensified in Num 5:1–4. Besides the issue of exclusion from the camp, it is often argued that the case of defilement from a corpse, in particular, means an enhancement if compared to Leviticus because there it is addressed to priests alone. Thus, it is argued that the book of Numbers expands regulations related to priests to the whole community. On the one hand, this would be in line with Ezra and Nehemiah and would fit the general tendency we have discussed, but it seems on the other hand to reveal a methodological shortcoming. The argument is valid only if we evaluate Leviticus and Numbers as distinct textual units that function separately. According to this theory, the book of Numbers is implicitly subordinated diachronically and the legislation of the book of Leviticus is regarded as complete. But if one sees, for example, the priestly legislation on touching a dead person in Lev 21 as due to the inner logic of the final composition of Leviticus, one need not be astonished to find regulations for the whole congregation elsewhere. The compositional considerations above, which have suggested a systematic alignment of purity issues in the Torah, point in another direction: the intentional ordering of purity texts in the final stage of the Torah’s composition. While the tendency of the argument may be correct, it is not at all convincing to date Num 5; 6; 9 and 19 altogether later than Lev 21:1–4. The development and Fortschreibung of priestly texts must be considered more complex than models of Pg and Ps or P and H suggest. Any explanation has to take into account that the texts in Numbers are obviously part of the priestly legislation and are involved in the same editorial processes. Thus, we must be cautious with our general conclusions. However, tentatively, the specific case of defilement by a corpse seems to be a late topic in the development of the Torah, which was accentuated especially in the book of Numbers. In sum, we should be cautious in claiming an intensification of purity concepts in the book of Numbers. Numbers 5:1–4 have their own intrinsic logic and are not meant as mere expansions of the purity concepts of Lev 11–26. In fact, they should be understood in a sense as embodying the application of the 106

See OLYAN, Ideology (2004); BLENKINSOPP, Judaism (2009), 196–204.

260

Ritual and Practice

regulations in Lev 11–26 and Num 6; 9 and 19. Before deciding the issue in this way, however, we need further specification of the hermeneutical principles of the Torah as text and law. As long as we regard Num 5:1–4 as a conceptual hinge bridging Leviticus and Numbers, we may see the regulations as text rather than as law.

3. Summary This paper has shed light on purity conceptions in the book of Numbers. It has demonstrated that purity is an important issue in the composition, structure and concepts of Numbers, based on the spatial and centripetal conception of the sanctuary and the camp. The opposition between the life-giving center as constitutive of the whole system and the realm of death as endangering the balance of cohabitation has gained special importance in the book of Numbers. In the second part of the paper, Num 5:1–4 was shown to be a central purity text in the book of Numbers; it is a late text deliberately composed to occupy its present position after the constitution of the camp and as a prelude to Num 5–10 and (the accomplishment of) the initiation of the Sinaitic cult before the departure from the Sinai desert. 107 The text has been shown to be clearly related to several texts in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. It was seen to be part of the constitution of the congregation on the one hand and a compositional link between Leviticus and Numbers on the other. In Num 5:1– 4 the camp of Israel was conceptualized as a pure living-space steeped in the holiness and presence of the living God in its midst. The three cases of skin disease, bodily discharge and defilement by corpses are purposefully selected as paradigmatic pollutions, and the system of exclusion is comprehensible within the priestly system of graded holiness. By defining the congregation as holy and closely related to the center, the requirement of purity occurs as a precondition for the cohabitation of the divine and the people.

107

See F REVEL, Relief, p. 53–81 in the present volume.

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19 The following paper consists of six parts. I would like to begin with some general remarks on the conception of death in the religious and textual world of the Old Testament. Subsequently, I will introduce some relevant aspects of ritual in general and the structure of the ritual of Num 19 in particular. In the fourth section I will discuss the rationale of the ritual looking at three recently proposed suggestions. By briefly commenting on the concept of ‫ נפשׁ‬and its relation to death in particular, I will finally underline one of the conceptual characteristics of Num 19. At the end of my paper, I will make some concluding remarks on the concept of death and the presumed age of the ritual.

1. Ten Introductory Remarks on the Conception of Death I would like to start by quoting ten major general assumptions on the conception of death in the Old Testament and the world beyond. Most of them are relevant for my argumentation, but only some of them will be explained in detail below: (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Life and death in Hebrew thinking are distinct, but not separated realities. One may figure life and death heuristically as an ellipse with two focal points, which have intersections but will never come together congruently. Death has to be understood as a procedural event rather than as a single point in time. The exact time of physical death (defined by the cessation of breathing) is meaningful, but not as central as it is today. There is no taboo of death in Israelite religion, but a central opposition between death and life, which is most relevant in the conceptualization of holiness and sanctity. This has repercussions for the concept of purity and impurity. Neither mortality nor death as such are considered to be problematic with regard to the world of the living. Merely the intersections and borderlines between death and life are perceived as being dangerous. ‫ נפשׁ‬as the main conceptualization of “personality” denotes the actual vitality of a certain person including aspects of biography, status and

262

Ritual and Practice

performative presence. The ‫ נפשׁ‬is never dissolved completely from these aspects and remains related to the physical dimension. (6) Within the process of the natural decomposition of the body after death, the ‫ נפשׁ‬descends into the netherworld – neither gradually nor at a fixed stage or a given point of time – and becomes a weak and shadowy entity as ‫רפאים‬. This does not mean that the person or his/her identity has completely disappeared from the world of the living, the former social context of the deceased or the grave being the last and everlasting place of residence. However, there is no continued biography, no comparable experience, a diminished social status and a reduced performative presence of the dead. (7) Although the world of the living and the netherworld are separated, and the Sheol is “the land of no return,” the ‫ נפשׁ‬of a dead person may not be allocated to only one of them. There is no either-or, and thus, the borders between the world of the living and the netherworld are fluid in some respect. (8) Death is a powerful reality. Yet in the worldview of the Old Testament it is barely personalized. There are merely a number of passages in figurative or metaphorical speech (e.g., Job 18:13–14; 28:22; Hos 13:14; Ps 49:15; Isa 28:15; Jer 9:20), but no mythological realization of a personalized death in Old Testament texts. (9) The idea of the impurity of death belongs to the cultic sphere. Not everything related to death is impure as such. (10) The care of a corpse after death, before and during the burial procedure, is an important social obligation, but handling the corpse defiles the engaged person and hinders him/her from attending the cult for a given period of time.

2. Some Preliminary Remarks on Understanding Ritual In considering Num 19 as a ritual, one has to define the presupposed meaning of ritual first. Generally, rituals constitute structured and largely invariant forms of actions which are performed consecutively in a defined sequence within a specific temporal and spatial context. 1 The operation of a ritual is 1 For a general overview see HÖDL, Ritual (2003), 664–89. One has to bear in mind that there is no general definition of ritual. The definition of ritual is often determined by the subject area of description. In his recent critique of ritual theory Jens Kreinath argues that ritual studies have still not succeeded in giving an adequate definition of “ritual”: KREI NATH, Semiose (2005), 20: “Das Problem besteht darin, dass es bislang keiner Definition gelungen ist, den Ritualbegriff wiederum mit allen Phänomenen des bezeichneten Gegen-

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

263

considered to have an effect. Any ritual has a transformative aspect or effect. In other words, rituals change something or someone by performance. This can be a condition, a state, or a status of an object matter, situation, or person. Normally, those attending the cult are the experts conducting the ritual, the objects or individuals involved (to which or whom the ritual is applied), and the participants/observers who take a rather passive role. Rituals obviously have social consequences, and therefore require collective understanding and acceptance.2 This comprises the form and substance of a ritual as well as its social function. The participants in a ritual both define and receive social values in performing a ritual. 3 While there are symbolic values and aspects of symbolic meaning in any ritual, one has to underline that, according to Roy A. Rappaport, rituals do not encode every aspect of their meaning. In short, the term “ritual” is used to denote “the performance of more or less invariant sequences of formal acts and utterances not entirely encoded by the performers.” 4 There is no obvious intrinsic meaning of ritual acts. Rituals may have explicit forms of communication, but rather they are “a wordless channel of communication which can convey a rich density of meanings.” 5 Even their invariant parts are often composed by means of several “traditional” elements which are rarely entirely new in their cultural context. 6 Thus, several dimensions of meaning come together and are mingled. “Understanding” by any observer – even by the participating observer – cannot be reconstructed entirely. This aspect constrains the understanding of a ritual, particularly from its textual form which may not even correspond exactly to the acts actually performed in a ritual. Aspects of the worldview as the frame of understanding, the social values of the participants, psychological aspects of the performance (such as emotions, the aesthetics of the liturgy, the self-referential messages of rituals, or the indexicality of the ritual participants), as well as the convention and commitment of understanding may not be decoded entirely. Because there may be a great difference between the written form and the performance of a ritual, one has to consider biblical descriptions of rituals primarily as texts within a given context. While in most cases, biblical rituals refer to actual rituals which were performed in the cult, we do not know what the performance would have looked like exactly. We define the “content” and the “purpose” of these rituals on the standsbereiches zur Deckung zu bringen. Unter dieser Voraussetzung kann jede Definition des Ritualbegriffes entweder als zu allgemein oder als zu spezifisch angesehen werden.” 2 For further details with references to the theory of Roy A. Rappaport, see the excellent paper by DE HEMMER GUDME, Texts (2009), 65–7. 3 See BELL, Ritual (2009), 30–46, 182–196; EADEM , Ritual (2007); H AMILTON , Sociology (2001), 141. 4 RAPPAPORT, Ritual (2006), 24. 5 H ARRINGTON, Purpose (2009). 6 RAPPAPORT, Ritual (2006), 32–3.

264

Ritual and Practice

basis of their textual form, which may be deficient with regard to particular aspects of content, meaning and performance. We will have to keep this in mind, when taking a closer look at Num 19. Let us begin with a succinct overview. 7

3. The Ritual of Numbers 19 The ritual described in Num 19 is composed of two different parts or, more precisely, of two rituals which are closely connected, but performed separately.8 The second ritual presupposes the first one, but not the other way around. The whole chapter is designed as a speech by God to Moses and Aaron (v. 1). The first main part is formed by vv. 1–10a which describe the making of the ritual detergent. The application rite in vv. 17–19 is encompassed by the prescription parts vv. 10b–13, 14–16 and vv. 20–22. The first part in vv. 2–10a 9 prescribes the production of a special detergent for cleansing defilements caused by corpses. Strikingly enough, intention and purpose of the making are not mentioned at all but kept undisclosed until v. 12. Following the introductory formula in v. 10b (‫והיתה לבני־ישׂראל ולגר הגר‬ ‫)בתוכ ם לחקת עולם‬, the second main part vv. 10b–22 begins with a general statement mentioning the impurity caused by corpses, which lasts for seven days, in vv. 11–13. It subsequently defines special cases in vv. 14–16, again See for the following MUZINGA, Pratique (2008), 62; BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009). In this paper, I cannot discuss the compositional aspects thoroughly. Both ritual parts are not explicitly executed in the narrative of Num 19. There is no execution formula as in Num 5:4; 8:22; 17:26 et al. The instructions are addressed to Moses and Aaron in v. 1 without further substantiation, and Num 20:1 shows no direct reference to the ritual. One can only take into account that the framing narratives are generally related to the death theme: Num 20:1 reports the death and burial of Miriam, and in Num 20:2 the people grumble because of the lack of water, while – strangely enough – they are sojourning in the Oasis of Kadesh. But the shortness is not related to the period of a seven-day delay caused by the implementation of the making of or the operating with the water of purification. Numbers 16–17 reports the death of “Korah’s gang” in the sacred precinct and afterwards the death of 14,700 men in the camp because of the murmuring. This plague was brought to a halt by Aaron taking his true censer and walking between the dead and the survivors. Although there should be a lot of defilement by corpses and the necessity to use the ‫מי נדה‬ in these narratives, there is no explicit hint in Num 19 that the ritual may be related to the situation described in Num 16–17. However, one may understand the question of Num 17:27–28 in this sense (see ACHENBACH, Vollendung [2003], 525). Be that as it may, burials do take place in the meantime (Num 14:36–37), which should be regarded as temporarily defiling, following Num 19. There was a need of coping strategies, and Num 19 comes “too late.” Thus, the contextual position of the ritual in Num 19 remains striking. 9 It has been discussed whether v. 10b is cataphoric or anaphoric. Because of the general case related in vv. 11–13, I tend to opt for a cataphoric use. 7 8

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

265

closing with the mention of a seven-day period of uncleanness. The actual cleansing ritual is described in vv. 17–19. Verse 20 demands purification in general without characterizing it in detail; otherwise the person keeps the uncleanness and shall therefore be cut off from the community. Verses 21–22 conclude the ritualistic text by dealing with the issue of temporary uncleanness affecting the ritual expert who has performed the ritual described in vv. 17–19. Summing up, the structure of Num 19 can be roughly divided into the following parts: v. 1

contextual introductory formula

v. 2a v. 2b–10a

introductory formula part 1: ‫זאת חק ת התור ה‬ making of the ritual detergent

v. 10b vv. 11–13

introductory formula part 2: ‫חקת ע ול ם‬ general determination of the impurity of corpses

v. 14aα vv. 14aβ–16

introductory formula part 3: ‫זאת התור ה‬ special cases of impurity caused by corpses

vv. 17–19 v. 20

application rite – part 4 general instruction for the case of noncompliance

v. 21a vv. 21b–22

introductory formula part 5: ‫חקת עולם‬ uncleanness of the ritual expert

I cannot discuss the ritual in full length here, but some details may be helpful to address. Beginning with some particular suggestions on the present literary form, I will proceed with some remarks on the making of the detergent and the symbolism of the ritual. 3.1 High Priest, Priest and Pure Man. Some Remarks on the Literary Unity of Numbers 19 Several individuals are involved in the first main part of Num 19 in its final form: – Moses and Aaron who are addressed in the speech of God in v. 1 (they are mentioned only in the beginning of the chapter); – the Israelites as addressees of the instructions in vv. 2b–22 (they shall elect the red heifer in v. 2bβ); – the priest Eleazar who is mentioned v. 3a and who acts in v. 4; – a person who burns the heifer v. 5 and who is rendered unclean v. 8; – a certain priest who is mentioned in vv. 5–7 and performs the preparation of the ashes; he is rendered unclean in v. 7;

266

Ritual and Practice

– a clean person vv. 9, 10a who collects the ashes and who is rendered unclean in v. 10a after depositing the ashes in a clean place outside of the camp in vv. 9, 10a. The variety of individuals involved is striking, particularly in the beginning. Due to the double introduction of God’s speech with ‫לאמר‬, there is a tension between v. 1 and v. 2. This may be solved when we assume that ‫אשׁר צוה יהוה‬ does not refer to a speech of Aaron and Moses, but to the performative process of the commandment: “This is the statute of the Torah which YHWH commands herewith: […].” However, the subject of the ‫ דבר‬in v. 2b remains unclear. Following the textual logic, the addressee of the imperative ‫ דבר‬and the consignee of the red cow (‫ )ויקחו אליך‬should be identical. The ‫ דבר‬may thus address Eleazar, which would mean that the ‫ אליך‬v. 2b refers to him. However, vv. 3–4, which form part of the same speech, refer to him in the third person. Hence, Moses may be the most probable candidate for the ‫דבר‬ in v. 2a because of the ‫ דבר אל בני־ישׂראל‬phrase, which in the book of Numbers is usually referred to Moses (Num 5:6, 12; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 17:17; 33:51; 35:10; mostly preceded by ‫)וידבר יהוה אל משׁה לאמר‬. But Moses is not the consignee of the red cow, and he is not engaged in the ritual either. These few preliminary observations show that the text of Num 19 is clearly not a unit, but that it must have been arranged by several redactional hands. The involvement of the protagonists of the book of Numbers (Moses, Aaron, Eleazar) appears to be a redactional addition. We cannot discuss this question in detail, but we may be able to outline a solution. The situation is further complicated by looking at the textual variants: As in some Hebrew manuscripts, the first subject of v. 3 in the LXX is singular, indicating that the “you” (‫אליך‬, σὲ, v. 2b) shall give the heifer to Eleazar. Hence, Moses (resp. Moses and Aaron) receive(s) the cow from the Israelites and give(s) it to Eleazar. In the LXX the Israelites lead the heifer out of the camp and perform the slaughter before him (ἐνώπιον αὐτου, see vv. 3.5). Thus, in the Greek text the action of Eleazar begins in v. 4, which dissolves the awkward confusion in vv. 1–4 by clearly assigning the roles. In the Masoretic text, Aaron is not involved in the ritual. Together with Moses, he may only be considered to be the subject of the ‫“( ונתתם‬you shall give”) in v. 2bβ. But he is not engaged in the ritual itself which is performed by Eleazar. Although “the priest”, ‫ הכהן‬vv. 6–7, can denote the highest priest in particular, it is unlikely that Aaron would have been the acting priest in the ritual. On the other hand, there is no indication why Eleazar is mentioned by name as ‫ אלעזר הכהן‬in vv. 3–4 and then merely as ‫ הכהן‬in vv. 5–6. The change of terminology may be considered as a trace of textual growth. Perhaps like Aaron in v. 1, 10 Eleazar has entered the ritual description at a later redactional stage. 10

Note that some manuscripts lack ‫ אל־ אהרן‬in v. 1.

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

267

The terminology used in Num 19 puts the ritual (in the final form of the text) close to a purification offering (‫)חטאת‬. This is particularly true of the blood rite in v. 4 and the burning of the cow in v. 5. Although ‫ אל־נכח‬in v. 4 is singular, the action of sprinkling blood seven times with the finger in the direction of the sanctuary resembles Lev 4:6, 17; 8:11; 16:14, 19. 11 The burning of the heifer with her skin, her flesh and her dung outside of the camp resembles Exod 29:14; Lev 4:11–12; 8:17; 16:27. Particularly the final comment in v. 9 ‫חטאת היא‬, which may be compared to Exod 29:14; Lev 4:24; 5:9, 12, characterizes the rite as a purification offering. However, because of the differences between a regular ‫ חטאת‬and the ritual, the red heifer somehow stands in between. 12 Its burning takes place entirely outside of the sanctuary; it is a heifer and not a bull; the cow is not slaughtered by the priest Eleazar who performs the blood rite; and the heifer is burnt entirely, including the remaining blood, the viscera and the fat, which is the preferred offering material in the sin-offering.13 The differences emphasize that it is not meant as a sacrifice. The phrase ‫ חטאת הוא‬is based on an analogy to the sinoffering. It is related to the function of the ritual (purgation) and the operating principle (the logic of the ‫ חטאת‬and the ashes as a form of “instant- ‫”חטאת‬ 14 ), but it is not meant to classify the rite as sacrificial. The analogy to Lev 16:16 does not suffice to regard the rite as a sacrifice. 15 Together with the observations on the protagonists of the ritual above, one may consider the passages which describe the ritual as a type of sin-offering to be of redactional nature. The reworking follows a priestly logic that there is no slaughter and no purification/atonement beyond the priestly sacrificial system. Hence, the ritual of the red heifer is adapted, but it is not harmonized with priestly regulations. The interpretation as ‫ חטאת‬was perhaps influenced by the use of ‫חטא‬ D-stem vv. 12, 13, 20 and D-stem v. 19 “to purge, to purify, to deterge,” and the use of ‫ חטאת‬in v.17a in the sense of “purification.” The reworking of the ritual, which involves the priestly protagonists of the book of Numbers in their hierarchical order, comprises at least16 vv. 1* [‫ואל‬ ‫]אהרן‬, 2a, 3a [‫]אל־אלעזר‬, 3b [‫]לפני ו‬, 4, 5a [‫]לעיני ו‬, 5b, 9b [‫]חטאת הוא‬, and perhaps also the phrase ‫ החטאת שׂפרת‬in v. 17.17 It intends to relate the ritual to the cult at the tent of meeting, and to bring it closer to a sacrificial rite. It See MILGROM , Paradox (1981), 63–5 for details. See already HOLZINGER, Numeri (1903), 79. 13 See for this argument MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 63. 14 See HIEKE, Unreinheit (2009), 59. 15 Against MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 66. 16 There may be further redactional parts (for example the introductory formulas) which cannot be discussed here in further detail. 17 This may be understood either as “the burnt of purification” or as “the burnt of the purification offering.” If the latter is true, one may attribute the phrase to the redactional reworking. 11 12

268

Ritual and Practice

underlines the idea that the sanctuary is affected by the impurity which is not removed properly by the ritual (v. 20). If this hypothesis leans in the right direction, the making of the detergent in Num 19:1–10 was originally performed by a regular priest outside of the camp. 18 However, the reworking does not alter the ritual itself. Hence, I would like to consider, in what follows, the final form of the ritual. 3.2 Some Observations on the Making of the Purifying Detergent The section on the making of the ashes for the production of the water of lustration (‫ )מי נדה‬starts with a genre-typical, but very rare introduction formula: “this is the statute of the law” (v. 2: ‫)זאת חקת התורה‬. The purpose of this statute is not further stated, but it is signed again as God’s commandment. The Israelites shall provide the priest Eleazar with a red heifer “without defect, in which there is no blemish and on which no yoke has been laid” (v. 2). The fact that all Israel is engaged in the selection of the red heifer illustrates that the issue concerns the entire community. A heifer is usually not used for sacrifice, 19 but for fieldwork and transport which explains the definite exclusion of all heifers that have pulled a yoke before. The integrity of the red heifer in Num 19:2 signals its use and purpose in an elimination rite. A young heifer is also used in the ritual of coping with the slain in the open field in Deut 21:1–9, where the heifer’s neck is broken by the elders in a wadi to avoid defilement of the land by bloodshed. In the case of Num 19, the heifer is slaughtered before Eleazar, the son of Aaron. It seems remarkable that the heifer has to be slaughtered and burnt outside of the camp, and in the present text it is probably not slaughtered by the priest Eleazar,20 which underlines that we are, indeed, not looking at a regular sacrifice. The outsideinside paradigm is important for the ritual as can be seen in the fact that Eleazar sprinkles some of the blood seven times towards the entrance of the sanctuary. This may be symbolically interpreted as a hint that the sanctuary has been affected by the impurity caused by corpses. Within the ritual the ingredients of the detergent are “charged” with power. Having established the connection to the sanctuary by sprinkling blood from afar, the ritual detergent has an effect for the sanctuary on the one hand, but gets power from the sanctuary on the other hand. In the process of burning, which is performed by an unspecified man who gets unclean during the process, the priest (in the present text probably Eleazar) throws some ingredients into the midst of the fire: One may consider Deut 21:1–9 as a close ritual analogy (see below). But see the exception of the non-priestly texts 1 Sam 6:14 (‫ )פר ה‬and 1 Sam 16:2 (‫)עגלת בק ר‬, where a heifer is immolated. Usually cows are used for work (see Num 7:3) or for agricultural production (cf. Gen 41). 20 If ‫ ל פני ו‬in v. 3 and ‫ לענ ין‬in v. 5 refer to Eleazar, he is not the subject of the verbs of vv. 3bβ, 5a. 18 19

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

269

cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool. When burnt, the cedar wood emits a pleasant scent. Like scarlet wool, cedar wood is frequently used in ancient oriental riddance rituals (see Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52). 21 Both are regarded to be purifying, and their color is reddish, the dominant color of the ritual.22 The analogy between blood perceived as the carrier of life on the one hand and a substance with a highly purifying capacity on the other hand seems to be obvious. This is underlined by Roy Gane: “Since the ashes contain the blood of a red cow, reddish cedar wood, and scarlet thread, this ‘water of lustration’ functions like blood.” 23 Similarly, Jacob Milgrom suggests that the reddish detergents as well as the red hide of the heifer symbolically add “to the quantity of blood in the ash mixture” 24 to enhance the power of the ashes. Hyssop, which is likewise often used in riddance rituals25 and also mentioned in Lev 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52, is used as aspergillum in the application rite of the produced riddance water in the second part (Num 19:18, cf. Ps 51:9). The “pure” substances symbolize the purifying power of the ashes of the red heifer. They are poured into the fire, which transforms the heifer into ashes. The seemingly worthless ashes – simply decomposed and diminished matter – turn into pure matter (cf. Num 17:2) with purifying capacity. Fire is pure and the process of burning is highly purifying. Within the fire all impurity is eliminated (Num 31:23). It is one of the most striking paradoxes of the ritual that the pure man, who collects the pure ashes in order to depose them at a pure place outside of the camp (v. 9), becomes unclean until the evening (v. 10; cf. vv. 21–22).26 There are no further instructions for how to assemble the ritual detergent from the ashes; this is first determined in v. 17, where the ashes are mixed with living water. This is a strong indication that the two parts of the ritual or the two rituals are more likely to be related than to be totally independent of each other. However, the making is temporally and spatially separated from the implementation which is prescribed in the following section. 3.3 The Second Part of the Ritual and the Spatial Order of Imperilment The second part begins in v. 11 with a general statement composed of an antecedent and an apodosis that mentions the defilement by corpses as the rationale of the ritual for the first time. “He who touches the dead body of any 21 See, for example, G ANE, Structure (2004), 228–31; MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 835; SCHMITT , Magie (2004), 165; ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 527. 22 Maybe this is the rationale for combining them in the ritual, but this remains uncertain, see GORMAN, Ideology (1990), 163. One may consider the reddish-brown color of the skin (see the wordplay of ‫ אדם‬and ‫ אדמה‬in Gen 2:7) as an allusive background as well. 23 G ANE , Structure (2004), 175; cf. the argument in IDEM, Cult (2005), 181. 24 MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 65. 25 See S CHMITT , Magie (2004), 163–8. 26 See M ILGROM, Paradox (1981), 63, 67–8. For Milgrom, it is the ‫חט את‬-rite which constitutes the paradox.

270

Ritual and Practice

person shall be unclean seven days” (‫)הנגע ב מת לכל־נפשׁ אדם וטמא שׁב עת ימים‬. The person concerned is specified by the nominalized (and determined) participle of ‫ נגע‬G-stem which is also used frequently in Lev 11 and Lev 15.27 Literally speaking, ‫ נגע‬denotes a form of physical contact by touching something or coming into touch with something; 28 the encounter often has negative connotations. The direct object is a participle of ‫מות‬, introduced by the preposition ‫ ב‬denoting a dead being. In order to differentiate between the touching of carcasses (Lev 11:24, 27, 31, 39) and corpses, the ‫ מת‬is specified by ‫לכל־‬ ‫ נפשׁ‬which is clearly restricted to a human being. The period of uncleanness lasts for seven days; 29 in the following verse, it is structured into two unequal parts that stretch from the first to the third day and from the third to the seventh day. At the end of every phase, the unclean man shall be sprinkled with the water of lustration (v. 12). If these acts are carried out correctly, the impure will become pure again by the end of the seventh day. Otherwise his uncleanness will last and thus defile the sanctuary. After the seventh day, it is no longer possible to remove the uncleanness of the person concerned, so he will have to be “cut off from Israel” (‫ כרת‬N-stem). This underlines the seriousness of the defilement by corpses. Following the general treatment, vv. 14–16 define special cases of defilement. In these cases, there is no restriction to direct physical contact, because the polluting power cannot be precisely located. Consequently, not only will the touching of the corpse itself be defiling, but also the contact with all objects, areas, zones and spaces in which the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased is “present.”30 This aspect is dealt with in the three following subsets which are meant to be exemplary. They are introduced as ‫התורה‬: Dying in a tent (v. 14) stands for any enclosed and roofed space, an open vessel (v. 15) stands for any endangered object within the “realm” of the dead, and “touching” the ‫ נפשׁ‬in the open field (v. 16) stands for any kind of open space.31 The inner logic is the See Lev 11:24, 26, 27, 31, 39; 15:10, 19, 21, 22, cf. the use of the determined noun to denote the person concerned in Lev 13:3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58; 14:36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48. 28 SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, ‫( ָנ ַגע‬1998), 203–9. 29 See Lev 12:2; 13:4, 5, 21, 26, 31, 33, 50, 54; 14:8, 38; 15:13, 19, 24, 28; Num 12:14, 15; 31:19; Isa 44:26. 30 Hyam Maccoby convincingly argues against the analogy of “gas” to describe the polluting atmosphere of a ‫נפשׁ‬: “Pollution was not some substance that crept around rooms. It was a state or condition of people or vessels that were situated, together with a corpse, in a certain kind of area” (MACCOBI, Corpse [1997], 203; cf. IDEM , Ritual [2008], 13–29, esp. 20). Hence, one should not assume from Num 19:13 that ‫ נ פשׁ‬has a certain material or physical quality. 31 Vered Noam has recently suggested that in Num 19:16 ‫ א ו ב דם‬should be added in the biblical text, because it seems to be presumed in the Temple Scroll 11Q19 50:4–7, the War Scroll 1QM 9:7–9a and in a Geniza fragment of the Midrash Sifre Zuta on Num 19:11 (cf. NOAM , Impurity [2009], 250). Although the lack of blood is striking, it is methodically 27

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

271

spatial dimension rather than the relation to the deceased regarding the degree of kinship or the degree of social familiarity. 32 While the first subset defines all persons who are defiled by the ‫ נפשׁ‬of a dead (everyone who is inside and everyone who enters a room where a dead body is present: direct and indirect contact), the second clearly states that any open space is part of the meant enclosure, but a sealed space in the surroundings of a dead person is to be treated differently. Since the open field in the third subset is not determinable by space and time, the contamination is restricted to direct contact. Subsequently, the permanence of the defiling power is defined by further classification in four modes of touching, each connected by the ‫ או‬coordinator. Irrespective of all circumstances, the one slain by a sword is defiling. This is quite crucial, because there seems to be no escape from defilement in situations of battle and war. Numbers 31:19–24 constitutes the narrative implementation of this case.33 With the second case and the absolute “the dead,” ‫המת‬, the perspective is expanded again to embrace all cases of death. The focus on the ‫ עצם אדם‬in the third case enlarges the defiling matter and the period of defilement. ‫ עצם‬literally denotes a single bone. If a skeleton is meant, the Hebrew usually uses the plural. Thus, any human bone is defiling. The extension of the focus to human bones makes the defilement durable because of the long-lasting existence of bones. Thus, the last stage is, quite logically, the grave as the confined space of bones and their usual abode. 34 The arrangement of the four cases expands the temporal dimension of defilement from the time of death to the existence in the grave which should guarantee a permanent keeping. Concurrently, the spatial dimension in which the defilement takes place is again restricted to a specific and marked place. problematic to amend the text. The assumption of a homoiteleuton is not convincing [cf. also the LXX and the Sam). Perhaps the lack of blood has to be ascribed to its use as a ritual detergent. This would require further discussion. 32 On the contrary, see BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009), 297–8, who otherwise correctly stresses the reduced order of the periphery. Because people die in enclosed spaces in the city, the confrontation is not “the city” against “the field,” but “the tent” (as a roofed enclosed space, see LXX ἐν οἰκίᾳ) and “the field” as periphery. 33 We cannot discuss the singularities of vv. 21–23 here. See WRIGHT, Purification (1985), 213–23 for the differences to Num 19. 34 Except from exceptional cases (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:37; Jer 9:21; 36:30; Ezek 39:15; Tob 1:17) human bones are not to be found in natural or cultivated environments because of the high estimation of the dead and the burial customs in ancient societies. Thus, the common place for bones or skeletons is the grave. For the dangerous realm of graves see the marking of places meant as a warning against pollution in mSheq 1:1; 1:46; Matt 23:27. Perhaps 2 Kgs 23:6b also attests the defiling power of graves, when Josiah throws the dust of the pulverized asherah “upon the graves of the common people” to underline the irreversibility of cultic use symbolically (cf. the long-term defiling capacity of bones in 2 Kgs 23:14, 16 and the defiling sacrilege of slaughter 2 Kgs 23:20). For a positive connotation of opening graves, see OLYAN, Resonances (2009).

272

Ritual and Practice

With the tomb, the defiling power is constrained to an enclosure again, but it is temporally enhanced and therefore completely disconnected from the time of death. Matter

Time

Space

One who has been killed by a sword

between slaughter and burial

any space

One who has died

after death until burial and beginning of decomposition

any open or enclosed space

a human bone or skeleton

during and after decomposition of the body

any open but usually enclosed space

a grave

utilization phase

a defined enclosed space

What appears to be an incomprehensible casuistic enhancement and accentuation of Num 19:14–16, becomes quite logical on the textual level at the second glance. The realm of death and the defiling power of the ‫ נפשׁ‬are durable or even everlasting. They do not end with the abode of the spirit of the dead in the netherworld. Body and vitality may not be figured as separate realms, not even after a long period of time. The ‫ נפשׁ‬holds a relation to the body it was once related to. This forms part of the concept of “person” in ancient Hebrew thought (see below). Verses 17–20 prescribe the ritual of purification for the cases of impurity described in vv. 14–16. They are directly related by the enumeration of the defiled matter in v. 18: The water of lustration has to be sprinkled “upon the tent, all the furnishings, on the persons who were there, and on whoever touched the bone, the slain, the corpse, or the grave.” With vv. 17 and 19, the general case of vv. 11–13 is included as well: both are related to the “unclean person” (‫על־הטמא‬/‫ )לטמא‬in general and the treatment of uncleanness on the third and seventh day. Verse 17 first mentions the preparation of the water of lustration: Some of the ashes, which are called ashes of the ‫חטאת‬-offering (see v. 9: ‫)חטאת הוא‬35, shall be intermixed with fresh water (‫ )מים חיים‬in a vessel and applied by a pure ritualist on the polluted matter with a bunch of hyssop. The dual operation of the ritual expert constitutes a riddance rite; the sprinkling is literally completed in v. 19 by the use of ‫ חטא‬D-stem “he makes him clean.” 36 After the second performance of ceremony, the concerned person has to wash himself and his clothes and will thereafter be clean on the evening of the seventh day (‫)וטהר בערב‬.

See above n. 17. For ‫ חט א‬as a term of purification, see F REVEL, Purity Conceptions, p. 225–60 in the present volume. 35 36

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

273

4. The Rationale of the Ritual Following the broad description of the ritual, several questions arise: Why are corpses defiling, or more precisely, what particularly is the defiling capacity of death? What is the rationale of the ritual of Num 19? I will begin with the last aspect, which is crucial for interpreting the text of the ritual. There are several suggestions concerning the function and purpose of Num 19, which overall assume that the ritual described in Num 19 is a very old ritual which was transformed in the process of transmission by the priestly writers of the Torah. In a recent article Thomas Hieke combines various suggestions on the rationale of the ritual. He states: It is very likely that Numbers 19 picks up and partly rationalizes magical practices that were common within Israel and beyond, as well as integrating them into the overall priestly system’s conception of purity and holiness. 37

Like Jacob Milgrom he is inclined to assume an old exorcism in the background of Num 19, according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s discussion with a heathen about the rationale of Num 19.38 The magical aspects of the ritual are tentatively interpreted as “old” and relating to the assumption of the demonic power of death. Hieke calls the burning of the red heifer a symbolic total annihilation of life and an orchestration of death.39 The ashes represent “total death.” Mixed with fresh water, they turn into the “water of dissociation” with which the person concerned is detracted from the sphere of death.40 Death is interpreted as being completely separated from the sphere of God; hence both have to be kept apart from each other by ritual and behavior: “Es bedarf eines Rituals, das Sicherheit vermittelt und die Lebensordnung wieder herstellt sowie aus der Gottesferne herausholt.” 41 As a second key for the understanding of Num 19, Hieke opts for the challenge of superstitious practices, particularly the cult of the dead.

37 This is an English translation of H IEKE, Unreinheit (2009), 58: “Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass Numeri 19 magische Praktiken, die in Israel und außerhalb geläufig waren, aufgreift und teilweise rationalisiert sowie in das Gesamtsystem der priesterlichen Reinheits- und Heiligkeitsvorstellungen integriert.” 38 See MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 62–63, 69–70. Cf. further SEEBASS , Numeri (2003), 245. 39 “Wenn hier nun all dies zusammen mit dem Blut der Kuh verbrannt wird, so kommt dies einer totalen Lebensvernichtung gleich, einer Inszenierung des Todes” (HIEKE, Unreinheit [2009], 58). 40 See HIEKE, Unreinheit (2009), 59. 41 HIEKE , Unreinheit (2009), 61. Consequently he argues for the insignificance of the ritual with the conceptual development of resurrection (IBIDEM, 62).

274

Ritual and Practice

Any magical and superstitious practices, which manifest themselves by staying in graves and the handling of the dead, but also with an exaggerated honoring of heroes killed in war, become strongly rejected through the regulations of Numbers 19. 42

As a third aspect of the rationale of Num 19, Hieke refers to the respectful handling of death. The ritual aims at avoiding the exposure of corpses, necrophilia, and the desecration of dead bodies. It is in this aspect that he sees the relevance of the ritual for modern readers. When evaluating the arguments regarding magic, desecration and the attracting power of death, we are faced with a number of problems. Let us first look at desecration: 4.1 Does Numbers 19 Aim at the Avoidance of Desecration of Dead Bodies? Except for the context of war, there are no exploitable hints suggesting that necrophilia or the desecration of dead bodies in the public sphere were seen as a serious problem at any time. The exposure of corpses was a common Assyrian practice in cases of military resistance, as can be seen on Assyrian reliefs (for example, the Lachish reliefs). Skinning a prisoner dead or possibly alive was a dreadful punishment, and the paling of corpses was a practice of deterrence. 43 The exposure of corpses on the battlefield and the paling of corpses are reflected several times in Old Testament texts,44 for instance in the description of the exposure of Saul’s dead body at the wall of Beth-Shan (1 Sam 31:9–12; 1 Chron 10:1045), which is shameful in the eyes of the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead. 46 42 This is an English translation of HIEKE, Unreinheit (2009), 63: “Jeglicher Magie und abergläubischer Praxis, die sich im Aufenthalt in Grabanlagen und dem Hantieren mit Toten, aber auch in einer übertriebenen Verehrung der im Krieg erschlagenen Helden manifestierte, wird durch die Vorschriften von Numeri 19 eine harte Absage erteilt.” 43 See BERLEJUNG, Gewalt (2005), 205–11; for the modern history, see QUIGLEY, Corpse (1996), 281–3. 44 For the practice, see further Deut 21:22–23; Gen 40:19, 22; 41:13; Josh 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam 4:12; 18:11; 21:12; Ps 79:2–3; Esth 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9–10; 8:7; 9:13–14, 25; 1 Macc 7:47; 2 Macc 15:33 and Lam 5:12. 45 In 1 Chron 10:10 it is only the skull which is pinned on the temple of Dagon, while in the Samuel version the head and body are treated differently. Regine Hunziker-Rodewald has noted the remarkable symbolic difference between skull and corpse: “Im Blick auf den kopflosen Rumpf (bildet) sich die Sicht der Verlierer ab, während sich im Blick ausschließlich auf die Kopftrophäe das Erleben der Sieger spiegelt” (HUNZIKER-RODEWALD , Kopf [2004], 294). For a discussion with parallels of decapitations in Assyrian war practices, see IBIDEM, 280–300. 46 Cremation was practiced in the Phoenician culture, but not regularly in Judah. See KAMLAH, Grab (2009), 292. In sum, the judgment of Roland de Vaux endures: “There is no evidence that corpses were cremated in Palestine […] to burn a body was an outrage, inflicted only on notorious criminals (Gen 38:24; Lev 20:14; 21:9), or upon enemies a man wanted to annihilate forever (Amos 2:1). […] In addition we must not confuse with cremation the references given in Jer 34:5; 2 Chr 16:14; 21:19, which speak of a fire being lit at

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

275

Influenced by the context of war is the legislation of Deut 21:22–23 where a man, sentenced to death, shall be hanged on a pale after death (‫ותלית אתי‬ ‫)על־עץ‬, but he shall not remain there overnight (‫)לא־תלין נבלתו על־העץ‬. This is again reflected in the story of the conquest of Ai: Joshua hangs the corpse of the king of Ai, but the dead body is taken down before sunset (Josh 8:29; cf. Josh 10:26–27). In this context, we may also discuss the practice of stretching a body in the sun as a mode of execution reflected in 2 Sam 21:6, 9 and Num 25:4. 47 The Deuteronomic regulation in Deut 21 reflects a limitation of dishonoring practices and the respect for the corpse in general. Furthermore, the contempt against the demand of a prompt burial constitutes a dreadful punishment predominantly in cases of war (e.g., Num 14:29, 32; Deut 28:26; 1 Sam 17:46; 2 Kgs 9:37). Thus, especially in the context of war, there are some clues pointing to the desecration of dead bodies in Israel. But the avoidance of these dishonoring practices cannot be seen as the background of the ritual described in Num 19. Desecration is neither stressed explicitly in Num 19 nor is there an acute warning to touch a corpse generally or in a disdaining manner. On the contrary, all the instances of the defilement by corpses (Lev 21:1, 11; 22:4; Num 5:2–3; 6:6, 9) are associated with the cult. Besides the “open field” and the “sword” in Num 19:16a, only Num 31:19 is associated with war affairs. There, however, the defilement becomes problematic when returning to the “cultic sphere” of the camp and not in the process of slaughtering the Midianites. Thus, one can exclude that Num 19 is concerned with respectfulness towards the corpse or human dignity which endures after death. 4.2 Is the Cult of the Dead the Hidden Agenda of Numbers 19? That Num 19 is directed against the cult of the dead has been suggested time and again, most comprehensively by Baruch Levine. He even calls the cult of the dead “the hidden agenda of Numbers 19.”48 Following Levine, the ritual attempts “to prevent the establishments of the cults of the dead in biblical Israel, and uproot them where they existed.” 49 He understands the cult of the the death of a king who died in peace with God: this is certainly not cremation, but incense and perfumes were burned near the body” (DE VAUX, Israel [1961], 57). For the discussion of the burning of the king’s corpse in 1 Sam 31:12, see ZWICKEL, Quadratbau (1993), 165– 74 and recently KUBERSKI , Cremation (2009). 47 See the discussion in THIEL, Rizpa (2005). While he convincingly ranges the practice in the context of punishment (“Es handelt sich offenbar um eine besonders barbarische Form der Hinrichtung”; IBIDEM, 132), he suggests that a Canaanite fertility rite might have formed the background, which, in my view, is neither essential nor cogent. But this would have to be discussed in the context of Num 25. 48 LEVINE, Numbers (2008), 472. 49 LEVINE, Numbers (2008), 472.

276

Ritual and Practice

dead as a “propitiation of the dead through sacrifice and other forms of ritual activity, as well as by magic […] to ensure that the dead will not forget the living and will act benevolently rather than malevolently.”50 The priestly program on the other hand is convinced that “the dead have no power, and they are no longer members of the ongoing community.” 51 For the existence of the cult of the dead, Levine points to the Rephaim in Prov 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Ps 88:11; Job 26:5; Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19, which may allude to a cult of ancestors even if they are “viewed as a component of the pre Israelite demography of Canaan” in biblical tradition;52 to the objections against necromancy in Lev 19:26–28; Deut 18:11; to the offering for a dead in Deut 26:14; and to the worship of the dead in Isa 57:9 and Isa 65:3–7.53 Furthermore, he sees sufficient indications of a royal cult of the dead in Jer 34:5, Amos 6:10 and 2 Chron 26:14. Along with the Josianic reform, the resistance against these cults increasingly disavowed a monotheistic viewpoint. Numbers 19 is seen as a consequence of this turn and as a priestly anti-text which seeks to prevent any harmonization of these cultic elements with Yahwism. In accordance with Baruch Levine, Horst Seebass states in his commentary: Cult actions like those in Deut 26:14; Is 65:4; Ps 106:28 could prevent the rigor in Num 19:13, 20, because already all who gave themselves over to the dead, graves and bones, and who afterwards did not ritually cleanse, desecrate Yhwh’s sanctuary. 54

He adds the hero cult in Persian times, which took place in graves, as a background of Num 19. For this, he refers to the ‫ נפילים‬in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 on the one hand and the great ancestors Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, etc. on the other hand. Seebass suggests that ‫ על פני השׂד ה‬in Num 19:16a hints at the burial places of the heroes outside of the city, e.g., Machpelah.55 In the face of the Persian rulers it was, for example, not feasible to be granted leave to give special veneration to the Davidides in/on their graves in Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 43:7). What was closer to seek out than the graves of the key figures from the (idea of) the entire great history in order to perform religiously colored worship there [...]? At that time Miriam and Aaron’s grave lay outside Jerusalem’s field of influence, as did [the graves] of Sarah and the patriarchs (Machpela near Mamre), Moses’s [grave also] would have been, had its location been known (Deut 34). Thus before the highly regarded Miriam [...] and the original priest Aaron, as the head of the Levites and priests, died (Num 20:1, 22ff.), a law LEVINE , Numbers (2008), 472. LEVINE, Numbers (2008), 472. 52 LEVINE, Numbers (2008), 475. 53 Significantly, Ps 106:28 is missing in the listing of B. Levine, but see SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 250. 54 This is an English translation of SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 250–1: “Kulthandlungen wie die von Deut 26,14; Jes 65,4; Ps 106,28 konnte der Rigorismus in Num 19:13.20 verhindern, weil bereits alle, die sich mit Toten, Gräbern und Gebeinen abgaben, und sich danach nicht rituell reinigten, Jahwes Heiligtum schändeten.” 55 Cf. SEEBASS , Numeri (2003), 252. 50 51

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

277

should be given, such that all dead manipulation was ruled out. In this respect JosAnt 4,78–82 could have provided a correct indication. 56

With Seebass’ suggestions, the assumed field of a “cult of the dead” becomes broader and all the more complex. I cannot discuss the evidence of the alleged cultic practices at length, 57 but may point to some aspects of the arguments of Levine and Seebass to clarify whether Num 19 has something to do with the so-called “cult of the dead.” Let us begin with the last-named suggestion of a cult regarding the “heroes” of Israel’s past. It is generally conceivable that the early Greek hero cult, which (assessed from archaeological evidence) started in the 8th cent. BCE in Greece and which spread shortly after, 58 has been of particular interest and attractiveness. It could have been mediated to the periphery in preHellenistic times, for instance by Greek soldiers. It is also true that “heroes have tombs that focus their worship” 59 and that these tombs can be situated outside settlements, both Mycenaean tumuli […] and real tombs. In many cases they are situated on the boundary of the settlement and in this way protect it. In numerous cases, however, they are located inside the settlement: the tombs of founding heroes are mostly on the Agora and are the centre of a cult that has as its theme the identity of the polis. 60

And it is true enough, that “frequently the cults of the hero and the god are constructed as antithetic.” 61 All of this might tie in with Seebass’ assumption. But there are, nevertheless, serious objections against the relation of Num 19 to a hero cult. First of all, there is no sufficient evidence for a hero cult outside of the city in the Persian period, not even in Machpelah, although the patriarchal tomb 56 This is an English translation of SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 253: “Angesichts der persischen Herrscher war es ja z.B. nicht tunlich, den Davididen in/an ihren Gräbern zu Jerusalem besondere Verehrung zuteil werden zu lassen (vgl. Ez 43,7). Was lag dann näher als die Gräber der Leitfiguren aus der (der Idee nach) ganz großen Vergangenheit aufzusuchen und dort religiös gefärbte Verehrung zu vollziehen […]? Mirjams und Aarons Grab lagen damals außerhalb des Einflussbereiches Jerusalems, ja sogar das Saras und der Erzväter (Machpela bei Mamre), und Moses wäre es gewesen, wenn dessen Lage bekannt gewesen wäre (Deut 34). Bevor also die hochangesehene Mirjam […] und der Urpriester Aaron als Haupt der Leviten und Priester starben (Num 20,1.22ff), sollte eine Gesetzgebung ergehen, die jede Totenmanipulation ausschloß. JosAnt 4,78–82 könnte insofern einen richtigen Hinweis gegeben haben.” 57 See for the recent debate the volume BERLEJUNG/JANOWSKI, Tod (2009). The articles of this volume are not cited extensively in the following argumentation. 58 See BOEHRINGER, Heroenkult (2001), 103–14; G RAF , Hero (2006); for the discussion of Old Testament texts and a hero concept as the possible background, see BARTELMUS, Heroentum (1979); IDEM, Hero (2011). 59 G RAF , Hero (2006). 60 G RAF , Hero (2006). 61 G RAF , Hero (2006).

278

Ritual and Practice

has special significance in priestly literature (Gen 23:11, 13, 17, 20). But even if biblical texts may already “reflect a growing reverence for him [Abraham] as an ancestral saint and intercessor,” 62 there is no pre-Hellenistic hero cult at the burial place, neither for Abraham at Hebron nor for Moses at Nebo. 63 In the Machpelah in Hebron, there may have been earlier buildings which were built over by supposed Herodian structures, but there are no archaeological traces of any Persian architecture which could corroborate a hero cult.64 Finally, Josephus’ retelling of Miriam’s death and his association of the ritual in Num 19 with this event (... καì πενθήσαντα ἐπì τριάκοντα ἡµέρας τὸν λαὸν ἐκάθηρε Μωυσῆς τούτῷ τῷ τρόπῳ: µόσχον θήλειαν ... Ant. 4:78–79*) reads the ritual in the context of the following narrative, but does not indicate an extensive ancestral hero cult. The evidence for a hero cult in Yehûd or its neighboring provinces is less than scarce. Neither a hero cult nor the threat it allegedly poses forms the background of Num 19. Next, we have to comment briefly on other forms of cults in graves in the context of the cult of the dead, as a possible background of the ritual. Is Num 19 directed against elements of the ancestor cult, especially common meals in tombs and offerings for the deceased? Apart from ‫“( ולא נתתי ממנו למת‬I did not give any of it to the dead!”) in Deut 26:14, there are legitimate doubts on communal meals with or for the dead, especially in graves, as Seebass suggests. However, even Deut 26:14 does not inhibit offering gifts to the deceased, but suggests to rather invest the tithe for that purpose.65 Nevertheless, this may refer to the supply of the deceased during the interment rather than to regular meals for or with the deceased in tombs as part of an ancestor

DIJKSTRA, Abraham (1999), 4. The idea that ‫ ול א־י דע אישׁ את־ קברת י ע ד היום הזה‬in Deut 34:6 intended to hinder a grave cult has often been proposed in critical scholarship, e.g., in the 1830s by Gotthold Salomon: “Wohlweislich wurde das Grab eines so ausgezeichneten Mannes verheimlicht […] Kein Mensch, und wäre er ein Mose, soll nach dem Tode vergöttert werden. Um die sogenannten heiligen Wallfahrten zu seinem Grabe zu verhindern, ward sein Grab – zum Geheimnis” (S ALOMON, Mose [1835], 314). While Martin Noth assumed that the tradition of the grave of Moses has to be regarded as the oldest core of the Moses tradition with an old pilgrimage tradition (“[…] daß man das Grab zu zeigen wußte und als die Ruhestätte einer Überlieferungsgestalt verehrte […],” NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte [1966], 189), the above-cited view has frequently been taken up, e.g., by S CHMIDT, Studien (1993), 210; ROSE , Deuteronomium (1994), 586 and others. Siegfried Schwertner correctly called Deut 34:6 a “negative Grabtradition” (S CHWERTNER, Erwägungen [1972], 27, 45). See further FREVEL, Abschied (2001), 209–34. There is no hero cult of Moses beyond the textual level. 64 Cf. O FER, Hebron (1993). 65 See for further discussion K ÜHN, Totengedenken (2005), 351–7. 62 63

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

279

cult,66 which are frequently attested in Bronze Age Syria, especially in the royal cult. Like the bread of mourners (Jer 16:7; Ezek 24:17, 22; Hos 9:4), the gifts are rather part of the mortuary practice.67 The ‫ זבחי מתים‬in Ps 106:28 are directed polemically against the cult of Baal-Peor (strongly dependent on Num 25:2–5), possibly associating the ‫ פעור‬pĕ‘ôr with the netherworld68 or with ‫ פגר‬peger, 69 “corpse,” and taunting the tin god as “the dead ones.”70 There is very little evidence that this could be connected with meals for or with the dead. 71 The same holds true for Isa 65:4 where the accused sojourn in graves. This seems to imply a case of being “deliberately unclean” rather than necromancy. One may not easily conflate “eating pork” (‫)בשׂר החזיר האכלים‬ with the abode in the graves.72 Likewise, Deut 26:14 and Tob 4:17 seem to describe mortuary practices, but not meals with or for the dead in graves. 73 Sirach 30:18 θέµατα βρωµάτων παρακείµενα ἐπὶ τάφῳ (“meal offerings given in the tomb”) seem to denote gifts for the deceased in graves, but it is significant that the earlier Hebrew Manuscript B relates this to idols: ‫לפני גלול טובה‬ ‫“( שפוכה על פה סתום תנופה מצגת‬Good things poured out upon a mouth that is closed are like offerings given before an idol”). 74 Probably the Greek version refers to later Hellenistic practices. In sum, the arguments for a common cult of the dead in graves, which would include physical contact with the corpse or skeleton and its sphere of

Jens Kamlah has given an overview of the archaeological record in Iron Age funeral contexts in KAMLAH, Grab (2009), 257–97, esp. 269–71. 67 See BLENKINSOPP, Deuteronomy (1995), 6: “part of the mortuary ritual.” For a critical discussion of Jer 16:1–9, see KÜHN, Totengedenken (2005), 357–67. 68 The verb ‫( פע ר‬Arabic faġar) means “to open the mouth wide, to open the gorge” which is related to the netherworld in Isa 5:14. 69 This may be substantiated by the Βεελφεγωρ of the Septuagint, reading the /‫ע‬/ as “rayin” /g/. 70 See HOSSFELD/ZENGER, Psalmen (2008), 131: “Die Götter der Moabiter gelten als tote Götzen.” 71 See SCHMITT , Totenversorgung (2009), 505: “Keinen Hinweis auf Totenmähler enthält jedoch der in diesem Kontext häufig angeführte Ps 106,28.” 72 But see S CHMITT , Totenversorgung (2009), 506, who considers the archaeological evidence in Lachish (TUFNELL, Lachish [1953], 187, 193–4] as additional evidence. 73 K ÜHN, Totengedenken (2005), 355 and S CHMITT, Totenversorgung (2009), 505 both refer emphatically to the wording ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον in Tob 4:17. “Die Übersetzung ‘beim/für das Begräbnis’ lässt sich vom Text her also nicht begründen” (KÜHN , Totengedenken [2005], 355). However, τάφος does not only denote the grave, but rather the burial. See PAPE , τάφος (1843), 1075: “Leichenbestattung, bes. Todtenmahl oder Leichenfeier.” ἐπὶ with acc. may not only be spatial, but temporal. See EGO, Death (2009), esp. 94–6. In this context Sir 7:33 has to be discussed: χάρις δόµατος ἔναντι παντὸς ζῶντος, καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῷ µή ἀποκωλύσῃς χάριν, which is interpreted as an offering for the dead. But this remains rather doubtful. 74 See the Hebrew text of MS B in BEENTJES , Book (1997), 55. 66

280

Ritual and Practice

influence are extremely rare. Regarding the pre-exilic Judahite practice, Jens Kamlah sums this up as follows: The small number of cultic vessels within the Judean tombs, the small size of the graves and the absence of cult installations in their inner or outer areas speak against the thesis of regular cultic activity and celebrations for the religious honoring of the dead. 75

If one takes a comparative look at burial practices in Persian times, there is not much evidence either that could corroborate common meals with or for the deceased.76 Although the evidence for meals in tombs are scarce, one may not exclude in general that offerings were made to the dead, particularly in the funeral and mourning period or sacrificial meals of the kinship to commemorate the ancestors (e.g., 1 Sam 20:6). 77 In this paper, we cannot enter the complex debate on the difference between memory-oriented ancestor cults and the cultic veneration of the deceased in cults of the dead. However, the ritual in Num 19 would be relevant for the cult of the dead only if the 75 This is an English translation of K AMLAH , Grab (2009), 290: “Die kleine Anzahl an kultischen Gefäßen innerhalb der judäischen Gräber, die geringe Größe der Gräber und das Fehlen von Kultinstallationen in ihren Innen- oder Außenbereichen sprechen gegen die These regelmäßiger Kulthandlungen und -feiern für die religiöse Verehrung von Verstorbenen.” 76 The burial practices of the Persian period have not received much attention in the scholarly debate. First of all, this is due to the lack of detailed publications of archaeological excavations regarding the cemeteries and tombs of the sites. According to E. Stern, the tombs of the Persian period can be subdivided into two types: shaft and cist tombs (cf. STERN, Culture [1982]; IDEM, Archaeology [2001]). Most tombs have been found along the coast (e.g., Achzib, Dor, Tel Michal, Jaffa, Ashkelon) or in places influenced by the coast and sea (e.g., Tell el-Hesi or Tell Qiri). Only a few have been found in the central hill country (e.g., Jerusalem, Beth-Shemesh) and none in the south of Israel/Palestine (see WOLFF, Practices [2002], 131–2). “The break with the preceding Iron Age mortuary practices is dramatic and almost total in all respects, including tomb type, grave goods, orientation of the body and location of cemeteries” (IBIDEM, 136). In fact, the previous Iron Age custom of burying bodies in rock-cut (bench) tombs (cf. F ANTALKIN, Appearance [2008]; FAUST/BUMIVONITZ, Tomb [2008]; BLOCH-S MITH, Practices [1992]) is attested in Jerusalem (Ketef Hinnom, the so-called Mamilla tombs and some tombs of the Silwan village). Thus, HACHLILI, Customs (2005), 4 states: “During the Persian and early Hellenistic Period Jerusalem Jews buried their dead in field and cist tombs […] The Jerusalem Jews also continued the use of bench tombs of the First Temple Period […].” Nevertheless, the evidence for tombs which could architecturally support the thesis of common meals in tombs is very scarce and reflects, in all cases, burial traditions of the late Iron Age and their continuous usage during the following periods, including the Persian period. The fact that there is no evidence for any new cut-out rock tomb shows that common meals within tombs could not have been that important or even a constitutive part of a cult of the dead. 77 It is remarkable that “in none of these instances is there any mention of dead members of the kin group as participants, or of cult being offered to them, or of their being given food or drink” (BLENKINSOPP, Deuteronomy [1995], 8). In my view, this may not be regarded as a result of Deuteronomistic censorship.

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

281

ancestor cult had taken place in or above tombs. Only in these contexts would corpses or skeletons have been present, and in such situations, they could have constituted a potential hazard of impurity by contact. Considering the above-mentioned arguments, it seems unlikely that Num 19 describes a riddance rite regarding defilement caused during the participation in ancestor cults. But even if there were meals for or with the dead, Num 19 does not exclude them. It only states that the one who comes in contact with corpses is unclean and excluded from the central cult in the temple. But he may use the ritual described in Num 19 in order to get clean again. Thus Num 19 may not hinder him from joining the cult of the dead. The text in Num 19 is fairly unsuitable for diminishing the cult of the dead and the honoring or veneration of the ancestors. Levine’s argument that death and the dead in Num 19 have “no power” is not particularly convincing either. If the ‫ נפשׁ מת‬has polluting capacity after death and if the impurity caused by death is capable of defiling the sanctuary, if it is not cleansed properly, the dead seem to have special power indeed. We have to ask why, if Num 19 is directed against cults of the dead, it remains so cryptic? Why does it not name the practices clearly? As in Lev 21; Num 5:2; 6:9; 9:6, the uncleanness of Num 19 is not directed against the cult of the dead, but rather refers to the temple cult and the sanctuary. It focuses on the defilement of the sanctuary in vv. 13, 20. The “hidden agenda” of Num 19 in its final form is not the cult of the dead, but the protection of the cultic purity of the sanctuary. The reference to the open field and the graves as crucial areas in Num 19:16 has its background not in a particular cultic practice, but follows a system of time-space relation as shown above. It may be considered from the viewpoint of textual logic rather than understood as a reference to a religious practice. It results from the ritual logic which is represented in the text. This judgment is in line with our general methodological observations regarding rituals above. 4.3 Is the Ritual Described in Numbers 19 a Transformed Form of Exorcism That Intended to Ward Off the Effects of Malevolent Ghosts? Finally, the first argument brought forward by Hieke has to be taken more seriously, as it seems to be more valid. The strangeness of the ritual reminds us of elimination rites in Ancient Near Eastern ritual practice.78 On the one hand, there is an analogy to aspects of elimination in the burning of the whole heifer outside of the camp or in the defiling power of the ashes. On the other hand, there are aspects of a purification rite, for instance the sprinkling of the water of riddance on the defiled person or object. The overall backdrop and 78 See the examples in MILGROM , Paradox (1981) and W RIGHT, Disposal (1987); MAUL, Zukunftsbewältigung (1994).

282

Ritual and Practice

cause of the ritual is the defiling power of corpses. In assuming a demonic power of death, the ritual is connected with an older exorcism. Jacob Milgrom, for example, has suggested that “corpse contamination evoked an obsessive, irrational fear” 79 and that “he who had contracted corpse contamination would demand an exorcism, the application of powerful countervailing forces to his body that would drive out the dreaded impurity.”80 This older exorcism using lustral ashes was taken up by the priestly writers and integrated into the Israelite sacrificial system: Otherwise the rite has been totally transformed by the Israelite values inherent in its sacrificial procedures. Above all, the hitherto demonic impurity of corpses has been devitalized, first by denying it the automatic power to contaminate the sanctuary (requiring a haṭṭā’t) and then by denying that the corpse-contaminated need leave his camp or city during his purificatory period. 81

The integration into the sacrificial logic is sophisticated and has several aspects, which cannot be discussed here at length. The interpretation I have suggested above is close to Milgrom’s assumption. However, I would doubt the conclusion that there was a very old riddance rite as a means of protection against the malevolent power of death. We have no indication that Israelite religion assumed a demonic power of death which would have required exorcism rites.82 That there was a foregoing “obsessive” and “irrational” fear of encountering corpses cannot be substantiated within Israelite religious practice before post-exilic times, i.e., the 5th/4th cent. The only possibility to assume such a fear would be to refer to the dead spirits: the ‫רפאים‬, ‫ אב ות‬or ‫ידענים‬. Even if one concedes that the dead had malevolent power and have to be served with sacrifices or oblations to be placated, as possibly reflected in Deut 26:14 (see above for a skeptical review), there are no indications of the malevolent power of corpses. And even if one admits the broader existence of divination rituals (Lev 19:31; 20:6; Deut 18:11)83 questioning the dead, there are no reliable indications of exorcisms. Within Mesopotamian conceptions the presence of malevolent ghosts (Akkadian eṭemmu, Sumerian gidim), “who haunt and harm the living is ubiquitous,” 84 and numerous exorcistic rituals were “developed to ward off the effects of malevolent ghosts.” 85 But following J. T. Lewis, “the biblical material is more like the Egyptian than the Mesopotamian in its general silence about the malevolent dead.”86 There is neiMILGROM, Paradox (1981), 69. MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 69. 81 MILGROM, Paradox (1981), 72. 82 See for discussion F REVEL, Lobgesang (2009). 83 See further 1 Sam 28:3–25; Isa 8:19–20; 29:4; Zech 10:2; 2 Chron 16:12 and, denying the knowledge of the dead, Job 14:21; Eccl 9:5–6, 10. 84 LEWIS , Dead (1999), 226. 85 LEWIS , Dead (1999), 226. 86 LEWIS , Dead (1999), 230. 79 80

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

283

ther textual nor archaeological evidence for this. 87 But be that as it may, there remains a difference between corpses and the spirits of the dead. There is no evidence that a particularly dangerous or demonic power was attributed to dead bodies in pre-exilic times.88 Dealing with corpses after death until burial was neither a taboo nor considered jeopardizing. All instances in the Old Testament are of relatively late provenance. Thus, the supposition that priestly writers transformed an old exorcistic ritual cannot be substantiated by further evidence. On the contrary, it is striking that the conception of death in pre-exilic times did not include a significant defiling capacity of corpses. All relevant texts have to be attributed to the later stages of the priestly strata in the Pentateuch or are subsequently dependent on them. 89 The ritual of the red heifer seems to be created especially in priestly circles of the Achaemenid period. It is quite probable that there were substantial transformations of (parts of) older elimination and lustration rituals, but these may have had other purposes than the defilement of corpses. It is striking that valuable parallels to the conception of defilement by corpses can be found especially in Greek inscriptions and in ancient Zoroastrianism, as Reinhard Achenbach has recently argued. 90 This may corroborate the assumption that the ritual in Num 19 was created in priestly circles in the Persian period. It is neither directed against a widespread cult of the dead nor is it rooted in a supposed demonic power of death. Quite the opposite, it is integrated into the elaborated priestly system of purity and impurity, holy and profane. In sum: Neither the cult of the dead nor an irrational fear can be considered to form the background of the ritual in Num 19. Thus, we may conclude with See the recent overview in KAMLAH, Grab (2009) and WENNING, Medien (2005). Amulets which were deposed in burials should be interpreted as relating to the period of life (see BERLEJUNG, Programm [2008] regarding the silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom from Persian times) and not to the time of death (BLOCH- SMITH, Practices [1992], 83–5). The lions in the grave of Tel ‘Ēṭūn No. 4 do not aim at hindering the malevolent buried persons from coming out of the grave: “Das würde die Vorstellung voraussetzen, dass von den Toten eine Bedrohung ausging. Der archäologische Befund der Eisenzeit in Juda widerspricht einer solchen Vorstellung, die nachexilisch geprägt zu sein scheint. Es liegt eher nahe, das Umsetzen der Torwächter von außen nach innen damit zu begründen, dass Ausgestaltungen des Grabes vermieden werden mussten” (WENNING , Medien [2005], 120). 88 It is typical that G RAY, Numbers (1903), 245, for instance, adheres to the idea of demonic power against better knowledge: “In none of these passages is there any suggestion that the demonological beliefs, with which the doctrine seems to have been originally connected, were still consciously held by the Hebrews.” 89 One has to discuss Hos 9:4 further, where offerings in a foreign land make unclean like the mourner’s bread (‫)כלחם אונ ים ל הם כל־ אכל יו יט מאו‬. Whether this refers to a traditional view of the defiling capacity of death or whether it should be paralleled to the postexilic discussion is open to debate. See ACHENBACH, Verunreinigung (2009), 352 n. 23: “Das Datierungsproblem ist ungelöst.” 90 See A CHENBACH, Verunreinigung (2009), 364–6; see further H UTTER, Impurity (2009), 13–26. 87

284

Ritual and Practice

Paul Mpunga Muzinga that the rationale is simply the purification of the impurity caused by death: The function of the red cow ritual is neither “cathartic” nor “apotropaic” because the impurity of death is not biblically considered as a malefic effect; the function of this ritual is neither to fight against magic, the worship of the dead and paganism, nor to symbolize the opposition between life and death (in the context of the red cow, what represents life and what represents death?). Its function is not expiatory, for the red cow is not a sacrifice for sin; the red cow ritual has one, and only one, function, it is used for the manufacture of the ashes, which will enter into the composition of a mixture called the water of contamination, which will be used by the community to purify the impurity of death. 91

5. The Concept of ‫( נפשׁ‬esp. Relating to Death) Numbers 19 is primarily concerned with defilement which is caused by touching a corpse. The defiling power of the corpse is expanded from the body itself to the room or environment where the corpse is kept, which means that pollution of a person may be caused “from afar” without physical contact. One may be inclined to use images such as “gas” or “atmosphere” to describe the realm of death, but these metaphors are misleading in detail.92 The Hebrew text uses ‫ נפשׁ‬to describe the defiling power. Thus, we have to elaborate, finally, on the understanding and concept of ‫ נפשׁ‬in order to elucidate the defiling power of the corpse. Hans Walter Wolff and others have assumed that ‫ נפשׁ‬in Num 19 is used as a euphemistic synonym for “corpse,” so that the dead body itself has the defiling capacity. Because the basic meaning of ‫ נפשׁ‬is “gorge, throat, desire,”93 and the noun expresses vigor and vitality, the use of “corpse” as a euphemism was challenged convincingly by Diethelm Michel and Horst Seebass. 94 They, in contrast, argued that in the context of death the noun denotes the “human 91 This is an English translation of M UZINGA, Pratique (2008), 91: “La fonction du rituel de la vache rousse n’est ni ‘cathartique’, ni ‘apotropaïque’ car l’impurete de mort n’est pas bibliquement consideree comme une influence malefique; la fonction de ce rituel ne consiste ni a lutter contre la magie, le culte des morts et le paganisme, ni a symboliser l’opposition entre la vie et la mort (dans le contexte de la vache rousse, qu’est-ce qui represente la vie et qu’est-ce qui represente la mort ?). Sa fonction n’est pas non plus expiatoire, car la vache rousse n’est pas un sacrifice pour le peche; le rituel de la vache rousse n’a qu’une et une seule fonction, il sert a la fabrication des cendres qui entreront dans la composition d’un melange dit l’eau de souillure, laquelle servira a la communaute pour purifier l’impurete de mort.” 92 See n. 30 above. 93 See KÖHLER/BAUMGARTNER, ‫( ֶנ ֶפשׁ‬1958), 672–4. 94 See MICHEL, Leichnam (1994); SEEBASS, ‫( ֶנ ֶפשׁ‬1998); LEHNART , Leiche (2009). BERLEJUNG, Variabilität (2009), 294 again opts for the dead body denoting the corruptible parts in particular.

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

285

spirit” or vitality which has been dissolved in the process of dying.95 Diethelm Michel has suggested that ‫ נפשׁ‬denotes the “spirit of the dead” (“Totengeist”). This may be corroborated by the Aramaic Panammū inscription of Sam’al in northern Syria (KAI 214) of the 8th cent. BCE. where the dialectal variant nbš is used: “May the dead spirit of Panamuwa eat with Hadad and may the dead spirit of Panamuwa drink with Hadad.” 96 In accordance with Dominik Bonatz, Herbert Niehr has interpreted the regulations of the funeral ritual as meals for the nbš pnmw (lines 17, 21–22) which was figured to be present in the statue of the king.97 In his view, the word nbš denotes the stelae where the spirit of the dead king resides. 98 But nbš is rather a term for the dead king, his identity and body politic, 99 than for the stelae itself.100 The stela is considered as a representation of the deceased. This holds true for the recently discovered stela of Kuttamuwa from Zincirli of the 8th cent. BCE: the servant of Panamuwa calls his nbš to reside in the stela (wybl.lnbšy.zy.bnṣ b.zn), where he receives offerings after his death. 101 K. van der Toorn has similarly parallelized the nbš with the spirit of the dead. Because the nbš “is ascribed the ability to eat and to drink and compares in this respect to the eṭemmu of the Akkadian texts.”102 Dagmar Kühn has argued convincingly that the ritual does not address the spirit of the dead king as a separate entity, but, in accordance with Hittite understanding, the king in his vitality, which is connected with the personality of the living king: “that part of Panamuwa was called, which was associated with his personali-

See KÜHN , Totengedenken (2005), 130–4. The translation is based on SPARKS, Texts (2005), 370. 97 See NIEHR, Aspekt (2001), 93. 98 See further KAI 215:21, where Niehr reads cautiously wqbr npš [h] which he interprets as “und ein Grab für seine Stele” (NIEHR, Aspekt [2001], 93). 99 Regarding the Hittite rituals for the dead king, VAN DEN HOUT, Death (1994), esp. 37–38, 52, 60–5 has distinguished the body natural from the body politic. This may be helpful for understanding the difference between the corpse and the dead king. While the funerary ritual is first concerned with the burial on the second day, the following rites are performed with the statue of the king, which represents the body politic. See NIEHR, Aspekt (2001), 86: “Der König als Mensch ist ein body natural, der König als Amtsperson ist ein body politic.” 100 K ÜHN, Totengedenken (2005), 125, 127. 101 For the Neubauer Expedition in Zincirli and the find context, see provisionally http://ochre.lib.uchicago.edu/zincirli/index_files/Page473.htm (cited 25. September 2010); KÜHN , Wohnstatt (2009), 74. 102 V AN DER TOORN, Religion (1996), 167. 95 96

286

Ritual and Practice

ty, which had his own lifeforce.”103 In sum: ‫נפשׁ‬/nbš stands for aspects of the deceased which endure after death and have the ability to represent him. Basically, we have to regard ‫ נפשׁ‬as the main conceptualization of “personality. ” It implies the actual vitality of a certain person including aspects of biography, status, individuality and performative presence. One may use the modern and diffuse concept of “identity” to express what ‫ נפשׁ‬means. This comprises the personality, individuality and biography of a human being, but is not dissolved from the body and its physical presence, because it is connected to self-understanding. 104 As such, it is never detached from the physical, mental, historical and social existence of a person. In the case of death, the aspect of physical presence diminishes and the capability for active motion decreases, but the ‫נפשׁ‬ keeps “representing” the deceased. He can be addressed and is somehow – in a reduced form – present and part of the living world. At this stage of “existence” and “capacity,” the window opens for offerings for the deceased as well as for necromancy. The ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased then abides in the netherworld (?) during the process of decomposition (Ps 16:10; 30:4; 49:16 et al.), but is, at the same time, not completely absent from the world of the living because of the anamnetic remembrance of his former social environment.105 Although the ‫ נפשׁ‬cannot act anymore, it is not powerless at all. Thus, the simplistic contrast of either existing on earth or subsisting in a shadowy mode in the netherworld (‫ )שׁאול‬constitutes a false alternative. This is illustrated by Old Testament texts which attest a gradual concept of death (e.g., Ps 88). According to this fuzzy concept, one may admit that there is a tendency of the ‫נפשׁ‬, towards a dissociated sole existence not in physical, but in social respect. Anthropologically, the discussed phrase ‫( נפשׁ מת‬Num 6:6; Lev 21:11), “the ‫ נפשׁ‬of the deceased,” is relevant in two ways: there seems to be a tendency in the development of post-exilic anthropology where the holistic (i.e., synthetic, aspective, stereometric) concept of the “person” as a psychosomat103 This is an English translation of KÜHN, Totengedenken (2005), 125: “dass der Teil Panamuas angerufen wurde, der sich mit seiner Person verband, der Lebenskraft zu eigen war.” 104 Thus, an important difference to modern concepts lies in the fact that “identity” escapes any actual active presence after death. Identity becomes present only in passive modes of remembrance and recollection of the deceased. 105 Cf. the Zoroastrian concept of uruan, daēnā and frauuašī. These components “refer not only to life, but remain relevant after death” (HUTTER, Impurity [2009], esp. 16). Following Hutter, frauuašī refers to the vitality, uruan to the soul, and daēnā to the “(religious) view.” Especially relevant is the concept of uruan, which is not the same as the ‫נ פשׁ‬concept, but seems to be comparable: “This soul can temporarily leave the person (still alive); at the same time, it is the component of humanity, which endures after death, when spirit, mental power or vitality have ceased to exist. After death, this soul is the bearer of human thinking and feeling and must take responsibility before the otherworldly judgment seat” (HUTTER, Impurity [2009], 17).

Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses

287

ic unity is broken up by dichotomic or trichotomic concepts, which act, more or less, on the assumption of a “separate soul.”106 Secondly, this allows us to better understand the connection between death and defilement. The defilement does not lie in the characteristics of the dead body: the alienating deadness, motionlessness and the strange rigor mortis or the rapid process of decay. Neither from the body or the corpse itself, nor from a demon or demonic capacity as in the Persian belief107 does the danger emerge, but from vitality, presence, personality (‫)נפשׁ‬, which has left the body, without being totally detached from it. This is not exactly the conception of a spirit of the dead (Akk. eṭemmu, 108 Hebr. ‫ אתים‬or more often ‫)אוב‬, but the closeness of the abiding ‫ נפשׁ‬and the spirit of the dead are irrefutable. The ‫ נפשׁ‬as the vital agency or vitality is displaced in the process of decease, but it is not totally solved from the deceased at a certain point of time. Because of this intermediate state of the ‫נפשׁ‬, belonging, on the one hand, to the realm of death and the deceased, and, on the other hand, to the anamnetic remembrance of the deceased in the world of the living, it was regarded – alongside the physical presence of death – as unbalanced, disequilibrated, and “out of order”, and thus endangering and defiling. Even the corpse, the skeleton, or the grave, as (time and space) intersections between the (physical) realm of death and the world of the living, were regarded as effectively endangering the order of life. This order was present and represented in the cult. The defiling capacity of the ‫ נפשׁ‬can thus be first and foremost compared with the paradox quality of blood, symbolizing life on the one hand, but, when detached from life, having highest defiling power on the other hand.

106 Whether this tendency is influenced by Egyptian concepts or early Greek philosophy or whether it is due to an inner-biblical development, should be discussed anew. If one takes into account the giving of breath in Gen 2:7 or testimonies such as Ps 49:16; 104:29; Lev 17:11; Job 33:20, 28, 30 et al., one may find the roots of a dichotomic conceptualization. Cf. F REVEL, Frage (2010), 136 and IDEM, Leben (2015). 107 Following Zoroastrian conceptions, “the corpse demon (Av. Nasu-, Pahl. Nasuš, Nasrušt) was believed to rush into the body and contaminate all that came in contact with it” (BOYCE, Corpse [1993], n.p.). 108 Following the Mesopotamian conception, a human (awīlum) splits, after death, into two “entities,” the corpse (pagru) on the one hand and the deathly ghost or spirit (Sum. GIDIM, akk. eṭemmu), which descends into the netherworld, on the other hand (cf. c 49– 56; LORETZ , Nekromantie [1993], 304). The eṭemmu is “some form of intangible, but visible and audible ‘spirit’. […] Normally the dead body was buried, and burial allowed for the preservation and maintenance of the deceased’s identity after death and for his continued connection with both the living and the dead members of the family. Burial is crucial, for if a corpse is unburied […] the dead person cannot be integrated into the structured community of the dead” (ABUSCH, Etemmu [1999], 309).

288

Ritual and Practice

6. Conclusion On the literary level, Num 19 is part of the composition of the book of Numbers which comprises pre-exilic narrative material and cultic material that is – roughly speaking – assumed to be priestly and can be attributed to the postexilic period. From a tradition-historical viewpoint, one may consider some of the material as rooted in older stages of the cult. But if one takes into account the foregoing argumentation, one cannot trace the ritual of Num 19 in the history of pre-exilic Israelite religion. In contrast, the ritual fits into the textual priestly system of the pure and impure, which was developed mainly in the Second Temple. Following the logic of H and subsequent texts, it was reworked in a second stage, attributing main parts of the ritual to the highest priestly protagonists Aaron and Eleazar on the one hand, and bringing it closer to the sacrificial system of the purification offering ‫ חטאת‬on the other hand. Thus, the connection between the defilement of corpses or the failure of purification and the defilement of the sanctuary was strengthened. As other textual rituals, the ritual of Num 19 has to be interpreted as a text in context, both of the book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Its meaning is established not only by the text of Num 19, but within the broader context of the priestly system of purity. The ritual does not aim at any cult of the dead nor does it reflect magnifying corpses or a magical practice. Its background is the life-giving and liferepresenting power of God’s holiness in the sanctuary, which forms a striking contrast to the disturbing disbalance of death. The “life-centered” sanctuary is endangered by the unbalanced chaotic power of death, i.e., the absence of vigor, vitality and life in death. Based on the conception that the ‫ נפשׁ‬of a deceased is never completely detached from the body, but tending to a separate “existence” in the virtual afterlife, the intermediate stage of the ‫ נפשׁ‬and especially the temporal and spatial intersections were regarded as defiling. The focus and the rationale of the ritual is the avoidance of defilement of the sanctuary caused by intersections between life and death. According to normal living conditions, these disordering conditions were unavoidable, but they could be remedied by means of the riddance ritual of Num 19.

On the Imperfection of Perfection Remarks on the Anthropology of Rituals in Numbers1 1. Preliminary Remarks If the fourth book of the Pentateuch was undervalued theologically as a whole – and this has been pointed out from numerous directions in recent years2 – then this is especially true for the rituals in the book of Numbers. Perceptions of the so-called priestly literature clearly still arise more strongly from the book of Leviticus. Leviticus is the center; Numbers is periphery. This is even obvious in terms of composition criticism when Lev 16 is understood as the center of the Sinai event. However, it is conspicuous that the same fate does not befall the earlier material in the Sinai pericope. In contrast to the “lofty priestly theology” developed in Exod 25–31; 35–40; Lev 1–7; 8–10; 11–15; 16; 17–26; and 27; Num 1–10 is often classified as epigonous literature. This impression of its epigonous nature is then deepened by means of the literaryhistorical subordination of the texts (H or HS). The case for the theological themes of divine presence, expiation, holiness, purity, etc. is especially true for the rituals. Ithamar Gruenwald’s book Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel 3 offers a glaring example in that it does not provide separate sections for Num 5:11–21; 6:1–19; or 19, though Leviticus receives broad consideration. Regarding questions of ritual tradition, ritual transformation, ritual innovation and also ritual invention, these texts from Numbers are quite valuable. The following discussion will primarily investigate the rituals and ritual components of Num 5–6 anthropologically because developments in Old Testament anthropology occur here in a concentrated manner. The aim is not, however, to provide a complete interpretation of the rituals or their place in current ritual scholarship.

1 The lecture character of this contribution has largely been retained, so the emphasis lies on the sketching of themes rather than extensive conversation with scholarship. Footnotes are consciously kept at a minimum. Hebrew words and phrases in the text are accompanied by translations or provided with various possible renderings. 2 RÖMER, Périphérie (2008), 3, 34; F REVEL, Formation (2013), 1–37. 3 G RUENWALD , Rituals (2003).

290

Ritual and Practice

2. bǝmidbar “In the Desert”: On the Narrative Context of the Rituals in the Book of Numbers False dichotomies often determine the nature of scholarship. For example, textual world and world of actions: rituals are taken as either a mirror of cultic reality such that their textual form is seen as completely reliant on the performance of the rituals, or they are understood as textual constructs whose form can only be connected to practice in limited fashion. The question can hardly be resolved because too little information about the actual ritual practice in the cult of the First and Second Temple is available. The reduction of rituals to retaining solely textual status without even a distant concrete performance hardly makes sense, particularly because the ritual texts must remain plausible. On the other hand, these texts do not completely work as ritual scripts. Yet one should not misunderstand that texts can completely or in part invent or reconstitute rituals. 4 This is the framework that marks current scholarship on ritual, such that a clear direction remains unrecognizable. I quote a longer passage from Nadja Miczek: In the current discussion of ritual theory, themes like the invention and transformation of rituals have only recently received increased scholarly attention. The basis for the growing discussion lies largely in the increased willingness in ritual scholarship to distance itself from a rigid definition of ritual of the kind that was characterized by repetition and formality. Armed with an increasingly reflexive perspective in which the dynamism of rituals moved to the forefront, scholarship began investigating the processes of adaption/adoption, transfer, transformation and innovation. The differentiations of these processes are, however, mostly just on heuristic levels whose boundaries to one another blur in the ritual practice of individual rituals when taking the perspectives of the actors into consideration. Adaptations, or also adoptions, are characterized by processes in which rituals familiar from other religious contexts are adopted unchanged in terms of their text and performance or are adapted through more and less drastic changes. […] Within the framework of processes of transfer and transformation, familiar rituals or ritual elements from foreign or familiar contexts are adopted, but the text and/or performance are changed. These processes can have a minimally or strongly innovative character and can be seen as such by the actors. Under invention is understood, in addition, the process of the new creation of a ritual that was previously unknown in this form. Most often elements already used within ritual contexts are placed together into a new ritual, while completely newly fabricated rituals are quite rarely observed. It is these very inventive processes that have become the focus of the scholarly discussion of ritual with regard to the investigation of current religiosity in recent years. 5

This opening of ritual scholarship, its abandonment of a rigid understanding of the performance orientation of texts in favor of a dynamic understanding Cf. CHANIOTIS, Rituale (2004), 7. This is an English translation of the German original in MICZEK, Biographie (2013), 212. An overview of the status of the discourse on ritual theory also appears in the volume BROSIUS/MICHAELS/S CHRODE, Ritual (2013). 4 5

On the Imperfection of Perfection

291

of ritual texts as adaptations, inventions and transformations of rituals also opens up new vistas for the rituals in the book of Numbers. For these texts no longer need to be understood as mirrors of practice, ritual instructions, ritual scripts, etc. They are instead conceptions of rituals in which actors, pragmatic considerations, and theology primarily address the textual world from which they have arisen. The rituals of the book should, then, not primarily be understood as reflections of religious practice in the Second Temple, but rather as texts that are arranged within a complex textual universe.6 This does not, however, exclude the possibility that rituals reflect a practice, are based on, or are at least in some kind of relationship with practice. Yet this is not paramount for determining their meaning. In terms of understanding the deep structure, theology and anthropology of the rituals, it is, in the end, insignificant whether the rituals of the book of Numbers (esp. 5:11–31 or Num 19) corresponded to religious practice or not. The rituals of the book of Numbers are embedded in, and are parts of, a textual world that is characterized by God’s indwelling (Exod 25:8; 34:10; 40:34–35; Lev 15:31; 26:11–12) and from the requirements of purity, holiness and perfection. The dense verses of Num 5:1–4, which also take on an important compositional function, make the character of this textual world clear. The camp is structured around the tent of meeting in Num 1–4. The census ensures that it concerns all Israel. The entire people surround the central sanctuary, ordered by tribes and organized hierarchically. The entire Israelite space is determined by the presence of God, which has taken up residence in the midst of the sanctuary, and thereby in the midst of the camp (Exod 40:34–35). The cloud, or rather the pillar of cloud, indicates this presence either in front of the entrance or above the holy of holies. As Exod 40:35b states: “Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle” (‫כי־שׁכן‬ ‫)עליו הענן וכב וד יהוה מלא את־המשׁכן‬. This state remains throughout the wilderness wandering, securing the rule of the camp for the transportable sanctuary. Numbers 5–6 is a well-conceived composition. Older scholarship generally viewed the structure of the two chapters as disjointed and the material as “misplaced.”7 For example, Heinrich Holzinger titles the section of his commentary from the beginning of the 1900s: “Various Disconnected Laws from Chap. 5–6.” 8 Holzinger begins his comments: The laws placed together here are not bound together with any kind of internal coherence; what they have in common can at most be seen as that they […] regulate private cultic

6 On the hermeneutical relevance of the textuality of rituals in the biblical context, see also BEYERLE , Verhalten (2012), esp. 165–6, 169–70. 7 H OLZINGER, Numeri (1903), 17. 8 H OLZINGER, Numeri (1903), 16.

292

Ritual and Practice

questions rather than the official and public cult. They are apparently housed here because they affect the order of the camp. 9

This is both correct and incorrect, if it leads to the impression that the sections of text are aimless and are disconnected from one another. The fact that this perspective has been maintained for an entire century into the present is shown by the commentary from Baruch Levine, who only sees suggestive relationships between the portions of texts: As is true of certain other sections of Numbers, chapter 5 is not a coherent unit but rather a collection of diverse laws and rituals. There are, to be sure, suggestive thematic links pertaining to such subjects as impurity and betrayal, but as a whole Numbers 5 is best seen as a repository of priestly legislation. 10

The “container thesis,” in which the book of Numbers is degraded to a smorgasbord of laws that otherwise found no home in the Pentateuch was also a guiding principle for Martin Noth’s comments on the book of Numbers. He writes the following on Num 5–6: In ch. 5–6 several ordinances of very varied scope and very varied contents have been juxtaposed, with no recognizably close relationships, as far as subject-matter is concerned, either with each other or with what precedes and follows. The result is the typical picture of additions joined together without any particular plan. 11

It is correct that the connections of the laws placed together in Num 5–6 is not apparent at first glance. Yet especially for this section of text, the proposal of an amorphous mass of legislative material turns out to be utterly false. In the interplay of production, reception and interpretation of legal material, Num 5–6 is characterized by aspects of application, transformation and innovation. The horizon extends clearly beyond both this text complex in itself and merely a Sinaitic perspective. The text of chaps. 5–6 as well as the subsequent texts should be read as models for the basic tenets of purity and holiness to be observed in Jerusalem. 12 Especially in Num 5–6, various ordering principles such as connection by association, use of key words, and content classifications overlay one another. A connection through key words is found, e.g., in the word “unfaithful9 This is an English translation of H OLZINGER, Numeri (1903), 16: “Die hier zusammengestellten Gesetze sind durch keinen innern Zusammenhang verbunden; als gemeinsames kann höchstens das angesehen werden dass sie […] nicht den offiziellen und allgemeinen öffentlichen Kultus, sondern privatkultische Fragen regeln. Sie sind an diesem Ort augenscheinlich einfach deshalb untergebracht, weil das erste sich mit der Lagerordnung berührt.” 10 LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 181. 11 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 44. 12 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 500: “Der Text der Kapitel 5–6 wie auch die folgenden Texte sind zu lesen als Vorbilder, nach denen in Jerusalem die Grundregeln der Reinheit und der Heiligung zu beachten sein sollten.”

On the Imperfection of Perfection

293

ness” ( ‫)מעל‬, which appears in 5:6, 12, 27, linking the section of Num 5:5–10 with Num 5:11–31. Connections through lexemes are not, however, all that pronounced. The passages each formulate innovative aspects in relation to the laws in Leviticus. The individual passages especially evince various kinds of relationships to Lev 5. This implies that they should be placed later in terms of literary history, meaning that they are “late,” or at least later than most laws in Leviticus. Categorizing them as part of the “Holiness School” of H or HRed points in the right direction, but the book of Numbers does not really provide evidence for such a source or redaction. 13 If one reads Num 5:5–10 from the perspective of Lev 5:20–26 – and there is much in favor of this – then a further commonality arises: the passages (Num 5:5–10; 5:11–31; 6:1– 21) agree that there are various oaths or vows that are broken or will be broken. Perjury lies in the background of the first case, the oath of a woman denying an accusation of adultery in the second, and the breaking of a Nazirite vow in Num 6. There is no arbitrary break in any of these cases; instead something implicit is made explicit, or is intended to be made explicit. The one who has committed misappropriation should admit to this in the sanctuary; the woman should swear in the sanctuary; and the Nazirite should renew his vow in the sanctuary. All cases thus exhibit a connection to the sanctuary, and every case possesses an alternative that the deeds in the background do not explicitly name, but rather keep secret. Even if not said explicitly, it is clear that the background order would be deeply disturbed. The three cases – and this is something else that they have in common – expand existing laws or provide a new interpretation. Numbers 5:5–10 is an interpretation of Lev 5:20–26; Num 5:11–31 fills in one of the gaps in the law concerning adultery; and Num 6:1–21 supplements the existing vows with private temporary commitments for man and woman.14 The role of the sanctuary as the definitive center is foundational for all these cases and is essential for all the laws. The point of departure is the order unfolded on Sinai. This is central for the understanding of the rituals, which assume this world of the text in order to “function.” Numbers 5–6 is constituted by interconnected categories of space: sanctuary, camp, outside. The sanctuary constitutes the center; everything else is oriented toward it. The tribes are arranged concentrically around it in the camp. The outer boundaries – of both the sanctuary and the camp – are crucial: relationality and liminality determine the structure. Each of the actors (priests, people, man/woman, Nazirite, etc.) can be located within this special system; their social roles are determined in space and through spatial boundaries. The dynamics of the For discussion, see F REVEL, Pieces, p. 83–120 in the present volume. Cf. the categorization of Num 5–6 as part of the second Theocratic redaction in ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 499–517, 638. 14 Especially striking is the way in which each of the three cases alludes to Lev 5. For detailed comments, see F REVEL, Rituals (2016). 13

294

Ritual and Practice

texts are fed by the movements within space and the tension between center and periphery. A structure of centripetal and centrifugal movements emerges, and this structure defines the composition of Num 5–6. The following model exhibits a simplified, abstract graphic of the structure.

Fig. 1: Spatial Orientations in the Structure of Num 5–6

Numbers 5:1–4 marks centrifugal movements that intend to ensure the purity of the camp. 15 The sections of Num 5:5–10; 5:11–31 and 6:1–21 are each characterized by centripetal movement: contributions brought to the sanctuary; suspects brought to the sanctuary; and those who have dedicated something and take their promised goods to the sanctuary and celebrate the fulfillment of their vow there. The concentric movement toward the sanctuary in Num 5 and 6 is then logically concluded by the blessing, which concludes the centripetal movement in a positive manner. The blessing goes out from the sanctuary, a blessing intimating wholeness, soundness, fulfillment, salvation and peace – condensed in the lexeme ‫ שׁלום‬in Num 6:26. The blessing encompasses all Israelites; it emanates from the center and extends to the margins of the camp, but in Num 6:26 it does not spill over into the world. The sanctuary context of the speech (the priest mediates the divine blessing in the sanctuary, who is commanded in v. 23b to “speak to them […]”) instead assumes that the Israelites are oriented toward the sanctuary (in their hearing). The boundaries between sanctuary and camp are, therefore, also implicit in the overarching conception of Num 6:22–27. Therefore, it is appropriate to see Num 5:1–4 and 6:22–27 as two framing pieces bracketing this block of text, and the block itself is attached to the camp order in Num 1–4. The treatment of Israel as a collective in Num 5:1–4 aims to keep the camp pure (the subject of the purification is the “Israelites” ‫)בני־ישׂראל‬. In the section of the blessing, the action emanates from God, who promises his presence (Num 6:22–27). While in a limited fashion, it is unmistakable how the world consti15 On Num 5:1–4 and its compositional function for Num 5–19, cf. the detailed discussion in F REVEL, Purity Conceptions, p. 225–60 in the present volume.

On the Imperfection of Perfection

295

tuted on Sinai and concretized in the camp order of Num 1–4 depicts a “perfect” world. By means of extensive instruction on impurity, Num 5:1–4 forges a pure camp. On the basis of this conception, it is quite important that the “perfection” characterizing the pure camp is then breached in each of the subsequent sections, whether through misappropriation (Num 5:5–10), suspected adultery (Num 5:11–31), or pollution through contact with a corpse (Num 6:1–21). It is conspicuous and no doubt significant in each case that the instruction concerns individuals, “classifications,” and “discretionary power.” In each case the relationship to the sanctuary plays a central role. The contributions arrive in the sanctuary. The ordeal of jealousy not only takes place in the sanctuary but also makes use of dust from the sanctuary. And in the course of the Nazirite vow, the person approaches the entrance of the tent of meeting. This liminal location serves as a communicative gate between the holy and the profane in all three texts. The priests and the Levites – as also conceived in Num 1–4 and elsewhere – go between the sanctuary and the people. The priests receive from the people and pass on to the deity. These three cases demonstrate the fragility of the created order. However much collective Israel strives for purity (Num 5:1–4), this perfect world cannot be maintained: individual sins (“as happens among people,” Num 5:6), cases of jealousy (which in this case “comes over” men) and unexpected fatalities (which are completely beyond human control) transgress the holy order in the everyday world as far as the camp boundaries of the radiating sanctuary. On the surface of the composition – and it is noteworthy and contradicts the usual appraisal of a rigorous priestly perspective – this receives no negative evaluation. The imperfection breaks into the world of perfection without destabilizing it to the point that it renders impossible the “project” of a holy people (Lev 17–27, esp. Lev 19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:8) in whose midst the holy God has taken up residence. The protection of the centripetal order directed toward holiness is at work in the rituals brought together in Num 5–6. It will now be intriguing to consider these rituals in anthropological terms, but the perspective of the elaborate ritual in Num 19 should be taken into consideration.

3. Rituals and Their Anthropological Relevance Even if the rituals in the book of Numbers do not maintain or express a single anthropological background, they remain relevant for the anthropological discussion. They address a certain conception of humanity – or more carefully stated: certain aspects of the nature of humanity. Cultural and discursive connections such as corporeality, emotions, guilt, personality and self are mirrored in the rituals, which themselves then take on an importance that goes far beyond concrete religious practice. I use the term “ritual” in more of

296

Ritual and Practice

a pragmatic than a clearly defined manner in this context, though the following discussion will articulate some defining aspects. I understand ritual as a heuristic as well as a dynamic category of description. As is well-known, static markers of ritual are rejected in current discourse on ritual in comparative religion, the concept is instead treated with different attributions of meaning within a framework of ongoing discursive processes of negotiation by a variety of actors.16 In the following remarks, I take ritual in the broadest sense, as action mostly of a sequential and complex nature that is recurring, or rather laid out for repetition, though the present context the sequence of actions should be placed in a cultic framework in the broadest sense. 17 The term “action” has consciously been conceived in open and broad terms. Even more important, however, is the determination that rituals do not have any meaning in and of themselves. They are socio-cultural constructs whose meaning is carried out contextually, but also is formed in relation to its context. Without excluding symbolic aspects, a ritual is not fully explained in terms of the symbolic representation of reality, order, or paradigmatic values. Nor is a ritual completely explained by its performance. However, it transforms the reality of all its actors in its execution through the processes of ascription on various levels: psychosomatic, emotional, social, etc.18 Two further aspects are important in this context: first, rituals are dynamic, meaning that there are generally no unchangeable, enduring actions in all aspects. Second, the textual form in which rituals are presented to us, or in which they were fixed, are not identical with the actual historical ritual practice. The textuality of rituals is foregrounded in the investigation of their anthropological relevance to the degree that the current meaning of rituals can be related to ancient ritual texts in the sense considered by the Lucerne scholar of religion, Nadja Miczek, who articulates the nature of ritual as follows: Rituals are a central part of the discursive negotiation of current religiosity. Following Foucault, they can be understood as part of the discursive practice in whose discourse visibility, material presence and dynamics of action are preserved. Especially when these rituals are communicated or practiced within the framework of a network of actors, they can be seen as a locus of action in which subjective negotiations concerning religiosity become to some degree public, thereby serving as a stimulus for further discursive negotia-

16 MICZEK, Biography (2013), 13: “der Begriff [wird] mit seinen verschiedenen Bedeutungszuschreibungen im Rahmen diskursiver Aushandlungsprozesse stetig durch unterschiedliche Akteure verhandelt.” On the problem, see KREINATH, Semiose (2005), 18–24. 17 BENDLIN, Ritual (2006), n.p.: “Ritual refers to an elaborate sequence of individual rites which, following an established ritual syntax, are logically connected within a certain functional context.” 18 CHANIOTIS , Introduction (2010).

On the Imperfection of Perfection

297

tions. If one accepts a concrete practical execution, then narratives about rituals as well as ritual prescriptions afford access to practical dimensions of discourse. 19

Therefore, the nexus of the discourses become clear through prescriptive rituals and their narrative contexts, or rather they indicate these relationships. In the ideal case, they allow for justified conjectures about rituals from great temporal distances. This is the case for biblical rituals, not only with regard to the contexts in which the rituals took form and then were arranged in written form in the book of Numbers (which in individual cases could have taken place in interlocking fashion), but also in the subsequent centuries-long and variegated processes of reception. For example, the sotah ritual (Num 5:11– 31) is treated in a separate tractate of the Mishnah. In this context, the suspension of the ritual by Yochanan ben Zakkai (Sotah 9.9) in the 1st cent. CE is alluded to after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, the tractate indicates that questions concerning its transformation extend far beyond the issue of the temple, which no longer exists. The same is the case for the ritual of the red heifer (Num 19), about which it is rightly debated whether it was ever practiced. 20 Therefore, consideration of the anthropology of rituals only offers rather limited insight on the field as a whole.

4. A “World” for Itself: An Intermediate Glance at Numbers 5:1–4 I have treated Num 5:1–4 more completely elsewhere, 21 so my remarks here will be limited to the essentials. After setting up the camp and the camp order, Num 5:1–4 addresses impurity in a condensed fashion. The camp should 19 M ICZEK , Biography (2013), 192: “Rituale sind zentraler Teil diskursiver Aushandlungen gegenwärtiger Religiosität. In Anlehnung an Foucault können sie als Teil der diskursiven Praxis gefasst werden, in denen Diskurse Sichtbarkeit, materielle Präsenz und Handlungsdynamik erhalten. Gerade wenn diese Rituale kommuniziert oder im Rahmen eines Akteursnetzwerks praktiziert werden, können sie als Handlungsort gesehen werden, in denen subjektive Aushandlungen um Religiosität eine gewisse Öffentlichkeit erhalten und somit als Anstoß für weitere diskursive Aushandlungen dienen. Wenn man eine konkrete praktische Umsetzung annimmt, gewähren Erzählungen über Rituale sowie Ritualpräskripte in praktische Diskursdimensionen.” 20 On the transformation of rituals after 70 CE, cf. also BEYERLE, Verhalten (2012), 163–4; S TROUMSA, End (2009), 64, who perhaps goes too far in stating: “More than any other singular action, it was the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE, as a result of the Jewish revolt, that activated the slow – overly slow – transformation of religion to which we owe, among other things, European culture.” On the transformation of rituals in general, cf. BELL, Ritual (2009), 212–42. 21 FREVEL, Purity Conceptions, p. 225–60 in the present volume; see there for a detailed argument for the conclusions found here.

298

Ritual and Practice

be transformed into a state of thorough-going purity demanded by the presence of God (“where I dwell among them,” v. 3bβ). The many camps of the Israelites should correspond to “the camp.” Just as the pollution of an individual has repercussions for the community, the impurity of a single camp of the Israelites (which appears as an uncommon plural with suffix) affects the entire camp. The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelites to put out of the camp everyone who is leprous, or has a discharge, and everyone who is unclean through contact with or proximity to a corpse; 3 You shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp[s], where I dwell among them. 4 The Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp; as the LORD had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did (NRSV with slight changes in brackets). 1 2

By means of the explicit execution formula at the end of v. 4, “as the LORD had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did,” the existence of a pure camp is guaranteed (3x ‫“ מחנה‬camp,” 4x ‫“ שׁלח‬expel”). The result is a world structured by purity, whose “outside” is characterized by the admissibility of impurity, but whose “inside” will not tolerate any impurity at all. The community of the Israelites consists of the adult men and women. It is established by the holy God, who dwells in their midst. In terms of terminology and conceptions, the demands in vv. 2–3 draw on the aspects of purity already broadly implemented in Leviticus introduced quasi pars pro toto: animal carcasses (Lev 11), skin anomalies (Lev 13–14), bodily discharges (Lev 15) and the touching of corpses (Lev 21). Especially the final item, pollution by corpses, is developed further in the book of Numbers. Through Num 5:1–4, not only is a compositional bridge built between Lev 11–15 and the book of Numbers, but at the same time the conception of purity of the book of Numbers is integrated by means of an actualizing interpretation. Anthropologically speaking, initially striking is the relational concept: humanity unfolds in constellations; it is interwoven in a highly connected and relational fashion. The psycho-physical constitution of the individual – here characterized with regard to pollution – has implications for the community. Human sociality is connected conceptually to the relationship with the divine such that impurity and holiness are incompatible. The divine relationship influences the entire person, including the bodily dimension. The inner and outer person relate in corresponding fashion. This notion of “communicative conduits” of the social and the individual, divine relationship and psychophysical constitution, as well as of inner and outer, is typical for Old Testa-

On the Imperfection of Perfection

299

ment anthropology. 22 Finally, the contact zones between the holy and the profane are especially important because the stability of the structure can easily be endangered at these points. Both the social (deity – priest – Levite – community – nations) and spatial transitions (holy of holies, sanctuary, camp and external world) are sensitive, liminal regions. Especially sensitive, however, are the transitions between life and death: they have considerable potential for danger. The reason for this is difficult to explain because historical and systematic aspects are both at play. For the time being, a sufficient explanation is that it underlines the devotion to life and relational capacity of the God of Israel, who sides completely with life. What results, then, is God’s incompatibility with the reality of death, to which he is diametrically opposed.

5. Unavoidable Guilt and Unavoidable Morality The section of Num 5:5–10 does not, in a narrow sense, depict a ritual, it instead contains a rite worthy of closer consideration. A working translation of Num 5:5–10 indicates its nature as a complex legal text: And YHWH said to Moses: Say to the Israelites: when a man or a woman does any kind of human sin, such that they commit infidelity against YHWH, and this person has become guilty, 7 then they should acknowledge the sins that they have done, and [the guilty party] should repay his debt according to the [complete] sum and a fifth of it in addition, and give it to the one against whom he has become guilty. 8 However, if someone does not have a redeemer that can repay the debt, then debt should be brought to YHWH to the benefit of the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement, with which the priest will make atonement for him. 9 All contributions from all sacred donations that the Israelites bring should belong to the priest. 10 And the sacred donations of each belong to him. What one gives to the priest should belong to him. 5 6

The focus of this section is difficult to determine, which is easily concluded from the titles in commentaries and translations. Baruch Levine entitles it “Sacrilegious Misappropriation,” 23 Diether Kellermann “Restitution of Embezzlement,” 24 and Horst Seebass “Restitution of Debts without Inheritors, Cf. J ANOWSKI, Konfliktgespräche (2013); IDEM, Anthropologie (2012), 109–28; IDEM , Anthropologie (2009), 13–41; F REVEL /WISCHMEYER, Menschsein (2003); F REVEL , Anthropologie (2015); IDEM, Frage (2010), 29–63. 23 LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 187. 24 KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 66: “Zurückerstattung von Veruntreutem.” 22

300

Ritual and Practice

with an Appendix on Contributions for the Sanctuary.”25 The first two concur that the embezzlement of temporarily abandoned goods is a fundamental problem. The alternative would be misappropriation of a foreign moveable thing, either that benefits oneself or a third party. Embezzlement and misappropriation are, however, two sides of the same coin. The second and third proposals instead highlight the restitution, though Seebass draws attention to the peculiarity of Num 5:8 in the title. Levine and Seebass agree, finally, in involving the logic of the sanctuary. The sanctuary first comes into view explicitly through the priests only in v. 8, in cases where the one harmed has no legal successor, and the restitution should be handed over to the sanctuary. In addition, it becomes clear that the sanctuary is the institution more involved in the process of reparations and atonement than it appears at the beginning of the section. Then, in vv. 9–10, the general provision on donations is added, which is connected to Num 18. Seebass points in the right direction with the proposal of an “appendix” (“Anhang”) in vv. 9–10. It does not treat sacrilege in the strict sense, that is in the appropriation of goods to which the sanctuary is entitled – at least not directly – even if this is the case in some modern translations (e.g., “what belongs to the LORD”). However, this is coupled with the idiosyncratically formulated provision ‫למעל מעל ביהוה‬ (“through which/in which they commit unfaithfulness against YHWH”), which also appears in Lev 5:21, which in any case makes YHWH affected by the offense. Levine interprets it as sacrilege in a more narrow sense: “Ma‘al is the misappropriation of sacred property.” 26 However, it should be counted as the restitution and compensation to the one harmed (v. 7), which makes pure sacrilege improbable. Leviticus 5:21 seems to offer the key to understanding for cases of embezzlement listed according to the designation ‫מעל‬. Numbers 5:6, on the other hand, appears as something of an apocopated citation. This is also suggested by the ram of atonement (‫ )איל הכפורים‬mentioned in v. 8, which is, in fact, incomprehensible without referring to Lev 5. However viewed and applied, the case of Num 5 is close to the cases depicted in Lev 5:20–26. Even if one should be careful about simply filling the gaps in the text of Num 5 with those from Lev 5, exactly this procedure seems necessary for appropriate comprehension. In terms of legal hermeneutics, this naturally presents an exceptionally interesting case of reflexivity. Numbers 5 can be understood as interpretation, as a type of supplemental commentary that does not make sense without the “original.” There is broad unanimity in scholarship that the aspect implemented in v. 8 is new compared to Lev 5. 27 In addition, there is the form of the explicit confession in v. 7b, which goes beyond 25 SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 114: “Schuldenerstattung ohne Erben, mit einem Anhang zu Abgaben fürs Heiligtum.” 26 LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 187. 27 E.g., SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 115.

On the Imperfection of Perfection

301

Lev 5:20–26 and adopts the terminology of Lev 5:5. Why, then, was the new material not simply inserted in Lev 5? Heinrich Holzinger wrote on this much earlier: There are no obvious clues as to why the update was not simply appended to Lev 5:26. The next suggestion is that some RS put the amendment to the laws of Sinai without intrusion into the preexistent entity of the Sinai lawgiving and so simply made them an addition to this section that still comes before the departure. Perhaps they grew out of a practical or theoretical need in the leading scribal circles after the redaction of the corpus by Ezra or first after its unification with JED, though they were perhaps even available earlier and were left out in the redactional work of Rjedp. 28

The indication of the “leading scribal circles” (“massgebenden schriftgelehrten Kreise”), who supplement for practical or even for theoretical interests, is quite noteworthy. 29 It was not as widely received as the proposal of successive endings of the Torah of the book of Leviticus. This notion has continued to appear in recent analyses as a reason for the placement of material in Num 1–10, e.g., in Diether Kellermann: Because this addition was no longer appended to Lev 5, one must assume that the author wrote at a time when Lev 5 already existed as a stable part of a larger context, and that after Num 1–4, the state of the text still presented the possibility of inserting the section. 30

As correct as it may be to conclude the relatively late formation of the composition in Num 5, the prior closing of the book of Leviticus need not necessarily be presupposed in order to substantiate the innovations of the book of Numbers.31 Neither was the update of the laws in the Deuteronomic reception of the Covenant Code simply inserted into the existing corpus. Generally speaking, the composition of Num 5–6 gives the impression that it concerns a 28 This is an English translation of H OLZINGER, Numeri (1903), 18: “Für eine Vermutung darüber, warum die Novelle nicht an Lev 526 angeschlossen wurde, sind keine bestimmten Anhaltspunkte ersichtlich. Am nächsten liegt die Vermutung, dass ein RS Novellen zu den Sinaigesetzen, die vielleicht nach der Redaktion des Korpus des Esra oder erst nach dessen Vereinigung mit JED aus praktischem oder theoretischem Bedürfnis in den massgebenden schriftgelehrten Kreisen angewachsen waren, vielleicht aber auch schon vorher vorhanden gewesen sind und bei der Redaktionsarbeit Rjedp bei Seite gelassen worden sind, ohne Eingriff in das gegebene Gefüge der Sinaigesetzgebung einfach als Nachträge zu dieser noch vor dem Aufbruch vom Sinai unterbrachte.” 29 The content idea has been adopted by NIHAN, Torah (2007), 255–6, who writes on Num 5:5–10: “[Its] complexity and, indeed, sophistication […] suggest an erudite work rather than a composition with a primarily practical design.” 30 This is an English translation of KELLERMANN , Priesterschrift (1970), 69: “Da dieser Nachtrag nicht mehr an Lev 5 angeschlossen wurde, muß man annehmen, daß der Verfasser zu einer Zeit schreibt, in der Lev 5 bereits fest in einem größeren Zusammenhang eingefügt vorlag und in der nach Num 1–4 der Zustand des Textes noch die Möglichkeit bot, den Abschnitt einzufügen.” 31 See the discussion in F REVEL , Pieces, p. 83–120 in the present volume.

302

Ritual and Practice

paradigmatic update that also intends to be understood as such. The anthropological aspects are, therefore, “side effects,” the conclusion implicit, yet not less interesting for that reason. It is noteworthy that men and women are named as actors in this context because this is quite rare in the Old Testament laws, which are almost entirely formulated inclusively or only address free males. 32 This underscores the anthropological universality of guilty action. It is interesting that the peculiarly formulated continuation ‫כי יעשׂו מכל־חטאת‬ ‫ האדם‬alludes to Lev 5:22. The translations go back and forth between the substantive “if they commit one of all of the sins of human beings” and the adjectival ἀπὸ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων “from all human sins.” This hardly makes a difference, unless one attempts to identify it as the object (“sins against humans”).33 This is unlikely, even though later an injured though unnamed party is assumed. Leviticus 5:22, where one finds ‫מכל אשׁר־‬ ‫“( יעשׂה האדם לחטא ב הנה‬something of all that a person does in order to sin […]”), does not really help in this case either. However, some understand it as the explanation of cases that can be related to false testimony, while others as the apex of the list of offenses against the neighbor, and finally a third group as a generalizing conclusion that expands the list to all human sins. If one does not read Num 5:6 in light of Lev 5, which is hardly possibly as indicated above, then Num 5:6 assumes that humans err, or rather that error belongs unavoidably to human nature. This is odd to the extent that this fundamental anthropological declaration appears multiple times in wisdom literature,34 and even “somehow” assumed in the non-priestly primeval history, yet it recedes in the Pentateuch. Here it initially appears quite mundanely: humans sin! This general determination cannot be the thrust of the section, however (then the relationship with Lev 1–7 would be even less clear). A glance should now be accorded to the fascinating continuation ‫למעל מעל ביהוה‬ ‫ואשׁמה הנפשׁ ההוא‬, for it will either explain the sins in terms of the instrumentality, specify them consecutively, or explain them more closely: When a man or a woman does some kind of human sin “in which he/she commits unfaithfulness against YHWH,” “by which he/she commits unfaithfulness against YHWH,” or “and commits unfaithfulness against YHWH”? The foundational question is the understanding of sin. Is it such that only the many offenses give rise to the kind of language that can be evaluated as unfaithfulness 32 Cf. explicitly, e.g., Deut 17:2; 29:17; Lev 15:33; Num 5:3; 6:2. It should be noted that this also binds Num 5–6 together, as Num 5:1–3 explicitly concerns both genders, Num 5:4–10 as well. Both man and woman are involved in Num 5:11–31, and Num 6:2 also has in mind both genders for the dedication through ‫אישׁ או־ אשׁה‬. This is yet more remarkable because priestly circles are often accused not only of thinking in androcentric terms, but also of formulating texts in such a manner. 33 LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 182: “When a man or a woman commits any of the offenses affecting persons […].” 34 Cf. e.g., Job 4:17; 15:14; 25:4; Ps 51:7; Sir 31:10; 34:4.

On the Imperfection of Perfection

303

against YHWH (H. Seebass)? Or is it that every offense against a neighbor is in the end evaluated as unfaithfulness against YHWH (B. Levine, J. Milgrom, I. Knohl)? The latter is more likely in my opinion. The use of ‫ מעל‬indicates, in any case, that it concerns a moral aspect that touches, or rather exposes God. It is less a direct action toward God or direct unfaithfulness against him, such as embezzlement of something that should be accorded him, but rather that God is exposed by the injuring of moral standards, which is evaluated as unfaithfulness against God. This also explains why the sanctuary is involved at all, and why the situation cannot simply be taken care of by means of interpersonal remuneration. The formulation of “by which they commit unfaithfulness against YHWH” presumes moral knowledge, that is to say, the Torah! The demand to act morally with regard to God is analogous to the calls for purity in Num 5:1–4 arising from the relationship granted by God. Humans are in a divinely-initiated, life-sustaining, and perspective-giving relationship that should correspond to the purity and holiness that include morality. When a human commits a sin, such as humans do, he/she makes him/herself guilty with regard to his/her fellow humans, yet he/she also disturbs the divine relationship! From here a bridge is built to Lev 19:2 and the ethos of the Holiness Code,35 which also is presupposed. The interweaving of the social and religious dimensions of sin is further concretized through the confession in v. 7. Now a rite comes into play because the apodosis calls for a confession of sin (‫והתוד ו את־חטאתם‬, “they shall confess their sin”). Keeping with the semantics of the verb ‫ידה‬, this confession takes place publicly, likely at the sanctuary. This also explains why the sanctuary, priests and especially the ram of atonement move into focus in vv. 8 and 9–10. Not only does restitution add a further fifth demand for compensation, but the faithlessness against God must also be atoned so that the divine relationship is reestablished. As in Num 5:1–4, the “imbalance” must be removed from the system by means of ritual action and brought back into equilibrium. This is accomplished by the cult. The moral demand placed upon the people is to live as sinless as possible, but in cases of offense, not only those injured must be given remuneration in order to ensure restitution, but the divine relationship must also be reestablished through atonement, and one must reconcile with God. Numbers 5:6–8 formulates a theology of atonement in nuce, which harbors a rationality for the sacrificial cult. We now summarize the aspects of Num 5:5–10 in conclusion: (1) Numbers 5:5–10 is important for the various aspects of the morality, sociality and relationality of human nature.

35 On this, see G ASS, Heilige (2013), 214–31 and in more detail HIEKE, Levitikus (2014). I thank Thomas Hieke for the dialogue on the ethos of the Holiness Code and its connection to Num 5.

304

Ritual and Practice

(2) All these aspects are explicitly ascribed to both genders to the same degree. (3) Human nature includes error within it as a possibility for humanity itself. Error against fellow humans has a social dimension that extends beyond the social structure to the relationships with God. (4) Human error exposes (like in Lev 5 and the theology of the Holiness Code) the relationship with God. Sacrality and morality are placed in a conditional relationship. (5) A person has the ability to act morally with regard to evil and can ameliorate but not completely avoid the effects of error. (6) The public confession of guilt that is made at the sanctuary presupposes the perpetrator’s acknowledgement and regret. (7) Restitution must even be given if the injured party has no legal heir because otherwise order, which is characterized by justice and holiness, would remain disturbed.

6. Jealousy or the Destructive Emotions of Suspicion The text that follows in Num 5:11–31 is the so-called sotah or the “jealousy ordeal.” While the almost magical background tones in the ordeal are very interesting for a text generally dated quite late, and would be well-served by a detailed treatment, especially with regard to the category of “ritual innovation,” in the following I will instead consider the anthropological aspects. This is also limited in that the composition (-historical) problems of the text will not be treated here. 36 Neither can the antiquity of the individual elements of the ritual be considered, such that the moment of ritual innovation can be investigated more extensively. All that will be said here is that the situation is different than in Num 5:5–10 because Num 5:11–31 does not consist of an addition to a pre-existent law, yet it also adopts elements from Lev 5 in its formulation. It can be substantiated that the new formulations of rituals in part rest on very old and preexisting elements, yet the ritual text in its present form is late. 37 We have before us here a complex ritual whose point of depar36 Diachronic proposals that evaluate the doublets and the semantic variations in the formulations have been made since Bernhard Stade in 1895. Most recently with very different solutions are JEON , Laws (2007), 181–207 and S HECTMAN , Guilt (2010), 479–93. For further discussion, see F REVEL , Rituals (2016). 37 The question of tradition-historical roots arises both for the sotah ritual and also for the blessing of Num 6:22–27. Scholarship often presents both as pieces with ancient tradition-historical roots, which is conceivable for both. Their functions as part of the complex of interpretation, however, weighs heavy in the present context. The creative structure of the texts cannot be accounted for with the bald alternative: inserted ancient tradition or a

On the Imperfection of Perfection

305

ture is a husband who is suspicious that his wife has been unfaithful to him with another man. Two presuppositions should initially be mentioned, both of which are connected to the patriarchal imprint of ancient society: (1) The conception of adultery is construed in asymmetrical terms in Old Testament texts. The husband can only commit adultery against someone else’s marriage if he enters a relationship with another married woman. The wife, on the other hand, commits adultery against her own marriage when she has an extramarital affair. The man who has a relationship with a married woman commits adultery against her marriage, that is, the other marriage. If a married man has a relationship with an unmarried woman, then, while this may be morally reprehensible, it cannot in principal be legally prosecuted (cf. e.g., Deut 21:15–17). In short: the man can only harm someone else’s marriage, the woman only her own. The background for this asymmetry is the acceptance of legitimate polygamy, which outside of the royal court was de facto hardly socially acceptable in the 1st millennium BCE. Monogamy was also legally the norm, 38 but the polygamous presuppositions had strong effects. The fact that adultery can only injure a married man is only comprehensible in light of the patriarchal categorization of the wife. The Hebrew ‫בעל‬/Baal, “owner, lord” for “husband” expresses the categorization of an ownership relationship. This should not be taken to indicate the lack of legal standing for the wife, but it is quite distant from legal and social equality between man and woman. The ritual in Num 5 protects – as absurd as this may appear with regard to the health-threatening result – the woman from the baseless suspicion of the husband. The patriarchal background also limits the primary purpose of marriage as oriented toward procreation. Emotional attraction and even love play subordinate roles. Yet even if the understanding of marriage was far from a romantic marriage for love, many narratives in the Old Testament thematize mutual attraction or presuppose it (Gen 24:67; 26:8; 29:18–20, 30; 1 Sam 18:20; Ruth 3:10; Qoh 9:9; Song 3:1; Tob 8:7 et al.). The interest of the husband in the wife in Num 5 also extends beyond legal injury, even if the legal relationship is foregrounded, into emotional harm expressed in suspicion and jealousy. The value of marital faithfulness shines through. On the backdrop of these conceptions of marriage, the defendant in Num 5 supposedly committed adultery against her own marriage by having a sexual relationship with another man. The injury to the husband increases if the wife becomes pregnant through this extramarital affair. The rival lover, who apparently committed adultery against another’s marriage and therefore must also be condemned, does not appear in the text, not even if the ritual comes to new formulation oriented toward the context. The quote from C. Nihan in n. 29 is once again worth noting. 38 On the legal standing of the second wife, cf. DYMA, Ehe (2010), 1.6–1.7.

306

Ritual and Practice

a “positive” conclusion (see below). He is protected by the hiddenness of the relationship with the married woman, even if there are rumors. The cuckolded husband has no legal recourse here. The ordeal is therefore directed at the internal relationship between husband and wife, which has been deeply disturbed by the case of suspicion. (2) According to Old Testament law, the act of adultery is punishable by death (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10; cf. Lev 19:20); however, the implementation of the death penalty depends on a guilty verdict in a legal process in which at least two witnesses could be called.39 De facto this means that an adulteress or an adulterer could only be sentenced according to Old Testament law when two eyewitnesses could be found. Without an orderly legal process, unlike blood vengeance, executing the delinquents was not an option. The cuckolded husband could give the woman a letter of divorce, but legally he could neither touch the adulterer nor his own wife. This was the case regardless of any moral judgment of the situation. With these presuppositions, the ritual in Num 5 fills a gap in the law, such that it offers a way to address adultery, or rather the suspicion of adultery, in cases where two witnesses are missing, which is expressly emphasized in v. 13. As archaic as the ritual may be supposed to be – and the parallels in ancient Near Eastern law were taken to be signs of antiquity in earlier scholarship, 40 it concerns an innovation with regard to the existing laws on adultery in Old Testament law. The ritual in Num 5 treats cases where the charge of adultery is based solely on the suspicion of the supposedly cuckolded husband (vv. 12–13). The ritual does not say what the charge is based on, but it clarifies whether the woman committed adultery through an ordeal, which takes place in the sanctuary. Through the ordeal a halt is put to the affect and the destructive consequences of outsized jealousy. At the same time, the medicinal effects of the accursed water should de facto rule out the possibility that the child resulted from the adulterous relationship. If no swelling of the belly takes place from the ritual action, then the child is from marital intercourse. The complex ritual, which underwent literary growth, comprises a number of sequential actions by various actors: the husband leads his wife to the sanctuary (v. 15), and he leads in her offering (v. 15). The priest, as ritual expert, takes the woman out of the discretionary power of her husband and 39 For this reason, Deut 22:22 is explicit: When a man is discovered who has lain with a married woman (that is, had sex with her) […]. 40 The closest parallel is the river ordeal in Codex Hammurabi §§ 131–132 from the 18 th cent. BCE: “If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house. If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband” (translation by ROTH , Laws [2000], 344).

On the Imperfection of Perfection

307

places her under divine judgment (vv. 16, 18). She is thereby removed from the husband’s power, who then loses all possibility for further legal recourse (v. 31). The priest takes “holy water” as a ritual agent in a clay container and mixes in dust from the floor of the sanctuary (v. 17). The priest unbinds the hair of the women’s head (v. 18) and places her with her offering probably at the entrance of the tent of meeting, that is in the liminal border space between the exclusive realm of the divine (the sanctuary) and the realm of the people (the camp). The priest holds the bitter water in his hands and makes the woman swear an oath (v. 19), thereby submitting herself to the ordeal. If she is guilty, the curse should take effect on the woman, having a negative impact on her ability to produce offspring. The accursed water should cause a prolapse of the uterus and disrupt any pregnancy that might have begun (v. 21). If she is innocent, then the negative effects of the accursed water do not take place, and the woman can be received back by her husband and bare the child that is likely/or to be considered to be from him. Under the pre-condition that the woman agrees (“Amen, amen” in v. 22), the conditional imprecation is written down, the writing scraped off into the water and given to the woman to drink (vv. 24, 26). The details of this exceptionally interesting ritual cannot be discussed here; I limit my discussion to several remarks relevant for anthropology. The starting point is obviously the relationship-damaging jealousy of the husband. He views his rights as harmed, yet he has no legal recourse. Before suspicion poisons the relationship and leads to an irreversible divorce (Deut 24), the ordeal should bring peace to the husband. At first glance the ritual appears solely to place the burden upon the wife: she is placed under suspicion; she must undergo the danger of the accursed water, even if she is innocent. However, in spite of the undeniable injustice, this is not completely accurate. The man bears the costs of the ritual. The text repeatedly and explicitly assumes that the man’s suspicion could be wrong and then the woman must be protected. The ritual protects the woman from being placed repeatedly under unjustified suspicion for the same situation, even if the text does not state this explicitly. The husband, who raises suspicion based on jealousy is, in any case, seen as just as problematic as the act of adultery itself. Neither case is explicitly judged in terms of morality, instead they are treated in terms of their consequences. The jealousy that arises is described as “a storm of jealousy came over him” (‫)ועבר עלו רוח־קנאהו‬, which can be described in softer terms as “feelings of jealousy.” 41 However, Prov 27:4 proclaims what is likely in the background here: “Fury is cruel, and anger overflows, but who can withstand jealousy?” The case of Num 5 evidently treats something that is more than the silent stirrings of suspicion, it is instead a case in which the 41 While the less frequent masculine form for ‫ רו ח‬is used, it somewhat underlines the stormy nature of the feeling; the feminine form appears in v. 30.

308

Ritual and Practice

husband becomes obsessive, such that he is in danger of doing something that would make him guilty (v. 31). This guilt could lie in divorcing the woman for no good reason. The ritual puts the suspicion to rest so that the man can remain without guilt. The guilt supported by the suspicion of the husband can be shown as innocence through the ritual. The ritual therefore presents both a protection for the woman, who should not be placed in the hands of her husband’s stubbornness, and also as a ritual channeling of the man’s overreaction. In the case of reasoned suspicion, the ritual assures the husband of the paternity of his children and when in doubt of the legality of the inheritance. Finally, the fact that this has considerable legal ramifications and does not merely concern a “liaison” on the part of the woman is recognized by means of the use of the term “sleep of seed” (v. 13).42 The fact that the woman has “polluted” herself through the extramarital affair (vv. 13, 14, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29) is in accord with the terminological use of the prophets and the Holiness Code to designate illegitimate sexual relations. 43 It is noteworthy that a woman’s ability to bare children is bound up with her marital faithfulness, that is, with moral behavior. As long as the woman did not sleep with another man, she would receive the semen (‫)ונזרעה זרע‬, meaning that she could bear legitimate descendants from her husband. Even if the ritual in Num 5 can be understood as protection from the husband’s improper fury and as protection from the effects of suspicion on the household, on the other hand, it should be emphasized that the ritual is quite distant from any kind of “gender equality.” While the ritual appears to presuppose a freedom on the part of the wife that cannot be controlled by the husband, a freedom that makes the adultery possible, the subject of the sexual activity, both within and outside the marriage, is always and exclusively the man. The subject of the defilement, on the other hand, is continually the woman (vv. 13, 14, 20, 27, 28, 29, “when you do not veer into impurity from your husband,” ‫ ואם־לא שׂטית טמאה תחת אישׁך‬in v. 19), she is the one held in suspicion. Unlike the cases when adultery is witnessed, in which both sexual partners are subject to punishment (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:12), here only the woman is called to account. The man is not rebuked for his false suspicion, neither legally nor morally. The patriarchal influence of the text is undeniable, and rightly produces resistance in present-day audiences. Lev 15:16, 17, 18, 32; 19:20; 22:4 (see v. 20 on ‫)שׁ כבת‬. The conspicuous N-stem, “pollute oneself” in Num 5:13, 14 [2x], 20, 27, 28 is rare in the Torah. It only appears otherwise in Lev 11:43 [dietary laws]; 18:24 [sexual acts]. ‫ט מא‬ in the N-stem also appears in Jer 2:23 (“How can you say that you have not become impure?”); Ezek 20:30–31, 43; 23:7, 13, 30 (Ezek 20:30: “Do you want to defile yourselves as your fathers did and go astray after their detestable things?”) and Hos 5:3; 6:10. A comparison of these verses reveals that it concerns a technical term for illegitimate sexual relations. It also carries with it a moral connotation, even if the primary defilement is physical. 42 43

On the Imperfection of Perfection

309

From this discussion, the following aspects can be identified that are relevant in terms of anthropology: (1) The ritual theoretically addresses the vast majority of cases of adultery because only in extremely exceptional cases could two witnesses be brought in to testify to catching a pair in the act of intercourse. Given the requirement of two witnesses, the death penalty for adultery would de facto (beyond a narrative depiction of individual cases) have hardly ever taken place. (2) If one sets aside the idea of an ordeal – that is that the deity guarantees the appropriate and just judgment – and anachronistically presupposes a rationalistic reductionism, then the effects of the ritual are largely positive for the woman. One must assume that the ritual agent de facto only very rarely led to the prolapse of the uterus. On the one hand, this means that the woman usually remained protected from the improper suspicion on the part of her husband, and that in the case of well-based suspicion that the woman generally did not undergo the penalty for adultery. The possibility is also implied, however, that the “accursed water” did on occasion harm the woman when she was innocent. The ritual limits the effects of improper sexual behavior for the woman. The effects of a divorce in the case of demonstrative improper sexual behavior were grave both legally and socially. When this reflection is correct, then the jealous man was always in danger of calling for the ritual of false suspicion. He would accordingly be careful about actually initiating the ritual. (3) It follows from these considerations that most hidden cases of adultery ended de facto in a process of reconciliation within the marriage, and the remaining portion were dealt with in some kind of arbitration at the sanctuary. The treatment of social breakdowns and their effects appear to follow a certain subsidiary logic. Whatever can be taken care of within a marriage should be dealt with there. A “war of the roses” should neither be carried out in public nor should “dirty laundry” be washed at the sanctuary. The sanctuary functions as the arbitration body for those cases in which the parties involved are unable to resolve themselves. (4) The marriage does not exist in a space free from the law. The supposedly wronged husband must, before he makes himself guilty and ends the marriage or falsely punishes the wife, carry out the ritual in order to check the truthfulness of the suspicion. (5) Marital faithfulness as a value is always presupposed. Even when the purpose was to produce descendants was placed in the foreground as the purpose for marriage, and marital faithfulness is subordinate to this

310

Ritual and Practice

purpose, the marriage accompanied by emotional jealousy is not reduced to the single purpose of producing children.

7. Life Dedicated to the Sanctuary: Nazirites The third ritual addresses the Nazirites’ temporarily binding of themselves through vows that are connected with certain behaviors in daily life. In keeping with the context, this section also focuses on cases when the oath is unintentionally broken (Num 6:9–12): What should be done in cases when the vow is unintentionally severed? As with the previous situations, the sanctuary also plays a role as a place of judgment here. Also, the liminal boundary zones and the action of the priest are what re-establishes the damaged equilibrium. As with the ordeal of jealousy, here a case is dealt with that – given all the pre-conditions for vows – are also addressed elsewhere in the Torah. Innovative aspects indicate that, e.g., with the offering tariffs, Lev 5 operates as the base text. This will not, however, be the focus here, but rather the anthropological aspects of the text. The Nazirite vow concerns the complete abstinence from food and drink that have been changed through a fermentation process and could for that reason contain alcohol (Num 6:3–4). The possible loss of control connected with the consumption of alcohol cannot be linked with the proximity to God that is the aim of the vow. Whoever takes a Nazirite vow should allow the hair on their head to grow (Num 6:5). First and foremost, this means that one does not cut their hair as part of a ritual of mourning. All mourning rituals, even those for the closest relatives, are forbidden (Num 6:6). By means of the vow, the person – and here again it is conspicuous that both men and women are expressly named as subjects for such individually binding rituals (Num 6:2) – is set apart, which would be characterized as holiness. For all the days of the time as Nazirites, she/he is holy for YHWH (Num 6:6). This need not mean that the holiness of the Nazirite argues against the holiness of the people as a whole, but there is evidently a different level of holiness. It is interesting that the characteristics of the Nazirites who take such an oath are quite similar to those of the high priest. For while the ordinary priest should abstain from alcohol while serving (Lev 10:9) and should not cut his hair as a part of mourning rituals (Lev 21:5), he can have contact with the corpses of close family members (Lev 21:2–4). The high priest, like the Nazirite, however, may not himself become defiled even by the corpse of his own father and mother (Lev 21:11). The parallelism with the prescriptions for the high priestly office indicates the importance of the Nazirites, supporting the special value of this vow. No other person acts in such a representative manner for the entire people (cf. only Lev 16) or moves in such exceptional proximity to God. The regulated transgression of boundaries toward the holy de-

On the Imperfection of Perfection

311

mands a special holiness for the priest, which increases for the high priest as an individual person. This special position of the high priest is nullified to some degree, or better democratized, by the Nazirite law, to the degree that the Nazirite lives with a comparable closeness to God outside the sanctuary! It is especially interesting in anthropological terms that the male and female laity, with all the brokenness of their everyday lives, are trusted to grow into such close proximity to God through the vow, at least temporarily. By means of a self-commitment, the Nazirite can reach a level of holiness that approximates the singularity of the high priest. That transformation is characterized, on the one hand, by abstinence from all alcohol and thereby from the related possibility of the loss of self-control, and, on the other hand, by maintaining distance from the dead, which break into the sphere of the living. The final point is especially relevant for the context here, so it will be treated in an excursus. Excursus: The næpæš of the Dead The book of Numbers describes the notion that the touching of a dead body or even physical closeness to a corpse is viewed as defiling. This innovation – which may possibly have resulted from Zoroastrian influence, and which is attested first in the post-exilic religion of the Persian period44 – changes the social treatment with the dead and thereby leads to, or rather concerns a semantic alteration in the field of meaning of one of the brightest terms of Old Testament anthropology: ‫נפשׁ‬. 45 This word, which can only be translated in light of its context, has an enormously broad field of meaning, whose starting point lies in its spatial connection to the region of the throat: Adam’s apple, pharyngeal cavity, gullet, esophagus and windpipe, and thereby also breath. This does not come as a surprise because Hebrew as a whole is marked by aspective notions and expresses relational complementarities. Emotions and affects are just as connected to the body as the dynamics of social relationships. 46 The emotive aspects of meaning are derived from the basic meaning: the ‫ נפשׁ‬is the location for bodily and spiritual desire and longing in all levels of intensity from longing to greed, from appetite to gluttony. Wanting and wishing are also expressed as the longing of the ‫נפשׁ‬. From the region of the pharyngeal cavity, through which breath passes, the aspects of the term’s meaning unfold as liveliness and vitality. The ‫ נפשׁ‬signifies the vitality of humans, therefore it is linked to human nature, personality, social status, life 44 Cf. H UTTER, Impurity (2009), 13–26; A CHENBACH, Verunreinigung (2009), 347–69; FREVEL, Vitality, p. 284–7 in the present volume. 45 See the very detailed treatment by JANOWSKI, næpæš (2013), 12–43; IDEM, næpæš (2015). The following discussion condenses the remarks treated in FREVEL , Vitality, p. 284–7 in the present volume. 46 See the literature mentioned in n. 22 on anthropology.

312

Ritual and Practice

force, life, individuality and even biography. In any case, these aspects are never completely separated: the physical, mental, historical and social existence of a person. In Hebrew, your life means “to be in relationship,” so ‫ נפשׁ‬is also a relational term. Grammatically speaking, ‫ נפשׁ‬can even be used as a personal pronoun or an indefinite pronoun, or pars pro toto mostly for a human creature. The ‫ נפשׁ‬is everything, except for the soul in the classical sense, namely in a dichotomous (body-soul) or a trichotomous (body-soul-spirit) conception, something that is added to the human as an immortal core. However, ‫ נפשׁ‬still appears quite frequently in many translations as “soul,” such that the Hebrew cannot be rendered with a single alternative. And this translation is not completely wrong, when the modern discussions on the soul are taken as a starting point. If a starting point is sought within the Old Testament for the conception of a “person,” then one cannot avoid the term ‫נפשׁ‬. Because just the scope of meaning of ‫נפשׁ‬, which at least includes individuality, identity, self-consciousness and self-awareness and presence, in addition to vitality or life force as well as connections to life and one’s biography, provides a high degree of connections. This will not be pursued further here, instead the discussion will point to the dependent nature of ‫ נפשׁ‬in the rituals of the book of Numbers. As a whole, there are 55 appearances of the term in 44 verses, about 3.5% of all appearances of the term ‫ נפשׁ‬are in the book of Numbers. The basic meaning, “throat/pharyngeal cavity” is found in only one place, where in Num 11:6 the Israelites lament that their ‫ נפשׁ‬has dried out from all the manna. In English, one could say that the people were sick and tired of the manna. A further appearance is related (in a somewhat unusual formulation) to the motivation and vitality of the courage of the people (Num 21:4). All remaining appearances designate a life, a person, or the self, though these levels of meaning flow into one another. ‫ נפשׁ‬in Numbers with the meaning of …47 ThroatLonging VitalityCourage LongingSelf LifePerson PersonLife

Self

11:6 21:4 29:7 17:3; 30:3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30, 31 5:6; 15:27, 28, 30, 31; 19:18, 20, 22; 30:3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19; 31:19, 28, 34, 40, 46; 35:11, 15, 30 21:5; 23:10; 29:7Longing; 31:50

These data mean, especially in the book of Numbers, that ‫ נפשׁ‬denotes the complex dimensions central for the conceptualization of human identity. The 47

The terms in superscript point in each case to additional dimensions of meaning.

On the Imperfection of Perfection

313

translation of the term is dependent on the context and is seldom clearly limited to a single English equivalent. This is also the case in verses in which a broader field of meaning appears to enter, and ‫ נפשׁ‬clearly stands for a dead person, or rather for a corpse or even a cadaver. Both Num 5:2 and also 6:6, 11 are among such cases. Assuming the diametrical opposition of death and life and the close connection between ‫ נפשׁ‬and “life” (cf. just Lev 24:17–18), it is disturbing at first glance as to why the phenomenon from Num 6:6 is debated controversially in scholarship. 48 The use of the term is rare, appearing in the Pentateuch, otherwise only in Lev 19:28; 21:1, 11; 22:4 and outside the Pentateuch only in Hag 2:13. As long as one keeps the conception of death in the background, which locates death as a point on an axis and understands death as a completed “space of (ir)reality,” then ‫ נפשׁ‬and death present diametric entities. Yet this does not accord with the Old Testament understanding of death, which is aware of much smoother transitions between life and death. 49 In addition, it is conspicuous that ‫ נפשׁ‬is only used for those who have just died, and these are ascribed a defiling capacity; skeletons and bones no longer maintain this ability. Following the expulsion of those who are bodily unclean from the camp, Num 5:2 uses the short phrase ‫וכל טמא לנפשׁ‬, “and everyone who is unclean in terms of ‫נפשׁ‬,” which means contact with the dead. This is also the topic in the Nazirite passage of Num 6:6, where touching the corpse within the context of the care of the dead annuls the vow. Evidently the holiness of the Nazirite, being set apart for God, is seen as incompatible with the sphere of death, and this is likely the key for the connection of ‫ נפשׁ‬and death. In Num 6:6, the text is even a construct-absolute connection of a ‫נפשׁ מת‬, that is, of “a ‫ נפשׁ‬of a dead one.” This should not lead one astray to the conclusion – even if the distance is not all that great – that the dead “have” a ‫( נפשׁ‬like in the sense of an essential materialized concept of a soul that enters into a body). It is rather something of a unity with limits and that can be touched, which thus concerns something like an aura of life that is condensed in the ‫נפשׁ‬. It belongs more to the category of “being” than to “having,” but not in an ontological sense. A person is defined by aspects of performative presence, by their individuality, their living social relationships, etc. All this, though especially the aspect of representation, does not disappear the moment a person dies. The dead can still be remembered, spoken to, honored and mourned. He or she does not suddenly disappear from his or her social context or network of relationships, but rather dissipates slowly – parallel to the process of bodily disintegration – in the underworld, from which there is no return. If these reflections are taken as the starting point, then the 48 Cf. FREVEL, Vitality, p. 284–7 in the present volume; IDEM, Purity Conceptions, p. 242–5 in the present volume and now the overview in JANOWSKI, næpæš (2015), 18–20. 49 See F REVEL, Tod (2015); IDEM, Vitality, p. 261–2 in the present volume.

314

Ritual and Practice

intermediary domain between death and life is difficult to grasp. This “domain” hardly has any clear boundaries; it is destabilized as a transition. The otherwise clearly delimited entities of “life” and “death” flow together within it, and exactly this conception appears to support the notion of the defiling capacity of corpses. How they should be treated is clarified by the complex ritual of the red heifer in Num 19. If the defiling capacity of corpses was introduced to the religion of Israel from the Iranian context, for which there is considerable support in that there is no evidence for it before the 5th/4th cent. BCE in Israel, then it is still compatible with the conceptualization of death in Israelite religion. The priestly theology of the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 thoroughly forms the background of the evidence in the book of Numbers: The holy God is completely connected to life, gives life and safeguards life in his covenant. This attribution leads to the ascription of areas connected to the intermediary realm between death and life to become taboo. Developed no later than the exilic period, the conception that the singular God also has power over the realm of the dead (1 Sam 2:6; Deut 32:39; Ps 30:4 et al.) remains untouched by this. Holiness and death are diametrical, such that contact with the dead is limited for the priests and especially for the high priest. Derivative from this idea is the notion that contact with corpses annuls a Nazirite vow, such that the vow must be retaken in the presence of the priest. The following aspects can be brought together as a summary for Num 6: (1) By means of taking the Nazirite vow, regular women and men could achieve a state of holiness and closeness to God otherwise reserved for priests and especially for the high priest. The otherwise strict hierarchy between ordinary people and priests is breached on this conceptual level. (2) It is noteworthy that this sanctified life can be lived in full outside the sanctuary. The one who takes the vow does not have a higher degree of purity in a way that is related to other conditions for access to the cult or cultic space. Neither are the Nazirite women or men saddled with any kind of intensified contact with the cultic center. The lay vow is lived out in the midst of the people. (3) Abstinence from alcohol should especially protect the person from a possible loss of control, which, as in the case of the priests, is seen as incompatible with holiness and holy service. (4) The vow includes the possibility that its conditions cannot be upheld throughout the duration of the avowed term. Such a case does not appear to include some kind of evil that cannot be overcome. The cult instead offers the means to rectify the defect, just as with other human imperfections.

On the Imperfection of Perfection

315

(5) Such a situation is clearly on display in exemplary fashion in the realm of the dead. With the expiration of life, the person enters a transitional realm in which his vital presence, individuality and identity still leave strong impressions, but he is inactive and without breath. This liminal realm is characterized by the mention of a ‫נפשׁ מת‬, “a næpæš of a dead,” which also brings together into language the diametrical entities.50

8. Evaluation and Summary The opening section indicated that Num 5–6 is motivated by the indwelling of the holy and sanctifying God in the midst of the people (Exod 29:43–46) Within the clearly defined spatial limits of the camp at Sinai it brings about an almost perfect world that can be negatively influenced by human imperfection, the conditions of human life and human action. The rituals collected in Num 5–6 treat this imperfection in exemplary fashion. As such, the rituals of the book of Numbers are important in anthropological terms. Nonetheless, they do not develop a complete and thorough systematic anthropology, but instead highlight individual aspects that need not be repeated here. The rituals belong to the realm of priestly literature, which are generally described in terms of clear distinctions: holy and profane, good and evil, pure and impure. priestly thought appears at first glance to be characterized by clear boundaries: the distance between humans and God is so great that it cannot be overcome. Holiness is endangered and can only be borne by the mediation of the priest. The tension between the life-giving presence, on the one hand, and the endangered proximity, on the other, could hardly be conceived of as being any greater. This clear picture of a dichotomized priestly world is not confirmed by the rituals in the book of Numbers. They are all marked by the transgression of boundaries, formulation of a transitional place, and they thereby make the boundaries less clear. Despite all the demands of holiness, humans are imperfect, they err and they sin. Emotions threaten to become jealous accusations of a destructive reality. Death – once released from the clearly defined location – works its way into the fragile balance of life and unfolds a holiness-threatening potential in the amorphous transitional region. At the same time, the rituals of the book of Numbers are oriented toward the life-giving and life-maintaining power of the holy God. His holy presence is affective, and he himself is affected by moral transgression. Humans exist in the productive tension between the holy and the profane. They can threaten the productive power of holiness. Rituals are made available in order to man50 For the ritual of blessing, which was left out here, see F REVEL, Scripture (2017) and IDEM , Texture, p. 327–34 in the present volume.

316

Ritual and Practice

age this situation. These are embedded in the world of the text in which the presence of the holy God, who defines the nature of the camp, is itself completely determined by the indwelling and ongoing presence of this God and the blessing that results. God’s perfection bears the imperfect, but not without pointing out the means of perfecting the imperfection to humans.

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers A Fresh Approach to Ritual Density, the Role of Tradition and the Emergence of Diversity in Early Judaism 1. Rituals as Common Denominator Writing an essay on the function of rituals on the 100th anniversary of the death of Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) may be seen as bringing coals to Newcastle. In his book “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life” Durkheim sought to uncover the universality of religious characteristics: “How is it possible to find, underneath the disputes of theology, the variations of ritual, the multiplicity of groups and the diversity of individuals, the fundamental states characteristic of religious mentality in general?”1 It is not about sharing the interest in the universality of religious characteristics or Durkheim’s evolutionary idea of religion, but rather about strengthening the implicit presuppositions of his idea that religion is related to social reality and – with the words of Catherine Bell – “religion functions to ensure the unconscious priority of communal identification.” 2 The interesting point in the quote above is not the idea of the “general,” but rather the elements he mentions on the secondary level, namely theological discourse and ritual; or to put it differently: “tradition.” They form the social cohesion and communal identity, or they function as an expression and denominator of identity. By relating to a common practice or a common set of ideas, community is built up beyond genealogy or cohabitation. With this we have described one of the two major and basic functions of scriptural tradition. However, there is never a total congruence between a society and its tradition. The boundaries of both are rather open and permeable. As society covers a variety of aspects, which are not represented in tradition, tradition covers aspects which do not represent or relate to society. In between there is plenty of room left for interpretation. Traditions contain a very high potential for variability, which implies from the very beginning the relation of text and variability, text and interpretation, text and commentary, etc. Usually a particular tradition is allocated to a particular community. The interesting issue now is the striking fact that several communities share the 1 2

DURKHEIM , Forms (1915), 143. BELL, Ritual (2009), 24.

318

Ritual and Practice

same written tradition. The situation becomes more complex, if we assume that a tradition is explicitly built to match the interest of various communities. This is true for the Samarians and the post-exilic Judaic community centered in Jerusalem, who both share almost the same Torah (textual variants and slight changes admitted). 3 Probably we have to broaden this horizon to other denominations within the plurality of the formative phase of Judaism, for example the diaspora in Egypt, Babylon, as well as “non-centralized” communities outside of Yehûd in the Negev, the Galilee or in Transjordan. 4 All these communities committed themselves to the Torah, but at the same time interpreted it differently in practice. The development was characterized by fluid boundaries and regional differentiation rather than by schisms from an orthodox and normative origin. What were the common denominators in this very tradition? In this paper, I will put forward the idea that the set of rituals in the Torah is not meant to cover the de facto ritual-household, 5 either of the cult in the desert or in the First or Second Temple period, but rather forms a framework in which the interpretative understanding of various Judaisms was possible. 6 Together with the common construction of the twelve-tribes system, the formative early history of Israel outside of the land, the fictive sanctuary at Mount Sinai, the Aaronide priesthood and other aspects, the rituals in their present form are part of the reservoir of identity of Second Temple Judaism. They constitute, and at the same time preserve, a common and idealized past within the context of a foundational narrative. The foundational myth of Exodus was already part of the identity construction of the former tradition, 7 so that – as can be said as a general rule – tradition is built on tradition, and tradition is formed by reception. However, compared to the former tradition 3 For the Samari(t)an question and the sharing of common traditions, see KNOPPERS , Torahs (2011); NIHAN, Samaria (2007), 187–223; HENSEL , Juda (2016), 173–94. 4 For this religious plurality in the 5 th and 4 th cent. BCE, see F REVEL, Geschichte (2018), 346–7. 5 The term “ritual-household” (Ritualhaushalt) is used in this essay to denote the (complete) set of rituals performed within a community. It has nothing to do with domestic rituals. 6 For the term “Judaisms,” its history, the shift from essentialist understanding to the de facto diversity and the blurred borders of this plurality, as well as for the criticism of the concept, see, e.g., the introductory chapter of SATLOW, Judaism (2006), 1–21. Accordingly, in this paper I prefer to use the plural just to avoid the misunderstanding of an orthodox Judaism as normative origin. For a recent discussion, see also BOYARIN , Judaisms (2010), 327, who thinks that it is now “time to move beyond it, seeing Judaism as the sum of the religious expressions of the Jews.” For our purpose, this does not make much sense, since “Judaism” then becomes a constructive term without any possibility to identify and get a grip on various denominations. 7 In the context of the present argument, it is irrelevant whether the narrative bridge between the exodus narrative and the ancestors’ narrative was existent before the priestly layer; a view for which I still see compelling reasons.

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

319

of the pre-priestly Hexateuch, which was built to include northern and southern tradition in the Judean perspective, 8 the perspective of the late-Persian Pentateuch is much more open to various groups even outside of Yehûd. Every group that wanted to have a share in these ideas could relate itself to this “Torah” without being restricted too much in its own practice. Although the Torah can be attributed more or less to the dominant priestly groups in Jerusalem, it was not totally congruent even to the practice of this particular denomination. In contrast, it functioned like a common denominator, which could be adapted to other communal identity concepts within Yahwism. Michael L. Satlow has employed the concept of a “family of tradition” to avoid normativity and to denote the plurality within Judaism. 9 In my understanding the Torah is a “family of tradition” and the “pater familias” at the same time. Using the polythetic metaphor of Jonathan Z. Smith,10 the Torah is (in pre-Hellenistic antiquity, most importantly) the “map” in which identity is plotted; it is normative rather in a relational than in an essential way. Thus, the rituals are part of this textual strategy in enabling diversity and forming the plurality of Judaisms. To argue in this direction, I first have to answer the question of the textpractice relationship, and second to elaborate on the role and function of ritual textualization. After this I will unfold the rituals in the book of Numbers as a test case; on the one hand to demonstrate the “late” representation of rituals in the alleged latest book of the Torah and on the other hand to indicate that the ritual-household of the Torah is eclectically sophisticated and related to ritual discussions within formative Judaism. This finally brings me to the question of the integrative function of rituals and the interpretation of the composition of rituals within the Torah as enabling plurality.

2. Getting Lost in Practice or in Texts? Some Introductory Remarks of False Oppositions If the description of rituals in the Torah does not primarily function as a ritual script, and if the set of rituals represented in the composition of the Torah in its final form does not intend to cover the ritual-household of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the issue of scripturalization with regard to rituals, or in other words the relation of text and ritual, has to be discussed. Hence, we may start with some preliminary remarks on ritual in general, ritual and practice and ritual in the book of Numbers in particular. In contrast to older studFREVEL , Esau (2018). Judaism (2006), 6. 10 SMITH , Map (1975), 308–9; IDEM , Religion (1982), 18. 8

9 SATLOW,

320

Ritual and Practice

ies on the priestly source in the Pentateuch, the understanding of ritual has dramatically changed in recent times. For Julius Wellhausen and others the ritual parts of Leviticus and Numbers were the codification of actual ritual, what Christophe Nihan characterizes as a “‘realistic’ reading.”11 The turnaround of research has been captured by Lester L. Grabbe: “Leviticus is not primarily a book for priests. It is not a priestly manual.”12 Together with many commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers, or introductory books on biblical rituals and the Second Temple cult, I assume that the Bible is not a ritual book in the sense that it contains ritual scripts to be performed in the cult – be that inside or outside of the temple cult. Neither do biblical rituals mirror practice as straightforward descriptions of practiced rituals; nor do they prescribe a fixed and invariant ritual practice. Although it is by no means the most interesting point in ritual studies, the textuality of ritual and its relation to performance/action is still a much-debated issue.13 This discussion forms the background for my paper, but it is not my primary focus. First and foremost, we have to assume a certain disparity between ritual texts and ritual practices, not only in terms of ritual experts, agency, sequence, accurateness, etc. but rather of rituals as such: not all the rituals stated were actually performed, and – I guess at least more importantly – not all rituals performed were stated. The ritual-household of a certain religious community was different and allegedly much greater than their textualized set of rituals. But we do not know very much concerning the relation of biblical rituals to the set of rituals performed in Jerusalem, on Gerizim or in Elephantine. Tradition, innovation, orality, textuality and practice, ideal shape and everyday routine, religious practice and theological doctrine, sociological function and reflection of structure, institution and individuality, principle and application, private and public, logic and irrational, natural and supernatural, etc. form a mixture, of which the components cannot easily be kept apart. They overlap, influence each other and vary from case to case. The meaning and function of ritual elude us as etic observers and will remain elusive even for the emic perspective. That this is one of the most puzzling obstacles of ritual studies seems to be a commonplace. On the one hand, no one proceeds on the assumption that the biblical text is a manual of ritual. Stating the biblical text on the other hand to be pure theology is in danger of being disconnected from ritual practice, and is misleading because it tends to place text and ritual in a diametrical relation. For Jacob Milgrom the Priestly Code was “a self-contained system – logical, coherent and whole,”14 realistic NIHAN, Torah (2007), 17. Priests (2003), 221. 13 See, e.g., BARCHIESI/RÜPKE/S TEPHENS , Rituals (2004); N ÜNNING/RUPP/AHN, Ritual (2013) and the works of Watts and Bibb mentioned below. 14 MILGROM, Cult (1976), 2; IDEM, Leviticus (1991), 42–51. For the discussion, see DAISE , Ritual (2010), 54, who challenges the “system” beyond the ritual. 11

12 G RABBE ,

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

321

and strongly related to society in providing “a window to the life of Ancient Israel.” 15 Rituals have a symbolic significance in communicating ethical values. But this rational system risks placing rituals too much into a theological system. However, stating that “in principle, rituals function beyond and apart from theology and other ideational components and, at times, in spite of them” 16 is even worse, because rituals are then reduced to “autonomous extensions of the human mind,”17 whose theological indexicality is neglected. In sum: the biblical rituals are neither a portrayal of practice nor solely informed by practice; neither do they create or sketch practice nor function as a theological template of ritual practice. Current research cannot rate the ratio between meaning and practice. That said, the function of rituals within texts fades; it is neither documenting nor preserving nor theorizing nor reading practice. The question is not whether the textual representation may form a system or not: the question is about the expectation of consistency and sophistication towards this “system.” To be clear, ritual texts in the Pentateuch are related to each other and have to be read complementarily, but ritual texts are neither completely consistent nor capable of each and every aspect being related to the system of priestly thought. This opens the argument for the issue of textualization and its function.

3. Textualization of Ritual Forms a Complex and an Ideal World Ritual performance and ritual text are related to each other and they are not identical: this insight gives way to the dynamics of rituals in general and also to the dynamics of performance and textualization. Ritual practice and text are entangled in various ways – they correspond, interact and interfere – but the relation remains asymmetrical. While ritual practice can be conceptualized or even developed completely disengaged from the textuality of ritual in terms of written traditions, ritual texts or textual rituals are related to performance, even if only theoretically or in mind. Although I tend to the broad conjecture that there may be virtual rituals in textual traditions, which have to be seen as being detached from ritual practice as being merely sophisticated textual constructions, I agree that rituality has almost always something to do with practice – if not in a world outside of the text, then at least within the textual world. Rituals always have performative aspects and this has to be kept in mind, although practicability may not be a proof for the authenticity MILGROM, Numbers (1990), xxxvi. GRUENWALD , Rituals (2003), 143. 17 G RUENWALD, Rituals (2003), 143. However, Gruenwald more often uses “autonomous expressions of the human mind” (IBIDEM, 2, 13, 55, 143) as shortest definition of ritual. He also speaks explicitly of a “de-theologisation” of rituals (IBIDEM, 191). 15 16

322

Ritual and Practice

of rituals. Given that the ritual is related to a textual ritual, the performance can be remarkably different, including variance, additional sequence of actions, distinguished roles, etc. Beyond the general assumption that ritual script and practice cannot be considered totally independent from each other, the complex relation between text and ritual cannot be answered satisfactorily. To put it more generally: whether the texture of rituals forms practice or the other way around is an interesting, but mostly unanswerable and, for the understanding of the texture of rituals, irrelevant question. It was Brian D. Bibb in his book Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus who emphasized the blending of descriptive narrative and prescriptive ritual and how it “ritualizes narrative” and “narrativizes ritual.”18 Nevertheless, the concrete textual shape of rituals is much more important for understanding the function of rituals within a certain cultic setting. Particularly, the textual context of the rituals in the Pentateuch shapes and transforms them in terms of their indexicality, meaning and performance. Whether we call this aspect the “rhetoric” of ritual, 19 or emphasize that rituals are “literature,”20 or part of – as I would put it – a complex textual world is insignificant in a way. By relating to Wolfgang Iser’s concept of fiction, Hanna Liss has pointed to the transformation of legal tradition into text and I would like to expand this view on biblical rituals: The consequence with which P transforms prior legal texts into literature by an “act of fictionalizing,” can clearly be seen [...] in the section about cultic legislation. The fictionality of P’s presentation exists simply in that P neither wanted to present a picture of the present nor an ideal design, a utopia. With recourse to the past or still-existing cultic institutions and their furnishings, and simultaneously to their konsequent alienation, P established a cult in the text. Cultic establishments, and with them the encounter with Yhwh, would, as it were, be transposed out of their historical realm into a “text realm” […]. 21

P did not aim at serving as a portrayed or as an ideal utopia but rather employs a cult within the text or a fictive textual world, which is related to history as well as to the present, to reality as well as to utopia. The text becomes an ideal world to which the real world can be related. BIBB, Words (2009). WATTS, Ritual (2007). 20 D OUGLAS, Leviticus (1999). 21 This is an English translation of LISS, Kanon (2004), 32: “Die Konsequenz, mit der P ihm vorgängige Rechtstexte in einem ‘Akt des Fingierens’ zur Literatur umgestaltet, lässt sich gerade anhand der Abschnitte über die Kultgesetzgebung […] sehr gut zeigen. Das Fiktive an Ps Darstellung besteht eben darin, dass P weder ein Abbild bestehender Zustände noch einen idealen Entwurf, eine Utopie, zeichnen wollte. Mit dem Rückgriff auf bereits vergangene oder noch bestehende kultische Institutionen und ihrer Ausstattung sowie ihrer gleichzeitigen konsequenten Verfremdung etabliert P einen Kultus im Text. Kultische Einrichtungen und darin die Begegnung mit YHWH werden so gleichsam aus ihrem Geschichtsraum hinaus in einen ‘Text-Raum’ hinein transponiert […].” 18 19

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

323

If “ritual is no less textual than literature, it becomes possible even to wonder whether ritual and literature are separate domains at all, however impractical a notion this might be.” 22 This gives way to interesting questions regarding rituals as part of literature: how do they contribute to the construction of “identity” or how do they indicate social developments in terms of societal organization, integration, institution, hierarchy; how do they safeguard the dynamic of tradition, etc.? These are interesting questions of textualization which lay beyond the question of the documenting or preserving function of scripturalization. It is rather about issues of authority, regulation, homogenization and representation which come into focus. This essay will address some aspects of this broader understanding taking the rituals of the book of Numbers and particularly the priestly blessing as an example. Building on Bell, I will now look at the “ritual density” in the book of Numbers, then I will put forward the idea that textualization of rituals gives way to variance instead of fixation. This brings me to the function of rituals, and I will argue that rituals form a reservoir of identity, which allows practical diversity within the broader framework of biblical rituals.

4. The Ritual Density of the Book of Numbers Except for the offering rituals in the book of Leviticus there are – strictly speaking – not very many rituals in the Pentateuch if we accept (as a sort of definition) confining rituals in the broadest sense to actions of a mostly sequential and complex nature that are recurring, or rather laid out for repetition.23 Beside the Pesach ritual in Exodus 12, some healing and purifying rituals in Leviticus 11–15 and naturally the atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, there are not very many rituals in Exodus and Leviticus. In contrast there are several, mostly occasional, rituals in the book of Numbers, which are often underappreciated or even neglected in scholarly literature. Ithamar Gruenwald’s book Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel offers a glaring example in which its author broadly elaborates on rituals in the book of Leviticus but disregards Numbers completely. 24 The pure number of rituals in the book of Numbers is (depending on the definition of ritual) striking, however:

LEITAO, Ritual (2004), 149. BENDLIN, Ritual (2006), n.p.: “Ritual refers to an elaborate sequence of individual rites which, following an established ritual syntax, are logically connected within a certain functional context.” 24 G RUENWALD, Rituals (2010). The same holds true for instance in GÖRG , Rituale (2001), 366. Strikingly enough, there is not even an article on “ritual” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. 22 23

324

Ritual and Practice

– the sotah ritual regarding the jealous husband and his suspicion of his wife’s adultery (Num 5:11–21); – the ritual of the Nazirite vow (Num 6:13–20) as a renewal of the Nazirite vow after its break (Num 6:9–12); – the ritual of the priestly blessing (Num 6:23–27); – the ritual of the postponed Pesach (Num 9:9–14); – additional aspects of ritual offering (Num 15:1–21); – the offering rituals of atonement of unwilling sins (Num 15:22–29); – the ordeal in Num 16:17–19 or the stopping of the plague in Num 16:46–48 may also be understood as rituals; – the ritual of the red cow, handling impurity caused by corpses (Numbers 19); – the situational rituals of atonement in Num 16:36–50 and Num 25:7–8; – the festival calendar in Numbers 28–29 is full of offering rituals accompanying the feasts and – the practice of vows in Numbers 30 may also be read with respect to ritual. Since Sinai is the preferred place of revelation with a particular emphasis on normativity, we may wonder why so many rituals can be found in the book of Numbers even beyond the departure from Sinai in Num 10:10. Before we discuss some of the various explanations for this peculiarity, it may be helpful to stick to the term “ritual density,” which was introduced by Bell. What she meant was the obvious fact that “some societies or historical periods have more ritual than others.” 25 Regarding the representation of rituals in textual traditions, the book of Numbers is crucially relevant in terms of “ritual density.” Linked to the time period when the books of Leviticus and Numbers were formed as late parts of the priestly literature, the formative phase of the Pentateuch is a time of “ritual density.” Why? The question of ritual density is one of the most intriguing ones, or, as Bell puts it, it is “arguably among the most interesting in the study of religion today.” 26 However, there are “only small islands of scholarly consensus on the factors affecting density” 27 says Bell; and thus, we are encouraged to discuss the matter from the angle of biblical tradition. We have to address questions of composition, authority and literary development as well as aspects of content and finally the role of rituals as part of the identity building processes which built on the Pentateuch as a formative record in the 5th and 4th cent. BCE. Within the scholarly discussion, various explanations to the ritual density in the book of Numbers have been given. I confine myself to a rough overview. BELL, Ritual (2009), 173. BELL, Ritual (2009), 173. 27 BELL, Ritual (2009), 173. 25 26

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

325

(1) Rituals were always important in Israel’s religious practice but they were increasingly collected in the late Second Temple period. There was a growing need to textualize rituals because of the dissolution of the cult of the Second Temple. Fixation of age-old rituals took place in processes of successive addition, even and particularly in the book of Numbers as the latest book of the Pentateuch. Because the book of Leviticus was almost finalized, the rituals were attached to the book of Numbers. (2) Various forms of rituals were circulating in the Second Temple period and thus biblical authors saw the necessity to preserve and homogenize ritual practice in the processes of finalizing the Pentateuch. Variance should be limited to a minimum. The rituals recorded in Numbers were more open in practice and were fixed by embedding them into the narrative. (3) Rituals became more important in the Second Temple period especially in the late Persian period of the 5th and 4th cent. BCE; and this development is the background of the quantity of rituals in the book of Numbers. The density of rituals in Numbers mirrors the density of ritual practice in the late Second Temple period. The rituals in Numbers are not a collection of age-old, traditional stuff, but a form of innovative ritual practice, which emerged in a timeframe informed by ritual density. (4) The ritual density has nothing to do with practice or tradition, but rather with composition. The rituals are situational and thus deliberately placed in the book of Numbers. Situational, contextual and narrative aspects determine the density of rituals in Numbers. (5) None of the above-mentioned theories is ready to explain the density of rituals in Numbers because the density is due to the function of rituals in a particular society. Different clues inform the different options: contestation, homogenization, cultic practice, social function, textual composition, etc. Not all of the explanations provide a rationale for the bifurcation between Sinai and wilderness. Mary Douglas has put forward aspects of societal organization: that societies with more intensive group and grid organization have a certain density of rituals. She argues in general that “the most important determinant of ritualism is the experience of closed social groups.” 28 Thus there is a connection between social grids and ritual density: “When the social group grips its members in tight communal bonds, the religion is ritualist; when the grip is relaxed, ritualism declines.” 29 In this way she sees the post-exilic Second 28 29

DOUGLAS, Symbols (2002), 14. DOUGLAS, Symbols (2002), 13–4.

326

Ritual and Practice

Temple period or the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, when the importance of group and grid are expanding, as a ritual-productive time. Because the same holds true for the importance on body and bodily purity, the ritual density is accompanied by an emphasis on purity as well. The model of Douglas, which was developed as a form of resistance against evolutionary concepts, has a heuristic value in explaining ritual density. Bell recast the model of Mary Douglas in terms of style and suggested at least four styles of ritual action: appeasement and appeal, cosmic ordering, moral redemption and finally personal spirituality. Bell concludes that, “the degree and style of ritual density can be correlated with different types of worldviews, forms of social organization, and notions of the self.” 30 In congruence with Douglas she argues that, “if a society passes through social and historical changes affecting its worldview, organization, economic activities, and exposure to competing ideas, for example, it will probably witness concomitant changes in its ritual system – even though ritual systems can be particularly resistant to change.”31 This again is an argument in favor of ritual density in terms of tradition building since tradition-building processes are related to social and historical changes as well. Bell addresses ritual practices as “a type of sociocultural medium” 32 and the category of medium is in my view illuminating. She sees rituals as, “ways of acting that ground a complex set of social and personal values within a person’s conscious convictions and unconscious assumptions about how the universe is structured.” 33 It is not only a question of the general worldview and conceptual universe, but also of the level of social structure and values. Rituals are related to social order, politics and economy – not only by generating money, structuring hierarchy, etc. but also as a part of a communal understanding and collective identity. Following Bell, rituals are a means of affiliation and bonding. With regard to rites and rituals in Jewish orthodoxy she considers “[s]uch stringent ritualization has the powerful effect of tightly binding one to a small community of like-minded people. Indeed, one of the salient features of extreme ritualization appears to be a high-profile identity as a tight-knit group of true followers, a position that heightens the contrast and [w]ill fit with other groups.” 34 This idea can be applied to the period of formative “densification” or traditions in the Second Temple period as well. The relation between social structure and ritual is obvious, but in the case of the biblical ritual density I would like to emphasize another aspect with regard to group building and identification processes below. But before, I want to deepen the perspective of textualBELL, BELL, 32 BELL, 33 BELL, 34 BELL, 30 31

Ritual (2009), 190. Ritual (2009), 190. Ritual (2009), 190. Ritual (2009), 190. Ritual (2009), 193.

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

327

ization by hinting at different aspects of textualization in the set of rituals within the book of Numbers.

5. Aspects of Innovation in Textualization I will not go into detail here, but the ritual composition of Num 5:5–6:21 reveals crucial aspects of innovation. In a paper for a volume edited by Nathan MacDonald on Ritual Innovation35 I discussed the interrelation between “new” rituals and innovative aspects. It was striking that not only is the formulation of Num 5:5–8 closely related to Lev 5:20–26, but in contrast also the whole ritual composition is comprised of the sotah in Num 5:11–31 and the Nazirite law in Num 6:1–21. All three cases showed a specific relation to Leviticus 5 and differed with regard to the matter of ritual innovation. Numbers 5:5–10 was only comprehensible as an amendment of Lev 5:20–26. Novel aspects were generalization, public confession and the absence of a succeeding heir. Each of these was added by drawing on the phraseology of Leviticus 5 in particular. The sotah drew on Leviticus 5 in terms of sacrificial systematics and the related ritual practices. This holds also true for the law of the Nazirite in Numbers 6. In addition, the consequences of the unwittingly broken vow were developed by analogy with Lev 5:1–10. While Num 5:5–10 was obviously formulated for the present context, this solution is not compelling for the sotah (Num 5:11–31) or the law of the Nazirite (Num 6:1–21). There are good reasons to assume that both rituals are not entirely ritual innovations which were minted completely for the context of Numbers 5–6, but rather – at least in parts – older “traditional” rituals. What we can learn from the composition of rituals is that existing rituals and parts of rituals were taken up and integrated within a composition that is part of the textual world, related intensely to the sanctuary to which all three rituals have a special connection. Aspects of innovation were developed by the réécriture of the ritual text of Leviticus 5. These innovations are developed seemingly regardless of a matching practice; also the practice may have matched the ritual script in Numbers 5–6. It was obvious that the general demand for purity in Num 5:1–4 as well as the priestly blessing in Num 6:22– 27 were related to the concept of the composition which was spatially well organized. Aspects of ritual preservation by textualization interact with aspects of ritual amendment and innovation. Thus again, the question of textualization is much more complex than just description or prescription of practice.

35

FREVEL , Rituals (2016).

328

Ritual and Practice

6. Textualized Rituals and Ritualized Texts The complexity of the text-ritual relation may be further elaborated by levels of textuality and questions of context. The priestly benediction in Num 6:22– 26 can serve as a brief example. The short text (which cannot be treated here sufficiently) is a speech of God to Moses, who is commanded to direct the contents to Aaron and his sons. The contents are an instruction for Aaron and his sons to perform a/the priestly benediction. Thus, it is not a ritual in itself but contains a ritual. It is not said where and when this ritual has to be taken place, only that the sons of Aaron shall perform the blessing. The demand of Moses directs the following speech act 36 by ‫ להם‬explicitly to a plural addressee which is ‫“ בני י שׂראל‬the sons of Israel.” However, the blessing itself is a speech act spoken towards an individual (‫)יברכך יהוה‬. But it is not said whether this individual is the sole addressee (every single Israelite gets the blessing – partitive function of ‫ )להם‬or whether all individuals are meant (collective function of the enclitic personal pronoun), when the priest utters the benediction towards the community as addressee. The openness is taken up in v. 27 where again a plural subject (Aaron and his sons) shall act towards a plural addressee (‫)על־בני ישׂראל‬. Strictly spoken, the blessing can be applied in various situations and be performed in public with a singular or collective ritual recipient. Textualization is not clear in this aspect. The text is segmented in three parts; each begins with a yiqtol verbal form (jussive, optative), followed by the Tetragrammaton as subject and a second sentence introduced by another wayyiqtol verbal form, which again has God as subject. Numbers 6:27 closes the short unit by referring back to v. 23b and an explanatory addition, stating that the speaker will bless the Israelites himself. Although it is not explicitly said in v. 27, the performative act of blessing by the priests is realized by God simultaneously rather than forming a separate act of blessing in addition to the priestly benediction. The biblical text contains a ritual which is obviously (in the given literary context) performed in the temple by the Aaronide priests. However, occasion, context and frequency are not mentioned. It remains quite possible that the act of blessing is performed ritually outside of the temple cult. Jeremy Smoak has shown the legitimizing aspect of the fact that the written blessing is connected to the priestly class. 37 By that a certain authorization takes place: this blessing as the performative assurance of the blessing by God is part of the priestly authority and ministry. By writing the blessing in the literacy space of Numbers, the authors of the book, most likely priests, found a new way to provide a concrete perpetual expression to their ritual authority in giving the blessing to 36 I will not go into the text-critical argument of the infinitive absolute in v. 23bβ, which functions as an imperative; see SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 168. 37 SMOAK, Blessing (2015), 129.

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

329

Israel. As a result, the authority of giving the blessing was kept in the control of those who wrote, copied and recited the text. Does this exclude that blessing exists outside of the temple cult? The Ketef Hinnom silver rolls seem to reveal: no! As is widely known, two badly preserved tiny silver rolls were found 1979 by Gabriel Barkay in a repository of a rock cut burial chamber at Ketef Hinnom in the vicinity of St. Andrews, southwest of the Old City overlooking the Hinnom Valley.38 The portions of paleo-Hebrew text are often said to be the oldest quotation of a biblical text, insinuating that the priestly blessing in Num 6:22–26 is the pre-text even in an oral state of tradition. 39 The usage in a graveyard was connected with an apotropaic use and a belief of afterlife in pre-exilic Judahite religion, due to the fact that the burial chamber can be attributed by the pottery assemblage to a use context mainly in the 7th cent. BCE. 40 However, the stratigraphical context of the finds including the pottery is not indicative for the dating and opens a range from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic period. Particularly the discussion on dating the unstratified silver rolls in Ketef Hinnom has challenged the assumption that the priestly benediction was “quoted” on these sheets of silver. Angelika Berlejung has argued persuasively in favor of a usage in the lifetime of the bearers and dated the amulets by comparison of parallels in the object class and by orthographical reasons to the Persian period.41 Johannes Renz was the first to challenge the early date of the amulets by attributing the script paleographically to the Hellenistic period. 42 In a recent article, and building on the reading ‫“ ביתו‬his house” in reference to the temple in Jerusalem, Nadav Na’aman dated the amulets to the early post-exilic period, “not many years after the construction of the second temple.” 43 This was recently challenged by Shmuel Aḥituv who argued in favor of the “traditional” date in the late pre-exilic period.44 Finally, Brian B. Schmidt has argued that the issue cannot be decided: “As matters presently stand, the archaeological and paleographic data remain indecisive.” 45 Although it may be true that the matter cannot be settled with confidence, the most plausible date of these objects in my understanding is the early Persian period, if they are compared with the amulet practice in the Southern Levant. 46 But for the sake of the 38 See BARKAY, Benediction (1992). For the text, see the new edition by IDEM et al., Amulets (2004). 39 See BARKAY et al., Challenges (2003). 40 BARKAY, Benediction (1992), 147. 41 See BERLEJUNG, Mensch (2008); EADEM, Leben (2008). 42 RENZ , Inschriften (1995), 1:449–52. 43 N A’AMAN, Appraisal (2011), 192. 44 A ḤITUV, Rejoinder (2012). 45 S CHMIDT, Matrix (2013), 286. See in addition the most recent treatment by SMOAK, Blessing (2015); S CHMIDT, Power (2016), 129–30. 46 See for this argument N A’AMAN, Appraisal (2011), 188 with references.

330

Ritual and Practice

argument here, it is important to stress that the Persian and early Hellenistic period is more or less the latest date in the debate, while the Hasmonean date can be regarded as quite unconvincing. The use of the blessing formula in amulets47 presumes most probably that the text is not created for a topical purpose, but rather mirrors a tradition. Finally, the amulets in the burial context do not primarily aim at the afterlife of the deceased or at the descent to the netherworld, but rather witness religious practice within the life of the deceased. Thus, it is misguided to attribute the function and use of these amulets to funerary rituals. They are rather signals of a practice in the life of the deceased.48 There are several differences in form and function of these texts if they are compared to a ritual script and the biblical text. The most important aspect is the permanent or durable character of the blessing. Blessing is not restricted to the performative act of benediction but is rather made permanent by the precious material which is carried around the neck or attached to the body as an amulet. In contrast to textual amulets on tablets or other material, the script is not visible and effective by its reading. The script is effective as such; or to put it more precisely: the implication of writing is blessing. By the process of scripting the blessing is on the one hand stabilized and on the other hand made permanently effective (by reading or representation). 49 Although it is more or less a point of consensus that the text of the amulets is the earliest quotation of a biblical text (or even its oral or written precursor), 50 in my understanding this is by no means clear. This assumption needs to explain the differences between the biblical text (in all available witnesses) and the text of the amulets, which becomes even greater the more we stand back from the “quotation” idea. The relation between Num 6:24–26 and the text on the silver rolls is not that of the often-suggested “text-quotation” or “text-allusion” kind; all the more if we take into account that much of the reading of the Ketef Hinnom text is guided by the assumption of a quotation. Even if the Ketef Hinnom silver tablets are dated to the Persian period, we have to take into account that the biblical text of Num 6:22–27 in its present form postdates the amulets and the text represented on them (at least the form we face in the biblical text today).51 This is obvious if we accept a position of the text within the composition of Numbers 5–6 that is dependent on Leviticus 5. 52 In sum, the blessing in Ketef Hinnom is not a biblical quote! It is also not necessarily priestly, as will be shown below. See for the discussion of genre LEUENBERGER, Segen (2008), 155–78. Cf. S MOAK, Blessing (2015), 52–60, 142–3 who seeks to corroborate the apotropaic function by hinting at Khirbet el-Qôm, where the inscription is placed in a burial chamber, nevertheless being not a funeral inscription. 49 See HEESSEL, Amulette (2014), 70, 73. 50 See, for instance, S CHNIEDEWIND, Scripturalization (2015), 308. 51 So correctly SMOAK, Blessing (2015), 143; LEUENBERGER, Segen (2008), 169–70. 52 See F REVEL, Rituals (2016). 47 48

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

331

Usually it is argued that the middle part of the blessing in vv. 24–26 is a more traditional text, taken up by the authors of the framework. 53 Older commentaries used this as a vehicle to date the blessing to very old times, even to Mosaic contemporaneity, 54 while recent studies treat the priestly blessing in its present context as a “recontextualization” from the pre-exilic period. 55 The tradition-historical separation remains possible because of the lack of priestly language and because of the change in number from the third person plural “them” to the second person singular “you”; but it is by no means compelling. Often the arguments are circular, since they point to the allegedly pre- or post-exilic evidence from Ketef Hinnom. Taking nothing else than the text, there is not very much in these three verses that gives reliable or even decisive clues for dating the tradition (symbolism of the sun god, name theology, etc.). The existence of even parts of the blessing in the amulets from Ketef Hinnom corroborates the evaluation of the textual tradition in Numbers as a representative of an older, but not necessarily cultic (in terms of a priestly temple cult) practice. Nothing indicates that the silver rolls are a “priestly” blessing, even if we assume that priests were commissioned to bless the people. That said, the textual composition of Num 6:24–26 may then be a ritual innovation with roots in an existing ritual practice. This (perhaps common ritual-like traditional) amulet practice was ritually coined within the process of textualization. The question is raised clearly by Brian B. Schmidt. Was this an ancient apotropaic formula that originated in older family or domestic religious traditions, perhaps specifically from within the mortuary cult of family and kin, that over time spread in its usage, application and popularity to the point that a much later reconstituted priesthood in an emerging centralized form of government co-opted the blessing and employed it not only for its traditional function in mortuary ritual, but also as the preferred rubric for a new national public community consecration (Num 6)? 56 The evidence of Ketef Hinnom points to a religious practice which was settled later in the biblical text as a “displaced” ritual practice and which was then explicitly attributed to the priestly Aaronides. Whether the former place of the ritual was the family, funerary contexts, local sanctuaries, or any other context (blessings have presumably not merely a single context) is not decisive here. Even if it was the context of the sanctuary, the new (con)textualization and ritualization is part of a “displacement.” By bringing it into the text of the Torah, it is authorized as part of the legitimized priestly tradition. In the end, the biblical text does not represent a See KELLERMANN , Priesterschrift (1970); SEEBASS, Numeri (2012), 170. FREEDMAN , Pottery (1980), 234–5. 55 SMOAK, Blessing (2015), 81–3. 56 SCHMIDT, Matrix (2013), 293. 53 54

332

Ritual and Practice

ritual script at all, but forges a ritual practice as part of priestly action in the temple cult. It conceptually emphasizes the blessing power of the cult and the life-giving power of God in his blessing, which he promises at Sinai. By this, the blessing is in a way historicized. It is established as an age-old tradition from the wilderness. Thinking about this authorizing setting, the term “invention of tradition,” introduced so strongly by Eric Hobsbawm, 57 comes immediately into one’s mind. Although the rhythm of vv. 24–26 is sophisticated with its increasing length of lines (colometry: 15/20/25 consonants), its threefold Tetragrammaton in the first part of the lines, the six-fold enclitic personal pronoun of the second person singular, etc., it remains principally possible to unchain the components to several blessing formulas. ‫וישׁמרך׃‬ ‫ויחנך׃‬ ‫וישׂם לך שׁלום׃‬

‫יברכך יהוה‬ ‫יאר יהוה פניו אליך‬ ‫ישׂא יהוה פניו אליך‬

In this case vv. 24–26 would compile existing formulae of blessings into a neat composition of blessing, but even this is mere speculation. If we accept the new readings of Barkay, Vaughn, Lundberg and Zuckerman, in Ketef Hinnom I, 14–18 [‫“ יבר֗ך י הוה ]וי [שמרך ]י []א[ר יהוה ֯פ ֯נ]יו‬may YHWH bless you and keep you, may YHWH make his face shine,” and in Ketef Hinnom II, 5– 12 ‫“ יבר֯ך ֯יהוה ֗י֗שמרך ֗י אר יה ]ו[֯ה פני ֗ו ]אל[יך ֗ו ֗י ֗שם לך ֗ש]ל[֗ם‬may YHWH bless you, keep you, and may YHWH make his face shine on you and may he lay peace on you,” 58 then at least the combination of blessing, keeping and the face of YHWH is attested beneath the biblical text. Hence, it may be the rhythmic pattern of augmentation which was formed by the biblical authors. Most of the studies emphasize the connection of authorization and textualization. The lack of any linkage to priestly practice is striking compared to the biblical text, particularly if we accept that the blessing is not a quote from the biblical text. By framing the traditional blessing within the narrative through the role of Moses and Aaron and his sons, the act of blessing becomes the privilege of the Aaronide priests. “The citation of the blessing in Numbers not only involved a re-contextualization of its use in oral performance by the priests to the realm of a text, but also an important step in solidifying its connection to the sons of Aaron and the religious rituals that they carried out at the temple in Jerusalem.”59 This is an important aspect of textualization, but I wonder whether the function is to restrict the powers of blessing to the Aaronide priesthood (in contrast to the provision and assignment of the Levites in Deut 10:8). This becomes clear if we ask: who are these AaHOBSBAWM, Introduction (1983), 12–4. See BARKAY et al., Amulets (2004), 41–71. 59 SMOAK, Blessing (2015), 87–88. 57 58

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

333

ronides? Priestly duties and office in the Pentateuch are assigned to the very small company “Aaron and Sons Ltd.,” consisting (after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10) of Aaron, his son Eleazar, his brother Ithamar and Aaron’s grandson Phinehas. This small circle of the Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehasline provides the candidate for the high priestly office (‫)כהן גדול‬, which is a lifetime ministry (Num 35:25, 28, 32). The Pentateuch has no succession law which reaches beyond the Aaronides for this office. 60 The Aaronides are not a real existing group in Second Temple Judaism. They are rather a fictive genealogical construct to integrate various lines of priestly ancestry, notwithstanding the fact that there may be historical roots of the Aaronide priesthood in Bethel or wherever. 61 To make a long story short, the construct of Aaronides enables various groups to claim legitimacy in priesthood. Following the line of interpretation above, the textualization of the priestly benediction would not only signify that the priests are authorized to use the blessing formula or formulae mentioned in the text, but also that these formulae are authorized as the legitimate form of the blessing. The construction in Numbers allocates a blessing at the sanctuary performed by priests, no more but also no less. 62 The textualization allegedly formed a new ritual with the Aaronide priests as ritual agents and the tent of meeting as the site where the ritual takes place. By relating to this ritual, actual practice can be legitimized and authorized. Whether the actual practice corresponded in every aspect and exact wording is not decisive. Much more important is to relate to this authoritative practice of blessing. By designating the variable practice as application of the authoritative blessing in the text, identity is construed. This brings us back to the function of the textualization of biblical rituals which we will discuss further in the section below.

7. Ritual and Orthodoxy and the Integrative Function of Rituals While in earlier discussions Judaism was conceptualized from a single orthodox standpoint and schismatic secessions – be it the community attested in Elephantine, the Babylonian Jews, the Nabu-YHW-group of Makedah, the See F REVEL, High Priest, p. 493–6 in the present volume. See OTTO , Aaroniden (2001); WATTS, Scripturalization (2013); KOENEN, Aaron/ Aaroniden (2007). 62 The role of the priestly benediction in the Samaritan tradition can be seen in the Aramaic Midrash Memar Marqa MM III 59,22–3: “The High Priest has ten prerogatives by which he is distinguished above his brethren – he is pure, free of defilement, anointed, (specially) vested, gives the great Blessing (‫)וירבך בר כת ה רברבת ה‬, begins and ends (in worship), gives judgement, and dwells in the holy place” (MACDONALD, Memar Marqah [1963], 2:93). KIPPENBERG , Garizim (1971), 224 argued that this is the Aaronide blessing because of MM VI 137.31. 60 61

334

Ritual and Practice

Transjordanian “Jews,” the Samarians or later on the Qumran community and other groups – recent discussion on plurality and diversity in early Judaism has evinced a different picture. I coined the term “interfering formation” (interferente Formation63) to express the discourse and variety of Judaism(s) in the Second Temple period and the mutual superimposition of traditions. There is no orthodoxy even if we tend to see it in the dominant tradition of the Jerusalemites. We can assume that the Samaritan Torah did not descend out of a schism, but rather existed side by side already in the Persian period. Although we cannot yet reify the process of negotiating Torahs, from Qumran it is more or less plausible that there was not a single Torah but rather preSamaritan, Samarian, Judean, etc. versions. These were interdependent on various levels and in various ways. There is not a single Torah and not a single Judaism either. Even if they only differ in minor details, these various forms of the same Torah are the “overlay” of diversity. What then is the function of rituals within the Torah, if this holds true? To answer this question, I want to stick to Bell once again. Ritual practice is a means of social differentiation and unification. Regardless of the level of orthopraxy all different groups (e.g., Judahites, Samarians, Aramaeans of Elephantine) relate to a common set of ritual. Bell considers the structuring power of rituals as “a strength in that the relative flexibility of the ritual tradition allows it to travel, adapt and speak to other cultural groups. 64 To put it differently: rituals have an integrating, homogenizing function and this may be one function of rituals in biblical literature, especially if there is a set of rituals on which different groups in general agree: the Torah. They do not cover the entire ritual practice of the “official” cult and they do not record the ritual practice in an invariable, rigid and fixed way, but rather allow variance and diversity in actual practice. All ritual practitioners relate each other to this “tradition” as a sort of minimal consensus. The principle can be demonstrated with another example: all Christian communities practice the communion in one way or the other based on the words of the institutions and witnesses of early Christianity, but the theological understanding of the ritual practice between Catholics, Reformed, Lutherans, Orthodox, Calvinists, etc. varies a lot. As the Eucharist is a homogenizing factor of all Christian communities despite ritual differences and theological understanding in particular, it is the rituals prescribed and described in the Torah which unify all post-exilic denominations such as Judahites, Samarians or Aramaeans of Elephantine, etc. Sectarianism is not only a phenomenon which is due to schismatic developments beyond the 4th cent. BCE in pre-Hellenistic Judaism. It is rather present in the earliest stages of formation of Judaism in the 63 64

FREVEL , Pieces, p. 93–4 in the present volume. BELL, Ritual (2009), 194.

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

335

6th/5th cent. BCE. It is variance and diversity that forms Judaism from the first phase on; and this is the dynamic of emergence of what we may call “early Judaisms.” Rituals take part in the dynamics of tradition. Textualized tradition is not identical with ritual practice but has ramifications for ritual practice. One of the most obvious aspects is a controlling function of textualization: “Ritual practice is deemed most correct and effective if it conforms to these normative guidelines.” 65 Having said that, the contrary has to be taken into account simultaneously; on the one hand tradition authorizes ritual practice, on the other hand it enables a mental reference to tradition which unchains the ritual practice from its literal prescription. Bell states, “[a]s writing redefines a tradition’s locus of socioreligious authority, ritual is no longer a matter of doing what it seems people have always done; it becomes the correct performance or enactment of the textual script.”66 This understanding confines rituals to be performed without variance, but one may wonder whether the essential function of scripturalization is paradoxically different: contrary to the common understanding, the “ritual script” can become part of a common denominator of behavior, which opens up ample scope of variance instead of restricting it to strict observance. This (the written ritual) is the ritual we perform (common denominator), but in fact we perform it differently (actual practice). Usually all considerations take their starting point in the relation of the biblical text to one ritual practice. This assumption may be challenged by the fact that the same ritual text may relate to various ritual practices. The rituals performed in the Qumran community were not congruent with the Jerusalemite temple cult, but they both relate to the same text. The outcome of the text is not invariance, but diversity. All the more one has to admit that Elephantine or Samarian practice relates to the Torah in the same manner than the Jerusalemite priesthood does. To put it differently, the variety of practice is confined only in a minor degree by the biblical text. The biblical text forms, if at all, the framework of ritual practice.67 In contrast to former models, which explained the ritual density as either a sequentially grown collection of traditional rituals or as a collection emanating from a documentary interest, that is to fix the wording and to standardize the ritual performance, the model suggested in this paper employs the integrating function of selected rituals as background of the set of rituals in the book of Numbers. To put it straight and pointed, the concern of textualization of rituals is to enable variance rather than to confine it. The paradox facilitation of variance by BELL, Ritual (2009), 204. BELL, Ritual (2009), 204. 67 Qumran can be used as a comparative example, although we do not know very much about ritual practice in Qumran apart from the textual tradition. At the very most we can press the water installations to purity rituals, but we have no information whether other rituals, which were not tied to the temple cult, were performed in Qumran. 65 66

336

Ritual and Practice

scripturalization gives way to an explanation of why textual rituals in the Bible are never complete and provide no ritual scripts. There is no biblical ritual that is completely reported or without possible vacancies either in ritual agency, ritual media, ritual action, or intention. Some are more and some are less concrete, some cannot be performed on the basis of the Old Testament information either. The fact that biblical rituals are mostly incomplete and that they are no ritual scripts to be performed step by step may corroborate this idea, which seems sophisticated only at the first sight. In my view, the embodiment of ritual practice in tradition opens room for innovation and alteration. Bell emphasizes the homogenizing or centralizing role of textualization. The textualization of ritual, that is, the emergence of authoritative textual guidelines, can be linked to a number of other developments as well, such as the ascendancy of increasingly universal formulations of values over more local and particularistic formulations; the organization of larger, more centralized, and bureaucratic institutions; and the formation of notions of orthodoxy versus heterodoxy in tandem. 68

I agree, but I confine orthodoxy not to a single concrete Jerusalemite Second Temple Judaism, to which with all other forms can only be compared and evaluated as heterodox. The scripturalized Torah is the real orthodoxy by the codification of dogma. “Textually based ritual can more readily forestall and control change because of the power of the authoritative text to act as a measure of deviance.”69 Hence, the textualization of ritual “can lead to tensions between a centralized liturgical tradition that abides by written norms and local ritual life that maintains continuity with oral customs.”70 It may also be possible that there is no real center or centralized practice, which forms orthodoxy against local heterodoxy. The tradition is the layout of orthodoxy which is not embodied in the Jerusalemite practice either. In this understanding, the situation of Samarians/Samaritans and Judahites/Yehûdites relying more or less on the same set of traditions becomes obvious. Within this process the vague biblical ritual is part of the process. Rituals have an integrating, homogenizing function.

8. The Torah Enables Community and Diversity as an Identity Reservoir This paper has put forward the idea that textualization of rituals is not only a means of preservationand demarcation by setting the limits of variance. I have shown that scriptualization of rituals in biblical texts does not transform BELL, Ritual (2009), 204. BELL, Ritual (2009), 204. 70 BELL, Ritual (2009), 204. 68 69

The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers

337

variable practice into invariant and fixed actions which must be repeated without any change. On the contrary, they allow diversity and variance precisely because they are incomplete, dependent on narrative contexts and asre often vague in details. Particular practice can refer to the biblical rituals by arguing “we do as pre-scribed in the Torah” although in the individual case the concrete practice may vary. I have identified the field of rituals to be part of the formation of the Torah as an identity reservoir for different groups in the nascent phase of early Judaisms. I would like to emphasize again that this is not meant as attributing a sort of neutral agency to the Torah. In contrast, the Judean or Jerusalem bias is obvious, but rather not exclusive. As it is usually assumed that there was a discussion and reflection upon tradition in various groups in Jerusalem, one may assume discussions on various issues between the “Jews” outside of Yehûd and the Jerusalemite groups. We can only take a guess on the various negotiations, but at least there is a growing consensus, that there were negotiations between groups. 71 Torah is a “map” and “‘map is not territory’ – but maps are all we possess.” 72 By accepting the new paradigm unfolded in this paper, the processes of formation and densification are much broader and encompass various fields. Let me shortly address three of them: the biblical organization of priesthood, the biblical organization of society and the biblical organization of authority. As was already indicated, the biblical organization of priesthood uses the Aaronides in the Torah to construe a fictive genealogy of priesthood, to which various lines of priests can be correlated by updating the genealogy. This can be observed for the Jerusalemite Zadokite priesthood for instance in 1 Chron 5:29–41 or 1 Chron 24. While the family of the Aaronides in the Torah is very small and strictly hierarchically organized, their genealogy beyond the narrative of the Pentateuch is much broader and can encompass all existing cultic office holders in Yehûd. They can all relate themselves to the eponymous biblical Aaron. The same holds true with the organization of society in the twelve-tribes system. While Judah like Jerusalem has a primacy within this system, it allows various groups to be related to the overarching quantity “Israel,” which carries promises and blessing. Since there was never a territory of the “twelve tribes” and no tribal Israel as a political unit, this model becomes very compelling to understand the ideal system of a twelvetribe unity from the 5th cent. BCE onwards. The third aspect is the organization of authority. While Moses is stylized as the distinct receiver of the revelation, the reference to Moses becomes authorizing. Since Moses is not only KNOPPERS, Jews (2013), 177 (26) speaks of “a history of intermittent cooperation between Judean and Samarian scribes over a considerable period of time prior to the Maccabean expansion.” See also HENSEL, Juda (2016), 163–94 and for the later Hellenistic times already S HEMESH, Halakhah (2009), 72–106 and many others. 72 SMITH, Map (1975), 309. 71

338

Ritual and Practice

the individual and mediator, but rather the system as a whole, that is Torah, the reference to Moses becomes a homogenizing factor. All three examples point in the same direction, the building of a unifying tradition. They all have roots within the pre-Persian textual tradition, but were employed deliberately in the late Persian period to function as what I have called “identity reservoir.” This model has certain advantages compared to the model of the Torah as “compromise.” 73 It neither needs a promulgation nor an extraneous influence or even impulse by the Persian authority; it is not tied to the 5th cent. BCE, and it is not focused on Yehûd but on the broader network of traditions within Judaisms. On the one hand, the Torah homogenizes various existing traditions by preservation, definition and fixation. On the other hand, the same Torah enables diversity and variance. This function includes the performative dimension, which is represented in the set of rituals. Strikingly enough, all of the mentioned aspects (priesthood, leadership, society, unity, Mosaic Torah) crystallize in a specific manner in the book of Numbers. From this angle, it is no surprise that ritual plays a major role in the book of Numbers. The ritual density in the book of Numbers is part of the interfering formation of various groups, which all relate themselves to the Torah as foundational document.

73 See for the introduction of this term the overview in HENSEL, Juda (2016), 187–93. Hensel accurately criticizes most of the former approaches being oriented intra-Judean (different positions within Yehûd) rather than inter-Judaic (different positions of variating Judaism inside and outside of Yehûd). For former criticism of the compromise model, see FREVEL, Abschied (2001), 233–4 and IDEM, Wiederkehr (2011), 42–44. Not the single Torah as result is a compromise, but the multiple Torahs enable various forms of Yahwism by taking the shared communalities as identity reservoir.

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer Legal Hermeneutics and Literary History in Numbers 15:32–36 Within the legal passages of the book of Numbers, there exist two legal cases that require an additional revelation from YHWH to Moses. This paper will address aspects of the composition, literary history and content of Num 15:32–36. It does not aim at discussing all details of the text nor the rather large reception history. The intention of this paper is to discuss aspects of the primary reference and the main direction of impact of Num 15:32–36 with regard to the application, interpretation and scope of the new law. It will be argued that the understanding of the story of the wood-gatherer in Num 15:32–36 is not only to specify the method of punishment in Sabbath offences – as is generally assumed following the Midrash Sifre Bemidbar (SifBem §114), the Mishna b. Sanh. 78b and Rashi on 15:341 – but also to enhance the demand for keeping the Sabbath explicitly in terms of categorical space. In light of this analysis some considerations on subject, processes and institutional situatedness of legal interpretation in the late Persian period will be suggested.

1. The Role of Festivals in the Book of Numbers The theme of religious festivals in the book of Numbers is striking for several reasons: first, besides the festal calendar of Num 28–29, festivals play a surprisingly meager role within the book. Second, of those festivals that do appear in the book, the role of priests and Levites is often surprisingly absent. Third, the Pesach in Num 9:1–14 and the Sabbath in Num 15:32–36 are conspicuous by their special treatment. Although Israel is depicted wandering forty years in the wilderness, the liturgical year of the festival calendars in the Covenant Code (Exod 23:14–19), the Privilege Law Code (Exod 34:18–26) and in the Holiness Code (Lev 23) are not visibly observed, even in the festivals that do not necessarily presume an existence in the land. Particularly striking is that even the Yom Kippur ritual of Lev 16 is not mentioned. Festivals in general gain a special role in 1 See most prominently FISHBANE, Interpretation (1989), 100; CHAVEL , Microcosm (2009), 50; BADEN, Structure (2013), 360.

340

Ritual and Practice

the book of Numbers in only a handful of passages, the first of which appears in Num 9:1–14, with the Pesach of the second year. While the role of priests and Levites is specified before the departure from Sinai at length (Num 4 and Num 8), no other festival is reported for the first year. Perhaps that is because according to Exod 40:2 and 17, the sanctuary was first assembled on the New Year’s Day of the second year, and the inauguration of priests and Levites logically postdated this event as Lev 9:1 states explicitly, and Num 8:1 implicitly. The second passage, in which festivals are mentioned is the trumpet passage in Num 10:1–10. These instruments of hammered sheet silver shall sound (among other occasions) to summon the congregation (Num 10:2) and during their appointed festivals (Num 10:10: ‫)במועדיכם‬. Although the trumpets are mentioned several times in Chronicles, they are only related with festivals in Num 10:10. The Sabbath story in Num 15:32–36 is the next passage to feature festivals. Interestingly enough, again a “problem” with concomitant circumstances of the performance of the festival is addressed; in this case it is the demanded rest from all work. This passage will be discussed in detail below. The largest passage regarding festivals is the calendar in Num 28–29. Following the sound analysis of Christophe Nihan and others, these chapters are revising, or (more accurately) reworking and adjusting, the festival calendar of Lev 23.2 Numbers 28 mentions the regular sacrifices of the Pesach-Mazzôt festival (Num 28:16–25) as well as (for the first time) Sabbath-sacrifices (Num 28:9–10). It is difficult to say whether the two exegetical, festivalrelated narratives in Num 9:6–14 and 15:32–36 presume the legislation of Num 28–29 in a diachronic respect, because both passages are not related to the “public” and “official” side of the cult of these festivals described in Num 28–29. The final passage featuring festivals is found in Num 33:3, where the first Pesach is mentioned as a timely reference point for the departure from Egypt. In sum, except for the festival calendar in Num 28–29, the Pesach and the Sabbath are given special emphasis in the book of Numbers. Although the festivals in both these passages function somewhat paradigmatically, the choice of these particular festivals should still be deemed significant and indicates the importance of both festivals in the post-exilic community.3

NIHAN, Calendars (2008). This importance can be seen in their emphasis in the Ezra/Nehemiah-composition (Ezra 6:19–21; 10:22; Neh 9:14; 10:32; 13:15–22). 2 3

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

341

2. A Side-View on the Postponed Pesach in Numbers 9 The Pesach celebration in Num 9 represents the first festival ever celebrated with, or even under partial control of, the priests at the wilderness sanctuary. While in Exod 12 the priestly Pesach is a ritual of the ‫ בית־אבות‬family (Exod 12:2), performed in the ‫( בית‬i.e., living space), Exod 12:16 and Lev 23:4–8 alternatively command a ‫“ מקרא קדשׁ‬a holy convocation,” which is controlled by the priests at the central sanctuary (a characteristic already designed by the Deuteronomistic Pesach). 4 Numbers 9:1–14 in turn presumes the general provisions to perform the Pesach as is indicated in v. 2 by ‫“ במועדו‬at its appointed time.” 5 It starts with the repetition of the calendrical determination and a short narration that the Israelites implemented the Torah in the Sinai wilderness exactly as Moses commanded them ( ‫ככל אשׁר צוה יהוה את־משׁה כן‬ ‫)עשׂו בני י שׂראל‬. Then things become complicated insofar as some of the obligate participants are unclean because of touching a corpse.6 This is the first legal innovation, because issues of purity were not yet part of the Pesach legislation (especially since there were no priests to distinguish between clean and unclean, cf. Lev 10:10). It applies the demand for purity in eating portions of sacrifices (cf. Lev 7:20–21; 22:4, 7; Num 18:11). Although the priestly Pesach is not a sacrifice in a strict sense, it is called ‫ זבח‬which perhaps may have triggered the detailed accentuation. As often in comparable cases of legal modulation, the innovation is implicit rather than introduced by a particular formula. However, the new scope of regulations provokes a resultant problem: If all members of the congregation are obliged by the Torah to observe the festival, but are hindered by the same Torah to attend, a new regulation has to be found for the special case. The case is brought to Moses for decision (Num 9:7), but Moses suspends the decision and refers the matter to the LORD in turn. The solution brought forward by a divine speech directed to Moses is a postponed date of the Pesach (Num 9:9–13). Hence the fundamental issue of Num 9 regards the postponement of festivals in general, rather than the specific regulations of the Pesach in particular (cf. Num 28:16– 24). This is all the more true, if one acknowledges that the Pesach, as the first festival of the yearly cycle, functions paradigmatically, so that Num 9:1–14 represents one of the central passages of judicial amendment. Together with Lev 24:10–23; Num 27:1–11 and Num 15:32–35 the existing regulations are obviously incomplete and thus supplemented by a comparable procedure 4 See for the development of Pesach-Mazzôt-characteristics WEYDE , Festivals (2004), 19–68, esp. 62–3. 5 For the late priestly combination of ‫ מ וע ד‬with ‫ ב‬cf. Lev 23:4; Num 9:2, 3, 7, 13; 10:10; 15:3; 28:2; 29:39. 6 For the development of the uncleanness caused by corpses and carcasses, see F REVEL, Vitality, p. 261–88 in the present volume.

342

Ritual and Practice

involving Moses and the encounter with God in the tent of meeting (although this is only indicated implicitly) (Lev 24:12–13; Num 9:8–9; 15:34–35; 27:5– 6). The structural proximity of the four cases of legal innovation has been recognized for a long time. M. Fishbane addressed the stories as “oracular responsa,” and Chavel, building upon Fishbane’s work, called them “oracular novellas.” 7 Although the regulations concerning the festival calendar are the most frequently changed laws in the Pentateuch, it is nevertheless striking that two of the four “oracular” cases concern festivals.

3. Numbers 15:32–36 and the Significance of the Sabbath As already mentioned, compared to Exodus and Leviticus the evidence of festivals in the book of Numbers remains scarce. This is made particularly clear when the Sabbath, which gains special importance in the book of Leviticus (particularly in the Holiness Code), is considered. The noun, Sabbath, is mentioned 25 times in Leviticus and 15 times in Exodus, whereas it appears only 4 times in the book of Numbers (Num 15:32; 28:9, 10 [bis]). Despite their infrequency, those passages in the book of Numbers pertaining to the Sabbath attest to its importance. Numbers 28:9–10 prescribe regular sacrifices on the Sabbath (‫ )עלת שׁבת‬for the first and only time. The Sabbath thus takes a special role at the sanctuary since two additional male lambs – a year old and without blemish – are to be sacrificed every Sabbath alongside the accompanying libation and grain offering. This unique innovation in the book of Numbers tightens the connection between the Sabbath to its ritual representation at the sanctuary. 8 The whole passage is an “interpretation based on scripture,” drawing on Exod 29:38–42 on the one hand, and Lev 23:1–44 on the other. The most significant aspect of this interpretation is the integration of the Sabbath-sacrifice into the regular cultic cycle in the book of Numbers. 9 Together with Num 15:32–36 this highlights the importance of the Sabbath in the late priestly concept of cult and holiness. Numbers 15:32–36 emphasizes the Sabbath via a story of its willful desecration: a man gathering wood outside the camp. It is integrated in a[n additional] set of laws addressing the free-will sacrifices and sacrifices accompanying a vow (together with their accompanying grain offering and libations), which are explicitly located in the land (vv. 1–16), 10 the offering of firstlings FISHBANE, Interpretation (1989), 102; CHAVEL , Law (2014), 12. The special emphasis on the Sabbath in this passage is discussed by MICHEL, Theologie (2015), 365–82 and most recently EDERER, Begegnung (2018), 477–518, esp. 488, 517. 9 MICHEL, Theologie (2015), 377 points out that the lacking verbal phrase in v. 9 reverts to the verb ‫ תק רי בו‬in v. 3. 10 It is generally stressed that vv. 1–16 comprise free-will offerings (‫)ל פ לא־ נד ר או לנ דב ה‬ instead of mandatory ones, and that they are a revision of Lev 1–3 (“a mimicry of P’s 7 8

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

343

of bread and dough (vv. 17–21), regulations focusing on inadvertent (vv. 22– 29) and intentional (vv. 30–31) sins and lastly with the remembrance of the law by wearing tassels (‫ )זי זית‬attached to one’s clothes (vv. 36–4111). There are many recent suggestions why the story of the wood-gatherer was inserted at this point: 12 the relation of chapter 15 as a whole to the spy story in Num 13–14, or as preparation of the deliberate sin of Korah in Num 16–17, or (with the presupposition of a different original order) to the manna story of Exod 16. In addition to these content related explanations, further explanations are based merely on a formal argument pertaining to the alternation of law and narrative. Yet another explanation is the associative disposal of legal material, whereby laws are appended by taking one key word or clue as the link for the next paragraph, and thereby do not necessarily fit into a systematic perspective. None of these proposals can satisfactorily explain the content and composition of all aspects of the chapter so far. “Hodgepodge” remains a characteristic label in scholarly literature on Num 15. 13 That said, the idea that Num 15:40–41 deliberately precedes Num 16 in order to foreshadow the holiness conflict narrated there, seems convincing. 14 From a diachronic perspective, most studies agree that the various components constituting Num 15 were all developed at a relative late date, due to their exegetical, haggadic, expounding, amending and adjusting character. The chapter marks one of the impressive samples of late scribal erudition in priestly circles. Whether one may address them as H, or H-like, or “theocratic,” or just “late priestly” depends on one’s underlying Pentateuchal hypothesis. There is no need to enter such debates here, what matters is the consensus that Num 15 presupposes most of the priestly literature: particularly Lev 1–3, 4–7, the Holiness Code (i.e., Lev 17–26 with the addition in Lev 27), the later parts of Exod 16, the Sabbath laws in Exod 31:18 and 35:1–3 et al. Whilst no consensus exists regarding the unity of the chapter, the later the chapter is dated the more scholars are inclined to see the material – notwithstanding the disparity of its contents – as a cohesive addition to the narrative Num 13–14; 16–17. Finally, it has long been noted that Num 15:32–36 contains many parallels to the story of the ‫“ מקלל‬blasphemer” in Lev 24:10–23. Due to their obvious similar laws in Leviticus 1–3,” BADEN, Structure [2013], 366). I wonder whether this gets the point or whether it is the accompanying grain offerings and libations instead (read against Lev 22:21–25), which are “new.” However, neither Chavel nor Baden refer to Lev 22 in the context of Num 15 extensively, but see ACHENBACH , Reading (2013), 205–6. 11 One may discuss the function of v. 41 as conclusion of the whole chapter. 12 See the discussion in PYSCHNY, Führung (2017), 36–7, 51–2, who looks at Num 13– 14 and Num 16–17, and NOVIK, Law (2008), 3–4, who sees Num 15 as a reaction to Num 13–14. 13 See, for instance, CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 45; BADEN , Structure (2013), 366. 14 Cf. PYSCHNY, Führung (2017), 37, 52,

344

Ritual and Practice

structural and verbal parallels, many scholars agree to see the story of the wood-gatherer modelled upon the story of the blasphemer.15 As mentioned above together with two other texts, the Pesach-postponement in Num 9:6–15 and the decision on the heritage of the daughters of Zelophehad in Num 27:1– 11, they form the four cases (2 x 2), 16 in which undecided legal issues require an additional revelation through Moses. Whether one should call these texts “oracular novellas” as Chavel has put it to emphasize aspects of orality together with the narrative component (to which I remain skeptical, see below), does not matter so much, so long as one agrees that these texts amend and increase the accuracy of existing laws.17 This does not necessarily point to a common origin for all four cases, but rather to a common intention. There is evidence to see Num 15 building on Lev 24, and to be the latest case of the four. With these introductory remarks in mind, some aspects of the text in Num 15 shall be elaborated.

4. What Does Numbers 15:32–35 Contribute to the Sabbath Issues? Strikingly the Sabbath passage has no “law section,” or as Chavel puts it: “God decides and rests; he does not legislate for posterity, and the judgment does not merit any kind of elaboration.”18 But this does not reflect, “a more authentic form of the historical consultation or its preservation” as Chavel proposes, rather it represents a shortened form of adaptation since the general law, more or less, already encompasses all cases. 19 After observing, “Num 15:32–36 adds almost nothing,” Chavel reaches an important but rather questionable conclusion: The “author did not set out to innovate substantively in law.”20 Chavel rather sees the primary aspect of the text in the particular application of the death sentence and its modality: stoning. By this, the Sabbath violation is ranked amongst the most severe offenses against God, as stoning in the priestly legislation is restricted to four cases: Besides Num 15:34 they are Lev 20:2; 20:24 and 24:10–23. Taking the individual and advertent sin in the context of Num 15 and particularly the communal context of the Sabbath, the case of the violator functions paradigmatically, such that it becomes representative of all other laws. 21 See CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 45; NIHAN , Laws (2013), 109. See CHAVEL, Novellae (2009), 15. 17 CHAVEL, Law (2014). 18 CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 47–8. 19 CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 48. 20 CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 49–50. 21 As CHAVEL , Microcosm (2009), 50–1 notes: “Situated between the discussion of the violation of any of God’s laws in vv. 22–31 and the blue fringe that triggers the recollec15 16

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

345

The story of the wood-gatherer begins by locating it, seemingly superfluously, “in the wilderness” (‫)ויהי בני־י שׁראל במדבר‬, an introduction that has long puzzled commentators even to the point of assuming the narrative was out of place.22 Chavel suggests this introductory sentence indicates that the short “novella” originally belonged to a separate formation and transmission, he even goes so far to assume generally, that “priestly historical narrative derives from Priestly oracular law” 23 even if not from “actual decisions.” Be that as it may, one should not draw too far-reaching conclusions from the assumption of oracular processes in the formation of the law. At least the introductory sentence remains important in its current context for determining the content of the law. I agree with Chavel that the narrative frame is necessary to interpret the law. For me, this is a strong argument that the narrative setting is a means of interpretation on the textual level. The introductory phrase is compositionally related to the localization of the laws of Num 15 within the land: Num 15:2 Num 15:18 Num 15:19

‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ מושׁבתיכם‬ ‫בבאכם אל־הארץ אשׁר אני מביא אתכם שׁמה‬ ‫באכלכם מלחם הארץ‬

These localizations are important to understand the prospective character of the laws, which are given immediately after the pronouncement that no adult member of the exodus generation will reach the land (Num 14:23, 29–30). The placement of these laws also provide a positive indication that there will be a generation to inherit the promises to the fathers, so that the gift of the Torah was not in vain, that it did not only provide the means for Israel’s judgment of doom. Within this setting, the introductory phrase in Num 15:32 explicitly turns the focus back into the wilderness situation. While the desert is not specified (as in Num 3:14 or Num 9:1), it is a general attribution of the situation to the wilderness.24 The story implicitly instructs that the Sabbath must also be performed outside of the land, thus, ‫ מדבר‬is meant here in contrast to the inhabited space. If this is correct, the narrative has to be undertion of all of them to prevent such violation in vv. 37–41, the story serves as a segue by illustrating the one and therefore the need for the other. Using the Sabbath, Janus-like, to do so makes the Sabbath representative of any of God’s laws, looking backwards at vv. 22–31, and equal to all of God laws, looking forward to vv. 37–41.” 22 See NOVIK , Law (2008), 3. 23 CHAVEL, Microcosm (2009), 52. He argues that it developed in response to preexisting priestly narratives about the Sabbath: “every element and component that plays a role in the plot of the wood-gatherer story appears explicitly elsewhere in the Priestly History, and this extensive set of correlations seems to warrant the conclusion that they were all drawn from there. […] it seems further appropriate to infer that compositionally it postdates them” (IDEM , Novellae [2009], 179). 24 Note that v. 35 ‫ מ ח ו ץ ל מ חנ ה‬implies the wilderness situation, too.

346

Ritual and Practice

stood not only as specifying the method of execution, but also as haggadic interpretation regarding the question of spatial Sabbath-observance-boundaries. It takes an activity, which is on the one hand ‫ מלאכה‬or ‫ מעשׂה‬and thus forbidden by the Sabbath commandments, and which on the other hand usually takes place outside the camp in uninhabited areas. 25 Thus the woodgatherer enters the discussion of the 4th cent. BCE that also forms the background of Neh 13:15–22. 26 That this line of interpretation is heading in the right direction is corroborated by the contextually antecedent instruction of resting from work in Lev 23:3. The verse begins in an ordinary, priestly fashion: ‫שׁשׁת ימים תעשׂה מלאכה‬ ‫וביום השׁביעי שׁבת שׁבתון מקרא־קדשׁ‬, but the instruction then proceeds by repeating ‫כל־מלאכה לא תעשׂה שׁבת הוא ליהוה בכל מושׁבתיכם‬. From this it may be inferred that there is a spatial restriction to the Sabbath, such that it is limited to the inhabited areas (‫)מושׁבות‬. 27 The same is true with the last reference to the Sabbath in the book of Exodus. Exodus 35:3 reads: ‫לא־תבערו אשׁ בכל‬ ‫“( משׁבתיכם ביום השׁבת‬You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the Sabbath day”) which may be understood to imply the reverse: outside of your habitations you may do so. In light of these passages, the demand to keep the Sabbath outside of the habitations ‫ מושׁב ות‬may be understood as either intensification or clarification (or both!): the Sabbath has to be kept in all areas of space, by everybody who is obliged to keep the Torah, which is: ‫אזרח וגר‬. The wood-gatherer’s being outside the camp is a crucial aspect, because certain cultic laws need only be performed inside in relation to the sanctuary (see Num 19 for instance). This may be corroborated further by comparing Num 15 with the case of the postponed Pesach in Num 9: The Passover cannot be performed by the unclean not only because they are cultically indisposed, but also because they are outside the camp (Num 5:3), or impeded because they are abroad. Since the Passover has to be performed with relation 25 One may argue that instead of the quails, which cover the camp, the manna is around the camp (‫)סביב ל מחנ ה‬. But this is clearly related to the space of the camp, while the woodgatherer may strive in the desert not just around the camp. 26 For the date of Neh 13, see F REVEL/CONCZOROWSKI , Water (2011), esp. 29. Numbers 15:32–35 is usually considered to be later than Neh 13, because Neh 13 does not know of the death sentence, see, for instance, ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 521. But this argument is weak, because it would imply to date Neh 13 even earlier than the two Sabbath-laws in Exod 31 and 35. 27 ‫ מו שׁב‬is particularly specifying in cultic laws. See ‫ מו שׁב ת כם‬in Exod 12:20 (Passah); Lev 3:17; 7:26 (consummation of blood); Lev 23:3 (Sabbath); Lev 23:21 (Shavuot); Num 35:29 (asylum). See in addition ‫( מושׁב‬selection): Exod 12:20 (Passah); 35:3 (no fire on Sabbath); Lev 13:48 (living of the unclean outside the camp); Lev 23:14 (firstlings); Lev 23:17 (Shavuot). Interestingly enough Num 15:2 uses the unusual expansion of the conditional sentence of land gift: When you enter the land of your settlements/in which you will live that I am giving to you […] ( ‫)כי תבאו אל־ אר ץ מושׁבת י כם אשׁר אני נ תן לכם‬.

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

347

to a sanctuary, those who were unable to perform it in its proper time were to perform it a month later when they had returned. 28 On the one hand, the law has short-term journeys in mind, on the other hand the implication may also exempt those from performing Passover who are away from home for more than one month. Hence, to be outside of the camp is an obstacle to perform the cultic requirement. This explains why uncleanness and being on the road are juxtaposed in one law. One may paraphrase: Those “outside” need not keep the obligations (at least not in the same way). In contrast to the Pesach, the Sabbath is to be followed both inside and outside of the camp. This is aptly demonstrated in the story of the wood-gatherer, where his breaking of the Sabbath law must take place outside of the camp, i.e., wood can typically – if not only – be gathered outside the camp. In addition, the differentiation of inadvertent and advertent sins in Num 15 allows an implicit conclusion. 29 If the breaking of the Sabbath by gathering wood is evaluated as an intentional act of free will, which entails capital punishment, then there may be an excuse for inadvertent violation of the Sabbath rest. This is not elaborated further in the text but would fall within the scope of Num 15:27–28.

5. The Role of Aaron in Numbers 15:33 Verse 33 emphasizes that a transgressor can only be charged by a representative council in light of the testimony of eye-witnesses. The ‫ המצאים‬bring the wood-gatherer as transgressor to Moses, Aaron and the whole congregation (but it is strikingly only Moses who settles the case). 30 Placing the transgressor in custody is said to be performed by “them,” which refers to the aforementioned council, or the whole congregation. Nothing is said of Aaron and his position within the consideration of the open case. Unlike the very similar case of the blasphemer (Lev 24:12–13), an explicit consultation with God in the tent of meeting is lacking in Num 15, not even the “court” ‫( על־פי יהוה‬Lev 24:12) is mentioned. But as in Lev 24:13 God reveals the judgment to Moses in Num 15:34. Moses is the explicit addressee of the amending supplement by the revelation of God, and the whole congre28 Spatial categories are, by the way, relevant in all four cases: Lev 24:9 the fight is located explicitly in the camp. If the concerned persons in Num 9:6 are defiled by touching a corpse, they have had to leave the camp following Num 5:2. The least explicit case is Num 27, where the daughters of Zelophehad state that their father died ‫במדבר‬. Land-inheritance issues, however, are spatial matters. 29 For the deliberate order of intentional, unintentional, communal and individual aspects in Num 15, see NOVIK, Law (2008), 6–7. 30 This combination of ‫משׁ ה‬, ‫ א הרן‬and ‫( כ ל־ הע ד ה‬without any further substantiation of ‫ בני־ ישׂ ראל‬or ‫ )נשׂי אי‬is surprisingly unique.

348

Ritual and Practice

gation is commanded to stone the wood-gatherer (v. 34), thus Aaron takes no role in the process at all! This is surprising, because one of the differences between Num 15:32–36 and Lev 24:10–23, is Aaron’s specific inclusion in the former (v. 33). This difference is often overlooked, but it is rather important if the question of interpretative competence comes into play. 31 Before drawing any far-reaching conclusions however, one should take a look at the parallel cases: While in Lev 24:10–23 only Moses is involved, the cases in Num 9:6–15 and Num 27:1–11 are similar to Num 15:32–36. The men, who are unclean due to corpse-contact, come before Moses and Aaron ( ‫ויקרבו לפני משׁה ולפני‬ ‫)אהרן‬, but they speak only to Moses who settles the case without any contribution of the priest. Those afflicted are not even directed to the priest or any agent! Following Num 5:3 they have to leave the camp, so that they are not able to attend the Pesach sacrifice. Uncleanness caused by corpses lasts seven days and ends after the purification on the seventh day (Num 19:16, 19). The daughters of Zelophehad come forward before Moses, Eleazar, the “leading men” and the whole congregation. Although the category “leaders” is not specifically detailed, it is clear that these are representatives of the tribes (Num 1:16 et al.): Those are usually not separated from the congregation, but rather addressed as ‫ ]כל־[ נשׂיאי העדה‬in Num 4:34; 16:2; 31:13 and Num 32:2. However, here the congregation is mentioned explicitly alongside these representatives. But as with Aaron in Num 15, Eleazar has no specific function in Num 27.32 Two alternative explanations are possible: The function of Aaron (or his successor) is still merely representative as principal of the cult community ‫עדה‬. While he is on the way to take over more responsibility as high priest, he does not yet replace Moses. The other is that the text strengthens the view that Moses (= the Torah) is better suited to decide unsettled cases than the priesthood. Open cases shall be decided by interpretation of the Torah as the norma normans divina normata. One might also ask whether it is right to expect Aaron to have more competencies. Although there are several passages, in which Moses and Aaron are equal (Num 1:3, 17; 2:1; 4:1, 17; 17:8; 19:1; 20:12, 23, cf. 26:1 et al.) 31 As far as I am aware, this question is not answered in recent studies of Num 15. For the competences of Aaron in applying in interpreting the law in general, see F REVEL , Relationship, p. 435–63 in the present volume. 32 I will not go into the problem, that the case of Num 36 is construed slightly differently to Num 27, and whether the two passages are of the same origin or not (see S EEBASS, Numeri [2007], 452; KISLEV, Innovation [2010]). The representatives of the clans of the families of the daughters of Zelophehad come forward to Moses and the representatives of the tribes, who are peculiarly called ‫הנשׂ אי ם ראשׁי אבות ל פני י שׂר אל‬. Elsewhere ‫ר אשׁי אבות‬ are mentioned only at the end of the genealogy of the Aaronides in Exod 6:25 and further on in Num 32:28; Josh 21:1; Neh 12:22 and five times in Chronicles (1 Chron 8:6, 10, 28; 9:9, 33).

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

349

there are also passages in which the subordination or even the irrelevant juxtaposition of Aaron is attested. Narrative texts in the book of Numbers (particularly on the level of the given text) often start by addressing both protagonists, but then switch to concentrate on Moses alone (for instance Num 13:26–27; 14:5, 11; 16:3–4, 22–24; 20:2–3; 33:1–2). Even if there is a tendency in the book of Numbers to treat Moses and Aaron as an equal pair, that Moses alone receives the revelation of a law, as in Num 15:35, is to be expected. Legislation and normative interpretation of the law in the Torah itself is the prerogative of Moses, even in very late texts. Yes, there are passages such as Lev 10:10–11; Deut 17:10–11; 24:8; 33:10; Exod 4:15 which attribute interpretative competence to the priests, but this interpretation is a bit different from the processes of supplementation of the Torah that are addressed here. Indeed, whilst some laws are revealed to Aaron, the definite and material interpretation of the Torah within the Torah remains a prerogative of Moses. As far as Moses is concerned, there is already the process of institutionalization in late Pentateuchal texts, which is indicated (1) by a sacralization of Moses, (2) by “Moses” becoming a textual reference point and (3) by a growing identification of “Moses” and “Torah.” Moses gets an “institutional aura,” he is becoming a book. The historicizing stylizations of the gift of law in the desert, which are inevitably linked to the biography of Moses and the handing over of the Torah at the end of his life, reinforce this trait. Aaronide priests by contrast are delegated to teach the law, which includes a certain amount of interpretation, but they cannot expand or interpolate the Torah. They have to adhere to the Mosaic text or they may rely on God via certain techniques, such as oracles or ordeals. The high priest who is in office is empowered to perform the ordeal of jealousy (Num 5), or he is competent to obtain decisions of importance through the application of Urim and Thummim (Num 27:21). The priests may use techniques to inquire God’s will, but the outcomes of such inquiry do not constitute new Torah as it does with Moses. Thus, the backseat of Aaron in Num 15:33 is in some way expected. The idea that unsettled cases are managed by Moses alone seems to stem from a different notion in general, that is, the idea that Moses is responsible for the difficult cases as is set out in Exod 18:19, 22. In the cases of the blasphemer and the wood-gatherer, he is the one who gets an uncalled-for revelation to settle the case. The verses which mark the indecision both use the verb ‫פרשׁ‬, perhaps in contrast to the ‫ירה‬-competence of the priest. Let us again focus on the perspective of implicit institutionalization in the textual reading process. If it is accepted that Moses is not just the person but also the (institutionalized) Torah, it is not a “new” Torah but rather the interpretation of the already given Torah that is needed to decide the difficult cases. The word of God is at the same time the reason for the interpretation as well as it forms its origin. The institutionalization and routinization of the application of the

350

Ritual and Practice

Torah is tied back to its origin. This complex relationship is thus rooted narratively and structurally – an ingenious move in the development towards a book-based religion. To add a far-reaching conjecture: The four cases of completing the Torah, by which unsettled cases are decided under the guidance of Moses without employing Aaron in the process of interpretative amendment, may be read against the background of an institutional conflict on the application of the Torah. There seems to be some kind of ongoing discussion within late Persian period texts of the Pentateuch whether the Torah is almost complete and beyond that completeness expounds itself (“Moses” as main agent of interpretation and the Torah as source of scribal erudition) by professionals, scribes, elders, etc. (Num 11), or whether there are other additional sources of revelation connected to a particular ministry or function, for instance the office of the high priest and the authority qua office by the priests. Numbers 15 contributes to this discussion from the side of scribal erudition and the emphasis on Moses. That this interpretation is indeed sophisticated but not entirely farfetched may be corroborated by the context of Num 15:32–36, which is an outstanding example of scribal erudition, too.

6. The Deliberate Character of the Sabbath Violation Numbers 15:32–36 presumes the Sabbath legislation, at least as it appears in the Decalogues (Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15), the prescription of the day of rest in Exod 23:12; 34:21 and/or specifically the sanctioned priestly laws in Exod 31:15–17 and 35:1–3. Otherwise the wood-gatherer could not have been aware of his offence and thus should not have been punished so severely. Due to the fact that immediately before the passage of the wood-gatherer the question of intentionality is addressed in the chapter, the case described here has to be reckoned as a deliberate offence. The passage on inadvertent sins and their ordinary atonement in 15:22–29 is concluded by the formula ‫תורה אחת‬ in v. 29. This formula, which binds both native and stranger to the same law, is already prominent in Exod 12:49 (Pesach) and Num 15:16 (offering by fire). 33 The following two verses, of which Num 15:30 was intensively quoted or alluded to in Qumran34, address deliberate trespasses of the ‫ אזרח‬and the ‫גר‬ alike: ‫והנפשׁ אשׁר־תעשׂה ׀ ביד רמה‬ ‫מן־האזרח ומן־הגר‬

30

33 Cf. further Lev 7:7 where guilt offering and sin-offering are tied together by the formula. 34 See 1QS V, 12; VIII 17.22; IX, 1; CD A 8:8–9; 10:2–3; 4Q182; 4Q171.

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

351

‫את־יהוה הוא מגדף‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא מקרב עמה׃‬ ‫כי דבר־יהוה בזה‬ ‫ואת־מצותו הפר‬ ‫הכרת ׀ תכרת הנפשׁ ההאו‬ ‫עונה בה׃‬

31

The person who does anything with a raised hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, the LORD is reviled by him, and that person has to be cut off from among his people, because he has spurned the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off – he bears his guilt.

The phrasing has many peculiarities that clearly point to a late priestly setting. The trespasser is fully responsible (‫)עונה בה‬, because he acted with raised hand (‫)ביד רמה‬, that is to say deliberately. By that he broke (‫ פרר‬Hstem) the L ORD’s ‫ ;מצוה‬and he reviled (‫ גד ף‬D-stem) the LORD and despised his word (‫ )בזה‬by his misbehavior. Taken as a whole the wording of this passage is exceptional in the Torah. ‫ פרר‬is usually combined with ‫( ברית‬Gen 17:14; Lev 26:15, 44; Deut 31:16, 20), and in Num 30:9, 13, 14, 16 with ‫נד ר‬. The only other occurrence where it is combined with ‫ מצוה‬is Ezra 9:15. The rare use of ‫ גד ף‬has the LORD in every instance as object, besides the Hezekiah-Isaiah narrative (2 Kgs 19:6, 22; Isa 37:6, 22), Ps 44, and significantly in Ezek 20:27: ‫( כי עוד זאת גדפי אותי אב ותיכם במעלם בי מעל‬By this, too, your fathers blasphemed me, by dealing treacherously with me). The term ‫בזה‬, used in the sense of affronting the LORD by breaking the law or contrasting the ethos, appears in texts with a sapiential background (cf. 1 Sam 2:30; 12:10; Prov 14:2; 19:16), but its usage in Num 15 seems to parallel Ezekiel, where it appears several times as, “to revile the covenant” (Ezek 16:59; 17:16, 18, 19). Without claiming an intentional link, Ezek 22:8 is the most relevant parallel, addressing the city of bloodshed (Ezek 22:2): ‫קדשׁי בזית‬ ‫( ואת־שׁבתתי חללת‬You have despised my holy things and profaned my Sabbaths). The cluster of phrases used in Num 15:30–31 function to segregate the person who sins deliberately. He is already outside, but the two verses emphasize the exclusion twice with the ‫כרת‬-formula in v. 30b and v. 31b – which is the only verse in the Hebrew Bible using ‫ כרת‬as a figura etymologica (‫)הכרת  תכרת הנפשׁ ההוא עונה ב ה‬. The term ‫( כרת‬N-stem) appears frequently in (mostly late) priestly texts in the formula: ‫( ונכרתה הנפשׁ ההוא‬e.g., Gen 17:14; Exod 12:15, 19; 31:14; Lev 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; Num 9:13; 19:20). The use of the ‫ כרת‬formula in Exod 31:14 relating to a lacking Sabbath observance may have been another link that facilitated the incorporation of the wood-gatherer at this particular position. One further suggestion on another peculiarity of Num 15: The passage on inadvertent sins begins in v. 22 with a back-reference to the commandments,

352

Ritual and Practice

which the LORD has spoken to Moses: ‫וכי תשׁגו ולא תעשׂו את כל־המצות האלה‬ ‫אשׁר־דבר יהוה אל־משׁה‬. As Joel Baden already noted, it is the, “least obvious transition in the canonical text of Numbers 15.” 35 There are several problems with this passage, beginning with the introductory syntax. The ‫ וכי‬alignment follows vv. 8 and 14, and may syndetically expand the ‫כי תבאו אל־ארץ‬ ‫ מושׁבתיכם אשׁר אני נתן לכם‬of v. 2, paraphrased as a second condition such as “and if […].” But this would imply that the atonement of inadvertent sins is restricted to the land and its settlements, which is quite unconvincing. Thus, the ‫ וכי‬is an introductory construction that does not imply a syndetic connection to the former clause (cf. Exod 12:48; Lev 2:4; 25:47; Num 9:14; 19:9 et al.).36 The second (also minor) conspicuous aspect is the use of the verb ‫שׁגה‬ (G-stem) to denote the un-intentionality of the action. The only other occurrence with this meaning in the Torah – usually the noun ‫ שׁגגה‬is used (Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14; Num 15:24–29; 35:11, 15) – is in Lev 4:13 (cf. the verb ‫ שׁגג‬in Lev 5:18; Num 15:28), but one may add Ezek 45:20 as further evidence. Verses 22–31 address inadvertent sins, and thus relate to the whole chapter of Lev 4 anyway. Most striking is the back-reference to all the legislation given to Moses contained in Num 15:22–23. In order to better understand its peculiar nature, a further look at the broader context of Num 15 is in order. The chapter as a whole is presented as a speech of God (Num 15:1 ‫)וידבר יהוה אל־משׁה לאמר‬, which is handed over to Moses for transmission (Num 15:2: ‫דבר אל־בני ישׂראל‬ ‫ואמרת אלהם‬, cf. vv. 17–18). It almost always speaks about God in the third person – only vv. 2 and 18 use the 1st pers. sing. with regard to the land ( ‫אשׁר‬ ‫“ אני נתן לכם‬which I give to you,” and ‫“ אשׁר אני מביא אתכם שׁמה‬to which I will bring you”). The chapter is completed by a passage of God’s direct speech in vv. 40–41. Moses is mentioned 8 times in the chapter, mostly as addressee of Gods speech (vv. 1, 17, 35, 36, 37). Verse 33 makes him, together with Aaron, the counterpart to the congregation for the unsettled issue. The remaining two further occurrences refer in a broader sense to the revelation of laws by God to Moses in vv. 22–23. Although this is nothing striking in itself, it is nevertheless unique within a divine discourse. Verse 22 refers to ‫ המצות האלה‬and it is not quite clear which rules are included by this reference: those contained in chapter 15 alone, or as Milgrom suggests all commandments? The only other use of the phrase ‫ המצות האלה‬is found in Lev 26:14 and refers to the marked-off set of commandments in the Holiness Code. This would suggest the reference should be confined to Num 15, but such a narrow reference is doubtful in the light of the content: the atonement 35 BADEN,

Structure (2013), 357. Contra MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 122, who reckons the ‫ וכי‬as indication, “that this section was intended to be a continuation of the previous one.” In consequence, he relates ‫ האל ה‬to Num 15:1–10, 17–21 (see below). 36

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

353

of any inadvertent sin be it committed by an individual or the whole community. Because Joel Baden argues that the manna story of Exod 16:10–20 was placed immediately before Num 15:17, he understands the demonstrative pronoun in Num 15:22 to refer only to the laws of the manna story. Accordingly, vv. 22–31 are supposed to be read as, “a second legal commentary on the priestly manna story, also from H,” the commandments of v. 22 thus refer, in his understanding, to Exod 16:10–20, because, “the priestly law-giving concluded, of course, with the departure from Sinai in Numbers 10.”37 Apart from the fact that rearrangements are always problematic (see below) it does not make much sense to relate the concession for inadvertent lapses only to those cultic performances that are mandatory in Num 15:1–21. The same holds true to a restriction to the Sabbath laws of Exod 16. Taking a look at the following verse may be helpful; here the same commandments are defined as: ‫כל־אשׁר צוה יהוה אליכם ביד־משׁה מן־הי ום אשׁר צוה י הוה והלאה לדרתיכם‬ (“all that the LORD has commanded you by Moses, from the day that the LORD gave commandment, and onward throughout your generations”). Although “the day” is as opaque as the ‫והלאה לדרתיכם‬, it is quite clear that it exceeds Num 15 or Exod 16 by far. The most probable understanding is “every single law” from the very first commandment that was handed over from Moses to Israel (depending on the manner of reading it is Exod 12:2 or according to Rashbam, Mount Sinai) up to the last, on the day of his death in Deut 34. 38 Taken literally, the plural “your generations” exceeds the exodus and wilderness generation and includes the addressees of Moses’s last sermon. 39 Thus Num 15:22–23 is the only reference that may reveal a comprehensive view of the Torah in the Torah.40 By this the above given interpretation becomes even more obvious: It is Moses and “his” Torah, which are decisive regarding the regulations of atonement.

7. Does the Wood-Gatherer Relate to the Manna Story? In several papers Joel Baden has suggested a rationale for chapter 15 by assuming that the original priestly manna story (vv. 1–3, 6–25, 31–36) is now misplaced and had its original context within Num 15, between vv. 1–16 and BADEN, Structure (2013), 357–8. See MILGROM , Numbers (1990), 123. 39 It may reach even further to “all generations” and thus include every law given at any time. However, if one takes the attribution to Moses as critical, the law giving process ends with the death of Moses. 40 This was already suggested by the Midrash in SifBem § 111 and discussed by Rashi. See also the discussion on Num 15:22 in Jalkut Schimoni, BÖRNER-KLEIN, Jalkut Schimoni (2017), 634. 37 38

354

Ritual and Practice

before the offering of the first fruits of baked bread vv. 17–21.41 “The original order of the P + H text would have been: spies (Numbers 13–14); laws of freewill offerings (15:1–16); manna (Exodus 16); laws of first fruits of bread, etc. (15:17–41).” 42 Following Baden, “it is a common practice in H to append legal addition to a P text, and these legal extensions always have a thematic link with the priestly material that they built on.” 43 While Josh 5:11–12 refers to the end of the provision of manna after Israel has entered the land, the demand for the bread offering pops up with the change of food supply. This is forecast in the laws of Num 15 with the obligation to offer from the dough and first baked goods when entering the land. However, there is no textual link between Josh 5:11–12 and Num 15. Although it is true that Exod 16 comprises some odd aspects, which may corroborate the assumption of misplacement (a theory which was claimed constantly in commentaries of the 19th cent.), this hypothesis remains mere speculation. 44 Besides the shaky ground in general, Baden has to assume that Num 15 is an H-addition to the separate P-document, an assumption that is in my view unlikely from the composition of the Penta- or Hexateuch. The late eruditions in the book of Numbers rather postdate the combination of priestly and non-priestly texts. This becomes clear in Num 25; 31; 32 et al. and is widely accepted in recent research. 45 Baden assumes that Exod 16:20 originally was a brazen offense against the law in Exod 16:16 that left the Israelites, “unpunished because no punishment had been legally laid out for such brazen behavior.”46 To this problem, he suggests, Num 15:32–36 gives a solution. Whilst it is unquestioned that Num 15:32–36 relates to the Sabbath story47 in Exod 16, is it the primary reference as Baden assumes? “The story of the wood-gatherer thus provides a parallel text to the manna story, the two narratives framing the law: it is the same kind of sin – gathering in the wilderness on the Sabbath – differing only in that it occurs after the law has taken effect.” However, the fury of Moses in Exod 16:20 is not turned against a break of the Sabbath, but rather against sparing some of the manna for the following day. The Sabbath commandment is only See BADEN, Structure (2013), 354–5. BADEN, Structure (2013), 363. 43 BADEN, Structure (2013), 355. 44 See SMEND, Erzählung (1912), 151: “Nach der herrschenden Meinung hätte die Erzählung vom Manna auch in P an späterer Stelle gestanden. Man beruft sich darauf, daß in v 22–25 im Widerspruch mit 3112ff. P das Sabbathgebot als bekannt vorausgesetzt sei, und in v 32–34 die Stiftshütte bereits bestehe.” Already Smend rejects the theory by pointing at the secondary character of both passages. 45 See among others the Theocratic redactions in A CHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 630–8 or PB4 and PB5 in ALBERTZ, Pentateuchstudien (2018), 482–5. 46 BADEN , Structure (2013), 359. By that he does not take into account that the manna that was collected on the Sabbath bred worms and stank. 47 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 522; CHAVEL , Microcosm (2009), 48–9. 41 42

The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer

355

given in Exod 16:23, after which it is followed by the Israelites precisely (Exod 16:24, 30). Only some of the people go out to gather manna (v. 27: they “intended to work” so to speak), but they do not find anything (so in fact they “did not work,” therefore they are not punished). Thus, the primary reference of Num 15:32–36 is not Exod 16, but rather Exod 31:15; 35:2.

8. Summary If the above given interpretation holds any water, then the passage on the wood-gatherer is a case study in the handling of deliberate sinning and of the interpretation of the Torah by Moses. It expounds, that (1) the Sabbath law does not only forbid gainful work, but rather any work-like service, even if it is necessary for the daily routine. The particular activity of “wood-gathering” has to be regarded as ‫“ מלאכה‬work,” which is forbidden on the Sabbath by a commandment given to Moses by God, (2) the Sabbath has to be observed not only inside the city or in the inhabited space, but rather everywhere, even in deserted land (if the person concerned comes under the law of the Torah), (3) the Sabbath has to be observed by the ‫ אזרח‬and the ‫ גר‬alike (note that the subject of transgression is not specified as Israelite, but rather is named simply as ‫[ אישׁ‬vv. 32, 35]. Both, Sabbath and Pesach place the locals and the foreigners under obligation!), (4) the death sentence, which is prescribed in Exod 31:14, is to be imposed only in cases of conscious and intentional violation of the Sabbath rest, (5) imposing the death sentence presumes the witness of at least two persons, which is brought out by the plural in vv. 32–33. And finally, (6) the death sentence in cases of Sabbath violation should be performed by stoning, thus emphasizing the severity of the transgression, which breaks the covenant by ignoring its sign.

Interior Furnishing Some Observations on Endogamy in the Book of Numbers 1. Preliminaries In the following paper, I will ask some simple questions on the inner coherence of the book of Numbers in terms of endogamy. Does the book of Numbers construe an endogamous world, or is the book aware of outsiders as possible partners of Israelite men or women? With this I will ask about the constitution of community in the book of Numbers. Are there traces of endogamous or exogamous marriages? Is there a certain discourse on intermarriage in the book of Numbers? By this I assume that the final stage of the book of Numbers is the latest book in the Torah and that discourses about intermarriage already took place, or started, in the 5th and 4th cent. BCE as can be seen in Neh 13 and Ezra 10, both stemming from the 4th cent. BCE. If this holds true, one may wonder, whether there are traces of this discourse in the book of Numbers. Mary Douglas has suggested reading the book of Numbers as a reaction to Ezra and Nehemiah. 1 But can this hold water? Two narratives stand out without hesitation. The killing of Cozbi and Zimri by Phinehas is undoubtedly driven by the issue of mixed marriages. Another widely accepted occurrence of a mixed marriages discourse is Num 12, with the argument of Miriam and Aaron against Moses’s Cushite wife. These will be addressed at considerable length, but I will also include other passages in order to answer the question, whether the latest book of the Torah reflects on the demand for endogamous marriages in an explicit or even implicit way. Is it possible to trace a certain discourse on intermarriage and particular positions with a presentation of pros and cons? Furthermore, it is important to ask if this discourse was already intended during the late stages of inner-biblical production, or did it only develop as part of post-biblical reception? This in turn raises the question of whether our categories “discourse” or “position” are correct. In terms of methodology, I will begin by arguing on the textual level and highlight the implications for a synchronic reading. Heuristically I will differentiate between the book of Numbers as a standalone book and as part of 1

See DOUGLAS, Wilderness (1993), 225–6; EADEM, Ezra (2002).

358

Ritual and Practice

the Torah. Where necessary, I will reflect upon the text diachronically. At the end of the paper I will ask, whether our categories on intermarriage are suitable to reconstruct the social reality behind the text.

2. The Disposal of Foreign Women from the Exodus-Group Let me begin with the so-called “exodus-group” and some preliminary reflections on the presupposed reality of the text before Israel is situated at Sinai, where the book of Numbers begins. By this I will strictly stick to the information of the biblical text without taking later exegesis into account. Is it an endogamous world in which the text construes “Israel”? The presumed Israel group is constituted of the twelve sons of Israel/Jacob and their descendants. The fate of Dinah, the only named daughter of Jacob, remains unclear after her “repatriation” into Israel’s family (Gen 34:26 ‫ויק חו את־דינה מבית שׁכם‬ ‫)ויצאו‬. Beyond Gen 34 she is only explicitly mentioned in Gen 46:15. That said, Gen 46:7 implies that Jacob may have had more than one daughter ( ‫בניו‬ ‫)ובני נביו אתו בנתיו ובנות בניו‬. In any case, it is never mentioned if these daughters married foreign people and so they are irrelevant for the issue of exogamy, at least on the explicit level of the text. The family of Jacob, which enters Egypt as a community, is of an assumed homogenous ancestry with only very few narrative exceptions. One of them is Judah’s marriage to Shua, who is Canaanite. Thus, his sons Er, Onan and Shelah are of exogamous offspring. Judah’s first two sons die and the third builds the kin of the Shelanites, mentioned once more in Num 26:20. Although later tradition made her a Canaanite, the biblical tradition is silent upon the ancestry of Tamar, 2 who is married to Er. We may only speculate whether this marriage was also exogamous, but this is a futile exercise with regards to the biblical account.3 Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah, a woman of unknown ancestry, dies in Gen 35:8. Rachel and Leah are from the family of Jacob. Bilhah, the maid of Laban in Paddan-Aram (Gen 29:29) and the mother of Jacob’s sons Dan and Naphtali, with whom Reuben lay down (Gen 35:22), is of unknown ancestry. The same holds true for Zilpah, the mother of Asher and Gad. Both may be 2 According to the biblical account, Tamar was most likely a Canaanite. The midrash is relatively silent on her life before she married into the family of Judah. One tradition asserts that she was an orphan and was converted in order to marry (BT Sotah 10a), while another claims that she was the daughter of Melchizedek, king of Salem, who was “a priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18). Consequently, Judah judged her according to the laws pertaining to the daughter of a priest (which are set forth in Lev 21:9) and ordered that she be burnt when he thought that she had become pregnant as a result of an illicit tryst (Gen Rabbah 85:10). 3 One of the speculations why she is mentioned in the genealogy in Matt 1 is that she was a foreigner.

Interior Furnishing

359

Aramean, but that is not stated explicitly. If we want to speculate beyond the textual level, the Aramean origin of Bilhah may be accurate, since it is not by chance that Dan and Naphtali (Bilhah’s sons) are both strongly related to the Arameans geographically. The Aramean influence on the geographical location of Asher and Gad is less obvious, but it points to the Phoenician coast and the area of southern Gilead down to the northern end of the Dead Sea, which at the end of 9th cent. was Aramean territory, but that is another story. The wife of Joseph in Egypt is foreign in a distinct way. Genesis 41:45 mentions that Asenath, who was given to Joseph by the Pharaoh, was a daughter of the priest of On. This is a remarkable parallel to Zipporah, who was also a daughter of a priest, this time a Midianite (Exod 2:15, 21). Joseph’s two sons (Manasseh and Ephraim), then, are offspring from an exogamous marriage (Gen 41:50; 46:20). All 70 men belonging to the family of Jacob, who are reported to have come down to Egypt, are known by name. 57 are grandsons of Jacob, offspring of his 12 sons. The wives of these Israelites are not mentioned except for the mother of Shaul, the sixth son of Simeon, who is explicitly Canaanite (Gen 46:10; Exod 6:15). He is the father of the Shaulites, mentioned in Num 26:13. Thus, we have very few exceptions in the community of the Israelites where exogamy is mentioned as a reality. Israel was almost, but not entirely, endogamous in Egypt. In consequence, the community that forms Israel after the exodus is also not totally an endogamous people on the literary level. In Egypt all other women, who are married to an Israelite man and who are mentioned explicitly, are endogamous, except for Zipporah the wife of Moses in Exod 2, who will be discussed in more detail below. Moses’s and Aaron’s mother, Jochebed, is explicitly said to come from the same tribe as their father (Exod 2:1). She is the daughter of Levi (Num 26:59) and sister of Kehat, thus being the aunt of Amram, the father of Moses (‫דדתו לו‬, Exod 6:20). Aaron marries Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and the sister of Nahshon (Exod 6:23), of the tribe of Judah, who is often mentioned in the book of Numbers (Num 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14). The accuracy with which Aaron’s ancestry is made endogamous is striking compared to Moses’s. This attention to detail is not continued with Eleazar and his offspring Phinehas. Exodus 6:25 mentions Putiel as Eleazar’s father-in-law but Putiel is not mentioned elsewhere. This blank position has always stimulated exegetes to speculate that he was not Israelite, which would mean that Eleazar’s marriage was not according to the requirements of Lev 21:14 and that Phinehas’ ancestry was exogamous. Most prominent is Rashi in taking up the Midrash to trace Putiel back to Jethro, who fattened the calves for idolatry. Thus, Putiel is made a foreigner, so that Eleazar’s marriage to his daughter was exogamous. But that is mere speculation. It is, however, striking that the ancestry of Eleazar’s wife is not safeguarded in the same way as Aaron’s. This also holds true for Mo-

360

Ritual and Practice

ses: In the book of Exodus there is not the slightest distant attitude towards the foreign origin of Zipporah. She is one of the seven daughters of the Midanite priest Jethro, who is also assessed very positively (Exod 2; 18). She is mentioned in the enigmatic nocturnal encounter with the demonic YHWH, and without her courageous initiation of circumcision4 Moses would have died and Israel stuck in Egyptian slavery. In contrast to Cozbi in Num 25 she preserves rather than endangers. 5 In Exod 18:2 there is a remarkable bridge-verse. Obviously, Moses has repatriated his wife after the nightly scene, which can only be read implicitly in Exod 4:29 (‫)וילך משׁה ואהרן‬, where Moses and Aaron go together without mention of Moses’s family. When Israel camped in Refidim after the exodus, Jethro joined the Israelites and was accompanied by Moses’s wife and his two sons, who were earlier sent away by Moses (‫אחר שׁלוחיה‬, Exod 18:2). This is often read as an indication that Moses had disregarded his wife after Exod 4 or even that he had divorced her. Against the background of the mixed marriages debate, many speculations can arise from this enigmatic note in Exod 18:2.6 Did Moses act according to the law of divorce by sending Zipporah back to her father’s house (Deut 24:1, 3: ‫ ?)לושׁלחה מביתו‬And if so, did he do so because she was an outsider? Did he act in accordance to Ezra 10 or only to become free for the Cushite woman he had married according to Num 12? Did Miriam, together with her brother Aaron, rebuke Moses because of the treatment of Zipporah? These are all speculations, and the text says nothing about divorce, reunion, Josephite marriage, etc. It is not mentioned whether Zipporah, Gershom and Eliezer accompanied Moses further on, but Jdg 18:30 knows of a son of Gershom in the land and 1 Chron 23:16– 17 tell of the genealogy of Gershom and Eliezer. Thus, these “foreign” sons of Moses may have been part of the exodus-community. If we assume a discourse of positions in the Torah, Exod 18:2 highlights an argument in a more implicit way, that even children from exogamous marriages can be heirs in contrast to the position expounded in Num 27 and 36. Even if we do not assume, that this discourse was already established intentionally in processes of Fortschreibung, the post-biblical reception could draw on this fact. Returning to the Israel-community in Egypt, there are other indications for an intrusion of exogamous offspring. It is the famous mentioning of the ‫ערב‬ ‫ רב‬accompanying the Israelites in the exodus (Exod 12:38: ‫וגם־ערב רב עלה‬ ‫)אתם‬. According to the figures for the ‫ עדה‬given in Exod 38:26; Num 1:46; 4 Zipporah turns away (‫צ פ ר‬, see Arabic sạrafa “to avert, to keep away”) the demonic danger. Thus Exod 4 can be understood also as silent etiology of the name, which is literally “bird.” 5 For the relation between Cozbi and Zipporah, see CAMP, Woman (2000), 213, 267; QUESADA, Body Piercing (2002), 29, 31; S ERINO, Sign (2016), 171, who speaks of “narrative recasting of Zipporah.” 6 See, e.g., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Amalek, Yitro 1.

Interior Furnishing

361

2:32 they are not included in the six hundred thousand men noted in Exod 12:37 and Num 11:21. The ‫ ערב רב‬are mentioned only once in the exodus narrative. A significant counterpart can be found in Neh 13:3, where the people are separated from all ‫ ערב‬according to the law in Deut 23, not to let Ammonites and Moabites come into the congregation of the LORD. Exodus 12:38 is not a scene about challenging the mixed marriages of the post-exilic community as Neh 13:25, but by the parallel of ‫ ערב‬it becomes open to be read as a counter position stating that there were foreigners with Israel from the beginning. However, it remains questionable whether a relation between these two passages was intended. This is because the ‫ ערב רב‬are not mentioned in the Torah after Exod 12:38, and so it is difficult to assume a deliberate discourse here. There is only one passage in the book of Numbers where the non-Israelite exodus participants are mentioned again. It is the ‫אספסף‬, the rabble in Num 11:4, who are said to be in their midst (‫)והאספסף אשׁר בקרב ו‬. Interestingly enough, the LXX translates both passages and Neh 13:3 with ἐπίµικτος “the mixed ones” 7 and thus one may see a connection. In Num 11:4 the non-Israelites are clearly connoted negatively because they felt a gluttonous craving (‫)התאוו תאוה‬, which is taken up in the place-name in Num 11:34. Because of the odd juxtaposition between the lust of the rabble and the crying of the ‫בני־ישׂראל‬, Num 11:4 is often considered to comprise different diachronic layers. 8 Be that as it may, it is possible to read the extant verse in such a way as to understand that the asafsuf were already secluded in the desert, although this is never stated explicitly. This is possible, because at the end of the story the people that were greedy were buried (Num 11:34: ‫כי־שׁם‬ ‫)קברו את־העם המתאוים‬. 9

3. The Cushite Woman and the Issue of Mixed Marriages A clear counter position to this possible interpretation of the asafsuf is marked by Num 12. Before we come to the Cushite wife of Moses, we have to ask again: Who are the asafsuf or who is part of the erev rav? In a formal definition, they are to be understood as those not belonging to Israel. But what forms Israel? Who belongs to the group of the 600,000 plus women and children? If we accept the view mentioned above, that there are few nonIsraelite female members who married Israelite men, then the remaining foreigners comprise males and unwed women. If in contrast the definition of Add Jdt 2:20 and Ezek 30:5, where the LXX uses this word to denote a mixed group of people. 8 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 225: “V.4bβ beginnt die Anknüpfung an die ältere Wundergeschichte.” 9 See A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 224. 7

362

Ritual and Practice

Israel is “by birth,” the mixed multitude is all members of the exodus-group not being a descendant of the twelve tribes of Israel. Membership criteria are not discussed in the Bible. There were foreigners married to Israelite women in the exodus-group. This becomes clear in one of the few narrative passages of the book of Leviticus, Lev 24:10–14: A man whose mother was an Israelite and whose father was an Egyptian came out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a certain Israelite began fighting in the camp. The Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name in a curse. And they brought him to Moses – now his mother's name was Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan – and they put him in custody, until the decision of the LORD should be made clear to them. The LORD said to Moses, saying: Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands on his head, and let the whole congregation stone him.

Let me emphasize three aspects: (1) The story evinces a clear understanding that the blasphemer is subject to the law of Moses although he does not come from an endogamous marriage. (2) The story is one of the roots that the offspring of a Jewish mother is a Jew. (3) Most importantly for the present context is the fact that there were obviously Egyptians in the exodus-group, who were married to Israelite women. Coming from Exod 34:16 this practice is not yet forbidden by the law, 10 only in Deut 7:3 – which contains the reciprocal command: “do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” – is it banned. This distinguishes the case of the blasphemer in Lev 2411 from Moses’s second wife. The Cushite woman is from Egypt 12 and thus Exod 34:16 should apply, notwithstanding the fact, that Exod 34:16 is phrased prospectively and related to the inhabitants of the land (v. 15: ‫)ליושׁב הארץ‬, that is, the Canaanites. Hence it is clear from the Torah, that Moses’s marriage with this woman (as it was with his marriage with Zipporah) is illegal, irrespective of the fact whether bigamy is allowed or whether the Cushite woman is Zipporah (as Reuel is Jethro; Exod 2:18; 3:1; 4:18). 13 This may explain the repetition of 10 Because it is lacking in the Pentateuchal laws, only post-biblical reception made Lev 20 the rationale for the prohibition of giving the Israelite daughter into intermarriage. 11 See CHAVEL, Law (2014). 12 Whether it is possible to discern “Midianite” as “an ethnic designation primarily emphasizing common culture and solidarity” and “Cushite” rather as “an ethnic designation primarily emphasizing ancestry and geographical origin” (SERINO, Sign [2016], 157), is doubtful in my mind. With this assumption, Serino sees “Zipporah, as both Cushite in ancestry and Midianite in culture,” which is in fact lead by the identification of both (see above). In narrative respect, one has to ask the question, why the rebuke is “post-Sinaitic” and not placed in Exod 18. For a discussion of the category of “race” and its lacking in the ancient world, see SADLER, Cushite (2005), 150. 13 See K NOBEL, Numeri (1861), 58 following Ibn Ezra and already Augustine in his Questiones Heptateuchum; see also ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 275–8, who argues against the interpretatio madianitica and suggests Cushite proselytes in the Persian period

Interior Furnishing

363

Num 12:1b: ‫כי־אשׁה כשׁית לקח‬. The fact that Moses has taken a Cushite wife, who is evidently part of the asafsuf, puts Moses in a sharp contrast to the implicit critique in Num 11. His position seems to be open-minded as in Exod 18 and Num 10, asking Jethro/Hobab to be a part of the exodus-group or as Lev 24:10–14 taking mamzerîm under the obligation of the Torah. Moses’s manner is an important attitude against the overemphasis of endogamy. In contrast, the criticism of Miriam and Aaron is in line with the critical attitude towards the non-Israelites in the exodus-group in Num 11:4, 34. Here, we are forced to add some diachronic remarks. The main topic of (the allegedly post-priestly)14 Num 12 is the leadership of Moses and his capacity as mediator of the revelation. This holds true not only for vv. 2–9 but also to vv. 10–15. Apart from the sentence in v. 1a (‫על־אדות האשׁה הכשׁי ת‬ ‫ )אשׁר לקח כי־אשׁה כ שׁית לקח‬nothing in the whole chapter reflects on Moses’s marriage. I cannot trace two layers of tradition as Thomas Römer did, because there is nothing in vv. 10–15 that is clearly related to the mixed marriage rebuke of v. 1.15 Thus, it is obvious that v. 1a is a later insertion into a discourse on authority16 and not the other way around, 17 as was already suggested by Wellhausen. 18 Many suggestions have been made to locate the tradition in Num 12. Bernd J. Diebner for example argues that it is a tradition stemming from the Egyptian diaspora. This was taken up by Reinhard Achenbach, who sees Egyptian mixed marriages in the background: That the Egyptian Diaspora community, which had been stabilizing since the Persian period, had a massive interest in a legitimation of Judean-Cushite mixed marriages in

as background of Num 12; SERINO, Sign (2016), 154 speaks of a “recasting of the character of Zipporah.” His view, that the book of Numbers is a rewriting of Exodus, is not convincing in my understanding. 14 The supposedly post-priestly elements include the exposure of Aaron’s punishment, the tent outside the camp, the leprosy. The dating is controversial, especially the negotiation of authority and, above all, the attribution of a Cushite wife can not be too late. A revelation context must be assumed, which likely also applies to Num 11. 15 See RÖMER, Herkunft (2012), 207: “Der wohl nachpriesterschriftliche Text Num 12 verbindet zwei Protestgeschichten, in welchen Mose von Miriam und Aaron angegriffen wird: in V. 2–9 wird Moses Sonderstellung bestritten und von Jhwh bestätigt, in V. 1.10– 15 opponiert Miriam gegen die äthiopische Frau ihres Bruders, und wird dafür von Jhwh sanktioniert.” 16 See RÖMER, Sojourn (2007), 440 (following Ursula Rapp, he also takes into consideration that both levels are from “one late author linked both themes”). In contrast to Römer’s position, it is not possible to take the whole v. 1 as an addition. 17 As for instance DILLMANN, Numeri (1886), 46 suggested. 18 See WELLHAUSEN, Composition (1963), 101.

364

Ritual and Practice

connection with the figure of Moses, is quite likely despite the fragmentary knowledge about this. 19

However there are obstacles in understanding Num 12 as legal interpretation: (1) the positive sanctioning remains completely implicit (Num 12:6–9) and (2) it is confined to the totally incomparable Moses (Num 12:3). That being said, it is very likely that Num 12 relates to the issue of mixed marriages. A possible solution for the conundrum may be to consider the ‫ על אדות‬sentence in Num 12:1aβb as a later addition.20 Thomas Römer has also pointed to a connection with the Egyptian diaspora, which was even further elaborated by the post-biblical traditions of Artapanus and Josephus: The marriage of Moses with an Ethiopian princess (cf. the marriage of Joseph with an Egyptian priest’s daughter in Gen 41:45) explains the request of the Egyptian diaspora’s concern to the Jerusalem authorities for legitimizing the practice of mixed marriages. 21

The post-biblical reception of the Ethiopian princess Tharbis is a later expansion of the biblical verse rather than a kept tradition. Even more it is a tradition invented by those who wanted to legitimize their practice by an authorized paradigm, by attributing it to the highest authority. If we assume for a moment that Moses’s segregation from Zipporah in Exod 18:2 was indeed read as a divorce of a mixed marriage and used as an argument in debates on legitimacy, Moses’s marriage with the Cushite can be seen to support the opposite position, which was also authorized and positively sanctioned by the highest authority. If the issue of Exod 18:2 was “divorce” (notably also in a context of authority distribution) then there was no possibility to focus on marriage (see the double emphasis in Num 20, which points to this aspect). The next question is why a Cushite? 22 On the one hand, it could not be a Ca-

19 This is an English translation of ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 280: “Dass die seit persischer Zeit sich stabilisierende ägyptische Diasporagemeinde ein massives Interesse an einer Legitimation von jüdisch-kuschitischen Mischehen in Verbindung mit der Mose-Gestalt gehabt hat, ist trotz des fragmentarischen Wissens hierüber durchaus wahrscheinlich.” 20 See already WELLHAUSEN , Composition (1963), 99, 101. However, it was often acknowledged that the “whiteness” of Miriam’s leprosy fits nicely to the “blackness” of Moses’s Cushite wife. 21 This is an English translation of RÖMER, Herkunft (2012), 214: “Die Heirat Moses mit einer äthiopischen Prinzessin (vgl. die Heirat Josephs mit einer ägyptischen Priestertochter in Gen 41,45) erklärt sich aus dem Anliegen der ägyptischen Diaspora gegenüber den Jerusalemer Autoritäten die Praktik der Mischehen zu legitimieren.” Cf. also IBIDEM , 204. 22 SERINO, Sign (2016), 155 suggests that, “the authors of Numbers use the ethnic term ‘Cushite’ to describe the wife of Moses in order to abject the Midianites.” He further argues, “that ‘Cushite’ was a more acceptable, even if still questionable, ethnic designation for the authors of Numbers to use to reframe the tradition of Moses’ Midianite wife, which they received from Exodus 2–4 and Exodus 18:13.” If this is correct, one should wonder,

Interior Furnishing

365

naanite because of Gen 28:1, 6, 8 and Exod 34:16, which allegedly already existed. Thus, Moses would have contradicted the law explicitly, if it would have been a “daughter of a Canaanite.” As Lev 24:10–14 it may on the other hand indeed be part of a discussion with the Egyptian diaspora, if we assume that their well-documented mixed marriages practice was challenged by the Jerusalemites. The Cushite came from the “farthest extent of the known world” 23 and their evaluation within the ancient world was colorful in many respects. They were admired antagonists in economic as well as in ethnic respect. Although there was no concept of race, it may well be that they took a paradigmatic position in the mixed marriages discourse.

4. The Cozbi Affair as a Mixed Marriages Issue The killing of Cozbi and Zimri in Num 25 is clearly related to the mixed marriages question. Israel camped in Shittim and began feasting with the Moabite women. This behavior, which is related to a deity called Baal-Peor, kindled the wrath of YHWH who demanded punishment. To this short narrative, which is not properly concluded, a scene is added that is more explicitly related to mixed marriages. A certain Zimri introduces a Midianite woman named Cozbi into the congregation. Phinehas is zealous in striving for YHWH and pierces the couple to death. For this he is rewarded with a covenant of priesthood. The attitude towards foreign women is absolutely negative, not only in the case of the Moabites, but also in the case of the Midianites. Only in the name ‫ פנחס‬might there be a slight irony, if the etymological link of his name to the Egyptian word p2-nḥśj “dark-skinned, swarthy” is accepted.24 This is usually related to his allegedly Egyptian mother, the daughter of Putiel (see above). If it is assumed at the same time that the Midianites were also considered to be “dark-skinned” in the ancient perception, the irony lies in the resistance of a “dark-skinned” against a “dark-skinned.” At this point, one has again to emphasize that there was no concept of race, but rather of “othering.” We do not know whether the possible etymology of the name Phinehas was known to the authors, but if so, the textual play with the resistance of Phinehas against the Midianite Cozbi reveals some irony. The Moabite women who led the Israelite men astray, but did not enter the congregation, go unpunished whereas the couple that did enter are slain in a brutal way. Within the story there is no place for a Midianite at all. While there may be “contact” (which however is dangerous! ) the congregation in why Num 12 criticizes Moses foreign wife explicitly while the displacement in Exodus is – if it exists at all – only implicit. 23 SADLER, Cushite (2005), 75. 24 See GES18, 1050.

366

Ritual and Practice

Num 25 is completely endogamous. But is this aspect crucial for the book of Numbers as a whole or is Num 25 just a minor sideshow? Some decades ago the text would have been classified as insignificant, whereas now it is the source of a universe of interpretations, intertextual readings and Pentateuchal theories. 25 The question of mixed marriages is only one issue of this exciting and tension-filled text. It is not the place to give an introduction to the various problems and solutions of this text, but let me suggest some clues for understanding Num 25. Numbers 25 is a dense network of re-reading and interpretation of Pentateuchal texts within the book of Numbers and beyond (Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3–5; Num 22–24; 31 et al.). There is P and non-P in this chapter, but this does not give an explanation for the dense accumulation of aspects. I adhere to the view, that the text is not a literarily consistent unit, and that the redaction history starts with a fragmented “Yehowist” (or whatever you want to call the first, late pre-exilic continuous narrative of the Pentateuch) beginning in vv. 1a*, 3, 5* in which the foreign God Baal-Peor claims the transgression against YHWH’s exclusivity. This was resumed in Deut 4:3 and re-read in terms of the Deuteronomistic renewal of covenant.26 In late exilic or rather early post-exilic times a rejection of foreign women, oriented by Exod 34:15–16 (rather than Deut 7:3–4) in vv. 1b, 2, 4 is added to the existing text in a quite Deuteronomistic manner. Exogamous marriages with Moabite women are thus rejected by the Deuteronomistic paradigm of religious deviance, a feature that can also be found in 1 Kgs 11:1–8 and 16:31–32. 27 Marriages with Moabites are said to be “interreligious,” endangering the orthodoxy of worshipping YHWH alone. By resuming the sexualized language (‫ )זנה‬from Exod 34:15–16, the relationship with foreigners is abhorred with regard to a fictive “Israelite” ethos. A xenophobic pattern of rejection is in the background, which is nurtured by the demarcating strategy that constructs the foreigners as sexually deviant and potentially dangerous. Violent resistance is considered to be the only reaction to hybridity. The congregation is no longer open for contact and foreign commerce but rather a private circle. To this view the Phinehas narrative in vv. 6–18 adds another violent view (presumably in several steps or at least from various viewpoints vv. 6–9, 10– 13, 14–15, 16–18). While the first part in vv. 1–5 focused on outgoing relations (Israelite men commencing with other people and their gods), the second part vv. 6–18 consequently looks to the inside relations. Not only do foreigners defile the sanctuary, but mixed marriages also. Whether the ‫הקב ה‬ 25 See F REVEL, Aschera (1994); for various other scholarly treatments, see, e.g., DOR, Well (2011); BLENKINSOPP, Episode (2012); THON, Priester (2006); KISLEV, Source (2011); REES, (Re)Naming (2012); IDEM , [Re]Reading (2015); S CHÄFERS, Anger (2018). 26 See OTTO, Tora (2009), 427. 27 For the development of the rejection of mixed marriages, see F REVEL/CONCZOROWSKI, Water (2011), 15–45.

Interior Furnishing

367

is the inner sanctuary or the women’s compartment or whatever, is open for discussion, but not decisive. The fact that Phinehas’ zeal spreads out from the center of the congregation ‫ מתוך העדה‬is meaningful in manifold respects. With respect to its location, the event occurs at the central place, where the sanctuary is said to be (Num 1–4). Thus, it is the place of the greatest holiness and presence of God. God’s zeal, which is vicariously performed by Phinehas, arises from this place, because the inner-core is breached by the couple. Secondly, it is the center of the community, which is for whatever reason weeping at the tent of meeting. Thus, the mixed marriage endangers the cohesion of the community. Phinehas, as grandson of Aaron and heir of the high priesthood, makes it a matter of priestly concern. It is no longer Moses as in vv. 1–6 who is the main leading authority, but rather the Aaronide priesthood. Thus, priests are responsible to keep the home clean; the situation strongly reminds of Ezra and his demand for purity. But it is even more relentless and inexorable. There is no divorce or separation and with this a possibility for the male part to keep the share. If not avoided, extirpation is the only “solution,” because mixed marriage is counted as a sin that pollutes the sanctuary, and thus one that must be atoned for ( ‫ויכפר על־ב ני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬, Num 25:13). It is a question of purity, and it is not by chance that the woman is named “liar” (‫ )כזבי‬in the course of Fortschreibung (Num 25:15). The priest’s role is beyond cultic expiation but nonetheless his intervention is essential for the survival of the community. Every calamity, which is symbolically represented by the more or less de-contextualized weeping (v. 6) and the plague (v. 8) (which may have their origin in an older narrative or is a linkage to Lev 10:6; Num 11:10; 14:1; 17:13, 15; 20:6) come to an end by this encouraged killing. Numbers 25 clearly marks a radical priestly position that equates foreign marriages with the service of foreign gods and thus as declension. This is resumed in the post-biblical reception by making Lev 20:1–5 the most prominent place for the vilification of mixed marriages and for the evaluation as defilement of the sanctuary. The juxtaposition of the Deuteronomistic pattern (mixed marriages are apostasy and adultery) and the priestly purity pattern (mixed marriages defile the holiness of the sanctuary) remind of Neh 13. To my understanding Neh 13 has taken this very juxtaposition from the composition in Num 25 and not the other way around. 28 Claudia Camp suggests, “Phinehas and Nehemiah doubles for each other,” 29 but this doubling has limits: while the Phinehas case assigns a particular responsibility for purity demands and mixed marriages handling to the priestly class, Nehemiah seems to be directly opposed to it. If Neh 13:29 has to be understood in light of v. 28, it is the priests themselves who have defiled the priesthood by intermar28 29

See F REVEL/CONCZOROWSKI , Water (2011), 39. CAMP, Woman (2000), 339.

368

Ritual and Practice

riage. Thus, Nehemiah is not Phinehas – as Camp suggested – he is a lay person and more than Phinehas. Important for our argument about a certain discourse on intermarriages in the book of Numbers is that there are several layers that successively strengthen the rejection of exogamous marriages. Numbers 25 is one of the narrative hotspots of interpretation, which lead the Torah into a refusal of mixed marriages. This can be clearly drawn from the reception history of this important text, which cannot be addressed here.30 That endogamy is the narrated norm in the majority of the book of Numbers will now be demonstrated in three examples: first Num 30, then the sotah and finally Zelophehad’s daughters.

5. The Endogamous World of Numbers 30 Numbers 30 contains the law for vows of male and female Israelites. Vows were very popular in the Second Temple period and they were an important part of the YHWH-cult. Male and female nazîr are the most prominent case, but there are many forms of vows and pledges. Vows are an important part of the temple economy (Lev 27), and fulfilment of vows is a crucial problem. Deuteronomy 23:22–24 emphasize the necessity to take the amount of the pledge seriously, because delay in payment is sin. Although the payment obligation in vows is so crucial, Deut 23:18 excludes male and female prostitution for financial solvency (there is nothing cultic or sacred about this prostitution!). From Lev 22:27 it becomes clear that both Israelite and resident alien (‫ )גר‬can take a vow. The ‫ גר‬is subjected to the law if he sojourns in Israel. The ‫נכר‬-foreigner, coming from the nations, but not living as a ‫ גר‬in the land, is a different case. Females can take vows as men do, but if a woman takes a vow, questions of accountability are at stake. This is because women do not have the full capacity to be a subject of legal rights and duties, thus cases are possible in which a man is obliged to assume liability for the women in his household. This is primarily his wife, but it also includes his unmarried daughter(s). Numbers 30 defines various circumstances of vows and their fulfilment. The first case in v. 3 concerns a man’s commitment: he can take any vow or swear any oath to bind himself by a pledge without consideration of his circumstances. The only requirement is that he has to fulfil it. The second case

30 At this point it is fair to mention the forthcoming dissertation of Kirsten Schäfers to whom I owe many insights from intensive discussions on Num 25.

Interior Furnishing

369

in vv. 4–6 concerns a daughter’s vow or pledge (‫)נד ר ואסרה‬.31 Her father may raise objections if he becomes acquainted with the obligation, because he is responsible economically, but if he keeps silent it counts as consent. In case of his protest, the daughter is free from guilt, because she cannot fulfil her vow under her own responsibility. The case is abridged, but the decisive conditions are mentioned. If she fulfils the vow or pledge, everything is fine; she is not obliged to inform her father. If the daughter has not informed her father and cannot fulfil the vow, she becomes guilty and has to carry responsibility. If she has informed her father, and he has not objected, but she cannot fulfil, the father has to take responsibility. Although vows can also be taken by nonIsraelites, it is clear that the law concerns only an Israelite and at most the daughter of a ger, who is under the law of the Torah, but not a daughter of a foreigner, who is not considered to commit themselves to the obligations of the Torah. If this logic is accepted, the following two cases imply endogamous marriages. Verses 7–9 deal with the vow or pledge by a married woman and the veto of her husband, who is in charge of fulfilment if he has not objected. If this responsibility is not only appellative in terms of morality, he is subjected to the law, and thus cannot be a foreigner. The same holds true for the case of the widow in the final passage in vv. 10–16. In the case of silent consent, the husband is responsible even after his death. Because he cannot fulfil the pledge, his clan is responsible to fulfil the vow or pledge if the widow is not able to do so. In sum, the law of vows in Num 30 implies, more or less, endogamous marriages. Otherwise the law could not charge the legal person, who is responsible for the female’s liabilities.

6. The Sotah and the Question of Implicit Endogamy The ritual in Num 5 is designed to confine the husband’s jealousy and its consequences, which cannot be discussed here in detail. To better understand the ritual some preliminary remarks are in order: Within the limits of the ancient Hebrew marital understanding, only the male spouse can express a reason for a suspicion of adultery with legal consequences. This is due to the fact that only a woman can commit misconduct with regard to her own marriage, because if a man has an extramarital relation, he breaks only a foreign marriage if the concubine is married herself. Otherwise he is guilty of committing adultery in a moral sense but not a legal one. This 31 There are many kinds of cultic vows and oaths be it of a particular obligation, abstinence or renunciation. The most important terminology in Num 30 comprises ‫( נ דר‬vow), ‫( אסר ה‬binding) and ‫( שׁבע ה‬oath), but it most often combines ‫נ דר ואסר ה‬.

370

Ritual and Practice

bias in the moral and legal construction of marriage bonds must be taken into account to understand the sotah. In order to better understand Num 5 against the background of Ancient Near Eastern circumstances, it is important to acknowledge the economic aspect of adultery. Of particular importance are the financial repercussions with regard to inheritance laws. If a married man has a fling with an unmarried woman, he potentially damages his own legacy, because he has to divide his wealth among all his offspring. If he commits adultery, he breaches the marriage of another man, who also has to give share to all of the progeny of his wife, regardless of whether he has begotten them or not. Thus, the adulterer impairs the legacy of the cuckold. From a husband’s point of view, then, the most problematic case is if his own wife commits adultery. In light of these considerations, the jealous suspicion that a wife has been unfaithful has significant repercussions. She is in danger to be the victim of ungrounded divorce, and thus the consequences for her may be serious in terms of support. If the outcome of the ritual does not show her infidelity, not only will her offspring be considered legitimate (given that she became pregnant), she is also free of charge and cannot be accused twice in the same incident. In modernity, the ritual is often challenged to be heavily biased at the expense of women. That is only half of the truth as can be shown by careful examination. Some aspects are crucial for the understanding: (1) physically, the ritual will in most cases be without any effect for the spouse, no matter whether she was in fact adulterous or not, (2) socially, the relentless jealousy of the husband destroys the mutual matrimonial confidence, thus the accusation is confined to one serious suspicion. If the spouse overcomes the ritual, which is very likely, her husband cannot easily divorce her. These concerns go beyond the present investigation, which seeks to determine if the ritual can be performed upon any spouse of an Israelite, even if she is a foreign woman from a mixed marriage.32 The woman under suspicion comes in close contact with the priest, the offering and the sanctuary. Her husband introduces her with the grain offering of jealousy (v. 15), and the priest “shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD” (v. 16: ‫)והקריב אתה הכהן והעמדה לפני יהוה‬. Although the husband is paying for the offering, the wife is crucially involved. If we assume, that the meaning of ‫ והזר הק רב יומת‬in Num 3:10, 38 is “any outsider” as it was often assumed based on the Herodianic inscriptions from the Second Temple, the case is evident.33 But ‫ זר‬in these passages refers to any unauthorized person, notwithstanding ethnic criteria. Thus, the question depends on the issue See further comments in F REVEL , Imperfection, p. 304–10 in the present volume. See, for instance, the (wrong) definition of ZEHNDER, Fremder (2009), n.p.: “Mit ‫ ָזר‬zār wird jemand bezeichnet, der nicht der von einem Text direkt angesprochenen Personengruppe angehört; wenn es dabei um ethnisch Fremde geht, ist die Bezeichnung oft im Sinne von ‘feindlicher Fremder’ zu verstehen.” 32 33

Interior Furnishing

371

whether a foreigner can take part in the cult of the temple. Taking Deut 23:4 as the point of departure it is obvious that there were restrictions to foreigners, but as we all know, things are not so easy. Post-biblical reception made the mamzer in Deut 23:3 a bastard, stemming from mixed marriages. 34 On the basis of Deut 23 one cannot decide whether it is offspring of a tabooed sexual relation (read from v. 1), or a foreigner (read from v. 4). Only Zech 9:6 gives the clue to go for the latter. Be that as it may, the law of congregation in Deut 23 appears to exclude some foreigners from the cult. However, these considerations cannot be used to solve the issue of whether the sotah ritual presupposes endogamous marriages. Within the book of Numbers there are obviously passages that give the foreigner, at least the ger, the same cultic participation as the indigenous. 35 The formula of legal integration ‫“( חקת אחת יהיה לכם ולגר ולאזרח הארץ‬You shall have one statute for both the resident alien and the native”) occurs in Num 9:14 for Pesach, in Num 15:13 for the ‫אשׁה‬, the fire-offering and finally for the shegaga-sin-offering in Num 15:29–30. Numbers 19:10 includes the ger in the red-heifer-purification ritual, and a ger and tôšāb can flee to the cities of asylum, even if he may not touch the altar as in pre-exilic law. Judged from these passages one cannot assume that the nearing to the priest requires that the wife be indigenous. In principle, foreign women can also be suspected to be adulterous. On the basis of Num 5 it cannot be decided, whether this was the practice or not.

7. The Captive is Not Native – Definitely Another indication of the integration of foreign women in the community of post-exilic Israel regarded from the book of Numbers are the captives in Num 31. Besides the relation to Num 25 and other texts of the book of Numbers, Num 31 can be read as a case of the application for the war-legislation in Deut 20. There it is demanded that all males are to be killed by the sword (Deut 20:13: ‫ )והכית את־כל־זכורה לפי ־חרב‬and that all women and children are to be taken captive (Deut 20:14: ‫ תב ז לך‬... ‫)רק הנשׁים והטף‬. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 adds the law of marriage, which is not explicitly referred to in Num 31. Likewise, nothing is said about the aesthetic consideration of the nubile girl (cf. Deut 21:11: ‫ )אשׁת יפת־תאר‬in Num 31, all 32,000 female captives brought back into the camp are virgins and thus per definition nubile women. However, Num 31 is not a direct application of Deut 20 (and 21), because Moses rebukes the Israelite commanders (‫ )פקודי החיל‬for not killing the Midianite women. The Israelites have acted pursuant to Deut 20:14 (the ‫כאשׁר צוה‬ ‫ יהוה את־משׁה‬in Num 31:7 does not only refer back to Num 25:17–18, but can 34 35

See F RÖHLICH, Mamzer (2005). For the terminology, see ACHENBACH , gêr (2011).

372

Ritual and Practice

be understood, “according to Deut 20,” too), but that’s not enough, since the adult (and thus legally responsible) women of Midian are guilty of the BaalPeor incident beyond any doubt. In reading Num 25:1–5 and Num 25:6–13 in combination, the Midianites and Moabites are connected (as in Num 22:4, 7), and the crime of Num 25:1 is the same as in Num 25:6–8 as it can be read in Num 25:18: “for they have harassed you by the trickery with which they deceived you in the affair of Peor, and in the affair of Cozbi.” The offense is capital according to Deut 13:14–17, thus alongside the whole city, the Midianite women have to be added to the ḥӕrӕm (‫)החרם אתה‬, and have to be killed ‫( לפי־חרב‬Deut 13:16). In Num 31:14–16 Moses’s rebuke demonstrates that he is the perfect constructionist of the Torah in combining various passages for application. In addition, Moses now differentiates between accountable and innocent women according to their age. Thus, the virgins are kept alive (Num 31:17), which raises the problem of their “appropriation” within the community of Israel after their purification, which is prescribed in Num 31:19 in application of Num 19:10, 14. 36 As a result, the purification of the Midianite captives de facto contradicts the purity discourse in Neh 13:20–30, where separation is the means of purification. In a way Num 31 contradicts Neh 13, but I wonder, whether this can be understood as a conscious counter-position.37 Thus, the law produces contradictions, which cannot be easily solved. Deuteronomy 21:14 allows captives to be married by Israelite men and this does not reckon them to be dangerous. This has to be included by Num 31 as Moses’s Torah, although the authors of Num 25:18 were convinced that foreign women were a serious threat. The “solution” of this is to restrict the integration of foreign women to virgins, who are commonly under the age of 20 and thus not yet legally responsible. Anyway, there is no link to Moses’s Midianite wife, although it could have been the perfect place to react to. The “tacit legitimation of leadership’s foreign wifes” 38 (C. Camp) is only open for the reader. Was Num 31 aware of Exod 18? Verse 26 counts the booty for taxation, and v. 30 interestingly determines the share of the Levites. Here, the wording is of importance: ‫ ונתתה אתם ללוים‬... ‫וממחצת בני־ישׂראל תק ח ׀ אחד ׀ אחז מן־החמשׁים מן־האדם‬ ‫שׁמרי משׁמרת משׁכן יהוה׃‬ Rashi is misleading when he writes, “Weil Mosche hier in Zorn gerieth, gerieth er auch in Irrthum, er vergaß nämlich die Vorschriften über die Reinigung von gefangenen Heiden” (BAMBERGER, Pentateuchkommentar [2002], 290), which can easily be drawn from Num 19:10. 37 See in this direction CAMP, Woman (2000), 339, who is wrong in interpreting Moses’s demand for purity as directed against foreigners. One has to admit the fact that both Num 31 and Neh 13 refer back to Balaam and his advice, which is quite interesting. 38 CAMP, Woman (2000), 338. 36

Interior Furnishing

373

And from the half-share of the Israelites you shall take one grasped in every fifty human beings […] and you shall give them to the Levites, who attend to the duties of the dwelling place of the LORD.

The wording makes clear, that the Levites get a share of the female captives, who are foreigners. Unless it concerns the high priest, this conforms to Lev 21:7 where the marriage rules for priests are proscribed: No whore and no divorced. Only the high priest cannot marry one of the captives, but rather must marry an endogamous virgin according to Lev 21:14. Numbers 31:30 is explicitly implemented in Num 31:47; the Levites obtain 1,200 virgins. By the way, 32,000 women in total for 601,730 men (Num 26:51) is a ratio of 1:20; every twentieth man will have married a Midianite. That is not an insignificant number. In sum, virgins were taken captive from the Midianites. Although it is not explicitly said that these captives were taken for marriage, it is included following the application of Deut 20, which is noticeable throughout. The marriage of the captives is explicitly not excluded, which is quite remarkable for this very late text. Thus Num 31 implicitly makes a strong case for exogamous marriages.

8. Zelophehad’s Daughters and Their Endogamous Marriage Another text that is concerned with inner-biblical interpretation and with solving certain problems evolved within inner-biblical standards is the case of Zelophehad’s daughters. In short, the problem is about the idea that the land is tenured, which shall be inherited within the clan to which it was attributed by lot. It is with the crucial phrase ‫ מטות־אבתם ינחלו‬in Num 26:55, which says that the share has to be kept in the clan. Thus, all devolution of the inheritance to an heir has to be within the clan. Numbers 27 concerns the case of Zelophehad, who had no sons. Thus, if his brothers inherit his share, his name will be obliterated in the next generation. Accordingly, the daughters of Zelophehad claim ‫תנה־לנו בתוך אחי אבינו‬ (“give us a share among our father's brothers”) to keep the father’s name in his family. The inheritance of daughters consequently raises the next problem, which is treated in Num 36. If Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah are married to a man outside the clan, the deal of Num 27 is endangered. Interestingly enough, the claim of the Manasseh clan does not argue with mixed marriages, but rather with exogamous marriages outside of the family clan (Num 36:3: ‫)מבני שׁבטי בני ־ישׂראל‬. This prevents the assumption of the land from the share of the tribe of Manasseh to another tribe. Thus, it is demanded, that every daughter, who has inherited land from her father, may only marry men from her kin. This can be read as an intensification of the

374

Ritual and Practice

demand for endogamous marriages, not only within the same people (as the law Deut 7:5 seems to intend) but within the same tribe and kin. In this particular case, the inheritance of unmarried daughters, the marriage rules are stricter than in general. This becomes obvious, if one asks for the case of daughters who are married before the death of their father and who have no brothers. Numbers 27:8 does not exclude that they get a share in this case, but we know too little to answer this question. However, it is remarkable that Num 36 does not lay down endogamous marriages by law, 39 but rather Num 36:3 implies that they are not married to foreigners, which is according to Deut 7:3. The law in Num 36:6 prescribes this certain practice only for those daughters who were unmarried at the time of the death of their father. However, it implies the demand of intra-tribal marriage also during the lifetime of the father if there is no male heir. It may be that this is due to the narrative setting of the daughters of Zelophehad. The emphasis of the whole text is on tribal share and on the irrevocability of the assignment of property to a clan. Thus, where Num 31 makes a strong case for exogamous marriages, Num 27 and Num 36 in contrast advocate the demand for endogamous marriages.

9. The Glass is Half Full: Some Concluding Remarks Yes, the shadow of different positions on the mixed marriages issue is spread in various passages of the book of Numbers. The Mosaic “play” between an alleged divorce of a mixed couple (even a forced disbandment of foreigners), the implicit reunion with the dismissed, and the rebuke of a second explicit exogamous marriage by family members were clear signs of a relation to a discourse. But positions are not clear and less explicit than in Ezra or Nehemiah. In contrast to Mary Douglas, Numbers is not a reaction to Ezra, but there is obviously something going on. The book is not a world free from the struggle of mixed marriages. Not all passages go in the same direction, but there is overall less discussion than expected. Pros are quite less numerous than cons, but there is no unified picture. At the end of the day, there is no endogamous ideal world, where all mixed marriages are avoided or divorced. Strikingly some of the very late priestly texts include foreigners into the perspective of the law (Num 9:14; 15:13, 29, 30; 31). The book of Numbers 39 This is often mistaken, when for instance the interpretation is that, “this prohibition underscores the importance of endogamy in Numbers” (SERINO, Sign [2016], 169). Yes and no! According to the argument above, one has to consent on the one hand (yes, in the particular context the role of endogamy is emphasized) and to object on the other hand (no, it is not a general demand for endogamous marriages).

Interior Furnishing

375

reflects upon the position of foreigners, and this reflection goes beyond mere lip service as suggested by Camp. 40 Yet, one has to admit, that there is not a unique, self-contained, homogenous position to be found within the book. Zelophehad’s daughters evince that in spite of the importance of male descent in the book of Numbers not “all women are strange.” 41 However, there is no clear position towards intermarriage in the Torah and so not in Numbers. This raises the question whether our clear-cut borders between endogamy and exogamy really fit the complex situation? On the one hand, the existence of foreigners within the so-called exodus-group is reflected as there were only female captives who joined the congregation. On the other hand, clan-based endogamy may be presupposed in the case of Zelophehad’s daughters. One gets the impression that the issue of mixed marriages in the book of Numbers is not as pressing as it is in Ezra 10 or Neh 13. We have seen that the mixed marriages question was a part of textual interpretation. Questions, which were raised in the textual world, can only be answered in the textual world, and they say almost nothing about the social reality behind the texts. The distribution of the land to clans is a post-exilic construct, which demands for endogamy. It may not reflect the marriage rules that were constitutive in the late Persian period. For this, we should look at the inheritance right of daughters in the Elephantine texts to better contextualize this question. Perhaps our categories, which presume an existing twelve-tribe Israel that demands endogamy, are not appropriate for the social level but rather for a particular textual level. My further plea is to discuss the question of foreign women in the context of the treatment of foreigners in general. Ezra and Nehemiah are not the benchmark of discussion, although the literary device is often taken for granted. The literary function of the foreign women in the Solomon account provide a rational reason for the rejection of foreigners, but it is questionable whether we can understand the legal, social and moral handling of foreign wives from these texts alone. Whether there was a general critical attitude towards foreign women in pre-Hellenistic times or not, should in my understanding be discussed further.

40 41

See CAMP, Woman (2000), 337. This general conclusion of CAMP, Woman (2000), 344 is contested also by Serino.

Leadership and Priesthood

The Transformation of Charisma Reflections on the Book of Numbers on the Backdrop of Max Weber’s Theorem of Routinization 1. Office and Charisma in the Old Testament The topic of office and charisma is highly complex because it investigates the depth structures of theology. What Ferdinand Hahn concluded with regard to the theological controversialist discussion is also the case for a biblicaltheological view in terms of the Old Testament: It is clear that the topic cannot be treated in isolation. While the catchword charisma refers eo ipso to pneumatology, office and institution can only be considered in conjunction with ecclesiology. 1 They touch questions concerning the structural organization of the people of God and its institutions, which cannot be answered in a unilinear fashion either historically or theologically. The models of leadership bound together in the canon of the Old Testament are too disparate. The questions are fascinating nonetheless because aspects of authority and its legitimacy are repeatedly addressed. It should be asserted that I do not intend to interpret the Old Testament in order to develop concrete normative character in such a way that the leadership models of the Old Testament might be binding for the present. That would be absurd fundamentalism, which would lead quickly to conflict with the ecclesiological models in the New Testament. However, it appears just as short-sighted to consider the discourses presented in the Old Testament that reflect on the rationales for authority and the legitimacy of governance irrelevant. It not only repudiates the normative character of the Scripture’s theology in formal terms, but it also robs it of its critical potential in paradigmatic historical discourse. Therefore, scrutiny of the Old Testament models of governance, office and authority is not only interesting, but relevant as well. The true face of a church that is open and marked by the gospel shows itself not only in the de facto organization of authority in the interplay of charisma and office, but also in the representation and organization of the discourses about authority. 1 HAHN , Grundfragen (2006), 471: “Deutlich ist, daß das Thema nicht isoliert behandelt werden kann. Verweist das Stichwort Charisma eo ipso auf die Pneumologie, so ist von Amt und Institutionen nicht zu reden ohne Berücksichtigung der Ekklesiologie.”

380

Leadership and Priesthood

If one investigates the different ways that humans acquire an “office,” the Old Testament offers the greatest possible breadth, and there are examples for almost all variations. Someone can take on a specific task because of their age, abilities, lineage, being named to it, or as the result of a special election. The “charisma” relative to leadership can differ considerably, ranging – to express it in terms of Max Weber’s triad of legitimate authority – from charismatic, to traditional, to rational structures. 2 When the relationship between charisma and office are discussed in theological contexts, as concluded above, a pneumatological perspective is always in play. There is, however, almost nothing in the way of an academically developed theology of the Holy Spirit from an Old Testament perspective. 3 The connection between charismata and pneumatology is only marginally treated, if at all. Also hindering access to the topic is the fact that abstract terms like “office” and “charisma” are foreign to Hebrew. The Greek lexeme charisma itself does not appear in the Septuagint, meaning that one must first identify what might be considered an equivalent term in Hebrew. 4 The term lacks a depth of focus, and its effectiveness consists in the very fact that it combines, as Lipp puts it, diverse – e.g., religious, political, individual as well as collective, affirmative as well as negating – connections that make reality like in a mirror. 5 In the context of the Bible, charisma is usually thought of as unavailable, not able to be learned or produced.6 Even if it concerns ascriptions of charisma, at the level of interpretation it is understood as the gift of God. “Spirit,” or the Hebrew equivalent rûaḥ as the case may be, does not adequately describe what is meant, even if it does express an essen2 For the types of legitimate authority, cf. WEBER, Economy (1978), 215. Cf. also the new edition of Weber by Knut Borchardt, Edith Hanke and Wolfgang Schluchter: WEBER, Wirtschaft (2013), 16–7, 43–8, 453–5. 3 Preliminary treatments are found in FISCHER, Geist (2012), 21–47; JANOWSKI/ SCHOLTISSEK, Geist (2015); see also the JBTh 24 (2009) entitled Heiliger Geist. 4 The Old Testament is often deliberately skipped for this reason. A recent example is the article in Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception (EBR), which begins with the New Testament and makes do with the lexical references to Sir 7:33 (Codex Sinaiticus); 38:30 (Codex Vaticanus) and Ps 30:22 (Theodotion). 5 Cf. LIPP, Charisma (1993), 15: “verschiedenste – z.B. religiöse, politische, individuelle wie kollektive, bejahende wie verneinende – Bezüge, die die Wirklichkeit ausmachen, wie in einem Spiegel.” 6 Cf. the foundational position by WEBER, Economy (1978), 249: “Charisma can only be ‘awakened’ and ‘tested’; it cannot be ‘learned’ or ‘taught.’” and IBIDEM, 1112: “The bearers of specific gifts of body and mind than were considered ‘supernatural’ (in the sense that not everybody could have access to them). […] They practiced their arts, and they exercised their authority, by virtue of this gift (‘Charisma’) and, where the idea of God had already been clearly established, by virtue of the Divine mission inherent in their ability” (IBIDEM , 1112). On the question of the acquisition or learning of charisma after the process of objectification of charisma, see “Charismatic Education” (IBIDEM, 1143).

The Transformation of Charisma

381

tial aspect of charisma. 7 Similar to the lack of terminology for charisma in the Old Testament, the concept of “office” is not qualified, such that there is a lack of differentiation between function, task and commission. If one opts to understand office as “an activity independent of the unique personal characteristics of the officeholder,” 8 this is too narrow for the Old Testament, where the office is connected quite closely to the individual attributes of the bearer. 9 A strict separation between the charismatic and the office-holder does not recommend itself, and neither does the reduction of the polarity to a simple “charisma of office.” Max Weber intended this to be a routinization, objectivization and depersonalization of the original charisma, in which “the belief in the specific state of grace of a social institution” is decisive. 10 Generally speaking, however, Weber’s theorem of routinization in the presupposition of institutionalized charisma points in the right direction and offers a heuristic criterion for differentiating between the offices and also in their individual developments. For that reason, this discussion will attempt to illustrate the fruitfulness of Max Weber’s conception, which is located between the sociology of domination and the sociology of religion, for a perspective on the discourse about legitimacy and the differentiation of office in the Old Testament. 11 This brings up the final difficulty, which is the mixture of historical and narrative perspectives. They are, naturally, not congruent with one another, but are intertwined with one another. To name just one example: the election of the Aaronide priesthood and the installation of the high priest are located at Sinai (Exod 28; 29:44; Lev 8; 21:10; Num 3:4; 8), yet it is unquestionable that these are both incorrect historically. 12 However, the Old Testament texts also mirror trajectories of historical development. In light of the various difficulties that have been noted when approaching the topic of “charisma and office” from the Old Testament, it is appropriate to begin by limiting the discussion to observations of individual texts without claiming to do justice to this loaded topic from the perspective of the Old Testament. I will turn the focus to a body of literature in which questions of For an overview, cf. FISCHER/HEIL, Geistbegabung (2009). et al., Office (2011). 9 Cf. S CHARBERT, Amt (1991), 95. 10 WEBER, Economy (1978), 675, cf. IBIDEM , 144. The term “routinization” first appears in IBIDEM, 124 [MWG I/23, 455] as “modification of a pure charisma.” On official charisma and the complexity of Weber’s conception of charisma, cf. GEBHARDT, Grundlinien (1993), 6. 11 Mostly in relation to prophecy but not the book of Numbers, similar approaches are found in OTTO, Tora (2009); IDEM , Studien (2002); BLENKINSOPP, Sage (1995), 115–7, 146–7 and elsewhere; IDEM, Judaism (2009); TREIBER, Anmerkungen (2005). 12 Insights on the interplay between institutional history and literary history are found in recent literature, e.g., LEUCHTER/HUTTON, Levites (2011); ROOKE, Zadok’s Heirs (2000); SAMUEL, Priestern (2014). 7

8 KEHRER

382

Leadership and Priesthood

leadership and authority appear with extraordinary frequency – the book of Numbers.13 This essay will carry out the investigation especially from the background of Weber’s theorem of routinization, according to which an originally “pure” charisma is transformed in a process of depersonalization that is followed by the development of offices and functions. The book of Numbers contains a large swath of texts that engage with leadership and charisma, with functions and their foundations, with succession in offices, with institutions and their organization, etc. These discussions range from single verses to entire narratives. The following section aims to make orientation easier by providing a rough synchronic overview of the most important texts.

2. Functional Differentiations Between Discourses on Authority and Legitimacy in the Book of Numbers The book of Numbers begins at Sinai, following on Exod 16–40. Moses completes the sanctuary in Exod 40 in accordance with God’s instruction (Exod 40:16, 33). The kabôd of God moves into this sanctuary, which is developed to align with the presence of God, and completely fills the dwelling (Exod 40:34). This creates the precondition for Israel’s new existence, yet Israel still camps at Sinai. Sinai is not the final destination, but rather the climax of Israel’s wandering. In terms of composition, the book of Leviticus portrays an insertion at Sinai. Only Lev 8–10 and 16 contain narratives, which, while they are theological, they are not of consequence in relation to the basic narratival constellation of the Pentateuch. Both until Sinai and at Sinai, Israel is led by Moses and Aaron. Further institutions are not yet developed in detail. Priests alone are set apart as cultic functionaries, but there are only five priests at this point (Aaron and his four sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar; cf. Exod 28:1), 14 of which Nadab and Abihu die as a result of their misdeed (Lev 10:1– 3). The differentiation of offices is already assumed with regard to the priest(s) in Leviticus; Lev 8 explicitly describes the priestly ordination of the Aaronides. Levites, however, those cultic functionaries that were of lower rank than the sitting priests, are not explicitly mentioned until Num 1:50. In addition to the priests, Exodus frequently mentions the elders, but there is neither a specific function nor inauguration (Exod 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21; The preparation of a commentary on the book of Numbers brings with it a certain concentration on the view of the whole as part of one’s work. In this case, however, interaction with scholarship recedes from the stage, though this does not mean that it is not present in the background. 14 The Levites mentioned in Exod 32:26 and 38:12 are anachronistic in terms of the plot; cf. FREVEL, High Priest, p. 487–510 in the present volume. The (non-Aaronide?) priests mentioned in Exod 19:22, 24 are inconsequential in the narrative, even if their existence contradicts the later dedication of the Aaronides in Exod 28–29. 13

The Transformation of Charisma

383

17:5–6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9, 13; Lev 4:15; 9:1). The greatest amount of differentiation is provided by Lev 4:15, where the elders should place their hands upon the bull of a sin-offering in a vicarious manner to cover an unintentional sin of the people. The elders appear in other texts as representatives of Israel.15 The etiology of the establishment of the office of elders also appears in Exod 18:13–27, where chiefs of the people should support Moses as judges. The narrative concerns men who fear God, love truth, are incorruptible, and are held in high esteem by the people (Exod 18:21). They are to judge and are designated as ‫“ שׂרי‬officials, functionaries.” The establishment of the office of judge, which follows the advice of Moses’s father-in-law prior to the Sinai pericope, leads to the corresponding text in Num 11. Its compositional placement is chiastic: While the employment of elders in Exod 18 precedes the arrival at Sinai (Exod 19:1), the dialogue with Moses’s father-in-law (Num 10:29–32) follows the departure from Sinai (Num 10:12, 29, 33). In Num 11, the father-in-law does not provide his advice in order to provide relief for Moses, but rather following Moses’s lament that he cannot carry the people alone (Num 11:14). The description of the task before the elders who receive the spirit of Moses in Num 11 is quite amorphous. It is directed in accordance with Moses’s roles, for they should “carry the burden of the people” (Num 11:17) together with Moses. Therefore, it does not concern the designation of a successor (Num 27:15–23), but a depersonalized democratization (initially a part of the people, but see Num 11:29) of the original charisma within the framework of an institutionalization. Unlike Exod 18:21, no selection criteria are named. There are 70 from the group of elders. Moses, as the one maintaining the lists ( ‫)שׁטרי‬, knows them (by name), and they are obviously accounted for in a written list (Num 11:26). 16 Before Num 11 makes the connection to Exod 18, however, several offices and functions are mentioned that should receive a cursory overview. This will be carried out – consciously – in synchronic fashion because certain tendencies only appear through the close juxtaposition of the final form: Numbers 1:4–19: The selection of 12 tribal representatives that, as appointees (kethib ‫קריאי‬, qere ‫ )קרואי‬from the community, are designated to be leaders of the tribes (‫ )נשׂאי מטות‬and heads of thousands (‫ ;ראשׁי אלפי ישׂראל‬Num 1:16). They should support Moses and Aaron in taking the census of the people (Num 1:4–5:44) and then lead the tribes that have been counted and orgaCf. WAGNER, Beobachtungen (2002), 391–411, 560–76, who assumes, however, that the elders were not important in urban settings in the post-exilic period. On elders in the Hellenistic period, see GRÄTZ , Chronik (2006), 419 (on the text-critical removal of the elders in Ezra 5, see 407 with n. 10) and ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2005), 251–9, who argues for the significance of the elders in the Babylonian-Persian period. 16 These lists are first conflated in Deut 1:15, when the leaders are established as officials (‫ )שׁ טרים‬with reference to Exod 18. If one reads Num 11 with Deut 1:15 in mind, then they are the 70 that were selected as leaders in Exod 18 and received the spirit of Moses. 15

384

Leadership and Priesthood

nized into clans (Num 2; 10:14–27). In Num 7 they are the representatives of the tribes that bring on their behalf the initial contributions for the sanctuary and thereby make the organized daily (prescribed in Exod 25–Num 6) operation of the cult possible. Numbers 1 is significant because it formulates a completely new social order from what is found in Genesis–Leviticus. The twelve sons of Jacob/Israel became twelve tribes in the transition from Gen 49 to Exod 1 (Gen 49:28; 50:25; Exod 1:1–6), yet their organizational form has only been marginally significant (e.g., Exod 2:1; 24:4; 28:21; 31:2, 6; 35:30, 34; 38:22–23; 39:14; Lev 21:14; 24:11). Unlike in earlier texts, Num 1 no longer depicts the entire people as an amorphous mass before Moses and Aaron (like e.g., Exod 16; 32 et al.), but as a structured entity. The twelve leaders form the first definitive intermediary, who divert as well as communalize the functions of Moses and Aaron. Numbers 3–4: As part of the census, the differentiation of the Levites’ responsibility to take care of the sanctuary takes place. While the Kohathites are responsible for what is inside the tent of meeting (Num 4:2–16), the Gershonites and Merarites take on different areas of the portable sanctuary (Num 4:12–28, 29–33). Aaron’s remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, act as supervisors (Num 3:32; 4:16, 28, 33). The hierarchical and functional differences establish a completely new level subordinate to priestly service. The Levites are consecrated in Num 8 and assigned into their service (Num 8:15), which they are to carry out between the ages of 25 and 50. Numbers 8:19 again subordinates them explicitly under the priestly office. 17 Numbers 11–12: The democratization of Moses’s leadership function in Num 11 has already been addressed. Through the fact that the 70 elders subsequently behave like prophets, or rather speak prophetically (‫ נבא‬Hithpael), through participation in the leadership they are accorded a portion of Moses’s mediatory role, which is not qualified further. With regard to the considerable discussion in scholarship, it should only be noted here that opinions vary from simple ecstasy and spiritual speech to classic prophecy and canonical “substitution,” in which the elders stand for the Prophets next to Moses as the Torah.18 However one finally concretizes this prophecy, it points to participation in Mosaic charisma. The fact that Eldad and Medad, who were “outsiders” in the camp, also participated in the gift of the spirit (Num 11:26–29), makes clear that it does not concern a phenomenon linked to a specific location. It is instead a functional differentiation of the Mosaic office that implicitly continues on in perpetuity. On the theology of the relations between the priests and Levites, cf. FREVEL, Levites, p. 465–85 in the present volume. 18 In addition to a selection of commentaries, see GUNNEWEG, Gesetz (1990); S CHMIDT, Numeri (2004); RÖMER, Nombres (2004); ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003); TAMARKIN REIS, Numbers (2005), 207–31. 17

The Transformation of Charisma

385

The narrative in Num 12 can be read in the same context because it also considers Moses’s intermediary role. Miriam and Aaron challenge Moses’s authority by demanding that they too should function as mediators of God’s word (Num 12:3). As a response, Moses’s function is designated as superior. His proximity to God is unmediated and unsurpassed (Num 12:6). Through divine authority, “my whole house is entrusted” to him (Num 12:7), apparently meaning that the functional abundance of the charismatic leader is indivisible. The narrative does, however set aside two entrance points for the diffusion of roles in spite of the rejection of Miriam and Aaron. On one hand, the divine speech holds that there are prophets besides Moses chosen as mediators of revelation from God, though they are not of the same quality as Moses. On the other hand, while Miriam is punished, Aaron is not. Aaron turns immediately to intercede with Moses (Num 12:10–12). Moses’s leading position remains intact in this case as well (Num 12:13), but it is accompanied by the reference to Aaron’s role as an intermediary. The “high priest” and the power of his office come into play here gradually. Moses’s relationship as the mediator superior to Aaron the priest is subtly reversed as the book of Numbers develops. Numbers 13–14: A functional differentiation also takes place in the spy narrative. Like in Num 1, twelve representatives of the tribes are chosen as spies (Num 13:1–16). This assignment, however, goes thoroughly awry because the spies malign the goodness of the land (Num 13:28–33) such that it leads to rebellion against the leadership (Num 14:2). Moses and Aaron are threatened with being deposed and even with death (Num 14:4, 10). The crisis is only suspended through divine intervention, but from this point on, it is not resolved. The people in their entirety merely endure Moses and Aaron’s leadership, but they do not recognize it unconditionally. From Num 14 on, the people are damned to remain in the desert until the entire generation, including its leadership, has died. Only Joshua and Caleb are depicted as reliable representatives and are allowed to live (Num 13:30; 14:6, 24, 30, 38). This sets a striking limit to Moses and Aaron’s leadership in terms of both time and content. For it is conspicuous that the crisis of leadership in Num 13–14 is not really overcome or attenuated after the death of those responsible (like it was in Num 11–12). The authorized and legitimate leader, Moses, is instead immediately challenged by the people (Num 14:39–45). Although indirect divine legitimation of their leadership takes place (Moses’s opinion is shown to be correct that the Israelites will be repelled; the ark of the covenant, which according to the divine instruction given through Aaron the priest should have gone into battle [Num 27; 31:6; Josh 3–4] remains in the camp), but the leadership has been strikingly destabilized after Num 13–14. Viewed in this light, Num 13–14 on the one hand marks the necessity of the transfer of leadership from Moses and Aaron, but on the other it portrays the time in the desert as a transitional sphere in which the transformation does

386

Leadership and Priesthood

occur, but it cannot be completed. The system of a societal order that is characterized by the recognition of legitimate authority and functional representation is shattered by Num 13–14. The structures of control are characterized by instability and fragility and are in need of permanent stabilization. Numbers 16–18: One of these stabilizations – and this is characteristic for the transfer of authority – is the confirmation of the Aaronide claim to leadership in Num 16–18. The Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, refuse the convocation by Moses (Num 16:12–15) and are punished as examples (Num 16:27– 33). The questioned authority of Moses should be confirmed by this, but instead it is immediately called into question again by the entire people (Num 16:34; 17:6–7, 27–28). In another closely intertwined story, Aaron’s prerogative to the priestly role is challenged by 250 men, both of the Levites as well as secular men. The latter are seen as representatives of the community (Num 16:2), and in their cultic actions they interfere with the functional differentiation in the sanctuary (Num 16:17–18). The Levites, on the other hand, evidently make a claim for participation in the priesthood (Num 16:8–11). Reading synchronically, the related demand for the democratization of priestly charisma is expressed by the striking statement: “Then the entire community, they all are holy, and YHWH is in their midst. Why do you raise yourself above the congregation of YHWH?” (Num 16:3). All challenges of the leaders’ authority are rebuked by divine sanction. Aaron and his priestly office, whose propitiatory function is shown to be necessary for the survival of the community (Num 17:11–13), is permanently confirmed through the trial of the staffs in the sanctuary (Num 17:16–25). Moses’s claim to leadership, on the other hand, remains in question. As a result, the institution of the priesthood is de facto strengthened against the “worldly” Mosaic leadership, if not implicitly set above it. Numbers 18 marks the transition to institutionalization through the regulation of economic organization. The Aaronides are given the administration of the contributions at the sanctuary, which secures their economic wellbeing (Num 18:8–19). Numbers 20: The pointed exposure of the lapse of the primary leadership initially highlights the necessity of the transition of leadership. Because they have questioned the legitimizing divine authority, they will be dispossessed of their leadership (Num 20:12). The result is that they are threatened with the loss of internal support and external acceptance. This is especially true for Moses, who appears to have immediately lost his authority as legitimate representative. His attempt to negotiate with the king of Edom is rejected so that Israel must take a detour (Num 20:14–21). It is significant in this context, with the decisive change taking place in Num 21:1–3, that Israel conquers the first cities west of the Jordan as something of a deposit of the gift of the land without any action on the part of Moses the mediator. His intermediary position appears to have rapidly become completely democratized, even though he subsequently – when the people lose their courage and regret having chal-

The Transformation of Charisma

387

lenged his authority (Num 21:4, 7) – functions again as an intercessor (Num 21:7–8). In any case, at YHWH’s command Moses sets in place an institution of salvation with the bronze serpent that makes his role as intercessor de facto dispensable in the future. 19 The situation with Aaron is different. Through the immediate continuity of genealogical succession, there is a replacement for him. Following a divine command, Moses proceeds with the investiture, which again underlines the fact that he is not completely deposed of authority, but the process is quite subtle. However, Num 20:24 repeats the decision to transfer leadership to other people. Eleazar receives the vestments as signs of the authority of the office (Num 20:26) and is the official priest from this point on with tasks that are his and his alone (Lev 16; Num 19 et al.). The question of whether Eleazar is accorded individual charisma or not does not arise because of genealogical succession. The succession had been planned well in advance (Exod 6:24; 29:29–30; Lev 10:16–17; Num 3:32; 17:2, 4; 19:3–4). In place of the extraordinary original charisma that was dependent on Moses or went out from him from the very beginning (Exod 4:15–16), a charisma of office has already appeared that can bear the weight of regular cultic practice (Lev 9; Num 7–9). Numbers 25: The fact that the hereditary charisma of the investiture of the high priest does not exclude strong personal charisma is underscored in the personality of the next successor, Phinehas. He is zealous in the matter of the endogamous purity and holiness of the people of God – even before he is raised to an exalted position – in such an exceptional manner with the zeal of God that he is distinguished by God with the covenant of the priesthood. In granting him and his descendants a covenant of eternal priesthood (‫ברית כהנת‬ ‫עולם‬, Num 25:13), the genealogical transmission of the office beyond the series of Aaron-Eleazar-Phinehas is determined. While the transition had initially been precarious and potentially fraught with crisis, Phinehas’ action ended the crisis permanently. After Num 25:8–9, 19, a new era begins, one which is no longer characterized by deterioration (Num 26:63–64). Numbers 27: The question of succession concludes with the installation of a replacement for Moses. The text of the last part of the book, which is enclosed by the frame constructed of Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12, initially refers back to Num 20:12 and the death of Aaron (Num 27:13–14), by which the mentioned policy of authority can be recognized. The text then alludes to the source of the Mosaic charisma: ‫ אלהי הרוחת לכל־בשׂר‬is usually translated as “God of the (living) spirits of all flesh,” though the proximity of “spirit” and charisma mentioned at the beginning of my discussion might be especially close at this point. The only comparable formulation is the invocation by both leaders, Moses and Aaron, of YHWH in Num 16:22: this intercession hinders 19

For an outline of this interpretation, see F REVEL, Numeri (2017), 302–6.

388

Leadership and Priesthood

the destruction of the entire community. Moses’s use of almost the same formulation shows the urgency of the request for a successor. The rationale is also formulated with considerable emotion: so that the community of YHWH “will not be like sheep without a shepherd” (Num 27:17). The motif of the shepherd alludes to leadership in the form of a monarchy (1 Kgs 22:17; Ezek 34:6), but all other affiliation to the institution of the monarchy is avoided. Two points are more characteristic. First is that the leadership is limited to the military sphere (Num 27:17), which immediately indicates that Joshua’s leadership amounts to leading into the land, but not leadership in the land. The Mosaic succession found in the law of the prophet (Deut 18:15) is a completely different matter, even though Joshua is also identified as inspired (Num 27:18) and receiving a part of the Mosaic honor through the laying on of hands (Num 27:20). Second is that Joshua’s authority is subordinate to priestly claims to leadership (Num 27:19, 21). The installation takes place in the presence of the high priest (Num 27:19, 22–23), which indicates the need for hierocratic legitimation. Eleazar also maintains – each time requiring confirmation by divine oracle – the final authority (Num 27:21). Unlike the relationship between Eleazar and Aaron, Joshua is in no way furnished with the same authority that Moses had. He receives only part of the honor and takes over only some of the duties. The preeminence of the priestly office appears in the position of Eleazar in Num 31, especially in the legal interpretation coming from the mouth of Eleazar: “This is the ordinance of the Torah that YHWH commanded Moses” (Num 31:21). The transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua takes place, however, unlike the investiture itself, first in Josh 1, after Moses – as commanded (Num 27:12–13) – had seen the land (Deut 34). In congruence with this prescribed order is Joshua’s appointment as successor in Deut 31:7–8 and especially its resumption after the death of Moses once again in Deut 34:9. In Num 27 and the regulation of a successor for Moses as the leader of the people in the conquest of the land, the most important themes of the book of Numbers have been broached, indicating the transmission of authority and the development of offices and functions. Many other texts and also individual verses would need to be brought together and fine-tuned, but for an overall understanding the above discussion should suffice. It is clear that the themes of leadership delegation, succession, participation and legitimacy have been conspicuously present from the beginning in the book of Numbers. Especially noteworthy is the emergence of the Aaronide leadership claim, which is clearer in Numbers than in the other books of the Pentateuch. The subtle retreat of the Mosaic claim to leadership should be contrasted with the coun-

The Transformation of Charisma

389

terbalance of Mosaic authority in questions of the promulgation and interpretation of the law, but that would lead too far afield here. 20 As a whole, there is no other book that treats these issues in as concentrated a manner as Numbers. Ferdinand Ahuis appropriately titled his investigation of Num 16–17 as “Autorität im Umbruch” (“Rebuilding Authority”), 21 but he answers very traditionally in terms of the convergence of the authority of the father, the king and the priest. “Rebuilding Authority” could instead be appropriated as a title for the entire book of Numbers. It concerns a noteworthy cluster of social transformation processes that transfer personal authority to institutions. The book of Exodus (among other texts, Exod 4; 18; 29) surely treats comparable questions of authority and offices. Deuteronomy contains the parallels to Num 11 in Deut 1:9–18, the laws of the offices (Deut 16:18– 18:22) and the call of Joshua as successor (Deut 31:1–8). It is, therefore, undeniable that themes of political and social organization such as offices and functions are not treated exclusively by the book of Numbers. However, the concentration and the number of texts that circle these questions, addressing them wholly or in part, is immediately conspicuous when the text is viewed as a whole. This evidence does not indicate that one should argue that these texts share a single literary-historical, compositional, or conceptual origin. However, the abundance must simply be noted, and it calls for an explanation. This has yet to arise in scholarship because of two important emphases in terms of the history of scholarship. The first is that scholarship emanating from the source model usually foregrounds literary-historical questions. The second reason is that the book of Numbers is understood as a “container” that strings together late additions. 22 Instead of important insights, the material is expected to yield merely the work of epigones. The book of Numbers as a composition with its own importance has first been re-discovered in the last two decades, so new perspectives have also come to the forefront. The conflicts around authority have always been striking, especially those concerning in the complaint narratives, especially the inspiration of the 70 elders, the 250 men and the Dathan-Abiram narrative. The issues of priestly leadership treated in the confrontation with Korah was naturally prominent. However, discussion of these narratives in conjunction with the founding of Israel’s social structure in Num 1–4 or the development of the high priestly office in Num 17–18; 25; 35 was hardly considered in scholarship. Cf. the reflections in F REVEL, Relationship, p. 435–63 the present volume and IDEM, Sache (2013). 21 A HUIS, Autorität (1983). 22 For discussion of both aspects, see F REVEL , Formation (2013), 34–5 and IDEM, Pieces, p. 83–120 in the present volume. 20

390

Leadership and Priesthood

Recalling Max Weber’s conception of charisma can perhaps assist in the search for an explanation because one of its great undisputed strengths lies in its combination of historical and sociological analyses. 23 It should be beyond doubt that these texts concern ideal and typical stylizations of social transformation processes in which personal authority gives way to institutional authority. As such, Max Weber is an appropriate discussion partner. Shmuel N. Eisenstadt describes Weber’s concern as follows: Hence his most general concern, permeating all his work, was with what may be called, in the terminology of modern sociology, the process of institution building, social transformation, and cultural creativity. These processes involve crystallization, continuity, and change of major types of institutions, cultural symbols, and macrosocietal settings, and the analysis of the possibilities (and limits) of transforming existing institutional and cultural complexes and building new ones. 24

In terms of composition, it is noteworthy that the concentration is present at the beginning of the book, but is especially high between Num 11 and Num 17, declining again between Num 20 (genealogical succession of the priestly office) and Num 27 (charismatic succession of the Mosaic leadership office), and after Num 27 hardly any questions are treated that bring up the topics of offices, functions, regulating succession, etc. in either formative or constitutive manner. The decisive factor – and this too speaks for a purposeful composition of the book and against a chance accumulation – appears to be articulated in the regulation of succession from Moses to Joshua. The institutions set up in the formative Mosaic period become increasingly established; the original charisma – to express it in Weber’s terminology – is consolidated in a routinization. The book of Numbers intends for Israel to be thoroughly and completely set up before its entrance into the cultivated land. This is the same notion expressed in the stylization of Deuteronomy as the farewell address before crossing the Jordan. However – and this became clear through the short investigation of the text above – in contrast to the basic conception of Deuteronomy, there is a noticeable shift to the priority of the priesthood.

3. Routinization as the Key Concept In Max Weber’s “outline of interpretive sociology,” the subtitle in the version of Economy and Society edited by Johannes Winckelmann, Weber formulates three pure types of rational, traditional and charismatic authority corresponding to legitimate domination. While the rational invokes “a belief in the legality of enacted rules” 25 and the traditional “an established belief in the sanctity See EISENSTADT , Intoduction (1968), XIII. EISENSTADT, Introduction (1968), XIII. 25 WEBER, Economy (1978), 215 23 24

The Transformation of Charisma

391

of immemorial traditions,” 26 the charismatic rests “on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patters or order revealed or ordained by him.” 27 Among the forms of organization, charismatic domination is pitted diametrically against the other forms, which are to be understood as ordinary forms. The opposing translations of “extraordinary” and “ordinary” mark the necessity of the transition that Weber describes as depersonalization or routinization, which one may also indicate as objectification. The original charisma is ground down and tied to an institution, replaced by tradition and office. Charismatic domination originally depicts a situation in which “social relationships directly involved are strictly personal, based on the validity and practice of charismatic personal qualities.” 28 If they are to transition to a permanence beyond the short-lived success of the individual mission, they must “become radically changed. […] It cannot remain stable, but becomes either traditionalized or rationalized, or a combination of both.” 29 One can even go so far in relation to the labile charisma as to speak of a compulsion to transformation.30 This transformation concerns questions of succession and the development of permanent “routine” structures of authority. The original charisma becomes formalized and depersonalized, transitioning through structural change in functions and institutions. Strategies of legitimation must be designed to accompany this process that lead to the necessary recognition of authority for the exercise of domination. In addition to the successor that no longer possesses the original charisma personally or by genealogical means, there is the process of routinization, which Weber describes as the charisma of office: “the belief in legitimacy is no longer directed to the person, but to the acquired qualities and to the effectiveness of the ritual acts.”31 As a result, the routinization theorem receives considerable importance in the development of permanent organizational forms. One cannot separate the development of regulated rule and institutionally bound and legitimate authority subsequent to charismatic originating rule. The process of routinization is thus not by any means confined to the problem of succession and does not stop when this has been solved. On the contrary, the most fundamental problem is that of making a transition from a charismatic administrative staff, and the corresponding principles of administration, to one which is adapted to everyday conditions. 32

WEBER, Economy (1978), 215 WEBER, Economy (1978), 215 28 WEBER, Economy (1978), 246. 29 WEBER, Economy (1978), 246. 30 Cf. TREIBER, Anmerkungen (2005), 197. 31 WEBER, Economy (1978), 248. 32 WEBER, Economy (1978), 253. 26 27

392

Leadership and Priesthood

Central in the process of institutionalization are also the principles of economic organization. In the end, “it is necessary for the administrative staff and all its administrative practices to be adapted to everyday economic conditions. It is not possible for the costs of permanent, routine administration to be met by ‘booty,’ contributions, gifts, and hospitality.”33 The transition is not generally smooth but accompanied by conflicts over authority, as Weber expressly emphasizes: It follows that, in the course of routinization, the charismatically ruled organization is largely transformed into one of the everyday authorities, the patrimonial form, especially in its estate-type or bureaucratic variant. Its original peculiarities are apt to be retained in the charismatic status honor acquired by heredity or office-holding. This applies to all who participate in the appropriation, the chief himself and the members of his staff. […] As a rule, routinization is not free of conflict. In the early stages personal claims on the charisma of the chief are not easily forgotten and the conflict between the charisma of the office or of hereditary status with personal charisma is a typical process in many historical situations. 34

Weber’s conception is not self-contained, oscillating especially in the tension between original charisma and the presence of objectified [depersonalized] routinized charisma. The original opposition is repeatedly renegotiated and even broken apart. Originally, for example, charisma is foreign to economics, but it becomes relevant for economic concerns. Originally it can neither be transferred nor learned, but through the process of routinization it becomes an object of education and so on. 35 This oscillation only presents a problem when the conception of charisma becomes essentialized, and this danger is certainly present. A well-formulated statement like “It is the fate of charisma, however, to recede with the development of permanent institutional structures” 36 can truly be misunderstood as essentializing. Weber’s outline has been criticized repeatedly because charisma, especially his original charisma, is not completely free of the presupposition of the presence of the mere reality of ontological and essentializing statements. Concomitantly, one should emphasize that Weber’s explanations also underline tendencies in the opposite direction. Juxtaposed to the strong personal nature of individual charisma, Weber also conceives of charisma even stronger as a social construct that supports the organization of authority, domination and political action.37 A related point of criticism is the focus on heroic individualism as the source of 33 WEBER,

Economy (1978), 252. WEBER, Economy (1978), 251–2. 35 On charisma and economics, see WEBER, Economy (1978), 1113, 1118, 1146–7, on charisma and education, IBIDEM , 1143–5. 36 WEBER, Economy (1978), 1133. Cf. similarly: “It is the fate of charisma to recede before the powers of tradition or of rational association after it has entered the permanent structures of social action” (IBIDEM, 1148). 37 Cf. e.g., K RAEMER, Charisma (2008), 66. 34

The Transformation of Charisma

393

charismatic rule. Undergirding the sociology of religion behind this conception is the individual figure of the solitary prophet who considers himself called by revelation or divine command to rule. More concerning than the problematic essentializing attribution of heroism to the charismatic, however, is Weber’s understanding of charisma as social processes of attribution of roles between those bearing charisma and those believing in the charisma. 38 Another central point arises in the process of the transformation from charismatic to traditional or rational domination that Martin Riesebrodt has formulated for modern developments: in his eyes, the essential change that Weber diagnoses has less to do with the transition from magic to religious charisma than with the modern trend toward objectification (which Weber calls depersonalization) on one hand as well as the demystification and democratization on the other. Objectification or depersonalization is concerned with the transition of charismatic qualities into abstractions, such as “history,” “nation,” and “reason,” and it describes the charismatic foundations of modern ideologies. Furthermore, this objectification or depersonalization does not exclude personal charisma on the part of ideological “leaders.” Something more important that Weber also develops systematically is the trend from charisma to democracy, which implies a demystification. Genuine, personal and authoritative charisma can be interpreted as anti-authoritarian in modern societies. Charisma is accorded a following without needing to have a personal experience of receiving “a special gift” so that there would be the demand for obedience on the part of the one who is “qualified charismatically.”39 The process of the democratization of original charisma described here is significant to the degree that it lines up with the transformation tied to institutionalization. The consideration can be seen along the lines of the refinement of Weber’s theorem of routinization brought forward by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt. Following Edward Shils, he points to the close relationship between charisma and the formation of institutions on the one hand and highlights the dichotomization of both spheres as misinterpretations of Weber’s conception of charisma on the other. 40 This reception is supported by Weber’s diametric opposition between charismatic authority and traditional or rational authority, as the following statement shows: Since it is “extra-ordinary,” charismatic authority is sharply opposed to rational, and particularly bureaucratic, authority, and to traditional authority, whether in its patriarchal,

KRAEMER, Charisma (2008), 64; cf. IBIDEM , 70, 74. Cf. also TREIBER, Anmerkungen (2005), 196, who also points to a relational phenomenon of a special kind behind the charisma. 39 RIESEBRODT , Charisma (2001), 165. 40 EISENSTADT, Introduction (1968) with reference to S HILS, Charisma (1965). 38

394

Leadership and Priesthood

patrimonial, or estate variants, all of which are everyday forms of domination; while the charismatic type is the direct antithesis of this.41

However, this does not mean that charisma as such opposes institutionalization or that it is completely foreign to it. According to Eisenstadt, Weber’s meaning is far more “to combine the two and to analyze how they are continuously interrelated in the fabric of social life and in the processes of social change.”42 Even the assurance of a successor calls for the interplay of charisma and institutional consolidation of authority, which leads to a routinization: “Such transformation of a great charismatic upsurge and vision into some more continuous organization and institutional framework constitutes the first step in the routinization of charisma.” 43

4. Routinization in the Book of Numbers Having presented the basic trajectories of Weber’s notion of the process of institutionalization and the transformation of original charisma, several threads can be picked up and connected with the above depiction. Bringing Weber’s conception into conversation with the book of Numbers does not attempt to identify these clearly outlined aspects in the texts, nor to establish the assertions of the text in terms of Weber’s points. The intent is instead to note loose associations between the texts and Weber’s conception of charisma. I assume that Max Weber’s sociological perspectives can be helpful as a background for understanding the texts. The meaning of the proposed juxtaposition between them will be evaluated in a concluding reflection. The dimensions of the interplay can only be traced in the discussion here; they would require a detailed investigation that goes beyond the bounds of this essay. Three choice aspects will be mentioned briefly: routinization, democratization and finally economization. It will address not only the institutionalization of Moses’s preeminent charisma, but also the institutional process connected to the Aaronide priesthood. (1) The transition to routinization is broken up into pieces in the book of Numbers. It only appears in rudimentary fashion, unable really to succeed in opposition to the powerful place of Moses’s original charisma. Clear differences appear between the Aaronide priesthood and Moses’s charismatic authority. Regulating the succession for both Moses and Aaron are legitimated by revelation and selection (Num 20:23–29; 27:12–23), for Aaron it is also WEBER, Economy (1978), 244. EISENSTADT, Introduction (1968), IX; cf. IBIDEM, XVII–XVIII, XX, XXVI. See also RIESEBRODT, Charisma (2001), 163, who points out that certain types and forms of charisma are integral parts of traditional order. 43 EISENSTADT, Introduction (1968), XXI; cf. WEBER, Economy (1978), 245–6. 41 42

The Transformation of Charisma

395

determined by genealogy. In the Pentateuchal narrative, the Aaronide priesthood grows out of its functional differentiation from the Mosaic office of leadership (Exod 4). Priestly duties initially play no role at all and are first added through the priestly ordination in Exod 28–29. While Aaron participates from the beginning (Exod 4:28–29) in Moses’s claims to leadership, Moses hardly takes on any specific priestly functions (see, e.g., Exod 24:5; Lev 8:18, 24, 28; 9:23). The tension between the priestly office and the leadership functions remain throughout the book of Numbers (e.g., Num 1:17, 44; 2:1; 3:39; 4:1; 9:6; 12:1, 4, 11; 13:26; 14:2, 5, 10, 26; 15:33; 16:3, 18; 17:6, 7, 10–15; 20:2, 6, 10, 12). A claim to political hierarchical leadership can also be recognized that slowly begins to prevail and at the end of the book of Numbers produces the title “high priest” (Num 25; 27:21–22; 31; 35:25, 28). 44 The tenure of this high priest ends with his death. From the fact that he is designated “the one anointed with holy oil” (Num 35:25), it can be assumed that according to the book of Numbers he is an Aaronide in genealogical succession (Exod 30:25, 30; Lev 8:12). For Aaron’s priesthood is also characterized by genealogical succession. In addition to the inherited charisma of the genealogy, there is also the special charisma of the individual that holds the office. Numbers 25 underlines this point in the zealousness of Phinehas. In addition to the office of the priest, the Levites appear in the book of Numbers for non-priestly service. Up to this point (except for Exod 38:21, which plays a special role), they have only been taken into service by Moses on an ad hoc basis (Exod 32:26, 28). 45 In their case, the institutionalization follows immediately after selection. The selection takes place as a free choice (“the Levites belong to me”) and thereby receives divine sanction (Num 3:12, 41, 45). Their installation appears once for all on Sinai (Num 8:6–15), after which there is lineage charisma; 46 the service is passed on from generation to generation (Num 8:21–32). The routinization begins immediately with the inauguration (Num 18:26–32; 31:30, 47) and includes economic concerns (see also below under 3). The book of Numbers is characterized, on the one hand, by the development of the priestly hierarchy (priests/Levites in Num 1–4; 8; 16–18), and on the other hand, however, when compared with the Mosaic claim of authority, by a strong institutionalization for its beginning onward. See F REVEL, High Priest, p. 487–510 in the present volume. See the detailed discussion in F REVEL, Levites, p. 465–85 in the present volume. 46 Cf. WEBER, Economy (1978), 1137: “Under primitive conditions the charisma of the magician, rainmaker, medicine-man and priest, as long as it is not fused with political authority, is much less frequently tied to the charisma of a house; only the development of a regular cult gives rise to those charismatic blood ties between certain priestly positions and aristocratic lineage groups that occur often and in turn affect the hereditability of other types of charisma.” 44 45

396

Leadership and Priesthood

First steps of routinization of the Mosaic charisma appear in the book of Numbers in a narrative characterized by crises (cf. Num 11–12). The distance between Moses and the elders, Miriam and Aaron, or also Joshua are emphasized strongly (Num 11:25–29; 12:3, 6–8; 27:18–21). Moses’s charisma remains dominant until the end of the book, even when the question of succession is addressed. Moses remains the reliable mediator of revelation and the promulgator of the law. His authority remains unbroken, even when mention is made of Joshua, Eleazar, or leading men who act as intermediaries in complementary fashion (Num 28:1; 30:1; 31:1, 13–20; 32:2, 28; 33:50; 34:1, 13; 35:1–2; 36:1, 5). The routinization and transition of the Mosaic-Aaronic charisma into forms of official and inherited charisma is initially only conditional. This may arise from the fact that the period in the wilderness after the rebellion (Num 13–14) is understood as a crisis filled transitional period that requires Moses in spite of the even stronger blessing of charisma after Num 21 (cf. Exod 33). S. N. Eisenstadt also emphasizes that charisma and office are diametrically opposed in crisis situations or crisis filled periods of transition: True enough, in some very special situations – extreme social change, breakdowns and attempts to transform such crumbling frameworks – this dichotomy between orderly institutional life and the destructive or the innovative and constructive potentials of charismatic activities could become sharply articulated. 47

While Num 27 has secured a stable succession and prepared for a routinization of charisma, this first becomes reality in the book of Joshua, that is, on the other side of the Jordan in the Promised Land. This observation underscores the formative meaning of the time in the wilderness as the foundational period also in terms of institutionalization. (2) The leadership conflicts in the book of Numbers are combined with institutionalization. The transformations are often connected with disputes, opposition and conflicts about authority. Rationalization and traditionalization react to the questioning of original charisma. In addition to the questions of succession and offices, the tendency toward the democratization of original charisma is also conspicuous. This democratization is bound up with the demystification of Aaron as well as Moses, which elicits direct opposition. Moses himself, as the bearer of charisma, questions the extraordinary nature of his charisma because those trusting in the charisma repeatedly refuse to acknowledge him (Num 11:11–15). In response to Moses’s complaint about the apportionment of the Spirit, 70 elders of the people receive a portion of the authority to lead, which is described as carrying the burden of the people. The apportionment of charisma is expressed through the prophetic act, indicating the proximity the apportionment of the Spirit to the process of dedication. The elders and the record keepers are already recognized persons by the 47

EISENSTADT, Introduction (1968), XX.

The Transformation of Charisma

397

people, which indicates there the beginnings of institutionalization are already signaled. The democratization of Mosaic leadership is expressly condoned by the charismatic leader. In the moment of demystification, Joshua reacts with disappointment, which is where the process of independence begins (Num 11:27–29). Moses’s authority is initially secured by way of his abrupt rebuttal, which also shows that the process of institutionalization in the objectification or depersonalization has not yet gone far enough. Aaron and Miriam’s challenging questions about Moses’s claims with regard to revelation point in the direction of a depersonalized, democratized opening (Num 12:2); they too are harshly rejected with divine authority (Num 12:4). Only Miriam is punished, which implies that Aaron’s leadership role is confirmed. Like Moses’s wish “that the entire people of the LORD would become prophets” (Num 11:30), Moses’s intercession for the healing of Miriam (Num 12:13–15) is a concessive moment in light of the required process of democratization of the role of intermediary. With regard to Aaron, the conflict concerns whether the whole community is holy (Num 16:3), which would call for a democratization of Aaron’s exceptional position. This challenge too is harshly rejected through the ordeal in Num 16 and the blossoming of Aaron’s staff in Num 17. Aaron’s endangered original charisma is confirmed by divine authority through the liturgical act in Num 17 and transferred to a clan-based genealogical form. The following narrative of the priestly office as a differentiated institutionalization (Num 18) fits well with the above described forms of transition. (3) Weber highlights the alignment of the management to the everyday conditions from both administrative and economic perspectives. The organization of the people of God in the camp, which is connected with the census carried out in Num 1 and in Num 26, marks this process. One person from each tribal community already participates as a representative in leadership (Num 1:4–16), and the Levites are set apart and incorporated into the hierarchy of offices (Num 1:48–53; 3:44–45; 4); the mundane character is thus unfolded. There is a recognizable economization bound up with processes of transformation. The financial ransom for the firstborn (Num 4:48, 51) already serves, like the dedicatory gift of the clan leaders (Num 7), to provide the initial endowment of the sanctuary. Numbers 5:9–10, and especially Num 18, ensure the financing of the priestly institution through a system of contributions. Numbers 18 itself, which can be understood as the economic principle of hierocratic organization, is closely connected to Num 16–17 and the conflicts about authority that lead to the institutionalization of the priesthood.

398

Leadership and Priesthood

5. Transformations of Charisma in Connection to the Formation of the Torah in Early Judaism “Nothing charismatic could survive without becoming a tradition, and becoming a tradition imposes changes.”48 According to E. Shils, charisma presents the original element of tradition, and traditionalization is one of the strategies of routinization of charisma. By ascribing it a normative value, charisma is not only historicized, but also rationalized: It is the sacredness of the past event, the endowment of a human figure with charismatic quality which lies at the beginning of the religion. The long endurance, accumulation, and refinement of a sequence of fundamental, affirmative interpretation adds to the authoritativeness of the tradition. 49

The Torah in its final form is a document that condenses authority and normativity in a special form. In contrast to its marginalization in current scholarship, the book of Numbers is accorded a central role. The texts concerning the structural solidification of functional authority and domination are less important for the depiction of historical circumstances than for their use as reference points in discourses about legitimacy. This is not only the case for the legislative, but also for the narrative passages. From this perspective, it is important that the texts in the book of Numbers are so clearly related to processes of institutionalization. Max Weber describes the transformations of charisma as phenomena of the transition to objectified, social forms of organization. The above discussion has shown the considerable concentration of conflicts concerning authority and functional differentiations treated in the book of Numbers. Processes of routinization are omnipresent in the development of the plot, but without closure. From this point of view, the book of Numbers depicts a sphere of literature in transition. I close this reflection by elaborating in very short order on two considerations – one historical and the other narrative. (1) The literary-historical formation of the book of Numbers as “the completion of the Torah” (R. Achenbach), despite the presence of older traditions, should be located in the complex formative processes of early Judaism in the 5th/4th cent. BCE.50 In conjunction with the depression triggered by the collapse in the 6th cent. BCE, a consolidation phase took place in Yehûd and Samaria that constituted a new identity.51 This development was aligned closely to the myth of origins as it is presented in the Torah. Therefore, it appears that the consciousness emerged that no longer allowed for the exilic and early post-exilic hope of the restoration of the institution of the kingdom. SHILS, Tradition (1981), 230. Tradition (1981), 95; cf. 184, 227–9. 50 Cf. F REVEL, Pieces, p. 53–81 in the present volume. 51 For an account of the main features, see F REVEL, Geschichte (2018). 48

49 SHILS,

The Transformation of Charisma

399

The sanctuary formed the foundation for a temple economy that led to the development of a hierocracy. A certain temple consciousness was slowly cultivated that both limited and closed the text of the Torah, and initially included the interpretation of the Torah but then later continued that interpretation outside the Torah. The book of Numbers laid the foundation for the institutions of early Hellenistic and Hasmonean Judaism. As the predecessor of the Sanhedrin52 the Gerusia (council of the elders) at least laid the groundwork for the secular authority of the high priestly office, 53 if its preparation is not already part of the background. The processes of transformation negotiating the legitimacy of authority and rule afresh so that they consolidate or rather become “routinized” can easily be connected to the conditions surrounding the formation of the book of Numbers. Several aspects of the activation and stabilization of authority recognizable in the book of Numbers mirror these processes of negotiation in the 5th/4th cent. BCE, while others are rooted in the re-working of preexisting traditions. The result is not a homogenous or smooth picture or a systematically conceived organizational design or theory of the state. If the context for the literary formation of the book of Numbers was the complex setting of early Judaism as has just been sketched, then the high concentration of discourses about authority make sense historically. (2) The perspective of the narrative leads to the same conclusion. The book of Numbers is itself located in the transition from Sinai to the land. The conditions of Israel’s configuration are determined on Sinai but first become concrete in the land. In the myth of Israel’s origin that is on display in the Torah, the book of Numbers has a transitional function. If “Israel” on Sinai is not to remain a mere utopia but to be a point of reference for Israel’s existence after Sinai, then it requires transformation. The book of Numbers supplies one, and perhaps the decisive contribution in this respect. Israel is configured on Sinai; its social organization is developed in the departure from Sinai and in the desert. From the narratival perspective as well, it is not surprising that the book of Numbers reflects such a considerable focus on the social organization of rule and authority. Processes of the routinization of original charisma serve the sustainability and institutionalization of the charisma that first becomes recognizable and apparent as something commonplace in the Weberian sense through the book of Numbers. These reflections have attempted to render Max Weber’s theorem of routinization fruitful for the understanding the book of Numbers. They have uncovered the depth structures of the book of Numbers that appear more important for the relationship between office and charisma than a simple 52 Cf. A CHENBACH, Eldad (2008). G RABBE, History (2004), 234–5 evaluates the evidence and concludes: “we have too little information to be certain that a formal body already existed in the Persian period.” 53 Cf. the overview in G RABBE, History (2004), 230–4.

400

Leadership and Priesthood

biblical-theological grasp of the individual texts. If this perspective is at least perceptible on the horizon, then the essay has reached its aim.

Leadership and Conflict Modelling the Charisma of Numbers The book of Numbers is crucial for structuring leadership in the context of the Pentateuch, even the Hexateuch. Unexpected as it may be, this statement holds true both in general and particular. This emphasis is not obvious according to the importance of the book of Exodus on the one hand, and the paramount presence of Moses and Aaron in the exodus narrative and at Sinai on the other. However, it becomes comprehensible by pointing at the book’s intermediary state between foundation and realization; or, to put it in the framework of the plot: between Sinai and the border of the Promised Land, that is, in short, the wilderness. With this, wilderness is determined not only spatiotemporally, but rather conceptually as the marked space between start and destination, between inception and implementation. As the book of Numbers is formative for the development of the Pentateuch as Torah in literary respect, 1 it is also determinative in terms of social organization, hierarchy, authority, legitimization and the emergence of office.2 To substantiate this general statement, let me point to three striking facts: First, the book of Numbers is paramount in structuring the congregation of all Israel socially in the organizational form of twelve tribes. Second, the book of Numbers is matchless in introducing the Levites, inaugurating them into the priestly service and implementing them as an indispensable part of the cult. Third, the book of Numbers is exceptional in formulating an inner-priestly hierarchy and in forming a high priestly office. On the literary level, important aspects of social structure are unfolded, implemented and finally cemented in this book. Great portions of the text either address the organizational structure of the tribes and constituting center and periphery (Num 1–7; 26; 27; 31; 32; 36), discuss and unfold particular aspects of leadership (Num 11–17; 20; 25; 27; 35; 36), deploy office and hierarchy (Num 3; 8; 17–18; 25; 27; 31; 35), or address succession (Num 3; 17; 19; 20; 25; 26; 27; 35). Some texts render this more explicitly, others more implicitly, but one cannot escape the impression that leadership is an important and central issue in this book. That being said, I understand “leadership” not only in the broadest sense as “the power or ability to lead other people,” but also more specifically as any way See ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003); F REVEL , Formation (2013). See F REVEL, High Priest; IDEM, Transformation (both in the present volume, p. 487– 510, 379–400); PYSCHNY, Führung (2017). 1 2

402

Leadership and Priesthood

of public guidance, direction, management, stewardship and governance including military-political decision making. The aim of the present paper is to outline leadership issues in the book of Numbers in order to demonstrate leadership as one of the pivotal topics of this book. In particular, I will put an emphasis on Joshua and his inauguration as a test case. I will argue that there is a difference between the aspects of the routinization of charisma in the high priestly office and the installation of Joshua as successor of Moses, which is crucial for the understanding of “leadership” and “hierocracy” in the book of Numbers. The whole book is organized to relieve and suspend Moses in his duty to be at the head of Israel. As a consequence, Moses’s authority is narrowed to his intermediary function – in short: He becomes “Torah” and implemented in institutional respect. First, my argument will consist of three examples of governmental structures the book of Numbers focuses on: representative structures, hierarchical structures and the unfolding of the high priestly office. Then, I will present some observations on Joshua, his authorization and the background of the Mosaic authority. The literary development described in that paragraph will raise questions concerning the implementation of narrative structures in social history. A summarizing evaluation of the routinization of charisma in the book of Numbers will conclude this essay.

1. How Numbers Becomes Crucial Within the Leadership Plot Moses and Aaron are both commissioned in the exodus narrative – explicitly so in the redactional passage Exod 6:13, but already in Exod 4:28–29; 5:1; 7:1–20; 11:10; 12:1; 16:3 et al. Until Sinai and at Sinai, Israel is led by Moses and Aaron, however, by the time the couple diverges, the whole project is put into question (Exod 32). Within these narratives, Moses and Aaron are mostly depicted as charismatic leaders without office. The term “office” is understood here as denoting a more or less institutionalized structure of certain tasks assigned to an individual independent from a particular person. Further institutions beside Moses and Aaron are not yet developed in detail. If at all, tendencies of institutionalization emerge in Exod 28–29 in the vestment of Aaron as high priest. 3 I will explain this further with regard to three crucial aspects: (1) the hierarchy of priests and Levites, (2) elders and the existence of judges and (3) Joshua as military leader. (1) Priests alone are set apart as cultic functionaries (Exod 28 and Lev 8), but (leaving aside the special function in Exod 32:26–28) the Levites as subordinated cultic functionaries are not mentioned substantially before Num 3 For a more detailed discussion of the vestment of Aaron, see NIHAN/RHYDER, Vestments (2018). For the representational aspect, see also F REVEL , Scripture (2017), 68–72.

Leadership and Conflict

403

1:50. Only the tax assessment in Exod 38:21 mentions the Levites and their special role under the leadership of Ithamar, the fourth son of Aaron, and Lev 25:32–33 grants the Levites a timeless right of redemption. While being related to the allotment of land and the lack of inheritance titles (cf. Num 18:23–24; 26:64; 35:2), this passage in particular is explicitly non-cultic. Until the book of Numbers, the Levites are described as a special tribe from which Aaron and Moses derive, but which has almost no relation to cultic duties and assistance. In all Exod 25–31 and 35–40, the small Aaronide company of five and, after Lev 10, three people run the whole cult. Without the book of Numbers, the Levites as cultic agents are almost absent. In contrast to the books of Exodus and Leviticus, the Levites in Numbers are implemented and deeply rooted in structural respect. (2) Elders are mentioned before the departure of Sinai, but they rather hold representative than functionary positions. The book of Exodus frequently mentions them, but there is neither a specific function nor inauguration (Exod 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21; 17:5–6; 18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9, 13; Lev 4:15; 9:1). The most striking fact is that they do not appear in the most explicit text that speaks of the implementation of subsidiary structures in jurisdiction (Exod 18, see below). The most significant differentiation is provided by Lev 4:15, where the elders are to place their hands upon the bull of a sin-offering in a vicarious manner to cover an unintentional sin of the people. In the other texts, they function as representatives of Israel or, taking Exod 12:21 as point of departure, as clan-representatives. There, they are addressed by Moses (Exod 3:16; 4:29; 12:21) and escort him when he approaches the Pharaoh. In Exod 17:5, they accompany Moses in his attempt to get water from the rock by hitting it with his rod. He does so “before the eyes of the elders of Israel” (‫לעיני זקני ישׂראל‬, Exod 17:6), but no explicit function is ascribed to the elders. Although one has to acknowledge their extraordinariness (particularly as addressees in Exod 19:7 or the group of seventy in Exod 24:1, 9, 14), they do not act as officials. We are not informed how the elders were determined, chosen, or elected; and we are left in limbo about their rights and duties. They are something like witnesses, nothing more, and, if at all, jury rather than judges. They become related to an office only in a reception process via the reader’s combination of Exod 18 with Num 11. Both form parallel stories sharing similar aspects and both are connected by redactional rewriting, 4 but differ a lot conceptually. 5 Mostly, they are treated together with Deut 1:9– 18,6 but for the sake of clarity, let us stick only to the Tetrateuch. In contrast to Exod 18, where the elders are not mentioned explicitly, Num 11 introduces the group of seventy elders as chosen by Moses on behalf of See BERNER, Exoduserzählung (2010), 65, 125, 403, 421–22. See BADEN, Composition (2012), 141. 6 See RUSSEL, Structure (2015), 23. 4 5

404

Leadership and Priesthood

God (‫אספה־לי שׁב עים אישׁ מזקני ישׂראל‬, Num 11:16). They are said to be ‫שׁטרים‬ office holders, officials, or administrative functionaries (Num 11:16). Although they are provided with a share of Moses’s spirit that is withdrawn from his charisma by God (‫ואצלתי מן־הרוח אשׁר עלי ך ושׂמתי עליהם‬, Num 11:17) their concrete duty remains obscure. They shall carry a share of Moses’s burden (‫ונשׂאו אתך ב משׂא העם ולא־תשׂא אתה לבדך‬, Num 11:17), but their concrete duty is not specified here either. Only if Num 11 is read against the background of Exod 18, do the elders seemingly become judges. The combined reading may be induced by the large-scale composition of the Sinai narrative, since in compositional respect, the two stories are twins.7 In the narrative of Exod 18, Jethro advises Moses to appoint chosen men to exonerate him. The narrative designates men who fear God, love truth, are incorruptible and are held in high esteem by the people (‫אנשׁי־חיל יראי אלהי ם אנשׁי‬ ‫אמת שׂנאי ב צע‬, Exod 18:21). They are to judge ( ‫ )שׁפט‬and are designated as “officials, functionaries” (‫שׂרי‬, Exod 18:22). The establishment of the office of judge, which follows the advice of Moses’s father-in-law prior to the Sinai pericope, leads to the corresponding text in Num 11. Since the elders are not mentioned in Exod 18, an office of eldership that is given a share of explicit leadership can be surmised only by a combined reading of Exod 18 and Num 11. Beginning in the Talmud and Midrash (bZeb 116a; Mekhilta II: 162ff), there has been ample discussion on the disposal of these two narratives bordering the Sinai narrative Exod 19–Num 10:10 in the scholarly history. 8 Should not the more elaborate one mentioning the Sinai come second and Num 11 mentioning the manna but not Sinai come first? It is futile to discuss such options, but one aspect of Exod 18 is the paradigmatic confession of the foreigner Jethro only on the basis of God’s deeds of salvation, any knowledge of Torah notwithstanding. 9 Another aspect is that “Moses” in his superior position becomes Torah in a sophisticated manner and is functionally analogue to Deut 1:6, where his teaching expounds the Torah. Be that as it may, the point I want to emphasize here is that if (and only if) Num 11 is read against the background of Exod 18, the elders become judges. In the book of Exodus, the elders do not have a share in institutionalized leadership. (3) Let us now look at a third aspect of leadership in the book of Exodus, namely the role of Joshua. Joshua is (more or less) introduced by means of a speech of Moses in Exod 17:9. He is installed as military leader in Exod 17:9–16 quite situationally, and Moses still plays a special role in the course of the narrative (Exod 17:10–12). It is Israel’s first battle after the liberation at the sea where there was no struggle on the part of Israel since God himself took care of the Egyptians! This way, the story renders paradigmatic, but it is See F REVEL, Götter (2003), 19–20. See F REVEL, Götter (2003), 14–6. 9 See F REVEL, Götter (2003), 20–2. 7 8

Leadership and Conflict

405

also a sort of metatext in terms of institutionalization. 10 However, the commission of Joshua as a military leader remains fuzzy and his relatedness to the power of Moses remains quite sophisticated. The power of Moses is the power of Torah rather than the power of the monarch or the prophet. 11 The story takes place at Sinai/Horeb (Exod 17:6) and the “top of the hill” (‫ראשׁ‬ ‫ )הגבעה‬in the present text alludes to the mountain of God (Exod 18:5). 12 If “Moses” is understood metonymically as Torah, the story exhibits an institutional level of understanding. “Aaron” is clearly connected to the priesthood as sustaining (and safeguarding) the Torah. However, the existence of Hur remains obscure in this reading. Perhaps, his name is a play with Horeb and thus elaborately points to the institutional side of the Torah. He is not introduced genealogically (and maybe rather different from the grandfather of Bezalel who is Judean, Exod 31:2; 35:30; 38:22), and is only mentioned as accompanying Aaron in Exod 17:10, 12 and Exod 24:14, but his concrete function remains unclear. Perhaps Exod 24:14 gives a clue, when Aaron and Hur are installed as situational deputies of Moses (Hur is forgotten after Exod 24): “For Aaron and Hur are with you; whoever has a dispute may go to them” (‫)מי ־בעל דברים יגשׁ אלהם‬. Be that as it may, there is no institutional commission of Joshua, Aaron and Hur in Exod 17. From the perspective of leadership, Exod 17 yields less profit. Compared to the role of Joshua in the book of Numbers, the difference becomes apparent. Here, Joshua is installed as military leader in relation to the office of the high priest (see below). The lines between Joshua and Moses are nevertheless made clear by the rebuke of his zeal in Num 11:28–29. He is singled out in terms of situational charisma (Num 11:28; 14:6) and institutionalized office (Num 27:18; 32:28). Taken together, all three samples point in the same direction. In the book of Exodus, Moses and Aaron are characterized as the charismatic leaders of Israel and the issue of institutionalization remains rather in the background than at the core of the stories. Aaron’s priesthood does not play a role in terms of leadership, although his implicit institutional employment can be rendered visible beyond the veil. The general impression is that – except for the murmuring against Moses (Exod 15:24; 17:3) or against Moses and Aaron (Exod 16:2, 7) – questions of leadership are not addressed in a more profound sense. It is rather the role of Torah that is established as the structuring principle in a sophisticated manner in the background of Exod 1813 and in Exod 17.14 Irrespective of their relatedness to older traditions, the stories are now contextually embedded as implicit commentaries on the function of Torah as foundational principle and as provision of wisdom, power and success rather See BERNER, Wasserwunder (2013), 209; OSWALD, Amalek (2015), 61–3. See OSWALD, Amalek (2015), 66. 12 See O SWALD, Amalek (2015), 67. 13 See F REVEL, Götter (2003). 14 See MACD ONALD , Horeb (2012); BERNER, Wasserwunder (2013). 10 11

406

Leadership and Priesthood

than as a discussion regarding issues of leadership and institutionalization. This picture changes dramatically in the book of Numbers. There is a shift in institutionalization as well as an intensification in routinization and sacralization.

2. From Guidance to Governance – Leadership in the Book of Numbers Within the book of Numbers, functional differentiation, duties and offices, as well as appointment and authorization are addressed almost throughout the entire text. The perspective on structuring the community as society is crucial already in the first chapters of the book, when the basic organization of the camp is addressed. Without going into detail, one has to admit that issues of leadership are addressed in almost every chapter of the first two thirds of the book of Numbers. Most notably are Num 11–12; 16–17; 20 and 27 as famous core chapters, but issues of leadership are more or less explicitly addressed in other chapters, too. Leadership is one of the, if not the, major topic in Numbers. Before focusing on Joshua regarding the differentiation and relation of secular and sacral power, let me elaborate on three issues of leadership as examples: (1) the handling of representative structures, (2) the instalment of the Levites and the hierarchical priestly order and (3) the configuration of a high priestly office. 2.1 Representative Structures in Numbers At the beginning of the book, twelve tribal representatives are elected as appointees from the community to assist Moses and Aaron in taking the census. God addresses Moses in Num 1:1, but explicitly Moses and Aaron are demanded to organize the census together (Num 1:3). The general perspective of the book of Numbers is that Aaron is often involved, if not made responsible. Right at the beginning, the leaders are singled out, one out of each tribe, to assist the two during the census (“they shall attend you”, ‫)יעמדו אתכם‬. Their names and patronyms are mentioned in the speech of God. Thus, there does not seem to be an election process by the tribes themselves. However, they are already part of the extended family structure ( ‫אי שׁ ראשׁ לבית־אבתיו‬ ‫הוא‬, Num 1:4). Except for the representative of Judah, Nahshon the son of Amminadab (Exod 6:23), none of them was mentioned by name before. 15 15 There is a slight textual variant in Num 1:16: Within the written text (ketîb), they are ‫“ קרי אי העדה‬the elected of/by the assembly.” The qerê instead reads a passive ‫קרואי הע ד ה‬ “the called of the assembly,” which slightly withdraws the election process from the assembly. But strictly speaking, and notwithstanding Num 1:1–3, the construct leaves open

Leadership and Conflict

407

Following the wording in Num 1:16, as well as the repetition of the names in Num 2; 7 and 10, the appointees are not only summoned to perform the census, but have other obligations. Traditionally, Num 1:16 is read in a threefold manner: While Rashi considers the phrase “chosen of the assembly” ( ‫ק רואי‬ ‫ )העדה‬to mean that they were summoned to every matter of importance before the assembly; according to Isaac ben Judah Abarbanel, the second phrase “the leaders of their ancestral tribes” ( ‫ )נשׂיאי מטות אבותם‬is related to the apportion of the land (following their mentioning in Num 32:2 and Num 34:18); and the third phrase “the heads of the divisions of Israel” ( ‫ראשׁי אלפי‬ ‫ )ישׂראל הם‬following Num 10:4; Josh 22:21 (and the ‫צב א‬-structure in Num 2) is considered by Abarbanel to relate to military leaders. 16 The sensibility for the complexity of the wording in Num 1:16 and the interconnectedness with other passages in Numbers, where representatives are mentioned, is correct. The appointment of the representatives is connected to the new social order, which is quite different to the social order in Genesis–Leviticus. Therefore, the election of the group of seventy among the elders (Exod 24:1, 9) was not related to the tribal structure. Further, the redactional compromise of the two systems in Num 11:16 by the adaptation to Deut 1:15 is particularly notable. Now, these are “democratic” representatives. The importance of this implementation of a representative structure exceeds the situational appointment to take the census (Num 1:4–44). They shall also lead the tribes according to the order of the camp (Num 2) and within the decampment in 1:14–27. The twelve leaders, who divert as well as communalize the functions of Moses and Aaron, form the first definitive intermediary. The established order with the ‫ נשׂיא‬as the leader of a clan (‫ )מטה‬is taken up not only in Num 2–3; 7 and 10, but also in the spy story Num 13:2–16. The representative council is mentioned further in Num 17:17, 21; 27:2; 31:13; 32:2; 34:18; 36:1, and strikingly, in two of the crucial crisis stories. The mixed marriage trespasser Zimri is said to be a son of Salu, the chieftain of the Simeonite ancestral house (‫זמרי בן־סלוא נשׂיא בית־אב לשׁמעני‬, Num 25:14), and the rioters in Num 16 are counted as chieftains in the very complex (and redactionally late17) introduction of the story in Num 16:1–2. These two very late passages underscore that the delegation perspective is reflected institutionally in the book of Numbers.

the question of the subject of election. Is it a genitivus subjectivus or a genitivus objectivus? Strikingly, the ketîb-qerê-variant in Num 26:9 is the other way around. It appears that the textual tradition wanted to separate the defiant Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, from the ones who were elected by God. 16 See CARASIK, Numbers (2011), 5. 17 See PYSCHNY , Führung (2017).

408

Leadership and Priesthood

2.2 The Instalment of the Hierarchical Order by Introducing the Levites With the exception of the book of Numbers, there were no Levites in the Sinaitic cult. Strikingly enough, the inauguration of Aaron and his sons as priests is demanded and performed at length in Exod 28–29 and Lev 8 without any mentioning of the Levites. The prioritization of the Aaronide priests in priestly texts is indisputable; a tendency which steadily increases in the redactional process. Harald Samuel has correctly referred to this tendency as “Aaronidisierung.” 18 It sets in at the beginning, when the Levites in Num 3 are selected to assist Aaron. Here, in contrast to the role of Moses later on, Aaron (or his successors) is not being substituted but ranks clearly before the Levites in the thus installed hierarchy (Num 3:9–10). These hierarchical and functional differentiations establish a completely new level subordinated to priestly service. The Levites are consecrated in Num 8 and assigned to their service (Num 8:15), which they are to carry out between the age of 25 and 50. Numbers 8:19 again explicitly subjects them under the priestly office. There is a crucial interest in cementing the priestly authority and leadership in the book of Numbers. 19 The blooming rod in Num 16:5b, 7aβ; 17:16–28, in which the election of the Levite Aaron as the priestly leader of the twelve tribes anchors his priority in an indisputable divine ordeal, can be seen as the point at which both composition and narration culminate. Usually this increasing priority, which ends up with the political and cultic leadership of the high priest, 20 is linked with a degradation of Levites. 21 However, while subordination remains unquestioned in the text of Numbers, even in Num 16–17, there is no denigration, general rebuke, or disregard of the Levites.22 Their introduction into the older conflict on holiness, the so-called 250-men narrative (Num 16:2–7a*, 18, 35; 17:1–15*), by making the Levite Korah leader (Num 16:1a, 5a*, 6*, 7b–11; 17:5bα, 14b) emphasizes their special role as buffer between the priests and the ordinary people. Even the most explicit passage Num 16:7b–11 does not question the importance of the Levites in the cultic hierarchy, although it limits the priestly office to the Aaronides. In the book of Numbers, there can be no well-performing cult without the implementation of the Aaronides as the superordinate Levite priests and the subordinate non-priestly Levites. The special status of the Levites is developed in the first chapters of the book, when they are singled out (Num 1:47, 49–53; 2:17, 23; 3:12, 41, 45) and employed in the service of the tent of meeting (Num 3:17–4:49; 7:5–6; 8:18–19). In particular, the netûnîm-block in Num 3:6–9 codifies the leadership claim of the Aaronides, and Num 3:32 narrates SAMUEL, Priestern (2014), 422. See PYSCHNY , Führung (2017), 352. 20 See also F REVEL, High Priest, p. 487–510 in the present volume. 21 See S AMUEL, Priestern (2014), 422. 22 See F REVEL, Levites, p. 465–85 in the present; PYSCHNY, Führung (2017), 332–4. 18 19

Leadership and Conflict

409

the genealogical implementation of this claim. Consecrating the Levites installs them as vicarious and buffering mediator between the holy and the sanctuary (Num 8:10–11).23 What, then, is the direction of impact of this hierarchical differentiation? On the one hand, it channels leadership in a way that the priestly prerogative is first and foremost oriented towards the cult and its needs. On the other hand, compared to the ordinary people, the Aaronides are still more exceptional than without the intermediary Levites. On the textual level, the introduction of the Levites does not only relieve the Aaronides in managing their cultic duty, but also strengthens their claim of authorized leadership. The concept however is open in a way that the Aaronides (who are fictive in historical respect) form the irrefutable leadership within a very small group, and the Levites (who perhaps have a historical background) form a larger pool of staff, which allows several groups in the late Persian period Yehûd to relate to them genealogically and thus to be included into the inner circle of the textual world. 24 On the one hand, this reduces any cultic competences of the ordinary people; on the other, it opens the fictive wilderness-world for more cultic specialization. 2.3 The Emergence of a High Priestly Office Regarding the emergence of a high priestly office and the institutionalization of priesthood, I have argued elsewhere that there is an implicit concept of hierarchical priesthood throughout the whole book, which becomes explicit at least in Num 35. 25 Notwithstanding the fact that already in Exod 28–29 an office is implied by the investiture of Aaron, it is the book of Numbers in which Aaron’s role becomes political. The ordeal in 17:16–28 in which Aaron is not only installed as religious leader but also as chosen representative of all tribes and their leaders (Num 17:21) is a hallmark of this development. In addition to this implicitness of institutionalized routinization, which is characterized as essential for the survival of the people (Num 17:12–13), Num 35 entitles the leading Aaronide as “great priest” (‫הכהן הגדול‬, Num 35:25, 28). In the case of asylum, the high priestly authority is detached from the individual case and linked to the life-time office of the high priest. It is institutionalized. While Num 20:25–28 installs Eleazar as successor of Aaron without a general succession rule, such a rule is implied by the linkage of asylum to the life-time office (see below). It is not by chance that the fictive construction of priesthood in the wilderness in Numbers is restricted to a very small family that comprises Aaron, his sons Eleazar and Ithamar and his grandson Phinehas. The plural ‫ כהנים‬is used only in Num 3:3 and Num 10:8. See also F REVEL, Levites, p. 465–85 in the present volume. See F REVEL, Scripture (2017). 25 See also F REVEL , High Priest; IDEM, Transformation (both in the present volume, p. 487–510, 379–400). 23 24

410

Leadership and Priesthood

The most important passage is Num 3:3–4. It provides several qualifying determinations for the two sons of Aaron: They are the anointed ones (‫)המשׁחים‬, and their hands were filled (‫ )אשׁר־מלא ידם‬to act as priests (‫)לכהן‬ under the surveillance of their father Aaron (‫)על־פני אהרן אביהם‬. Thus, a certain hierarchy is employed already at the beginning of the book. The explicit succession narrative in Num 20, in which the duty and the paraphernalia (‫בגדיו‬, Num 20:26, 28) are handed over to Eleazar after Aaron’s death, makes clear that there is only one lifetime CEO. This is emphasized also in the implicit succession in Num 25:13, where Phinehas is given an eternal right of succession (‫ )והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהנת עולם‬acting as priest. Another hierarchical clue comes from Num 4:28, 33 where the Merarites and Gershonites as the lower-class Levites are subordinated to Ithamar (note that Ithamar has no successor in Numbers,26 see further aspects below). As already said, the priestly family is kept very small on the narrative level. The taxation system in Num 18 reveals that the reality beyond has been much more complex. Be that as it may, the narrative level employs a successive line from Aaron to Eleazar to Phinehas. Both the distinctive paraphernalia of Aaron (Exod 28) and the investiture of Eleazar (Num 20:26, 28) indicate that his position was understood as an office. Moreover, the political significance of this office is growing from charismatic leadership (Num 12:1–11; 13:26; 14:2, 5, 10; 16:3; 17:6–10; 20:2–13) to the office of priesthood (Num 16:11; 17:11–12, 16–25; 18:1, 8). However, it is noteworthy that already carrying out the census in Num 3, Aaron carries out secular duties (cf. also Eleazar Num 26:1–3). Governance and leadership are entangled and interconnected with his priestly duty. At the end of the book, the routinization of charisma has already taken place and an office of priesthood with political power is installed. 27 While the title ‫ הכהן‬is used 69 times in Numbers (always with a definite article!), the third and second last passages employ the title ‫הכהן‬ ‫ הגדול‬in Num 35:25, 28, which is used elsewhere in the Torah only in Lev 21:10. 28 The priest is specified as the anointed one (‫אשׁר־משׁח אתו ב שׁמן‬ ‫הקדשׁ‬, Num 35:25), and although there is no explicit succession ritual of the installment of the high priest, seemingly it is the leading Aaronide (cf. Lev 8:12 and Lev 16:32) and not any Aaronide priest as indicated in Num 3:3. The emphasis on the juxtaposition of Eleazarides and Ithamarides in the Aaronide family seems to bear witness to an earlier stage, when the succession in the high priestly office was not genealogically fixed. Interestingly enough, 26 In contrast, 1 Chron 24:1–6 and Ezra 8:2 seem to employ a successive line of Ithamar as coequal. 27 See F REVEL, High Priest; IDEM, Transformation (both in the present volume, p. 487– 510, 379–400); ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 557–67; IDEM, Satrapie (2010), 106; OSWALD, Hohepriester (2015). 28 Cf. Josh 20:6; see the designation ‫ הכ הן משׁי ח‬in Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15; 16:32; ‫כ הן הר אשׁ‬ in 2 Kgs 25:18; Jer 52:24; 2 Chron 19:11; 26:20; 31:10 or simply ‫ הר אשׁ‬in 2 Chron 24:6.

Leadership and Conflict

411

the last usage of ‫ הכהן‬in the book (Num 35:32) does not add the adjective ‫גדל‬ in the Masoretic text. A 13th cent. Hebrew manuscript from the Corpus Christi College at Oxford,29 the LXX (ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ µέγας) and the Samaritan version (‫ )הכהן הגדל‬attest to the addition of the adjective. It may have been original, because it is quite clear that it refers to the same priest as in v. 25, 28, but possibly, it might also have been omitted deliberately and thus, the lack of the title is tinting the other ‫ הכהן‬passages with the single high priestly office in a sophisticated manner. Anyway, the background is the law of asylum, which is reveald to Moses as the last of new issues in Num 35:10–34. In Num 36:1–13, in contrast, the case of Zelophehad’s daughters, who were allowed in Num 27:1–11 to inherit the land of their deceased father, is resumed and adjusted; they are finally committed to marry only endogamously. The asylum seeker, who is threatened with blood revenge without having killed deliberately, may flee to the (fictive) cities of asylum and, after a trial, he has to live there until the high priest is deceased. Thereafter, he may return to the land of his possession (Num 35:28). Let me emphasize that the linkage to the high priest’s death has nothing to do with substitution of life or the high priest as representative as Jeffrey Stackert has suggested. He writes: “The high priest is chosen because of the manslayer’s victim (cf. Gen 9:6; Num 35:33). The high priest is chosen because of the intrinsic value placed on his life: he is representative of the people before the deity.” 30 It is no one-to-one substitution: While there may be several victims at the time of the death of the high priest, there is only one high priest. Therefore, a vicarious role of the high priest seems unlikely to me. Instead, it is a clear indication that lawsuits and their outcome were linked to an office, namely the office of the high priest in the centralized city (in Judean perspective Jerusalem, in Samarian perspective Mt. Gerizim). The manslayer must stand trial before the congregation ( ‫עד־‬ ‫עמדו לפני העדה למשׁפט‬, v. 12), which is the central court. 31 If release is possible even in case of innocent bloodshed, the authority of the office and the status of the one who bears it is already very high. Based on the assumed amnesty, which is linked explicitly to the death (and not as expected to the accession of the successor), the high priest is the heir of the ancient Near Eastern king. The practice is often linked with the mēšarum of the accession year or a certain practice in Egypt related to the throne accession year.32 We may speculate whether the high priest has made the decision beforehand, which would be the reason why his death is connected to the expiation of See KENNICOTT (1780), 77 cod. 69; PORMANN, Catalogue (2015), 43. STACKERT, Torah (2007), 95. 31 Note the subsidiary role of the community. The manslayer shall be introduced ‫פני‬ ‫הע דה ל משׁפט‬. Interestingly enough, the only other instance of ‫ ל משׁפט‬is in Deut 17:8, in which tough cases should be decided at the top court. Cf. also BARMASH, Homicide (2005), 92. 32 See BARMASH , Homicide (2005), 92; TRAULSEN, Asyl (2004), 59. 29 30

412

Leadership and Priesthood

innocent bloodshed. Anyway, Num 35 evinces the consummation of the transformation from charisma to office. Although the release-practice is not related to the high priest’s accession, by the linkage of the amnesty to his office the high priest is adapted to the king’s office. Keeping in mind the hiatus between the breakdown of the monarchy in the beginning of the 6th cent. and the emergence of the high priestly office at end of the 5th and in the early 4th cent. BCE, the high priest can be claimed to be the heir of the former king. Monarchy evolves into hierocracy. Perhaps the anointment of the high priest and the use of the designation ‫( המשׁיח‬Num 35:25, cf. Lev 8:12; 16:32) can be seen accordingly.33 Let me briefly summarize this paragraph. Leadership evinces as an important issue in the book of Numbers. This was emphasized in three different but interrelated fields: the allegedly secular leadership (with an aspect of a sacralization of the political realm, respectively) and the question of delegation; the priestly leadership and the question of hierarchy; and finally, the emergence of a political leadership claim of the high priest. The book of Numbers reveals a certain interest in these questions. There is a tendency to regard the topic as more important than in other Pentateuchal books both in quantitative and qualitative respect. In sum, the book of Numbers has a clear emphasis on priestly leadership. Conceptually, the book already prefigures a hierocratic structure. This will be further illuminated by focusing on Joshua and his role in the next paragraph.

3. The Role of Joshua in the Leadership Concept of Numbers The very first episode immediately before the departure of the people from Mount Sinai (Num 1:1; 10:12–13, 28b, 33) discusses leadership in the desert. In this episode, Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses, wants to go back from Sinai to Midian (Num 10:29–30, but cf. already Exod 18:27) instead of leading the people into the desert of Paran. There is a certain fuzziness regarding the placement of this episode, because Num 10:12 has already mentioned Israel’s setting out (‫ )וי סעו בני־ישׂראל‬and settling down of the cloud (‫וישׁכן הענן‬ ‫)במדבר פארן‬. Notwithstanding the growth of the text from the non-priestly passage Num 10:29–33 to Num 10:11–13 Pg and finally complemented by 10:14–28 Ps, the cascading set-up can be read as a narrative interlacing of the significant first departure. Thus, from the perspective of narration it is open how far the departure passage, which starts in v. 13, extends – either to v. 28b (‫)ויסעו‬, or up to the itinerary in v. 33 (‫)ויסעו‬. If we assume that Hobab is Jethro and that he came to Sinai, it renders plausible – also in terms of the leadership issues discussed here – that the scene takes place immediately before 33

See OSWALD, Hohepriester (2015), 316.

Leadership and Conflict

413

their decampment. It is the first and only time that Moses is implicitly said to lack expert knowledge of leadership and therefore is in need of substitution. Judges 4:11 mentions sons of Hobab (cf. Jdg 1:16), but in the short episode of Num 10:29–30 the question of whether Hobab departed or joined the people remains unsettled. This uncertainty brings the leadership of Moses implicitly into a state of suspense apart from any challenge by the people. Note, that it is not Joshua who takes care of substituting Moses – to the contrary, he is even rebuked when he tries to substitute Moses in Num 11:29. His duty is understood quite differently from Moses’s as can be seen in the plain verse Exod 33:11. Joshua does not accompany Moses in his revelatory teaching endeavors, but rather keeps military watch at the tent of meeting. Although one could expect the attendant to be Moses’s successor, he is not appointed as deputy. Even though Num 13:16 introduces Joshua as a leading spy, Num 11:28–29 clarifies that he cannot act vicariously in Moses’s place (cf. also Num 14:5–10a). This differs from the story in Num 25, in which Phinehas, son of Eleazar, substitutes his father in the Cozbi affair. The idea of genealogical succession implicitly lingers in the background of this story. This brings me to the question of the role of Joshua as successor of Moses in the book of Numbers, which is paradigmatic for leadership issues. 3.1 The Rebuked Joshua as Subordinated Servant It seems to me that the openness and the partial exclusion of Joshua is subtly deliberate. Joshua is mentioned eleven times in the book of Numbers: once in Num 11:28, four times in the spy story Num 13:16; 14:6, 30, 38 and then successively in Num 26:65; 27:18, 22; 32:12, 28; 34:17. The portrayal starts with Joshua in the role as Moses’s attendant. 34 In Num 11:28 Joshua is rebuked because he wants Moses to stop Eldad’s and Medad’s prophesying. Moses asks him: ‫“ המקנא אתה לי‬Are you jealous on my account?” The phrasing is most interesting (and quite different to Num 25:11, 13), because Moses is not said to be jealous himself. This seems to be quite different from Num 25, where the vicarious jealousy plays a major role. One can read the rebuke as the statement that there is no necessity to take over Moses’s zeal. As Num 11 addresses leadership questions, since Moses is claiming not to have enough meat for the people and he is accompanied explicitly by 70 elders to assist him “to carry the burden” (Num 11:16–17, 25), the rebuke includes the context of succession in leadership. In contrast, Joshua does not carry Moses’s burden. With the suggestion he is putting forward to Moses, he instead intends the continuation of the (one and only) charisma of Moses and not its continuation and routinization within an office. In Num 11, he is zealous for the zeal of Moses in a vicarious manner, which is rebuked by Moses himself who vindicates the institutionalization. It is Joshua’s habit from his youth 34

See F ARBER, Images (2016), 27.

414

Leadership and Priesthood

onwards to assist Moses (Num 11:28) and in Num 13:16 he is elected to lead the spies in his function as military leader (Exod 17). This underlines his loyalty towards Moses. His positive statement towards the quality of the land to be conquered also exposes his loyalty. However, even in Num 14:5–10a, his statement cannot manage the situation, which has come to a mortal crisis for Moses and Aaron. Before we address the story of his inauguration as successor, we have to remind ourselves that Num 11 is not concerned with the designation of a successor. In contrast, it is a story of the depersonalized democratization (initially a part of the people, but see Num 11:29) of the original charisma of Moses within the framework of an institutionalization. Interestingly enough, the tendency of democratization does not imply the mediative and relative function of Moses. On the horizon, the question is dawning whether Moses can have a successor at all, or, as Schäfer-Lichtenberger has put it: “The position of Moses no longer exists after his death.” 35 The channeling of leadership and revelation/mediation/legislation into two separate realms, which were formerly combined in the overarching authority of Moses proceeds in the argument between Moses and his siblings in Num 12. Again, it is emphasized that Moses has a special role that cannot be substituted. 36 Due to the constraints of this paper, we skip all the relevant leadership details regarding Num 12 and move on to Num 27. 3.2 Numbers 27 and Joshua as Successor of Moses Moses is succeeded by Joshua after his death. This is addressed in Num 27:15–23 after the direct announcement of Moses’s death (Num 27:12–14). After the itinerary notices in Num 22:1 (“Israel was staying in Shittim”), Israel encamps in Transjordan and is on the verge of crossing the Jordan. Before Israel decamps, Moses must perish. Thus, the issue of succession becomes pressing in the narrative plot. Moses solicits YHWH to appoint “a man over the congregation” (‫)אי שׁ על־העדה‬. But why Joshua? He is an Ephraimite (Num 13:8; Josh 19:49; 1 Chron 7:27) and not even a member of Moses’s clan. This is the most striking difference between the genealogical succession of Aaron, Eleazar and Phinehas. It is not genealogy that makes him eligible for the successorship, but his charisma. It is said in Num 27:18 that he has spirit (‫אי שׁ אשׁר־רוח בו‬, cf. Deut 34:9 ‫ – )מלא רוח חכמה‬whatever that means. After Num 11:29 (‫)כי־יתן י הוה את־רוחו עליהם‬, the feature of God’s spirit is not exclusive anymore. The charisma of Joshua is related and even tied to the appointing God, who is addressed with the very rare title “God of the spirits of all flesh” ( ‫)אלהי הרחות לכל ב שׂר‬. While the other passage in 35 This is an English translation of S CHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, Josua (1995), 166: “Die Position des Mose hört mit seinem Tod auf zu bestehen.” 36 See Uehlinger, YHWH (2003).

Leadership and Conflict

415

Num 16:22 using this phrase may emphasize God as bearer of all life,37 it is tempting to see the play with Joshua’s spirit in this passage. Be that as it may, the speaking of Joshua’s spirit evinces that succession concerns also issues of charisma. However, the phrase “to lay a hand on him” (‫וסמכת את־ידך עליו‬, Num 27:18) is clearly an act of devolvement. 38 It is used to express substitution in terms of power and authority in all cases in which a person acts vicariously in place of another – mostly superior – person.39 In contrast to an instalment as successor into an office, Moses shall invest Joshua with some of his authority, glory, or whatever hôd may mean in Num 27:20 ( ‫נתתה מהוד ך‬ ‫עליו למען‬, see below). His duties, nevertheless, are different to Moses’s. He is not installed as judge (like Moses in Exod 18) and not even as receiver of instruction, revelation, divine speech, etc. The only instance where he gets direct instruction from Moses is Num 32:28 regarding the case of the Gadites and Reubenites, but even there he is mentioned after Eleazar. Finally, he is mentioned once in Num 34:17, where the instruction to allocate the land is given, and in Num 32:28 as subordinated to Eleazar. It is this side by side that provides the impression of a dual leadership in Num 27:19, 22, which emphasizes that Joshua is installed before Eleazar, the priest and the whole congregation (‫)לפני אלעזר הכהן ולפני כל־העד ה‬. However, this before Eleazar expresses a certain relatedness, and – eventually – a clear hierarchy and subordination (for v. 21, see below). The scenery of inauguration in Num 27 is crucial for the understanding of internal hierarchy. Let me emphasize three points: (1) The range of Joshua’s duty is clearly limited in the first sentence in v. 16. He shall be “over the congregation” (‫)על־העדה‬, but his competence and responsibility is only to lead Israel in the military accounts (v. 17). The phrase “to go out before them and come in before them” (‫יצא‬ ‫ )לפניהם ואשׁר יבא לפני הם ואשׁר יוציאם ואשׁר יביאם‬is used to denote military leadership (1 Sam 16:11; 1 Kgs 22:17//2 Chron 18:16). Admittedly, to be a shepherd is a royal metaphor, but it is employed here not to denote the leader as political, but rather as a military chief. (2) As already said, Joshua only partly obtains the power and charisma of Moses. The text explicates that he gets only ‫“ מהודך‬a part of his glory.” ‫“ הוד‬glory” or “majesty” is only used here throughout the Hexateuch (Num 27:20). It is doubtless a particular honor to be accredited See PYSCHNY , Führung (2017), 220. See F REVEL, Blick (2000), 279. 39 Cf. in addition only Ps 37:24. All other instances originate from the cultic context of transmission of sins Lev 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:24, 29, 33. There is a slight difference between using “the hand” in the singular (as in v. 18) or “the hands” in the plural (as in v. 23). The singular is used only here in Num 27 to express substitution, but it is difficult to tell the singular and the plural conceptually apart (see F REVEL, Blick [2000], 269–90). 37 38

416

Leadership and Priesthood

with this feature. ‫ הוד‬is used for the king’s majesty and often reverted to in order to describe God. The phrase that Israel shall not be left without ‫( רעה‬1 Kgs 22:17) is likewise monarchical (Jer 3:16; Ezek 34; 37:24; Zech 10:2 et al.) and utilized also for God (Ps 23:1; 80:2). Although Joshua is transferred only a part of Moses’s authority, it is a marker of great leadership when “all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey” him (‫למען ישׁמעו כל־עדת בני י שׂראל‬, Num 27:20). But at the end of the day, the narrative makes nothing out of this. Moses has the full ‫הוד‬, but Joshua only part of it. (3) The autonomy and power of Joshua are quite limited. He is directed to Eleazar who decides by sticking to the divine oracle. Joshua has no direct contact to any instrumental way to come to decisions. It is Eleazar who “inquires for him by the judgment of the Urim.” Further, in v. 21, all accountability is laid on Eleazar instead of Joshua who is only executor. Note that it is the same phrase with ‫ יצא‬and ‫ בוא‬which is used here and in v. 17. Here, however, it is directly related to the (divine) word of Eleazar (‫)על־פיו יצאו ועל־פיו יבאו‬. Joshua is always dependent on Eleazar who has the authority and legitimization firstly by his office, secondly by means of the paraphernalia which mark the succession of Aaron and thirdly via the media of contact with God. While Eleazar is addressed together with Moses (e.g., in Num 26:1) like Aaron was addressed together with Moses, Joshua is never addressed together with Eleazar in the same manner, although they do act together in organizing the allotment of the land as demanded by Moses (Num 32:28; 34:17; Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1). In the concept of dual leadership, or dyarchy, it is clearly the high priest Eleazar who has the foremost leading position and authority. The three points mentioned above indicate a clear tendency: Eleazar is the dominant hierocratic leader in Num 27 – not Joshua. This is underscored in the narrative of the Hexateuch by the fact that Joshua has no successor at all. His authority is temporarily limited until the moment the land is allocated and Israel inhabits the land. In contrast, a genealogical succession line is established with the priestly leadership. At the same time, the leadership of Eleazar is tinted politically by his responsibility for the military campaigns. While Seebass in his commentary attributed the dual leadership to the priestly source 40 as an exilic, utopian blueprint which was never implemented, I have argued elsewhere that the basic layer of Num 27:15–23 is clearly post-exilic and not part of the priestly source.41 Achenbach has read the passage as consistent in literary respect and assigned it to his first theocratic 40 41

See SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 230. See F REVEL, Blick (2000), 269–90.

Leadership and Conflict

417

layer.42 “Yes,” it can clearly be shown that there is a development of an institutionalization of charisma within the text, which is clearly entangled with a hierocratic tendency, but “no,” the text is not without redactional reworking. The tension that seems to exist between the ‫ הוד‬and the glorious substitution of Moses on the one hand and the clear subordination under Eleazar on the other is the result of a redactional reworking of Num 27 in v. 17aα, 21, 23b.43 The secondary character of v. 17 is often substantiated by the strong relation to the book of Joshua and the use of the shepherd-metaphor. 44 Verse 21, in which Joshua’s authority is narrowed to the military leadership, is also often recognized as an addition with a wider horizon. 45 The secondary character of v. 23b becomes clear when one inquires who the subject of laying the hand is. In contrast to v. 18, it is now Eleazar who appoints Joshua. Strikingly enough, one of the two other passages using the phrase “as the LORD had said to him through Moses” (‫ )כאשׁר דב ר יהוה ביד־משׁה‬is Num 17:5 and directly related to Eleazar. The late phrase ‫ ביד־משׁה‬clearly indicates that Moses is not the subject. If Eleazar was not completely absent in the original account, his authority was accentuated already in the first level (“Grundtext”) in v. 19, 22, but was then tremendously strengthened by v. 17aα, 21 and 23b. It shifted from a temporarily representative and testimony function in the inauguration scene to a permanent office of superior political control. Moses being the crucial source of authority and instruction in v. 19 was superseded by Eleazar in v. 21, 23b. At the end – and the tendency is conspicuously similar to what we have already perceived in Num 35 above – “the high priest is the most important figure.”46 In sum, Num 27 and the inauguration of Joshua paradigmatically show how leadership is formatted in the book of Numbers in the later priestly layers. While originally there were two entities or institutions of leadership – namely the hierarchical and genealogic order of the cultic sphere on the one hand and the political differentiated leadership allotted to various groups or institutions (eldership, tribal representatives as chieftains, Joshua as military and political leader) on the other – the final stage of the book of Numbers only forms a hierocracy that is genealogically and hierarchically organized. Wondering about the timeframe in which this development took place, we face a certain lack of knowledge regarding the formation of the hierocratic idea in the politics of the 4th cent. But, it is fairly certain that it took place in this time period. See ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 563–4. See F REVEL, Blick (2000), 271–82. 44 See SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 221, 223, 228. 45 See S CHMIDT, Studien (1993), 221–2, 246; F ARBER, Images (2017), 57, 270. 46 FARBER, Images (2016), 273. 42 43

418

Leadership and Priesthood

4. Intersections of Numbers and History So far, the argument has traced a textual development in Num 27 and 35 that can clearly be seen as an amplification of a hierocratic model that advances the high priest to the first position. This development is clearly post-exilic and rather situated in the early 4th cent. than in the late 6th or 5th cent. BCE: In her study on Num 16–17, Katharina Pyschny has shown the same tendency within the latest priestly layer of the ordeal in Num 17:16–28 bringing Aaron in a unique leading political and cultic position. 47 Summing up the redactional process, she concludes: Yet the background agenda is priestly through and through, which does not necessarily presuppose a factually established theocracy or hierocracy, rather much more reflects a plea or a basis for legitimation of a theocratic or hierocratic leadership structure, which in such a totality had probably not been practiced de facto at any time during the Persian period. 48

Facing the history of the early Hellenistic development, it seems reasonable to underscore the limitations (“in such a totality,” “during the Persian period,” and “de facto”). Evidently, the texts do not date from later Ptolemaic or even Hasmonean times, when a high priest was the leading political figure in Jerusalem, minting coins, collecting taxes, being chief of administration, acting as representative of the people, and taking responsibility for the cult at the Second Temple as well. 49 From this point of view, the chicken-and-egg question seems quite clearly answered. The texts discussed above provide a more or less textual world and they are not figuring societal conditions in a matching or mirroring relation. However, things are more complicated and caution is required when uncoupling text and social reality completely. Although it is fairly difficult to trace intersections between Numbers and history, in a way, the textual expansion remains a mirror of a societal development towards hierocracy and temple state – not in the way, however, that the political development shaped the text, but rather the other way around. The process of tradition and the growing normativity of the text in the 5th/4th cent. BCE significantly impacted the later development in the 4th/3rd cent. BCE. 47 See PYSCHNY, Führung (2017), 253–67. For a summary and evaluation, see also EADEM, Leadership (2018). 48 This is an English translation of PYSCHNY, Führung (2017), 323: “Dabei ist die im Hintergrund stehende Agenda eine durch und durch priesterliche, die nicht unbedingt eine faktisch bereits etablierte Theokratie oder Hierokratie voraussetzt, sondern vielmehr ein Plädoyer oder eine Legitimationsbasis für theokratische und hierokratische Führungsstrukturen reflektieren, die sich allmählich Bahn brechen. Dieses priesterliche Plädoyer ist sichtlich ideologisch aufgeladen und spiegelt einen Anspruch, der in einer solchen Totalität wohl zu keinem Zeitpunkt während der Persischen Periode auch de facto so praktiziert worden ist.” 49 See F REVEL, Geschichte (2018), 382–8.

Leadership and Conflict

419

Let me develop this argument a bit further, being aware that this would require more scrutiny. According to academic understanding, it is a truism that the narratives in Numbers are not meant to be historical. There was no sojourn in the wilderness where Israel constituted structures of leadership for the transition into the land in historical respect. Nevertheless, there is a gap between the narrated persons and their relation to leadership issues. If Moses is linked to any institutional framework at all, then, it is the Torah as regulative. It is not judiciary, monarchical, or relating to any other power in the state. This holds true even for Joshua. In contrast, Aaron and the Aaronides are linked to priesthood, temple organization and hierocracy. Thus, it is natural to ask for links to the historical development. But anyway, the stories are set deliberately in the wilderness figuring as a transition time shifting from charismatic to official leadership. This transformation took place neither in the narrated premonarchical time nor in the time of the narrator, given that we take the composition of Numbers as an orientation. There are reference points in the narratives, but at what point? Most commentators agree upon the assumption that the composition of the book in which the transformation of leadership becomes so lucid dates from the late Persian period via the second half of the 5th cent. BCE to the first half of the 4th cent. BCE. But the transformation of “original” charismatic leadership into office leadership cannot be possibly ascribed to that time period! Obviously, some officials in Jerusalem ran the administration of the Persian province not by charismatic leadership, but rather by means of controlled social institutions. There were also priests in the First Temple period, and the order of priests in the Second Temple period in principle may have been already installed, if we accept (for sake of convenience) the completion of the Second Temple at the end of the 6th cent. (i.e., traditionally 515 BCE). Thus, it seems obvious that the texts do not directly mirror historical transformations in the course of their literary composition. They perform on the textual level what Max Weber has called a gradient triad of legitimate authority processing from charismatic, via traditional, to rational structures.50 According to Weber’s theorem of routinization, an originally “pure” charisma is transformed in a process of depersonalization that is followed by the development of offices and functions. As we have understood the texts in the book of Numbers, this holds quite true on the textual level.51 But when this process took place in historical respect, we cannot (really) tell. What makes the aspects of routinization and institutionalization so important in the late Persian period, if not the direct link between textual and social history? Time and again, we are confronted with the high priest as a political reality and its vague emergence in very late Persian times: 50 51

Cf. WEBER, Economy (1978). See also F REVEL, Transformation, p. 379–400 in the present volume.

420

Leadership and Priesthood

We can safely point to the hierocratic development in the book of Numbers, which relates to the historical development of the high priestly office in the late Persian period. But the high priestly responsibility in the Persian period clearly seems to be limited to cultic issues; or, as Deborah Rooke puts it, “throughout the period the high priest’s authority in the community was confined to matters concerning the Temple and cult.”52 Up to the second half of the 4th cent., possibly even later, the office was not in full bloom. The office did not become full-blown before the second half of the 4th cent. BCE or even later; or, to put it differently, the relative financial autonomy of the temple organization was not yet born in the early Second Temple period, but can be connected to the introduction of small money. 53 In the early Persian period, Ramat Rahel rather than Jerusalem takes on a special role in economics, and the sources point to the importance of the governor rather than to a high priest in Jerusalem. Taking the evidence from the Elephantine papyri, even the issue of the temple cult was decided by the governors Bagoas in Yehûd und Delayah/Šelemyah in Samaria together with the Persian satrap in Egypt or Vidranga. The letters of 407 BCE (TAD A4.7, A4.8) mention a certain Johanan as a decisive person, but his power still seems limited. When does the political role of the high priest turn into his main responsibility? Othmar Keel downplays or even questions this gain in power even in the 4th cent.: Also in the final phase of the Persian period, in the 4 th cent. BCE, the high priest appears to have only played a traditional role, despite the single coin of the priest Johanan. 54

In his view, the conception of leadership in the books of Chronicles corroborate this. If so, the textual world of the book of Numbers can be reckoned to be totally fictional. As already said, we face a certain lack of knowledge regarding the formation of the high priest as the leading office in Yehûd in preHellenistic times. While in Ptolemaic times, the Oniad high priest apparently was the representative of the Jewish people, 55 we do not know much about the role of the high priest in the time from 450–333 BCE. 56 The authority and power of the high priesthood need to be carved out within the space of tension between “secular” (that is Persian governance) and “religious” (that is the Jerusalemite temple) power, as Lester L. Grabbe says: “All the evidence indicates that the office of high priest expanded in importance over a period of time to fill the gap of local leadership […], even though there was a proROOKE, Zadok’s Heirs (2000), 238; cf. BEDFORD, Funding (2015), 343. See BEDFORD, Restoration (2001), 201–2; IDEM, Funding (2015), 341–3. 54 This is an English translation of KEEL, Geschichte (2007), 991: “Auch in der letzten Phase der Perserzeit, im 4. Jh.a., scheint der Hohepriester trotz der singulären Münze des Priesters Johanan nur die traditionelle Rolle gespielt zu haben.” 55 Cf. Josephus Ant. XII, 138–46. See F REVEL, Geschichte (2018), 382–5; G RABBE, History (2008), 77. 56 See O SWALD, Hohepriester (2015). 52 53

Leadership and Conflict

421

vincial governor appointed by the Persians.”57 From this point of view, it is striking that there is no information in the book of Numbers regarding the governor and his organization. Neither the title pḥh nor his duty are mentioned or alluded to. It is the priestly claim of leadership upon which this book instructively elaborates almost from beginning to end. In this respect, the composition of the book of Numbers mirrors the development of the temple-state in the late 4th and early 3rd cent. BCE.58 A certain interplay between the provincial governor and the temple administration is characteristic not only for the late Persian period, but perhaps continues to be so in the early Ptolemaic period. 59 If there was space both to discuss the evidence from Ezra, Nehemia, Haggai and Zechariah (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech 3:1, 3, 6, 9; 6:11 cf. Ezra 3:2; 5:8; 10:18; Neh 3:1, 20; 12:10–11, 21; 13:4, 28; Sir 49:12) with its titles and offices,60 as well as to take the dating of these passages into account, we would come to almost similar conclusions regarding the political function of the high priest and the development from a diarchy to a hierocratic system. Altogether, there is no clear hierocracy with a high priest as political leader during the time in which we suggest the book of Numbers – even in its latest layers – to be written. The hierocratic concept, which was alluded to in the book of Numbers, is thus an idealized blueprint of the later development. This would strengthen the assumption of a growing normativity of the Torah in the 4th cent. BCE. Rather than reproducing or figuring out reality, Torah shapes it.

5. Summarizing Evaluation and Interpretation The current essay emphasizes the crucial role of leadership concepts and leadership discussions in the book of Numbers. Already the brief overview on the broad range of textual evidence revealed that guidance, governance, political power, hierarchy and direction – in short, leadership – are important topics of the book. The examples stem from all textual genres (law and narrative), including lists and texts that structured society, organized substitution, defined roles, or recorded resistance against existing structures. Along the Weberian term and concept of charisma, I can summarize in three sections: (1) charisma and office, (2) charisma and normativity and (3) charisma and authority.

GRABBE, History (2004), 231. See ACHENBACH, Satrapie (2010); OSWALD, Hohepriester (2015). 59 Cf. F REVEL, Geschichte (2018). 60 See VANDERKAM, Joshua (2004). 57 58

422

Leadership and Priesthood

5.1 Charisma and Office The book of Numbers addresses the routinization of charisma. “The process of routinization is thus not by any means confined to the problem of succession and does not stop when this has been solved. On the contrary, the most fundamental problem is that of making a transition from a charismatic administrative staff, and the corresponding principles of administration, to one which is adapted to everyday conditions.” 61 Aspects of democratization of the original charisma were also addressed in the book as well as processes of objectification or depersonalization and institutionalization.62 We can address these processes as rationalization.63 Strikingly, the book of Numbers does not only address these processes of routinization implicitly in its narrative plot, which places the evolving separation of powers in the wilderness between Sinai and the Promised Land, but also within its redaction history. In all areas of the exemplary texts, the literary growth evinced an increase in routinization and a handling of the spontaneous charisma and its transformation into office. Far from forming a theory of the state, the book of Numbers puts emphasis on the institutionalization of political responsibilities beyond statist structures. By this, it prefers a hierocratic model of leadership progressively in the process of redactional growth, which is not yet realized in the tradents’ realities. Democratic or participative structures are pushed back by the importance of the high priestly office. We experience a sacralization of the political sphere that may be designated as theocracy or better (with Max Weber) hierocracy. Not only the legitimacy of the political leaders – both Moses and Aaron – emerges through religion, the religious leader turns into the solitary institutionalized political leader. At the end of the book, there was a clear conception of a high priestly lifetime office within genealogical succession, but the priority of the high priest was communicated throughout the book. As an additional incidental remark let me again address the relation between literary implementation and social history. We may understand this strategy of developing a certain social structure in literature as “narrativization” (a term understood in various ways in narratology following its introduction into the discourse by Monika Fludernik); that is, the imposition of pre-established conceptions on the narrative to produce coherence in the time of the narrator and on the concepts, he wants to impose on his present and future. Narrative structures form coherent models of narrated realities. And these fictional narrated realities have repercussions on the factual worlds to which they relate to by processes of reception. This function of the five books of the Pentateuch is part of being Torah. This “narrativization” of routiniza-

WEBER, Economy (1978), 253. See also F REVEL, Transformation, p. 379–400 in the present volume. 63 See RIESEBRODT, Charisma (1999), 14. 61 62

Leadership and Conflict

423

tion reveals an implicit natural understanding of social processes within biblical literature, which could obtain more attention in further research. 5.2 Charisma and Normativity Alongside the routinization of Aaron’s charisma by drawing on the priestly office, we also discussed Moses’s role. It is one of the most notable facts of the Torah that the authority of Moses is made unique in several ways. The book of Numbers has a share in this process of singularization: He is explicitly set apart from Miriam and Aaron in Num 12 as well as from the elders in Num 11. The most important point, however, is the fact that his successor Joshua has only limited authority. While being more and more identified with the Torah (the mediator becomes the medium), a succession is indeed impossible. Only aspects of his leadership may be continued as the judicial authorization of the elders, the military empowerment of Joshua (and one also could add the law of prophecy here). The discontinuity is an important part of closure in terms of the revelatory setting of the Sinai and wilderness narrative. In other words, the charisma of Moses is institutionalized in the Torah, which becomes a normative authority as scripture. Even Moses as a person is intimately entangled to the revelation of the Torah. The judgment against him and Aaron not to enter the land is also part of this strategy. This “normativization” of the Torah intensifies the emphasis on hierocracy as the preferred model of leadership. The more the Torah becomes normative, the more the hierarchical structures developed therein do so as well. There is a remarkable interplay between the late redactional phases of Deuteronomy and the priests as authorized custodians and interpreters of the Torah. The ideal world of the wilderness in the Torah shaped the world of early Judaisms in their formative phase in the 4th and 3rd cent. BCE. In bold terms, we may call this process, “performative normativity.” 5.3 Charisma and Authority The process of routinization described in this paper revealed a transformation of the original charisma into two very different forms of authority: the Mosaic Torah on the one hand and the Aaronide high priestly office on the other. Both modes of authorization were linked to matters of institutionalization and to questions of succession in different ways. The high priestly genealogical succession model was grounded in the narrative. In the same manner, the separation of the revelatory and intermediary aspect of the Mosaic office was implemented in the narrative world. The original charisma becomes formalized and depersonalized, structurally changing in function and institutions. Various strategies of legitimation were designed to accompany this process that lead to the necessary recognition of authority for the exercise of normativity and leadership. Particularly Aaron and his successors were authorized

424

Leadership and Priesthood

by ritualization (Num 5; 17; 19; 27; 31 et al.). With this, “the belief in legitimacy is no longer directed to the person, but to the acquired qualities and to the effectiveness of the ritual acts.”64 With the emphasis both on leadership concepts, the emergence of office structures as well as the formation of scriptural normativity, we have added a further aspect of the achievement of Torah in the book of Numbers. The book of Numbers is crucial in terms of leadership. As I have demonstrated, it evinces important aspects of legitimization, authorization, institutionalization, sacralization and routinization.

64

WEBER, Economy (1978), 248.

“My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace” The Priestly Covenant and the Issue of Mixed Marriages The concept of covenant is commonly understood as a guiding theological concept to describe the fellowship between YHWH and his people “Israel” in Biblical Theology. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the post-exilic covenant with the priests (Num 25:12–13; Mal 2:5; Sir 45:24–25; cf. Num 18:19) hardly plays a role in overviews. 1 Such arrangements focus instead on covenant theologies developed in priestly, Deuteronomistic or prophetic contexts. The fate of the “covenant with the priests” is shared by the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12–16; 23:5; Ps 89; Isa 55:3; Jer 33:14–26; 2 Chron 13:5; 21:7), which is only later developed and expanded in biblical literature. Of these two covenants (Davidic and priestly), Frank-Lothar Hossfeld argues that it is only the priestly covenantal theology that continues to have an influence, such that it becomes a container for post-exilic hopes for the restitution of the Davidic kingdom and the durability of the Aaronide priesthood. 2 “Covenant” changes from a relational concept to a cipher for “promise,” whose theological meaning remains limited. Where the connection between “covenant” and “promise” is clearly visible in the prophetic promise of the “new covenant” as the renewal of the Sinai covenant (Jer 31:31–34), it largely disappears in the case of the Davidic covenant, and it completely disappears in the case of the covenant with the priests in the face of the destruction of the Second Temple and the cessation of the institution of the priesthood. Given the diversity of covenantal theologies, the specific meaning of berît changes according to one’s emphasis within a canonical perspective. Therefore one should conclude – following Norbert Lohfink – that the only consistent point of reference is that “covenant” indicates a single relationship with God. 3 In the controversial discussions concerning Christian-Jewish relationships about the appropriateness of one-covenant or two-covenant theories for sysHOSSFELD, Bünde (1995), 165: “[…] meist als theologischer Leitbegriff zur Beschreibung der Gemeinschaft zwischen JHWH und seinem Volk Israel.” 2 HOSSFELD, Bund (1994), 783: “[Wirkt] der Impetus vornehmlich priesterlicher Bundestheologie fort, indem er zum Gefäß nachexilischer Hoffnungen [wird].” 3 LOHFINK , Bund (2001), n.p.: “Und doch hat das Wort ‚Bund‘ auf einer performativen Ebene des Sprechens, die vor allem in der Liturgie aktualisiert wird, einen einzigen Verweissinn: auf jenes eine Gottesverhältnis, das Gott in der Geschichte des Judentums und der Kirche Wirklichkeit werden läßt.” 1

426

Leadership and Priesthood

tematic theology, 4 the covenant with the priests plays no role. However, one might ask, how does it fit within a biblical theology of covenant? Or to put it differently: What is lacking from a biblical theology of covenant that does not include the covenant with the priests? In order to approach this question, this contribution will investigate the covenant with the priests as a whole and especially its connection with the issue of mixed marriages.

1. The Covenant with the Priests as an Everlasting Covenant in the Book of Numbers It must first be noted that the covenant with the priests, or rather a covenant with Levi, is presented in a rather opaque fashion. In a synchronic reading of the Torah, the covenant with the priests arises after the Noah, Abraham and Sinai covenants. With unusual terminology, comparable only to 2 Chron 13:5, the priestly privileges specified in Num 18:8–19 are characterized in v. 19 as an everlasting “covenant of salt” (‫)ברית מלח עולם הוא‬. This terminological peculiarity of Num 18:19 cannot be explained by the prescriptions of the salt necessary for offerings (Lev 2:13; Ezek 43:24), nor the salt of the palace mentioned in relation to loyalty (Ezra 4:14), nor the Davidic covenant in the parallel from Chronicles. This remains the case even though the formulation attested in Lev 2:13, “salt of the covenant of your God” (‫)מלח ברית אלהיך‬, seems quite close to the covenant of salt in Num 18:19. While neither the historical connotations of the motif nor its tradition history can be clarified precisely, what is clear is that the description of the covenant as “everlasting” is influenced by both the priestly (Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 25:13) and prophetic (Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26) conceptions of covenant. Comparable to the Sabbath in terms of being a sign of the covenant, the ‫ תרומת הקדשׁים‬are taken as signs of the special position of the priests. The covenant is determined by grace, resting on the honor of YHWH’s election. This thread continues in the second mention of the covenant with the priests in Num 25. Phinehas is awarded the covenant of an everlasting priesthood (‫ )ברית כהנת עולם‬for his atoning action in the camp at Shittim, when he stopped the exogamous connection between Zimri and the Midianite woman Cozbi, thereby vicariously averting YHWH’s wrath from Israel. Phinehas quintessentially performed the priestly function of atonement, although not in a cultic manner. God refers to the covenant with Phinehas as “my covenant,” which is designated a “covenant of peace” by the appositional ‫שׁלום‬. It is unclear, however, whether the apposition illuminates the content or the function of the covenant. If one understands ‫ שׁלום‬as a modal apposition, which is 4

Cf. GROSS, Zukunft (1998).

My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace

427

supported by v. 13b, then the covenant that is granted is qualified as compensation for Phinehas’ action. 5 The alternative understanding (and here the grammatically incorrect suffix on a nomen regens is not completely unique), 6 is that the specification of the covenant with the broad term ‫ שׁלום‬lies somewhere between “peace” and “well-being,” and most likely means soundness or wholeness. This implies the continuing economic welfare of the priests and makes a genuine, wholesome connection to the divine on the part of the priests in their service possible – quite in line with the late reception in Sir 45:24–25. 7 As a result, the qualification through the appositional ‫ שׁלום‬accords with the claim of an “everlasting priesthood” (‫ )עולם כהנת‬such that v. 12 and v. 13 are related to one another and should not be separated in terms of tradition history. 8 With Phinehas’ zealous action against a publicly consummated mixed marriage, the spectrum of functions of the “everlasting priesthood” mentioned in Exod 29:9; 40:15 (and only there!) is extended exemplarily beyond the scope of cultic service. The founding of the covenant with ‫“ נתן‬give,” as well as the designation “my covenant” belong to priestly terminology and conceptions. 9 In contrast, the term ‫ שׁלום‬points to the realm of prophetic formulations, where the perpetual ‫ עולם‬character is attested.10 Given the productive interaction with covenant traditions in the post-exilic period, the assumption that the wording of the covenant with Phinehas has the influences of golah and diaspora theologies of the Ezekiel circle in the background11 is questionable, similarly dubious is the interpretation that the Phinehas covenant forced back the restitutional hopes of the Davidides. 12 An example of this productive interaction can be seen in Jer 33:17–18, where the Levitical priests receive a promise of ever5 THON, Priester (2006), 64 is the most recent to have indicated that the Masoretic vocalization of ‫ ִשׁלּוּ ם‬is not necessary for understanding it in this manner. 6 Cf. Jer 33:20 ‫ א ת־ב רי תי הי ו ם ו את ־ב רית י הלי ל ה‬or Lev 26:42 ‫את בר יתי יע קו ב‬. The grammatical expectations correspond more to Ezek 34:25; 37:26 and also Isa 54:10. For discussion cf. also GKC § 128d; JOÜON § 129; KÖNIG § 277. 7 See on this FABRY , Priestertum (2003). 8 Differently SEEBASS, Numeri (2007), 130 and IDEM, Berit (2007). 9 On ‫ נ תן ברי ת‬Gen 9:12; 17:2. On ‫ בר ית ע ול ם‬in the Pentateuch Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19. On ‫ בר ית‬alone with the 1st pers. sing. suffix in the Torah: Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11, 15; 17:2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21; Exod 6:4–5; 19:5; Lev 26:9, 15, 42, 44; Deut 31:16, 20. The fact that this characteristic arises from the priestly conception of covenant is hardly debatable. Cf. GROSS, Zukunft (1998), 45–70. Differently SEEBASS, Berit (2007), who attempts to locate non-priestly language in the statement of v. 12. 10 Cf. Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; 37:26. On the “everlasting” covenant, see Isa 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26. 11 ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 438: “Einwirkungen der Gola- und Diasporatheologen des Ezechiel-Kreises (stehen) im Hintergrund.” 12 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 440.

428

Leadership and Priesthood

lasting descendants that is parallel to Nathan’s promise of the continuing line of David. The institutions of the Davidic monarchy and the priesthood are bound together by the use of 2 Sam 7 and Num 25:13, without contrasting the separation of powers in Num 25 explicitly. 13 As such, Achenbach’s far reaching suggestion that by means of Num 25:12–13, Deuteronomy and its Moab covenant are superseded by the Phinehas covenant at the end of the time in the desert should be rejected.14 In contrast to the suggestion of a diametric opposition in one-covenant conceptions, one should instead begin with a productive juxtaposition of covenant conceptions. The covenant of the everlasting priesthood neither excludes the covenant with David, the covenant with Israel, or the “new” convent, nor does it replace them.

2. Nehemiah 13:29 as the Reception of Numbers 25:12–13 It is striking that the problem of mixed marriages crops up as the context for two productive receptions of the covenant with the priests of Num 25:12. In both cases, however, Phinehas’ exemplary action plays only a subordinate role. Psalm 106:30 interprets his advocacy as intercession, yet only explicitly mentions the worship of the Baal of Peor (v. 28). The offense provoking the need for intercession therefore relies on Num 25:2–3 rather than the action of Zimri and Cozbi. 15 In 1 Macc 2:54 Phinehas’ zeal and the corresponding reward of an everlasting priestly covenant is held up as a model for the Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 2:24–26 compares the mortal blow inflicted by Mattathias on the Jew willing to sacrifice on the altar in Modein with Phinehas’ deed. In Neh 13:29, on the other hand, Phinehas’ name does not appear at all, but rather the ‫ ב רית הכהנה‬of Num 25:13: “Remember them, my God, because of the desecration of the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites!” Precisely because the text should not be changed to “the covenant of the priests and the Levites,” but remains ‫ברית הכהנה‬, a reference back to Num 25 is probable. The uniquely phrased ‫ גאלי הכהנה‬is difficult to understand, but it indicates a pollution that defiles the priesthood. The immediate context thereby points out the marriage of an unnamed offspring of the high priestly family with Sanballat’s daughter as an affront. Whether the clear prohibition of marriage in Lev 21:14–15 stands in the background is debated. If the persons concerned are aspiring for the high priestly office, or perhaps

Cf. the exegesis of PIETSCH, Studien (2003), 75–92. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 441. 15 HOSSFELD, Überlieferung (2003), 260: “Das Geschehen auslösende Vergehen wird in Anlehnung an Num 25,2f. beschrieben.” 13 14

My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace

429

even the current high priest, the matter is clear. 16 Ezra 9:1–3 and 10:18–19 also show that the high priestly family was accorded special attention, and “exemplary” behavior was expected from them. The fact that a mixed marriage in the high priestly family is in the background of Neh 13:28–29 is made clear by the context in Neh 13, regardless of the question of Sanballat’s unclear origin (he is called a Horonite). 17 Verses 28–29 conclude the section of vv. 23–29 when Nehemiah grapples with the issue of mixed marriages, which are evaluated as a “great evil” (‫הרעה הגדולה‬, v. 27) and an “unfaithful act” (‫מעל ב אלהינו‬, v. 27). In Nehemiah, nothing comparable to the great dissolution of mixed marriages that is depicted in Ezra 10 (which was hardly historical) is considered. Rather Nehemiah reacts with emotionally loaded acts of violence toward the men concerned and with an appellative plea that recalls Deut 7:3 (in v. 25) and the example of Solomon – whether the latter is part of the original text is debated. The warning example made of the high priestly family in vv. 28–29 closes the section on mixed marriages in the memoir. The fact that the terminology of Num 25:13 refers to the covenant with the priests indicates that it is understood as closely linked with the question of mixed marriages through Phinehas’ action. Only after purification can the official practice (characterized as the everlasting covenant of salt, v. 30) at the temple be implemented as prescribed in Num 18.

3. The Covenant with Levi in Malachi 2 as “Priestly Covenant” The reception of the priestly covenant from Num 25 in the so-called Levi covenant of Mal 2:4–5 is even more important, though the connection with the issue of mixed marriages is not immediately apparent. This final book of the prophetic canon, which is of scribal origins, initially attracts attention for the significant number of appearances of ‫( ברית‬Mal 2:4, 5, 8, 10, 14; 3:1). Half of the attestations are related to the “covenant with Levi” and appear in the section that rebukes the priests (Mal 1:6–2:9). Scholars were time and again puzzled by the fact that in this allegedly late context a covenant with Levi crops up, without any antecedent indications in other traditions. Deuteronomy 33:9 is the only Hebrew Bible text that immediately comes to mind and is often mentioned as the tradition-historical background of Malachi.18 It states that the Levites must “preserve your covenant” (‫)וברתך ינצרו‬. However, because the Levi-saying (Deut 33:8–9) is stylized as a prayerful address to

16 Cf. the discussion in G UNNEWEG, Nehemia (1987), 174–5; H IEKE , Bücher (2005), 255–6. 17 Cf. the overview of the positions in WILLIAMSON, Sanballat (1992), 973–5. 18 Cf. for example, H AAG, Bund (1998), 25–44; U TZSCHNEIDER, Künder (1989), 64–6.

430

Leadership and Priesthood

YHWH (“For they observed your word, and kept your covenant”),19 even the enclitic personal pronouns in the speech about Aaron’s honor (v. 8) are related to YHWH. This is especially the case with regard to the terms for the law (v. 10), such that “your covenant” ought to be related to the Sinai covenant and not to a covenant with Levi. As a result, Deut 33 cannot provide the orientation for Mal 2, though this has rarely been taken seriously in scholarship because tradition-historical alternatives are lacking. However, the search for a text that contains the keywords “covenant” and “Levi” is mistaken from the start given the scribal character of the book of Malachi. One underestimates the book of Malachi’s midrashic treatment of the Pentateuch traditions if one expects word-for-word citations. 20 This is first and foremost the case for the section concerning mixed marriages in Mal 2:10–14, in which Gen 38 is woven in as a productive hypotext. Judah’s mixed marriage with Shua’s daughter is evaluated as faithlessness to his father Jacob/Israel (Mal 2:11) and such behavior by those addressed is interpreted as profaning the covenant of the ancestors (v. 10). 21 If one understands 2:11a as a discourse about Leah’s son Judah, then the search for a hypotext for Levi in the ancestral narratives appears. Because of the singular suffixes in vv. 5–6, “Levi” refers first and foremost to the person rather than the tribe. 22 The ancestor Levi only appears in the Pentateuch in the notice of his birth in Gen 29:34, multiple times in the narrative of Gen 34, in the blessing of Jacob in Gen 49:5 and finally in the genealogical lists and notices of Gen 46:11; Exod 1:2; 6:16; Num 3:17; 16:1; and 26:58–59. Levi plays an active role exclusively in Gen 34, where he and his brother Simeon take revenge on the weakened Shechemites for the rape of Dinah, thereby preventing the consummation of the contractually initiated mixed marriages by exterminating the male inhabitants of Shechem. Genesis 34:8–10, 14, 16–17, 21, which take up Exod 34:15–16 and especially Deut 7:2–3, make it abundantly clear that the issue of mixed marriages is the driving force behind the text. The only sentence Levi and Simeon utter is the reproachful counter-question they defiantly throw back at their father’s chastisement in v. 31. Jacob had accused the two making him “stink” to the inhabitants of the land (v. 30) and causing him misfortune by means of their deed. As is the case with Mal 2:10–14, not every detail in Mal 2:4–9 can be explained by means of Gen 34 as hypotext, though that text at least appears to be at play in the background. 23 If Levi is in the background as the reference BRAULIK, Deuteronomium (1992), 240: “[… als] gebetsartige Anrede an Jahwe stilisiert.” For the analysis of Deut 33, see especially BEYERLE, Mosesegen (1997), 113–36. 20 Cf. SNYMAN, Issue (2017); WEYDE, Prophecy (2000) and especially UTZSCHNEIDER, Künder (1989). 21 Cf. on this exegesis, FREVEL, Göttin (2003), 70–1. 22 M EINHOLD, Maleachi (2003), 145: “Aufgrund der singularischen Suffixe in V. 5f. ist mit ‘Levi’ eine Person gemeint.” 23 UTZSCHNEIDER, Künder (1989), 68 cautiously hinted at the connection. 19

My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace

431

point, then his activity (correcting Gen 49:5) is evaluated positively and marked as faithful to the Torah, such that the formulation sets him as an equal to the paragons Enoch and Noah (v. 6). His critical counter-question, which holds the dishonoring of his sister Dinah as the driving force of his action, is evaluated as trustworthy instruction in his mouth (‫תורת אמת בפיהו‬, v. 6) contrary to Gen 49:5. More than anything else, the nature of Levi’s preventative action, attested in v. 6, becomes clearer. Weyde interprets the unusual ‫ורבים‬ ‫ השׁיב מעון‬in v. 6b as: “Levi’s instruction on the law had, one might say, primarily a ‘preventative’ function; the phrase in question, however, may suggest that iniquity was already present; the law had been violated, and Levi functioned as the prophets did: he exhorted and warned the people.”24 The fact that Levi appears here, as has often been noted, as a type of priestly “servant of God” (analogous to Isa 53:11–12), 25 allows his action to be evaluated as expiation. Read in light of Gen 34, his zealous dedication prevents the apparent breach of the Pentateuchal covenantal prohibition against mixed marriage and its threatening consequences. By killing the men, he fulfilled Deut 7:2 and prevented the proposed intermarriage of “many” with the Shechemites. The use of ‫ שׁוב‬in the H-stem with ‫ מן‬parallels Levi’s action with that of Phinehas, who headed off the Israelites from wrath (Num 25:11: ‫השׁב‬ ‫)את־חמתי מעל ב ני־ישׂראל‬, meaning life and well-being (v. 5: ‫ )החיים והשׁלום‬for the Israelites. It is, therefore, not by chance that the covenant with Levi and the covenant with Phinehas are both linked to ‫ָשׁלוֹם‬, “well-being;” in both cases there is close association with ‫“ ִשׁלּוּם‬recompense.” Both are imprinted with priestly language such as “my covenant,” and the granting of a covenant of blessing for the priestly family that zealously dedicated itself to “purity.” The covenant with Levi therefore presupposes the covenant with Phinehas. This discussion should not lead to the impression that this is the only line of interpretation of the covenant of Levi in Mal 2. For example, the compplaints about the priest’s actual behavior or the critique of the sacrifices have not been sufficiently addressed. Neither was a hasty equation of the Levi and priestly covenants intended in this argument. What the present paper made clear is that Num 25 and Mal 2 are certainly related to one another and that there is also a link between the Levi covenant and the question of mixed marriages by means of the hypotext of Gen 34. The concentration on the tribal ancestor Levi was due to the textual interplay, but it was exactly because of this feature that it became obvious that a strict separation between the covenant with the priests and the Levi covenant cannot be drawn.

WEYDE, Prophecy (2000), 192. MEINHOLD, Maleachi (2003), 155: “[…] als seine Art priesterlicher ‘Knecht Gottes’ (analog zu Jes 53,11f.) erscheint.” Cf. WEYDE, Prophecy (2000), 192. 24 25

432

Leadership and Priesthood

4. Summary I would like to summarize these short and cursory investigations in three points: (1) The covenant with the priests is considerably more common in the Hebrew canon than conceded at first glance. The texts are not in peripheral locations and they are linked with one another, having originated from Num 25:12–13. As a result, one can hardly characterize the covenant with the priests as insignificant for a biblical theology of covenant. Starting from the covenant with Phinehas, the reception begins in the post-exilic period (at the earliest in the Persian period II from 450 BCE onwards). The textual network is characterized by creative reception of elements of priestly and prophetic language, and conceptions of covenantal theology in Num 25, yet it creates something completely new and unifying. The covenant of the priests can neither be comprehended as an exclusively conditional nor as an entirely unconditional covenant. It should also not be regarded as a covenant of promise. It instead adopts points from all categories of covenants. (2) To consider the covenant with the priests only in relation to the assurance of an everlasting existence of the priesthood, or to the Aaronide or Zadokite genealogical continuation of the high priestly office is an underestimation. The covenant with the priests remains closely linked to Phinehas’ action and the issue of mixed marriages. This can be shown in Num 25 as well as in the two important receptions of Neh 13:29 and Mal 2:4–9. The question of mixed marriages plays such an important role for the post-exilic priesthood that it can hardly be undervalued. This is true for the groups of priests themselves as well as for the consolidation of the post-exilic collective identity for which they are responsible by setting themselves apart through xenophobic separation. (3) The use of the category of covenant for the protection of the institution of the priesthood – which at the same indicates their social relevance and emphasizes their responsibility in safeguarding the identity of the community through decisive action – demonstrates an eminently creative interpretation of the category of covenant. This interpretation is so nicely intertwined that it cannot be separated from the function of this key concept for the theological characterization of the community of the people with God. Thus it does not result in competition, but rather in a juxtaposition of covenantal conceptions. The categorization of covenants into types (i.e., Deuteronomistic, priestly, or prophetic) is in fact reductive with regard to the creative post-exilic reception of the category of covenant, and this clearly takes place before Jesus ben Sira. Having said that, it becomes clear, that the overarching biblical systemization into either a one-covenant, two-covenant or multiple covenant-theology is insufficient. This point has been correctly noted time and again in the discussion. Simply, briefly and appropriately stated in the words of F.-L. Hossfeld:

My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace

433

the one God concluded several, that is to say, many covenants, which are considered in sophisticated theologies of covenant.26

26 HOSSFELD, Bünde (1995), 171: “Der eine Gott hat mehrere bzw. viele Bünde geschlossen, die in differenzierten Bundestheologien bedacht werden.”

“And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed” (Lev 10:20) The Relationship Between Compositional History, the History of Theology and Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Leviticus 101 1. The “Münster Pentateuch Model” and Its Limits: Introduction One of Erich Zenger’s enduring accomplishments is the hypothesis on the formation of the Pentateuch in the textbook Einleitung in das Alte Testament, sketched in only one and a half pages in the first edition from 1995, but which he went on to develop continually until his early death in 2010. Its definitive innovation is the combination of what had for the most part remained separate in the basic models up to that point (fragmentary, source and Supplementary Hypothesis). This textbook presents a model that attempts to avoid the aporias indicated so far by proposing narrative cycles for the early phases of transmission and by working with the redaction-history of two to three sources beginning in 700. 2

The third edition of 1998 puts forth this synthesis under the title “Münster Pentateuch Model,” in connection with the names Erich Zenger, Christoph Dohmen and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld. 3 Beginning in the fifth edition from 2004 and continuing through the final, seventh edition supervised by Erich Zenger of 2008 is the formulation that became the content for study for a generation of students: the “Münster Pentateuch Model,” presented by P. Weimar and E. Zenger, each with their individual emphases, operates with a fragmentary/narrative cycle-hypothesis for the early phases of the formation of the Pentateuch, proposing then two or three “source documents” of different extents (source hypothesis) from between the 7th cent. and the end of the 6th cent., which were each updated and then combined with one another (Supplementary Hypothesis) successively, until around 400 BCE, when the PentaThanks to Kirsten Schäfers and Katharina Pyschny for their valuable insights and suggestions. See in addition to the present paper the forthcoming article FREVEL, Hermeneutik. 2 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1995), 73: “In diesem Studienbuch wird ein Modell vorgestellt, das die bislang angedeuteten Aporien zu vermeiden versucht, indem es für die frühen Phasen der Überlieferung das Erzählkranzmodell annimmt und ab 700 mit einem redaktionsgeschichtlichen Zwei- bzw. Dreiquellenmodell arbeitet.” 3 Cf. ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1998), 119. 1

436

Leadership and Priesthood

teuch extending from Gen 1–Deut 34 was delimited as an independent entity. 4 Particularly this combination of basic models has had an enduring effect on the formulation of models in Pentateuchal scholarship and has been adopted in the quite divergent models of Reinhard G. Kratz, Eckart Otto, Jan C. Gertz et al. On the other hand, there has been more criticism of the compromise that Erich Zenger suggests in the proposal of a “Jerusalemite History.” The “Münster Pentateuch Model” holds to a continuous pre-exilic narrative thread from Gen 2*–Josh 24* but abandons the attempt to reconstruct both a continuous Yahwist and also an independent Elohist in the textual content. The Yehowist hypothesis, which marks the 7th cent. BCE as the decisive phase for the merging of older traditions instead moves more prominently into the picture. Erich Zenger’s composition thereby adopts the skepticism of Julius Wellhausen, which can be illustrated through two short citations: JE is not the work of a single conception like Q [P in today’s terminology], but passed through more than one phase and more than one hand before reaching its present form. 5 The end result is that JE […] must result from J and E, but the implementation of their separation is impossible. Said positively, this means that J and E are combined almost inseparably close to one another into a work of really almost homogenous character. 6

Following the growing expression of doubt since the 1980s about the independence of the Yahwistic and Elohistic sources, the composite term “Yehowist” appeared ineligible for Erich Zenger to label the earliest tangible combination of the pre-priestly Abraham and Jacob narrative cycles along with the primeval history and the exodus narrative. Since this literary accomplishment was not independent of the phase of economic prosperity and the related intensified collective configuration of identity following the demise of the northern kingdom of Israel and since it most likely arose in Jerusalem, Erich Zenger coined the new designation “Jerusalemite History” already in 4 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2004), 100 (= [2006], 100 and [2008], 100): “Das von P. Weimar und E. Zenger in jeweils individueller Ausprägung vertretene ‘Münsteraner Pentateuchmodell’ arbeitet für die frühen Phasen der Pentateuchentstehung mit der Fragmenten-/Erzählkranzhypothese und nimmt danach zwischen dem 7. Jh. und dem ausgehenden 6. Jh. die Entstehung von zwei bzw. drei ‘Quellenschriften’ unterschiedlichen Umfangs (Quellenhypothese) an, die ihrerseits fortgeschrieben und sukzessiv miteinander kombiniert wurden (Ergänzungshypothese), ehe um 400 v. Chr. der Pentateuch in seinem Umfang Gen 1–Dtn 34 als eigenständige Größe abgegrenzt wurde.” 5 This is an English translation of WELLHAUSEN, Composition (1963), 7: “JE ist nicht wie Q ein Werk einheitlicher Conception, sondern durch mehr als eine Phase und mehr als eine Hand gegangen, ehe es seine gegenwärtige Gestalt erlangte.” 6 This is an English translation of WELLHAUSEN, Composition (1963), 35: “Das Endergebnis ist, dass JE […] aus J und E bestehn muss, dass aber eine durchgeführte Scheidung unmöglich ist. Positiv ausgedrückt besagt dies, dass J und E fast unauflöslich eng miteinander verbunden sind, zu einem Werke von wirklich beinah einheitlichem Charakter.”

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

437

the first edition.7 With regard to this as well, recent discussion has not abandoned the proposition of an early combination of the ancestral and exodus narratives at the end of the 7th cent. BCE into a historical work that considered quite close to Deuteronomy; it is viewed as a compromise and is being met with increasing acceptance.8 A second defining characteristic of the Münster Pentateuch Model is – with all variations with regard to the question of its end – the maintenance of the independence of the Priestly Document. The sketch of the priestly literature compiled by Erich Zenger in Gottes Bogen in den Wolken and in his interaction with the book of Leviticus is developed further in the textbook, as are his hypotheses on the first continuous narrative thread in the Pentateuch. First of all, he has a clear view of the major problems in the inventory of texts and redaction of the priestly narrative thread, as well as of the role of the priestly circles to whom the classic source model attributes the redactional closure of the Pentateuch as Torah.9 In the third edition he inserts a newly designed section entitled The so-called Pentateuch Redaction (“Die sog. Pentateuchredaktion”), which initially presents the literary problem and then unfolds the theological perspectives. Beginning with the seventh edition, Erich Zenger once again expanded the purview and added reflections on the historical context of the formative redaction of the Torah and canonical perspectives. 10 In his work on the theory of the state, Wolfgang Oswald’s somewhat idiosyncratically entitled section “Der Tempel und sein Volk” (The temple and its people) criticizes Erich Zenger’s sketch of the priestly literature, commenting that it is more convincing in terms of history of theology than literary history.11 One might comment that it is fortuitous that it is not the other way around because then a further marker of Zenger’s approach would be turned on its head, namely the connection between literary history and history of theology. The “Münster Pentateuch Model” strives to base its attempt to develop a model for the formation of the Pentateuch not only on the basis of literary-historical observations and what develops from these. The building of the hypothesis also arises on the basis of more recent historiography – that is scholarship on religious, social and secular history – to make a plausible case for the history of theology as well. The fact that many questions remain unanswered with regard to the large complexes (Exilic History and Great PostExilic History) and especially the literary history of the late layers of the Pentateuch should be candidly admitted. ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1995), 73. Cf. the overview in ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2012), 120–5, 215–31. 9 Cf. ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1995), 103–7. 10 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2008), 127–35 with the headings Der geschichtliche Kontext der formativen Redaktion der Tora and Die Tora als kanonisches Buch. 11 O SWALD, Staatstheorie (2009), 186. 7 8

438

Leadership and Priesthood

Zenger himself underlined that an important task for future scholarship was to determine more precisely the literary nature, social history and theology of the complex entity of Ps,12 which was a field that had hardly been addressed. 13 Turning to the current state of scholarship, while investigations of the late texts in the Pentateuch have increased recognizably, the field is connected with a “new obscurity” in the formation of models that is not much better than 1998, when this sentence first appears in the third edition of the Einleitung. 14 In reality, the attribution of a text to Ps – strictly speaking an addition to the still independent Priestly Document – or alternatively to RP – strictly speaking concerning only the portions of text that redactionally connect the non-priestly narrative work and the Pg-Ps conglomeration,15 have been insufficient for quite a while. The identification of a, however defined, Pentateuchal redaction has become highly debatable because of the questioning of the Persian Imperial Authorization thesis. 16 An identification with RP in the abovementioned strict sense is, in any case, impossible. If one continues to place the process of the formation of the Pentateuch in the second half of the 5th cent. BCE, then the concentration of the texts and expansions of this final phase has increased tremendously, such that the simple model of pre-P + Deut + Pg + Ps is no longer sufficient. A single Pentateuch redaction that set off the Pentateuch from an Enneateuch through a small number of insertions in Deut 34, such as vv. 10–12, 17 did not exist, which is also true for any sort of “final redaction.” If one seriously considers the methodological discussion on flowing transitions and the coexistence of the proto-Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the text, then there need not have been a “final hand.” Regardless, identification of such hands in the texts of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult, even if redactional portions of texts undoubtedly exist that presuppose an entity of the Pentateuch in a more or less definitive form. The fact that the expansions “post-priestly” and also after the first substantial expansions of Pg by Ps of the Pentateuch go beyond the bounds conceived of in both the Documentary Hypothesis and the “Münster Pentateuch Model” 12 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2008), 173: “ist es eine wichtige Aufgabe künftiger Forschung, diese komplexe Größe Ps literarisch, sozialgeschichtlich und theologisch genauer zu erfassen.” 13 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2008), 173: “ein kaum bearbeitetes Feld.” 14 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (1998), 159. 15 On both delimitations, see the explanations in ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2012), 149– 50, 193–4, 209–10. 16 Most recently on the weighing of the reasons for and against imperial authorization, cf. S CHMID, Reichsautorisation (2006), 494–506. An overview of the state of the discussion is also found in ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2012), 152–7. On the phenomenon of redaction and the aporias of the concept as a whole, see VAN SETERS, Bible (2006); on the final redaction of the Pentateuch cf. S CHMID , Pentateuchredaktor (2007). 17 Most recently again S CHMID, Pentateuchredaktor (2007), 188–91, 195–7; differently FREVEL, Abschied (2001), 224–32.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

439

is an insight of recent Pentateuchal scholarship that should be retained. Calling these continuations nachendredaktionell (after-final redaction; C. Levin, J. C. Gertz) or postendredaktionell (post-final redaction; E. Otto) appears to make little sense given their contradictions in terms. Entitling them just postpriestly is factually incorrect because they assume the transmission of the Torah in priestly circles and often breathe and exude the priestly spirit – with all the fuzziness of this concept. The proposal of a Holiness School and a connected redactor “H,” who is identifiable with the late texts related to the Holiness Code, is, however, just as unfitting as a reservoir for the postpriestly layers18 as the insightful suggestion forwarded by Reinhard Achenbach of calling them “theocratic redactions.” One of Rainer Albertz’ recent contributions designated the late priestly edits as P4 and P5, which are in addition to one priestly final redaction. However, the coherence of these redactional layers have yet to be demonstrated. Albertz qualifies these differentiations as “preliminary” and correctly emphasizes that the number of priestly redactions that must be proposed, especially in the book of Numbers, still requires more detailed investigation. 19 In short: appropriate nomenclature that is disengaged from the Documentary Hypothesis is still missing from Pentateuchal scholarship. The alternative proposal is that the Pentateuch is a rolling corpus held together by a thick net of expansions that are synchronically coherent, diachronically coordinated, but independent from one another in terms of formation history, cascading and moving toward a “final form.” This proposal breaks down both in terms of its lack of feasibility with what we assume as the intervals of the production of replacement scrolls and also with regard to the lack of institutional anchoring in the social history of the Persian and early Hellenistic period temple establishment in Jerusalem. In short: a sustainable model for the literary history of the Pentateuch beyond the Great Post-Exilic History, if there ever was something like an “Enneateuch,”20 has 18 On the problem, see BLUM, Issues (2009), 37–8, who speaks of it being “built on a vicious circle” and points out that the “fundamental circularity,” “latent circularity,” etc. in relation to the purely linguistic criteria used to differentiate between H and P. Blum himself, however, rejects the differentiations completely, as he sees every diachronic distinction in the priestly texts as “on the wrong track” (cf. ALBERTZ , Quellentheorie II [2011], 345–6). 19 ALBERTZ, Schlüsseltext (2011), 38: “Wie viele priesterliche Redaktionen vor allem im Numeribuch angesetzt werden müssen, bedarf noch genauerer Untersuchungen”; cf. IDEM, Quellentheorie II (2011), 345–6. 20 Cf. the skeptical position, contra a redactionally formed and then transmitted entity, ACHENBACH, Pentateuch (2005), 122–4 and KONKEL, Quest (2011), 169, 180–1, both with references to recent scholarly discussion. The literary problem is emphasized by LEVIN, Cohesion (2011), 129: “It is highly unlikely that the overall historiographical concept came into being only through the subsequent linking together of books, which were for the most part already independent.” However, to this point the redactional inventory of texts that

440

Leadership and Priesthood

yet to be found. The final phases of the formation of the Pentateuch after the combination of the Priestly Document with the non-priestly material in most recent detailed investigations are more varied than the sketches in present models. This is even truer when one considers not only individual sketches, but also brings together the plausibilities of the various individual proposals.

2. Diachronically Reflected Synchrony as a Methodological Corollary Can one, therefore, recognize the signs of a methodological farewell of redaction critical and of composition-critical reconstruction in the proliferation of positions on the formation of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch and Enneateuch, and the quite often connected preponderance of tendence-critical considerations? Does the alternative beyond diachronic reconstruction lie in the lifting up of the “final form,” that is, ultimately in the fundamental methodological change of orientation to synchronic interpretation? One should not be deceived at this point that this “final form” of the Pentateuch exists as more than a textual fiction. Pragmatically speaking, the so-called Masoretic text in the Leningrad (Petropolitanus) Codex is most often the unquestioned starting point, but this is only one of many final forms of the Pentateuch. Furthermore, we are far removed from being able to interpret or understand this/these final forms as a “final composition” 21 and as a theological unity. This is the case both for synchronic and for diachronic interpretation. A single theology of the Pentateuch that is not only an addition to different theological lines of thinking exists, if at all, only in very limited fashion. If there is not a concluding redactional hand that shaped the Pentateuch as a unity of meaning in terms of its production aesthetics, and at the same time it remains irrefutable that the texts of the Pentateuch are not all from the same composition-critical layer such that the idea of diachronic development remains fundamentally meaningful, then the challenge in methodological recould have first formed or held together such a coherence have not been convincingly identified. The redaction-critical discussion concerning the existence of the literary combination of the “Enneateuch” at this point relies of the question of when the insertion of the book of Judges took place, for it unmistakably closes the narrative gap between Joshua and 1 Samuel; cf. the remarks by Frevel in ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2012), 126–7; (2015), 131–2. In terms of methodology, the discussion concerning the redactional entity of the “Enneateuch” should be kept separate from the question of the material form that might be conceivable for it in terms of our knowledge of the production of scrolls. The fact that a single Enneateuch scroll is improbable does not preclude that such a combination existed, was created redactionally, or edited. See the discussion in SCHMID , Prolegomena (2006). 21 ZENGER, Levitikus (1999), 48 on the distinction, which relies on Klaus Koch.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

441

spect consists of the reception-aesthetic understanding of the final form of the Pentateuch including the diachronic perspective. 22 Erich Zenger characterizes this notion with regard to the final form of the Pentateuch in terms of diachronically reflected synchrony. 23 A priority for theology and literary theory in terms of synchronic reading that takes seriously the texture of the given text also considers the dimensions of meaning that first result from the growth of the text and its diachronic composition. As a result, the historical nature of the revelation is made the starting point for meaning and interpretation. The historical nature cannot be allowed to be seen as the same as historicity, neither can it be completely separated from it. The methodological postulate of diachronically reflected synchrony is, therefore, much more than just an attempt to make a last helpless admission of the “methodological turn” by diachronic analysis to synchronic analysis. The fundamental presupposition of the mediating hypothesis in the conflict of methods (diachronic vs. synchronic) is that the theology of the Pentateuch is neither resolved by the history of theology nor is it a mere addition, but the growing, and at times also contrasting, complementarity of the points of view is central for its understanding and must be the starting point for interpretations. The histories of theology and of the literature are bound up closely with one another, and exegesis remains referential to the process of development. The thesis that the final form of the Pentateuch can be unlocked without reference to diachronic analysis must presuppose a postulate of the meaningfulness of the complementarity, being either intentional or arising first through the process of reception. This should initially be affirmed. However, two examples can quickly show that this complementarity does not work itself out into a harmonious whole, remaining instead a tension-filled pluriformity in which the methodological involvement of the diachronic perspective takes on meaning. 2.1 Utopian Border Erosion: The Borders of the Promised Land For many questions, it is truly helpful to presuppose a hermeneutic of complementarity and to attempt to understand something like the promises of the land as a unity in spite of their different linguistic forms. It becomes difficult, however, when the move is made from abstract theological constructs to the concrete, in this case about the question of the territorial extent of the Promised Land. What is the extent of the land promised to Israel in the final form of the Pentateuch or the Hexateuch? The fact is that mutually exclusive juxIn operation here are the differentiations between intention autoris, lectoris and operis, which are often referred to in reliance on Umberto Eco in this context. 23 ZENGER, Levitikus (1999), 48; IDEM , Essentials (2005), 236; IDEM/FREVEL, Bücher (2008), 39. Adopted by, for example, BERGES, Synchronie (2007), 251; IDEM, Buch Jesaja (1998), 535; OTTO , Synchronie (2007), 354; etc. 22

442

Leadership and Priesthood

tapositions of the very different conceptions of Abraham’s Judean heartland in Gen 13:14–17, of “the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates” in Gen 15:18, of “all the land of Canaan” in Gen 17:8, of the land in the borders of Num 34:2–13, and the land including Lebanon and parts of Syria in Deut 1:7 and 11:24 cannot be reconciled harmoniously. The divergent perspectives – even if they contradict one another – still remain related to one another and are bound together in complementary discourse. Their individual contextual imprints are not set aside, but remain part of this discourse, which does not have a single clear outcome. The meaning associated with this, namely that the Promised Land does not have identifiable concrete borders in the final form, remains theologically meaningful and indispensable for treating the claim to the Promised Land. 2.2 The Unambiguity/Unambiguities of Legal Hermeneutics in the Pentateuch? The covenant proclamations of the First and Old Testament, which also constitute a diachronically developed network of weighty proclamations without absolutizing a single interpretive trajectory, form a second important theological example: If, with difficulty and through a large amount of selective work, the same reality can be seen behind the covenant promises and covenant formulations, the problem is not resolved. One must only recall the contentious debates about the question of a (Hebrew) biblical or even a (Christian) biblical covenantal theology, about the finally unresolved questions of continuity or discontinuity, or about renewed vs. new covenant. These showed that there is no single all-encompassing synchronic covenant theology that comprises every aspect. While the complex relationship of the Sinai covenants (Exod 24:8; 34:10, 27), Horeb covenant and Moab covenant cannot be determined easily and simply, the situation becomes considerably more complicated when one only begins to add the rest of the covenantal formulations. The fact that the promise of the covenant of an eternal priesthood might be combined with the salt of the covenant with sacrifice (Lev 2:13), but only with difficulty in the same trajectory with the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:9–17) and Abrahamic covenants (Gen 15:18; 17), shows that there is no single all-encompassing synchronic covenant theology that accounts for every aspect. The problem is aggravated further when the notion of a normative demand for retribution is scrutinized. The juxtaposition of the law corpora, the two Decalogues, the Covenant Code, the Privilege Law, the Holiness Code and Deuteronomy cannot be resolved such that the Decalogue is accorded pride of place, but instead forms a hermeneutic of supersession or replacement. This leads Norbert Lohfink to conclude that Deuteronomy, because it is the last in terms of the narrative time in the Pentateuch of the attested law corpora, car-

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

443

ries forward by replacing the Covenant Code and Holiness Code. 24 Jeffrey Stackert takes a completely different tack, viewing the Holiness Code as intended as the replacement for the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy,25 though this is perhaps more problematic. It is more plausible to follow Otto’s notion that legal hermeneutics emanates more from interpretation and commentary than from replacement. 26 The thesis that, in terms of the legal history, the Privilege Law and Deuteronomy presuppose the Covenant Code and interpret it, might even convince a majority of exegetes, but the determination of the diachronic as well as synchronic relationship between Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code is by no means so clear that the case can be resolved unilaterally by legal hermeneutics. The same is the case for the controversially debated function and extent of the ‫ באר‬in Deut 1:5, which conceives of the entirety of Deuteronomy in the final form as interpretation, without giving up its status as equally valid law. 27 The difficulties grow exponentially when one also considers more than the somewhat delimited law “corpora.” It is very difficult, and at times impossible, to reconcile certain positions synchronically without assuming some kind of literary history. It remains unclear whether the feasts and sacrifices should be celebrated according to the non-priestly (Exod 23 and 34), the Deuteronomic (Deut 16), or the slightly differing festive calendars in Lev 23 and Num 28–29. What should one use as a criterion? Should text-internal or textexternal criteria be given priority? Is the most extensive in terms of developmental directions valid, or is it the latest in terms of literary history? Does the de facto reception of Lev 24 in later interpretation play a role, or should the location of the revelation (on Sinai, on Horeb, in the desert) provide the basis for primacy? A complementary supplement cannot be unambiguously produced without abstraction, selection and smoothing out difficulties.

3. Interpretation as Discourse on the Application of the Torah Legislation In the textbook, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, designed and definitively formed by him, Erich Zenger describes the program of the Pentateuchal final composition28 in impressive fashion, thereby clarifying that different strucLOHFINK, Rechtshermeneutik (2003), 48: Because Deuteronomy is “Ablauf der erzählten Zeit im Pentateuch unter den beschworenen Gesetzeskorpora […] das letzte,” it carries on the Covenant Code and Holiness Code, “indem es sie ablöst.” 25 Cf. STACKERT, Holiness Legislation (2009), 201; IDEM , Sabbath (2011), 250. 26 OTTO, Tora (2009), 504–11. 27 Cf. F REVEL, Lernort (2012). 28 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2008), 68–73 (“das Programm der pentateuchischen Endkomposition”). 24

444

Leadership and Priesthood

tures and lines of interpretation overlap, demanding a discourse concerning the application and concretization of the legal world they portray. 29 A productive, life-giving and faith-supporting reception of the Torah is inconceivable without a discursive interaction with the ambivalences or, even more clearly, the contradictory valences within the Pentateuch. At the same time – and this is quite essential for an understanding of the “final composition” of the Pentateuch – this discourse already begins within the Pentateuch itself, especially in late layers and redactional expansions. If any identifiable methodological trend in Old Testament exegesis has developed in recent years, then it is “inner-biblical exegesis.” The phenomenon is remarkably broad, reaching from Michael Fishbane, to Odil Hannes Steck, Konrad Schmid, Reinhard G. Kratz and many others. Its keywords are “rewritten scripture” of the intertestamental post-biblical exegesis, to “legal hermeneutics” for the inner-biblical interpretation of legal texts, and “canonical intertextuality” for the inner-biblical interpretation constituted by readers. It comprises texts and hypotexts, interpreting resumptions and the terminological breadth of “text” and “commentary.” There is hardly anything as riveting and at the same time as open as the engagement with textual conception of pre-modern traditional literature, marked by variation and by different degrees of license for variation. The discussion is influenced in many ways by structuralist and post-strutural literary theory, especially by the debates over intertextuality and widely adopted categories from Gérard Genette. 30 The phenomenon has moved beyond the sphere of exegesis. For example, the most recent volume by the ancient Near Eastern scholar Eckart Frahm incorporates the approach and investigates Babylonian and Assyrian textual commentaries under the subtitle “Origins of Interpretation.”31 The phenomenon has been applied to the late Pentateuchal traditions quite tentatively to this point, but it is certainly recognizable in recent works on the Pentateuch. In the following, by way of one example, I will underline the view that the perspective of inner-biblical exegesis can be of enormous value for understanding late priestly traditions.

4. Institutional Reflection of the Interpretation of the Torah in Leviticus 10 The exemplary text that follows concerns an often underappreciated text of the Torah that deserves to be treated in a more thorough manner. It is particularly the hermeneutical bases developed here for the understanding of this 29 ZENGER et al., Einleitung (2008), 73: “einen Diskurs über die Applikation und Konkretion der von ihm dargestellten Rechtswelt [fordern].” 30 GENETTE, Palimpsests (1997). 31 FRAHM, Commentaries (2011).

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

445

text, often described as “unwieldy,” that are very complex such that only certain aspects can be treated. Leviticus 10 is found in the Sinai center and addresses, among other topics, the cultic character of the priests in priestly service. After the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev 8) and the celebratory dedication of the Sinai sanctuary through the first sacrifice (Lev 9), the text turns directly, that is without a temporal introduction or anything else, almost while the sounds of the celebration of the entire people (Lev 9:26) are still heard, which allows for the unexpected dangerous aspects of God’s presence to appear. Nadab and Abihu put fire in their censers in order to present incense. Contrary to the good intentions of the two freshly inaugurated priests, this action was designated as ‫“ אשׁ זרה‬strange” or better “prohibited fire,” which he – Moses, Aaron or YHWH: it is first made unambiguous by the LXX, which makes κύριος the subject of the omitted command – had not commanded them. Without the intermediary step of an advanced warning, a judgment, or a commentary inserted in between, the narrative of the events carries on, and the act of cultic rapprochement is diametrically reversed. While Nadab and Abihu tried to present (‫ קרב‬H-stem) strange fire before YHWH (‫)לפני י הוה‬, YHWH’s own ( ‫ )מלפני יהוה‬fire now goes out (‫ יצא‬G-stem) against them so that they are consumed and die before YHWH ( ‫)לפני י הוה‬. The gracious God, who just bestowed his presence and blessing, now causes the death of those consecrated without mercy. Those who act on behalf of the people, who are to avoid contact with the sanctuary, provoked the strongest cultic contact with the holy and therefore died. The freshly dedicated sanctuary has suddenly been rendered unclean by the sacrilege and the corpses in the cultic precinct. A stronger contrast in the narrative between Lev 8–9 and 10:1–3 is hardly conceivable. The short episode triggers more questions than answers. In addition to many peculiarities, there are primarily two observations in Lev 10 that lead toward, while at the same time complicate, comprehension. The first is Aaron’s immediate reaction in v. 3, in which he answers Moses’s instruction with silence. The second, which is at least as disturbing, is the conclusion of the chapter. It ends with Moses’s concession in v. 20 that consents to Aaron’s statement with regard to the treatment of the ‫ חטאת‬sacrificial ram. Both peculiarities are related to inner-biblical exegesis, something that Jewish exegesis has always seen. Rashi characteristically begins his explanatory interpretation of Lev 10 by recalling Rabbi Eliezer, who “said, the sons of Aaron did not die but for the fact that they rendered a halachic decision in the presence of their teacher, Moses” 32 (and therefore acted in an unauthorized manner, while Aaron – one could supplement – consented to the Halakha of Moses): The context of the chapter within internal Pentateuchal 32 HERCZEG, Leviticus (1999), 101. Cf. with the twelve explanatory approaches in rabbinical exegesis in MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 628–35.

446

Leadership and Priesthood

exegesis will, however, first become clear when the entire chapter is taken into account. 4.1 Aaron’s Concessive Silence The illegitimacy of Nadab and Abihu’s behavior, whether at the entrance to the tent of meeting, or as the case may be inside the sanctuary,33 is not described more precisely here, and it remains open whether the ‫ אשׁ זרה‬is illegitimate on account of the time, the place, the authorization, the intention, the origin of the fire, or the substance that was presented. Exegesis has considered each of these variants exhaustively. 34 However, perhaps this search goes into the wrong direction, and Lev 10 – similar to Num 16 – attempts to present a paradigmatic case of priestly transgression. 35 Because Aaron’s sons injure a taboo zone with their unsolicited fire, they had to bear the consequences of their action. Moses then provides a commentary on the events with a two-part piece of advice for Aaron. The fact that Moses aims his comments directly at his brother is important in and of itself. There are not that many verbs denoting speaking that have Moses as the explicit subject and Aaron as the explicit addressee, and they are mostly related to priestly service: Exod 16:33; Lev 9:7; Num 17:11 (with Aaron’s sons as further addressees, also Lev 8:31; 10:6, 12). Besides these are only the special command for Aaron to speak in Exod 16:9 and the reproachful accusation in Exod 32:21. The depiction of the situation in itself does not demand that Moses should speak to Aaron, so even the introduction of the speech underlines the special nature of the Mosaic commentary. The words that immediately follow the speech’s introduction,‫הוא אשׁר־דב ר יהוה לאמר‬, lead in to the citation of divine speech. The demonstrative introduction is usually understood such that Moses refers to a previous revelation. This is seen, for example, in the new version of the Zürcher Bibel in v. 3: “Und Mose sprach zu Aaron: Das ist es, was der HERR gemeint hat, als er sprach: An denen, die mir nahe sind, er33 The alternative has been discussed multiple times in the history of interpretation (cf. MILGROM , Leviticus [1991], 605–6). In favor of the innermost part of the sanctuary is the selection of the Kohathites in v. 4, which are the only group of Levites who could enter into the innermost part of the sanctuary (Num 4). The selection could certainly result from the closeness of the relationship to Aaron’s sons (see below). Among other objections, the fact that ‫ י צא מל פי‬in v. 2 and the ‫ מאת פנ ־ הקדשׁ‬in v. 4 could speak against the innermost part of the sanctuary and in favor of the precinct right next to the entrance into the holy of holies. The parallelism in the cultic conduct in Lev 16 could speak in favor of an injury of the taboo zone of the holy of holies. In favor of the area of the entrance could be the similarity to Num 16:18. A final decision need not be made here. 34 Cf. the overview in NIHAN , Torah (2007), 580–2. 35 The proximity of the formulations in Lev 10:1–2 to Num 16:16, 35 has often been noted. Cf. e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 599–600; on the parallelism of the two chapters in detail, cf. NIHAN, Torah (2007), 583–6.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

447

weise ich mich heilig, und vor dem ganzen Volk zeige ich meine Herrlichkeit” (“And Moses spoke to Aaron: This is what the L ORD meant when he said: To those who are close to me I will manifest myself as holy, and before the entire people I will demonstrate my glory”). 36 Moses almost comes across as a know-it-all in Erhard Gerstenberger’s: “Ja, so hat Jahwe es angekündigt” (“Yes, this is what Yahweh proclaimed”).37 The introductory ‫ הוא‬is thereby related to the citation that follows. Bruno Baentsch, on the other hand, relates the indeterminate (!) personal pronoun as a demonstrative to the events narrative in Lev 10:1–3 and translates: “Da sprach Moses zu Aharon: hier hat sich bewahrheitet, was Jahve (einst) gesagt hat” (“Then Moses spoke to Aaron: Now what Yahweh [once] said has proven true”). 38 Konrad Ehlich, who has investigated deixis in Hebrew more intensively than anyone else, presents a similar conception and reckons 10:3 to the previous focuses: After the individual conclusions of the investigation of ‫ זה‬and ‫הוא‬, Lev 10:3 provides the opportunity for the speaker, Moses, to use deixis in order to steer the orientation of the hearer to the issue about which he makes his statement. For a verbal focusing had not taken place earlier according to the presentation of the text. 39

Moses therefore makes a connection to what he knows his hearer’s attention is already occupied with. 40 Whatever one decides, the “citation” Moses invokes does not appear in the Pentateuch. The oft provided reference to Exod 20:6, “but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments,” is not persuasive and, furthermore, is formulated linguistically in quite a different manner. Rashi had already referred to the ‫ונקדשׁ בכבדי‬, “I will become holy through my glory” in Exod 29:43.41 The first part, ‫בקדבי‬ ‫אקדשׁ‬, “those who come near to me I make holy,” most likely refers to the promise from the central priestly section of the Sinai pericope in Exod 29:44 and the announcement of the appointment of the Aaronides for priestly service: “I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar; Aaron also and his sons I will consecrate, to serve me as priests” ( ‫וקד שׁתי את־אהל מועד ואת־‬ ‫)המזב ח ואת־אהרן ואת־בנו אקדשׁ לכהן לי‬. At least the 1st pers. of the verb ‫קדשׁ‬, Cf. MILGROM , Leviticus (1991), 594: “This is what the Lord meant when he said.” GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1993), 104. 38 BAENTSCH, Exodus (1903), 350. 39 This is an English translation of EHLICH, Verwendungen (1979), 739: “Lev 10,3 würde nach den bisher erzielten Ergebnissen der Untersuchung von ZÄ und HU Anlaß dafür geben, daß der Sprecher, Mose, eine Deixis verwendet, um die Orientierung des Hörers auf den Sachverhalt zu lenken, über den er seine Äußerung macht. Denn eine verbale Fokussierung hat nach Darstellung des Textes vorher nicht stattgefunden.” 40 EHLICH, Verwendungen (1979), 740: “einen Bezug auf das, wovon er weiß, daß es die Aufmerksamkeit des Hörers schon bestimmt.” 41 HERCZEG, Leviticus (1999), 101. 36 37

448

Leadership and Priesthood

which appears in the Pentateuch for the first time in Exod 29:44 and then again in Lev 10:3 points to this. After Exod 29:43, the first appearance of the N-stem of ‫ קד שׁ‬in the Pentateuch, the next appearance is in Lev 10:3. 42 Because according to Exod 28:1 it is primarily the priests who approach YHWH, 43 the enigmatic and shortened formulation ‫ בקרבי אקד שׁ‬is permitted to underscore the priests. If one accepts this connection, then the second part of the promise, that YHWH will demonstrate his glory to the entire people, could refer back to Exod 29:43, which is formulated with the imprint of the basic Priestly Document ( ‫)ונעדתי שׁמה לבני ישׂראל ונקדשׁ בכבדי‬. The difference in linguistic expression between the Israelites (‫בני י שׂראל‬, Exod 29:43) and the entire people (‫כל העם‬, Lev 10:3) can most likely be explained by the bridge built from the formulation in Lev 10:3 to Lev 9:23. In the latter YHWH appears to the entire people when Moses and Aaron emerge from the tent of meeting at the end of the celebratory initiation of the cult ( ‫וירא כבוד־י הוה אל־‬ ‫)כל־פניהם‬. This redeems Exod 29:43, which in Lev 9:24 rightly calls forth reverence, jubilation and adoration on behalf of the people (‫וירא כל־העם וי רנו‬ ‫)ויפלו על־פניהם‬. In Exod 29:43–44, Lev 10:3 picks up on a central text in the Sinai pericope, which in the current accumulated form44 emphasizes the mediating position of the Aaronides and points this position once again to the presence of God. The priests have a double protective function and responsibility – for safeguarding the holiness of the sanctuary and for the protection of the people for whom they substitute themselves in the dangerous direct contact with the holy. Moses’s declaration is not a real citation, but neither is it a proclamation in which something new or additional is formulated. It is interpretation. Neither does the backwards reference of ‫“( הוא אשׁר דבר יהוה‬this is what YHWH has said”) necessarily point to a previously given divine proclamation, but it can also be understood as Moses rendering a situationally given divine proclamation, 45 or – what appears most probable here – one that lays out existing Torah in interpretive fashion. The formulation, ‫הוא אשׁר דבר יהוה‬, refers to Exod 16:23, where Moses also provides commentary on the institution of the Sabbath (the first appearance of ‫ שׁבתון‬and ‫)שׁבת־קדשׁ ליהוה‬. “He said to them, ‘This is what the LORD has commanded: « Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD »’” (NRSV). Neither in this case is it preceded by an explicIn accordance with this is the use of 1st sing. ‫ ק דשׁ‬D-stem in Num 3:13; 8:17 in relation to firstborn in the context of the separation of the Levites. The 1st pers. only appears otherwise Lev 22:32, also in the N-stem. 43 Cf. e.g., Exod 29:4; 40:12, 14, 32; Lev 21:6, 8, 17, 18, 21; 22:3. The establishment of priestly service by ‫ ק ר ב‬need not refer to Ezek 42:13. 44 On the composition-critical differentiation between Exod 29:43 and 44, cf. F REVEL , Blick (2000), 95–106. 45 Also MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 600. 42

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

449

it statement of Moses’s reception of revelation. Moses instead interprets the event further in light of received Torah. This is also the case in Lev 10. In the offence of Aaron’s sons, Moses observes the confirmation of the differentiation in YHWH’s proximity with regard to the priests and the people (under the influence of Exod 29:43–44) and the justification of the death by the transgression of the boundary into the sacred area. Perhaps Lev 16 should also be recalled, where Aaron alone enters the holy of holies with incense once a year (not simply at an arbitrary point in time). Aaron’s silence can, therefore, only be interpreted in light of interpretation in a concessive manner. Rather than expressing the consternation of a father over the death of his sons,46 or the renouncement of the loud laments for the dead,47 or bafflement or repressed anger, it is the agreement with the Torah interpretation provided by Moses and its application. The special status of the priests stands in the background and subordinate to the holiness of the sanctuary. The cult and the representative actions of the priests are directed to the divine encounter of the entire people (Lev 9:24) and not a matter of private piety for the appointed priest. Aaron affirms this interpretation of Torah from Exod 29 by means of his silence. This is especially significant at this point because Aaron places the Mosaic Torah as the preeminent judge in a matter that was quite essential with regard to his authority and his office. The fact that he does not completely relinquish his position as normative interpreter will be seen later on in the chapter. However, if one understands Moses as representing the primary normativity of the Torah and Aaron as representing the priests, then the essence of Lev 10 could be expressed as follows: When “Moses,” that is, the Torah, interprets itself, then the “priest” remains silent. In cases of doubt on the other hand, the “priest” decides if Moses, that is the “Torah,” does not explicitly contradict it. The second part of this principle is developed as the chapter progresses, which will now be demonstrated. 4.2 The Mosaic Halakha The fact that Moses’s commentary points in the direction of interpretive exegesis becomes clear in light of the chapter as a whole and especially its conclusion. What becomes immediately conspicuous is that Moses provides the decisive judgment in the subsequent verses. The crisis filled situation is not defused through brave action by Aaron, who is responsible for the sanctuary, or his remaining sons, neither is it initiated by divine sanction given through Moses to Aaron, as it is in Num 17. Moses takes care of the purification of the sanctuary on his own without divine order or sanction. The close, but not 46 This is the understanding of the LXX with καὶ κατενύχθη Ααρων “Aaron was sorely grieved.” 47 This is the position of J ÜRGENS , Heiligkeit (2001), 284 with reference to Ezek 24:17.

450

Leadership and Priesthood

too close, relatives Mishael and Elzaphan,48 both of whom are Kohathites and are therefore responsible for the most inner part of the sanctuary (cf. Num 4), should take the corpses outside the camp so that the sanctuary will not be permanently unclean. The contamination through death (Num 19) may also be the reason why the clothes (‫ – )כתנת‬which could only mean Nadab and Abihu’s priestly garments – are expressly mentioned. In the same way that the transport of the corpses outside the camp is a situational instruction – the text does not mention anything about which the necessary (following first in Lev 16?) purification, the following instruction to the priests to forego every act of mourning, is initially related exclusively to the situation. The instruction, whose content will not be the subject of further discussion here, is staggered. The addressees are the remaining Aaronides, who receive a special responsibility. Moses designates Aaron’s sons as potential successors to the “high priestly” office, who should maintain the stipulations for the ‫הכהן‬ ‫הגדול‬. For this reason, they should refrain from any rite of self deprecation. The stipulation in Lev 21:10 also provides the linguistic background. The priest’s representative function is underlined through the reference to consequences for the entire community if there is a transgression, such that the entire people, but not the Aaronides, the closest relatives, should mourn. Their representative office should not be breached during the time of mourning. The fact that priestly mourning is forbidden is determined in this instance by Moses as the normative authority, which the reference to the execution of the order makes excessively clear in v. 7b, ‫“( ויעשׂ כדבר משׁה‬And they did according to the word of Moses”). It is remarkably seldom that something is done according to the word of Moses: Exod 8:9, 27 (YHWH acts in accordance with Moses’s request); Exod 12:37 (the Israelites act in accordance with Moses’s instruction, which is linked back to the speech of YHWH in Exod 11:2); Exod 32:28 (the Levites act in accordance with Moses, linking back to the word of YHWH in Exod 32:27). Leviticus 10:7 is the only place that points back to an instruction given by Moses. It is not that the prohibition of high priestly mourning stems from Mosaic authority (Lev 21:7), but rather the application to a concrete situation. The normativity of the applied law, on the other hand, arises from the divinely sanctioned Holiness Code. The fact that 48 The selection is made on the basis of the late construction of the Aaronide genealogy. Uzziel is Amram’s youngest brother (Exod 6:18). Izhar is Korah’s father, which appears to disqualify him for service on the basis of Num 16. No descendants are named for Hebron in the Pentateuch. MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 604 is likely correct in assuming primarily genealogical reasons for the selection of the Kohathites, but if the conjecture is correct that Num 16 provides the background for the election of Izhar’s sons, then conflicts that cannot be more closely identified between priestly groups lie in the background. This means that the explanatory approach stemming from Galling and Noth against which Milgrom explicitly argues, is also justified.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

451

this was later promulgated in Torah style does not play a role in terms of legal hermeneutics as is often the case in the Pentateuch. 4.3 Aaron as the Direct Recipient of Norms and Interpreter of the Torah Immediately following the incident is a “job description” for the priests that do not remain solely within the framework of cultic activities, but also confirms the priests’ function as legitimate teachers and interpreters of the Torah. Like in Num 18, the instruction to priestly service takes place through a direct address to Aaron, which is rather rarely the case. 49 Initially the consumption of alcohol while ministering is prohibited in v. 9 and anchored in the Torah, in accordance with Ezek 44:21.50 Alcoholic drinks lead to the loss of control (Gen 9:20–28; Isa 28:7), while acting in the sacred precinct demands the highest degree of control. The established boundaries must be meticulously observed for the safeguarding of the holiness of the place in order to repel the life-threatening danger of the tremendum. The cult’s further concern with maintaining the stabilizing liminal constructions is made clear by the subsequent distinctions between sacred and profane, clean and unclean in v. 10. This is not concretized in terms of material, but formally accorded to the responsibilities of the priests, thereby confirming their function as intermediaries. In the description of the tasks in v. 10, the connection to v. 11 is often overlooked. The priests’ responsibility lies not only in the differentiation of sacred and profane, unclean and clean corresponding to Ezek 44:23, but also the interpretation of the Mosaic Torah, which is formed in linguistically parallel terms. The priests should instruct (‫ ירה‬in H-stem) the people, namely in all the ordinances (‫ )החקים‬that YHWH spoke through Moses. According to Lev 10:11, they have the obligation for the application and interpretation of the Torah, which underscores the mediatory function of the priestly office. Within the Pentateuch, Lev 10:11 is directly linked to Exod 24:12. The verse is one of the definitive core authorities for the legal hermeneutics of the

Only in Exod 4:27 in the context of the exodus narrative and in Num 18:1, 8, 20. The relationship between Ezek 44 and the priestly law is complex and cannot be resolved through a one-sided diachrony. There are reactions to Ezek 44 in the Pentateuch, to which Lev 10 might belong. The scholarly positions are, however, quite divergent. While, e.g., ACHENBACH , Versagen (2004), 63 understands Lev 10 as a commentary adopting Ezek 44:20–23. KONKEL , Gola (2002), 381 advocates for the opposite in a discussion with T. Rudnig. He conceives of Ezek 44 as a Zadokite Halakha also of the stipulations in Lev 10. For the present argument, it is not really essential which direction the diachronic relationship goes, even if it is undoubtedly of great composition-critical importance. If one assumes the unity of Lev 10 and takes the interconnections seriously, one can hardly get around placing Lev 10 after Ezek 44 (so also, e.g, NIHAN, Torah [2007], 576, 590–1). A detailed investigation of the direction of dependence will not take place in the present context. 49 50

452

Leadership and Priesthood

Pentateuch in its final form: 51 “I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction” ( ‫ואתנה‬ ‫)לך את־לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשׁר כתבתי להורתם‬. The first referent is clearly the writing down of the Decalogue because only the Ten Commandments were written by God himself upon the tablets. Whether the following terms also explicitly refer to the Decalogue because God did not write anything else or instead indicate the (written and oral [Rabbi Saadia Gaon]) Torah has been debated since the rabbis. It appears without clear specification within the Torah. The subject by which the instruction is supported remains open in any case, which has certainly promoted the connection to this text rather than hindered it. Deuteronomy understands – at least in its final form – Moses as the subject of the instruction and the Mosaic Torah as interpretation of the revelation given on Sinai/Horeb. This became clear at a later point through the conflict concerning the correct understanding of ‫ באר‬in Deut 1:5.52 If one translates Deut 1:5 “Moses began to interpret this entire Torah,” then Deuteronomy becomes the interpretation of the divine revelation. This is not the place to carry out a renewed discussion of the understanding of Deut 1:5, but simply to state that this understanding presents a legitimate interpretation of the gap in Exod 24:12. In Lev 10:11, however, the gap is likewise filled with a clearly different interpretation: the priest becomes the subject of the instructive interpretation. As is the case in Exod 24:12, the verb ‫ ירה‬is used: “and in order to teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the LORD has spoken to them through Moses” ( ‫ולהורת את־בני ישׂראל את כל־‬ ‫)החקים אשׁר דבר יהוה אליהם‬. This results in the institutionalization of one-time Torah instruction by Moses and its transfer into the hands of the priests. Its basis, however, remains Moses’s unassailable authority. The degree to which the instruction of the Torah is committed to the field of responsibility of the priests in the final form of the Pentateuch is on display when one compiles the rest of the appearances of ‫ י רה‬in the H-stem: Exod 4:12, 15; 15:25; 35:34; Lev 14:37; Deut 17:10–11; 24:8; 33:10. 4.4 Interpretation as a Genuine Priestly Duty Only the communication triangle in the dialogue between Moses and God in Exod 4 is relevant of the places that do not have Torah as their object. Exodus 4 calls for detailed attention that I am unable to grant it here for space limitations. In short, it addresses interpretive competencies and questions of authority. While YHWH initially assures Moses that he will instruct him in what he should say (‫)והוריתיך אשׁר תדב ר‬, v. 15 presents – in agreement with Deuter51 Cf. among others, OTTO, Tora (2009), 467 and elsewhere; BRAULIK, Weisung (2004), 117–26. 52 Cf. F REVEL, Lernort (2012), 123–31.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

453

onomy, which completely overlooks the objection in 4:10 – his older brother as the “mouth.” Moses should place the words in Aaron’s mouth ( ‫ושׂמת את־‬ ‫)הדברים בפיו‬. If this were the same as subordinate mediation, then the following statement would emphasize equal status in relation to the origin of the revelation: “I will be your mouth and with his mouth” (‫ואנכי אהיה עם־פיך ועם־‬ ‫)פיהו‬. Both will receive instruction on what to do. If one raises the meaning from the immediate narrative context of Exod 3–4 to a figurative level and equates Moses with Torah and Aaron with the priesthood, then already at the beginning of the exodus narrative, the normative legislative authority is supplemented through the applied interpretive authority, which, however, is linked to the origin and authority of Torah. The remainder of the evidence shows that this understanding does not completely miss the mark. Synchronically, in the leprosy instruction of Lev 14:37, the competency to distinguish between “clean” and “unclean” takes up Lev 10:10 and is combined with the ‫ ירה‬from Lev 10:11. Deuteronomy 24:8 also agrees that in the case of leprosy, the Levitical priest’s instruction should be followed exactly (‫)אשׁר־יורו אתכם הכהנים הלוים כאשׁר צוי תם תשׁמרו לעשׂות‬. The Levi-proclamation in the Mosaic blessing picks up the theme once again in its initial words over the Levites: “They teach Jacob your judgments and Israel your Torah” (‫)יורו משׁפטי ך ליעקב ותורתך לי שׂראל‬. 53 Even if this track can only be suggested, the Urim and Thummim in Deut 33:8 point to Aaron (Exod 28:30) for the faithful (‫ )לאי שׁ חסידך‬and the cultic service in Deut 33:10b (‫ )קטרת וכלול על־מזבחך ישׂימו‬to the Aaronides. In Deut 33:4a the Torah is “given to us from Moses” (‫)תורה צוה־לנו משׁה‬, in Deut 33:10 the promulgation and interpretation of the Torah, which remains the possession of all ( ‫מורשׁה‬ ‫ יעקב קהלת‬in Deut 33:4b) is committed by means of the ‫ ירה‬in H-stem to the institution of the priesthood. In light of the texts considered so far, the double appearance of ‫ ירה‬in the H-stem is noteworthy in the section concerning the central court in the laws of the officials in Deut 16:18–18:21 in 17:10 and 17:11. After the “you” addressed in v. 10a is instructed to act in accordance with the judgment handed down (‫)ועשׂית על־פי אשׁר יגידו לך‬, v. 10b presses on, “you should be careful to do everything that they teach you” (‫ )ושׁמרת לעשׂות ככל אשׁר יורוך‬once again. Verse 11 then continues, “In accordance with the Torah that they teach you (‫)על־פי התורה אשׁר י ורוך‬, and corresponding with the court judgment that they pronounce to you, you shall act. You shall not turn from the judgment that they pronounce to you, neither to the right nor to the left.” While the subject remains undefined, the context of the section itself suggests judges and

53 On this text, see also FINSTERBUSCH, Weisung (2005), 303. On the interpretation of the Temple Scroll and its recognizable enhancement of the role of the priests, see PAGANINI, Rezeption (2009), 128, 130–1.

454

Leadership and Priesthood

priests. However, the connection with ‫ תורה‬in v. 11 allows for a close tie in light of the abovementioned locations of ‫ ירה‬in H-stem with the priests. 54 What does this glance at the various texts mean for the understanding of Lev 10:11? All passages in which ‫ ירה‬is connected with the interpretation of Torah are more or less explicitly linked to the institution of the priesthood. The center and core passage in this is Lev 10:11, with its interplay with Exod 24:12. The Torah interpretation of the priests in Lev 10:11 is directed toward maintaining the cultic system – sacred and profane, clean and unclean – in order to ensure the divine presence in the sanctuary in the midst of the people, which was graciously made possible at Sinai. The previous misconduct by the Aaronides, whose transgression places this conception in question, is therefore weighed down by this paradigmatic case in a special way. The corresponding responsibility of the priests to maintain the cultic system in order to surround God’s holiness and presence will be realized in the following section through the paradigmatic example of the orderly treatment of sacrifices. 4.5 The Sin-Offering Bull as a Case of Interpretation Verses 12–18 quasi-form the immediate application of the competency accorded to the Aaronide priests in Lev 10:10–11. The Mosaic Torah is initially set forth and then it is interpreted by Aaron in a binding manner. If there is something outside of their access to the sanctuary that separates priests recognizably from the laity, then it is the apportionments of the sacrifice for consumption. On the symbolic level, it concerns the sensitive area of cutting between the sacred and the profane: by means of the handling of the sacrifice, the sacrificial animal is taken from the profane and thereby sanctified. An uncontrolled return to the profane would not only raise the question of the sacrifice as a sacrifice, but the sensitive boundary between the sacred and the profane would be destabilized by the transgression such that both areas would be endangered. The consumption of the sacrificial portions is therefore subject to special stipulations (Lev 6–7; 8:31; 22; Num 18; and elsewhere). In terms of the institutional and social level, on the other hand, the apportionment of the parts of the sacrifice as a priestly privilege concerns one of the central income and provision sources, for which reason the priestly circle’s entitlement to them is so frequently and vehemently underscored in Old Testament texts. 54 This is the most probable redaction-historical solution, as D AHMEN , Leviten (1996), 223–7, 236–7 has underlined in his analysis. He assigns vv. 10b, 11a*b to a late dtr redaction. In the given text, or as the case may be in the context of the Pentateuch, the referent for ‫ת ור ה‬, however, goes considerably beyond the entity present in Deut 5–28, which according to 31:9 was written by Moses (see IBIDEM , 225). On v. 11 as a supplement to the original text, see also RÜTERSWÖRDEN, Gemeinschaft (1987), 47.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

455

Moses speaks to Aaron and the remaining two sons again in v. 12, giving instructions. “Moses, not God, is the speaker, a sign that the following instructions are not new but have been given before.” 55 The introduction is not linked back to a spoken order by YHWH, but both v. 13b and v. 15 refer to divine authority. The apportionment of the sacrificial parts and their appropriate treatment in the holy precinct is expressed in v. 13 through the passive participle from ‫ צוה‬D-stem, with which Moses underlines “for thus it was commanded to me” (‫)כי־כן צויתי‬. The infrequent phrase, which otherwise appears only in Lev 8:35, constitutes a reference back to the Torah given in Lev 6.56 The conclusion of the second section, which treats the portions of the communal sacrificial offering to be consumed in a clean location, is instead formulated in v. 15 with the customary ‫כאשׁר צוה יהוה‬. The fact that the breast of the raised offering (‫ )תרומה‬and the haunch of the lifted offering (‫)תנופה‬ are set apart as the “eternal claim” of the priestly portion was already determined in Exod 29:28 and Lev 7:34. The following section of vv. 16–20 is of central importance with regard to inner-biblical interpretation, which is placed in the foreground in this essay. This section underlines the meaning of the priestly Halakha of the Mosaic law through the example of the purifying, or as the case may be, the sinoffering (‫)חטאת‬. Interpretation is then necessary when the normative foundation is unclear or must be adapted to fit the situation. The narrative level of the text steers in the direction of just such a starting point: Moses seeks (cognate accusative from ‫)דרשׁ‬, for at first inscrutable motivations, intensively in v. 16 for the remainder of a sacrificial animal, more specifically for the ram for a purification offering (‫)שׂעיר חטאת‬. Moses observes that it had been burned and becomes incensed. This is not simply the grotesque reaction of a senile traditionalist; a substantial “halakhic” discussion stands in the background. The fact that the opening situation reaches back to the narrative setting in Lev 9 is likely, but it is not – probably intentionally – expressed with the clarity one might desire in the text. Nevertheless, a look back is worthwhile. In the celebratory initiation of the sacrificial cult, Aaron and his sons had offered two purifying sacrifices (‫ )חטאת‬at the instruction of Moses. First a calf (‫ )עגל בן־בקר‬for Aaron (v. 2) and a ram (‫ )שׂעי ר־עזים‬for the people (v. 3), expressly intended for the purification or “expiation” (‫וכפר בעדך וב עד העם‬, v. 7). The remains of Aaron’s purification offering are burned explicitly outside the camp (v. 11), while no specific information is provided about the remains of the purification offering for the people. Leviticus 9:15 simply states that the offering was completed like the first (‫)ויטאהו כראשׁון‬. Leviticus 10:16 MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 618 with reference to Klaus Koch. The question of innovation in vv. 12–15 cannot be addressed here further, but see the discussion in NIHAN, Torah (2007), 593–8. 55 56

456

Leadership and Priesthood

seems to take up this indeterminacy when Moses “seeks” the ram of the purification offering (‫שׂעיר החטאת‬, this form is attested elsewhere only in Lev 9:15; 16:15, 24) and determines that it was also burned outside the camp. 57 This construes a situation from the text in which the ceremony from Lev 9 does not correspond exactly with the sacrificial instruction from Lev 1–7. It appears a short step to the conclusion that the narrative tradition in Lev 9 does not arise from the same hand as the sacrificial instruction and the tension can be explained in terms of composition history. Finally, it is important that the priestly tradents took this tension seriously and solved it in a quite innovative manner – as the following discussion will show – but without simply resolving it. The treatment of the remainder of the ‫חטאת‬-offering is now stylized as a paradigmatic case of interpretation. ‫“ דרשׁ‬inquire, investigate” must be understood as a technical term for the investigation of a legal case so that the section amounts to a legal discussion within the Torah between Aaron and Moses. The content then directly explicates Lev 10:11 (“You should instruct […]”), for this time Aaron does not remain silent! Moses argues by means of the given differences between two kinds of purification offerings in Lev 6:17–23. While the remains of the ‫ חטאת‬must principally be consumed as most holy by the priests in the sacred precinct, an exception is prescribed for the purification offering whose blood is applied in the holy of holies for purification (Lev 4): “Every purification offering from whose blood something in the tent has contact with in order to expiate the/in the sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire” (Lev 6:23). After Moses determines that the ram for the purification offering was burned outside the camp, his anger is not directed toward Aaron, but (Rashi: for Aaron’s honor) against his two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, who likewise did not carry out the offering of Lev 9:15 on their own authority. He accuses them of misconduct because the blood of the animal was not applied in the sanctuary. Therefore, it was not to be burned, but rather eaten. Because of the inadequate treatment of the holy of holies (‫)קד שׁ קדשׁים‬, they did not correctly carry out their responsibility to act as representatives on behalf of the community. The case would then be similarly supported as Lev 22:15–16, where the inappropriate treatment of the priestly portions was connected with the charge of guilt on the community. 58 In any case, Moses indirectly accuses Aaron’s sons of not using the necessary insight in their responsibility of discernment in Lev 10:10. Unlike the case with Nadab and Abihu, Aaron does not remain silent in response to this accu57 The plural subject in v. 19 speaks against the simple and unequivocal identification, which agrees only to a certain degree with the narrative events in Lev 9. 58 Interpretations of Lev 22:16 diverge greatly, which cannot be addressed in this context. Cf. the discussion in MILGROM, Leviticus (2000), 1865–70.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

457

sation, and this itself is already uncommon. Even if one does not expect it, Aaron speaks infrequently in the Pentateuch and basically never with Moses. One can limit comparisons to just a few cases. One must first set aside all the repetition of Moses’s words in Exod 4:30, which should rather be reckoned as part of the above-discussed case of priestly “instruction” and their connection to the Torah. Introduced by a verb of address, Aaron speaks to the entire people at the appearance of the ‫ כבוד‬in Exod 16:10 and also to the people at the fabrication of the golden calf in Exod 32:2. Neither are directed at Moses. In this regard, in addition to Lev 10:19 there are three cases: (1) the defense against Moses in Exod 32:22, “But you know that the people are wicked;” (2) his rebuke with Miriam of Moses for his Cushite wife in Num 12:1; and (3) the intercession for Miriam along with the admission of guilt in Num 12:10. Aaron’s two direct addresses to Moses in Exod 32:22 and Num 12:10 are formulated with ‫אמר‬. In our verse, the introduction of speech – in a significant reversal of Lev 10:12 – is ‫וידבר אל־משׁה אהרן‬. Aaron begins with “look,” which underlines his objection with a particular emphasis. In his reply directly against Moses’s objection – taking up the plural subject (“today they brought”) of the attack on the two sons, he points to circumstances that abrogate the Torah adopted from Lev 6:17–23. Aaron connects them exclusively only to himself: “Today such a thing happened to me” (‫)ותקראנה אתי כאלה‬. This could only mean that when Aaron as the priest presiding over the offering was hindered from eating the purification offering, then this affects the entire rite – also the behavior of the sons assisting him. The event happened such that it inhibited him from eating the meat of the ‫חטאת‬. The circumstances were so serious that Aaron opposes Moses and asks whether it would have pleased YHWH if he had eaten the meat in according with the precept. Aaron tasks himself with judging the appropriateness of the situational application of ritual stipulations in the sacrificial cult. He explicitly assumes the competency that was accorded him in vv. 10–11. What is intended with the experience remains open. A connection with the incident in Lev 10:1–4 is usually assumed: Aaron was so affected by the death of his sons that he felt indisposed. However, the death of Nadab and Abihu appears after the conclusion of the sacrificial celebration in Lev 9, though the period of time between them is not given. On the other hand, as is generally known, there is the prohibition for the high priest to take part in mourning rites and also a burial, even of his closest relatives (Lev 21:11; cf. Ezek 24:11; 44:25). This is underlined in Lev 10:6 through the extension to Aaron and his sons, which also includes the potential successors of the high priest in the prohibition. Therefore, it would hardly be expected that Moses would agree with Aaron’s behavior if the background was his “indisposition” of mourning. The contamination of the sanctuary by the corpses of the sons

458

Leadership and Priesthood

might also be considered, 59 but in this case as well the contamination could potentially have come after the completion of the rite and did not specifically involve Aaron (cf. the ‫ אתי‬linked to him in v. 19). The fact that any form of impurity for the priests arising from contact hindered them until evening from consuming the sacrificial meat is stipulated by Lev 22:1–7. Aaron could easily have invoked this analogy, such that the circumstances clearly lay beyond the set cases and were subject to Aaron’s authority to judge whether they would be hindered from eating or not. The use of ‫ קרא‬in v. 19 can signify any unforeseen event, which underscores the paradigmatic nature of the case. Aaron tasks himself, therefore, with limiting the validity of the Torah in individual cases when special circumstances are present. In turn, Moses’s answer is concessive, without him having checked with YHWH once again: “(When) Moses heard (it), and (it) was good in his eyes” (v. 20: ‫)וישׁמע משׁה וייטב בעיניו‬. 60 Moses’s concessive “appeared right to him” is eminently important in the context of the entire chapter. Moses thereby rescinds the allegation of a serious legal violation. At the same time, he agrees not only to Aaron’s fundamental authority to judge (in accordance in form to Lev 10:10) but also (in accordance with the form of Lev 10:11) to his interpretive authority with regard to the application of the Torah. 4.6 Fortschreibung as Interpretation Leviticus 10 is often only noticed for the crucial introductory episode of the death of Nadab and Abihu. It is noted, e.g., in the category of “cultic incident”61 as a serious disturbance to the recently installed cultic system. In addition to internal conflicts between different priesthoods, about which nothing more is known, 62 the background is also suggested to be the disputed development of the sacrificial cult or a confrontation with the Zoroastrian fire cult.63 Usually these emphases of individual aspects have wide-reaching, diachronic ramifications. For example, only vv. 1–7 present the basic text for Martin Noth, and they themselves are already a supplement to the Priestly Document. Verses 8–20, on the other hand, present an addition that he cannot 59 So, e.g., MILGROM, Leviticus (1991), 639, who must, however, presume that Nadab and Abihu die before the completion of the rite in Lev 9. 60 Differently FISHBANE , Interpretation (1989), 227. While it is possible that the pronominal suffix “in his eyes” refers to YHWH, it remains quite improbable because there is no explicit inquiry of YHWH like in Num 9:8. Similarly JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit (2001), 296– 7. 61 N OTH , Leviticus (1977), 83. 62 N OTH , Leviticus (1977), 84: “Behind the narrative of the first part there stood in the far background internal disputes between different priesty groups, about which we have no further knowledge.” 63 Cf. the references in A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 97–100.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

459

really classify. Verses 8–11 would adopt from Ezek 44 what in that context appears to be a rather unmotivated appearance of the prohibition of the enjoyment of intoxicating drink. 64 And vv. 12–20, finally, depict later special instructions for the offering in chap. 9.65 “Here is a remarkable attempt to reconcile the deviations of different Old Testament traditions with one another by supplementary material.” 66 Still! Even E. Gerstenberger presents the chapter as compositionally uneven, arguing that at least four textual entities are added to the inauguration event (i.e., Lev 9), likely in the attempt to place certain accents, to explain contradictions, or to bring in things that had been forgotten or become newly important for the report of the beginning of the sacrificial service. 67 The final product was, accordingly, devalued and misunderstood. Gerstenberger concludes that the chapter lacks any thematic or stylistic unity and gives the impression that generations of zealous guardians of the law commentated on the function of the priestly office.68 Like M. Noth, E. Gerstenberger also postulates social-historical conflicts in the priesthood of the late post-exilic period, which morph, however, into types. 69 He argues that in the case of Nadab and Abihu, it was a divine death sentence through the burning of the guilty. The clear message is that a once influential, rival group of priests was eliminated. The reason for the elimination is not interesting in and of itself. 70 Be that as it may, so far it has remained impossible to localize this conflict in social and institutional historical terms. A consideration of Num 16–17 does not really help, 71 and whilst the simple assumption that there were “considerable power struggles in Judah also among the priest64 N OTH, Leviticus (1977), 86: “[…] there is added a prohibition – quite unrelated to this context – of all consumption of intoxicating drinks by the priests.” 65 NOTH, Leviticus (1977), 87: “The rest of the chapter (vv. 12–20) appends special instructions to the sacrifices of ch. 9.” 66 N OTH , Leviticus (1977), 87. 67 GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1996), 114: “At least four textual units are added to the inaugural events [i.e., Leviticus 9], probably in an attempt to emphasize certain specifics, to clarify contradictions, and to introduce into the account of the beginnings of sacrificial worship items that had been forgotten or had acquired new importance.” 68 G ERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1996), 115–6: “The chapter lacks any thematic or stylistic unity, and we everywhere notice breaks, gaps, and doubling […] on the whole, chap. 10 gives the impression of generations of zealous guardians of the law having commented on official priestly activities and drawn attention to potential and dangerous deviations.” 69 Cf. e.g., GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus (1996), 116, who nevertheless affirms concurrently (IBIDEM, 117) that it in no way treats historical affairs, but rather types. 70 GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus (1996), 117. 71 GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1996), 117, who sees it as a detailed parallel narrative, such that Lev 10 is a distant echo of the Korah rebellion (IBIDEM, 118). He sees the transmitter of Lev 10:1–2 applying the basic motif of the rebel priestly group claiming the highest authority in its shortest form to the Sinaitic initiation celebration. My doubt with regard to Gerstenberger’s attempt at explanation does not question the similarity in content and also a compositional connection between Lev 10 and Num 16–18.

460

Leadership and Priesthood

ly classes and in the congregational leadership” 72 is probably correct, it remains too abstract. The picture developed in the discussion of Lev 10 in this essay has instead shown that the chapter addresses the paradigmatic definition of priestly competencies. On the one hand, it expands the priest’s role, while on the other it limits it. It is also possible that it concerns the keeping of even glorious leaders within human limits. 73 However, E. Gerstenberger also holds the priests were receivers of Moses’s commands and were dependent on his goodwill,74 which has been shown to be clearly incorrect and severely underestimates the authority granted to the priests in Lev 10. In contrast to attempts at differentiating the compositional history, while my analysis does not demonstrate the literary uniformity of the chapter, it does indicate that the various parts placed together in Lev 10 are not only related to one another, but they also form a meaningful composition that can be comprehended as the elaboration and paradigmatic interpretation of the Torah. Whether the chapter should, therefore, be viewed as a unity that was first constructed by the “final editor of Leviticus,” 75 or whether it grew and was edited through multiple stages can hardly be decided. The remaining tensions need not, however, point to different hands. In its current form, Lev 10 presupposes a great number of texts from Leviticus and Numbers. The composition-historical location of the textual interpretive game in Lev 10 is certainly situated long after Pg, Ps, or H, etc. Neither does the process of inner-biblical exegesis in Lev 10 allow the text to be assigned to a late-priestly, theocratic, or another specific redaction. The present text is relatively late, just like the conception found in the final composition. The coherence of Lev 10 in the final form has just as few indications that are clearly assigned in terms of their redaction-historical location in the paradigmatically concentrated inner-biblical interpretive process, even though there are comparable interpretive tendencies in late priestly texts (e.g., Num 27; 36). However one finally answers this question, one thing is clear: the composition-historically late, post-priestly (but clearly priestly tinted) Fortschreibungen also serve as interpretation of the Torah in the Torah by the Torah. Leviticus 10 clarifies not only how important it is to differentiation the fundamental priestly categories, 76 as Benedikt Jürgens highlights, but also the interpretive authority of the Aaronide priest and the limits of institutional power, such that they are not acquitted of actual misdeeds and consequences, but they bear responsibility. While Aaron affirms the Mosaic Torah by means of his silence in the first section, in the second section of the chapter he interprets the Torah situationGERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1996), 119. GERSTENBERGER, Leviticus (1996), 121. 74 GERSTENBERGER , Leviticus (1996), 121–2. 75 So NIHAN , Torah (2007), 602. 76 JÜRGENS, Heiligkeit (2001), 298. 72 73

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

461

ally through the application of the Torah. As a result, Lev 10 can truly be comprehended as the founding legend of priestly interpretation, which narrates Aaron’s transformation “into a teacher of the Law.”77 The interplay between Moses (Torah) and Aaron (priesthood), that is, of the narrative and typological levels in the late priestly texts is, therefore, of critical importance for the shift from law to commentary. Or, in the words of Christophe Nihan: “What emerges here, therefore, is nothing less than the scriptural foundation of midrashic exegesis.”78

5. The Connection of Authoritativeness, Referentiality and Interpretation in the Pentateuch: Conclusion The course of the argument began in the realm of models with Erich Zenger’s achievement in the development of the so-called Münster Pentateuch Model and traced its successive growth. The nature of the post-exilic stages of the text that are connected with the formation of the Pentateuch as Torah appeared as an open flank. The late priestly Fortschreibungen found especially in Leviticus and Numbers could not be mapped within the Münster Pentateuch Model. The reason for this was that no clear redactional model of continuous and connected Fortschreibungen like a closing Pentateuch redaction or final redaction could be found for the final phases and the final composition of the Pentateuch. The latest texts instead appear, on the one hand, to update existing texts in a selective manner, or on the other hand to be related strongly to the Pentateuchal traditions they allude to, adopt, correct, commentate, etc. The discussion of the example text of Lev 10 showed that there was a clear consciousness of Torah as such and the necessity of interpreting it within the Torah. The exemplary result may also be shown in many other so-called late texts: the Phinehas episode, one of the most important reception-historical late narratives in Num 25:6–18, interprets Num 25:1–5 by updating it, changing the basic paradigm for the rejection for mixed marriages, thereby solidifying the priests’ claim to leadership in this question. 79 Numbers 27 and Num 36 interpret the provisions for the rights of inheritance afresh on the backdrop of the apportionment of the land to the tribes in the context of the twelve tribe fiction. The execution of Balaam in Num 31:8, 16 turns Balaam into a false

77 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 602, where the formulation “founding legend of priestly exegesis” also appears. Cf. earlier WATTS, Characterization (1998), 415–26, esp. 425. 78 NIHAN, Torah (2007), 604. 79 Cf. F REVEL/CONCZOROWSKI, Water (2011), 35–40.

462

Leadership and Priesthood

prophet, who must be executed according to Deut 13, thereby sets in place the essential conception of prophets in the Pentateuch. 80 All of these examples accompany the increasing concentration of textual relationships and a higher degree of authoritativeness of the earlier tradition, which is both underlined and changed by the updates. The reference back to existing traditions and the shift of accents distinguishes the examples. They integrate – and this is an essential moment – in each case the methodological aspects of interpretation both in content and also formal regards. They assume that the Pentateuch requires interpretation, and these texts develop paradigmatically how the interpretation that assumes and maintains the authoritativeness of the Mosaic Torah functions. The vigorous investigation of Lev 10 has shown clearly that the late texts of the Pentateuch are more than epigonal accretions by priestly scribes, and M. Noth’s judgment of them is by no means correct in that hardly “any essential significance for the theology of P” is formulated in them. 81 Neither are they still concerned with inserting previous traditions or traditional pieces in the Pentateuch in order to make it “complete.” Such a category appears rather foreign to the Pentateuch. They are instead forming the Torah as Torah: Moses becomes the authority for interpretation, and Aaron becomes the interpreting institution. The texts do not aim to conclude the Pentateuch redactionally, but they do formally advance it de facto in this direction. The clearer that the existing Mosaic Torah is perceived as normative authority, the more recognizable the necessity of its interpretation becomes. Composition history and the history of theology are not independent of one another and at least – in the sense of a critique of the trend – methodologically necessary for the development of the final form. Especially Lev 10, and the abovementioned late texts in general, should not be assigned to one or more of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch redactions. At minimum, they do not allow for the recognition of connections in this direction. They lack the homogeneity necessary for collecting them into a single redaction. Therefore, a model of updating seems more appropriate for these late additions than a redactional model. The texts not only combine Deuteronomistic and priestly theologies with one another, at times they also recall them. They should be assigned to priestly circles for whom the Pentateuch was already endowed with a high degree of authoritativeness but who did not see it as closed. They already see Moses as more than the leader of the people or the mediator of covenant and law, and Aaron as far more than his brother and the high priest. They develop a typological understanding in which Moses stands for the Torah and Aaron for the priests. In the emphasis on the authority of the priests, they go beyond the conception of the 80 81

Cf. F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume. NOTH , History (1981), 242 with n. 634.

And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed (Lev 10:20)

463

Mosaic Torah and anchor its interpretation in the institution of the priesthood. At the same time, they accept “Moses” as the normative authority. Frank Crüsemann early indicated that in late texts of the Pentateuch Moses becomes an authority above all others in the Persian period.82 In fact, these texts show how Moses becomes a cipher and the Torah becomes selfreferential. The fact that the Torah is found to be a ruling authority and referential entity outside the Torah – beginning with Josh 1, to Ezra/Nehemiah and into the construction of the canon – is uncontested. This referential aspect is usually connected with the completion of certain entities, whether it be Deuteronomy in the DtrH or the Pentateuch in its separation from the larger context of the Enneateuch (Genesis–2 Kings) by Deut 34:10–12. However, it does not appear at all to be agreed upon that the moment of completion must be presumed. 83 It is rather the case that the Torah develops its normative referential value already within the self-interpretation of the Torah itself, parallel to the development of referential systems outside the Pentateuch for which the Torah evolved its normative referential value. The interpretation of the Torah does not begin only outside the Pentateuch – whether that be with Ezra, Chronicles, the midrash-like references of the book of Ruth, the reader, or wherever – it begins in the Pentateuch itself. By being midrash or Halakha itself, this form of interpretation is definitive for the development of these methods in early Jewish literature, be that in the book of Jubilees, in Qumran, or the rabbis. This has been made clear through the discussion of Lev 10. One of Erich Zenger’s accomplishments was to reject the notion of a hermeneutical break between biblical and post-biblical Judaism, 84 who not without reason held firm at the end of his first discussion of Leviticus with the Jerusalem Talmud that the Torah is given for interpretation (Meg. 1.1.70a). 85

CRÜSEMANN, Tora (1992), 128; cf. on the example of Exod 18, FREVEL, Götter (2003), 21–2. 83 Cf. earlier F REVEL, Abschied (2001), 232–4. 84 ZENGER, Auslegung (2003), 33. 85 ZENGER, Buch (1999), 80. 82

“… and the Levites Shall Be Mine” Remarks on the Connections Between Numbers 3; 8 and 18 The fact that the history of the Levites in the Israelite cult was quite eventful and that the relationship between the Levites and the priests was not tension free can be counted as a truism of the history of the priesthood. While the pre-exilic pre-history of the Levites remains largely in the dark1 and the Levites are initially introduced in the Deuteronomic Deuteronomy as a social entity and as personae miserae, their revaluation begins – if one follows the investigation by Ulrich Dahmen – in the exilic late dtr texts with the Levitization of the priesthood. 2 While the priests in Ezekiel are also of Levitical descent (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15), they are clearly subordinate to the Zadokites (Ezek 44:10, 15; 48:11), and they are relieved of the more narrowly defined priestly functions (Ezek 44:11–14). The Levites are subordinated as clerus minor, 3 or rather as “second-tier priests,” 4 and degraded to “subaltern cultic service.”5 The priests serve YHWH, the Levites on the other hand serve the people through the slaughtering of sacrificial animals and guarding the gates. 6 Ezekiel 44:10–16 provides at least tradition-historically a further development of what is codified in Num 18. 7 As a result, Levites and priests are separated in a still stronger manner than was the case in Num 18. 8 According to Michael Konkel, Ezek 44 does not, however, present a Zadokite “counterexegesis” of Num 18 that would refute that position, but, in his opinion the basic directions of Num 18 are extended and radicalized.9 However the diaCf. DAHMEN, Leviten (1996), 394; IDEM, Leviten (1997), 865. Cf. the ‫ כהני ם הל וי ם‬in Deut 17:9, 18; 18:1; 24:8; 27:9 as well as ‫ כהנים בני לוי‬in Deut 21:5; 31:9. 3 G UNNEWEG, Leviten (1965), 139 and elsewhere. 4 SCHAPER, Leviten (2000), 290. 5 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 91. 6 Cf. KONKEL, Architektonik (2001), 310–1. IBIDEM, 311 also on the issue of the sustainability of the functional designations in Ezek 44:11 and IBIDEM, 316–7 on the Levites’ “career” as watchmen. 7 K ONKEL, Architektonik (2001), 308 (“[stellen] zumindest traditionsgeschichtlich dessen dar […], was in Num 18 kodifiziert ist”); IBIDEM, 304–8 for older scholarship. For the reverse understanding of the relationship, see SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 223. 8 KONKEL, Architektonik (2001), 312: “ […] in noch schärferer Weise getrennt, als dies in Num 18 der Fall ist.” 9 K ONKEL, Architektonik (2001), 313; cf. IBIDEM, 328, 332. 1 2

466

Leadership and Priesthood

chronic relationship between Ezek 44 and Num 18 is to be understood, a demotion of the Levites is not compatible with the information provided by the book of Numbers on the position of the Levites. In the following investigation, I attempt to develop the conception of Levitical service at the sanctuary in the book of Numbers. This should clarify the conceptual interrelationship of the “Levitical statutes” 10 in Numbers, especially the census of the Levites in Num 3 and the consecration of the Levites in Num 8, with the law concerning the priestly contributions in Num 18. Several diachronic presuppositions for the Levite texts in the book of Numbers are, therefore, in question. The examplary narrative in Num 16–17 is consciously excluded. The focus of the following considerations does not lie in the social and culturalhistorical location of the conception of the Levites in the post-exilic cult or in the reconstruction of the history of the Levitical priesthood, but in the conceptual coherence of the texts in Numbers.

1. Levitical Service in Numbers 18 The exclusivity of the Aaronide priesthood is beyond question in the entire priestly literature of the Pentateuch. As a result, while Num 18 allows the Levites to approach the sanctuary and to perform work at the tent of meeting (vv. 3–4, 23), which is forbidden for the rest of the Israelites (vv. 4, 22), the Levites are to subordinate themselves to Aaron and to serve the Aaronides (v. 6). This is underlined in vv. 2 and 4 through the folk-etymological use of the verb ‫ לוה‬in the N-stem (v. 2: ‫)הקרב אתך וילוו עליך וישׁרתוך‬.11 Numbers 18 is concerned with finding a balance between priests and Levites.12 The Levites are provided for on a permanent basis through the Israelites’ tithes (vv. 21, 24), but they may not participate in the most holy sacrificial contributions. On the one hand, an unambiguous and permanent subordination of the Levites is recognizable from Num 18, but on the other hand, unlike Ezek 44:10, any trace of demotion of the Levites as cultic servants is missing. The exemplary conflict in Num 16–17 is in the background of Num 18, which itself intends to be read as a continuation, especially in light of Num 17:27–28. Numbers “Levitensatzungen” is the form-critical term applied to the material by MÖHLENÜberlieferungen (1934), 186, 223. 11 ‫ לו ה‬only occurs elsewhere in the Pentateuch in Gen 29:34 as an explanation of the name at the birth of Levi. The verb expresses the total and complete contingency and dependence of the particular subject in the fulfillment of his rights, or as the case may be in his relationship to God, that is upon the one to which he is related through lwh. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 155: “Das Verb bringt zum Ausdruck, daß das jeweilige Subjekt sich voll und ganz in der Erfüllung seiner Rechte bzw. in seiner Gottesbeziehung abhängig und angewiesen erkennt auf denjenigen, auf den es durch lwh bezogen ist.” 12 Cf. also SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 219–25. 10

BRINK,

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

467

18 anchors both the preeminence of the Aaronides and also the indispensable necessity of the Levites as a buffer entity between the priests. The priests are in contact with the mortal danger of the holy, while the access of the people remains regulated. The Levites enable a functional cult at the sanctuary such that they are indispensable for the cultic system. 13 The foundation for the notion of the Levites’ exceptional position is laid in Num 3–4 and Num 8. That the Levites belong to YHWH through the conception of the replacement of the firstborn is developed in Num 3:11–13. Their relationship is as property (‫והי ו לי הלוים‬, v. 12; ‫לי יהי ו אני יהוה‬, v. 13), such that they are set apart as substitutes from the people for the firstborn called for in Exod 13:2 (‫תחת כל־בכור פטר רחם‬, v. 12; cf. vv. 41, 45) and dedicated to the sanctuary. 14 The special proximity to YHWH justified in that text predestines them for an intermediate position between the Aaronide priests and the people (Num 3:5–10). The separation of the Levites is developed narratively in the census of Num 3:14–51 and implemented in the Levite consecration in the sanctuary in Num 8:5–22. The determination of the relationships between these texts, however, is contested in scholarship. According to Reinhard Achenbach, the rite of the Levite consecration as a wave-offering (‫ )תנופה‬is the odd result of the conception of Num 3:11–13, which is not, however, incorporated at all into Num 18:6. 15 Achenbach therefore sees Num 3:11–13 as secondary in literary terms to Num 18:6–7. Both Num 3:11–13, 40–51 and also Num 7–8 are attributed to the latest theocratic editing of the book of Numbers. 16 Horst Seebass similarly identifies Num 3:11–13, 40–51 and 8:5–14, 16–19 as later specifications of 18:6. 17 Martin Noth sees the exceptional position of the Levites as presupposed by the basic text of Num 8, but first developed secondarily in Num 8:16b–19. Therefore, the consecration of the Levites in Num 8* precedes the appended conception of Num 3:11–13, 40–51. 18

Cf. TAGGAR-COHEN, Law (1998), 74. Numbers 3:13 explicitly recalls – also in terms of language (cf. KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift [1970], 44) – the events in Exod 12–13 and presupposes this as literary context. 15 ACHENBACH , Vollendung (2003), 156: “der Ritus der Levitenweihe als Schwingopfer [ist] die skurrile Konsequenz [aus der Konzeption von Num 3,11-13, die] in Num 18,6 allerdings noch keine Berücksichtigung findet.” 16 Cf. A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 156, 488–95, 541, 633, 638. 17 SEEBASS , Numeri (2003), 227. 18 Cf. N OTH, Numbers (1968), 67–9. 13 14

468

Leadership and Priesthood

2. Numbers 18:6 and Its Connection to Numbers 3 and 8 While it is true at first glance that the conception of the Levites as the substitute for the firstborn does not explicitly appear in Num 18:6, YHWH’s speech in Num 18:6 assumes (1) a separation of the Levites that God himself initiated and (2) the identification of the Levite as ‫מתנה‬. The formulation of the declarative speech in v. 6, which is often felt to be idiosyncratic, makes the close interconnectedness with Num 3 and Num 8 clear: aα And I, behold, I have taken your brothers the Levites aβ from the midst of the Israelites, bα as a gift for you – [they are] the ones given by YHWH , bβ in order to perform the service of the tent of meeting.

‫ואני הנ ה‬ ‫לק חתי את ־ אחי כם הלוים‬ ‫מת וך בנ י ישׂ ראל‬ ‫לכם מתנ ה נתני ם ל י הוה‬ ‫לעבד את־ עבדת אהל מוע ד‬

The beginning in v. 6a is almost identical to Num 3:12, the introduction of the provision of the firstborn. Here the Levites (with the definite article) are simply placed in apposition to the accusative “your brothers” (‫)את־אחים‬, which emphasizes the descent of the Aaronides and Levites. As in Num 3:12, the x-qatal has a declarative function; in Num 3:12 it comes quite close to a performative. 19 Even the formulation “from the midst of the Israelites” points to the relationship with Num 3 and Num 8: as Aaron and his sons are set aside in Exod 28:1 “from the midst of the Israelites” for priestly service, so are the Levites in Num 3:12; 8:6, 14, 16, 19. The phrase ‫ מתוך בני ישׂראל‬only appears in these verses. Not only Num 3 and Num 18, but also Num 3 and Num 8 are corresponding entities.20 Baruch Levine points out that Num 18:6bα should be understood as two separate appositional identifications: The phrasing of the Masorah is somewhat misleading. Hebrew mattānāh is not the object of netûnîm, and the clause is not to be rendered “devoted to you as a grant.” Rather, we

19 While unlike Num 18:6, Num 3:12 should be translated performatively (“I hereby take the Levites […]”). One should bear in mind the fact that the consummation of the election for YHWH de facto first takes place or rather is completed in Num 8:5–22 in the commissioning of the consecration ritual. 20 On Num 3:11–13 and Num 8 cf. LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 177, 157: “in their content (scil. vv. 11–13) they closely parallel Num 8:16–19, where some of the relevant terms of reference are explained in greater detail.” On Num 3 and Num 8, cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 492, who, however, only relates this statement to Num 3:1–10 and Num 18:1–7.

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

469

have appositional statements: lākem matānāh – netûnîm l-YHWH‚ to be given in service to you – they are dedicated to YHWH. 21

If this is accepted, then his translation, however, is questionable. ‫לכם מתנה‬ already related closely to the service in the sanctuary is debatable.22 ‫מתנה‬ “gift, present” in a cultic context23 is a technical term for contributions to the sanctuary (Exod 28:38; Lev 23:38; Num 18:29; Deut 16:17; Ezek 20:26, 31, 39). 24 The firstborn and the tithe belong to the mattənôt qŏdāšîm “holy contributions” (Exod 28:38), or simply mattānôt (Lev 22:38; Num 18:29) or mattān (Num 18:11), that one brings to the temple.25 The Levites in Num 18:6 are identified as contributions owed to or freely given to the sanctuary that the Aaronides receive from YHWH. The gift originates from the midst of the Israelites (‫)מתוך ב ני ישׂראל‬, so in the end it is a contribution by the Israelites to YHWH, which according to Num 18:8–19 is conditionally placed at the disposal of the priests by YHWH. This corresponds completely with Num 8: “By this ritual the Levites are assigned to the Lord, who then reassigns them to the priests.”26 On the one hand, the use of ‫ מתנה‬in Num 18:6, is explained well on the backdrop of Num 3:11–13 and Num 8:5–22, on the other hand this understanding accords completely with the logic of the entire chapter concerning contributions in Num 18. It is not the case at all, therefore, that Num 18:6–7 – as Martin Noth argues – appears to lag behind, such that “one can scarcely expect any consistency of thought.” 27 Turning now to the second appositional designation in Num 18:6, ‫נתנים‬ ‫ליהוה‬. The initial question is whether the Levites are to be understood as “given for YHWH” or as “given from YHWH.” Most translations opt for the first variant, which often results in both appositions being taken together and ‫ ליהוה‬understood as a dative object. The new Zürcher Bibel translates, for example, “they are given for you a gift to the LORD” (“Euch zum Geschenk sind sie dem HERRN gegeben”), or Horst Seebass, “for you as a gift, the ones LEVINE , Numbers (1993), 442. Differently LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999), 106, who takes ‫נ תני ם‬ as a determination of function (see below) and translates, “the Levites […] a gift for Yahweh as consecrated ones.” Would this not call for the word order ‫?מתנ ה ל י הוה ]ל[ נתנ ים‬ 22 Pointing to the connection with Ps 68:19 and the understanding there of ‫ מתנ ות‬as a designation for temple slaves (so LIPIŃSKI, ‫[ ָנַת ן‬1999], 105) is not sufficient. 23 For the comparative Semitic and extra-biblical parallels, cf. TAGGAR-COHEN , Law (1998), 77–8. On mtn in the proto-Canaanite Lachish Ewer inscription cf. F REVEL , Aschera (1994), 796–802, esp. n. 270. 24 Num 18:7 adopts the term from Num 18:6 and designates the priestly office as a “gift” to the Aaronides. 25 LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999), 105: “The firstlings and the tenth belong to the matt enôṯ qŏḏāšîm ‘holy gifts’ (Ex. 28:38), or simply mattānôṯ (Lev. 23:38; Nu. 18:29) or mattān (Nu. 18:11), which one brings to the temple.” 26 MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 63. 27 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 135. IDEM, Numeri (1977), 119: “nachhinkend”; “man an eine Folgerichtigkeit der Gedankenführung kaum große Ansprüche stellen darf.” 21

470

Leadership and Priesthood

given to Yahweh.”28 Similarly Milgrom: “they are assigned to you in dedication to the Lord.” 29 With a passive, the ensuing noun with the preposition ‫ל‬ can be the logical subject of the previous verb. 30 The translation Die Bible in gerechter Sprache assumes this understanding with its translation “for you as a present given from ‘GOD’” (“für euch zum Geschenk gegeben von ‘GOTT’”). This translation is at least as correct as the normal understanding. On this assumption, then ‫ לכם מתנה‬is further identified by ‫נתנים ליהוה‬. The Levites are given as a sacrifice, or rather a contribution, to the Aaronides and as such they are “the ones given” by YHWH, to whom they primarily belong. If one understands ‫ ליהוה‬as the logical subject of the pl. pass. ptc., then, as is with ‫מתנה‬, the conception of Num 3 and Num 8 provides the backdrop for Num 18! Whether one opts for the traditional translation (the LORD as recipient) or the one argued for here (the Aaronides as recipients) is not decisive for the conceptual understanding. In both cases, the Levites as “given”/ ‫נתני ם‬ is in the background, whether with the accent on the obligatory gift of the people as “given to YHWH” or with the accent on the particular possessive relationship as “those belonging to YHWH, which the Aaronides are given from YHWH.” The difference consists of the fact that, in the variant favored here, the Levites are legitimized through a divine act in the cult and at the same time, according to the divine will, they remain permanently subordinate to the Aaronides. There is little doubt that this understanding aligns with the view of the Levites given in Num 16–17. Numbers 3:9 and Num 8:18 exhibit – markedly rarely in biblical Hebrew – the doubling of a pass. ptc., which expresses an emphatic exclusivity. 31 Numbers 3:9 reads “And you shall give the Levites to Aaron and his sons: given, yes they are given me/him32 from the Israelites” (‫ולבניו ונתתה את־הלוים לאהרן‬ ‫)נתונם נתונם המה לו מאת בני י שׂראל‬. Numbers 8:16 adopts this and justifies the commissioning of the Levites to the service at the sanctuary by recourse to SEEBASS, Numeri (2003), 215: “euch zur Gabe als die Jahwe Gegebenen.” MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 148. 30 Cf. GKC § 121a; J OÜON, § 122f; W ALTKE/O’CONNOR, Introduction (1990), 210–1 and others. The best example for this completely normal understanding is ‫בר וך לי הוה‬. 31 Looking only at participles, the only grammatically comparable participles modified by a form of the same root are Isa 21:2 with ‫ הבוגד בוגד השׁ ודד שׁדד‬and Hag 1,6 ‫והמשׂת כר‬ ‫משׂ תכר‬, Qoh 1:6 with ‫ סובב סבב‬and – text-critically uncertain because of the preceding ‫ – אחד אחז‬1 Chron 24:6 ‫ואחז אחז‬. The verb form, however, is not the important element, but the number. Comparable are the emphatically repeated plurals, to which GKC § 123e and WALTKE/O’CONNOR, Introduction (1990), 119 correctly reckon Num 3:9 and 8:16. The doubling expresses an exclusivity. 32 It is significant that more than a few Hebrew manuscripts and LXX offer the 1 st pers. sing. ‫ לי‬like in Num 8:16. Whether the 1 st pers. sing. should be preferred in Num 3:9 is difficult to determine and depends on the age of the manuscripts. Because the Hebrew manuscripts und the Peshitta assimilate even closer to Num 8:16, caution should be urged, even if the 1 st pers. sing. fits better with the solemn emphasis. 28 29

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

471

the demand for the firstborn: “for to me alone they shall be given from the midst of the Israelites in place of the first issue of the womb” (‫נתנים נתנים כי‬ ‫)המה לי מתוך בני ישׂראל תחת פטרת כל־רחם‬. 33 Numbers 8:19 is almost a designation of function, after which vv. 16–18 develop the relationship to the requirement of the firstborn: “And I give the Levites as given to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Israelites that they may perform the service of the Israelites at the tent of meeting” (‫ואתנה‬ ‫את־הלוים נתנים לאהרן ולבניו מתוך בני י שׂראל לעבד את־עבדת בני־ישׂראל באהל‬ ‫)מועד‬. The implicit subject behind the gift (which is designated through the procedure of ‫ )נתנים‬oscillates between YHWH and the Israelites. It is clear through the context that the Levites are given by the Israelites representatively as a substitution for the firstborn offering. At the same time, or rather in their quality as ‫נתנים‬, they are placed by YHWH as subordinate cultic functionaries under the Aaronides to perform service at the tent of meeting. It is important that Num 8:19 calls this service of the Levites ‫עבדת בני־י שׂראל‬,34 which varies significantly from the ‫ והיו לעבד את־עבדת יהוה‬in v. 11. The service of the Levites is substitutional service for all Israel. The verse points to the conception that is behind the selection of the Levites and will be developed here in an excursus.

3. Purity, Holiness and the Necessity of the Levitical Office The cult is an obligation for all Israelites, as a result so is service at the sanctuary. The presence of YHWH – his ‫ כבוד‬dwelling in the midst of Israel (Exod 25:8; 29:45–46; 40:35 et al.), post-biblically called his ‫ – שׁכינה‬is a gift of grace given on Sinai that permanently sanctifies Israel through God’s proximity. Israel responds to God’s presence through the cult, the promise of which in Exod 3:12 is placed in an insoluble relationship with the liberation in the exodus. However, on the basis of the concentric holiness and the interplay between holiness and danger, direct contact between the Israelites and the holy is barred. In order to understand this conceptual connection, which cannot be extensively illuminated here, the third dimension of purity should also be brought into play. The relationship between purity and holiness is not simply one of synonymy because not everything pure is necessarily holy. While the two dimensions are not interchangeable, holiness without purity is inconceivable in an ancient Near Eastern context. The “holy” is not identical with a specific deity or with the divine as a whole, but it neither can be completely separated from it. The following will, for heuristic reasons, speak of 33 NOTH, Numbers (1968), 33 misrecognizes the double aspect of the gift of YHWH given to the Aaronides in seeing Num 8:16 as a contradiction to Num 3:9. 34 Cf. in turn Num 3:7: ‫ ;משׁ מ רת כל־ העד ה ל פני א הל מ וע ד‬Num 3:8: ‫מ שׁ מר ת בני ישׂ רא ל‬.

472

Leadership and Priesthood

“the holy.” What is meant is a conceptual religiously-connoted construct that has spatial, material and social dimensions in addition to transcendental ones. I am conscious that it is problematic to speak of the abstract “holy.” It is justified by the use of ‫ הקדשׁ‬in the priestly texts, which can designate both “the holy” abstractly and the sanctuary. 35 Unmediated contact with the holy is dangerous, even deadly. The holy is presented as totally other in contrast to the profane, for which reason all unwarranted contact of the profaning with the holy is understood as pollution. The holy is present in the sanctuary, therefore the sanctuary, is considered an especially dangerous space (Lev 10; 16:16–20; 20:5; Num 20:5; and frequently). Every contamination of the sanctuary must be avoided because of presence of the holy; or as the case may be, when it occurs, contamination must be ritually compensated. The entrance into the holy of holies is especially regulated and, in a declining graduated manner, so also entrance to the sanctuary, its courts, etc. In the background is a model of concentric holiness with YHWH’s presence (‫כב וד‬/‫ )שׁכינה‬in the center (“I will dwell in your midst”; cf. Exod 25:8; 29:45; 40:34) as the location of the highest degree of holiness and at the same time the space that is most clearly taboo. 36 Because the holy has a dimension of quasi material-contact (cf. e.g., Exod 30:29: ‫והיו קד שׁ קד שׁים כל־הנגע בהם‬ ‫)יקדשׁ‬, every approach or even touch is dangerous. This is true for the holiness of the holy if its purity becomes affected by pollution (cf. e.g., Lev 21:23; Num 17:11). Contamination of the sanctuary could also take place, however, without direct contact, as demonstrated especially by Jacob Milgrom. 37 Approaching or touching the holy is also dangerous for the unauthorized or impure, in that coming too close to the holy is harmful, in the extreme case even deadly (such as Num 1:51; 3:10; 4:20; 8:19; or Lev 10 and Num 3:4). Only Aaron is permitted to enter the holy of holies once a year (Lev 16:34), and even he must be protected by his priestly garments (Exod 28:35). The garments of the other priests also serve as protection because nakedness and holiness are presented as incompatible (Exod 28:42–43). Ritual purity is obligatory for priests in service because their impurity would contaminate the purity of the holy and they would have to die (Exod 30:20–21). Only the priests are allowed to touch the holy implements (Num 4:15), and they alone were allowed to approach in cultic fashion. The Korah narrative, which exCf. e.g., Exod 26:33 and Lev 10:10. In addition is also the adjectival usage. Concentric is therefore not completely appropriate because there are two gravitational pulls: in addition to the most holy in the interior room, the altar for burnt offerings in the court is also a location of the greatest holiness. This is recognizable through the use of the elative paronomasia or rather the paronomasiac genitive of intensification ‫ק דשׁ ק דשׁי ם‬, which appears in Exod 29:37; 30:10, 29; 40:10 for the altar of burnt offerings. 37 Cf. e.g., MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 257. 35 36

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

473

amines the Levitical claims about presenting independent smoke offerings, illustrates the difference. The priests and Levites “encase” the transportable sanctuary in the camp as well as throughout the entire wilderness wandering (Num 1:53; 3–4), but even the Kohathites, the “most priestly” group of Levites, are not allowed to touch the holy things directly (Num 4:15: ‫ולא־יגעו‬ ‫ )אל־הקד שׁ‬or even see them (Num 4:20: ‫)ולע־יבאו לראות כב לע את־הקדשׁ ומתו‬. Every unauthorized entry indicated by ‫ הזר הק רב‬in Num 1:51; 3:10, 38; 18:7 – to the sanctuary, whether for cultic motivations or not, leads to death. 38 Understood on the backdrop of this conception, the Levites hinder the Israelites from drawing too close to the holy by means of their substitutional service. The Israelites approach the priests with their offerings, and this already contains a danger of coming too close to the holy. The Levites therefore offer something of a buffer that protects the Israelites as a whole. This is expressed by Num 8:19b (‫)ולא יהי ה בבני י שׂראל נגף בגשׁת בני־ישׂראל אל הקד שׁ‬. As a result, the Levites present an indispensable element of the cultic system. The paradox of the cult, on the one hand being necessary for and the obligation of all the Israelites and, on the other the impossibility of direct contact with the holy, is resolved by them. Consideration of what sets the Levites apart from all Israelites in the performance of this service inevitably stumbles over Num 3 and the concept of the substitution of the firstborn. Initially the Levites appear arbitrarily singled out from the Israelites and left out of the census in Num 1:47–50; 3:5–10. Numbers 3:11–13 brings the Levites into a special possessive relationship with YHWH that predestines them for the service. The Levites belong to YHWH (Num 3:12: ‫ )והיו לי הלותם‬like every firstborn human and animal. The declaration of property formulated in terms of privilege 39 in Num 3:11–13 finishes in v. 13 with the declarative ‫לי יהיו אני יהוה‬, which is resumed again in vv. 41, 45 in the implementation. In the sense that the Levites were set aside as the substitution for the human firstborn of the Israelites on Sinai for one time and YHWH given possession of them (Num 8:5–22), a substitutionary function for the Israelites is appropriate for them as substitutions for the firstborn, which they then carry out in the cult. The substitutionary function in the cult is therefore anchored in the obligatory firstborn offering and its substitution in Num 3 and 8. The Levites’ exceptional position is based in their representative function, which is developed by way of substitution for the firstborn. Therefore, though Martin Noth suggests that there can be no

38 Cf. further Num 17:5, 28; 18:4. Through the rendering καὶ ὁ ἀλλογενὴς ὁ προσπορευόµενος ἀποθανέτω, the use of ‫ הזר הק רב י ומת‬in the LXX becomes the boundary against ethnic foreigners. 39 Cf. K NIERIM/COATS , Numbers (2005), 64.

474

Leadership and Priesthood

mention about Num 3:11–13 being the basis for the Levites exclusive position,40 this is a misunderstanding of the text.

4. ‫ נתנים‬in the Book of Numbers and Its Connection to the ‫נתינים‬ in Ezra/Nehemiah From these foundational reflections on the representative function of the Levites, we can return again to the term ‫ נתנים‬and to Num 8:19. In spite of several recognizable parallels, it does not seem necessary to reach for extrabiblical sources for the conception of the book of Numbers. Ada TaggerCohen recently suggested seeing ‫ נתנים‬in Num 3:9; 8:16, 19; 18:6 in analogy with antichretic pledges, tidennūtu, from Nuzi. 41 She presupposes a close relationship between ‫ מתנה‬and ‫נתנים‬. She sees the Levites on one hand as set apart as a substitution for the Israelites’ obligation for the firstborn, but at the same time as bound for a limited time (Num 4:3; 8:24–25) in a contractual obligation of service at the sanctuary (‫)עבדה‬, for which they will be remunerated. So, in the same way, the tidennû person is taken care of by the creditor and belongs to the social network of the family, according to Tagger-Cohen, the Levites must be remunerated for their work at the sanctuary in “God’s household” 42: The Levites are called ntwnym because they were picked out of the large family of Israel, in order to perform a service for the family. God’s “household” is separated from the Israelites’ household. It is separated by the fact that no Israelite is allowed in, except for the priests, and the Levites guard. 43

She understands the Levites as a loan to God: It is important to note that the term ntwnym describes the Levites as a substitute to be used for work. As such, they are loaned in the framework of a grant from God to the priests. The Levites’ master (creditor) is God, not the priests. They are to serve in the Tabernacle “before,” i.e. under the supervision of the priests, but they work for God’s sake. 44

The analogy of the antichretic loan from Nuzi is partially helpful, especially in explaining the legal formulation of the provision of the Levites in Num 18, but it does not fully unlock the above-developed conception. It gets especially stuck at several points, as Taggar-Cohen herself sees. The analogy does, NOTH , Numbers (1968), 34: “In any case one cannot say that in this present passage the peculiar position of the Levites finds its basis.” 41 Cf. TAGGAR-COHEN, Law (1998), 84–9. 42 “God’s command to assign towns and pasture land to the Levites to dwell in and use, can be explained only on the basis of their being part of the large family” (TAGGERCOHEN, Law [1998], 89). 43 TAGGAR-COHEN, Law (1998), 90. 44 TAGGAR-COHEN, Law (1998), 89. 40

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

475

however, allow her to clarify that the Levites are God’s ‫נתנים‬, whom he installs at the sanctuary. This could also arise consistently from the text itself. The fact that a synonym for the term ‫ נתני ם‬only appears in the functional description ‫ נתי ן‬found only in Ezra and Nehemiah has been noted frequently because of the similarities of the designations. 45 For example, Lipiński writes that because the nǝtînîm come from Babylon and bear a name borrowed from Aramaic (< *naṯîn, neṯînayyā’, Ezr. 7:24), which is then translated by the Hebrew nǝtûnîm in Ezra 8:17 (ketiv), Num 3:9; 8:16, 19; 18:6; 1 Chron 6:33, their origin should be sought in Chaldean Babylon. 46 According to his thesis, the ‫ נתינים‬mentioned in 8:17, 20 come from the YHWH temple in Casiphia, which undoubtedly played a similar role to the temple of Elephantine, but likely went far beyond it.47 The speculative hypothesis about a temple in Casiphia, which is supported solely by the use of ‫ המקום‬in Ezra 8:17, is hardly sustainable historically. 48 This is also the case for Lipiński’s reconstruction of the consecration formula of the “temple slaves,” which he derives from Num 3:9; 8:19. However, the suggestion that the evidence from Numbers (and in its wake 1 Chron 6:3349) – even if ‫ נתנים‬should no longer be connected to ‫ נתינים‬from Ezra/Nehemiah – arises from the Levitization of the entire temple personnel should be correct, and the Levites are also entrusted with the responsibilities of the ‫נתינים‬. 50 In any case, no institution of temple servants consecrated to or subordinate to the Levites can be recognized in Numbers. Lester L. Grabbe summarizes the trajectory of development as follows: Considering that later Second Temple texts seem to have the main divisions as only priests (Aaronites) and Levites, however, the most likely scenario is that a number of different groups of lower-rank temple personnel gradually assimilated through the Persian period, so that singers, gate-keepers, and other temple servants all become identified as Levites, in contrast to the altar priests who were seen as Aaronites. 51 45 Cf. Ezra 2:43, 58, 70; 7:7; 8:18 (qere), 20; Neh 3:26, 31; 7:46, 60, 72; 10:29; 11:3, 21; and 1 Chron 9:2. HARAN, Gibeonites (1961), 165 suggests, like OTTO, Beiträge (1949) and others before him, also in 2 Chron 35:3 to read ‫ הנ תיני ם‬instead of ‫( המבוני ם‬cf. also BHS) and refers to 1 Esd 1:3, which renders the verse καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς Λευίταις ἱεροδούλοις τοῦ Ισραηλ, and the LXX renders ‫ נ תי ן‬with ἰεροδούλος. 46 LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999), 105–6: “Since the neṯînîm come from Babylon and bear the name borrowed from Aramaic (< *naṯîn, n eṯînayyā’, Ezr. 7:24), a name then translated by Heb. n eṯūnîm in Ezr. 8:17 (K); Nu. 3:9; 8:16, 19; 18:6; 1 Ch. 6:33(48), one must assume that they originated in Chaldean Babylon.” 47 See LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנ ַת ן‬1999), 106. 48 On the state of the discussion, BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988), 165–6 is still quite convinced, far more critical are GRABBE , Ezra-Nehemiah (1998), 30, 140; MILLER/ HAYES, History (2006), 495 and KNOWLES, Centrality (2006), 30. 49 On the Levites in Chronicles, which can hardly be treated here, see the detailed treatment in KNOPPERS, Hierodules (1999). 50 LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999), 106–7. 51 G RABBE, History (2004), 227.

476

Leadership and Priesthood

As a result, the question arises as to whether pronounced use of the pl. pass. ptc. ‫ נתנים‬in Numbers consciously contrasts with the institution of the ‫נתיני ם‬ found in Ezra/Nehemiah. Reinhard Achenbach proposes that the conception of the Levitical installation in Num 8 and the use of the term ‫ נתנים‬aim to eliminate the consecration on non-Levitical cultic functionaries that was taking place up till the time of Ezra, especially because of the fact that the Levites are expressly called nətūnîm, and nətīnîm or nətūnîm are not treated further in the Torah, and perhaps should no longer be allowed according to the intention of the author. 52 Therefore, the following discussion will investigate whether a Levitical displacement of other subordinate temple personnel is recognizable in the change of terminology and perhaps directly in the solemn repetition in Num 3:9 and 8:16. On the basis of the textual material, it can hardly be answered in the affirmative that it was common to consecrate non-Levitical cultic functionaries during the early Second Temple period. Even the historicity of the mention of the ‫ נתינים‬in the list of returnees in Ezra and Nehemiah is difficult to interpret. On the basis of the demographic development in the Persian period, considerable doubt is cast at least on the total number of returnees. 53 On the basis of the massive overweighting of the priests compared to the Levites in the lists (4,289 priests compared to 74 Levites), one generally assumes from the information in Neh 11:19–36 and 1 Chron 23:3 that there was a continual upgrading of the Levites’ position. 54 Ezra 2:36–63 and Neh 7:39–65 presume a five-member hierarchy of the temple servants, who were conceptually separate from the rest of the people, forming with them the community of the

52 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 541: The use of ‫ נת ני ם‬and Levite installation takes aim at “die bis in die Zeit Esras übliche Weihe von nichtlevitischen Kultdienern kategorisch ausgeschlossen […] besonders weil im Anschluß an sie die Leviten ausdrücklich zu nətūnîm deklariert werden, nətīnîm oder nətūnîm vonseiten der Tora nicht mehr behandelt werden und vielleicht nach dem Willen der Verfasser […] nicht mehr erlaubt sein sollten.” His proposal, relying on KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 122, of a yearly Levitical consecration following the census of Num 8 in the post-exilic community misunderstands the character of Num 8:5–22, which only functions in the narrative and literary context of the book of Numbers and certainly assumes the uniqueness of the consecration rite (cf. the ongoing duty of the firstborn tribute of Num 18:15). His suggestion that everyone who did not find a Levite to stand as a ransom for the firstborn could purchase ransom for five sanctuary shekels (ACHENBACH, Vollendung [2003], 495), was likely never – as far as seeking out a Levite – practiced, and furthermore cannot be extrapolated from Num 3:44– 51. The narrative logic of the text is dictated by the census in the book of Numbers, not by post-exilic practice (more on this below). 53 Cf. K ARRER, Verfassung (2001), 37; GUNNEWEG, Esra (1985), 61; for a summary on the population, cf. the overview in F REVEL, Geschichte (2018), 344–5. 54 Cf. e.g., WELLHAUSEN , Prolegomena (2009), 140–2; ALBERTZ, History II (1994), 460.

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

477

returnees (‫)כל ישׂראל‬: 55 priests ( ‫)הכהנים‬, Levites (‫)הלוים‬, singers (‫)המשׁררים‬, gatekeepers (‫ )השׁערים‬and “temple servants” ( ‫)הנתינים‬.56 The ‫ נתינים‬were thereby reckoned as belonging to temple personnel stemming from the First Temple, 57 who were set in place for the first time by Solomon, or rather David as the case may be, to serve at the temple (Ezra 8:2058). Most often the word is understood as “the gifted,” that is the ones given over as slaves to the sanctuary. In the practice of the pre-exilic period, it was primarily war prisoners who were subjected to this degrading service. 59 Given the deficient nature of the sources for the organization of the pre-exilic temple cult, this conclusion remains completely hypothetical. A reference to the Gibeonites in Josh 9:21, 23, 27 does not support this position sufficiently,60 so one remains relegated to the juxtaposition with the slaves of Solomon (Ezra 2:55, 58; Neh 7:57, 60; 11:3). The evidence in support of the conclusion that the ‫ נתינים‬were temple slaves remains decidedly thin and is hardly sustainable. The fact that many of the ‫ נתינים‬in Ezra 2 bear non-Hebrew names often leads to the assumption of foreign heritage, but this too is less than certain.61 Baruch Levine addressed these problems in a detailed manner already in 1963 and concludes:

Cf. KARRER, Verfassung (2001), 84–9, 121–2. Cf. Ezra 2:70; 7:7; Neh 10:29. 57 The Ugaritic ytnm and the Babylonian šerkūtu and the degree of their parallelism cannot be discussed here. Cf. with reference to R. P. Dougherty, LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999), 106; LEVINE, Netînîm (1963), 210–1. 58 Cf. the mention of three members in Neh 11:3, ‫הכ הני ם ו הל וי ם ו הנ תינ ים‬, from which the ‫ בני ע בדי שׁ ל מה‬are separated. 59 GUNNEWEG, Esra (1985), 62: “Die Bezeichnung ‫ ְנת י ִני ם‬bedeutet ‘Geschenkte’ und meint dem Heiligtum übergebene Sklaven. In der Praxis der vorexilischen Zeit werden es vor allem Kriegsgefangene gewesen sein, die zu solchen niedrigen Diensten herangezogen wurden.” 60 Cf. among others, H ARAN , Gibeonites (1961), 165; differently already LEVINE, Netînîm (1963), 207. 61 Cf. G UNNEWEG, Esra (1985), 62; H ARAN , Gibeonites (1961), 167 and the above citation from LIPIŃSKI, ‫( ָנַת ן‬1999). The names cannot be investigated here and is perhaps unnecessary. Cf. LEVINE, Netînîm (1963), 208: “A large number of the netînim bore foreign names. It is also to be noted that only a few of the netînîm have Yahwistic elements in their names. These two observations prove nothing, however, when used as evidence of servile status or foreign origin”, and KONKEL Architektonik (2001), 300, who argues that this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of non-Israelite heritage (“[…] lässt sich eine nichtisraelitische Herkunft aus den Belegen überhaupt nicht erschließen”). A different conclusion is reached by, e.g., HARAN, Gibeonites (1961), 166; ALBERTZ, History II (1994), 432 and many others. 55 56

478

Leadership and Priesthood

The biblical netînîm were not slaves but rather comprised a cultic guild whose members were devoted, yet free. […] It is likely that we are here dealing with a group of ritual personnel similar to the priests and Levites, but perhaps on a mere ephemeral character. 62

According to Neh 3:26; 11:21, the ‫ נתינים‬dwelled in an apparently closed collective on the Ophel and participated in the building of the wall (Neh 3:26, 31). According to Ezra 7:24 (Aram. ‫)נתיניא‬, they were freed from taxes like other temple personnel. Finally, from Ezra 8:20, their work is clearly subordinate to the Levites (‫)לעבדת הלוי ם‬. Even if nothing further can be known about the exact tasks of this group, they were not involved in cultic service in a narrower sense (Ezra 3:10; 6:21). Let us summarize: as a whole, the information available on the historical nature of the group of ‫ נתינים‬for the early post-exilic period remains markedly thin. One must rely to the greatest extent possible on conjectures. Yet neither does one want to begin from a completely fictional and ahistorical construction, as long as there is no reason to assume that the authors of Ezra/Nehemiah invented the ‫נתינים‬. With regard to the technical term ‫ נתינים‬in Ezra/Nehemiah and the use of the pass. pl. ptc. ‫ נתנים‬in the book of Numbers, the text does not allow for the identification of any connection. The argument that Numbers consciously alludes to and intends to replace or rather leviticize the institution of the ‫ נתינים‬is at minimum not obligatory. Against this argument is also the fact that the rest of the groups named in Ezra/Nehemiah – the gatekeepers (‫ )השׁעורים‬and singers (‫ – )המשׁררים‬are not addressed to the same degree in the book of Numbers, and their tasks were not integrated into those of the Levites. 63 Contrary to the hypothesis that the use of the pass. pl. ptc. of ‫ נתן‬is dependent on a relationship with the ‫נתינים‬, it can be made clear that ‫ נתנים‬is actually related more to the endowment or gift of the Levites for the cult, and these exhibit a gift of the Israelites, which are given to the Aaronides by YHWH. The use of the phrase is therefore based much more from the context as the Levites as the contribution of the firstborn. What is decisive for this theological conception are the three formulations of Num 3:9: ‫נתונם‬ ‫נתונם המה לו מאת בני י שׂראל‬, Num 8:19: ‫ מתוך בני‬... ‫ואתנה את־הלוים נתנים‬ ‫ ישׂראל‬and Num 18:6: ‫לכם מתנה נתנים ליהוה‬, that makes the Levites into “the

62 Cf. LEVINE , Netînîm (1963), 207–11. They might be compared most readily with the ‫ קדשׁי ם‬/‫ קדשׁות‬at the First Temple, but this was avoided since these have always been placed under the rubric “cult prostitution.” On those consecrated in the Bible, see F REVEL, Aschera (1994), 643–734. 63 For the gatekeepers, there is only the use of ‫ שׁמ ר‬in the phrase ‫ו שׁ מר ו הל וי ם א ת־ משׁ מר ת‬ ‫ משׁ כן הע דות‬in Num 1:53 (cf. Num 3:32; 18:4; and often), as ‫ שׁ מר‬is also used in Neh 3:29; 11:19; 12:25; 13:22 (there even for the Levites) for the task of guarding the gates. In addition, one must re-interpret the tasks of setting up and care for the tent of meeting (cf. e.g., Num 3:7–8; 8:26) into guard work. In any case, there is nothing in the responsibilities of the Levites in Numbers that corresponds to the singers.

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

479

given ones” in a double sense: from the Israelites to YHWH and from YHWH to the Aaronides at the sanctuary. After the conceptual connection between the substitution for the firstborn and Levitical service has been developed based on Num 3–4 and the identification of the Levites as ‫ נתנים‬as belonging to the explanation of this conception, a short glance should be cast at the consecration of the Levites. An analysis of this complex textual arrangement will not take place here. Questions concerning its structure, its execution and especially the important question about the individual elements of the ritual and their background cannot be treated here. The texts are undoubtedly of central importance for scholarship on ritual in the Old Testament and merits special attention. The discussion here, on the other hand, will consider the conceptual connection between the substitution of the firstborn and the transfer of the Levites to the sanctuary in Num 8, by which it will become clear that Num 3:11–48 and Num 8:5–26 belong closely together.

5. The Two Aspects of the Consecration of the Levites in Numbers 8 Without considering the structure and outline in more detail, a distinction should be made between the instruction in vv. 5–19 and the implementation in vv. 20–22. The instructions, on the one hand, consist of a prescriptive (vv. 5–15a) and an interpretive section (vv. 15b–19). 64 The initiation rite, which completes the installation of the cult, is immediately apparent, because individual aspects appear doubled. In addition to Moses, Aaron, the Levites and the entire community (‫ )כל עדה‬is gathered at the tent of meeting. In this it is completely similar to the consecration of the priests in Lev 8:3–4, but in Num 8 the entire community actively participates in the event. The Israelites lay their hands on the Levites in a gesture that expresses substitution (Num 8:10). Then Aaron presents the Levites as a raised offering65 from (partitive ‫ )מן‬the Israelites (‫והני ף אהרון את־הלוים תנופה לפני י הוה מאת ב ני־ישׂראל‬, v. 11). 66 Only then does the purified expiation for the Levites follow, through the ‫ חטאת‬and 64 Cf. similarly A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 542–3; differently MILGROM , Structure (1987), 205–6; IDEM, Numbers (1990), 368, who assumes a concentric structure. Milgrom’s structure is accepted by STAUBLI, Bücher (1996), 234. 65 Because ‫ תנ ו פ ה‬has nothing to do with a “wave-offering,” the translation “elevationoffering” is preferred here. The basic meaning of the verb ‫ נ וף‬suggests more of an elevation than a horizontal swaying. Accordingly, the concrete execution of the sacrifice remains unclear. Cf. the understanding on what has become the classic explanations in MILGROM, Wave-Offering (1972). 66 It concerns a symbolic presentation/offering rite. Cf. for the Aaronides in the priestly consecration, Exod 29:24; Lev 8:27.

480

Leadership and Priesthood

the ‫ עלה‬in the ‫כפר‬-rite in v. 12, and v. 13 appears to start anew, in which the Levites are placed before Aaron and his sons and again raised up as a ‫תנופה‬, this time, however, not ‫לפני יהוה‬, but rather ‫ליהוה‬, in order to underline the almost declarative conclusion that they belong to him (‫והיו לי הלוים‬, v. 14). Moses should separate them from the midst of the Israelites (‫;מתוך בני־ישׂראל‬ ‫ בדל‬Hiphil) for this reason. Verse 15a then concludes the initiation through the introduction into the service at the tent of meeting. First after the procedure described in vv. 6–13 (‫ )אחרי־כן‬do the Levites take up their service at the tent of meeting (‫)יבאו הלוים לעבד את־אהל מועד‬. By referring to both the aspects of the rite in the purification and the tǝnûpāh that comprise the entire event of vv. 6–13, v. 15b introduces the statement of the motivation. YHWH’s claim on the Levites, stated in terms of privilege, is initially formulated in a declarative manner in the previously mentioned double use of the pass. pl. ptc. of ‫נתנים נתנים המה לי מתוך בני ישׂראל כי( נתן‬, v. 16). It is then justified by the exodus event and the sanctification of all Israelite firstborn ( ‫והקדשׁתי אתם‬ ‫לי‬, v. 17). The Levites are substitutions for the firstborn of the Israelites (v. 18). The formulations in this passage, as indicated, demonstrate quite clear echoes of Num 3:11–13. If one follows the treatment of the initiation, one recognizes the doubled ‫ תנופה‬in vv. 11 and 13 as a two-stepped consecration of the Levites, which follows their election and purification in vv. 5–7: vv. 5–7

Election and purification of the Levites

vv. 8–11

Initiation and consecration into substitution for the Israelites

vv. 12–13 Expiation and consecration for the service at the sanctuary vv. 14–15a Conclusion of the election of the Levites for the service at the sanctuary

An important insight for the understanding of Num 8 is linked to this observation. The consecration of the Levites fulfills a double aim: the first is that the 8,540 Levites gathered in Num 3:6–10 are assigned to the service at the sanctuary and clearly subordinated to the Aaronides. As a result, the orderly functioning of the Sinaitic cult becomes possible. The second part is the fulfillment of the demand for the firstborn of the exodus generation made on Sinai – which was still open at that point – which takes place through their ritual transfer at the sanctuary. As a result, Num 8 is the compositional conclusion of the exodus. Together with the Passover in Num 9, which is tied to Exod 12, Num 1–10 comes to an end with a focus on the departure. In the double aim of the Levites’ consecration in Num 8, the achievement of the late priestly authors a highly successful construction. They have the Torah and the context of the entire Sinai pericope in the background and adeptly bring the threads together. The double act of the Levitical consecration should once more be underlined in view of the service of the Levites, in whom the threshold position of the transition from Sinai to the wilderness wandering becomes

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

481

clear. The service of the Levites is closely tied to the transport of the sanctuary in the census of Num 4. From this perspective Martin Noth was correct in writing that the determination of the “Levites” tasks is purely theoretical in P, related to the period of the wandering of the most ancient Israel. 67 The Levites have not carried out their service to this point in the narrative of the book of Numbers. They will first perform it in the first dismantling of the ‫( משׁכן‬Num 10:12, 17, 21). In doing this and in their ongoing work at the sanctuary, they come into contact with the holy, so they must undergo the purification rites and are initially introduced with celebration into service, which in Num 8 takes place immediately before the departure. 68 Only after the redemption of the requirement from Exod 13:2 and the election of the Levites in Num 8 – in agreement with the completed execution of the cult at the tent sanctuary69 – that is the ransom of the human firstborn, the stipulation in Exod 13:13, and the commitment in Exod 13:15, can regular operation of the cult take place. Numbers 3 develops both aspects – the service of the Levites and their function as substitution for the firstborn through the gathering of the in total 22,000 Levites (Num 3:14–39) and the subsequent composition on the difference with the number of the gathered firstborn, whose redemption occurs for five shekels each (Num 3:40–51). 70 Numbers 4:34–48 describes the census of 8,580 Levites between thirty and fifty years old from the total number of all the Levites, who are designated for service at the sanctuary and whom in Num 4:49 are each entrusted with specific tasks. These tasks are first realized in Num 10:11–28. Before this the purification and consecration take place in Num 8. Although the election of the Levites as a substitute for the firstborn takes place performatively in the statement of Num 3:12 (‫)ואני הנה לק חתי את־הלוים‬, the ritual transfer of the Levites to YHWH takes place in the treatment of the consecration in Num 8 simultaneously with the introduction into the service at the sanctuary. The Levite consecration is therefore conceived analogously to the firstborn offering and should be understood accordingly. It is not in error that the Le67 NOTH, Numbers (1968), 33: “The fixing of the tasks of the Levites is, then, in P purely theoretical and is referred to the desert period of ancient Israel.” 68 Between the consecration of the Levites and the departure is a relatively large amount of text, but the setting up of the Levites as well as the sanctuary and then its going into operation conceptually prepare the way for the departure. On the role of the second Passover for the breaking down of the camp in Num 9:1–5, followed by the stipulations in Num 9:6–4 and the report of the entire wandering in Num 9:15–23 as well as the determinations concerning the signal for departure in Num 10:1–10 as a transitional section in the structure of the book of Numbers, cf. F REVEL, Relief, p. 70–7 in the present volume and – with markedly different emphases – LEE , Coherence (2008), 488–9. 69 On the double perspective or rather on the dynamic tension between the exemplary initiation and the ongoing operation of the cult in Num 1–8, see the explanations in FREVEL, Relief, p. 73–5 in the present volume. 70 Cf. K NIERIM/COATS , Numbers (2005), 61–7.

482

Leadership and Priesthood

vites are named the offering material of the ‫ תנופה‬in v. 11. The elevation of the hand unmistakably makes them into (symbolic) offering material: “Its meaning is unambiguous. The Levites are the Israelites’ sacrifice.”71 This is the reason the Israelites are linked as a subject into the storyline of Num 8: the gathering of the entire community (v. 8), the laying on of hands to indicate the representation (v. 10) and the presentation as ‫תנופה מאת בני־ישׂראל‬ (v. 11). By way of ‫והיו לי הלוים‬, v. 14 explicitly refers back to Num 3:12, 45. The interlacing of the two elements in Num 8 underscores that the cult, or rather service at the sanctuary is the responsibility of all Israelites, which all the Levites and especially the priestly Aaronides carry out in a representative manner (see above). The Levites serve the Aaronides representatively for all Israelites. Only in this way does it make sense to understand the service of the Levites in v. 18 as obtaining expiation for all Israelites ( ‫לכפר על־ב ני‬ ‫ישׂראל‬, v. 19).72 First through the insertion of the Levites in Num 8 is the conception of a tiered proximity to the holy (Aaron, Aaronides, Levites, the people) completely established. The substitution for the firstborn and the Levitical service are also interlaced so closely with one another in Num 8 that it forms a cohesive conception. Numbers 8 can only be made sense of as part of the composition of Num 1–10 and is closely connected to the surrounding texts. The double perspective of the ‫ תפונה‬of the Levites as the obligatory and substitutionary gift by the Israelites on the one hand, and as the “mediating entity” given to the Aaronides for the protection of the Israelites from coming too near the holy on the other hand, belong together inseparably in Num 8. Composition-critical endeavors that are applied to the doubled use of ‫תנופה‬, the participation of the Israelites, or the change between Moses and Aaron as active subjects in Num 8 are therefore inadequate.73 Reinhard Achenbach, on the contrary, correctly MILGROM, Structure (1987), 207. Cf. the juxtaposition of ‫ ל כפר על הל וי ם‬integrated into the rite in vv. 12, 21, which has the Levites as the object and leads to their purification. 73 According to KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 115, on the other hand, the text is not of one piece. This is already seen in the fact that according to v. 11, it is Aaron, but according to v. 13b it is Moses, who should carry out the ‫ תנ ופה‬for the Levites (“[Der Text ist] nicht einheitlich. Das geht schon daraus hervor, daß nach 11 Aaron, nach 13b jedoch Mose die ‫ תנופה‬an den Leviten vollziehen soll”). While the observation is correct, this need not speak in favor of different authors. This is also seen in vv. 20–21. The call for the community to gather (v. 9) does not lag behind in the way that Kellermann argues (IBIDEM , 116). The difference between ‫ ל פני אהל מוע ד‬.. . ‫ ק ר ב‬v. 9 and ‫( קרב … ל פני י הוה‬v. 10) and the same verse beginning need not be evaluated as a doublet (IBIDEM, 116–17) because v. 9 initially situates the scene spatially, while first in v. 10 is it related to the rite in a more narrow sense. Kellermann arrives at a basic layer in vv. 5–9a, 12–12a, 21, 22aαβ (IBIDEM, 122), for which he must presuppose that the subject in v. 21 was changed, and originally Moses acted. Thereby the setting for the substitution of the Israelites in vv. 9b–11 as well as the basic connection with the gift of the firstborn in vv. 16b–19 are deleted from the text 71 72

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

483

concludes that the text is literarily coherent. 74 If this is correct and the special position of the Levites inaugurated in Num 8 cannot be separated from the conception of their substitutional function as replacements for the firstborn, then, however, the oft-assumed character of Num 3:11–13 and Num 3:40–51 as additions becomes doubtful. Noth sees a pro-Levitical correction in Num 3:13,75 and also a peculiar thought in the notion of the Levites as a replacement for the firstborn, 76 becomes gratuitous with the compensation for the small animal required in Exod 13:13; 34:20abα.77 Therefore, Num 3:11–13 is a late thoughtconstruct.78 In this case Noth has missed the point and left the narrative position of Num 8 in the just completed installation of the Sinai cult out of consideration. The Levites are the one-time replacement for the firstborn of the community gathered in Num 1–2, not the replacement for each firstborn that was born after the departure from Sinai. The Levites are solely the replacement for the firstborn of the exodus generation that was gathered in Num 1. The obligation for the redemption of human firstborn also remains intact according to Num 3, as Num 18:15 shows. Neither, then, is it correct that the Levites enter in place of the firstborn and the ancestor cult in priestly theology.79 On the contrary more fitting is Walter Zimmerli’s appraisal that the divine requirement for the human firstborn is again inserted fully through Num 3:11–13. 80 Through the transfer of the Levites as the substitution for the firstborn, a solution is reached for a problem that emerged within the world of the text – the missing redemption of the firstborn of the exodus generation – that is constructed and placed at the close of the Sinai pericope.

and mistakes, in my view, the overall conception. The fact that the Levites are identified as “from the midst of the Israelites”, as the “given ones” (v. 16a), thereby remains an abstract torso. Kellermann is led by the basic presupposition that Num 8 mirrors a “ritual” for Levite consecration from the post-exilic period, and this is the reason why he inadequately shortens the intention of the text. Other composition-critical analyses of Num 8 will not be treated here for the sake of space. 74 A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 545: “Der Text ist literarisch einheitlich.” 75 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 33. Also ZIMMERLI, Erstgeborene (1974), 244–5 sees Num 3:11–13 as a corrective of Ezek 44 that intends to speak of a completely spiritual rehabilitation of the Levites (“möchte von einer vollkommenen geistlichen Rehabilitierung der Leviten sprechen,” IBIDEM , 245) 76 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 33–4. 77 NOTH, Numbers (1968), 34: “In view of this idea, the animal sacrifice demanded in Ex. 13:13; 34:20abα would have been superfluous.” 78 N OTH , Numbers (1968), 34: “late idea.” 79 STAUBLI, Bücher (1996), 212: “an die Stelle der Erstgeboren und den damit verbundenen Ahnenkult in der priesterlichen Theologie die Leviten [treten].” 80 ZIMMERLI, Erstgeborene (1974), 245: “die göttliche Forderung der menschlichen Erstgeburt […] wieder ganz voll in ihr Recht eingesetzt [ist].”

484

Leadership and Priesthood

It is fitting that the Levitical ordinances involve an appreciation of the Levites’ position in that the ordinances essentially institutionalize the Levites in the cult and justify their special position. Numbers 3:11–13 does not present a qualitative exception to this conclusion. It is rather the case that Num 3:11– 13 proves itself to be a part of a coherent conception of the Levites position within the ‫עדה‬: The systematized plot shows that the extant text of Numbers 3–4 is no collection of disparate pieces more or less loosely or fittingly juxtaposed. It represents a coherently conceptualized literary unit. […] And to whatever extent the extant text is the result of a literary growth process, we will have to be prepared for the probability that this systematized plot was inherent in its entire layers already, and not only in the final redaction. 81

6. The Yield of These Reflections In the observations on Num 3; 8; and 18 presented here, I was neither concerned with a complete analysis of the texts nor with categorically excluding diachronic growth. The goal was instead to emphasize the conceptual interrelationship of the highlighted special place of the Levites. What results is a relatively coherent conception that is marked initially on the level of the worldview by the foundational notion of concentric holiness and the tension between holiness and danger. The place of the Levites in the cult is necessary because the priestly conception of holiness views the immediacy of the entire community with the sanctuary – regardless of the notion of election and the holiness of the ‫ – קהל‬as impossible. As a result, the Levites are anchored inseparably in the conception of the cult. Despite the uncontested primacy of the (Levitical) Aaronides in the conception of the book of Numbers, the intermediary position of the Levites is indispensable for the regular operation of the cult. This necessity lies in the background of the marked special position of the Levites between a holy God and a holy people. The tribe of Levi does not qualify for this exceptional position on the basis of special abilities or qua nature, but the Levites are chosen by YHWH for this intermediary position, and as a result of the election are subordinate to the thoroughly superordinate Aaronide priesthood in everything. They are predestined to their place because YHWH designated them as the replacement for the firstborn of the Israelites. The election as a substitutionary gift for the Israelites justifies a special closeness and a beneficial possessive relationship for the Levites to YHWH. The exceptional position of the Levites in the book of Numbers is historicized through the insertion of the narrative of the exodus events. Through Num 3–4 and Num 8, the Levites are then integrated into the Sinai conception of the sanctuary and the cult. They are the donation owed to 81

KNIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 67.

… and the Levites Shall Be Mine

485

YHWH, and in Num 3; 8 and 18 in the second sense of “the given ones”: from Israel as an obligatory donation to YHWH and from YHWH to the Aaronides as a protective intermediary for the Israelites in the cult. If the Levites had not been installed in the cult “between” the Aaronides and the people, then not only would the sacrificial cult of the Israelites have remained de facto impossible, but the Israelites would have transgressed a divine requirement and made themselves guilty. The Levites could hardly have been better anchored in the cultic system. The assessment directed by R. P. Knierim and G. W. Coats toward Num 3–4 summarizes appropriately: “The plot is highly systemic and is organized systematically. It reflects the intellectual effort of the priestly writers in their understanding of order in history.” 82 If one uncouples Num 3:11–13 redaction-critically from this conception or deems the connections of Num 8 and Num 18 with the notion of the replacement for the firstborn as secondary, then an essential moment of the overall design collapses, namely the historicization of the Levitical institution as the fulfillment of a divine command. The Levitical conception of the book of Numbers would then lose an essential element. Closer investigations must show how the conceptual integration of the Levites in the cult, which does not relinquish the deeply anchored primacy of the Aaronides and yet is still concerned with an improvement of the Levites situation might fit with the development of the cult in the post-exilic period. The conception recognizable in Num 3; 8; and 18, which is surely priestly, but just as clearly later than the foundational layer Priestly Document, is without question an important voice on the integration of the Levites in the Achaemenid period. They are surely to be placed not as late exilic;83 however, they are still pre-Chronistic. Whether the appreciation of the Levites position through the selection as the substitution for the firstborn really constitutes one of the very last building blocks of the Torah as R. Achenbach attempts to show,84 or instead a redaction that sought a theocratic legitimation of the Aaronide claim to leadership in the high priestly office should be placed later,85 remains open for further analyses to clarify.

KNIERIM /COATS, Numbers (2005), 67. Cf. the tendency of e.g., S CHAPER, Leviten (2000), 214–6. 84 Cf. A CHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 633, where Num 3:11–13, 40–51 and Num 7–8 are classified as midrashim from the late phase of the Pentateuch redaction at the border to the book of Numbers reaching canonical status. 85 Found already in WELLHAUSEN , Prolegomena (2009). 82 83

Ending with the High Priest The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers1 ‫“ רב לכם ב ני לוי‬You have gone too far, sons of Levi” (NRSV, Num 16:7). The claim for priesthood on the basis of the general holiness of the whole congregation is one of the most striking incidents in the narrative of the book of Numbers. From the beginning of ‫ במדבר‬everything seems so clear, so arranged as clearly hierarchical, and then suddenly the conflict between the Aaronides and Levites breaks out. Within the narrative the uprising of the Korahites is repulsed and thereafter the priestly world is back in order. Aaron blossoms as first and foremost priest in Num 17 and is never challenged again. But is there really a fissure between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers? Even more, are the Levites disparaged in the book of Numbers as they are in Ezek 44:9–15? Or are they instead rehabilitated or not yet denigrated? The complex history of priesthood cannot be dissolved from the book of Numbers and the positioning of the Levites therein. However, one of the starting points of this paper is the fact that within the Pentateuch, Levites are present mostly in the book of Numbers. It is striking that on the one hand, Levites are almost absent in Exodus and Leviticus, and that on the other hand, the concept of Deuteronomy differs in most parts regarding the position of Levites. This paper will ask some new questions and question some practiced answers regarding priests and Levites in the Pentateuch. A preliminary remark should be made in advance: Method, argumentation and results of this paper may be sometimes puzzling because its line of argument operates on different levels. Although it is not aiming at a historical reconstruction in terms of an institutional development of Levites, Aaronide priests, and high priest, the results are relevant for this development. But this is not at the core. The diachronic perspective of literary development is present all the time, but the paper does not aim at a complete reconstruction of textual growth. In particular the connection between the Chronicler and the latest layers in the book of Numbers is pushed into the background and will require further research. The observations will be relevant to determine the relationship of P and H, and in particular regarding the question whether the 1 The present paper was part of the MERCUR research project on the relation of nonpriestly and priestly texts in the book of Numbers and an extended version of a paper read at the SBL Annual Meeting Chicago, November 16 th–20 th, 2012.

488

Leadership and Priesthood

book of Numbers has a bridging function in a literary-historical respect. However, not all aspects of the relations of Numbers with the Triateuch, esp. Exodus and Leviticus, the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua can be discussed here in detail. Most of the argument will stick to the narrative organization of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers and to a (diachronic but also synchronic) development in/of the text and the textual world which tends to the growing implicitness of the high priest and/or Aaron and Eleazar as highest priest/high priest. The paper contributes to crucial questions regarding the place of the book of Numbers within the formation of the Pentateuch: First, the relationship between the book of Numbers and the book of Leviticus, and second, how can the priestly material of the book of Numbers be arranged in the recent Pentateuchal discussion. At the end of the paper I will contribute to the discussion of the “bridging hypothesis” of Thomas Römer. Let me start with a statement regarding the final text of the book of Numbers: Apart from the Levitical cities (Num 35), 2 I consider the conception of the relation of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers as consistent, without excluding literary growth in principle. Aaronides and Levites are related to each other; they are assigned to the same range, but not to the same rank. The book of Numbers develops a clear hierarchical structure with superior Aaronide priests, but it gives the Levites a non-priestly honorary position at the same time. The instruments of this appreciation are a unified genealogy, elective selection and equated care of the Levites (see as a crucial example Num 18). Nevertheless, the Levites are under the total control of the Aaronide priests; 3 apart from their purification (Num 8:21) and their entering into office (Num 8:22), which are both also demanded by God, they never act alone or on their own at any point. Furthermore, they are never addressed directly in the book of Numbers.4 It is only Num 16 that reproaches the Levites to act as priests on their own authority. This claim is forcefully rejected with reference to the exceptional position of the Levites which is thereby cemented further at the same time. Hence, on the textual level the conception

2 In my view, the selection of Levitical cities in Num 35:2 ( ‫ל שׁב ת ונת נו ללוי ם מנ ח לת‬ :‫ )אחזת ם ערי ם ומגרשׁ ל ערים סביבתי הם ת תנ ו לל וי ם‬outruns the concept of service at the sanctuary that was developed in Num 1–4; 8 and 18. Either the Levitical cities are intended only for the women, the children and the age-related men who are no longer fit for service (which may include alternate shifts for the Levites as described in Num 8:26), or the construction of Levitical cities produces ghost towns. 3 For ‫ נת ונ ים‬and ‫מתנ ה‬, see provisionally F REVEL , Levites, p. 469–71 in the present volume. 4 In Num 16:7 and 8 Korah is addressed directly but (some of) the Levites are included explicitly: ‫ ר ב־ ל כם בנ י ל וי‬and ‫שׁמעו ב ני לוי‬. In vv. 10–11 they are included implicitly, e.g., in the accusation ‫ובקשׁת ם גם־ כהנ ה‬.

Ending with the High Priest

489

is entirely consistent, even up to the hierarchy of priests, as we shall see in the course of this paper.

1. Three General Observations on Levites and Priests in Numbers Basic evidence for the consistency of the clerical order in Numbers can be drawn from an overview of the conception in Numbers, as three general remarks and observations on priests and Levites in the book of Numbers will indicate: (1) the importance of Levites in Numbers, (2) the hierarchy of the priests and Levites and (3) the question of a particular tension between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. 1.1 The Importance of Levites in Numbers The concept of Levites as cultic servants (clerus minor) in the book of Numbers bridges the concept of priestly Levites in the book of Deuteronomy and the more or less “Levite-less” Triateuch (Genesis–Leviticus). Apart from the Levites in the book of Numbers there would be no Levitical cultic personnel in the wilderness sanctuary besides the priests in the cult of the tabernacle. At least this is true for the narrative of the Pentateuch. Besides the eponym Levi (Gen 29:34; 34:25, 30; 35:23; 46:11; 49:5; Exod 1:2), his daughter Jochebed (Exod 2:1) and Aaron “the Levite” (‫אהרן אחי ך הלוי‬, Exod 4:14), the genealogy with Levi, his sons, the clan and the families of the Levites (Exod 6:16– 25), 5 Levites are mentioned only in the story of the golden calf (Exod 32:26, 28), where they serve Moses as executors of the punishment. But this does not represent an engagement in the cult. There is one “substantial” reference in the book of Exodus in Exod 38:21. It makes mention of the Levites being under the supervision of Ithamar (‫)ביד איתמר בן־אהרן הכ הן‬. Although their function stays unspecified, this remark is implicitly connected to their service in the cult (for further details, see below). Finally, Lev 25:32–33 refer to the Levitical cities and issues of property without mentioning the cultic duties of the Levites.6 Thus, the Levites are involved in the construction of the tabernacle, but they are not engaged in the sacrificial cult, which is initiated in Lev 8–9. If we consult Exodus and Leviticus only, Levites do not assist the priests in any way within the cult. The situation does not change radically in Deuteronomy, if we set aside for a moment the information that we get from the The passage ends remarkably with the first mentioning of ‫הל וי ם‬: “These are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their clans” ( ‫)אלה ראשׁי אבות הלוים ל משׁפחתם‬. The genealogy is mentioned again in Num 26:57–62. The literary development of both passages cannot be dealt with here. 6 See n. 12 for further remarks. 5

490

Leadership and Priesthood

book of Numbers. Most of the references to the Levites address the cult in the land, not the cult in the wilderness. Only Deut 10:8–9 bridges the wilderness situation and the Levites in the land of promise within Deuteronomy. The landless position (cf. Num 18:23–24), which is crucial for the Levites in Deuteronomy, is connected ( ‫ )על־כן‬to their segregation and their threefold cultic duty that lasts from the wilderness till Moab (‫)עד היום הזה‬: carrying the ark of the covenant (‫)לשׂאת את־ארון ברית־י הוה‬, standing before YHWH to minister him (‫)לפני י הוה לשׁרתו לעמד‬, and blessing in His name (‫)ולברך בשׁמו‬. 7 Besides Deut 10:8–9 and the Levitical ministry in the land, Levites are mentioned in Deut 31:9 and 25 carrying the ark of the covenant. No further cultic function is referenced. Finally, Deut 33:8–9 brings up the Levites within the blessing of Levi, mentioning the Urim and Thummim as privilege of a man (‫ )לאישׁ‬and (if we take the subject for granted) that they observed the word of the LORD and kept His covenant (‫)שׁמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו‬. The enigmatic reference to the Urim and Thummim and the temptation at Massah addresses Aaron, but the postscript may refer to the Levites. Nevertheless, there is no cultic function or ministry mentioned explicitly. Thus again, without the book of Numbers the wilderness cult would take place almost without the participation of the Levites in terms of employment, function, or charge. By contrast the role of Levites in the book of Numbers is crucial: They are responsible for managing the transport of the sanctuary, they assist the priests in the sacrificial cult, and they are consecrated in a rite that has many parallels to the consecration of priests in Lev 8. More than once their duty is called ‫עבודת‬, ‫משׁמרת‬, ‫קרב‬ “service,” “charge,” “work,” “nearing,” “assistance,” etc. The general importance of the Levites in the book of Numbers is corroborated by statistical observations, even if these do not take the involvement in the cult into account. Besides the occurrence of the eponym Levi, the determined noun/adjective singular ‫ הלוי‬and plural ‫ הלוים‬require special attention. The greatest number of the determined ‫ הלוי‬in the singular within the Pentateuch can be found in Deuteronomy with reference to the personae miserae (apart from Deut 10:8) while the two instances in Exodus (Exod 4:14; 6:19) and the four verses in Numbers (Num 3:20, 32; 18:23; 26:57) that attest ‫הלוי‬ do not refer to the Levite as persona misera, but rather to the Levites as a non-priestly group in the vicinity of the temple. The vast majority of the determined pl. ‫ הלוים‬can be found in the book of Numbers, where 55 instances stand against 2 in Exodus, 4 in Leviticus and 8 in Deuteronomy. 7 The focus above is only on the connection between the wilderness situation and the cult in the land, esp. in Jerusalem. Just to mention the difficulties connected with Deut 10:8–9 in the final text of Deuteronomy: The ministry of the Levites is mentioned in Deut 18:7 ( ‫ )ושׁר ת בשׁ ם י הוה אל הי ו ככל ־אחיו הל וי ם הע מדי ם שׁם ל פני י הוה‬as well as in Deut 21:5 and 31:9 (‫)הכהני ם בני ל וי‬. The blessing is mentioned in Deut 21:5 and the carrying of the ark in Deut 31:9. The situation in Deuteronomy is much more complicated; see for a description DAHMEN, Leviten (1996), 6–20 and 388–404; S AMUEL, Priestern (2014), 85–155.

Ending with the High Priest

491

Regarding the term in general, Genesis focuses the eponym Levi with 6 attestations, Exodus has only 11 instances in 9 verses (and only two of them are not related to the eponym), while Leviticus has only 4 attestations of ‫ הלוים‬in two verses. Deuteronomy has 26 attestations and thus lays emphasis on the Levites, in whatever way. The sheer superior quantity of 75 attestations in Numbers is striking. The crucial function of the book of Numbers with regard to the Levites becomes even more important if one goes into further detail. Although this paper cannot develop a complete diachronic outline, some remarks on the verses where Levites become engaged in the cult may be helpful. As was already noted, Exod 38:21 is more or less the only substantial reference to the Levites and their function in the cult in the book of Exodus. Exod 38:21 reads: ‫אל ה פק ודי המשׁ כן משׁ כן הע דת אשׁר פקד על־ פי משׁ ה עבדת הלוים בי ד אית מר בן־ אהר ן הכהן׃‬ This is the sum of the things for the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, as they were counted at the commandment of Moses, for the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest (RSV).

Actually, this reference appears to be anachronistic because Ithamar is explicitly set over the Gershonites and Merarites in Num 4:28. Exodus 38:21, which is often neglected in modern commentaries, has to be considered as an anticipation of the situation portrayed in Numbers. In a diachronic respect, it is – as part of vv. 21–31 – usually identified as a secondary addition, 8 either attributed with Exod 35:4–40:38 to a later priestly layer Ps or HS,9 or as an addition to the already secondary text.10 Considering Exod 38:21 as a conceptual intrusion, it can be attributed to the latest strand of the “Levitical story” (“letztgültige Durchsetzung der priesterschriftlichen Sichtweise”).11 In a compositional and redactional respect it is noticeable that Exod 38:21 is the only intrusion of the Levitical concept from the book of Numbers into Exodus–Leviticus! Strikingly there are no other Levites in the priestly texts in Exodus and in Leviticus; 12 they are neither involved in the building process or SAMUEL, Priestern (2014), 302: “Daß wir es hier, wie auch in Ex 30,11–16, mit einem Nachtrag zu tun haben, ist nahezu Konsens.” 9 See KNOHL, Sanctuary (2007), 66, 83. 10 Cf. WAGNER, Herrlichkeit (2012), 55. See for discussion S AMUEL, Priestern (2014), 302, who attributes Exod 38:21 to the latest layers of the Pentateuch. 11 SAMUEL, Priestern (2014), 303. 12 The only exception in Lev 25:32–33 solves the subsequent logical problem that follows from the lack of property of the Levites on the one hand and the living space in the Levitical cities, which implies real houses that can be sold to someone who is not Levite, on the other hand. Thus Lev 25:32–33 comes up with a ‫גאלת ע ול ם‬, so that the character of Levitical cities can be preserved permanently. In terms of diachrony Lev 25:32–33 has to be regarded as a late addition as the analysis of Christophe Nihan has shown, cf. NIHAN , Torah (2007), 522, 546. 8

492

Leadership and Priesthood

in the early performance of the cultic service, nor are they excluded from the financial support of the cult (Exod 30:12–16). There is no doubt that the other hinge of a cultic function outside of the book of Numbers, Deut 10:8–9, is not part of the early conception of the Levites in Deuteronomy. Although ‫“( ב עת ההיא‬at that time”) links up to the reference of the tablets and the situation to the descent of Moses in Deut 10:5, 13 it is probably not the voice of Moses speaking but that of the narrator of the book. There is a broad consensus that this passage has to be considered an addition. 14 Ulrich Dahmen has evaluated the intrusion as one of the latest redactional passages in the Pentateuch.15 It is a late theoretical peak with systematic aspiration.16 Deuteronomy 10:8 – it is not by chance that this verse opens the statements on Levites in Deuteronomy – bridges the conception of Numbers and Deuteronomy (‫ההוא‬/‫ )בעת עד היום הזה‬in combining several functions. However, it must be noted that the assignment of powers does not agree with the Levites’ status in Numbers, but is contrastive to it. The Levites’ honorary position as a general characteristic, which precedes the functional perspective is of utmost importance and takes up the position of Numbers: The whole tribe of Levi is segregated (‫בדל‬, Num 8:14; 16:9). And this special position qualifies the Levites now (1) to carry the ark of the covenant (Num 3:31; Deut 31:9, 25), while covering the ark is reserved to the Aaronides (Num 4:5); (2) to stand before YHWH (Deut 18:5, 13), while Num 3:6 and 8:13 let the Levites stand before Aaron or the community (Num 16:9); (3) to serve YHWH (‫בשׁם יהוה‬, Deut 18:5, 7; cf. 21:5) and not Aaron (Num 3:6; 18:2); (4) to bless in His name, while Num 6:23 (cf. Lev 9:23) restricts This is more appropriate than connecting v. 8 to v. 7 where the death of Aaron is mentioned. Because this scenario is placed in the fortieth year after the exodus, the implementation of the Levites would be displaced. Whether this may have diachronic consequences is disputed. The use of ‫ בדל‬links up to Num 8:14 and 16:9, and the reference to ‫ שׁבט הל וי‬has to be regarded as priestly phraseology (see ‫ משׁ פחת הל וי‬in Exod 6:19; Num 3:20; Josh 13:14, 33; ‫ נשׂ אי הל וי‬in Num 3:32; and ‫ פקודי הל וי‬in Num 26:57). This holds true although the use of ‫ שׁ בט‬instead of ‫ מטה‬is not the terminology of Numbers, but rather of Deuteronomy (Deut 18:1) and the Chronicler. In sum, it is impossible to attribute vv. 8–9 to a late Deuteronomist [(pace S AMUEL, Priestern [2014], 28). The reference to the death of Aaron presupposes P in Num 20 and the list of places in Num 33:30 so that Deut 10:6–7 may be later than vv. 8–9 (SAMUEL, Priestern [2014], 23: “gelten allgemein als spätester Zusatz innerhalb des Abschnitts”). It is the claim of priesthood and the hierarchical pole position of the Aaronides which is cemented again in Deut 10:6–7. 14 DAHMEN, Leviten (1996), 23: “In der älteren wie jüngeren Literatur besteht nahezu allgemeiner Konsens darüber, daß diese beiden Verse (und vv. 6f) durch ihr Thema und ihr anders gelagertes Interesse aus dem Zusammenhang der Erzählung herausfallen.” See IBIDEM , 23–73 for the most comprehensive and concise analysis of both verses. 15 Cf. DAHMEN, Leviten (1996), 71: “nach RP und nach den späten dtr Redaktionsschichten des Dtn und DtrGW.” 16 SEEBASS , Levi (1991), 38: “theoretische Spitzenformel.” Cf. also SAMUEL, Levi (2013), 216. 13

Ending with the High Priest

493

the blessing to Aaron and his sons. In sum, the responsibilities and skills of the Levites in Deuteronomy exceed the designations in the book of Numbers, but at the same time they do not put the Levites on one level with the priests. Thus Deut 10:8–9 mediates in favor of the Levites and goes as far as possible within the standards of the book of Numbers. Deuteronomy 10:8 is an attempt at a very late adaptation of different conceptions. Maybe the reference to Aaron’s priesthood in Deut 10:6–7 again turns back the clock by cementing the priestly position of the Aaronides. In sum: Both passages which relate to a cultic function of the Levites outside the book of Numbers are late redactional intrusions which presuppose the conception developed in Numbers. The formative power of structuring the ministry in the wilderness sanctuary has to be considered in the book of Numbers. The importance of its conception within the Pentateuch is pivotal. The second point will concentrate on the hierarchy within this conception. 1.2 The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in Numbers The hierarchy of priesthood in the book of Numbers is quite clear. It is the family of Aaron that is ordained to perform the priestly duty. Aaron is pater familias, eldest, and thus leading priest. Nevertheless, in the narrative world there is in fact a very small circle of priests. After the death of Nadab und Abihu, only Eleazar and Ithamar act as priests next to their father (Lev 10). Although there are 71 attestations of the lexeme ‫ כהן‬in the book of Numbers, strictly speaking there are just these three priests performing the whole cult in the wilderness. This is made explicit in Num 3:2–4: ‫ ואל ה שׁ מות בני־ אהר ן הבכור נדב ואבי הוא אלע זר ואי תמר׃‬2 ‫ אל ה שׁ מות בני אהר ן הכהני ם המשׁ חי ם אשׁר ־מל א י דם ל כהן׃‬3 ‫ וי מת נ דב ואבי הוא ל פני י הוה בהק רבם אשׁ זר ה ל פני י הוה במדבר סיני‬4 ‫וב ני ם ל א־ הי ו ל הם‬ ‫וי כהן אלע זר ואי תמר על ־ פני אהר ן אבי הם׃‬

Here, it is stated that neither Nadab nor Abihu had children and Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, is not mentioned yet either. From the genealogical perspective v. 4 narrows the priestly family to two lines. However, we have to acknowledge that besides the genealogical notices (Num 3:2, 4; 26:60) Ithamar is mentioned more explicitly only three times in Numbers (Num 4:28, 33; 7:8), where he is set over the Gershonites and Merarites (regarding Exod 38:21, see above). Implicitly he is demanded to blow one of the two trumpets (Num 10:8), but that is his whole concrete duty. There are no descendants of Ithamar mentioned in the book of Numbers. 17 Besides Num 3:418 it is not See 1 Chron 24:3 and Ezra 8:2 for descendants of Ithamar. Cf. 1 Chron 24:2–6 where a strong emphasis is laid on the priority of the Eleazarides, although a priestly service of the Ithamarides with half of the “heads” is mentioned. 17 18

494

Leadership and Priesthood

distinctly stated that Ithamar performs any cultic service. Thus, the priestly lineage in the narrative of Numbers is de facto narrowed to Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. However, Ithamar holds the title ‫ הכהן‬several times, 19 although Eleazar does so much more often and explicitly (e.g., Num 17:4; 19:3, 4). Phinehas is the only mentioned descendant of Eleazar, so that the total number of priests increases to four (although in fact they remain three because Aaron is already dead beyond Num 20). The main line stresses the sequence Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. Nevertheless, the importance of Num 3:3 cannot be underestimated. All four sons of Aaron are qualified as ‫“ הכהנים המשׁחים‬the anointed priests” ‫לכהן‬ ‫“ אשׁר־מלא ידם‬whose hand he/one had filled to act as priest.” Whoever is subject of the verb (Moses, Aaron, YHWH, or an impersonal singular, with the Septuagint an impersonal plural)20 the ordination refers back to Exod 28:41; 29 and Lev 8. Due to the ‫ אשׁ זרה‬incident the first and second born are cut out of the genealogical succession. In taking up the verb ‫ כהן‬v. 4b makes clear that only Eleazar and Ithamar are legitimate successors and the only remaining priests to minister (with) Aaron. The structure and unity of Num 3:1–4 are a frequent subject of discussion. 21 We cannot go into detail here, though it is striking that each of the first three verses begin with the demonstrative pronoun ‫אלה‬. The integration of Moses in v. 122 is often scrutinized, much less the repetition of v. 2aα in v. 3aα.23 For Kellermann and others this is no problem (“Nevertheless, there is no good reason to separate 2 from 3” 24); Möhlenbrink and others consider vv. 2–3a an addition. 25 The repetition v. 3a can also be considered some kind of “Wiederaufnahme” that indicates the insertion of v. 3. In the text, the demonstrative pronoun has a different function: While in v. 2a it is cataphoric “these are the names of the sons of Aaron”, in v. 3a it is anaphoric “these were the 19 Ithamar is associated with the title ‫ הכ הן‬only following the filiation ‫( ב ן־א הר ן‬Num 4:28, 33; 7:8) so that the title could be related to Aaron as well. Is he “the son of Aaron, and the priest” or “the son of Aaron, who is priest?” Numbers 25:7, 11 (Phinehas) and 26:1 (Eleazar) where the designation of the title ‫ הכהן‬takes place after Aaron’s death reveal that the title should be related to Ithamar as well. Thus the title “priest” is not only applied to the genealogical successor and the current high priest. 20 Moses is most probably following Exod 28:41; 29:9 and 35. An impersonal singular may link the passage to Exod 29:29, 33 and Lev 8:33. For the preference of the lectio difficilior, see POLA, Priesterschrift (1995), 79 with n. 124. 21 Note, for example, the structural correlation of Num 3:1–4 and Num 3:10 and its framing function observed by LUNN , Numbering (2010). 22 See, e.g., M ÖHLENBRINK, Überlieferungen (1934), 190; K ELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 46; SAMUEL, Priestern (2014), 170–1. 23 Read with many manuscripts both verses beginning with a copula ( ‫)וא לה‬. 24 KELLERMANN, Priesterschrift (1970), 46. 25 This is an English translation of MÖHLENBRINK , Überlieferung (1934), 190: “Trotzdem liegt kein triftiger Grund vor, 2 von 3 zu trennen.”

Ending with the High Priest

495

names of the sons of Aaron.” Verse 3 expresses the election and inauguration of the priests in Exod 28; 40 and Lev 8. The unique phrase ‫ הכהנים המשׁחים‬is put in front as a kind of honorific title: they are the anointed priests. This resembles Exod 28:41; 30:30 and 40:15 where the anointment of the sons of Aaron is combined with the root ‫כהן‬, too. The exceptional position is emphasized by the relative clause that highlights the ritual of installation (of filling the hand)26 as empowerment and qualification to act as priest (‫)לכהן‬. Hence, Num 3:3 makes clear that the priesthood is restricted to the three Aaronides, who were employed before. Verse 4 again puts particular emphasis on this point: Ithamar and Eleazar served as priests (‫ כהן‬D-stem) during the lifetime of their father (‫)על־פני אהרן אביהם‬. 27 Verse 6 explicitly subordinates the Levites to this small group, especially to Aaron (‫הקרב את־מטה לוי והעמדת אתו‬ ‫)לפני אהרן הכהן ושׁרתו אתו‬. Thus, “priests” is a family affair in the book of Numbers.28 Generally, priests that are not to be identified with Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar and Phinehas in Numbers are rare; they are mentioned mostly in rituals which shall be performed repeatedly (Num 5:8–10, 15–30; 6:10–20; 15:25–29; 19:6, 7; 35:25, 28, 32). Within the ritual scripts there are priests acting and the text does not identify them with Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, or Ithamar explicitly. For instance, the restitution of Num 5:8 belongs to “the priest” if the wronged party is not accessible because there is no next of kin. Or the priest who is conducting the ritual of Num 5:11–31 is called “the priest” only. Within the textual world of the book of Numbers the priest is mostly Aaron, sometimes Eleazar. The ritual in Num 19 forms a special case. It mentions Eleazar explicitly, but besides there is a priest acting in vv. 6–7, who is considered unclean until the evening. 29 This may be a further priest, but it cannot be excluded that it is also Eleazar. Only some passages burst the limits of the narrative logic clearly: When God declares in Num 18:11 and 19 that all taxes and tributes are given to Aaron, his sons and his daughters with him (‫לך‬ ‫ולבני ך ולבנתיך אתך‬, v. 19) then the narrative world of Aaron and his four sons is transcended towards a class of priests. The regulation of wages in Num 18 is formulated as an everlasting law, which shall function in the land, too. The same holds true for the law of refuge, where the genealogical succession of the high priest seems to exceed the sequence Aaron – Eleazar – Phinehas. If a 26 For this phrase, see Exod 28:41; 29:9, 29, 33, 35; Lev 8:33; 16:32 and 21:10; note the singular of ‫ מל א‬in every instance, which indicates a different formula. 27 For this interpretation, see MILGROM, Numbers (1990), 15; LEVINE, Numbers (1993), 156. 28 However, it is striking that only Exod 19:22 and 24 may escape this small circle. These passages mention priests before the ordination of priests. In my view this is a compelling argument for a diachronic approach and a pre-priestly Sinai theophany, which existed independently from the priestly narrative. 29 For Num 19:6–7, see FREVEL, Vitality, esp. p. 268 in the present volume.

496

Leadership and Priesthood

falsely accused manslayer shall live in the city of refuge until the (high) priest’s death, the succession line is generalized. But beside these noted exceptions and special cases the narrative world in the book of Numbers restricts priesthood to the mentioned members of the family of Aaron. Strikingly, the cult prescribed in the books of Exodus and Leviticus operates without Levitical assistance on the textual level. But is this a realistic scenario? One may question whether the cult prescribed could be performed without the assistance of cultic personnel. However, the textual world does not employ the Levites in the sacrificial cult proper (e.g., Lev 1–7) before Num 8. From another point of view, one may ask whether questions of operationalization are appropriate to a narrative world. Be that as it may, the introduction of Levitical staff to perform the sacrificial cult and to assist the very small group of priests is consistent. Thus, on the one hand, diachronic concepts in which Num 1–10 are dated post-priestly and much later than Exod 25–40; Lev 1–7; 8–9; 16 and where Num 1–10 are postponed to the end of the redactional processes of the Pentateuch raise serious questions about the operationalization of the cult. This should be kept in mind in the discussion of literary growth. On the other hand, it remains a mystery why the Levites are not introduced earlier or why they are not even mentioned or added to the narrative of the initial sacrifices in the wilderness (Lev 9) or in other texts. The very small circle of acting priests responsible for the ritual performance of the cult raises the question whether there are already tensions between priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. Or, to put it differently: Is the hierarchy of Aaronides and Levites contested in the book of Numbers? 1.3 Is There a Particular Tension Between Levites and Priests in Numbers? Let us start with a thought experiment: If we leave Num 16 aside for a moment, it is striking that neither in the so-called non-priestly passages of the book of Numbers (roughly Num 11–14*; 21:1–25:5*; 32*) nor in the passages that were formerly often attributed to the Priestly Source (Num 13–14*; 20:1–13, 22–29; 27:12–23) do the Levites play any role. Diachronically, the Levites enter the book of Numbers in later literary stages. If Num 1–10* are not attributed to the first priestly narrative, there are no Levites as cultic personnel that should pop up in the land. Given the fact that the Deuteronomy was already the continuation of the Tetrateuchal narrative at this stage of literary growth, which is probable in my view, the beginning of Deuteronomy is compatible with the “Levite-less” Tetrateuch. Moses, Aaron, Eleazar, Ithamar and Phinehas belong to the tribe of Levi – and that is it. Even the ‫הכהנים‬ ‫ הלוים‬in Deut 17:9 may be unproblematic as addressing the family of Aaron. The clash in the synchronic respect comes to light in Deut 18:6–7, where the Levite from the towns comes to the central sanctuary and is demanded to take part in the service of his brothers, the Levites (‫י הוה ככל־אחיו הלוים העמדים‬

Ending with the High Priest

497

‫)שׁם לפני‬. This definitely reflects a group beyond the scope of Aaron’s family. The situation is different in the book of Numbers. There is no explicit contradiction with the Levitical concept of the book of Numbers, even if the text lacks Num 1–10. For example: Although one spy from every tribe is sent to Canaan (‫אישׁ אחד למטה‬, Num 13:2), the tribe of Levi is exempted and the enumeration in vv. 5–15 lists 12 representatives by splitting up the tribe of Joseph into Manasseh and Ephraim, because the tribe of Levi will not inherit the land that YHWH will give to Israel ( ‫ישׂראל אשׁר־אני נתן לבני‬, Num 13:2). Hence, the tribe of Levi should not participate in the inspection of the land.30 Overall, the concept of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers is consistent, even beyond their introduction and inauguration in Num 1–10. The book reads as if there were Levites. This holds also true for the narrative, in which the priesthood of the descendants of the Aaronides is challenged, Num 16. This narrative is often taken as a general indicator that there is a tendency of denigration of the Levites in the book of Numbers.31 The group, part of the clerus minor, and led by Korah, had revolted against the clerus major, but was wrestled down. 32 But does this understanding meet the intention of the text? In Num 16:8–10 Moses reproaches the Levites by addressing Korah directly: ‫ וי אמר משׁ ה אל ־ק ר ח שׁ מע ו־נ א בני לוי׃‬8 ‫ המעט מכם כי־ הבדיל אל הי ישׂ ראל את כם מע דת י שׂראל ל הק ריב אתכם אל יו‬9 ‫לע בד את־ע בדת משׁ כן י הוה ולע מד ל פנ י הע דה לשׁ רת ם׃‬ ‫ ויק ר ב אתך ואת־ כל־ אחיך בני ־ל וי את ך ובקשׁת ם גם־ כהנ ה׃‬10

The accusation presumes the election of the Levites (‫ בדל‬H-stem) and their appointment as cultic servants (‫ ק רב‬H-stem). Both aspects resemble Num 8: Bringing the Levites close to the LORD by ‫ קרב‬H-stem (in both instances the subject is Aaron!) is the rationale of their installation in Num 8:9–10 (esp. v. 10: ‫)והק רבת את־הלוים לפני יהוה‬. The separation of the Levites recalls the demand of Num 8:14 (‫)והבדלת את־הלוי ם מתוך בני ישׂראל והיו לי הלוים‬, 33 which

30 The list of the names and the emphasis on the representatives in Num 13 is often regarded as secondary (e.g., NOTH, Numbers [1968], 103). If not, the conception of Num 13:2 and 13:5–15 should be regarded as antecedent to the Levi-conception. This would imply that there was no tribe of Levi (n.b. Levi is lacking in the listings in Num 1; 2; and 7). This is most unlikely because Levi is mentioned in the lists of Gen 29:31–30:24; 35:23– 26; 46:8–27; 49:3–7 and Exod 1:2–4. 31 Because the focus here is on the literary presuppositions of the Levitical conflict I will not go into detail regarding the narrative and its diachronic profile. Also I will not engage the old problem whether Korah was a Levite from the beginning. For the literary problems, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 37–172 and BERNER, Laien (2012). 32 See, for instance, DILLMANN , Bücher (1886), 66. 33 See further Deut 10:8 and Neh 10:29.

498

Leadership and Priesthood

is the only attestation of the root ‫ בדל‬in Numbers besides Num 16:21. 34 The formulation in Num 16:9 emphasizes the intermediate position of the Levites “to serve the service of the tabernacle of the LORD and to stand before the congregation to minister them” (‫לעב ד את־עבדת משׁכן יהוה ולעמד ִלפני העדע‬ ‫)לשׁרתם‬. Exactly ‫ עבדת ]ה[משׁכן‬is used for the Levites in Num 3:7–8 (and 1 Chron 6:33) acting vicariously for the congregation (‫לשׁרתם‬, cf. Ezek 44:11). Verse 10a frames the twofold job characteristics of v. 9 and ends with an accusation: “and now you also seek the priesthood” (‫ ;)ובקשׁתם גם־כהנה‬thereby again using the terminus technicus ‫ כהנה‬that is crucial for the restriction of priesthood to the Aaronides. Thus, it is quite clear that Num 16:8–10 already presume the overall concept of cultic hierarchy in Numbers that is developed in Num 3 and 8. The reproach of Moses against his cousin and the Levites being insolent by claiming the priesthood like Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar is neither the beginning nor the origin of a conflict that gave birth to the hierarchy in Num 1–4; 8 but rather already presumes the explicit hierarchy. Within the narrative of Num 16 we are not confronted with a denigration of the Levites as such, but only of those Levites who break from the “given” system by claiming priesthood. In the narrative those guys are conjoined with Korah, but we do not really know more about this group. However, although the Levites are rebuked on the one hand, their particular rank is emphasized on the other hand, too. Priesthood and Levitical ministry are correlated and the Levitical part cannot be withdrawn from the priestly and vice versa. Hierarchy becomes a stabilizing function as regards the system of cultic service in the book of Numbers. If this holds true, some diachronic consequences are obvious: the Korah thread that redactionally conjoins the profane conflict of Dathan and Abiram and the 250 men episode in Num 16 is at least on the same diachronic level or later than the hierarchal order of priests and Levites in Num 8, i.e., postpriestly. 35 From the basic evidence that the hierarchy of priests is already presupposed rather than introduced in or developed from Num 16, a fresh look at the topic of hierarchy in Num 17 may provide further insights. 1.4 Blossoms of Hierarchy: The Election of Aaron and the Levites in Numbers 17 Obviously, the narrative of Num 17:16–28 [Eng. Num 17:1–13] establishes Aaron as the head of all Levites. This is termed ‫ ראשׁ בית אבות‬in Num 17:17– 18: Twelve staffs represent the twelve “families” (‫)בית אב ות‬, i.e., the twelve tribes, and each staff will bear the name of a single chieftain (Num 17:16– 34 But the subject is Aaron, in contrast to Num 16, where it clearly is God himself (cf. v. 10). 35 In the sense of post-priestly narrative.

Ending with the High Priest

499

17). The rod of Levi carries the name of Aaron (Num 17:18). The purpose of the ordeal is to show the person (‫ )האי שׁ‬who is chosen by God. The staff of the chosen one will blossom, and that is Aaron’s rod. The ordeal aims to single out one of the rods. The phrase ‫ראשׁ בית אבות‬, which is used in Exod 6:14 (for the Reubenites exemplarily); Num 1:4; 7:2; and Josh 22:14 makes clear that it is one descendent of the tribe only. While until Num 17 no head of the tribe of Levi was revealed explicitly, Num 17 catches this up with Aaron, who is a third-generation representative (Levi → Kohath → Amram → Aaron). The same can be presumed for Nahshon, representative of the tribe of Judah (Num 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14), whose sister married Aaron and gave birth to Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar (Exod 6:17). Following this line Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, the representative of Zebulun (Num 1:9; 16:1; 26:9), are part of the fourth generation as are Eleazar and Ithamar, while Korah belonged to the third generation and was an opponent to Aaron!36 But the narrative of the ordeal takes place after the death “of the rod” of Korah (‫כל־האדם אשׁר לק רח ואת‬, Num 16:32). 37 If Aaron’s leadership was questioned by the representatives of the other tribes, the result could have been: Nahshon, representative of Judah, instead of Aaron, representative of Levi (or the like). On the one hand, the result of the ordeal singles out Aaron as the sole legitimate representative. On the other hand, the tribe of Levi is chosen together with its representative (v. 23). It is not any of the twelve staffs, but the staff of the tribe of Levi. The proclamation of “all the congregation are holy, all of them” (‫כי כל־העדה כלם קדשׁים‬, Num 16:3) is rebuked again by the result of the ordeal: The tribe of Levi is chosen within the twelve tribes, but Aaron and his family are the legitimate representatives within the tribe of Levi. At the end of the ordeal this is performed symbolically: While the Levite rod of Aaron is deposed in the holy of holies, the other rods are brought back to the representatives and remain outside (vv. 22– 24). It is a play with “in” and “out,” coming near or not (Num 16:5; 17:5). In sum: With the ordeal both Aaron and the Levites are lifted; the aim of the ordeal is a twofold one: to prove the special position of the Levites together with the leadership of the Aaronides. The result is the same as in Num 16: the hierarchy of priesthood, or even better, the hierarchy within the cultic personnel is already set. The Levites are the chosen ones and Aaron is the foremost priest. His name is in the holy of holies, no one else’s (cf. Lev 16). Nevertheless, Aaron’s leadership role goes beyond his cultic function as the foremost priest. One must not forget the reason and aim of the ordeal: to end the murmuring against Moses and Aaron (Num 17:20; cf. 17:6; 16:3). Had it 36 From this viewpoint, it is hard to believe that Deut 11:6, where Dathan and Abiram are already Reubenites, is the origin of the Dathan and Abiram tradition. 37 It is not clear in the narrative whether Korah is killed or not, but cf. Num 17:5 and 26:10.

500

Leadership and Priesthood

been Aaron alone, the issue could have been narrowed to the cultic service, but since the murmur is against both of them (cf. Exod 16:2; Num 14:2) the “political” and the “cultic” level are intermingled. As the murmur against the leadership of Moses and Aaron is terminated by approving Aaron only, the tendency to the priestly top position within a hierocratic conception is implicitly given already. At the end of Num 17 Aaron is the foremost leader even if Moses has not resigned. 38 In order to corroborate the result that the hierarchical construction of priests has singled out one “highest” priest from the beginning implicitly which becomes increasingly explicit in the narrative of the book of Numbers, we have to move on to the narrative of Num 25 and the crucial covenant of priesthood.

2. The Covenant of Phinehas I will not engage below in the diachronic analysis of the narrative with its different parts vv. 1a, 3, 5 (“pre-priestly”), vv. 1b, 2, 4 (“non-priestly”), vv. 6–9, 10–13, 14–15, 16–19 (“priestly”) (in whatever reification), or in the background of the zeal of Phinehas or in the particular concept of atonement in this narrative which parallels Num 17:1–5. 39 Instead I will focus on the threefold question: Whose covenant is the covenant of Phinehas in Num 25 and by whom is it granted and what is its content? 2.1 Whose Covenant Granted by Whom? The speech of God begins in v. 10 and runs most probably till v. 13. Following the Masoretic text vv. 12–13 say: ‫ לכן אמר הנ ני נת ן לו את־ברי תי שׁ לום׃‬12 ‫ והית ה לו ול זרע ו אחרי ו ברי ת כהנת ע ול ם‬13 ‫ת חת אשׁר קנ א ל אל הי ו וי כפר על־ בנ י ישׂ ראל׃‬ Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: 13a And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. 40 12

Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 293. Some of the work was already done in papers in which I addressed the Baal-Peor incident, the mixed marriage issue, the link to the Balaam narrative, to Num 31 and finally the covenant of Phinehas: cf. inter alia, F REVEL, Reasons, p. 155–87 in the present volume; IDEM , Discourse (2011); IDEM/CONCZOROWSKI, Water (2011); IDEM , Covenant, p. 425–33 in the present volume. I will not refer to these previous papers extensively here. 40 Translation and orthography follows KJV. 38 39

Ending with the High Priest

501

The translation of the KJV may help to focus the crux immediately: The Codex Leningradensis clearly attests an imperative singular ‫מר‬ ֹ ‫ֱא‬, whose subject is not the speaker himself, but the addressee. “He,” Moses (v. 10a), shall declare to give “him,” Phinehas (v. 11a), the covenant. Milgrom comments: “Say That is, to the people, in the form of an oath.”41 It makes a difference whether Phinehas is decorated by God or by Moses. However, there is no easy way to decide whether the imperative was the common understanding from the beginning. 42 The uncertainty is amplified with the enclitic personal pronoun my covenant: The parallels in Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; and Mal 2:5 suggest God as subject not only of the covenant, but also as subject of the granting. If the speech is not a declaration by the speaker God (“I say”) but a call for attributing the covenant to Phinehas, then the 1st pers. suffix with ‫“ בריתי‬my covenant” puzzles even more. If one presumes that a construct chain in which the first element is determined by a pronominal suffix would be grammatically incorrect,43 then ‫ בריתי שׁלום‬is not a construct chain, but rather a double accusative, “taking the two nouns as appositional.”44 ‫שׁלום‬ does not explain the covenant (“my covenant of peace”) but rather is its content. “Behold, I give to him my covenant: (that is) peace/welfare/prosperity/ well-being/salvation.” 45 Hence, it is not clear whether “my covenant” in v. 12 is identical to the ‫ ברית כהנת‬of v. 13a. However, the declarative speech in vv. 12–13 indicates that both are identical. In this view, everlasting priesthood is identified with šālôm, whatever that means. Within the Masoretic text, the covenant of perpetual priesthood is granted most probably by the addressee of the speech of v. 12, that is Moses, and through Moses the whole community of Israel. He shall grant his or the covenant to Phinehas, and this covenant comprises the ministry. This appears odd because the Aaronides are chosen by God himself. However, it is actually Moses who ordains the Aaronides as priests, e.g., in the instruction Num 3:10: “you shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall attend to their priesthood (RSV)” (‫)תפקד ושׁמרו את־כהנתם‬.46 It is important to note that Num 3:10 is not the first time that Moses is commanded to assign the priesthood to Aaron. This becomes clear if one takes the two other instances of the keyMILGROM, Numbers (1990), 216. The Greek ειπον can be read as imperative aorist or 1 st pers. sing. respectively. Thus, it does not help in determining the oldest understanding of the subject. 43 See for a solution F REEDMAN , Chain (1972). See ‫ ברי ת שׁל ו ם‬in Isa 54:10 ( ‫;)ברי ת שׁל ו מי‬ Ezek 34:25 and 37:26. Another example is ‫ קדשׁי שׁ ם‬which occurs very often. 44 LEVINE, Numbers (2000), 289. 45 See for this understanding Mal 2:5 ‫בר יתי הית ה את ו החיי ם ו השׁ לו ם‬. The enclitic suffix at ‫ ברי תי‬is lacking in the original Greek and in the Peshitta, so that a construct chain “covenant of peace” is possible. 46 The other instances of ‫ כ הנ ה‬in the book of Numbers are Num 16:10 where the Levites are challenged to claim priesthood and two instances in Num 18:1, 7. 41 42

502

Leadership and Priesthood

word ‫“ כהנה‬priesthood” outside of the book of Numbers into account. Exodus 29:9 reads (and the addressee is Moses again): ‫וחגרת אתם אבנט אהר ן ובנ יו וחבשׁת ל הם מגבעת‬ ‫והית ה ל הם כהנ ה ל חקת ע ול ם ומל את י ד־ אהרן וי ד־ בני ו׃‬ And you shall gird them with sashes and tie headdresses on them; and the priesthood shall be theirs by a perpetual ordinance. You shall then ordain Aaron and his sons (NRSV).

As was already noted, the second passage using the abstract ‫ כהנה‬is Exod 40:14–15: ‫ ואת־ בני ו ת ק ריב והל בשׁ ת את ם כתנת ׃‬14 ‫ ומשׁ חת את ם כאשׁ ר משׁ חת את־ אבי הם וכהנו לי והית ה ל הית להם משׁ חתם ל כהנ ת ע ול ם ל דר תם׃‬15 You shall bring his sons also and put tunics on them, 15 and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests: and their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout all generations to come (NRSV). 14

If we take this for granted, we have to notice a certain anachronism in Num 3:10 and even more so in Num 25:12: Aaron and his sons had already been commissioned about 40 years ago at the inauguration scene at Sinai! Numbers 3:10 has to be understood as a durative commission: You shall assign Aaron permanently. It is repeated just to complement the assignment of the Levites under the supervision of Aaron in Num 3:9. While the anachronism in Num 3:10 is placed in the same context as Exod 29:9 and 40:14–15 in time and space (and Num 1–9 is Janus-faced several times), 47 the situation in Num 25:12 remains puzzling. The sons of Aaron already have a ‫כהנת עולם‬ from their investiture at Mount Sinai. If this holds true, the sense of the demand for the declaration in Num 25:12 may hint at a contextual understanding. According to the proviso that Moses is actually the subject of “my covenant,” this can be elaborated as follows: It is not Moses as an individual person who is called upon to grant the covenant, but rather Moses by virtue of his office as a representative of all Israel. He declares vicariously that they will not challenge the priesthood of the Aaronides anymore, even if they are hotheaded: “Šālôm!” “My covenant” is granting peace by accepting the claim of leadership. YHWH calls on Moses to transfer the claim of leadership to the Aaronides. Because the initiative comes from God, the leading position of the Aaronides regarding cult, morals and public order is sanctioned by God. The declaration of Moses functions implicitly as a disclaimer: We will never pretend to holiness again. The conflict is solved substantially from Phinehas onwards.

47

See F REVEL, Relief, p. 70–7 in the present volume.

Ending with the High Priest

503

2.2 Priesthood and Leadership in Numbers 25 In a deeper understanding Israel has “learned” (already in Num 16–17, but at the latest) in the Cozbi affair that the Aaronides and their zeal for the purity of the community and within its living space form a necessary commitment that ensures Israel’s existence. This is as important as the sacrificial cult and thus expressed by the same phrase ‫ויכפר על־בני ישׂראל‬. 48 They have to expiate the people by performing the cult and by their profane acts which push through their moral and religious standards (which are interpreted as God’s standards as well). The priest’s function is “to go between” (Num 17:13), to protect the holy and the sanctum as well as the people. Analogously, but from an opposite perspective, in Num 3:9–10 the focus lies on the segregation of the Levites from the Israelites for the service at the tabernacle in order to build a protective tier between the people and the holy. Let me skip the alternative interpretation, in which one assumes that YHWH is the subject of v. 12 (“I declare”). At a first glance this would more readily match the vicarious position of Phinehas expressed in v. 11. But apart from that the interpretation would run in the same direction. And as was already said: the Masoretic text cannot be neglected so easily. So the question remains: Does this emphasis on Phinehas and the Aaronide family imply a disparagement or even a denigration of the Levites as is often argued? I would cast severe doubts on this interpretation and, as already stated at the beginning of this paper, in my view such a statement cannot be substantiated in the whole book of Numbers either. For Num 25 this may be corroborated by the reception in Malachi where the covenant is explicitly a covenant of Levi which shall endure (‫להיות בריתי את־לוי‬, Mal 2:4). The assurance is connected with life and well-being (‫)בריתי היתה אתו החייםו והשׁלום‬.49 Another passage that shows the general tendency of the correlation with the whole Levitical cosmos rather than the Aaronide priesthood, is Jer 33:21 which speaks of “my covenant” (‫ )ב ריתי‬with David and with the priestly Levites “my ministers” ( ‫)ואת־הלוים הכהנים משׁרתי‬.50 Finally, we should mention Neh 13:29 where it is a covenant of Priests and Levites: “Remember them, my God, for they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites” (RSV) (‫)זכרה להם אלהי על גאלי הכהנה וברית הכהנה והלוים‬.51 Again it is the context of intermarriage and the morality connected to endogCf. Num 17:11–12; 28:22, 30; 29:5 and 31:50. For the connection with Num 25, see F REVEL , Covenant, p. 429–32 in the present volume. 50 Note the unique and striking order with double determination ‫הלוי ם הכ הני ם‬. See ‫ הכהני ם הל וי ם‬Deut 17:9, 18; 24:8; Josh 8:33; 1 Chron 9:2; 2 Chron 5:5; 23:18; 30:27; Ezra 10:5; Neh 10:29, 35; 11:20 and Ezek 43:19. 51 The Septuagint is again more explicit and reads καὶ διαθήκης τῆς ἱερατείας καὶ τοὺς Λευίτας. 48 49

504

Leadership and Priesthood

amy which forms the background in Neh 13:28. At a first glance the phraseology is plethoric especially regarding the double ‫ הכהנה‬and the ‫ והלוים‬at the very end of the verse. This has led some scholars to assume that “and the Levites” should be regarded as an addition.52 A redactor brought in the Levi perspective from Deut 33:9 and Mal 2. But what if there were not two parallel concepts: the covenant of Phinehas with the Aaronides and the covenant of Levi with the Levites? What if the hierarchical correlation of Aaronides and Levites, as is proposed in this paper, is the direction in Neh 13:29, too? Although all passages imply an association of Levites with the covenant, they cannot provide strict evidence to the fact that the covenant of Phinehas and his descendants in Num 25 does not intend or imply the denigration of the Levites. Nevertheless, the opposite may be questioned by the evidence of the covenant of Levi outside the Pentateuch. But the challenge of the traditional view is obviously given, if one does not share the common view that Levites and Aaronides were opponents throughout the history of priesthood. 2.3 Holiness and Genealogical Succession in the Narrative World Let me finally add one further thought on the genealogy of the Aaronides: With Num 25 Phinehas enters the stage. He is mentioned first in the priestly genealogy in Exod 6:25 which starts with the toledôt of the sons of Levi in Exod 6:16 (‫)ואלה שׁמות ב ני־לוי לתלדתם‬. 53 This list is concluded by the formula “these are the heads of the fathers’ houses of the Levites by their families” (RSV) (‫ )אלה ראשׁי אבות הלוים למשׁפחתם‬and the person last mentioned in the genealogical line is Phinehas, member of the fourth generation of the house of Levi. The structure of the list in Exod 6, which is not the same as in Num 1–3, has a three-leveled organization: tribe, ancestral houses and families. Whoever the ‫ ראשׁי אבות‬in Exod 6 are and regardless of the difficult question whether Phinehas is one of them or not, he is mentioned as the last offspring of Eleazar. His son Abishua (1 Chron 5:30–31; 6:35; Ezra 7:5) is not mentioned in the whole Pentateuch. This may be read as a correspondence of Phinehas being mentioned as the last generation of the genealogy in Exod 6. Besides Num 25:7 and 11 Phinehas is mentioned in the context of the Midianite war in Num 31:6 for the last time in Numbers. There he carries and handles the holy vessels and the (two) trumpets (‫הקד שׁ וחצצרות התרועה בידו‬

See, for instance, BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemia (1988), 362. There are serious problems in understanding the composition of the list in vv. 14–25, which presents only Reuben, Simeon and Levi in a different manner. These problems cannot be discussed here in detail (for an overview of the textual problems cf. S CHMIDT , Exodus [1988], 295–311). At the risk of being overly simplistic one may stick to the fact here that it is more or less common to sort vv. 14–15 as a post-priestly (in the sense of post-Pg) addition to Exod 6. 52 53

Ending with the High Priest

505

‫)כלי‬.54 Although Phinehas does not play a major role in the book of Numbers, the concept of the family of Aaron, and with that the priesthood and hierarchy of priests seems to be deliberately measured. Phinehas is the spearhead of Aaronide priesthood in multiple meaning. Phinehas forms an open end in the succession of priests. He is entrusted with substantial functions and assists his father Eleazar as Eleazar and Ithamar have assisted Aaron before his death. The successional model of priesthood and liability is continued in the narrative quite conspicuously. Aaron is the dominant figure in Num 1–18. Eleazar is mentioned only sporadically in Num 3:2 and 4 within the genealogical notice of the offspring of Aaron. The reference to him in Num 3:32 is substantial: He is introduced as chief over the leaders of the Levites (‫)ונשׂיא נשׂיאי הלוי אלעזר בן־אהרן הכהן‬. In Num 4:16 he is in charge of the oil for the light. Associated with a case of illicitly breaking into the cultic sphere by offering incense without authorization, he is employed in Num 17:2 (Eng. 16:35) to take up the censers out of the blaze, which lie in front of the tent of meeting. The responsibility is substantiated by the statement “for they have become sacred” (‫)כי קדשׁו‬. Since the application of the covering around the altar which is made of the censors Num 17:4 requires direct contact with the altar in front of the tent of meeting, it has to be a high-ranking priest who acts. Because the material has been in contact with corpses it cannot be Aaron, the priest of the highest rank. The dangerous defiling capacity of corpses is perhaps also the rationale of mentioning Eleazar in Num 19:3–4. Aaron is not engaged in the whole ritual although he is – together with Moses – the addressee in Num 19:1. 55 After that Eleazar becomes prominent in Num 20, where he is named as Aaron’s successor (Num 20:25, 26, 28). From Num 26 onwards he frequently acts in roles that were previously filled by Aaron. Why not in Num 25? Taking the substitution of Aaron in Num 17 for granted, it is quite consistent that Phinehas is employed instead of Eleazar. As in the case in Num 17, the Cozbi affair in Num 25 is associated with an illicit and “idolatrous” action, with the defilement of the sanctuary by breaking through the tabooed line and the holiness of the inner sanctuary (if one may assume ‫ הקבה‬as the ‫“ היכל‬main hall,” or even the ‫דביר‬, that is the “holy of holies,” which cannot be discussed here). Moreover, the priest comes into contact with the dead couple at least through his spear and thereby he defiles himself. Following Lev 21:10–12 any such task must not be done by the “high priest,” who is qualified as ‫הכהן הגדול מאחיו‬. In sum: the overall genealogical concept of the priesthood and the restriction within the very small family circle of father and son (or father and sons, father and son and uncle, etc.) implies the charge and function, if not 54 55

See the note above on Ithamar and his possible duty to blow one of the trumpets. See F REVEL, Vitality, p. 266–7 in the present volume.

506

Leadership and Priesthood

appointment of a single priest of the highest rank. In the narrative world of the book of Numbers, these are in genealogical sequence Aaron and Eleazar. The book of Numbers implies in several narratives the charge of a ‫הכהן הגדול‬ even if he is not addressed by this term. From this de facto or conceptual presence of a priest with a highest rank or priest entitled ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in parts of the book of Numbers two subsequent crucial issues emerge and need closer enquiry: First, does this conceptual implication already refer to the function of the high priest as “high priest” in the sense of the (later) Second Temple period, or does it refer to the high priest as a priest of the highest rank who only has a superior function in some cultic respects? In other words: If the leading role of the Aaronides in the narrative world is not restricted to the cultic sphere, how far does it extend into the political sphere in a hierocratic concept? And second, how is the explicit reference to ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in Num 35:28 and 32 to be integrated into this picture? Of course, these two tasks transcend the mere immanent perspective on the narrative cosmos of the book of Numbers primarily applied in this paper. Therefore, diachronic and historical consequences will be subsequently addressed in section 4.

3. Ending with the High Priest Read from the evidence presented in section 2, Aaron is installed as the “high priest” in Num 17 not only in the story of the rod of Aaron but in the expiation scene as well. His role of leadership exceeds the cultic realm and so does the approbation in the ordeal. Although the family of priests is small and restricted to Aaron and his living sons within the narrative of the Torah, the position of the high priest and his ministry within the cult, administration and society is already implicit in the text of the Torah. This is more or less a common assumption made already by Frank-Lothar Hossfeld or in a way by Deborah Rooke. 56 But in contrast to Hossfeld, Rooke is inclined to restrict the power of the high priest until the time of the Maccabees de facto to the cultic realm. Othmar Keel, following her in this regard, states: “Aaron is only responsible for certain cultic functions. We are not dealing with the idea of a hierocracy.” 57 This is an important historical question that should deserve much more attention. The argument of this paper comes to a different conclusion. Below I will focus on some further observations to the intermingled (or 56 Cf. HOSSFELD , Hohepriester (1994), 11–2; ROOKE, Zadok’s Heirs (2000), 11–39, 120–2. 57 This is an English translation of KEEL, Geschichte (2007), 991: “Aaron ist nur für bestimmte kultische Funktionen zuständig. Wir haben es nicht mit dem Entwurf einer Hierokratie zu tun.” Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung (2003), 133: “Der Hohepriester nahm zwar im 5. Jh. eine hohe Stellung in der jüdischen Gesellschaft Jerusalems ein, hatte aber keine politische Führungsposition.”

Ending with the High Priest

507

better politically colored) power of the priest with the highest rank in some Old Testament passages. Due to the restriction of this paper, a comprehensive analysis is beyond our objective. The first clue is the conclusion of the Yom Kippur ritual in Lev 16. After the initial execution by Aaron is demanded in God’s speech, the directive to Moses addresses the whole community in vv. 29–31. Within the second part of the ‫( חקת עולם‬vv. 29, 31, 34), it is prescribed in v. 32 that the priest, who is anointed and consecrated as priest, who is in a genealogical succession to his father, and who wears the holy garments shall make atonement (‫אשׁר־‬ :‫)י משׁח אתו וכפר הכהן ואשׁר ימלא את־ידו לכה תחת אביו את־בגדי הבד בגדי הקדשׁ‬. There can be no doubt that on the textual level this ritual shall be performed by the legitimate Aaronide offspring. 58 However, it is striking that neither Aaron nor his living son Eleazar (who replaces the firstborn Nadab) are addressed here to perform the rite periodically, but the priest who acts instead of his father. This cannot be Aaron himself, although he is still alive and may perform the rite for about forty years (Num 33:38) until his death in Num 20:29. Therefore it is quite clear that the perpetual ordinance in vv. 29–34 aims at the cult beyond the desert. Thus, vv. 29–33 already imply the institution of a high priest in the cult. Viewed from this point the phrases used in Lev 16:29–33 become indicative: “the anointed priest” (Exod 28:41; 30:30; 40:13–15; Num 3:3), especially if one of the priests is singled out ( ‫הכהן‬ ‫ )המשׁי ח‬Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:15), indicates that the high priest or highest priest is meant. This is by no means a high priesthood in the sense of a political leadership. However, the first and foremost Aaronide obtains a role that radiates into the political sphere. On the final-text level this slightly alters the role of Aaron in the Sinai and wilderness narratives (Exod 16–Num 17). The inauguration of Joshua in Num 27 is indicative in this way. If Joshua has to stand before Eleazar and if Joshua has to follow the judgments of the priestly Urim and Thummim (Josh 27:19–22), then Joshua’s political leadership is subordinated under Eleazar. Leaving the theocratic idea of the divine oracle aside, the priest with the highest rank has the superior political power. This is narratively explicated in Num 31:6 by the engagement of Phinehas in the Midianite war. Numbers 35:25 is of special importance in this context. It mentions the death of the great priest (‫ )הכהן הגדל‬as indicative for the release of one guilty of manslaughter (‫הכהן הגדל אשׁר־משׁח אתו בשׁמן הקדשׁ‬, cf. Num 35:28, 32). We cannot go into detail of the institutional background of the suspension of blood revenge, which is linked with the lifelong term of the priest of the 58 Leviticus 16:32 is the only instance where the acting priest is assigned ‫( ת חת אב יו‬cf. 1 Kgs 14:21; 23:30, 34; 1 Chron 29:23; 2 Chron 26:1; 36:1). On the narrative level the position is not fixed; it may be Eleazar, Phinehas or whoever is in the row of succession afterwards.

508

Leadership and Priesthood

highest rank. But we may stress that beyond Num 35 (and Josh 20:6 which is closely related), the title ‫ הכהן הגדול‬is used only in Lev 21:10 where the high priest or priests’ provost is addressed. Thus, it is quite clear that Num 35 follows the preceding texts in installing a genealogical successive priesthood with a high priest as the head of the priests. From the historical development, the institution of refuge is merely a cultic institution, but it transcends this realm the moment it is dissolved from the central sanctuary and combined with a lawsuit at the general court. Thus, it is not only the concern for doctrine and the teaching of the Torah (Lev 10), the role of the superior priest already goes far beyond that. From a synchronic viewpoint, it is important that Num 35 ends with a successional concept of the high priest. Compared to Num 35, in Num 36 there is only interpretation of a law already given, but no new revelation anymore. Thus, the impression is that the institutional development in the Torah (leaving the special role of the Deuteronomy, e.g., Deut 17:12; 20:2; and 26:3, aside) ends with the installation of a high priest who reigns in genealogical succession. This textual institutional implicitness disembogues into the institutional explicitness of high priesthood in the late Persian period. 59

4. Diachronic Outline If we take as our starting point the relative consensus that (1) Lev 16:29–33 is a post-priestly H text, (2) Lev 21:10 is part of a Fortschreibung which is presumed in Lev 10 and (3) Exod 6:14–26 is an addition later than the Priestly Source then the hierarchical concept of a high priest in the book of Numbers becomes a relatively late concept. However, the explicit concept of high priest in Num 35 is on the same level or later than Lev 21:10. Within the book of Numbers it is later than the more or less implicit concept of the highest priest in Num 17 and 25. In other words Num 35 is rather later than the aforementioned H or H-influenced texts.60 Although the genealogical sequence of Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas (and then N.N. beyond the Hexateuch) appears to be a consistent consecutive concept with an open end, it is, on the one hand, likely that the Eleazar and Phinehas line is earlier than the suspen-

59 See K EEL, Geschichte (2007), 990 with fig. 620, the famous coin of “Johanan, the Priest.” Another extra-biblical indicator for the high priesthood in Jerusalem in the late 5 th , early 4 th cent. BCE can be found in the Elephantine Papyri (e.g., TAD 4.7/4.8). For a discussion, see GRABBE , History (2004), 230–5. 60 H is taken here as a heuristic concept of priestly Fortschreibung. With the use of the acronym I do not intend to subscribe to any of the recent concepts on P and H. For the recent discussion and my standpoint, see F REVEL , Introduction (2013).

Ending with the High Priest

509

sion of the blood revenge linked to the death of the high priest.61 On the other hand, the concept of Num 17 and Num 25 already presumes the impurity by corpses of Num 19 and the intensification of purity requirements for the high priest in Lev 21. Much more complicated is the overall introduction of Levites as cultic servants and the development of the hierarchy of priests and Levites in the book of Numbers. Here, we cannot stick to the discussion, which offers various positions. If we take the installation of Aaron and his sons in Exod 28–29 as the starting point for the development, we may suggest a slightly postpriestly date, or in traditional terminology Ps. The main features of the system together with the reduction of the priestly class to a handful of priests on the narrative surface level induce the introduction of Levites in some way. The same holds true for the transportation of the sanctuary, which requires some sort of manpower and a schedule of responsibilities. Roughly spoken there are two possibilities to elucidate the peculiarity of the Levites in the Tetrateuch: (1) The almost complete absence of Levites in the book of Leviticus indicates that the whole book of Numbers should be postdated to Leviticus, including the H and later parts. In this line of argumentation, it seems probable to date the Levites conception to literary strata that presume Pg, but are rather a sequel to Ps as on the same literary-historical level as Exod 35–40* because Levites are not mentioned there either. This would be a most sever consequence of the distinctiveness of the book of Numbers. The whole book would be dated later than the Triateuch (Genesis–Leviticus) and only very few redactional intrusions of Levites would have linked the concept between the Triateuch and Deuteronomy. The Levites would bridge the concept of Aaronide priests in Exodus and Leviticus and the Levitical priests in Deuteronomy. (2) The absence of Levites in the book of Leviticus may have narratological or conceptual reasons and does not imply that Numbers as a book is just a redactional bridge between the Triateuch and the Deuteronomy. Postponing the whole book of Numbers in a literary respect is too radical a consequence. If there are portions of the Priestly Source in the book of Numbers (for instance in Num 13–14* or Num 20) and if there is a non-priestly and prepriestly narrative thread, then we should investigate more to understand the concept of the book of Numbers. Judged from the argument above, the bridging hypothesis has some merits, but a post-H composition of the book of Numbers becomes a rather complicated matter within the late 5th cent. Additionally, this paper has emphasized that the concept of the Levitical priests in Deuteronomy and the Aaronide family in Exodus–Leviticus is not really 61 The complex relation between Num 35 and Josh 20 cannot be dealt with here. See SCHMIDT, Leviten- und Asylstädte (2002).

510

Leadership and Priesthood

bridged in a substantial way. The two concepts do not really blend or merge in the conception of the book of Numbers; by contrast they still contradict each other. If the book of Numbers had been designed to bridge the Triateuchal concept of priesthood with the Deuteronomistic concept of the Levitical priests in the book of Deuteronomy, it must be said that it has failed. Thus, there is enough room for further discussion.

List of First Publications 1.

Wandering the Desert: A Survey into the Present Volume and Beyond

Previously unpublished.

2.

Torah Becoming a Blessing: Narratological Impulses for Understanding the Book of Numbers

Translation of “Zum Segen werdende Tora: Narratologische Anstöße zum Verständnis des Buches Numeri.” Pages 131–173 in Perspektiven: Biblische Texte und Narratologie. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 75. Edited by I. Müllner and B. Schmitz. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2018.

3.

The Compositional Relief of Numbers Within the Five Books of the Torah

Translation of “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition.” Pages 35–74 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2008 (only the part written by Christian Frevel is reprinted here).

4.

Old Pieces – Late Bridges? The Role of the Book of Numbers in Recent Discussion of the Pentateuch

Translation of “Alte Stücke – Späte Brücke? Zur Rolle des Buches Numeri in der jüngeren Pentateuchdiskussion.” Pages 255–299 in Congress Volume Munich 2013. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 163. Edited by C. Maier. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

5.

Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert: Num 21 as Compositional Joint

Slightly edited update of “Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert: Num 21 as Compositional Joint.” Pages 111–135 in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 124. Edited by J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

6.

Living in the Midst of the Land: Issues of Centralization in the Book of Numbers

Previously unpublished. Slightly edited version of a paper presented at the EABS/iSBL Annual Conference in Helsinki (31 July 2018).

512 7.

List of First Publications

Are There Any Reasons Why Balaam Had to Die? Prophecy, PseudoProphecy and Sorcery in Numbers

Previously unpublished. Originally written in 2009 to be published in Torah in Psalms and Prophets: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 562. Edited by J. Le Roux, E. Otto and D. J. Human. London: T&T Clark (forthcoming).

8.

Numbers and the Twelve

Previously unpublished. Slightly edited version of a paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco (19 November 2011).

9.

The “Arab Connection” in the Book of Numbers

Previously unpublished. Slightly edited version of a paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in Baltimore (25 November 2013).

10. Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context Slightly edited update of “Purity Conceptions in the Book of Numbers in Context,” Pages 369–411 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Edited by C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

11. Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses: Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19 Slightly edited update of “Struggling with the Vitality of Corpses: Understanding the Rationale of the Ritual in Numbers 19.” Pages 199–226 in: Les vivants et leurs morts. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’assyriologie et des milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 14 et 15 avril 2010. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 257. Edited by J.-M. Durand, T. C. Römer and J. Hutzli. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012.

12. On the Imperfection of Perfection: Remarks on the Anthropology of Rituals in Numbers Translation of “Von der Unvollkommenheit des Vollkommenen: Anmerkungen zur Anthropologie der Rituale im Buch Numeri.” Pages 215–244 in Die Erfindung des Menschen: Person und Persönlichkeit in ihren lebensweltlichen Kontexten. Theologie – Kultur – Hermeneutik 21. Edited by S. Beyerle. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2016.

List of First Publications

513

13. The Texture of Rituals in the Book of Numbers: A Fresh Approach to Ritual Density, the Role of Tradition and the Emergence of Diversity in Early Judaism Previously unpublished. Originally written in 2016 to be published in Text and Ritual in the Pentateuch: A Systematic and Comparative Approach. Edited by C. Nihan and J. Rhyder, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns (forthcoming).

14. The Sabbath and the Wood-Gatherer: Legal Hermeneutics and Literary History in Num 15:32–36 Previously unpublished. Slightly edited version of a paper presented at the iSBL Meeting in Vienna (8 July 2011).

15. Interior Furnishing: Some Observations on Endogamy in the Book of Numbers Previously unpublished. Slightly edited version of a paper presented at the conference “Foreign Women in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East” at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (6 April 2017).

16. The Transformation of Charisma: Reflections on the Book of Numbers on the Backdrop of Max Weber’s Theorem of Routinization Translation of “Transformationen des Charismas: Überlegungen zum Buch Numeri vor dem Hintergrund von Max Webers Veralltäglichungstheorem.” Pages 261–287 in Glaube in Gemeinschaft: Autorität und Rezeption in der Kirche. Edited by M. Knapp and T. Söding. Freiburg: Herder, 2014.

17. Leadership and Conflict: Modelling the Charisma of Numbers Slightly edited update of “Leadership and Conflict: Modeling the Charisma of Numbers.” Pages 89–114 in Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507. Edited by K. Pyschny and S. Schulz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2018.

18. “My Covenant with Him Was Life and Peace”: The Priestly Covenant and the Issue of Mixed Marriages Translation of “‘Mein Bund mit ihm war das Leben und der Friede.’ Priesterbund und Mischehenfrage.” Pages 85–94 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. FS F.-L. Hossfeld. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Edited by C. Dohmen and C. Frevel. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007.

514

List of First Publications

19. “And When Moses Heard That, He Agreed” (Lev 10:20): The Relationship Between Compositional History, the History of Theology and Inner-Biblical Exegesis in Leviticus 10 Translation of “‘Und Mose hörte (es), und es war gut in seinen Augen’ (Lev 10,20): Zum Verhältnis von Literargeschichte, Theologiegeschichte und innerbiblischer Auslegung am Beispiel von Lev 10.” Pages 104–136 in Gottes Name(n): Zum Gedenken an Erich Zenger. Herders Biblische Studien 71. Edited by I. Müllner, L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger and R. Scoralick. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.

20. “…and the Levites Shall Be Mine”: Remarks on the Connections Between Numbers 3; 8 and 18 Translation of “‘… dann gehören die Leviten mir’: Anmerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Num 3, 8 und 18.” Pages 133–158 in Kulte, Priester, Rituale: Beiträge zu Kult und Kultkritik im Alten Testament und Alten Orient. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 89. Edited by S. Ernst and M. Häusl. St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 2010.

21. Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers Slightly edited update of “Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers.” Pages 138–168 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Bibliography Abusch, Tzvi. “Etemmu.” DDD 1 (1999): 309–312. Achenbach, Reinhard. “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13–14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 (2003): 56–123. –. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. –. “Das Versagen der Aaroniden: Erwägungen zum literarhistorischen Ort von Leviticus 10.” Pages 55–70 in Basel und Bibel: Collected Communications to the XVII th Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 51. Edited by M. Augustin and H. M. Niemann. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang, 2004. –. “Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 11 (2005): 122–154. –. “Der Pentateuch, seine theokratischen Bearbeitungen und Josua–2 Könige.” Pages 225–253 in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 203. Edited by K. Schmid and T. C. Römer. Leiden: Peeters, 2007. –. “Eldad und Medad.” No Pages. Published online 2008. Cited August 2015, Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/das-bibellexikon/lexikon/sachwort/anzeigen/ details/eldad-und-medad/ch/e1aa05aeb45332694817535d5152d27d/. –. “Verunreinigung durch die Berührung Toter: Zum Ursprung einer altisraelitischen Vorstellung.” Pages 347–369 in Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte: Internationales und interdisziplinäres Symposion vom 16. bis zum 18. März 2007 an der Universität Leipzig. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 64. Edited by A. Berlejung and B. Janowski. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. “Satrapie, Medinah und lokale Hierokratie: Zum Einfluss der Statthalter der Achämenidenzeit auf Tempelwirtschaft und Tempelordnungen.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16 (2010): 105‒144. –. “gêr – nåkhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions Regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch.” Pages 29‒51 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. –. “Levi and Levites.” No Pages in RPP. Published online 2011. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_SIM_12941. –. “Complementary Reading of the Torah in the Priestly Texts of Numbers 15.” Pages 201–232 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “Mishkan – ‘Arôn – ‘Ohael Mo‘ed: Concepts of Divine Presence in the Pentateuch.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 23 (2017): 151–161.

516

Bibliography

Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia: John Knox Press, 1979. Aharoni, Yohanan and Andrew Dearman. “The Location of Jahaz.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 100 (1984): 122–126. Aḥituv, Shmuel. “A Rejoinder to Nadav Na’aman’s ‘A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom.’” Israel Exploration Journal 62.2 (2012): 223–232. Ahuis, Ferdinand. Autorität im Umbruch: Ein formgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literarischen Schichtung von Num 16–17: Mit einem Ausblick auf die Diskussion um die Ämter in der Kirche. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1983. Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy. The Old Testament Library. Translated by J. Bowden. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. –. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees. The Old Testament Library. Translated by J. Bowden. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. –. “Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four.’” Pages 232‒251 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 325. Edited by P. L. Reddit and A. Schart. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2003. –. “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 287–303 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by R. Albertz, O. Lipschits and G. N. Knoppers. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “Die vergessene Heilsmittlerschaft des Mose: Erste Überlegungen zu einem spätexilischen Exodusbuch (Ex 1‒34*).” Evangelische Theologie 69.6 (2009): 443‒459. –. “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil I).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123.2 (2011): 171– 183. –. “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie: Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24 (Teil II).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123.3 (2011): 336– 347. –. “Ex 33,7–11: Ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch.” Biblische Notizen 149 (2011): 13–40. –. Exodus. Band 1: Exodus 1–18. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 2,1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2012. –. “A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125.2 (2013): 220–233. –. Pentateuchstudien. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117. Edited by J. Wöhrle. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. al-Ghazzi, Abdulaziz Saud. “The Kingdom of Midian.” Pages 211‒217 in Roads of Arabia: Archaeology and History of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Edited by A. I. alGhabban et al. Paris: Somogy Art, 2010. Andersen, Francis I. and David N. Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 24e. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Artus, Olivier. Etudes sur le livre des Nombres: Récit, histoire et Loi en Nombres 13,1– 20,13. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 157. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. –. “Les dernières rédactions du livre des Nombres et l’unité littéraire du livre.” Pages 129–144 in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de

Bibliography

517

l’Ennéateuque. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 203. Edited by T. C. Römer and K. Schmid. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. –. “Josué 13–14 et le livre des Nombres.” Pages 233–348 in The Book of Joshua. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250. Edited by E. Noort. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. –. “Nombres 16: un conflit à propos de la Sainteté.” Transeuphratène 41 (2012): 11–23. –. “Numbers 32: The Problem of the Two and a Half Transjordanian Tribes and the Final Composition of the Book of Numbers.” Pages 367–382 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “Enjeux passés et actuels de l’Exégèse du Livre des Nombres.” Revue Biblique 123.2 (2016): 161‒182. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Audirsch, Jeffrey G. The Legislative Themes of Centralization: From Mandate to Demise. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2014. Auld, Graeme. “Leviticus: After Exodus and Before Numbers.” Pages 41–54 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 93. Edited by R. Rendtorff and R. A. Kugler. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Aurelius, Erik. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series 27. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1988. Babota, Vasile. The Institution of the Hasmonean High Priesthood. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 165. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Baden, Joel S. J, E and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. –. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Yale: University Press, 2012. –. “The Re-Emergence of Source Criticism: The Neo-Documentary Hypothesis.” No Pages. Published online 2012. Cited August 2015. Online: http://www.bibleinterp. com/articles/bad368008.shtml. –. “Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17.” Pages 233‒247 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. The Promise to the Patriarchs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. “The Structure and Substance of Numbers 15.” Vetus Testamentum 63.3 (2013): 351‒ 367. –. “The Narratives of Numbers 20‒21.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76.4 (2014): 634‒654. Baentsch, Bruno. Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “Forms of Time and of the Chronotope in the Novel: Notes Towards a Historical Poetics.” Pages 84‒258 in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. –. Chronotopos. Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2008. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 3rd ed. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Ballhorn, Egbert. Israel am Jordan: Narrative Topographie im Buch Josua. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 162. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2011.

518

Bibliography

Bamberger, Selig, ed. Rashis Pentateuchkommentar. 4 th ed. Basel: Goldschmidt, 2002. Barchiesi, Alessandro, Jörge Rüpke and Susan Stephens, eds. Rituals in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome. Munich: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004. Barkay, Gabriel. “The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.” Tel Aviv 19.2 (1992): 139–192. Barkay, Gabriel et al. “The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom: Using Advanced Technologies to Reclaim the Earliest Biblical Texts and Their Context.” Near Eastern Archaeology 66.4 (2003): 162‒171. –. “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evalutaion.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 344 (2004): 41‒71. Barmash, Pamela. “The Narrative Quandary: Cases of Law in Literature.” Vetus Testamentum 24.1 (2004): 1–16. –. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: University Press, 2005. Bartelmus, Rüdiger. Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6,1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 65. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1979. –. “Hero.” No Pages in RPP. Published online 2011. Cited September 2018. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_SIM_09700. Bartor, Assnat. Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the Pentateuch. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 5. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2010. Baumgarten, Michael. Theologischer Commentar zum Alten Testament. Kiel: Universitäts Buchhandlung, 1843. Becking, Bob. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 80. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001. –. “Temple Funding and Priestly Authority in Achaemenid Judah.” Pages 336–351 in Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 478. Edited by C. Waerzeggers and J. Stökl. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Beentjes, Pancratius C., ed. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. 2nd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. –. , ed. Teaching Ritual. AAR Teaching Religious Studies Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Bendlin, Andreas. “Ritual. I. Term.” No Pages in RPP. Published online 2006. Cited September 2018. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1023450. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘the Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125‒156 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 235. Edited by J. W. Watts and P. R. House. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. –. Hosea. The Forms of Old Testament Literature XXIA/1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Bibliography

519

Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische Studien 16. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1998. –. “Synchronie und Diachronie: Zur Methodenvielfalt in der Exegese.” Bibel und Kirche 62.4 (2007): 249–252. Berlejung, Angelika. “Gewalt ins Bild gesetzt: Kriegsdarstellungen auf neuassyrischen Palastreliefs.” Bibel und Kirche 60.4 (2005): 205–211. –. “Der gesegnete Mensch: Text und Kontext von Num 6,22–27 und den Silberamuletten von Ketef Hinnom.” Pages 37–62 in Mensch und König: Studien zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Rüdiger Lux zum 60. Geburtstag. Herders Biblische Studien 53. Edited by A. Berlejung et al. Freiburg i. Br./Basel/Vienna: Herder, 2008. –. “Ein Programm fürs Leben: Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120.2 (2008): 204–230. –. “Variabilität und Konstanz eines Reinigungsrituals nach der Berührung eines Toten in Num 19 und Qumran: Überlegungen zur Dynamik der Ritualtransformation.” Theologische Zeitung: Basel 65.4 (2009): 289–331. Berlejung, Angelika and Bernd Janowski, eds. Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Berner, Christoph. Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. –. “Die eherne Schlange: Zum literarischen Ursprung eines ‘mosaischen’ Artefakts.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124.3 (2012): 341–55. –. “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden: Zum Ort der Korachbearbeitung innerhalb der Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 16–17.” Biblische Notizen 152 (2012): 3–28. –. “Das Wasserwunder von Rephidim (Ex 17,1–7) als Schlüsseltext eines nachpriesterschriftlichen Mosebildes.” Vetus Testamentum 63.2 (2013):193–209. Beyerle, Stefan. Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium: Eine text-, kompositions- und formkritische Studie zu Deuteronomium 33. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 250. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1997. –. “Die ‘Eherne Schlange’ Num 21,49: Synchron und diachron gelesen.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111.1 (1999): 23–44. –. “Verhalten und Emotion im Ritual.” Pages 157‒170 in Emotionen und Verhalten in theologischer und philosophischer Perspektive. Theologie – Kultur – Hermeneutik 15. Edited by B. Harbeck-Pingel and M. Roth. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012. Bibb, Bryan D. Ritual Words and Narrative Worlds in the Book of Leviticus. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 480. New York/London: T&T Clark, 2009. Bieberstein, Klaus. “Schittim.” NBL 3 (1992): 481. Binns, Leonard E. The Book of Numbers. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1927. Bjørndalen, Anders J. Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 165. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988. –. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. –. “Deuteronomy and the Politics of Post-Mortem Existence.” Vetus Testamemtum 45.1 (1995): 1–16.

520

Bibliography

–. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. –. Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. –. “The Baal Peor Episode Revisited (Num 25,1‒18).” Biblica 93.1 (2012): 86‒97. Bloch-Smith, Elisabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. The New American Commentary 6. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2010. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1990. –. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” Pages 181–212 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuchüberlieferungen.” Pages 291–321 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. FS M. Köckert. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400. Edited by A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2009. –. “Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings.” Pages 31–44 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Edited by S. Shectman and J. S. Baden. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Blume, Peter. Fiktion und Weltwissen: Der Beitrag nichtfiktionaler Konzepte zur Sinnkonstitution fiktionaler Erzählliteratur. Allgemeine Literaturwissenschaft 8. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2004. Blufarb, Ruth. Geschichten im Recht: Übertragbarkeit von “Law as Narrative” auf die deutsche Rechtsordnung. Recht und Literatur 3. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2017. Boehringer, David. Heroenkult in Griechenland von der geometrischen bis zur klassischen Zeit: Attika, Argolis, Messenien. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte. Beihefte Neue Folge 3. Berlin: Oldenbourg Akademieverlag, 2001. Börner-Klein, Dagmar. Midrasch Sifre Numeri: Voruntersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte. Judentum und Umwelt 39. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1993. –. , ed. Jalkut Schimoni zu Numeri: Teilband 1: Kapitel 1‒15. Jüdische Bibelauslegung im Mittelalter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. –. , ed. Jalkut Schimoni zu Numeri: Teilband 2: Kapitel 16‒36. Jüdische Bibelauslegung im Mittelalter. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017. Boyarin, Daniel. “Beyond Judaisms: Metạtṛon and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 41.3 (2010): 323–365. Boyce, Mary. “Corpse.” No Pages in EI. Published online 1993. Cited February 2011. Online: http://www.iranica.com/articles/corpse-disposal-of-in-zoroastrianism. Brandt, Peter. Endgestalten des Kanons: Das Arrangement der Schriften Israels in der jüdischen und christlichen Bibel. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 131. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Braulik, Georg. Deuteronomium II 16,18–34,12. Neue Echter Bibel 28. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992. –. “‘Die Weisung und das Gebot’ im Enneateuch.” Pages 114–140 in Das Manna fällt auch Heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments.

Bibliography

521

FS E. Zenger. Herders Biblische Studien 44. Edited by F.-L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 2004. –. “Das Buch Deuteronomium.” Pages 152‒182 in Erich Zenger et al: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. 9 th ed. Edited by C. Frevel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. –. “Die deuteronomistische Landeroberungserzählung aus der Joschijazeit in Deuteronomium und Josua.” Pages 109–172 in Studien zu Buch und Sprache des Deuteronomiums. Edited by G. Braulik. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 63. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016. Brosius, Christiane, Axel Michaels and Paula Schrode, eds. Ritual und Ritualdynamik: Schlüsselbegriffe, Theorien, Diskussionen. UTB 3854. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary 5. Waco: Word Book, 1984. Bührer, Walter, ed. Schriftgelehrte Fortschreibungs- und Auslegungsprozesse: Textarbeit im Pentateuch, in Qumran, Ägypten und Mesopotamien. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Camp, Claudia V. Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 320. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Carmichael, Calum. Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1985. –. Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2006. –. The Book of Numbers: A Critique of Genesis. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2012. Carasik, Michael. Numbers/ ‫במדבר‬. The Commentators’ Bible: The Rubin JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011. Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Chavel, Simeon. “Numbers 15,32‒36: A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary Production.” Pages 45‒55 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Edited by S. Shectman and J. S. Baden. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. –. “‘Oracular Novellae’ and Biblical Historiography: Through the Lens of Law and Narrative.” Clio 39.1 (2009): 1‒27. –. Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 71. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Chaniotis, Angelos. “Wie (er)findet man Rituale für einen neuen Kult? Recycling von Ritualen: Das Erfolgsrezept Alexanders von Abonouteichos.” Forum Ritualdynamik 9 (2004): 1‒16. –. “Introduction: Debating Ritual Agency.” Pages 3–8 in Ritual Dynamics and the Science of Ritual: Body, Performance, Agency, and Experience. Vol. II. Edited by A. Michaels et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. Coste, Didier and John Pier. “Narrative Levels.” Pages 295‒308 in Handbook of Narratology. Edited by P. Hühn et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Crüsemann, Frank. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. München: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992.

522

Bibliography

Cryer, Frederick H. Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Enviroment: A Socio-Historical Investigation. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Dahmen, Ulrich. Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 110. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. –. “Leviten.” LThK 6 (1997): 865–867. Daise, Michael A. “Ritual Density in Qumran Practice: Ablutions in the Serekh HaYaḥad.” Pages 51‒66 in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9–11 January, 2005. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 88. Edited by E. G. Chazon and B. Halpern-Amaru. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. Davies, Eryl W. Numbers: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Davies, Graham I. The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Deissler, Alfons. Zwölf Propheten I: Hosea, Joel, Amos. 3rd ed. Neue Echter Bibel. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993. Delcor, Mathias. “Le texte de Deir ‘Alla et les oracles bibliques de Bala’am.” Pages 52–73 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 32. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. Mantik in Ugarit: Keilalphabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlung – Nekromantie. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas 3. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990. Dietrich, Walter and Thomas Naumann. Die Samuelbücher. Erträge der Forschung 287. Darmstadt: WBG, 1995. Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Geography of the Story of Balaam: Synchronic Reading as a Help to Date a Biblical Text.” Pages 72–97 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Oudtestamentische Studien 34. Edited by J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. “Abraham.” DDD 1 (1999): 2–5. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. 2nd ed. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 13. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886. Dohmen, Christoph. “‘Mose schreib diese Tora auf’ (Dtn 31,9): Auf der Suche nach dem biblischen Ursprung der Vorstellung von der mosaischen Verfasserschaft des Pentateuch.” Pages 256‒265 in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte und zur Religionssoziologie. FS E. Otto. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13. Edited by R. Achenbach and M. Arneth. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Donner, Herbert. “Mitteilungen zur Topographie des Ostjordanlandes Anhand der Mosaikkarte von Mādebā: Eine Nachlese.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 98 (1982): 174‒191. –. “Balaam pseudopropheta.” Pages 121–132 in Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 224. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994. Doob-Sakenfeld, Katharine. Journeying with God: A Commentary on the Book of Numbers. International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Bibliography

523

Dor, Yonina. “From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor: Different Attitudes to Marriage of Israelites to Midianite Women.” Pages 150‒169 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. Edited by C. Frevel. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Douglas, Mary. In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 158. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. –. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. –. Natural Symbols. Collected Works III. London/New York: Routledge, 2002. –. “Responding to Ezra.” Biblical Interpretation 10.1 (2002): 1–23. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Geography and Ideology in the Wilderness Journey from Kadesh through the Transjordan.” Pages 173–190 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Dozeman, Thomas B. and Konrad Schmid, eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006. Dozeman, Thomas B., Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz, eds. The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978. Dumbrell, William J. “The Tell El-Maskhuta Bowls and the ‘Kingdom’ of Qedar in the Persian Period.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 203 (1971): 33‒ 44. Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1915. Dyma, Olivier. “Wahre Geschichten: Zwischen Fiktionalität, Gattung, Weltbild und Geltungsanspruch.” Pages 32‒51 in Methodik im Diskurs: Neue Perspektiven für die Alttestamentliche Exegese. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 156. Edited by R. Heckl. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlagsgesellschaft, 2015. –. “Ehe (AT).” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2010. Cited: March 2016. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/16896/. Ederer, Matthias. Aufbrüche zur Exodustheologie: Das Itinerar Num 33,1‒49 als theologische Deutung der Wüstenzeit Israels. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 231. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2014. –. Identitätsstiftende Begegnung: Die theologische Deutung des regelmässigen Kultes Israels in der Tora. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2018. Ego, Beate. “Death and Burial in the Tobit Narration in the Context of the Old Testament Tradition.” Pages 87–110 in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection: Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook. Edited by T. Nicklas et al. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2009. Ehlich, Konrad. Verwendungen der Deixis beim sprachlichen Handeln: Linguistisch-philologische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen deiktischen System. Vol. 2. Forum Linguisticum 24. Frankfurt a. M./Bern/Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1979.

524

Bibliography

Eidevall, Göran. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2017. Eisen, Ute E. and Ilse Müllner. Gott als Figur: Narratalogische Analysen biblischer Texte und ihrer Adaptionen. Herders Biblische Studien 82. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2016. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. “Introduction: Charisma and Institution Building: Max Weber and Modern Sociology.” Pages ix–lvi in Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building. Edited by S. N. Eisenstadt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1,4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Elrefaei, Aly. Wellhausen and Kaufmann: Ancient Israel and Its Religious History in the Works of Julius Wellhausen and Yehezkel Kaufmann. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 490. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016. Embry, Brad. “The Endangerment of Moses: Towards a New Reading of Exodus 4:24–26.” Vetus Testamentum 60.2 (2010): 177–196. Eph’al, Israel. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th‒5th Centuries B.C. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984. Erbele-Küster, Dorothea. “Narrativität.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2009. Cited March 2018. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/37118/. –. Body, Gender and Purity in Leviticus 12 and 15. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 539. New York et al.: Bloomsbury, 2017. Eshel, Esther. “The Onomasticon of Mareshah in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Pages 145‒156 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E.. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers and R. Albertz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “Inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician Script.” Pages 35–88 in Mareshah: Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989‒2000 Seasons. IAI Reports 45. Edited by A. Kloner et al. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2010. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Jesus Sirach und das Priestertum.” Pages 265–282 in Auf den Spuren der schriftgelehrten Weisen. FS J. Marböck. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 331. Edited by I. Fischer, U. Rupp and J. Schiller. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2003. Fantalkin, Alexander. “The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation.” Pages 17–44 in Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 31. Edited by A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Farber, Zev. Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 457. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter, 2016. Faust, Avraham and Shlomo Bumivonitz. “The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change.” Israel Exploration Journal 58.2 (2008): 150–170. Finkelstein, Israel. “Arabian Trade and Socio-Political Conditions in the Negev in the Twelfth-Eleventh Centuries B.C.E.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47.4 (1988): 241‒ 252. –. “Omride Architecture.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 116.2 (2000): 114‒138. Finsterbusch, Karin. Weisung für Israel: Studien zu religiösem Lehren und Lernen im Deuteronomium und in seinem Umfeld. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 44. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Fischer, Georg. “Gibt es den Heiligen Geist schon vor dem Kommen Jesu? Zur Rolle des Geistes Gottes im Alten Testament.” Pages 21–47 in Ein Hauch von Gott: Die Präsenz

Bibliography

525

des Heiligen Geistes in Kirche und Welt. Theologische Trends 21. Edited by W. Sandler. Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press, 2012. Fischer, Irmtraud and Christoph Heil. “Geistbegabung als Beauftragung für Ämter und Funktionen. Eine gesamtbiblische Perspektive.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 24 (2009): 53–92. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. –. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation and the Development of Tradition.” Pages 25–35 in Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne” anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971), Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001. Altes Testament und Moderne 8. Edited by M. Oeming, K. Schmid and M. Welker. Münster: LIT, 2004. Fistill, Ulrich. Israel und das Ostjordanland: Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,21–36,13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des Buches Numeri. Österreichische Biblische Studien 30. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2007. Fleischer, Gunther. Von Menschenverkäufern, Baschankühen und Rechtsverkehrern: Die Sozialkritik des Amosbuches in historisch-kritischer, sozialgeschichtlicher und archäologischer Perspektive. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 74. Frankfurt a.M.: Athenäum, 1989. Fleming, Daniel E. “The Amorites.” Pages 1–30 in The World Around the Old Testament: The Peoples and Places of the Ancient Near East. Edited by B. T. Arnold and B. A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Fludernik, Monika. Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge, 2002. –. An Introduction to Narratology. Translated by P. Häusler-Greenfield and M. Fludernik. London/New York: Routledge, 2009. –. Erzähltheorie: Eine Einführung. 4th ed. Darmstadt: WBG, 2013. –. “Narratologische Probleme des Faktualen Erzählens.” Pages 115–137 in Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen 1. Edited by M. Fludernik, N. Falkenhayner and J. Steiner. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2015. Fludernik, Monika, Nicole Falkenhayner and Julia Steiner, eds. Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen 1. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2015. Fludernik, Monika and Greta Olson, eds. In the Grip of the Law: Trials, Prisons and the Space Between. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004. Forsling, Josef. Composite Artistry in the Book of Numbers: A Study in Biblical Narrative Conventions. Studia Theologica Holmiensia 22. Åbo: Åbo Academic Press, 2013. –. “The Incoherence of the Book of Numbers in Narrative Perspective.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 78 (2013): 93‒106. Forster, Edward M. Aspects of the Novel. Reprint. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985. Frahm, Eckart. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011. Frank, Michael C. “Chronotopoi.” Pages 160‒169 in Handbuch Literatur und Raum. Handbücher zur kulturwissenschaftlichen Philologie 3. Edited by J. Dünne and A. Mahler. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. Freedman, David Noel. “Broken Construct Chain.” Biblica 53.4 (1972): 534–536. –. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980. Frei, Peter. “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im Achämenidenreich.” Pages 8‒131 in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Second edition. Orbis biblicus et

526

Bibliography

orientalis 55. Edited by P. Frei and K. Koch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Frevel, Christian. Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 94. Weinheim: Beltz, 1994. –. Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift. Herders Biblische Studien 23. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2000. –. “Ein vielsagender Abschied: Exegetische Blicke auf den Tod des Mose in Dtn 34,1– 12.” Biblische Zeitschrift 45.2 (2001): 209–234. –. “‘Jetzt habe ich erkannt, dass YHWH größer ist als alle Götter’: Ex 18 und seine kompositionsgeschichtliche Stellung im Pentateuch.” Biblische Zeitschrift 47.1 (2003): 3–22 (= Pages 527–547 in Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017). –. “YHWH und die Göttin bei den Propheten: Eine Zwischenbilanz.” Pages 49–77 in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 82. Edited by M. Oeming and K. Schmid. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003 (= Pages 463–495 in Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017). –. “Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschichtswerke? Die These Martin Noths zwischen Tetrateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch.” Pages 60–95 in Martin Noth: Aus der Sicht heutiger Forschung. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 58. Edited by U. Rüterswörden. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukircherner Verlag, 2004 (= Pages 33–61 in Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017). –. “Review of R. Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora.” Orientalische Literaturzeitung 100 (2005): 278–285. –. “‘Beim Toten, der nicht mehr ist, verstummt der Lobgesang.’ (Sir 17,28): Einige Aspekte des Todesverständnisses bei Jesus Sirach.” Pages 9–33 in Mitten im Leben umfangen vom Tod: Tod und Sterben als individuelle und gesellschaftliche Herausforderung. Theologie im Kontakt 16. Edited by R. Göllner. Münster: LIT, 2009 (= Pages 359‒383 in Gottesbilder und Menschenbilder: Studien zu Anthropologie und Theologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). –. “Die Frage nach dem Menschen: Biblische Anthropologie als Wissenschaftliche Aufgabe – eine Standortbestimmung.” Pages 29–63 in Biblische Anthropologie: Neue Einsichten aus dem Alten Testament. Qaestiones Disputatae 237. Edited by C. Frevel. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010 (= Pages 185‒218 in Gottesbilder und Menschenbilder: Studien zu Anthropologie und Theologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). –. “Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive: Eine Herausforderung für die These vom Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk.” Pages 13–53 in Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Österreichische Biblische Studien 39. Edited by H.-J. Stipp. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang, 2011 (= Pages 63–103 in Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017). –. “The Discourse on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 1–14 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Library of Hebrew

Bibliography

–.

–.

–.

–.

–. –. –. –.

–.

–. –.

–.

–.

–.

527

Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. Edited by C. Frevel. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011. “Lernort Tora: Anstöße aus dem Alten Testament.” Pages 109‒137 in Religionsunterricht als Ort der Theologie. Quaestiones disputatae 247. Edited by N. Mette and M. Sellmann. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2012 (= Pages 151‒179 in Gottesbilder und Menschenbilder: Studien zu Anthropologie und Theologie im Alten Testament. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). “Alles eine Sache der Auslegung: Zum Verhältnis von Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung.” Pages 25–52 in Wort Gottes: Die Offenbarungsreligionen und ihr Schriftverständnis. Theologie im Kontakt. Neue Folge 1. Edited by J. Rist and C. Breitsameter. Münster: Aschendorff, 2013 (= Pages 45‒74 in Gottesbilder und Menschenbilder: Studien zu Anthropologie und Theologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). “Das Josua-Palimpsest: Der Übergang vom Josua- zum Richterbuch und seine Konsequenzen für die These eines Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125.1 (2013): 49–71 (= Pages 105–128 in Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2017). “The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah: Some Introductory Remarks.” Pages 1–39 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. “Anthropologie.” HGANT (2015): 1‒8. “Leben.” HGANT (2015): 313‒315. “Tod.” HGANT (2015): 421‒424. “Vom Pathos zur Patina: Das Neue im Alten Testament und die Innovation der Tradition.” Pages 29–54 in Die Theologie und “das Neue”: Perspektiven zum kreativen Zusammenhang von Innovation und Tradition. Edited by W. Damberg and M. Sellmann. Freiburg: Herder, 2015. “Vom bleibenden Recht des Textes vergangen zu sein: Wie tief gehen die Anfragen an die historisch-kritisch Exegese?” Pages 130‒ 176 in Gottes Wort in Menschenwort: Die eine Bibel als Fundament der Theologie. Quaestiones disputatae 266. Edited by K. Lehmann and R. Rothenbusch. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2016 (= Pages 1‒44 in Gottesbilder und Menschenbilder: Studien zu Anthropologie und Theologie im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016). Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 482. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2016. “Practicing Rituals in a Textual World: Ritual and Innovation in the Book of Numbers.” Pages 129–150 in Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 468. Edited by N. MacDonald. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2016. “On Instant Scripture and Proximal Texts: Some Insights into the Sensual Materiality of Texts and their Ritual Roles in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond.” Postscripts 8 (2017): 1– 2, 57–79. “Das Buch Numeri.” Pages 240‒350 in Stuttgarter Altes Testament. Kommentierte Studienausgabe. Die revidierte Einheitsübersetzung 2017. Edited by C. Dohmen. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2017. “Review of Jan C. Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni and Konrad Schmid (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch. Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Is-

528

Bibliography

rael, and North America. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2015.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 142 (2017): 1026‒1029. –. “‘Esau, der Vater Edoms’ (Gen 36,9.43): Ein Vergleich der Edom-Überlieferungen in Genesis und Numeri vor dem Hintergrund der historischen Entwicklung.“ Pages 329‒ 364 in The Politics of the Ancestors: Exegetical and Historical Perspectives on Genesis 12‒36. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 124. Edited by M. Brett and J. Wöhrle. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. –. Geschichte Israels. 2nd ed. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2018. –. “Semper Aliquid Haeret! The Accusation of Fornication and of Sexualized Cults as a Means of Demarcation in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 11‒32 in Religious Boundaries for Sex, Gender, and Corporeality. Routledge Studies in Religion. Edited by A. Cuffel et al. New York: Routledge, 2018. –. “The Various Shapes of Moab in the Book of Numbers: Relating Text and Archaeology.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 8 (2019): 257‒286. –. “The Literary Transition between the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy.” Pages t.b.n. in Book-Seams in the Hexateuch II: The Book of Deuteronomy and Its Literary Transitions. Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Edited by C. Berner, S. Germany and H. Samuel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (forthcoming). –. “Wie viel Hermeneutik steckt in der Pentateuchforschung Erich Zengers?” Pages t.b.n. in Re-Thinking Erich Zenger. Edited by R. Kampling and I. Müllner (Proceedings of a conference held on 8 September 2017 in Hofgeismar, forthcoming). Frevel, Christian and Benedikt Conczorowski. “Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 15–45 in Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 547. Edited by C. Frevel. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Frevel, Christian and Katharina Pyschny. “Perserzeitlichen Räucherkästchen: Zu einer wenig beachteten Fundgattung im Kontext der These Ephraim Sterns.” Pages 111‒220 in A “Religious Revolution” in Yehûd?: The Material Culture of the Persian Period as a Test Case. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 267. Edited by C. Frevel, K. Pyschny and I. Cornelius. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. –. “Introduction.” Pages t.b.n. in Contact and Exchange in Incense Practices of the Southern Levant. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike. Edited by K. Pyschny. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (forthcoming). Frevel, Christian and Oda Wischmeyer. Menschsein: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Neue Echter Bibel. Themen 11. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2003. Fröhlich, Ida. “Mamzer in Qumran Texts: The Problem of Mixed Marriages from Ezra’s Time. Law, Literature and Practice.” Transeuphratène 29 (2005): 103‒115. Fulda, Daniel. “Historiographic Narration.” No Pages. Published online 2014. Cited September 2017. Online: http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/historiographic-narration. Gaß, Erasmus. Ein Stern geht auf aus Jakob: Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Bileampoesie. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 69. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2001. –. “Bileam (AT).” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2007. Cited September 2017. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/15381/. –. “Modes of Divine Communication in the Balaam Narrative.” Biblische Notizen 139 (2008): 19–38.

Bibliography

529

–. Die Moabiter: Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. –. “Die Amalekiter: Erbfeinde Israels.” Pages 189‒228 in Studien zum Richterbuch und Seinen Völkernamen. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 54. Edited by W. Groß and E. Gaß. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012. –. “Heilige sollt ihr werden: Denn heilig bin ich, Jahwe, euer Gott.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 64 (2013): 214‒231. Gane, Roy. Ritual Dynamic Structure. Gorgias Studies in Religion. Gorgias Dissertation 14. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. –. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. –. “Review of J. Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice.” Review of Biblical Literature 5 (2006): 186–187. –. “The Function of the Nazirite’s Concluding Purification Offering.” Pages 9–17 in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 474. Edited by B. J. Schwartz. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Gebhardt, Winfried. “Charisma und Ordnung: Formen des institutionalisierten Charisma: Überlegungen im Anschluss an Max Weber.” Pages 47–68 in Charisma: Theorie, Religion, Politik. Materiale Soziologie 3. Edited by W. Gebhardt, A. Zingerle and M. N. Ebertz. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993. –. “Grundlinien der Entwicklung des Charismakonzepts in den Sozialwissenschaften.” Pages 1–13 in Charisma: Theorie, Religion, Politik. Materiale Soziologie 3. Edited by W. Gebhardt, A. Zingerle and M. N. Ebertz. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1993. Gelston, Anthony, ed. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by C. Newman and C. Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Gerlach, Ingeborg. Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Identität: Studien zu Uwe Johnsons “Jahrestagen.” Monographien Literaturwissenschaft 47. Königstein: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor, 1980. Germany, Stephen. The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus-Joshua. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 115. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “The Hexateuch Hypothesis: A History of Research and Current Approaches.” Currents in Biblical Research 16.2 (2018): 131–156. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1993. –. Leviticus: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Translated by D. W. Stott. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gertz, Jan Christian. “Kompositorische Funktion und literarhistorischer Ort von Deuteronomium 1‒3.” Pages 103‒123 in Die Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 365. Edited by M. Witte et al. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2006. –. Das erste Buch Moses (Genesis). Das Alte Testament Deutsch 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2018.

530

Bibliography

Gertz, Jan C., Konrad Schmid and Markus Witte, eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Gilders, William K. “Blood as Purificant in Priestly Torah: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?” Pages 77–83 in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 474. Edited by B. J. Schwartz et al. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Gil, Moshe. “The Origin of the Jews of Yathrib.” Pages 145‒ 166 in The Arabs and Arabia on the Eve of Islam. The Formation of the Classical Islamic World 3. Edited by F. E. Peters. Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 1999. Glueck, Nelson. “Explorations in Eastern Palestine I.” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14 (1933/1934): 1–115. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. West-Östlicher Divan. Stuttgart: Hempel, 1819. Goldstein, Elisabeth. “Women and Purification Offering: What Jacob Milgrom Contributed to the Intersection of Women’s Studies and Biblical Studies.” Pages 47–66 in Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond. Resources for Biblical Study 82. Edited by R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. Görg, Manfred. “Die Heimat Bileams.” Biblische Notizen 1 (1976): 24–28. –. “Rituale” NBL 3 (2001): 366. Gorman, Frank H. The Ideology of Ritual: Space and Status in the Priestly Theology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 91. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Grabbe, Lester L. Ezra-Nehemiah. London: Routledge, 1998. –. “The Priests in Leviticus: Is the Medium the Message?” Pages 207–224 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by R. Rendtorff and R. A. Kugler. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2003. –. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 1. Yehud. A History of the Persian Province of Judah. Library of Second Temple Studies 47. London: T&T Clark, 2004. –. History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple. 2. The Coming of the Greeks: The Early Hellenistic Period (335‒175 BCE). Library of Second Temple Studies 68. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Graf, David F. “Arabia and the Arabians.” Pages 417‒465 in The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Edited by B. T. Arnold and B. A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Graf, Fritz. “Hero Cult.” No Pages in BNP. Published online 2006. Cited September 2018. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e511460. Grätz, Sebastian. “Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6*.” Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 118 (2006): 405–422. Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. International Critical Commentary 4. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Groß, Walter. Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22–24. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 38. München: Kösel, 1974. –. “Die Herausführungsformel: Zum Verhältnis von Formel und Syntax.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86.4 (1974): 425‒453. –. Verbform und Funktion: Wayyiqtol für die Gegenwart?: Ein Beitrag zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer Texte. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 1. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1976.

Bibliography

531

–. “Bileam.” NBL 1 (1991): 300–301. –. “‘Rezeption’ in Ex 31,12–17 und Lev 26,39–45: Sprachliche Form und theologischkonzeptionelle Leistung.” Pages 45–64 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 153. Edited by R. G. Kraft and T. Kroger. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. –. Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 176. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. Gunnel, André. “‫ָכַשׁ ף‬.” TDOT VII (1995): 360–366. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. –. Esra. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19,1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1985. –. Nehemia. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 19,2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1987. –. “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7–11; Num 11,4–12,8; Dtn 33,14f.; 34,10.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wisschenschaft 102.2 (1990): 169– 180. Günther, Linda-Marie. “Concepts of Purity in Ancient Greece, with Particular Emphasis on Sacred Sites.” Pages 245‒260 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Edited by C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Haag, Ernst. “Gottes Bund mit Levi nach Mal 2.” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 107 (1998): 25–44. Hachlili, Rahel. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplements 94. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hahn, Ferdinand. “Grundfragen von Amt und Charisma in der gegenwärtigen neutestamentlichen Forschung.” Pages 471–468 in Studien zum Neuen Testament II. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 192. Edited by F. Hahn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Halberstam, Chaya. “The Art of Biblical Law.” Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History 27.2 (2007): 345‒364. Hallaschka, Martin. “Hosea 12 and the Foundation Legends of the Kingdom of Israel: Discussing Hos 12 with Erhard Blum.” Paper presented at the OTSEM Conference, Helsinki 2017. Available Online: http://otsem.blogs.uni-hamburg.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Hallaschka_Hamburg_Hosea-12_Paper.pdf. Hamborg, Graham R. Still Selling the Righteous: A Redaction-Critical Investigation of Reasons for Judgment in Amos 2:6–16. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 555. New York/London: Bloomsbury, 2013. Hamilton, Malcom. The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2001. Haran, Menaḥem. “The Gibeonites, the Nethinim and the Sons of Solomon’s Servants.” Vetus Testamentum 11.2 (1961): 159–169. –. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-Exilic Times.” Journal of Jewish Studies 33,1–3 (1982): 161–173.

532

Bibliography

–. “Book-Scrolls at the Beginning of the Second Temple Period: The Transition from Papyrus to Skins.” Hebrew Union College Annual 54.1–2 (1983): 111–122. –. “Book-Size and Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch.” Pages 165–176 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Harrington, Hannah K. “What is the Purpose of Ritual Ablutions in Ancient Judaism?” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 12.1 (2009): 1–17. Hausleiter, Arnulf. “Ancient Tayma’: An Oasis at the Interface Between Cultures. New Research at a Key Location on the Caravan Road.” Pages 102‒120 in Roads of Arabia: The Archaeological Treasures of Saudi Arabia. Edited by U. Franke and J. Gierlichs. Tübingen/Berlin: Wasmuth, 2011. –. “North Arabian Kingdoms.” Pages 816‒832 in A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Edited by T. Potts. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Hayes, Christine. What’s Divine About Divine Laws? Early Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. Heckl, Raik. Moses Vermächtnis: Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1‒3. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 9. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004. Heessel, Nils P. “Amulette und ‘Amulettform’: Zum Zusammenhang von Form, Funktion, und Text von Amuletten im Alten Mesopotamien.” Pages 53–77 in Erscheinungsformen und Handhabungen Heiliger Schriften. Edited by J. F. Quack and D. C. Luft. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2014. Hemmer Gudme, Anne K. de. “How Should We Read Hebrew Bible Ritual Texts? A Ritualistic Reading of the Law of the Nazirite (Num 6:1‒21).” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 23.1 (2009): 64–84. Hempelmann, Reinhard. “Rückkehr ins Urchristentum? Zu den Anliegen und zur Schrifthermeneutik des pfingstlich-charismatischen Christentums.” Jahrbuch Biblische Theologie 24 (2009): 271–293. Hensel, Benedikt. Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Herczeg, Yisrael Isser Zvi et al. Rashi: Commentary on the Torah: Vol 3: Leviticus. Jerusalem: Mesorah Heritage Foundation, 1999. Hieke, Thomas. Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 9,2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. –. “Die Unreinheit der Leiche nach der Tora.” Pages 43–65 in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009. Edited by T. Nicklas. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. –. Levitikus 16‒27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2014. Hobsbawm, Eric. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” Pages 1–14 in The Invention of Tradition. Edited by E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Hödl, Hans G. “Ritual.” Pages 664–689 in Handbuch Religionswissenschaften: Religionen und ihre zentralen Themen. Edited by J. Figl. Göttingen: Vadenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Hoftijzer, Jacob, ed. The Balaam Text from Deir ʻAlla Re-Evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Hoftijzer, Jacob and Arie van der Kooij. Aramaic Texts from Deir ʻAllā. Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 19. Leiden: Brill, 1976.

Bibliography

533

Holzinger, Heinrich. Numeri. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament IV. Tübingen et al.: Mohr Siebeck, 1903. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Bund.” LThK 2 (1994): 779–785. –. “Hohepriester. Alttestamentlich-jüdisch.” RAC 16 (1994): 4–23. –. “Die vielen Bünde und der eine Gott.“ Pastoralblatt 47 (1995): 165–171. –. “Ps 106 und die priesterliche Überlieferung des Pentateuch.” Pages 255–66 in Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels. FS P. Weimar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 294. Edited by K. Kiesow and T. Meurer. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Hermeneia 19. Edited by K. Baltzer. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. –. Psalmen 101–150. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2008. Hout, Theo P. J. van den. “Death as a Privilege: The Hittite Royal Funerary Cult.” Pages 37–75 in Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World. Edited by J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hout and R. Peters. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994. Hübner, Ulrich. “Araber.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2006. Cited September 2018. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/21274/. –. “Ismael/Ismaeliter.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2006. Cited September 2018. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/21922. Hunziker-Rodewald, Regine. “Wo ist nur Sauls Kopf geblieben? Überlegungen zu 1 Sam 31.” Pages 280–301 in David und Saul im Widerstreit – Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit: Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 206. Edited by W. Dietrich. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Hutter, Manfred. “The Impurity of the Corpse (nasā) and the Future Body (tan ī pasēn): Death and Afterlife in Zoroastrianism.” Pages 13–26 in The Human Body in Death and Resurrection. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2009. Edited by T. Nicklas. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M. “Jordan Valley.” ABD 3 (1992): 958‒960. Irsigler, Hubert. “Alttestamentliches Erzählen im Kontrast und Zusammenspiel von ‘faktual’ und ‘fiktional.’” Pages 1‒48 in Vom Erzählen zum Verheißen: Beiträge eines alttestamentlichen Symposions. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 97. Edited by H. Irsigler and C. Diller. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 2014. –. “Erzählen in biblischer Literatur: konfessorisch – factual und fictional.” Pages 23‒46 in Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Faktuales und fiktionales Erzählen 1. Edited by M. Fludernik, N. Falkenhayner and J. Steiner. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2015. Jacob, Benno. Der Pentateuch: Exegetisch-Kritische Forschungen. Leipzig: Veit & Comp, 1905. –. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob. Hoboken/New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House, 1992. Jannidis, Fotis. Figur und Person: Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie. Narratologia 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Janowski, Bernd. “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption.” Pages 214–246 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel:

534

Bibliography

Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Edited by B. Janowski. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. –. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 55. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. –. “Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Versuch einer Grundlegung.” Pages 13‒41 in Anthropologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 232. Edited by A. Wagner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. –. “Konstellative Anthropologie.” Pages 109‒128 in Der ganze Mensch: Zur Anthropologie der Antike und ihrer europäischen Nachgeschichte. Edited by B. Janowski. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2012. –. “Die lebendige næpæš: Das Alte Testament und die Frage nach der Seele.” Pages 12‒43 in Gott – Seele – Welt: Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Rede von der Seele. Edited by B. Janowski and C. Schwöbel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. –. Konfliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen. 4 th ed. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2013. –. “Die lebendige næpæš: Das Alte Testament und die Frage nach der Seele.” Pages 131– 173 in Biblical Lexicology: Hebrew and Greek: Semantics – Exegesis – Translation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 443. Edited by E. Bons, J. Joosten and R. Hunziker-Rodewald. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. Janowski, Bernd and Klaus Scholtissek. “Geist” HGANT (2015): 217–219. Jasmin, Michael. “Les conditions d'emergence de la route de l'encens a la fin du IIe millennaire avant notre ere.” Syria 82 (2005): 49‒62. Jeffers, Ann. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 8. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1996. Jeon, Jaeyoung. “Two Laws in the Sotah Passage (Num V 11‒31).” Vetus Testamentum 57.2 (2007): 181‒207. Jeremias, Jörg. Der Prophet Amos. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. –. Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. –. Die Propheten: Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Jericke, Detlef. Abraham in Mamre: Historische und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron und zu Genesis 11,27‒19,38. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 17. Leiden: Brill, 2003. –. “Horma.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2008. Cited September 2018. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/21526/. –. “Das ‘Bergland der Amoriter’ in Deuteronomium 1.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125.1 (2009): 49‒63. –. Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein Historisch-Topographischer und LiterarischTopographischer Kommentar. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 248. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Jong, Irene J. F. de. “Diachronic Narratology: The Example of Ancient Greek Narrative.” No Pages. Published online 2013. Cited March 2018. Online: http://www.lhn.unihamburg.de/article/diachronic-narratology-example-ancient-greek-narrative. –. Narratology and Classics: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bibliography

535

–. “Der Traum Kambyses (Herodot ‘Historien’ 3,30 und 3,61‒65): Ein narratologisches Close-Reading.” Pages 41‒65 in Perspektiven: Biblische Texte und Narratologie. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 75. Edited by I. Müllner and B. Schmitz. Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibelwerk, 2018. Jüngling, Hans-Wienfried. “Das Buch Levitikus in der Forschung seit Karl Elligers Kommentar aus dem Jahre 1966.” Pages 1–45 in Levitikus als Buch. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. Berlin: Philo, 1999. Jürgens, Benedikt. Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext. Herders Biblische Studien 28. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2001. Jursa, Michael and Céline Debourse. “A Babylonian Priestly Martyr, a King-Like Priest, and the Nature of Late Babylonian Priestly Literature.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 107 (2007): 77–98. –. Late Babylonian Priestly Literature from Babylon (forthcoming). Kablitz, Andreas. “Erzählperspektive – Point of View – Focalisation: Überlegungen zu einem Konzept der Erzähltheorie.” Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 98 (1988): 237‒255. Kaiser, Walter C. “The Book of Leviticus.” Pages 33–46 in The New lnterpreter’s Bible: Old Testament Survey. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Kaiser, Otto. Grundriß der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments: Band 1: Die erzählenden Werke. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1992. Kamlah, Jens. “Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/Juda: Materielle Befunde, Jenseitsvorstellungen und die Frage des Totenkultes.” Pages 289–290 in Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 64. Edited by A. Berlejung and B. Janowski. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Kanarek, Jane L. Biblical Narrative and the Formation of Rabbinic Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Karrer, Christiane. Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologischpolitischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 308. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Keel, Othmar. Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus. Teil 2. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1998. Keel, Othmar and Max Küchler. Ort und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studienreiseführer zum Heiligen Land. Teil 2: Der Süden. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Keen, Suzanne. Narrative Form. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2015. Kehrer, Günter et al. “Office.” No Pages in RPP. Published online 2011. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_COM_00615 Kellenberger, Edgar. “Hor.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2008. Cited September 2018. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/21502/. Kellermann, Diether. Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1,1 bis 10,10: Literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1970.

536

Bibliography

Kennicott, Benjamin, ed. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis Lectionibus, vol. 2, Oxford: Clarendon 1780. Kessler, Karlheinz. Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quellen des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients 26. Wiesbaden: Reichert in Komm., 1980. Kessler, Rainer. Micha. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1999. Kippenberg, Hans G. Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode. Religionswissenschaftliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 30. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1971. Kislev, Itamar. “The Investiture of Joshua (Numbers 27:12‒23) and the Dispute on the Form of the Leadership in Yehud.” Vetus Testamentum 59.3 (2009): 429‒445. –. “Numbers 36,1‒12: Innovation and Interpretation.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122.2 (2010): 249‒259. –. “P, Source or Redaction: The Evidence of Numbers 25.” Pages 387‒399 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “The Census of the Israelites on the Plains of Moab (Numbers 26): Sources and Redaction.” Vetus Testamentum 63.2 (2013): 236‒260. –. “The Story of the Gadites and the Reubenites (Numbers 32): A Case Study for an Approach to a Pentateuchal Text.” Pages 619‒630 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. A Study of Ḥāṭā’ and Ḥaṭṭā’ṯ in Leviticus 4–5. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Kleer, Martin. “Der liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels”: Untersuchungen zu David als Richter und Beter der Psalmen. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 108. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum, 1996. Knauf, Ernst A. “Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Königsliste Gen 36,31‒39.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 97.2 (1985): 245‒253. –. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. –. Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 2nd ed. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989. –. “Supplementa Ismaelitica 13: Edom und Arabien.” Biblische Notizen 45 (1988): 62‒81. –. “The Persian Administration in Arabia.” Transeuphratène 2 (1990): 201‒217. –. “Kedar (Person).” ABD 4 (1992): 9‒10. –. “Genesis 36,1‒43.” Pages 291‒300 in Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de Gn. 25‒ 36. Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury. Le Monde de la Bibel 44. Edited by T. C. Römer and J.-D. Macchi. Gèneve: Labor et Fides, 2001. –. Josua. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 6. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008. Knierim, Rolf P. “The Composition of the Pentateuch.” Pages 393–415 in Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Paper Series 24. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1985.

Bibliography

537

–. “The Book of Numbers.” Pages 155–163 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Edited by E. Blum, C. Macholz and E. W. Stegemann. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2011. Knierim, Rolf P. and George W. Coats. Numbers. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Knipping, Burkhard R. Die Kundschaftergeschichte Numeri 13–14. Synchrone Beschreibung – diachron orientierte Betrachtung – fortschreibungsgeschichtliche Verortung. THEOS – Studienreihe Theologische Forschungsergebnisse 37. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač, 2000. Knobel, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1861. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. –. “Who Edited the Pentateuch?” Pages 359–367 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 78. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Knoppers, Gary N. “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of Israelite Priesthood.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118.1 (1999): 49–72. –. “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective.” Pages 507‒531 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 78. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Knoppers, Gary N. and Bernard M. Levinson, eds. The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Knowles, Melody D. Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora in the Persian Period. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 16. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Köckert, Matthias. “Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 4 (1989): 29–61. –. “Jahwe, Israel und das Land bei den Propheten Amos und Hosea.” Pages 43–74 in Gottesvolk: Beiträge zu einem Thema biblischer Theologie. Edited by A. Meinhold and R. Lux. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsantalt, 1991. –. “Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch.” Pages 147–162 in Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. FS S. Wagner. Edited by D. Vieweger and E.-J. Waschke. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Köhler, Ludwig and W. Baumgartner. “ ‫ ֶנֶפשׁ‬.” HALAT 3 (1983): 672–674. Koenen, Klaus. “Eherne Schlange und goldenes Kalb: Ein Vergleich der Überlieferungen.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111.3 (1999): 353–372. –. “Aaron/Aaroniden.” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2007. Cited March 2018. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/de/stichwort/11012/. Köhlmoos, Melanie. Bet-El: Erinnerung an eine Stadt. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Konkel, Michael. “Die Gola von 597 und die Priester: Zu einem Buch von Thilo Alexander Rudnig.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 8 (2002): 357– 383.

538

Bibliography

–. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). Bonner Biblische Beiträge 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. –. “Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch.” Pages 169–184 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis Through Kings. Society of Biblical Literature. The Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and T. C. Römer. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Konrad, Eva-Maria. Dimensionen der Fiktionalität: Analyse eines Grundbegriffs der Literaturwissenschaft. Münster: Mentis, 2014. Kooten, George H. van and Jacques van Ruiten, eds. Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Themes in Biblical Narrative 11. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Kraemer, Klaus. “Charisma im ökonomischen Feld.” Pages 63–77 in Die Gesellschaft der Unternehmen – Die Unternehmen der Gesellschaft: Gesellschaftstheoretische Zugänge zum Wirtschaftsgeschehen. Edited by A. Maurer and U. Schimank. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008. Kratz, Reinhard G. “Der literarische Ort des Deuteronomiums.” Pages 101‒120 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 190. Edited by R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. –. “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch.” Pages 295‒323 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. –. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by J. Bowden. London: T&T Clark, 2005. –. “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate.” Pages 31–61 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 78. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Kreinath, Jens. Semiose des Rituals: Eine Kritik ritualtheoretischer Begriffsbildung. Ph.D. diss., University of Heidelberg, 2005. Kuberski, Piotr. “La crémation dans la Bible? La mort de Saül et de ses fils (1 S 31; 1 Ch 10).” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 83.2 (2009): 185–200. Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch: Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Translated by P. H. Wicksteed. London: MacMillan and Co., 1886. Kühn, Dagmar. Totengedenken bei den Nabatäern und im Alten Testament: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 311. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005. –. “Eine Wohnstatt für die nebesch des Kuttamuwa.” Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 53 (2009): 74. Kupfer, Christian D. Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22‒17:7 und Numeri 11:1‒20:13. Oudtestamentische studiën 61. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012. Lamberty-Zielinski, Hedwig. “Das Schilfmeer”: Herkunft, Bedeutung und Funktion eines alttestamentlichen Exodusbegriffs. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 78. Frankfurt a. M.: Hain, 1993. Lee, Won W. Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Bibliography

539

–. “The Conceptual Coherence of Numbers 5,1–10,10.” Pages 473–489 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Lehnart, Bernhard. “Leiche/Leichenschändung.” No pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2009. Cited August 2015. Online: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/wibilex/dasbibellexikon/lexikon/sachwort/anzeigen/details/leiche-leichenschaendung/ch/4c9897d8 1d7970e88ee71360789f9815/. Leitao, David C. “Ritual? What Ritual?” Pages 149–53 in Rituals in Ink: A Conference on Religion and Literary Production in Ancient Rome. Edited by A. Barchiesi, J. Rüpke and S. Stephens. Munich: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004. Lemaire, André. “Un nouveau roi arabe de Qédar dans l’inscription de l’autel à encens de Lakish.” Revue Biblique 81. 1 (1974): 63‒72. –. “Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period.” Pages 285‒298 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. –. “Nouveau temple de Yaho (Ive s. av. J.-C.).” Pages 265–273 in Basel und Bibel: Collected Communications to the XVIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Basel 2001. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 51. Edited by M. Augustin and H. M. Niemann. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang, 2004. –. “Edom and the Edomites.” Pages 225‒243 in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 129. Edited by A. Lemaire and B. Halpern. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Lescow, Theodor. “Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6‒7.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.2 (1972): 182‒212. Leuchter, Mark and Jeremy M. Hutton, eds. Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: SBL Press 2011. Leuenberger, Martin. Segen und Segenstheologien im alten Israel: Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationen und Transformationen. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 90. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008. Leveen, Adriane B. Memory and Tradition in the Book of Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. “‘Lo We Perish’: A Reading of Numbers 17:27‒20:29.” Pages 248‒272 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “Becoming Israel in the Wilderness of Numbers.” Pages 147‒156 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. Edited by D. N. Fewell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. –. “Narrative Concept(s) of the Book of Numbers.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 8 (2019): 240‒256. Levin, Christoph. Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. –. “Abschied vom Jahwisten?” Thelogische Revue 69 (2004): 329–344. –. “Das ‘Vierprophetenbuch’: Ein Exegetischer Nachruf.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123.2 (2011): 221‒235. –. “On the Cohesion and Separation of Books Within the Enneateuch.” Pages 129–154 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis

540

Bibliography

Through Kings. Society of Biblical Literature. The Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and T. C. Römer. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “Das jahwistische Geschichtswerk.” No Pages. Published online 2012. Cited July 2013. Online: http://www.at1.evtheol.uni-muenchen.de/personen/levin/texte/jahwist.pdf. –. Re-Reading the Scriptures. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 87. Tübingen: MohrSiebeck, 2013. Levin, Yigal. “The Southern Frontier of Yehud and the Creation of Idumea.” Pages 239‒ 252 in A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8. Edited by Y. Levin. London: T&T Clark, 2007. –. “The Formation of Idumean Identity.” Aram 27 (2015): 187‒202. Levine, Baruch A. “The Netînîm.” Journal for Biblical Literature 82.2 (1963): 207–212. –. “Book of Leviticus.” ABD 4 (1992): 311–321. –. Leviticus. The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary 3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1992. –. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 4. Yale: University Press, 1993. –. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries 4a. Yale: University Press, 2000. Levinson, Bernhard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Lewis, Theodore J. “Dead.” DDD 1 (1999): 223–231. Lipiński, Eduard. “ ‫ ָנַת ן‬.” TDOT X (1999): 90–107. Lipp, Wolfgang. “Charisma – Schuld und Gnade: Soziale Konstruktion, Kulturdynamik, Handlungsdrama.” Pages 15–32 in Charisma: Theorie, Religion, Politik. Materiale Soziologie 3. Edited by W. Gebhardt. Berlin: De Gruyter 1993. Liss, Hanna. “Kanon und Fiktion: Zur literarischen Funktion biblischer Rechtstexte.” Biblische Notizen 121 (2004): 7–38. Lohfink, Norbert. “Ein Bund oder zwei Bünde in der Heiligen Schrift.” Pages 273–297 in L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa: atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la dottrina della fede: Roma, settembre 1999. Collana atti e documenti 11. Rom: Libreria editrice vaticana, 2001. Cited December 2015. Online: https://www. Sankt-georgen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/personen/Lohfink/Norbert_Lohfink__Ein_ Bund_oder_zwei_Buende_in_der_Heiligen_Schrift.pdf. –. “Prolegomena zu einer Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch.” Pages 11–55 in Das Deuteronomium. Österreichische Biblische Studien 23. Edited by G. Braulik. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2003 (= Pages 181–231 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischne Literatur. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 38. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005.) –. “Wann hat Gott dem Volk Israel das den Vätern verheissene Land gegeben? Zu einem rätselhaften Befund im Buch Numeri.” Pages 9–30 in Väter der Kirche: Ekklesiales Denken von den Anfängen bis in die Neuzeit. Edited by J. Arnold, R. Berendt and R. M. W. Stammberger. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004. –. “Die Landübereignung in Numeri und das Ende der Priesterschrift: Zu einem rätselhaften Befund im Buch Numeri.“ Pages 273–292 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur V. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 38. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. Loretz, Oswald. “Nekromantie und Totenevokation in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel.” Pages 285–318 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyri-

Bibliography

541

en und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 129. Edited by B. Janowski, K. Koch and G. Wilhem. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. –. “Opfer- und Leberschau in Israel: Philologische und historische Aspekte.” Pages 509– 529 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: Internationales Symposion Hamburg 17.–21. März 1990. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 129. Edited by B. Janowski, K. Koch and G. Wilhem. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Lunn, Nicholas P. “Numbering Israel: A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1–4.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.2 (2010): 167–185. Maccoby, Hyam. “The Corpse in the Tent.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 28.2 (1997): 195–209. –. Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. MacDonald, Burton. “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. American Schools of Oriental Research 6. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000. MacDonald, John. Memar Marqah. The Teaching of Marqah. Vol I: The Text. Vol. II: The Translation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963. MacDonald, Nathan. “Anticipations of Horeb: Exodus 17 as Inner-Biblical Commentary.” Pages 7–19 in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 149. Edited by G. Khan and D. Lipton. Leiden: Brill, 2012. –. “The Book of Numbers.” Pages 113‒144 in A Theological Introduction to the Pentateuch: Interpreting the Torah as Christian Scripture. Edited by R. S. Briggs and J. N. Lohr. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. –. Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 476. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. Maier, Felix K. “Chronotopos: Erzählung, Zeit und Raum im Hellenismus.” Klio 98.2 (2016): 465‒494. Mair, Meinhard. Erzähltextanalyse: Modelle, Kategorien, Parameter. Hannover: ibidem, 2015. Marquis, Liane M. “The Composition of Numbers 32: A New Proposal.” Vetus Testamentum 63.3 (2013): 408‒432. Martínez, Matías and Michael Scheffel. Einführung in die Erzähltheorie. 10th ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2016. Mathys, Hans-Peter. Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 132. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Maul, Stefan. Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Baghdader Forschungen 18. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 1994. –. “Divination: I. Mesopotamia.” No Pages in BNP. Published online 2006. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e321630. Meinhold, Arndt. Die Sprüche 2: Sprüche Kapitel 16–31. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 16,2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1991. –. Maleachi. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament XIV. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.

542

Bibliography

Michel, Andreas. Theologie aus der Peripherie: Die gespaltene Koordination im Biblischen Hebräisch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 257. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter 2015. Michel, Diethelm. “Næp̄ æš als Leichnam?” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 7 (1994): 81–84. Miczek, Nadja. Biographie, Ritual und Medien: Zu den diskursiven Konstruktionen gegenwärtiger Religiosität. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2013. Milgrom, Jacob. “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” Vetus Testamentum 21.2 (1971): 237–239. –. “The Alleged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East.” Israel Exploration Journal 22.1 (1972): 33–38. –. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. Leiden: Brill, 1976. –. “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num. XIX).” Vetus Testamentum 31.1 (1981): 63–65. –. Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. –. “Two Kinds of ḤAṬṬĀ’T.” Pages 70–74 in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. –. “The Literary Structure of Numbers 8:5–22 and the Levitic Kippur.” Pages 205–210 in Perspectives on Language and Text. Edited by E. Conrad and E. Newing. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987. –. Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary 4. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. –. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. –. Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3a. New York: Doubleday, 2000. –. Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3b. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Miller, James M. “The Israelite Journey Through (Around) Moab and Moabite Toponymy.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108.4 (1989): 577–595. Miller, James M. and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 4th ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Mittmann, Siegfried. “Ri. 1,16f und das Siedlungsgebiet der Kenitischen Sippe Hobab.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 93 (1977): 213‒225. –. “Die Gebietsbeschreibung des Stammes Ruben in Josua 13,15–23.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 111.1 (1995): 1–27. Möhlenbrink, Kurt. “Die levitischen Überlieferungen des Alten Testaments.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 52.1 (1934): 184–231. Müllner, Ilse. “Zeit, Raum, Figuren, Blick: Hermeneutische und methodische Grundlagen der Analyse biblischer Erzähltexte.” Protokolle zur Bibel 15 (2006): 1‒24. –. “Perspektiven: Biblische Texte und Narratologie.” Pages 11‒40 in Perspektiven: Biblische Texte und Narratologie. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 75. Edited by I. Müllner and B. Schmitz. Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibelwerk, 2018. Musil, Alois. Arabia Petraea: I Moab. Hildesheim: Olms, 1907. Muzinga, Paul M. “La pratique des rituels de Nombres 19 pendant la période hellénistique et romaine.” Études bibliques 58. Gabalda: Nouvelle Série, 2008. Na’aman, Nadav. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Bibliography

543

–. “A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom.” Israel Exploration Journal 61.2 (2011): 184–195. Nash, Dustin. “Edom, Judah, and Converse Constructions of Israeliteness in Genesis 36.” Vetus Testamentum 68.1 (2018): 111‒128. Niederhoff, Burkhard. “Focalization.” No Pages. Published online 2011. Cited August 2017. Online: http:// http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/18.html. –. “Perspective – Point of View.” No Pages. Published online 2011. Cited August 2017. Online: http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/26.html. Niehr, Herbert. “Ein weiterer Aspekt zum Totenkult der Könige von Sam’al im 9. und 8. Jh. v. Chr.” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 18 (2001): 83–97. –. “Divination: IV. Syria/Palestine.” No Pages in BNP. Published online 2006. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e321630. Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “The Torah Between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua.” Pages 187–223 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. “Israel’s Festival Calendars in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28–29 and the Formation of ‘Priestly’ Literature.” Pages 177–231 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. –. “L’autel sur le mont Garizim. Deutéronome 27 et la rédaction de la Torah entre Samaritains et Judéens à l’époque achéménide.“ Transeuphratène 36 (2008): 97–124. –. “The Priestly Laws of Numbers: The Holiness Legislation and the Pentateuch.” Pages 109–137 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Nihan, Christophe and Julia Rhyder. “Aaron’s Vestments in Exodus 28 and Priestly Leadership.” Pages 45–67 in Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507. Edited by K. Pyschny and S. Schulz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2018. Nissinen, Martti. Prophetie, Redaktion und Fortschreibung im Hoseabuch: Studien zum Werdegang eines Prophetenbuches im Licht von Hos 4 und 11. Alter Orient und Altes Testamentum 231. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1991. Noam, Vered. “Corpse-Blood Impurity: A Lost Biblical Reading.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128.2 (2009): 243–251. Nogalski, James. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 217. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1993. –. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 218. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1993. Noort, Ed. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder. Erträge der Forschung 292. Darmstadt: WBG, 1998. –. “Balaam the Villain: The History of Reception of the Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.” Pages 15–16 in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Themes in Biblical Narrative 11. Edited by G. H. van Kooten and J. van Ruiten. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

544

Bibliography

–. “Bis zur Grenze des Landes: Num 27,12–23 und das Ende der Priesterschrift.” Pages 99– 119 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2008. Noth, Martin. “Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai (Num 33).” Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen Evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaft des heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem 36 (1940): 5–28. –. “Israelitische Stämme zwischen Ammon und Moab.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 69.1–4 (1944): 11–57. –. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1966. –. “Num 21 als Glied der ‘Hexateuch’-Erzählung.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 58.3–4 (1940/41): 161–189 (= Repr. in Noth, Martin. Aufsätze zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971). –. Numbers: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated by J. D. Martin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968. –. Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. –. Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Translated by J. E. Anderson. Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. –. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Chicago: Scholars Press, 1981. Novik, Tzvi. “Law and Loss: Response to Catastrophe in Numbers 15.” Harvard Theological Review 101 (2008): 1‒14. Nünning, Ansgar. “‘Verbal Fictions?’ Kritische Überlegungen und narratologische Alternativen zu Hayden Whites Einebnung des Gegensatzes zwischen Historiographie und Literatur.” Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 40 (1999): 351‒380. –. “Von der fiktionalisierten Historie zur metahistoriographischen Fiktion: Bausteine für eine narratologische und funktionsgeschichtliche Theorie, Typologie und Geschichte des postmodernen historischen Romans.” Pages 541‒570 in Literatur und Geschichte: Ein Kompendium zu ihrem Verhältnis von der Aufklärung bis zur Gegenwart. Edited by D. Fulda and S. S. Tschopp. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Nünning, Vera. “Unzuverlässiges Erzählen als Paradigma für die Unterscheidung zwischen faktualem und fiktionalem Erzählen.” Pages 37‒58 in Wie Geschichten Geschichte schreiben: Frühchristliche Literatur zwischen Faktualität und Fiktionalität. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II 395. Edited by S. Luther, J. Röder and E. D. Schmidt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Nünning, Vera, Jan Rupp and Gregor Ahn, eds. Ritual and Narrative: Theoretical Explorations and Historical Case Studies. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2013. Oeming, Manfred. “Die Liebe Gottes im Hosea-Buch.” Pages 257‒277 in Ahavah: Die Liebe Gottes im Alten Testament. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 55. Edited by M. Oeming. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2018 Ofer, Avi. “Hebron.” NEAEHL 2 (1993): 606–609. Olson, Dennis T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. –. Numbers. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1996. Olson, Greta. “Narration and Narrative in Legal Discourse.” No Pages. Published online 2014. Cited August 2017. Online: http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/113.html.

Bibliography

545

Olyan, Saul M. “Purity Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 35.1 (2004): 1–16. –. “Unnoticed Resonances of Tomb Opening and Transportation of the Remains of the Dead in Ezekiel 37:12‒14.” Journal for Biblical Literature 128.3 (2009): 491–501. Oswald, Wolfgang. Staatstheorie im Alten Israel: Der politische Diskurs im Pentateuch und in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2009. –. “Die Exodus-Gottesberg-Erzählung als Gründungsurkunde der judäischen Bürgergemeinde.” Pages 35‒51 in Law and Narrative in the Bible and in Neighbouring Ancient Cultures. Forschung zum Alten Testamentum II 54. Edited by K.-P. Adam, F. Avemarie and N. Wazana. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. –. “Defeating Amalek, Defending the Constitution: The Political Theory of Ex 17:8–16.” Pages 61–72 in The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 460. Edited by C. Berner and H. Samuel. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. –. “Der Hohepriester als Ethnarch: Zur politischen Organisation Judäas im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21 (2015): 309– 320. Otto, Eckart. “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift.” Theologische Revue 62 (1997): 1–50. –. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. –. “Gab es ‘historische’ und ‘fiktive’ Aaroniden im Alten Testament?” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7 (2001): 403–413. –. Max Webers Studien des antiken Judentums: Historische Grundlegung einer Theorie der Moderne. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. –. “Tora und Charisma: Legitimation und Delegitimation des Königtums in 1 Samuel 8–2 Samuel 1 im Spiegel neuerer Literatur.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 12 (2006): 225–244. –. “Synchronie und Diachronie im Jeremiabuch: Zu einem Kommentar von Georg Fischer SJ als Paradigma einer neuen Kommentargeneration.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13 (2007): 353–359. –. “Pentateuch.” No Pages in RPP. Published online 2011. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1877-5888_rpp_COM_024320. –. Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. –. Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband 1,1–4,43. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2012. –. “The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah: The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch.” Pages 383–397 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. Deuteronomium 12–34. Zweiter Teilband 23,16–34,12. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2017. Otto, Walter. Beiträge zur Hierodulie im hellenistischen Ägypten. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften 29. München: Verlag der Bayrischen Akdademie der Wissenschaften, 1949.

546

Bibliography

Paganini, Simone. “Nicht darfst du zu diesen Wörtern etwas hinzufügen.” Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums in der Tempelrolle: Sprache, Autoren und Hermeneutik. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 11. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009. Pahliztsch, Johannes and Albert Dietrich. “Arabia.” No Pages in BNP. Published online 2006. Cited July 2019. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e131030. Pape, Wilhelm. “τάφος.” HGS 2 (1843): 1018. Paz, Sarit. Drums, Women, and Goddesses: Drumming and Gender in Iron Age II Israel. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 232. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Perlitt, Lothar. “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?” Pages 65–88 in Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament. Edited by O. Kaiser. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1988 (= Pages 123–143 in Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). –. “Riesen im Alten Testament: Ein literarisches Motiv im Wirkungsfeld des Deuteronomismus.” Pages 205–246 in Deuteronomium-Studien. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Philo. De vita Mosis. Translated by L. Cohn et al. 6 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1909–1938. Pier, John. “Narrative Levels.” No Pages. Revised version published online 2014. Cited August 2017. Online: http:// http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/32.html. Pietsch, Michael. “Dieser ist der Spross Davids...”: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischen-testamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 100. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Pitkänen, Pekka. Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon’s Temple. 2nd ed. Gorgias Dissertations 6. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. Pola, Thomas. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Poorthuis, Marcel J. H. M. and Baruch J. Schwartz, eds. Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Leviticus. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Pormann, Peter E. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscript of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2015. Pyschny, Katharina. Verhandelte Führung: Eine Analyse von Num 16‒17 im Kontext der Pentateuchforschung. Herders Biblische Studien 88. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 2017. –. “Debated Leadership: Conflicts of Authority and Leadership in Num 16‒17.” Pages 115‒131 in Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507. Edited by K. Pyschny and S. Schulz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2018. –. “From Core to Centre: Issues of Centralization in Numbers and Deuteronomy.” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 8 (2019): 287‒312. Quack, Joachim F. “Conceptions of Purity in Egyptian Religion.” Pages 115‒158 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Edited by C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Quesada, Jan Jaynes. “Body Piercing: The Issue of Priestly Control Over Acceptable Family Structure in the Book of Numbers.” Biblical Interpretation 10.1 (2002): 24‒35. Quigley, Christine. The Corpse: A History. Jefferson: McFarland 1996.

Bibliography

547

Rabe, Norbert. Vom Gerücht zum Gericht: Die Kundschaftererzählung Num 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung. Textwissenschaft – Theologie – Hermeneutik – Linguistik – Literaturanalyse – Informatik 8). Tübingen et al.: Francke, 1994. Rapp, Ursula. Mirjam: Eine feministisch-rhetorische Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der Hebräischen Bibel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 317. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Rappaport, Roy A. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Rees, Anthony. “(Re)naming Cozbi: In Memoriam, Cozbi, Daughter of Zur.” Biblical Interpretation 20.1‒2 (2012): 16‒34. –. [Re]Reading Again: A Mosaic Reading of Numbers 25. Library of the Hebrew Bible /Old Testament Studies 598. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Rendtorff, Rolf. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf. Bd 1: Kanonische Grundlegung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998. Retsö, Jan. The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History From the Assyrians to the Umayyads. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Renz, Johannes. Die althebräischen Inschriften. 2 vols. Darmstadt: WBG, 1995. Rhyder, Julia. The Holiness Legislation and Cult Centralization in the Persian Period. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lausanne, 2018 (forthcoming as: Centralizing the Cult: The Holiness Legislation in Leviticus 17–26. Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Riesebrodt, Martin. “Charisma in Max Weber’s Sociology of Religion.” Religion 29 (1999): 1–14. –. “Charisma.” Pages 151–166 in Max Webers “Religionssystematik.” Edited by H. Kippenberg and M. Riesebrodt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Robertson, Noel. “The Concept of Purity in Greek Sacred Laws.” Pages 195‒243 in Purity and the Forming of Religious Traditions in the Ancient Mediterranean World and Ancient Judaism. Dynamics in the History of Religions 3. Edited by C. Frevel and C. Nihan. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Röder, Jörg. “Zum Verhältnis von Faktualität und Fiktionalität: Ein Forschungsüberblick.” Pages 1‒11 in Wie Geschichten Geschichte schreiben: Frühchristliche Literatur zwischen Faktualität und Fiktionalität. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II 395. Edited by S. Luther, J. Röder and E. D. Schmidt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Römer, Thomas C. “Exode et Anti-Exode: La nostalgie de l’Egypte dans les traditions du désert.” Pages 155–172 in Lectio difficilior probabilior? L'exégèse comme expérience de décloisonnement. Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche 12. Edited by T. C. Römer. Heidelberg: Wiss.-Theol. Seminar, 1991. –. “Nombres 11‒12 et la question d'une redaction deuteronomique dans le Pentateuque.” Pages 481–498 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. FS C. H. W. Brekelmans. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 133. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. –. “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten: Anfragen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Penteteuch.” Pages 215–231 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. –. “Hauptprobleme der gegenwärtigen Pentateuchforschung.” Theologische Zeitschrift 60 (2004): 289–307.

548

Bibliography

–. “Nombres.” Pages 196–210 in Introduction a l'Ancien Testament. Le Monde de la Bible 49. Edited by T. C. Römer and J.-D. Macchi. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004. –. “ Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers.” Pages 419–445 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by R. Rezetko. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2007. –. “De la périphérie au centre: Les livres du Lévitique et des Nombres dans le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque.” Pages 3‒34 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2008. –. “Mose in Äthiopien: Zur Herkunft der Num 12,1 zugrundeliegenden Tradition.” Pages 203‒216 in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 370. Edited by M. Beck and U. Schorn. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012. –. “Conflicting Models of Identity and the Publication of the Torah in the Persian Period.” Pages 33–52 in Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers. Journal of Ancient Judaism/Supplements 11. Edited by R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. Göttingen et al.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. –. “Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21.” Pages 66–86 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. –. “How to Write a Literary History of the Hebrew Bible?: A Response to David Carr and Konrad Schmid.” Indian Theological Studies 50.1 (2013): 9–20. –. “Moses, the Royal Lawgiver.” Pages 81–94 in Remembering Biblical Figures in the Late Persian & Early Hellenistic Periods: Social Memory and Imagination. Edited by D. V. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. –. “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125.1 (2013): 2–24. –. “Mose und die Frauen in Exodus 1–4.” Pages 73–86 in Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuchs: Die Beiträge eines Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Rainer Albertz. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 104. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Ebach and J. Wöhrle. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2014. Rooke, D. W. Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood. Ancient Israel. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press, 2000. Rose, Martin. 5. Mose Deuteronomium. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 5. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1994. Rösel, Martin. “Wie einer vom Propheten zum Verführer wurde.” Biblica 80.4 (1999): 506–524. –. “Der hebräische Mensch im griechischen Gewand: Anthropologische Akzentsetzungen in der Septuaginta.” Pages 69–92 in Der Mensch im alten Israel: Neue Forschungen zur alttestamentlichen Anthropologie. Herders Biblische Studien 59. Edited by B. Janowski and K. Liess. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005. –. “Die Geburt der Seele in der Übersetzung: Von der Hebräischen Näfäsch über die Psyche der LXX zur deutschen Seele.” Pages 151–170 in Anthropologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 232. Edited by A. Wagner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Rost, Leonhard. “Erwägungen zum israelitischen Brandopfer.” Pages 177–183 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Forschung.

Bibliography

549

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77. Edited by J. Hempel et al. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1958. –. “Fragen um Bileam.” Pages 376–387. Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie. FS W. Zimmerli. Edited by H. Donner, R. Hanhart and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1977. Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi (2.131).” Pages 335–353 in The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Volume II. Edited by W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2000. Rouillard, Hedwige. La péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22–24): La prose et les ‘oracles’. Études bibliques 4. Paris: Gabalda, 1985. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Der Elohist von Exodus bis Josua. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 68. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1938. Rüpke, Jörg. “Individualization and Individuation as Concepts for Historical Research.” Pages 3–38 in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean. Edited by Jörg Rüpke. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. Russel, Stephen. “The Structure of Legal Administration in the Moses Story.” Pages 317– 330 in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture and Geoscience. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Edited by T. E. Levy, T. Schneider and W. H. C. Propp. Cham et al.: Springer, 2015. Rüterswörden, Udo. Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18–18,22. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 65. Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum, 1987. Ruwe, Andreas. “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”: Literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. –. “The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10*).” Pages 55–78 in Leviticus. Edited by R. Rendtorff and R. Kugler. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Sadler, Rodney Steven. Can a Cushite Change His Skin?: An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 425. New York: T&T Clark 2005. Sals, Ulrike. “Bileam – Der lächerliche Falschprophet? Eine Widerlegung.” Pages 163‒188 in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Beispielexegesen und Methodenreflexionen. Edited by E. Ballhorn and G. Steins. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007. –. Aufbau und Eigenart des Buches Numeri. Habil. Masch. Rostock. 2011. Salomon, Gotthold. Mose, der Mann Gottes: Ein heiliges Lebensgemählde. Hamburg: Perthes und Besser-Verlag, 1835. Samuel, Harald. “Levi, the Levites, and the Law.” Pages 215–230 in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 439. Edited by D. Dimant and R. G. Kratz. Berlin/Boston: Töpelmann, 2013. –. Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Studien zum alttestamentlichen Kultpersonal. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 448. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2014. Satlow, Michael L. Creating Judaism: History, Tradition, Practice. New York et al..: Columbia University Press, 2006. Schäfers, Kirsten M. “‘[…] and the LORD’s Anger was Kindled against Israel’ (Num 25:3) – Who’s in Charge and Who’s to Blame?: Punishment, Intercession, and LeadershipRelated Competences in Num 25.” Pages 132‒158 in Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die

550

Bibliography

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507. Edited by K. Pyschny and S. Schulz. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2018. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Christa. Josua und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 58. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1995. Schaper, Joachim. Leviten und Priester im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zu Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Scharbert, Josef. “‘Fluchen’ und ‛Segnen’ im Alten Testament.” Biblica 39.1 (1958): 1–26. –. “Amt (AT).” NBL 1 (1991): 95. –. Numeri. Neue Echter Bibel 27. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1992. Schart, Aaron. Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 98. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. –. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 260. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1998. –. “The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch.” Pages 164–200 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schmid, Konrad. “Buchtechnische und sachliche Prolegomena zur Enneateuchfrage.” Pages 1– 14 in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum. FS H.-C. Schmitt. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 370. Edited by M. Beck and U. Schorn. Berlin/New York: Töpelmann, 2006. –. “Persische Reichsautorisation und Tora.” Theologische Revue 71 (2006): 494–506. –. “Der Pentateuchredaktor: Beobachtungen zum theologischen Profil des Toraschlusses in Dtn 34.” Pages 183–197 in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l'Hexateuque et de l'Ennéateuque. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 203. Edited by T. C. Römer and K. Schmid. Leuven et al.: Brill, 2007. –. “The Persian Imperial Authorization as an Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate.” Pages 23‒38 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. –. Schriftgelehrte Traditionsliteratur: Fallstudien zur innerbiblischen Schriftauslegung im Alten Testament. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. –. “Die Samaritaner und die Judäer: Die biblische Diskussion um ihr Verhältnis in Josua 24.” Pages 31–50 in Die Samaritaner und die Bibel/The Samaritans and the Bible. Studia Judaica 70. Edited by J. Frey et al. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter, 2012. –. “Exodus in the Pentateuch.” Pages 27–60 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans and J. N. Lohr. Leiden: Brill, 2014. –. “Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators: The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting.” Pages 331‒344 in Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience. Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Edited by T. E. Levy et al. Heidelburg: Springer, 2015.

Bibliography

551

Schmid, Wolf. “Erzählperspektive.” No Pages. Published online 2004. Cited August 2017. Online: http://www.icn.uni-hamburg.de/sites/default/files/download/publications/w_ schmid_erzaehlperspektive.pdf. –. Narratology: An Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. –. Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2014. Schmidt, Brian B. “Canaanite Magic vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy 18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo.” Pages 242–259 in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 141. Edited by P. Mirecki and M. Meyer. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2002. –. “The Social Matrix of Early Judean Magic and Divination: From ‘Top Down’ or ‘Bottom Up’?” Pages 279–293 in Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman. Edited by B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski. Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2013. –. The Materiality of Power: Explorations in the Social History of Early Israelite Magic. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 105. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Schmidt, Ludwig. Studien zur Priesterschrift. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 214. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1993. –. “Mose, die 70 Ältesten und die Propheten in Numeri 11 und 12.” Pages 251–279 in Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 263. Edited by L. Schmidt. Berlin et al: De Gruyter, 1998. –. “Leviten- und Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42.” Vetus Testamentum 52.1 (2002): 103–121. –. “Bileam: Vom Seher zum Propheten Jahwes: Die literarischen Schichten der BileamPerikope (Num 22–24).” Pages 333–351 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog. FS O. Kaiser. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 345. Edited by M. Witte. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. –. Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri: Kapitel 10,11–36,13. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2004. –. “Die Kundschaftererzählung in Num 13–14 und Dtn 1,19–46.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114.1 (2006): 40–58. –. “Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* und Dtn 2,24ff.*: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri.” Pages 314–333 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 62. Edited by C. Frevel, T. Pola and A. Schart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Schmidt, Werner H. Exodus 1–6. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament II 1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Der heidnische Manitke als eschatologischer Jahweprophet: Zum Verständnis Bileams in der Endgestalt von Num 22–24.” Pages 180–198 in Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1994 (= Pages 238–254 in Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 310. Edited by U. Schorn and M. Büttner. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter, 2001). Schmitt, Rüdiger. Magie im Alten Testament. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 313. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004. –. “Totenversorgung, Totengedenken und Nekromantie.” Pages 201–524 in Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 64. Edited by A. Berlejung and B. Janowski. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

552

Bibliography

Schmitz, Barbara. Prophetie und Königtum: Eine narratologisch-historische Methodologie entwickelt an den Königsbüchern. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 60. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Schniedewind, William M. “Scripturalization in Ancient Judah.” Pages 305–322 in Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production. Ancient Israel and Its Literature. Edited by B. B. Schmidt. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Schottroff, Willy. Der altisraelitsche Fluchspruch. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 30. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Schüle, Andreas. Israels Sohn – Jahwes Prophet: Ein Versuch zum Verhältnis von kanonischer Theologie und Religionsgeschichte anhand der Bileam-Perikope. Altes Testament und Moderne 17. Münster et al.: LIT, 2001. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?” Pages 3–16 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 78. Edited by T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid and B. J. Schwartz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Schwemer, Daniel. “Leberschau, Losorakel, Vogelflug und Traumgesicht: Formen und Funktionen der Vorzeichendeutung.” Pages 140–145 in Die Hethiter und ihr Reich: Das Volk der 1000 Götter. Edited by H. Willinghöfer. Stuttgart: Theiss, 2002. Schwertner, Siegfried. “Erwägungen zu Moses Tod und Grab in Dtn 34.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84.1 ( 1972): 27–45. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. “ ‫ ָנ ַגע‬.” TDOT IX (1998): 203–209. Seebass, Horst. “Levi/Leviten.” TRE 21 (1991): 36–40. –. “Biblisch-theologischer Versuch zu Num 20,1–13 und 21,4–9.” Pages 219–229 in Altes Testament: Forschung und Wirkung. FS H. Graf Reventlow. Edited by P. Mommer and W. Thiel. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1994. –. “Edom und seine Umgehung nach Numeri XX‒XXI: Zu Numeri XXI 10–13.” Vetus Testamentum 47.2 (1997): 255–262. –. “‫ ֶנֶפשׁ‬.” TDOT IX (1998): 497–519. –. Numeri: Kapitel 10,11–22,1. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament IV/2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. –. “‘Holy’ Land in the Old Testament: Numbers and Joshua.” Vetus Testamentum 56.1 (2006): 92–104. –. “Berit im Buch Numeri.” Pages 219–230 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. FS F.-L. Hossfeld. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Edited by C. Dohmen and C. Frevel. Stutgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007. –. Numeri: Kapitel 22:2–36:13. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament IV/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007. –. Numeri: Kapitel 1,1–10,10. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament IV/1. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012. Seidl, Theodor. “‫ָצ ַרַﬠת‬.” TDOT XII (2003): 469–475. Serino, Ron M. “A Sign in the Dark: Moses’s Cushite Wife and Boundary Setting in the Book of Numbers.” Biblical Interpretation 24.2 (2016): 153‒177. Seters, John van. The Yahwist as Historian. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper Series 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. –. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. –. “From Faithful Prophet to Villian: Observations on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story.” Pages 126–132 in A Biblical Itinerary in Search of Method, Form and Content.

Bibliography

553

Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 240. Edited by E. E. Carpenter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. –. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Seybold, Klaus. Der Segen und andere liturgische Worte aus der hebräischen Bibel. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2004. Shectman, Sarah. “Bearing Guilt in Numbers 5:12‒31.” Pages 479‒493 in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch. Edited by J. Stackert, B. Nevling Porter and D. P. Wright. Bethesda: CDL Press, 2010. Shemesh, Aharon. Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. Berkeley et al.: University of California Press, 2009. Shils, Edward. Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. –. “Charisma, Order, and Status.” American Social Review 30 (1965): 199–213. Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduzione alla lettura del Pentateuco: Chiavi per l'interpretazione dei primi cinque libri della Bibbia. Rom: Dehoniane, 1998. –. Introduction à la lecture du Pentateuque: Clés pour l’interprétation des cinq premiers livres de la Bible. Le livre et le rouleau 5. Brüssel: Lessius, 2000. –. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. –. “Le récit sacerdotal. Une ‘histoire sans fin?’” Pages 631–653 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2008. Sklar, Jay. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. Hebrew Bible Monographs 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press 2005. Smend, Rudolf. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch: Auf Ihre Quellen Untersucht. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1912. Smith, Christopher R. “The Literary Structure of Leviticus.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 70.1 (1996): 17–32. Smith, Jonathan Z. Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1975. –. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco: Word Books, 1984. Smoak, Jeremy D. The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Snyman, Fanie. “Investigating the Issue of Mixed Marriages in Malachi, Ezra-Nehemiah and the Pentateuch.” Scriptura 116.2 (2017): 175–187. Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody: Baker Academic, 2005. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. –. “The Holiness Legislation and Its Pentateuchal Sources: Revision, Supplementation, and Replacement.” Pages 187–204 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Edited by S. Shectman and J. S. Baden. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009.

554

Bibliography

–. “The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and NonPriestly Perspectives.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73.2 (2011): 239–250. Staszak, Martin. Die Asylstädte im Alten Testament: Realität und Fiktivität eines Rechtsinstituts. Ägypten und Altes Testament 65. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006. Staubli, Thomas. Die Bücher Levitikus, Numeri. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Stern, Ephraim. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982. –. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732‒332 BCE. New York et al.: Yale University Press, 2001. Sternberg, Meir. “If-Plots: Narrativity and the Law-Code.” Pages 29‒107 in Theorizing Narrativity. Narratalogia 12. Edited by J. Pier and J. A. Garcia Landa. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008. Stoebe, Hans-Joachim. Das zweite Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 8,2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994. Stolz, Fritz. Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel. Zürcher Bibelkommentare Altes Testament 9. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1981. Stroumsa, Guy G. The End of Sacrifice: Religious Transformations in Late Antiquity. Translated by S. Emmanuel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Waco: Word Books, 1987. Taggar-Cohen, Ada. “Law and Family in the Book of Numbers: The Levites and the Tidennutu Documents from Nuzi.” Vetus Testamentum 48.1 (1998): 74–94. Tamarkin Reis, Pamela. “Numbers XI: Seeing Moses Plain.” Vetus Testamentum 55.2 (2005): 207–231. Tanner, Hans Andreas. Amalek – Der Feind Israels und der Feind Jahwes: Eine Studie zu den Amalektexten im Alten Testament. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2005. Tervanotko, Hanna. Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Thelle, Rannfrid I. Approaches to the “Chosen Place”: Accessing a Biblical Concept. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Thiel, Winfried. “Rizpa und das Ritual von Gibeon.” Pages 121–139 in Gedeutete Geschichte: Studien zur Geschichte Israels und ihrer theologischen Interpretation im Alten Testament. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 71. Edited by P. Mommer. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005. Thon, Johannes. Pinhas ben Eleasar – Der levitische Priester am Ende der Tora: Traditions- und literargeschichtliche Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung historisch-geographischer Fragen. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 20. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Tilly, Michael and Wolfgang Zwickel. Religionsgeschichte Israel: Von der Vorzeit bis zu den Anfängen des Christentums. Darmstadt: WBG, 2011. Timm, Stefan. Moab zwischen den Mächten: Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten. Ägypten und Altes Testament 17. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989. Toorn, Karel van der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Traulsen, Christian. Das sakrale Asyl in der Alten Welt: Zur Schutzfunktion des Heiligen von König Salomo bis zum Codex Theodosianus. Jus Ecclesiasticum 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

Bibliography

555

Treiber, Hubert. “Anmerkungen zu Max Webers Charismakonzept.” Zeitschrift für alrorientische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 11 (2005): 196–213. Tropper, Josef. Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 223. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1989. Tufnell, Olga, ed. Lachish III. (Tell ed-Duweir): The Iron Age. London et al.: Oxford University Press, 1953. Tyrell, Eva. “Die Gestaltung des Erzählers als Überzeugungsmittel in Herodots Historien und der Hebräischen Bibel.” Bulletin der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Judaistische Forschung 25 (2016): 28‒42. –. Strategies of Persuasion in Ancient Greek and Hebrew Narrative Histories: A Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible and Herodotus’ Histories. Ph.D Diss., Tel Aviv University, 2017. –. “Mittelbarkeit und scheinbare Unmittelbarkeit als Überzeugungsstrategien: Ein Vergleich zwischen Herodots ‘Historien’ und der Hebräischen Bibel.” Pages 66‒82 in Perspektiven: Biblische Texte und Narratologie. Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 75. Edited by I. Müllner and B. Schmitz. Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibelwerk, 2018. Uehlinger, Christoph. “‘Hat YHWH denn wirklich nur mit Mose geredet?’: Biblische Exegese zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Theologie, am Beispiel von Num 12.” Biblische Zeitschrift 47 (2003): 230–259. Utzschneider, Helmut. Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der Sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9). Orbis biblicus et orientalis 77. Fribourg/ Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. –. “Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der ‘Schriftprophetie’ auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6–2,9.” Pages 64–66 in Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 19. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1989. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Its Institutions. London: Eerdmans, 1961. Vermez, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia Post-Biblica 6. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Waerzeggers, Caroline. “Facts, Propaganda or History? Shaping Political Memory in the Nabonidus Chronicle.” Pages 95–124 in Political Memory In and After the Persian Empire. Edited by J. Silverman and C. Waerzeggers. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. Wagner, Siegfried and Heinz-Josef Fabry. “ ‫ָמָצ א‬.” TDOT VIII (1997): 465–483. Wagner, Thomas. Gottes Herrlichkeit: Bedeutung und Verwendung des Begriffes kābôd im Alten Testament. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 151. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2012. Wagner, Volker. “Beobachtungen am Amt der Ältesten im alttestamentlichen Israel. 1. Teil: Der Ort der Ältesten in den Epochen der Geschichte und in der Gliederung der Gesellschaft.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114.3 (2002): 391–411. Wallis, Gerhard. “Peor.” BHH 3 (1966): 1419. Waltke, Bruce K. and Patrick O’Conner. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Waschke, Ernst-Joachim. “Die Königsvorstellung nach den ‛letzten Worten Davids’ (2 Sam 23,1–7).” Pages 129–144 in Das Alte Testament – Ein Geschichtsbuch?!: Geschichtsschreibung oder Geschichtsüberlieferung im antiken Israel. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 17. Edited by U. Becker and J. van Oorschot. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005. Watts, James W. “The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the Pentateuch.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117.3 (1998): 415–426.

556

Bibliography

–. “Reader Identification and Alienation in the Legal Rhetoric of the Pentateuch.” Biblical Interpretation 7.1 (1999): 101‒112. –. Ritual and Rhetoric in Leviticus: From Sacrifice to Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. –. “Scripturalization and the Aaronide Dynasties.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 13. Article 6 (2013): 1–15. –. , ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of the Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich, Berkley/Los Angeles: University of Californie Press 1978. –. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Studienausgabe. 5 th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. –. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Soziologie: Unvollendet 1919–1920. Max Weber Gesamtausgabe: Schriften und Reden I/23. Edited by K. Borchardt, E. Hanke and W. Schluchter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Weimar, Peter. “Der Tod Aarons und das Schicksal Israels: Num 20,22–29*.” Pages 354– 355 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Edited by G. Braulik. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1993. –. “Pentateuch.” NBL 3 (1997): 106–110. Weise, Uwe. Vom Segnen Israels: Eine textpragmatische Untersuchung der BileamErzählung Num 22–24. Textpragmatische Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel 3. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. S. Black and A. Menzies. Reprint. Evinity Publishing, 2009. –. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 4 th ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963. Wenning, Robert. “‘Medien’ in der Bestattungskultur im eisenzeitlichen Juda?” Pages 109–150 in Medien im antiken Palästina: Materielle Kommunikation und Medialität als Thema der Palästinaarchäologie. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 10. Edited by C. Frevel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wenning, Robert and Erich Zenger. “Heiligtum ohne Stadt – Stadt ohne Heiligtum?: Anmerkungen zum archäologischen Befund des Tell Der ‘Alla.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 4 (1991): 171–193. Weyde, K. W. Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetie Authority, Form Problems and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Maleachi. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 288. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter, 2000. –. The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe. Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1975. –. “The Narrativization of Real Events.” Pages 90‒96 in Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. Narrative Theory IV: Interdisciplinarity. Edited by M. Bal. Abingdon: Routledge, 2004. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of lntercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14. Forschungen zum Alten Testament II 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wijngaards, John. ‟ ‫ הוצי א‬and ‫ הל ע ה‬a Twofold Approach to the Exodus.” Vetus Testamentum 15.1 (1965): 91‒102.

Bibliography

557

Williamson, Hugh G. M. “Sanballat.” ABD 5 (1992): 973‒975. Witte, Markus. “Der Segen Bileams: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Problemanzeige zum ‛Jahwisten’ in Num 22–24.” Pages 191–213 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid and M. Witte. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2002. Wöhrle, Jakob. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 360. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2006. –. “‘No Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’ the Exilic Book of the Four Prophets (Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.) as a Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History.” Vetus Testamentum 58.4 (2008): 608‒627. –. “Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte.” Pages 12–15 in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 246. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. –. “Jacob, Moses, Levi: Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve.” Pages 997‒1014 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Kaiser-Taschenbücher 91. 5 th ed. Munich: Kaiser, 1990. Wolff, Samuel R. “Mortuary Practices in the Persian Period of the Levant.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65 (2002): 131–137. Wright, David P. “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19–24.” Vetus Testamentum 35.2 (1985): 213–223. –. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 101. Atlanta: SBL Press, 1987. Zahn, Molly M. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4Q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Leiden et al.: Brill, 2011. –. “Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology.” Pages 93–119 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 419. Edited by H. von Weissenberg et al. Berlin et al.: De Gruyter, 2011. Zakovitch, Yair. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 92–118 in Reading Genesis: Ten Methods. Edited by R. Hendel. Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Zapff, Burkhard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 256. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1997. –. “The Book of Micah: The Theological Center of the Book of the Twelve?” Pages 129‒ 146 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 433. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2012. Zehnder, Markus. “Fremder (AT).” No Pages in WiBiLex. Published online 2009. Cited 9 March 2019, Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/18557/.

558

Bibliography

Zenger, Erich. “Der Pentateuch als Tora und als Kanon.” Pages 5–34 in Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen. Herders Biblische Studien 10. Edited by E. Zenger. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1996. –. “Priesterschrift.” TRE 27 (1997): 435–446. –. “Das Buch Levitikus als Teiltext der Tora/des Pentateuch: Eine synchrone Lektüre mit kanonischer Perspektive.” Pages 47–83 in Levitikus als Buch. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 119. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. Berlin: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. –. “Theologische Auslegung des Alten/Ersten Testaments im Spannungsfeld von Judentum und Christentum.” Pages 9–34 in Methodische Erneuerung der Theologie: Konsequenzen der wiederentdeckten jüdisch-christlichen Gemeinsamkeiten. Quaestiones disputatae 200. Edited by P. Hünermann and T. Söding. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 2003. –. “Was sind Essentials eines theologischen Kommentars zum Alten Testament?“ Pages 213–238 in Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments/der Hebräischen Bibel: Zwischenbilanz und Zukunftsperspektiven. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 200. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005. –. “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch.” Pages 630‒709 in Erich Zenger et al: Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. 9 th ed. Edited by C. Frevel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016. Zenger, Erich et al. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1 st ed. 1995; 3rd ed. 1998; 4 th ed. 2001; 5th ed. 2004; 6 th ed. 2006; 7 th ed. 2008. Zenger, Erich et al. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. Edited by C. Frevel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 8th ed. 2012; 9 th ed. 2016. Zenger, Erich and Christian Frevel. “Die Bücher Levitikus und Numeri als Teile der Pentateuchkomposition.” Pages 35–74 in The Books of Leviticus and Numbers. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215. Edited by T. C. Römer. Leuven et al.: Peeters, 2008 (for Christian Frevel’s contribution to this article, see p. 53–82 in present volume). Ziemer, Benjamin. “Die aktuelle Diskussion zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch und die empirische Evidenz nach Qumran.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125.3 (2013): 383–399. Zimmerli, Walter. “Erstgeborene und Leviten: Ein Beitrag zur exilisch-nachexilischen Theologie.” Pages 235–246 in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie. Theologische Berichte 51. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974. Zipfel, Frank. “Fiktion und Fiktionales Erzählen aus literaturtheoretischer Perspektive.” Pages 11‒35 in Wie Geschichten Geschichte schreiben: Frühchristliche Literatur zwischen Faktualität und Fiktionalität. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II 395. Edited by S. Luther, J. Röder and E. D. Schmidt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Ziolkowski, Eric. “Charisma.” EBR 5 (2012): 1‒8. Zwickel, Wolfgang. “Der Durchzug der Israeliten durch das Ostjordanland.” UgaritForschungen 22 (1990): 475–495. –. “I Sam 31,12f. und der Quadratbau auf dem Flughafengelände bei Amman.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105.2 (1993): 165–174. –. Studien zur Geschichte Israels. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 59. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2015.

Bibliographic Abbreviations ABD

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman et al. New York et al: Doubleday, 1992.

BHH

Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch: Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur, Literatur. Edited by B. Reicke und L. Rost. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1979.

BNP

Brill’s New Pauly Online. Edited by H. Cancik et al. Brill. Online: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/brill-s-new -pauly.

DDD

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

EBR

Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by D. C. Alison et al. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2009–present.

EI

Encyclopædia Iranica Online. Edited by E. Daniel et al. Brill. Online: http://www.iranicaonline.org.

GES18

Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament: Gesamtausgabe, 18 th ed. Edited by H. Donner. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.

GKC

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Republished. Edited by E. Kautsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Mineola/New York: Dover, 2006.

HALAT

Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by W. Baumgartner. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1995.

HGANT

Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe zum Alten und Neuen Testament. 4 th ed. Edited by A. Berlejung and C. Frevel. Darmstadt: WBG, 2015.

HGS

Pape, Wilhelm. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 vols. Braunschweig: Vieweg und Sohn, 1843.

JOÜON

Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991.

KÖNIG

König, Eduard. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache , Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1897.

LThK

Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. 3rd ed. Edited by W. Kasper et al. 11 vols. Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 1993–2001.

NBL

Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by M. Görg and B. Lang. Zürich: Benzinger, 1988–2001.

560

Bibliographic Abbreviations

NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 5 vols. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993–2008. RAC

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum: Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt. Edited by T. Klauser et al. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann-Verlag, 1950–present.

RPP

Religion Past and Present Online. Edited by H. D. Betz et al. Brill. Online: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/religion-past-and-present.

TDOT

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry. Translated by D. E. Green. 16 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2018.

ΤRE

Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Edited by G. Krause and G. Müller. 36 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976–2004.

WiBiLex

Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet. Edited by M. Bauks and K. Koenen. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Online: https://www.bibelwissenschaft. de/wibilex/.

Index of Biblical References Genesis 1:20 1:21 1:24 1:30 2:19 6:4 9:10 9:12 9:15 9:16 10:7 12:2–3 13:14–17 15:18 17:8 17:14 20:3 24:7 25:2 25:4 25:18 28:1 28:6 28:8 29:29 29:34 30:27 30:40 31:24 34 34:8–10 34:14 34:16–17 34:21 34:26 35:22 36:4 36:10 36:28 36:32 38

246 246 246 246 246 276 246 246 246 246 209 25 442 442 89, 442 351 170 195 214 219 214 365 365 365 357 440 183 182 170 430–1 430 430 430 430 358 358 214 214 209 209 430

41:45 41:50 44:5 44:15 45:5 46:7 46:10 46:11 46:15 46:20 49:5

359 359 183 183 195 358 359 430 358 359 430–1

Exodus 1:1–4 1:1 2 2:1 2:15 2:18 2:21 3–4 3 3:1 4 4:10 4:12 4:14 4:15–16 4:15 4:18 4:25 4:28–29 4:29 4:30 6 6:8 6:13 6:14–26 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:19

68 68 359 359 359 362 214, 359 453 196, 213 362 360, 395, 452 453 452 489–90 387 171, 349, 452–3 362 214 395 360 457 504 89 402 508 499 359 504 489

562 6:20 6:23 6:24 6:25 8:9 8:27 12 12:2 12:14 12:16 12:17 12:18–19 12:21 12:37 12:38 12:43 12:48–51 12:48 12:49 13:2 13:13 13:14 13:15 15–17 15 15:20 15:21 15:24 15:25 16–40 16 16:2 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10–20 16:10 16:20 16:23 16:33 17 17:3 17:5 17:6 17:9–16 17:9 17:10–12 17:10

Index of Biblical References 359 359, 406 387 359, 504 450 450 41, 323, 339, 480 353 250 75, 341 250 111 403 361, 450 360–1 250 111 250 350 481 147, 481, 483 47 481 111 68, 196 198 68, 196, 198 68, 405 452 382 68, 106, 196, 198, 343, 353–5 68, 405 68, 405 68 446 353 457 354 355, 448 446 68, 106, 405, 414 68, 405 403 403, 405 404 404 404 405

17:12 18 18:2 18:13–27 18:19 18:21 18:22 18:26 18:27 18:30 19:7 20:6 20:8–11 21:14 23 23:12 23:14–19 23:20 23:27–28 24:1 24:9 24:12 24:14 25–40 25–31 25:8 25:22 25:31–40 27:20 28–29 28 28:1 28:41 29 29:9 29:14 29:28 29:29–30 29:36 29:38–42 29:43–44 29:43 29:44 29:45 29:46 30:7–8 30:10

405 68, 106, 213, 363, 372, 383, 403–5 214, 360, 364 383 349 404 349, 404 372 412 372 403 447 350 151 443 350 339 195 195 403, 407 403, 407 451–2, 454 403, 405 72–5, 77, 496 109, 289, 403 237 62–3 38, 74 74 395, 402, 408–9, 509 381, 402, 410, 495 448 494–5 494 427, 502 267 455 387 231 342 448–9 447–8 381, 447–8 237 89, 152, 190, 257 74 231

563

Index of Biblical References 30:25 30:30 31:15–17 31:15 31:18 32–34 32–33 32:2 32:9–14 32:11 32:21 32:22 32:26–28 32:26 32:28 33 33:11 33:12 34 34:6–7 34:15–16 34:16 34:18–26 34:21 34:32 35–40 35:1–3 35:2 35:3 35:14 35:34 36:11 36:22 36:29 37:17–24 38:12 38:21 38:26 39:37 40 40:1–2 40:2 40:4 40:14–15 40:15 40:16 40:17 40:24

395 395, 495 350 355 112, 343 69 203 195, 457 69 203 446 457 402 395 395, 450 69 413 203 112, 443 69 366, 430 362, 365 339 350 112 77, 109, 289, 403, 509 343, 350 355 346 38, 74 452 74 74 74 38, 74 113 395, 403, 489 360 38, 74 73, 123, 382, 495 64 340 38, 74 502 427, 495 74 54, 64, 340 38, 74

40:33 40:34–40 40:34 40:35 Leviticus 1–16 1–7 1–3 1:1 2:13 4–7 4:6 4:11–12 4:13 4:17 4:24 5 5:5 5:9 5:12 5:20–26 5:21 5:22 6:17–23 7:34 7:37–38 7:37 8–10 8–9 8 8:3–4 8:11 8:12 8:17 8:31 8:33–9:1 9 9:1 9:7 9:15 9:23 9:24 9:26 10 10:1–8

89, 190 112 89, 190 291

109 289, 456, 496 343 63–4, 112 426 343 258 267 352 267 267 293, 300, 304, 310, 327, 330 301 267 267 293, 300–1, 327 230 302 456–7 455 64 112 289, 382 73–4, 123, 489, 496 381–2, 402, 408, 445, 494–5 479 267 395, 410, 412 267 446 54 387, 445, 456–7 340 446 455–6 63, 448 89, 104, 190, 448–9 445 91, 110, 333, 403, 435–63, 508 253

564 10:1–4 10:1–3 10:3 10:6 10:7 10:9 10:10–11 10:10 10:11 10:12–18 10:12 10:16–17 10:16 10:19 11–26 11–15 11 11:10 11:24 11:25 11:27 11:28 11:31 11:39 11:40 11:43–45 11:44–45 11:46 13–14 13:46 14:4 14:6 14:37 14:49 14:51 14:52 15 15:1–2 15:13 15:14–15 15:28 15:29–30 15:31 15:32–33 16

Index of Biblical References 457 382, 447 446–8 367, 446, 457 450 451 349, 454, 457–8 255, 451–4, 456 451–4, 456, 452 454 446, 457 387 455 457 259–60 232, 241, 254, 258, 289, 323 253, 259, 270, 298 246 270 246 270 246 270 270 246 256 237–8 246 238, 240, 254, 298 242 271 271 91, 454 233, 271 271 233, 271 242–3, 256, 272, 300 257 243 243 243 243 152, 256–9 256 54–5, 109, 192, 291, 312, 325, 341, 384, 498, 509

16:14 16:15 16:16 16:17 16:19 16:24 16:27 16:28 16:29–33 16:32 17–26 19:2 19:26–28 19:26 19:28 19:31 20:1–5 20:2 20:6 20:12 20:24 20:25–26 21 21:1–4 21:1 21:2–4 21:5 21:7 21:10–12 21:10 21:11 21:14–15 21:14 22:1–7 22:4–7 22:4 22:15–16 22:18–25 22:27 23 23:3 23:4–8 24 24:2–4

269 458 152, 258, 269 112 269 458 269 89 510 412, 414, 509 89, 113, 291, 316, 345 303 276 183 242, 313 282 367 344 282 308 344 256 110, 254, 258–9, 281, 298, 509 245–6, 250, 252, 259 242, 253, 275, 313 310 310 373 505 381, 410, 450, 508 242–3, 250, 253, 275, 286, 310, 313 428 359, 373 458 251 242, 253, 275, 313 456 43 368 75, 105, 339–40, 342, 443 346 341 42, 344, 362 38, 74

Index of Biblical References 24:10–23 24:10–14 24:12–13 24:17–18 24:17 25:1 25:32–33 26 26:13 26:14 26:15 26:42 26:44–45 26:44 26:45 26:46 27 27:27 27:34 28:34 Numbers 1–10

1:1–10:10 1–4

1–2 1 1:1

1:3 1:4–44 1:4–19 1:4 1:5–15 1:5 1:7 1:14–27 1:16 1:19

41, 341, 343–4, 348 362–3, 365 347 313 246 112 403, 489 76–7 76 352 351 76 76 351 76 58, 61, 111–2 38, 43, 89, 110, 289, 343, 368 147 58, 61, 111–2, 127 111

3–4, 38, 55, 57, 64, 67, 70–8, 89, 105, 109, 121, 128, 192, 289, 301, 480, 482, 496–7 25, 37, 39, 57–8, 122, 130 53, 73, 78, 147, 149–50, 152, 235, 239, 293, 297, 369, 397, 500 485 56, 60, 384, 397 24, 29, 36, 38, 40– 1, 58, 62–5, 68, 77, 111–2, 128, 406 406 407 383 406, 499 68 34 359 407 34, 407 41

1:36–45 1:46 1:47–50 1:48–53 1:50 1:53 2 2:1–30 2:1 2:3 2:9 2:16 2:17 2:24 2:31 2:32 2:34 3–4 3 3:1 3:2–4 3:2 3:3–4 3:3 3:4 3:5–10 3:6–9 3:7–8 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11–48 3:11–13 3:12 3:14 3:18 3:20 3:30–31 3:32 3:38 3:39 3:40–51 3:41 3:44–45 3:45 3:47 4 4:1

565 239 360 473 397 152, 402–3 152–3 17, 152–3, 407 37 71 359 37 37 37 37 37 34, 361 37 384, 479 408, 465–85, 498 28, 34, 41, 112, 451 493–4 34, 493, 506 410 409–10, 494 41, 381, 493, 505 473 408 498 381 470, 475, 478, 502– 3 501–3 479 473–4, 480, 483–5 395, 468, 481 41 34 490 74 387, 408, 490, 505 150 148 17, 483 395 397 395 147 340, 397, 481 71

566 4:3 4:5 4:9 4:15 4:17 4:23 4:28 4:30 4:33 4:34–48 4:34 4:35 4:39 4:43 4:48 4:49 4:51 5–10 5–6 5 5:1–10 5:1–4 5:1–3 5:2–3 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5–6:21 5:5–10 5:5–8 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9–10 5:11–31 5:11–21 5:12 5:13 5:14 5:19 5:20 5:27 5:28 5:29

Index of Biblical References 92 37 74 37 71 92 148, 410, 493 92 148, 410, 493 481 348 92 92 92 397 481 397 73 18, 147, 289–316, 327, 3230 232, 259, 304–10, 349, 369–71 73 231, 233–60, 291, 294–5, 297–9, 303 225 275 37, 226, 242, 249, 251–3, 281, 313 18, 152, 226, 348 38 294, 327 299–304, 327 327 18, 22, 266, 312 228 226, 495 397 12, 73, 121, 225, 304, 327, 495 324 266 226 226 226 226 226 226 34, 226

6 6:1–21 6:2 6:6–12 6:6–7 6:6 6:7 6:9–12 6:9 6:11 6:12 6:13–20 6:13 6:14 6:16 6:21 6:22–27 6:22–25 6:23–27 6:23 6:24–26 6:24 6:26 6:27 7–9 7–8 7 7:1–3 7:1 7:2 7:8 7:10 7:12 7:17 7:89 8

8:1–4 8:1 8:4 8:5–26 8:5–7 8:6–15 8:6

207, 259–60, 310–5 12, 18, 73, 225 18, 266 249 254 243, 275, 286, 313 226 310, 324 226, 275, 281 226, 228–9, 242, 313 226, 229 324 34 228 228 34 12, 38, 73, 121, 294, 327–30 19 324 25 330–3 25 294 25 387 38, 73 17, 78, 147, 228, 384, 397, 407 74 38, 73, 77 499 148, 493 38, 73 359 359 28, 31, 38, 62, 75, 112 74, 78, 225, 232, 340, 384, 395, 465– 85, 498 72, 74 340 38 72, 479 229–30 395 226

Index of Biblical References 8:7 8:9–10 8:10–11 8:12 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:18 8:19 8:21–32 8:21 8:22 8:24 9 9:1–15 9:1–14 9:1–5 9:1 9:2 9:5 9:6–15 9:6–14 9:6–12 9:6–10 9:6–7 9:6 9:7 9:9–14 9:10 9:11 9:13 9:14 9:15–23 9:15 9:16–23 9:16 10 10:1–10 10:1–6 10:2 10:4 10:7–8 10:8 10:9–10 10:9 10:10

226 497 409 226, 228–30 497 226 475 470 226, 384, 471, 473– 6, 478 395 226, 230–2, 488 488 92 250, 252, 259–60, 341–2, 346, 480 41 73, 112, 225, 339– 42 250 40–1 41 41 344, 348 41, 340 250 253 254 226, 242, 281 226, 242 324 226, 242, 266 242 246 371 29, 112, 150 77 33, 38 28, 30 213, 233, 363, 407 340 38 75 407 38 409 38, 75–6 89 65

10:11–36:13 10:11–24:25 10:11–21:20 10:11–20:29 10:11–14:45 10:11–14:33 10:11–28 10:11–13 10:11–12 10:11 10:12 10:14 10:19–36 10:21 10:28 10:29–33 10:29–32 10:29–30 10:35–36 11–21 11–20 11–14 11–12 11

11:1–3 11:2 11:3 11:4–35 11:4–11 11:4 11:6 11:7–9 11:10 11:11–15 11:16–17 11:16 11:17 11:20 11:21 11:23 11:25–29 11:25 11:26–27 11:26 11:27–29 11:27

567 57, 130 37 130 70, 131 58, 66 57, 122 37, 481 412 56, 66, 113, 129 64 64, 113, 412 359 6 150 30 412 104 68, 212–213, 412–3 48 108 67, 106–7 71, 233 10, 68, 88, 104, 107–8, 113, 384–5 68, 193, 203, 363, 383, 389–390, 403– 4, 423 108, 136 38, 136 150 106, 108, 111 136 361, 363 136, 312 30 367 396 36, 413 404, 407 404 135, 149 361 36, 135 396 413 29 33, 38 397 33

568 11:28–29 11:28 11:29 11:30 11:31 11:34 11:35 12

12:1–11 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:6–8 12:8 12:10–15 12:10 12:11 12:12–15 12:13–15 12:13 12:14–15 12:16 13–25 13–14

13 13:2–16 13:3 13:4 13:5–15 13:8 13:16 13:17 13:20 13:21–25 13:22 13:24 13:25 13:26 13:29 13:33

Index of Biblical References 405, 413 405, 413–4 413–4 397 33 361, 363 56, 66, 129 35, 68, 106, 108, 136–7, 192, 198, 226, 240, 360–5, 414, 423 410 68, 135, 196, 214, 363, 457 18, 36, 397 30, 36, 396 27, 71, 196, 397 396 135 240 457 136, 228 226 397 27 38 56, 66, 113, 129 189 5–6, 10, 57, 60, 65, 69, 78, 88–9, 103, 106–8, 111, 115, 132, 192–3, 201, 213, 343, 385, 509 128 407 113 34 497 414 413–4 213 30 33 30 30 205 66, 131, 410 30, 68, 214 207, 276

14 14:1 14:2 14:5–10 14:5 14:6 14:10 14:13–19 14:14 14:16 14:18 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:26 14:27 14:29 14:30 14:33–34 14:36 14:38 14:39 14:40–45 14:40 14:42–43 14:42 14:43–45 14:43 14:45 15–21 15–20 15 15:1–20:23 15:1 15:2 15:13 15:14 15:16 15:17–21 15:17 15:18 15:19 15:22–31 15:22–29 15:22–23 15:22

135, 137, 215 367 68, 410 414 410 405, 413 410 69 151 55 69 55, 116 78 30, 65, 68, 214 71 68 68 78, 413 205 68 78, 413 58 116, 134 136 69 149 33 68 29, 65, 68, 129, 134, 214 324, 353 57–8, 66, 70, 122– 3, 131, 141 42, 66, 106–8, 150, 342–3, 346 71 78 39, 266, 345 371 39 350 39 353 266, 345 345 230, 352 324 352–3 353

Index of Biblical References 15:23 15:24–26 15:24–25 15:25 15:27–29 15:27–28 15:27 15:28 15:29–30 15:30–31 15:30 15:31 15:32–36 15:32–35 15:32 15:33 15:34 15:36 15:38 15:40–41 16–18 16–17

16 16:1–2 16:2 16:3 16:8–10 16:9 16:11 16:14 16:17–19 16:20 16:21 16:22 16:26 16:36–50 16:46–48 17–18 17

17:2 17:3

28 230 228 226 230 228 312 246, 312 371 350–1 312 312 339–55 41 33, 340 345–8 41 42 266 343, 352 66, 144, 147, 386, 395 5, 10, 14, 24, 104, 106–8, 150, 233, 253, 343, 389, 397, 408, 418, 466, 470, 503 89, 193, 446, 488, 498 407 348 397, 410 497–8 498 410 68 324 71 498 387, 415 228 324 324 389 151, 193, 226, 390, 397, 449, 487, 498– 500, 505–9 387, 505 312

17:4 17:6–15 17:6–10 17:11–12 17:11 17:12–14 17:12–13 17:12 17:13 17:15 17:16–28 17:16–25 17:17–18 17:17 17:20 17:21 17:23–24 17:27–28 18–19 18

18:1–24 18:1 18:6 18:8–19 18:8 18:9–14 18:9 18:11 18:13–14 18:13 18:15 18:16 18:19 18:20–21 18:20 18:23–24 18:23 18:24 18:25–32 18:26–32 18:29 18:32 19

569 387, 505 226 410 410 226, 446 33 409 226 367 367 408–9, 418, 498– 500 410 498 266, 407 24, 68 407 39 466 106, 108 14, 29, 107, 150, 253, 397, 410, 429, 465–85, 488 33 71, 150, 410 468–71, 475, 478 426 71, 410 225 228 226 150 39, 226 226, 483 147 39, 425 148, 150 71 403 500 148 148 395 150 225–6 12, 42–3, 66, 107, 110, 149, 192, 226, 232–3, 244–50, 252–4, 258–60,

570

19:1 19:2 19:3–4 19:3 19:7 19:8 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:12–13 19:12 19:13 19:14–16 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:17–19 19:17 19:18 19:19 19:20 19:21 19:22 20–25 20–21 20

20:1–13 20:1 20:2–13 20:6 20:9 20:12 20:13 20:14–21 20:14 20:16 20:21 20:22 20:23–29

Index of Biblical References 261–88, 314, 324, 450, 495, 509 71, 505 34 387, 505 38 226 226 226 226, 371–2 226, 242 232 226, 229–31 226, 231, 242, 246, 255 248–9 34, 226, 372 226 226, 348 229 226 226, 312 226, 231, 348 150, 226, 231–2, 312 226 226, 312 233 6, 65, 89, 101–2, 132, 217 59, 68, 78, 106–7, 123, 132, 193, 364, 386, 390, 410, 505, 509 10, 102–3, 108, 111, 253 66, 68, 129 410 150, 367 151 55, 71, 124, 132, 387 132 102–3 58, 65, 217 65, 217–8 217 56, 65–6, 128–9 66, 133, 147, 394

20:23–28 20:23 20:24 20:25–28 20:26 20:28 20:29 21–25 21–24 21

21:1–3 21:1 21:3 21:4–20 21:4–9 21:4 21:5 21:7–8 21:7 21:10–20 21:10–13 21:11 21:14–20 21:13 21:14–15 21:15 21:17–18 21:20 21:21–36:13 21:21–31 21:21 21:23 21:26 21:26–30 21:26 21:28 21:29 21:32–35 22:1–26:55 22:1–26:38 22–25 22–24

79, 198 71 387 409 410 410 58 57–8, 66, 71, 122–4 107 57, 65–6, 68, 77, 113, 121–41, 161, 178, 198, 207, 217 25, 66, 116, 130–5, 137, 386 29, 33, 132–4 65 103 108, 129, 131, 135– 8 56, 65–6, 129, 216– 7, 312, 387 312 387 136, 387 131, 138–41 56, 66, 129 183, 217 48 30, 126, 212 30 128 181 4, 103, 126–7 130 131 130 134 126, 134 30, 48 126 126 126 131 131 141 130, 209, 219–20 5, 11, 19, 29, 33, 57, 66, 68, 77, 89,

Index of Biblical References

22:1

22:2 22:3 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:7 22:8 22:9 22:11 22:12 22:13 22:18 22:19 22:20 22:28–29 22:28 22:35 22:38 22:39 22:40 22:41 23:1–3 23:3–4 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:8–10 23:8 23:10 23:11 23:12 23:13 23:14 23:15–16 23:15 23:16 23:17 23:18–24 23:18 23:19

116, 129, 155–87, 192, 196, 198, 366 4, 29, 55–6, 58, 60– 2, 66, 78, 124, 126– 30, 414 162–3 33 160, 162–3, 209, 220 157, 167 25, 178, 180 158, 160–1, 212, 220 170, 173 170 134 25, 180 170 170, 173 170 170–1 166 173 171 171, 173 179 177, 179 139 177 183 170, 178–80 169–70 170–1, 173 177 167, 171 48 170 312 25, 195 170–1, 173, 197 183, 197 29, 177 183 170 169–71, 173 170 48 171 170

23:20 23:21 23:22 23:23 23:25 23:26 23:27 23:28 23:29–30 24:1 24:2 24:3–9 24:3–4 24:3 24:4 24:8 24:9 24:10–11 24:10 24:11 24:12–13 24:13 24:14 24:15–16 24:15 24:16–24 24:16 24:17 24:20 24:21 24:23 24:25 25–36 25

25:1–36:13 25:1–18 25:1–9 25:1–6 25:1–5

25:1–2

571 25, 180 170, 185 170, 185 158, 160, 170, 184– 6 25, 197 170, 197 175, 180, 197 29, 139, 164, 200 177 25, 158–9, 175, 182–4, 186–7 170, 173 48 172 171 169–70, 173, 203 170, 185 25 197 25 170 197 170, 173 198 172 171 48 169–70, 173, 203 173, 198 171 171 170–71 4, 209 93, 101–2 25, 66, 68, 89, 104, 155–87, 199–203, 208, 212, 221, 226, 365–8, 371, 387, 389, 395, 413, 426, 428, 505, 508–9 37 11, 102 129 29, 163 102, 159, 168, 192, 202, 210, 372, 461, 500–4 200

572 25:1 25:2–5 25:3 25:4 25:5–15 25:5 25:6–18 25:6–15 25:6–13 25:6–8 25:6–7 25:6 25:7–8 25:7 25:11 25:12–13 25:12 25:13 25:16–18 25:17–18 25:18 25:19–36:13 25:19–26:65 25:19 26–36 26

26:1–3 26:1 26:3 26:13 26:20 26:30 26:55–56 26:55 26:57 26:58 26:59 26:60 26:62 26:63 26:64 26:65 27–36

Index of Biblical References 31, 60, 126, 197, 372 279 166, 200–1 29 226 200 10, 102–3, 190, 461 210 372 372 38 58 324 504 503–4 426, 428, 432, 500– 2 147, 503 410, 427–8 210 155, 371 163, 221, 372 60, 77–9, 122–3, 126 129 130 4, 57–8, 60, 71, 79, 110, 126–8 25, 39, 56, 60, 66, 78, 125, 130, 397, 505 410 71 55, 60–1, 124–7 359 358 34 17 373 490 34 196, 359 493 148 55, 60, 124–5 403 78, 413 79, 91, 105

27

27:1–11 27:1 27:2 27:6–11 27:7 27:8 27:12–23 27:12–14 27:13–14 27:15–23 27:16 27:17 27:18–21 27:18 27:19 27:20 27:21–22 27:21 27:22 27:23 28–34 28–30 28–29 28:1 28:9–10 28:15 28:22 29:5 29:7 29:11 30 30:1 30:3–6 30:3 30:5 30:6 30:7 30:8 30:9 30:10 30:11 30:12 30:13 30:14

14, 123, 192, 360, 373–4, 385, 387–8, 390, 414–8, 461 18, 39, 42, 79, 130, 341, 344, 348, 411 34 407 80 79–80 374 394 55, 60, 125, 414 387 10, 79, 414, 418 415 415–7 396 405, 413–5, 415 415 415–6 395 349, 416–7 413, 415 89, 417 192 78 39, 75, 105, 228, 324, 339–40, 443 396 342 228 228, 230 228, 230 312 228, 230 18, 105, 324, 368–9 396 42 225–6, 312 312 312 312 312 312, 351 312 312 312 312, 351 312, 351

Index of Biblical References 30:16 30:17 30:19 31

31:1 31:2 31:6 31:7–11 31:7–8 31:7 31:8 31:12–24 31:12–13 31:12 31:13–20 31:13 31:14–16 31:15–16 31:16

31:17 31:19–24 31:19–20 31:19 31:20 31:21 31:23 31:24 31:27 31:28 31:30 31:34 31:35 31:40 31:46 31:47 31:50 32–35 32

32:1 32:2

351 34 312 25, 34, 44, 68, 112, 155–87, 210, 219– 20, 254, 366, 371– 3, 388, 395 396 147 385, 504 34 161 371 155, 158, 160, 209, 219–21, 461 225, 233 34 38, 55 396 348, 407 372 155 158–60, 163, 165, 168, 186, 220–21, 461 163 248, 253, 273 232 38, 226, 231, 250, 275, 312, 372 226, 231 34 226, 231 38, 226, 250 92 92, 312 373, 395 312 246 246, 312 246, 312 373, 395 312 79, 105 10, 17, 25, 59, 78– 9, 89, 93, 104, 107, 125, 193 29 348, 396, 407

32:3 32:9 32:12 32:20–22 32:23 32:28 32:29 32:34–42 33 33:1 33:2 33:3 33:39 33:40 33:41 33:44 33:48–50 33:48 33:49 33:50–56 33:50 33:51 33:54 34 34:1–12 34:1 34:2–13 34:13 34:17 34:18 35–36 35

35:1–2 35:1 35:2 35:7 35:9 35:10–34 35:10 35:11 35:12 35:14 35:15 35:25

573 186 55 413 79 228 92, 396, 405, 413, 415 79 34 31, 59, 113, 140 31 31 31 216 216 216 139 55 59, 124 31 59, 125 59, 124, 396 26 17 25, 78 94 396 442 396 413, 415 407 107 15, 25, 59, 79–80, 144, 151, 389, 409, 411, 418, 488, 507– 8 396 55, 58, 124 403 80 124 411 266 312 411 124 312 14, 151, 333, 395, 409–12

574 35:28 35:30 35:31 35:32 35:33–34 35:33 35:34 36 36:1–13 36:1–12 36:1 36:2 36:5 36:12 36:13

Deuteronomy 1–3

1 1:1–5 1:5 1:7 1:9–18 1:15 1:19–46 1:19–25 1:20 1:27 1:44 2 2:1 2:4–5 2:7 2:13–14 2:24 3:11 3:20 3:27 3:29 4:3 4:27 4:43

Index of Biblical References 14, 151, 333, 395, 409–11, 507 312 312 333, 411, 507 225, 233, 257 152, 226 28, 37, 152, 226, 238 25, 27, 57, 80, 360, 373–4, 461 39, 79, 130, 411, 508 18, 41–2, 387 41, 92, 396, 407 79 396 28 4, 24, 29–31, 34, 36, 55, 58–63, 79, 111, 124–7 5–7, 54, 99–100, 107–8, 141, 189– 90, 206 6, 103, 116 60, 103, 126 103, 443, 452 442 389, 403 407 115 206 206 206 206, 216 140 54 217 205–6 139 139 207 103 103 166, 200 165, 200, 366 103 181

4:46 5:12–15 5:27 6:20 7:2–3 7:2 7:3–4 7:3 7:5 7:8 8:2 8:4 8:15 9–10 10:5 10:6–7 10:8–9 11:24 12:31 13 13:2–7 13:2–6 13:6 13:13–19 13:14–17 13:15 13:16–18 14:1 14:3 16 16:18–18:22 17:4 17:9 17:10–11 18:6–7 18:9–22 18:9 18:10 18:11 18:13 18:14 18:15 18:18 18:19–20 18:20 20 20:10–18 20:13 20:14

103, 164, 200 350 170 47 430 431 366 362, 374, 429 374 195 205–6 205–6 137 99–100 492 493 490, 492–3 442 162 158, 163, 462 174 11 195 186 372 162 163 242 162 442–3 389 162 496 347, 452–3 496 11 186 160, 162, 183–6 226, 276, 282 226 160 171, 184, 203, 388 171 174 186 11, 161–3, 371–3 186 161, 371 371

Index of Biblical References 20:16–18 20:18 21 21:1–9 21:10–14 21:11 21:14 21:22–23 22:22 23 23:3 23:4 23:5–6 23:5 23:10–15 23:11–14 23:18 23:22–24 24:1 24:3 24:8 26:14 29:4 31:1–8 31:4 31:7–8 31:9 31:16 31:20 31:25 33 33:4 33:8–10 33:8–9 33:9 33:10 34 34:1 34:5 34:6 34:8 34:9 34:10–12 34:10

162–3 162 275, 371 268 371 371 372 275 308 361 371 371 169 167 239 239 368 105, 368 360 360 349, 452–3 276, 278–9, 282 205–6 389 207 388 490 351 351 490 430 453 91, 453 490 429, 504 347, 450 55, 60–1, 79–81, 127, 353, 438 60, 103, 126 126 103, 164, 200 61, 89, 121, 126 121, 388, 414 9, 80, 90, 463 202

Joshua 1:10–18 2

79 202

2:1 2:10 3–4 3 3:1 4:19–20 5:11–12 6–11 9:10 9:21 9:23 9:27 10:40–43 11:3 12:14 13–22 13–19 13–14 13:1–14 13:2–6 13:15–33 13:17 13:20 13:22 14–19 14 14:1 17:3–4 19:1 19:49 19:51 20–21 20:6 20:8 21:1 21:43–45 22 22:1–9 22:12 22:14 22:17 22:21 22:23 24 24:2 24:5–6 24:9–10 24:9

575 60, 126, 197 207 385 61 60, 126, 197 197 354 132 207 477 477 477 197–8 214 216 79, 91, 105, 127 153 92 79 94 79 179 164, 200 160, 169 79, 125 93 79, 92 79 92 414 78–9, 92 79, 124 508 181 92 79 17, 144 79 92 499 164–5, 200 407 92 93 195 196 160, 169, 197 209

576 Judges 1 1:17 4:11 6 6:3 6:5 6:33 7:12 11 11:22 18:30

Index of Biblical References

153 133 413 215 215 215 215 215 140–1 181 360

1 Samuel 3:10 12:6 15:7 16:11 28 31:9–12

172 196 214 415 176 274

2 Samuel 7 7:12–16 14:3 14:9 23:1–7 23:5

428 425 171 171 172–3 425

1 Kings 11:1–8 16:31–32 20:33 22 22:17 22:23

366 366 183 176 388, 415–6 171

2 Kings 3 19:6 19:22

176 351 351

Isaiah 1:1 13:20 14:9 26:14 26:19 32:7

203 210 276 276 276 170

37:6 37:22 41:26 44:25 51:16 54:10 55:3 57:9 59:21 65:3–7 65:4

351 351 170 170 171 451 425 276 171 276 279

Jeremiah 1:9 3:2 3:16 3:24 8:17 10:14 11:19 14:14 23 23:16 25:20 25:23 31:31–34 33:14–26 33:17–18 34:5 51:17

171 210 416 120–1 183 170 120–1 203 174 203 209 209 425 425 427 276 170

Ezekiel 13:7 13:16 14:7 16:59 17:2 17:16 17:18 17:19 20:27 21:5 22:2 22:8 24:3 27:13 34 34:6 34:25

170 203 200 351 171 351 351 351 351 171 351 351 171 246 416 388 451

577

Index of Biblical References 37:24 40:46 43:19 43:23 43:24 44 44:9–15 44:10 44:11–14 44:15 44:21 45:20 47:9 48:11 Hosea 5:2 6:5 9:4 9:10–17 9:10

416 465 465 451 426 465–6 487 465 465 465 451 352 246 465

10:1–8 10:9–15 11:1–7 11:2 11:8 11:9 12:10 12:11 12:13 12:14 13:4–6

193 170 193 199–200 166–7, 193, 199– 202, 208 199 199 199 193 199 193 203 203 203 193, 202–4, 208 193

Amos 2:9–12 2:10–12 2:10 2:11–12 3:1 5:25 6:10 9:7

204–8 193 206 206 205 193 276 205

Obadiah 1:1

203

Micah 3

174

3:6 6–7 6:1–8 6:3–5 6:4–5 6:4 6:5

203 193 194 195 193, 208 193–9 171, 209

Nahum 1:1

203

Haggai 2:12–14 2:13

193 242, 313

Zechariah 2:4 10:2 12:12

193 416 193

Malachi 1:1 1:6–2:9 2 2:4–9 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:8 2:10–14 2:10 2:14 3:1 3:23

196 429 429–31, 504 430, 432 193, 429 425, 429, 431, 501 431 429 430 429 429 429 196

Psalms 36:2 44 88:11 89 106:28

172 351 276 425 165, 120, 276, 279

Job 1:1 26:5 32:2 32:6 42:17

209 276 209 209 209

578

Index of Biblical References

Proverbs 2:18 9:18 21:16 27:4 30:1

276 276 276 307 172

Lamentations 4:21

209

Ezra 2:36–63 4:14 7:24 8:17 8:20 9:1–3 9:15 10 10:18–19

476 426 478 171, 475 475, 478 429 351 360, 375, 429 429

Nehemia 2:19 3:26 4:1 6:1 7:39–65 11:19–36

210 478 210 210 476 476

11:21 13 13:2 13:3 13:15–22 13:20–30

478 367, 372, 375 169 361 346 372

13:25 13:28–29 13:29

361 429, 503–4 367, 428, 432

1 Chronicles 1:33 1:35 1:36 5:21 5:29 6:33 6:55 7:27 10:10 23:3 23:16–17

219 214 214 246 196 475 169 414 274 476 360

2 Chronicles 13:5 17:11 18:16 18:22 21:7 21:16 22:1 26:7 26:14

425–6 210 415 171 425 210 210 210 276

Tobit 4:17

279

Sirach 30:18 45:24–25

279 425, 427

1 Maccabees 2:24–26 2:54

428 428

Index of Subjects Aaron 14–5, 18, 24, 31–3, 35–6, 41, 57– 8, 71, 74, 79, 96–7, 106, 111, 129–30, 134–5, 147, 150–1, 171, 192–9, 226, 252–3, 255–6, 264–6, 276, 288, 337, 347–50, 352, 357, 359–60, 363, 382– 8, 394–7, 401–3, 405–12, 409, 414, 416, 418– 9, 422–3, 430, 445–49, 451–2, 454–8, 460–2, 466, 472, 479, 482, 487–502, 505–8 Aaronides 10, 14–6, 33, 39, 50, 54, 70, 91, 96, 112, 118–9, 145–8, 150, 229, 233, 251, 253, 257, 268, 318, 328, 331–3, 337, 349, 367, 381–2, 384, 386, 388, 394–5, 403, 408, 409–12, 419, 423, 425, 432, 445, 447–50, 453–7, 460, 466–71, 475, 478–80, 482, 484–5, 487–8, 492–8, 501–7, 509 Abihu 333, 382, 445–6, 450, 456–9, 493, 499 Abiram 35–6, 96, 98, 193, 386, 389, 498–9 Abraham 55, 89, 195, 214, 276, 278, 426, 436, 442 administration/administrative 15, 17, 216, 219, 331, 386, 391–2, 397, 404, 418–22, 506 adultery 162, 293, 295, 305–9, 324, 367, 369–71 altar 12, 74, 77, 119, 144, 151, 165–6, 227–8, 230–1, 371, 428, 447, 475, 505 Amalek/Amalekites 30, 33, 68, 211, 214–7 Ammon/Ammonites 94, 132, 161, 167, 212, 220, 361 Amorites 30, 129, 131, 161, 178, 181, 204–7, 211, 214 amulets 329–1 ancestor cult 276, 278–81, 483 anointment 151, 395, 410, 412, 494–5, 502, 507 Arabization 11, 162, 209–12 Arabs/Arabian 11, 162, 209–12 Arad 33, 35, 57, 132, 134, 216, 219 Aram/Arameans 161, 167, 187, 202, 212, 334, 359

Aramaic 168, 176, 285, 475, 478 Arnon 30, 131, 139–40, 165, 178, 181, 222 Assyria/Assyrians 6, 210–1, 215, 274, 444 asylum 25, 59, 79, 119, 151, 371, 409, 411 Atharim, way of 132–3 atonement/expiation 66, 73, 76, 129, 147, 192, 226, 228, 230–2, 267, 284, 289, 299–300, 303, 323–4, 350, 352– 3, 367, 426, 455, 500, 507 authority 14, 18, 33, 68, 91, 106, 112, 144, 147, 219, 222–4, 328–9, 335, 337–8, 350, 363–4, 367, 379–399, 401–2, 408–9, 411, 414–7, 419–21, 423–4, 449–50, 452–3, 455–6, 458, 460, 462–3, 488 authorization 328, 331–3, 335, 337, 364, 402, 406, 423–4, 446, 505 Baal 166, 168–9, 179, 199–202, 305 Baal-Meon 162 Baal-Peor 96, 114, 117, 155–160, 162– 9, 186, 192, 199–202, 221, 279, 365– 6, 372, 428 Babylon/Babylonians 10, 15, 210, 215, 318, 333, 444, 475 Balaam 11, 25, 29, 31, 33–5, 47, 57, 59, 77, 88, 96–9, 114, 116–7, 124, 126–7, 129, 134, 138–40, 155–87, 192–9, 202–4, 209, 212, 219–21, 461 Balak 25, 34–5, 77, 155–8, 160, 166–7, 175, 177–180, 182–3, 186–7, 192–99, 203, 209, 220 Bamoth-Baal 139, 164, 179 ban 132–3, 372 Beth-Peor 164–6, 200 blasphemer 343–4, 347, 349, 362 blessing 1, 5, 12, 17, 19, 25, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76–8, 81, 116, 121, 124, 129, 140–1, 145, 154, 158, 164, 173– 87, 197, 294, 316, 323–4, 327–33, 337, 396, 430–1, 445, 453, 490, 492– 3 blood 12, 227, 230, 232, 239–40, 245, 257, 267–9, 287, 306, 351, 411–2, 456, 507, 509

580

Index of Subjects

body 43, 239–46, 248–9, 251, 255, 260, 262, 272, 274–5, 282–8, 311–3, 326, 330 bones 43, 248, 271–2, 276, 313 borders 25, 27, 30, 55, 60, 65, 68, 70, 79, 123, 125, 127–8, 132, 140, 154, 178, 202, 222, 233–5, 237, 258–9, 307, 401, 441–2 bridge-thesis 3–7, 100, 103–104, 107– 17, 119, 121, 123, 190, 509, 510 bronze/copper serpent 77, 96, 114, 129, 131, 135, 387 burial 43, 248, 262, 272, 275–6, 278, 280, 283, 329–30, 457 burnt offering 12, 75, 177, 228, 241 Caleb 27, 35, 60, 78, 99, 119, 385 camp 14, 24, 32–3, 36–8, 73, 78, 97, 118, 128, 146, 149–53, 225, 233–60, 266–9, 275, 281–2, 291–5, 297–9, 307, 313, 315–6, 342, 346–8, 362, 384–5, 397, 406–7, 450, 455–6, 473 Canaan/Canaanites 25, 33, 65, 68, 114, 116, 123–5, 128–9, 132–4, 205, 214, 216, 276, 358–9, 362, 365, 442, 497 carcasses 227, 241, 246, 253, 270, 298 census 25, 39, 56–7, 60, 64, 66, 69–70, 76, 78, 125, 129, 148, 233, 239, 291, 383–4, 397, 406–7, 410, 466–7, 473, 481 centralization 10, 12–5, 17–9, 25, 37–8, 54, 78, 110, 123, 143–54, 219, 222, 233–4, 237–40, 243, 256, 258, 260, 277, 281, 288, 291, 293–5, 314, 318, 331, 336, 341, 367, 401, 411, 453, 471–2, 484, 496, 508 charisma 379–81, 383–4, 387, 390, 392, 394, 398, 402, 404–5, 410, 413–5, 419, 422–4 charter myth 3, 51, 88, 104, 106–7, 277, 318, 338, 396, 398–9, 405, 461 Cisjordan(ians) 17, 25, 33, 59, 79, 88, 134, 195, 233 clean/unclean 43, 74, 118, 147, 154, 162, 226–7, 229, 232, 234–8, 240–2, 245–6, 249–52, 254–6, 258, 265–6, 268–70, 272, 279, 281, 298, 313, 341, 346–8, 367, 445, 450–1, 453–5, 495 colophon 31, 58, 61–63, 79, 111, 124–5, 127, 255 community 10, 12–5, 17, 38, 54, 81, 99, 101, 107, 145, 147, 156, 158, 210, 230, 232–3, 237, 239–41, 250–3, 256, 258–60, 265, 268, 276, 284, 298–9,

317–8, 320, 326, 328, 331, 336–8, 340–1, 347–8, 352–3, 357–62, 365–7, 371–2, 375, 383, 386, 388, 397, 401, 406, 411, 414–6, 420, 432, 450, 456, 476, 479, 482–4, 487, 498–9, 501, 503, 507 completion 4, 26, 51, 90–1, 98, 100, 111, 398, 463 composition 2, 5, 23, 54, 55–8, 122–3, 128–31, 233 conquest 9, 25, 59, 65–6, 70, 77–81, 87– 8, 99, 102, 108, 114, 116–7, 119, 125, 129, 131–4, 138, 140, 189–91, 197–8, 205–6, 275, 388 consecration 14, 54, 72–5, 77, 199–200, 228, 238, 331, 384, 408–9, 445, 447, 466–7, 475–6, 479–84, 490, 507 corpse 12, 110, 118, 192, 226, 228–9, 233, 235, 239–55, 258–60, 269, 271, 274–5, 284, 287, 295, 298, 310–1, 313–4, 324, 341, 348, 445, 450, 457, 505, 509 covenant 76, 147, 195, 202, 314, 351, 355, 365–6, 387, 442–3, 462, 490, 500–6 Covenant Code 301, 339, 442–3 Cozbi 36, 155, 157, 159, 210, 221, 226, 357, 360, 365–8, 372, 413, 426, 428, 503, 505 cult 10, 12, 14, 18–9, 32–3, 38, 54, 73– 8, 148, 150, 232, 240, 249–50, 260, 262–3, 275, 281, 287, 290, 303, 314, 318, 320, 322, 325, 328–9, 331–2, 334–5, 342, 371, 401, 403, 408–9, 418, 420, 448–9, 451, 454, 455, 457– 8, 467, 470–1, 473, 477–8, 479–85, 489–93, 496, 502–3, 506–7 cult of the dead 166, 273, 275–81, 283, 288 Cush/Cushite 68, 99, 357, 360, 361–5, 457 Dathan 35–6, 96, 98, 193, 386, 389, 498–9 daughters 12, 18, 35, 39, 42, 97, 119, 123, 130, 155, 159, 183, 210, 221, 344, 348, 358–60, 362, 364–5, 368–9, 373–5, 411, 428, 430, 489, 495 David 172–3, 428, 477, 503 Davidides/Davidic 276, 425–8 death 6, 11, 19, 25, 27, 31, 33, 41, 42, 43, 55, 57, 60, 66, 78, 80–81, 96–7, 121, 123, 125, 130, 132, 134, 137, 147, 151, 158, 163, 165, 198, 229,

Index of Subjects 231–2, 236, 241–53, 255, 257, 259, 260–2, 299, 306, 309, 311–5, 333, 344, 353, 355, 365, 369, 374, 385, 387–8, 395, 410–1, 414, 445, 449–50, 457–9, 472–3, 493, 496, 505, 507, 509 democratization 106, 311, 383–4, 386, 393–4, 396–7, 414, 422 departure 6, 24, 25, 30–1, 34, 37–8, 56– 7, 64–6, 69, 72–8, 96, 99, 153, 212–3, 233, 260, 301, 324, 340, 353, 383, 399, 403, 412, 480–1, 483 depersonalization 381–3, 391–3, 397, 414, 419, 422, 423 desert 1, 7, 11–2, 19, 24–5, 27, 50, 54, 60, 64–5, 67, 70, 73, 111, 125, 128, 131, 140, 145–6, 148, 150–1, 180–2, 199, 209–10, 213, 216, 233–4, 345, 349, 361, 385, 399, 412, 422, 443, 507, see also wilderness Deuteronomistic History 3, 9, 87, 102, 104, 121, 189, 190 Deuteronomy 3–5, 7, 9, 44, 55, 59–60, 72, 80, 84, 90, 99–101, 103–5, 107, 109–10, 112–3, 116–9, 121, 123–4, 127, 143, 162, 189–90, 208, 217, 389–90, 423, 428, 437–8, 442–3, 452–3, 463, 465, 487–93, 496, 508– 10 diaspora 10, 19, 363–4, 427 Dinah 358, 430–1 disorder 2, 4, 8, 23–4, 53, 66, 105, 118, 122 diversity 10, 12, 17, 56, 83, 94, 145, 334–5 divination 159, 162, 170, 175–80, 182– 6, 220, 282 divorce 306–7, 309, 360, 364, 367, 370, 373–4 Documentary Hypothesis 2, 6, 9, 11, 86–7, 97–8, 100, 114, 121, 435, 438– 9 economy/economic 10, 12, 14, 86, 146– 8, 215, 326, 365, 368–70, 386, 390, 392, 394–5, 397, 399, 420, 427, 436 Edom/Edomites 65, 68, 98–9, 128–9, 132, 139, 209, 211, 212, 215–20, 222, 386 Egypt/Egyptians 9, 27, 59, 65, 67, 69– 70, 124, 128, 135, 183, 195, 199, 202–5, 214, 238, 282, 318, 340, 358– 60, 362–5, 404, 411, 420, 442 Eldad 29, 35–6, 384, 413

581

elders 33, 36, 158, 160–1, 212, 220, 268, 350, 382–4, 389, 396, 399, 402–4, 407, 413, 417, 423 Eleazar 14–5, 32, 35, 71, 79, 111, 130, 148, 150, 192, 265–8, 288, 333, 348, 359, 382, 384, 387–8, 396, 409–10, 413–7, 456, 488, 493–6, 498–9, 504– 8 Elephantine 10, 146, 154, 320, 333–5, 375, 420, 475 Elohist 2, 3, 84, 96–7, 114, 189, 436 embezzlement 73, 76, 293, 295, 299– 300, 303 emotions 27, 31, 263, 295–6, 304–11, 315, 388, 429 endangerment 38, 68–9, 77, 128, 176, 228, 232, 234, 239, 244–5, 247, 253, 255–6, 26–1, 270, 283, 287–8, 299, 307–9, 315, 320, 360, 365–7, 370, 372, 392, 397, 445, 448, 451, 454, 467, 471–3, 484, 505 endogamy 11–2, 42, 214, 357–75, 387, 411, 426, 504 Enneateuch 102, 121, 134, 438–40, 462–3 Ethiopia 364 Ethiopia(n) 215 exodus 3–4, 6–7, 9, 25, 27, 31, 57, 59– 60, 64, 74, 76–9, 81, 84, 87–9, 99, 104, 106, 108–9, 117, 119, 123–5, 132, 189–6, 198–9, 203–5, 250, 345, 353, 358–63, 375, 401–2, 436–7, 453, 471, 480, 483–4 Exodus, book of 3–5, 8, 17, 23, 35–6, 38, 55, 64, 66–7, 72, 74, 76, 81, 88, 90, 98, 101, 104–6, 109–12, 119, 121, 128, 138, 147–8, 192, 198, 231, 259, 318, 323, 342, 346, 360, 382, 389, 401, 403–5, 487–91, 496, 509 festivals/festive calendar 18, 39, 42, 69, 77–8, 105, 143–4, 228, 230, 250, 324, 339–42 fiction/fictional/fictionality 9, 35, 45–50, 150, 161, 219, 322, 420, 422, 440, 461, 478 fire 162, 174, 184, 268–9, 346, 350, 371, 445–6, 456, 458 fire-offering 165, 228, 371 firstborn 229, 397, 467–9, 471, 473–4, 478–85 foreign(er)/strange(r) 11–12, 162–3, 166, 174, 187, 196, 201, 250, 350–1, 355, 358–62, 365–75, 404

582

Index of Subjects

formation/formative tradition 4, 6, 8–9, 12, 15, 49, 51, 81, 85–7, 90–5, 107, 135, 138, 324, 326, 337, 396, 398– 401, 437 Fortschreibung 4, 7, 11, 16, 42, 84, 90, 92, 94–5, 97–8, 100, 106–7, 109–11, 118–9, 133–4, 150, 152, 161, 185, 189, 191, 194, 204–6, 209, 220, 222, 256, 259, 266, 304, 325, 328, 343, 354, 360, 364, 367, 389, 417, 438–9, 444, 458–62, 483, 491–2, 494, 504, 508 Fragmentary Hypothesis 3, 5–6, 11, 86, 88, 97, 435 garments 450, 472, 507 gender 17–19, 235, 239, 298, 304–5, 308 generation 9, 25, 27, 56–7, 60, 66, 69– 70, 78, 106, 116, 122–3, 125, 130, 132, 345, 353, 373, 385, 480, 483, 499, 502, 504 Genesis 3, 5, 7, 17, 23, 44, 86, 88, 90, 98, 101, 103, 104, 117–8, 121, 138, 190, 192, 198, 214, 384, 407, 463, 489, 491, 509 Gerizim 15, 93, 146, 149, 318, 320, 411 Gershonites 153, 233, 384, 410, 491, 493 gift of God/gift to God 468–70, 471, 478, 482, 484 Gilead/Gileadites 41, 79, 80, 125, 359 Gilgal 190, 194–8 grace (formula) 69, 129, 426, 471 Hebron 30, 115, 278 Hellenism/Hellenistic period 120, 211– 2, 277, 279, 329–30, 399, 418, 439 Heshbon 30, 141 heterodoxy/heterodox 93, 336 Hexateuch 7–10, 24, 36, 55, 77–81, 90– 5, 102, 105, 109, 119, 121–2, 124, 126–8, 131–5, 138, 141, 189, 198, 202, 208, 319, 354, 401, 415–6, 440– 1, 462, 508 Hexateuch redaction/redactor 4, 6, 16, 99, 103, 116, 133–5, 137, 140, 190 hierarchy/hierarchization 14, 17, 54, 66, 70, 144, 146–8, 151, 153–4, 267, 291, 314, 323, 326, 337, 384, 395, 397, 401–2, 406, 408–10, 412, 415, 417, 421, 423, 476 hierocracy/hierocratic 19, 24–5, 50, 66, 100, 119, 388, 397, 399, 402, 412, 416–23, 500, 506

high priest 10–1, 14–5, 25, 50, 110, 147, 151, 192, 242–3, 250, 265–8, 310–1, 314, 333, 348–50, 367, 373, 381, 385, 387–9, 395, 399, 401–2, 405–6, 408– 12, 416–23, 428–9, 432, 450, 457, 462, 485, 487–510 Ḫirbet ʽUyūn Mūsā 165–6, 180, 200 Hobab 68, 96–7, 99, 104, 114, 213–4, 363, 412–3 Holiness Code 77, 89, 99, 110–2, 149, 254, 257, 259, 289, 293, 303–4, 308, 314, 339, 342–3, 352, 354, 439, 442– 3, 450, 509 Holiness School 90, 111, 152, 256, 288– 9, 293, 353–4, 439, 460, 487, 491, 508–9 holy of holies 63–4, 78, 228, 230–2, 243, 249, 251, 256, 291, 299, 449, 456, 472, 499, 503, 505 holy/holiness 13–4, 17, 23, 25, 73, 153, 179, 230–2, 234, 237–40, 243, 249, 256, 258–61, 273, 283, 288–9, 291–2, 295, 298–9, 303–4, 307, 310–1, 313– 6, 341–3, 351, 367, 386–7, 397, 408– 9, 445, 447–9, 451, 454, 456, 466–7, 469, 471–4, 481–2, 484, 487, 499, 502–7 Hor 31, 132–4, 216–7 Horeb 170, 206, 405, 442–3, 452 Hormah 25, 33, 65, 116, 128–9, 131, 216–7 husband 18–9, 305–9, 324, 369–70 identity 4–5, 10–11, 13, 19, 45, 50, 107, 145–6, 156, 250, 262, 277, 285–6, 312, 315, 317–9, 323–4, 326, 333, 336–8, 398, 432, 436 identity reservoir 10, 13, 19, 145, 318, 323, 336–8 idolatry 156, 159–160, 162, 201–2, 359 Idumea/Idumeans 94, 154, 215, 219, 221–2 imperial authorization 10, 91, 211, 438 impurity 36–7, 110, 192, 261–2, 264–5, 268, 270, 272, 281–4, 288, 292, 295, 297–8, 308, 315, 324, 458, 472, 509 inauguration/initiation/investiture 27, 54, 74–5, 77, 225, 229–30, 232, 260, 340, 382, 387–8, 395, 401–3, 408–10, 414–5, 417, 445, 448–9, 455, 459, 479–80, 483, 489, 495, 497, 502, 507 incense/frankincense 74, 175, 215, 445, 449, 505 individualization 17–9

Index of Subjects inheritance 9, 12, 17–8, 35, 42, 55, 79, 97, 123, 150, 304, 308, 327, 345, 360, 370, 373–5, 403, 411, 461, 497 inner-biblical exegesis/interpretation 7– 8, 11, 13, 16, 49, 90, 118, 158–9, 214, 357, 373 innovation 1, 10–3, 16, 19, 26, 51, 144, 289–90, 292, 301, 304, 306, 311, 320, 327, 331, 336, 341–2, 435 institutionalization 14, 119, 349, 381, 383, 386, 392–9, 402, 404–6, 409, 413–4, 417, 419, 422–4, 452 intercession 69–70, 106, 137, 203, 278, 387, 397, 428, 457 interfering formation 94, 321, 334, 338 intertextuality 69, 127, 157, 163, 366, 444 invention of tradition 8, 111, 140, 145– 6, 290, 332, 364 Israel (people) 10–11, 14, 16–9, 24–6, 39, 45, 50, 54, 67, 73, 75, 78, 81, 101, 148, 153, 212, 233 Israel (state) 165–7, 206 Ithamar 148, 150, 333, 382, 384, 403, 409–10, 456, 489, 491, 493–6, 498–9, 505 itinerary 6, 31, 34, 56, 58–9, 66, 97, 103, 113, 116, 119, 124–5, 127, 129–30, 132–4, 138–40, 165, 181, 217, 412, 414 Jabbok 131–2, 167–8, 181 Jacob 55, 182, 184–5, 199, 202–4, 358– 9, 384, 430, 436, 453 jealousy 18–9, 76, 121, 225, 295, 304– 10, 315, 324, 349, 369–70, 413 Jericho 34, 59–60, 124–5, 165, 190, 210 Jerusalem/Jerusalemites 15, 146, 148, 149, 151, 234, 258, 276, 292, 318–20, 334–7, 364–5, 411, 418–20, 436, 439, 463 Jethro 68, 213–4, 359–60, 362–3, 404, 412 Jordan 34, 59–60, 79, 81, 123–6, 165, 167–8, 181, 187, 197, 202, 214, 386, 390, 396, 414 Joshua (person) 14, 27, 29, 33, 35–6, 60, 68, 78–9, 96–7, 119, 123, 198, 275, 385, 388–90, 396–7, 402, 404–6, 412–7, 419, 422–3, 507 Joshua, book of 3–4, 7, 9, 14, 55, 59, 72, 79, 91–4, 99, 102, 119, 121, 123, 125, 128, 132, 134, 189, 198, 208, 396, 417

583

journey 9, 27, 31, 37, 45, 61, 66, 68, 70, 72, 76, 132, 165, 206, 213, 217 Judah (person) 358, 430 Judah (tribe) 17, 153, 337, 359, 406, 499 Judah/Judahite 3, 10, 106, 115, 162, 206, 213, 218, 280, 329, 334, 336, 459 Judaism(s) 10, 13, 15, 39, 46, 94, 145–6, 318–9, 333, 335–6, 338, 398–400, 423, 463 judges 383, 402–4, 453 Kadesh 54, 65–6, 68, 96–7, 123, 128– 30, 132, 189, 213, 216–8 Kemosh 167 Ketef Hinnom 329–32 kipper 226–8, 230–2, 241, 256, 367, 455, 480, 482, 500, 503, 507 Kohath/Kohathites 74, 148, 153, 233, 384, 450, 473, 499 Korah/Korahites 35, 97, 100, 193, 343, 389, 408, 472, 487, 497–9 lamp(stand) 32, 38, 72–5, 77 land 1, 3, 5–9, 11, 15–7, 19, 25–7, 38–9, 42, 55, 57, 59–60, 65, 67–8, 70, 72–3, 75–81, 89, 94, 106–7, 110, 115–7, 122–6, 128, 130–2, 140, 149–53, 162, 189, 191, 197, 201–2, 205–6, 216, 232–4, 238, 257, 268, 342, 345, 352, 354, 373, 375, 386, 388, 390, 396, 399, 401, 411, 414, 416, 422–3, 441– 2, 490, 495–7 land distribution 17, 55, 59, 78–9, 99, 102, 403, 407, 415–6, 461 law 16, 23, 26, 50–1, 53, 56, 59, 86, 111–2, 121, 203, 343, 389, 396, 421, 442–3, 450, 461–2 laws 2–3, 5, 39–46, 50, 57, 71–2, 76, 111, 124, 291–2, 301, 343 leader/leadership 1, 10, 12, 14–8, 24–6, 35, 50, 92, 123, 126, 129, 132, 137, 148, 177, 192, 194, 196, 204, 210, 214, 219, 348, 363 legal hermeneutics 13, 112, 300, 442–4, 451 legal interpretation/innovation 12, 44, 339, 341–2, 364, 388 legislation 40, 43, 53, 62–3, 72, 77, 79, 124, 162, 257, 259, 275–6, 292, 301, 322, 340–1, 344, 349–50, 352, 371, 414, 453 Levi (person) 202, 214, 359, 426, 429, 453, 489, 491, 499, 503–4 Levi (tribe) 147–8, 484, 492, 496–7, 499

584

Index of Subjects

Levites 16–7, 72, 74, 76–8, 112, 118, 147–8, 150–3, 225, 229–30, 232–3, 236, 239, 276, 295, 299, 332, 339–40, 372–3, 382, 384, 386, 395, 397, 401– 3, 406, 408–10, 428–9, 453, 465–85 Levitical cities 14, 59, 79, 124, 143, 148, 151, 488–9 Leviticus 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 18, 23, 35, 44–5, 54, 62–5, 67, 70–2, 74–7, 80–1, 88– 90, 101, 103–5, 109–12, 117–9, 121, 127–8, 147–8, 190, 225, 227–8, 232– 3, 240–1, 249, 253–4, 258–60, 289, 293, 298, 301, 320, 323–5, 342, 382, 384, 403, 407, 460–1, 463, 487–91, 496, 509 magician/magic 158, 164, 174, 183–4, 273–4, 276, 284, 288, 304, 393 Makedah 10, 219, 333 manna 30, 68, 106, 136, 198, 312, 343, 353–5, 404 manslaughter 151, 411, 496, 507 Marah 68 marriage 11, 42, 160, 162, 192, 201–2, 209, 214, 305–6, 308–10, 358–62, 368–70, 372–4, 407, 461, 499 Massah 68, 490 meal offering 165, 279, 342, 370 Medad 29, 35–6, 384, 413 Medeba 162, 181 Merarites 148, 153, 233, 384, 410, 491, 493 Meribah 30, 68, 193 Midian/Midianites 11, 34, 68, 97, 129, 155–63, 165, 186, 209–15, 219–22, 225, 252, 275, 359–60, 365, 371–3, 412, 426, 504, 507 Midrash/midrashic 10, 13, 100, 105, 110, 118, 339, 359, 404, 430, 461, 463 midst 12, 28, 54, 78, 232, 236–8, 254, 256–7, 259–60, 268, 291, 295, 298, 314–5, 361, 386, 454, 468–9, 471–2, 480 military 57, 101, 131, 158, 175, 177–8, 219, 235, 239, 253, 274, 388, 402, 404–5, 407, 413–7, 423 minḥa 228 ministry 236, 328, 333, 350, 490, 493, 498, 501, 506 Miriam 18, 32, 35, 57, 68, 71, 129, 132, 135, 192–9, 226, 240, 276, 278, 357, 360, 363, 385, 396–7, 423, 457

mixed marriages 11, 160, 162, 192, 202, 357–75, 407, 431, 461, 503 Moab/Moabites 8, 25, 30, 33–5, 37, 58– 60, 62, 65–6, 68, 70, 78, 94, 123–31, 139–40, 155–63, 165–8, 176–8, 181, 190, 195, 200, 202, 208–12, 217, 219–22, 361, 365–6, 372, 428, 442, 490 morality/moral 48, 227–8, 231–2, 299– 308, 315, 326, 369, 375, 502–3 Moses 26–35, 51, 60, 71, 74, 80–1, 91, 106, 137, 158, 193–99, 202–4, 337, 348–50, 353, 355, 364, 384–7, 394–7, 402, 404–5, 407, 413–7, 419, 423, 446–53, 461–63 mourn/mourning (ritual) 58, 280, 310, 313, 450, 457 Münster Pentateuch Model 6, 9, 88, 435–40, 461 murmuring 24, 33, 66, 68–70, 106–8, 111, 134–7, 405, 499–500 Nabateans 11, 162, 211–2, 220–1 Nadab 333, 382, 445–6, 450, 456–9, 493, 499, 507 næpæš 135, 229, 241–7, 249, 251, 261– 2, 271–2, 281, 284–7, 311–5 narrative 5, 51, 57, 86, 121, 343, 421 narrativization 23–4, 36, 45–50, 422 narratology 4, 23, 26, 32, 35, 39–40, 44, 49, 51, 422, 509 Nazirite 12, 18, 73, 76, 154, 204, 206–7, 225, 228–9, 243, 249–50, 293, 295, 310–1, 313–4, 324, 327 Nebo 162, 165, 167, 179, 278 Negev 133, 206, 211–3, 216–8, 221–2, 318 Neo-Documentary Hypothesis 3, 7, 84, 86 netûnîm 408, 468, 469–71, 474–79 normativity 11, 13, 15, 19, 45, 48, 50–1, 76, 80, 90, 112, 154, 318–9, 324, 335, 349, 379, 391, 398, 418, 421, 423–4, 449–50, 453, 455, 462–3 office 10, 12, 15, 310, 333, 337, 349–50, 379–92, 395–7, 399, 401–6, 408–13, 415–7, 419–24, 428, 432, 449–51, 459, 471–4, 485, 488, 502 Og 206–7 orality 41, 131, 137, 142, 163, 178, 186, 320, 329–30, 332, 336, 342, 344–5 ordination 74, 382, 395, 494 orthodoxy/orthodox 318, 326, 333–6, 366

Index of Subjects Paran 113, 123, 412 Pentateuch 9–10, 90–5, 102, 105, 122, 131–3, 160, 354, 401, 440–1, 462 Pentateuch redaction/redactor 4, 9, 16, 87, 90, 93, 97–9, 102, 110, 133–5, 137–8, 185, 437–8, 461 Peor 96, 114–7, 155–60, 162–9, 179, 181, 186, 192, 199–202, 221, 279, 365–6, 372, 428 Persia/Persians 5, 9–13, 15–6, 91, 94, 98, 107, 110, 112, 114, 118, 120, 166, 194, 199, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 215–6, 219–20, 244, 258, 276–78, 280, 283, 287, 311, 319, 325, 329–30, 334, 338–9, 350, 363, 375, 409, 418– 21, 432, 439, 463, 475–6, 485, 508 person, concept of 243–4, 249, 261–2, 272, 285, 286–7, 295, 298, 311–2 Pesach 18, 41, 67, 69, 73, 77, 110, 225, 250, 252, 323–4, 339–42, 344, 346–8, 350, 355, 371, 480 Phinehas 15, 28, 35, 58, 66, 129, 148, 150, 155, 159, 166–7, 192, 201–2, 221, 226, 333, 357, 359, 365, 366–8, 387, 395, 409–10, 413–4, 426–9, 431–2, 461, 493–6, 500–8 Pisgah 127, 179 plagues 67, 69–70, 130, 137, 155–6, 159–60, 226, 246, 324, 367 plains of Moab 8, 34, 58–60, 62, 66, 70, 78, 124–30, 202, 217 plot 27, 29, 34–5, 37, 40–2, 45, 49, 119, 123, 155, 229, 233, 398, 401, 402–6, 414, 422, 484–5 pollution 41, 175, 225–8, 230–2, 237, 239, 241–2, 246–7, 249, 251–2, 255– 7, 260, 270, 272, 281, 284, 295, 298, 308, 367, 428, 472 post-priestly 5–7, 9, 16, 85, 88, 92, 98– 100, 103, 105–7, 118–9, 137, 150, 160, 190–1, 205, 208, 214, 221–2, 363, 438–9, 460, 496, 498, 508–9 preservation/saving 5, 9, 13, 17, 19, 25, 45, 66, 68, 76–8, 123, 129–31, 137, 141, 195–7, 203–4, 206 priest 10, 13, 425–6 priest/priesthood 425 priestly benediction 12, 19, 25, 38, 73, 294, 327–30, 333 Priestly Source 2–3, 5, 84, 88–9, 96, 98– 100, 104, 109, 117, 121, 143, 259, 354, 412, 437–8, 440, 448, 458, 460, 485, 496, 508–9

585

Priestly supplements 90, 95, 259, 438, 460, 491, 509 priests/priesthood 10, 16, 50, 91, 112, 118–9, 145–6, 148, 252, 318, 331–3, 335, 337, 348, 365, 367 profane vs. sacred 143, 22–6, 229, 234, 283, 295, 299, 315, 351, 430, 451, 454, 472, 503 promulgation 42, 72, 104, 338, 389, 396, 451, 453 prophecy/prophetic 18, 33, 36, 106, 158, 163–4, 168–75, 177, 182, 184, 186–7, 192, 197, 203, 220, 308, 384–5, 388, 393, 396–7, 405, 423, 425–7, 429, 431–2, 462 punishment 41, 57, 69–70, 205, 274–5, 306, 308–9, 339, 347, 350, 354–5, 365, 385–6, 397, 489 purification 225 –32, 245–6, 251, 255, 265, 267–9, 284, 288, 294, 348, 372, 429, 449–50, 455, 480–1, 488 purification offering 226–8, 230–1, 267, 288, 455–7 purification rituals 12–3, 50, 229–30, 241, 256, 272, 281, 323, 371, 481 purity 10, 12, 23, 37, 43–4, 73, 110, 206, 225–61, 269–70, 272–3, 281, 283, 288–9, 291–2, 294–5, 298, 300, 303, 314–5, 326–7, 341, 367, 372, 387, 431, 471–4, 503, 509 Qedar/Qedarites 211, 215, 218–9 quails 33, 68, 97, 135, 193 reader 27, 29–32, 40, 45, 48–50, 56, 73, 132, 274, 372, 403, 444, 463 rebellion 59, 66, 69–70, 97, 100, 106, 108, 111, 125, 129, 132, 156, 385, 396 red heifer 226, 252, 265–9, 273, 283–4, 297, 314, 324, 371 Red Sea 68–70, 128, 140, 215, 217 referentiality 10, 17, 49, 51, 90, 263, 461–3 religion 13, 18–9, 46, 145, 317, 350, 398, 422 Reuben/Reubenites 97, 386, 499 Reuel 213–4, 362 revelation 18, 28, 38, 41, 62–4, 71–2, 80, 105–6, 109, 111–2, 170–1, 175, 178, 182, 184, 186–7, 196, 324, 337, 339, 344, 347, 349–50, 352, 363, 385, 393–4, 396–7, 413–5, 423, 441, 443, 446, 449, 452–3, 508 ritual density 16–7, 26, 144–7

586

Index of Subjects

ritual innovation 1, 12–3, 289, 304, 327, 331 ritual script 13, 145, 290–1, 319–20, 322, 327, 330, 332, 335–6, 495 ritualization 326, 331, 424 rituals 1, 4, 12–5, 18–9, 43, 53–4, 66, 73, 81, 118, 144–7, 149, 154, 177, 208, 225, 227, 245, 290, 295–6, 317– 8, 391, 424, 457, 469, 472, 478–81, 495–6, 505, 507 rod 151, 193, 403, 408, 499, 506 routinization 349, 402, 406, 409–10, 413, 419, 422–4 Sabbath 33, 41, 339–40, 342–6, 353–5, 426, 448 sacrifice 12, 39, 74–5, 150, 156, 162, 177, 200, 227–31, 250, 252, 267–8, 276, 278–80, 282, 284–6, 306–7, 310, 323–4, 340–2, 348, 354, 426, 428, 431, 442–3, 445, 454–7, 459, 470, 473, 482, 496 Samaria/Samarians 10, 15, 93–4, 154, 318, 334–6, 398, 411, 420 sanctification 24, 76, 78, 314–5, 454, 471, 480 sanctuary 13–4, 17, 19, 24, 32, 37, 54, 73, 78, 101, 143–4, 149–53, 158, 163–8, 227, 229–34, 237, 246, 249– 51, 255–60, 267–8, 270, 276, 281–2, 288, 291, 293–5, 299–300, 303–4, 306–7, 309–11, 318, 327, 331, 333, 340–2, 346–7, 366–7, 370, 382, 384, 386, 397, 399, 409, 445–6, 448–50, 454, 456–7, 466–7, 469–5, 477, 479– 82, 484, 489–90, 493, 496, 505, 508– 9 Sargon legend 6 scripturalization 317, 319, 323, 335–6, 424, 461 Septuagint 203, 209, 237, 255, 266, 279, 361, 380, 411, 438, 445, 494 sexuality/sexual 156, 166, 305, 308–9, 366, 371 Shechem/Shechemites 190, 430–1 Shittim 9, 25, 60, 69, 126, 159, 164–5, 167–8, 194–7, 365, 414, 426 Sihon 30, 96–7, 114, 117, 134, 141, 181, 206–7 Simeon/Simeonites 155, 359, 407, 430 sin 43, 123, 136, 156, 200, 226–32, 246, 267, 272, 284, 295, 299, 302–3, 315, 324, 343–4, 347, 350–5, 367–8, 383, 403

Sinai 3, 5–9, 16, 25–6, 37–40, 51, 53–5, 58, 62, 64–81, 88–9, 96, 99–100, 104–5, 107–13, 115, 121, 123, 128, 130, 189–90, 203, 208, 211–3, 216, 255, 260, 289, 292–3, 295, 301, 315, 318, 324–5, 332, 340–1, 353, 358, 381–3, 395, 399, 401–5, 408, 412, 422–3, 425–6, 430, 442–3, 445, 447– 8, 452, 454, 471, 473, 480, 483–4, 502, 507 sin-offering 226–32, 241, 267, 272, 288, 383, 403, 445, 454–8, 479 skin 235, 239–40, 251–2, 258, 260, 267, 298 sorcery/sorcerer 11, 35, 162, 184 sotah 73, 154, 297, 304, 324, 327, 368– 71 soul 242–4, 286–7, 312–3 source criticism 2, 3, 6, 11, 86, 121, 133, 138, 141 space/spatiality 5, 17, 23, 35–39, 41, 54, 56, 58, 61, 63–7, 122–4, 126–31, 141, 144, 148–9, 153, 175, 233, 237–9, 247–8, 257, 260, 262, 269–72, 281, 287–8, 291, 293–4, 299, 307, 311, 313, 315, 327, 339, 345–6, 355, 401, 472, 502 speech-introduction formula 32, 58–9, 71, 124–5, 182, 268 spy/spies 6, 9, 25, 30, 33, 57, 78, 96–7, 99–100, 103, 106, 108, 113–6, 122, 128, 138, 141, 189, 193, 205, 214, 343, 354, 385, 407, 413–4, 497 standardization 13, 15, 19, 144–8, 153–4 structure 2, 4, 8–9, 23–5, 53–8, 65–8, 70, 72, 81, 87, 102, 110, 122, 128–31, 141, 198, 233 subordination 3, 15, 42–3, 50, 72, 109, 112, 289, 349, 384, 388, 402, 408, 410, 413–5, 417, 428, 453, 465–6, 470–1, 475–6, 478, 480, 484, 495, 507 succession 14–5, 54, 66, 79, 130, 147, 300, 333, 348, 382–3, 387–91, 394–6, 401–2, 408–11, 413–7, 422–3, 450, 457, 494–5, 504–8 Supplementary Hypothesis 4, 86, 88, 435 tabernacle 58, 63, 73–5, 78, 112, 143, 146, 150, 152–3, 225, 232, 246, 254, 256, 267, 291, 295, 307, 333, 342, 347, 367, 384, 408, 413, 446–8, 466,

Index of Subjects 468, 471, 474, 479–80, 489, 491, 498, 503, 505 taboo 175, 253, 261, 283, 314, 371, 446, 472, 505 Tell Dēr ‘Allā 163–4, 167–9, 173–4, 187 temple 10, 17, 143, 146–7, 258–9, 281, 290–1, 297, 319, 328–9, 332, 335, 368, 399, 418, 419–21, 425, 429, 469, 475–8 Tetrateuch 79, 81, 95, 102, 116, 128, 189, 403, 496, 509 textuality 45, 50, 261, 290–1, 296, 320– 2, 327–8, 375, 409, 418, 420, 488, 49–6 textualization 13, 34, 144–5, 319–23, 327–8, 330–3, 335–6, 452 theocracy/theocratic 4, 16, 66, 99–100, 343, 416, 418, 422, 439, 460, 467, 485, 507 time 12, 24, 27–8, 32, 36–40, 42, 45, 50, 54, 56, 64–5, 123, 148, 238, 248, 262, 269, 271–2, 281, 288, 297, 340, 385, 396, 401, 419, 422, 502 tithe 14, 148, 150, 278, 466, 469 Torah 10, 13, 16–7, 19, 26, 34, 42, 45–6, 50–1, 56, 90–5, 98, 100, 102, 104, 107, 117, 119, 146, 158, 318–9, 331, 334, 336–8, 348–50, 353, 398–400, 404–5, 421, 423, 444–63 trade 210, 212–3, 215, 221 tradition 1, 6, 8, 10, 15–6, 19, 26, 317, 319, 321, 324, 326, 338 Transjordan(ians) 10–1, 17, 25, 54, 59, 65, 66, 79, 88, 97, 99, 108, 117, 119, 144, 157, 166, 175, 193, 206, 210–2, 217, 220–2, 233, 253, 318, 334, 414 Triateuch 88, 90, 100, 102–4, 107, 109, 112, 119, 190, 488–9, 509–10 tribes/tribal 10–1, 14, 17–8, 37, 43, 50, 54, 74, 78, 94, 148–9, 153, 212, 215, 219–22, 233, 291, 293, 318, 337, 348, 358, 362, 373–5, 383–5, 397, 401, 406–9, 417, 431, 461, 498–99, 504 Tritoteuch 3, see also Triateuch trumpets 38, 73, 75–7, 340, 493, 504 twelve-tribe system 10, 17–8, 50, 54, 94, 148, 153, 233, 318, 337, 358, 362, 375, 383–5, 401, 406–8, 461, 497–99 Urim and Thummim 349, 453, 490, 507 utopia(n) 9, 11, 322, 399, 416, 441–2 variation/variance/variety 10, 13, 15, 19, 145–6, 317, 322–3, 325, 334–8, 444

587

vows 12, 18, 32, 42, 78, 105, 132, 137, 154, 206–7, 225, 229, 249–50, 293– 95, 310–11, 313–4, 324, 327, 342, 368–9 war 30, 34, 44, 97, 155, 158, 160–3, 175, 186, 219–21, 225, 246, 248, 252, 271, 274–5, 371, 477, 504, 507 water 30, 43, 68, 96–7, 106, 136, 140–1, 193, 229, 241, 246, 251–2, 255, 268, 269–70, 272–3, 281, 284, 306–7, 309, 403 wave-offering 455, 467, 479–80, 482 wife 18–9, 68, 99, 202–3, 209, 214, 305–9, 324, 357, 359–63, 368, 370–2, 375, 457 wilderness 1, 3, 7–9, 17, 19, 24–5, 27, 37, 40, 50, 57–8, 60, 64–5, 67–8, 72, 100, 106–7, 112–3, 125–6, 128–9, 133–4, 136, 138, 148, 181, 189–90, 192, 195, 198–206, 233–34, 339, 341, 345, 349, 353–4, 396, 401, 409, 412, 419, 423, 490, 493, 496, 507, see also desert wilderness journey 5, 128, 132, 140, 190, 193, 291, 473, 480 women 12, 18–9, 155–6, 158–9, 162–3, 165–6, 168, 171, 173, 210, 221, 239, 252, 293, 298–9, 302, 305–10, 314, 357–73, 375, 426 wood 33, 41, 342, 347 Yahwist 2, 3, 84–5, 88, 96–8, 104, 114, 116–7, 121, 133–4, 138, 141, 189–90, 208, 436 Yehowist 98, 133–4, 141, 159–60, 190, 208, 366, 436 Yehûd/Yehûdites 10, 93–4, 154, 278, 318–9, 336–8, 398, 409, 420 Yom Kippur 54, 323, 339, 507 Zadok/Zadokites 14, 96, 145, 337, 432, 465 zeal/zealous 66, 365, 367, 387, 395, 405, 413, 427–8, 431, 459, 500, 503 Zelophehad’s daughters 35, 39, 119, 123, 130, 344, 348, 368, 373–5, 411 Zimri 36, 155, 159, 210, 226, 357, 365, 407, 426, 428 Zipporah 68, 214, 359–60, 362, 364 Zoroastrianism 244, 258, 283, 286, 311, 458